NationStates Jolt Archive

*ahem*

I rarely, if ever, chime in on threads regarding abortion. I personally would prefer it if abortion were illegal (aside from rape, danger to mother etc.)...but I'm also aware that making abortion illegal without accounting for the effects of such a law would cause more problems than it would solve.

Therefore, I try to maintain a neutral and indifferent view towards the whole abortion debate. However...a thought occured to me recently, and I thought I'd throw it out there and see what the NS public thinks.

In order to get the constant flame-filled debate regarding abortion finished once and for all, we'd have to have finality...an up-or-down vote on abortion, so to speak. Well, I think I thought of a way that could please both pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike.

Ignoring for a moment all of the legal and constitutional problems surrounding it, my idea is to have a national referendum on a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

I know amendments require Congress and state ratification and so forth, but we're ignoring that for the moment and pretending we can put the idea foward to the people.

The only catch is...the ONLY people who can vote on the propsed abortion ban are women.

(Unconsitutional, but again...ignore such issues for the moment)

I tend to view abortion as a women's health issue, and so I would be totally in favor of having only women vote on the matter. I would happily accept any choice made, for or against abortion, after such a vote.

Your thoughts?

POLL COMING

I like it.

I have a penis. Can I vote on the poll or should I just be content with being oppressed?

I tried finding some link to link to, but I'm lazy. Anyhow, somewhere in the Bill of Rights, or some other dusty old manuscript that gives guidelines on how to run the States, it is stated and people are supposedly granted, "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I'm still sitting on the fence.

*ahem*

I rarely, if ever, chime in on threads regarding abortion. I personally would prefer it if abortion were illegal (aside from rape, danger to mother etc.)...but I'm also aware that making abortion illegal without accounting for the effects of such a law would cause more problems than it would solve.

Therefore, I try to maintain a neutral and indifferent view towards the whole abortion debate. However...a thought occured to me recently, and I thought I'd throw it out there and see what the NS public thinks.

In order to get the constant flame-filled debate regarding abortion finished once and for all, we'd have to have finality...an up-or-down vote on abortion, so to speak. Well, I think I thought of a way that could please both pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike.

Ignoring for a moment all of the legal and constitutional problems surrounding it, my idea is to have a national referendum on a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

I know amendments require Congress and state ratification and so forth, but we're ignoring that for the moment and pretending we can put the idea foward to the people.

The only catch is...the ONLY people who can vote on the propsed abortion ban are women.

(Unconsitutional, but again...ignore such issues for the moment)

I tend to view abortion as a women's health issue, and so I would be totally in favor of having only women vote on the matter. I would happily accept any choice made, for or against abortion, after such a vote.

Your thoughts?

POLL COMING

Oh, crap. You've opened the gates to hell. *Sign.* I'll go get my Necrocomicon...:rolleyes:

*Sign.*
Feel healthy?

Ignoring for a moment all of the legal and constitutional problems surrounding it, my idea is to have a national referendum on a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

Nope. Still has the problem that you want to allow others to dictate what someone should do to their own body.

Stupid idea. Why should all the women alive now have the power to prevent all the women of the future having an abortion?

The situation is just fine as it is. What women want, as Gawain discovers, is to choose for themselves. And they can. Individually.

Stupid idea. Why should all the women alive now have the power to prevent all the women of the future having an abortion?

A counter-question: Do you think all the women currently alive would vote that way??

It's a great idea. For one, it would take the burden of responsibility off my shoulders.

A counter-question: Do you think all the women currently alive would vote that way??

I don't know. Probably not. America is broadly pro-choice, so I assume all American women are the same.

I think it's stupid. Whether or not the majority agree with it, a woman should have the right to choose whether her uterus remains occupied or not.

It's a great idea. For one, it would take the burden of responsibility off my shoulders.
That'd go over great with the ladies. :p

That'd go over great with the ladies. :pMaybe it's worded wrong. I think it's rather sanctimonious of men to have a position other than pro-choice since we never have to bear children and I feel its my responsibility to help pro-choice women balance out men who want to make their choices for them...

Maybe it's worded wrong. I think it's rather sanctimonious of men to have a position other than pro-choice since we never have to bear children and I feel its my responsibility to help pro-choice women balance out men who want to make their choices for them...
That's true, but I've always felt that when a man and woman do things, its "together" whether we're "together" in reality or not. Its not worded wrong, but I can see a number of people (in real circumstances) being somewhat irked by a stance of, "Meh, its your choice." Which, the best response in my opinion is, "Is your sperm." With me, I wouldn't be demanding that a woman keep the to-be baby or not, I'd try to work it out and attempt to decide something we both can agree to. Call me old time conservative, but abortion really shouldn't even be an issue.

I think it's stupid. Whether or not the majority agree with it, a woman should have the right to choose whether her uterus remains occupied or not.

But should she have the right to murder. Should anyone?

The only catch is...the ONLY people who can vote on the propsed abortion ban are women.
fine, but first add the addendum that this ban/passing only applies to pregnancies that had nothing to do with a man.

if i "caused" an unplanned pregnancy, i sure as hell wouldn't want the fact that i can't physcially nurish the child be make me completely helpless in determining the fate of my future childs life :upyours:

the wave of female empowerment from the last half-century or so is great, but don't arbitrarily think that guys don't have emotions or sensitivities

But should she have the right to murder.
This question is illogical. If someone has the legal right to kill, then it is neither murder nor homicide.

A woman should have the right to do whatever she wants to her own body, and a foetus is inside her body. Case closed.

oh yeah... and the whole "it's my body and i should be allowed to do what i please with it" argument is prettymuch invalid. if i want to shoot up heroin, snort paint thinner and then eat raw ground up puppies for lunch, should i be allowed to do so since it's my body and doesn't involve any other humans' body?

i am in no way saying abortion is comparable to those things; i use extreme examples to make a point. (also, the part about puppies hits on the "living thing, but non-human" point that seemed somewhat analagous to America's modern-day concept of what fetuses fall under in the legal concept)

again, i don't think abortion is analagous to eating dead puppies :rolleyes:

-edit- think i finally got all my typos cleared out... -edit-

This question is illogical. If someone has the legal right to kill, then it is neither murder nor homicide.

True. But then you have to ask, are laws arbitary or there for a reason.


A woman should have the right to do whatever she wants to her body, and a foetus is inside her body. Case closed.

The foetus is not her body. It is its own body. A woman should have the right to control her own body, but the foetus is not her body. It may be within her body but it is not her body and thus she should not have any right to destroy it.

A woman should have the right to do whatever she wants to her own body, and a foetus is inside her body. Case closed.
do you have the right to do crack cocaine, since it's your body?

if i want to shoot up heroin, snort paint thinner
The argument for criminalising both of these could be made because they harm the individual. Abortion does not harm the woman.

and then eat raw ground up puppies for lunch
Sure, why not?

The foetus is not her body. It is its own body. A woman should have the right to control her own body, but the foetus is not her body. It may be within her body but it is not her body and thus she should not have any right to destroy it.

You assume here that the foetus has property rights. That implies you believe there is a person hidden in that clump of cells.
Show me this person - and I will change my position from pro-choice to "abortion is killing a person".

I think we need more than one choice in that. I could not just choose one.

I am *very* anti-abortion. Babies R little miracles!! :)

But? I am *very* pro-womans rights. Nobody is gonna tell me what 2 with *my* body. It would B more ez 4 them 2 try and take my gun from me.

Suzy :)

do you have the right to do crack cocaine, since it's your body?

Absolutely. However, any consequences of this action are also yours.

True. But then you have to ask, are laws arbitary or there for a reason.
Of course laws are there for a reason, where are you going with this?

The foetus is not her body. It is its own body. A woman should have the right to control her own body, but the foetus is not her body. It may be within her body but it is not her body and thus she should not have any right to destroy it.
Rubbish, the claim that the foetus is not part of the woman's body is absurd. It is both inside and connected to her body.

Even if one accepts that it is not part of her own body, it is inside her body, and she has the right to expel it just as she would have the right to expel a tapeworm.

The argument for criminalising both of these could be made because they harm the individual. Abortion does not harm the woman.
what studies have you been reading?
abortion is usually very psychologically and emotionally traumatizing, and it throws the body for a loop, since hard-core armounts of hormones released for the complex process that is developing a fetus suddenly have no target.

"not harmful" my left foot...

Absolutely. However, any consequences of this action are also yours.
if you're from America: what constitution are YOU reading that says "... Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and/or Crack Cocaine"??

if you're not from America: ... well, about the only country i can think of that gives you anything remotely close to the "right" to crack is Sweden, and not even then, really...

what studies have you been reading?
abortion is usually very psychologically and emotionally traumatizing
Many other surgical operations are just as "harmful" but they are not deemed harmful enough to criminalise the procedure. Therefore, there is no reason to criminalise abortion for this reason (if self-harm is a reason to criminalise conduct at all).

Even if one accepts that it is not part of her own body, it is inside her body, and she has the right to expel it just as she would have the right to expel a tapeworm.

*LOL* that was funny. A baby is not a tapworm. It is a human being. fine fine, it is not a person B 4 it is born. But it is still a human being. It is not a tapeworm, a fish or a cow.

Thank U 4 the laugh. :)

Suzy

Even if one accepts that it is not part of her own body, it is inside her body, and she has the right to expel it just as she would have the right to expel a tapeworm.
okay then... at what point - if any - does this "tapeworm" get rights?

after organs differentiate? after the heartbeat starts? after fingerprints form? or how about after the "tapeworm" could survive on its own outside the womb?

up until natural or induced labor? a few years after birth?

THAT, you might find, is why so many people have a problem with clear-cut abortion laws, one way or the other.

*LOL* that was funny. A baby is not a tapworm. It is a human being. fine fine, it is not a person B 4 it is born. But it is still a human being. It is not a tapeworm, a fish or a cow.

I think you missed the salient point of my argument.

Let me give you another example. Say there was an adult human being inside your body (ignore the physical imposibilities). This is both a human and a person (which a foetus is not). And yet I doubt that you would argue a woman does not have the right to expel it from herself. It is her body.

The only catch is...the ONLY people who can vote on the propsed abortion ban are women.


That is exactly what I've been pushing for my whole adult life.

So, yes, it's brilliant.

If you have a penis, stay the fuck outta the abortion debate.

if you're from America: what constitution are YOU reading that says "... Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and/or Crack Cocaine"??

It is included in the word "happiness". To be happy, I wish to be able to make my own choices. To not let my choices infringe upon the rights of others to be happy however, I should however also be held responsible for the results of my decisions.

In other words: if I want to utterly destroy my body - my choice. If that hurts others - my choice results in punishment for me.

I think you missed the salient point of my argument.

Let me give you another example. Say there was an adult human being inside your body (ignore the physical imposibilities). This is both a human and a person (which a foetus is not). And yet I doubt that you would argue a woman does not have the right to expel it from herself. It is her body.
well, expelling an adult human out of one's body would (most likely) NOT lead to his/her immediate demise... the same does not hold true for abortions. analogies only work so far, i know, but this one isn't quite up to snuff, i'd say

okay then... at what point - if any - does this "tapeworm" get rights?

after organs differentiate? after the heartbeat starts? after fingerprints form? or how about after the "tapeworm" could survive on its own outside the womb?

up until natural or induced labor? a few years after birth?

THAT, you might find, is why so many people have a problem with clear-cut abortion laws, one way or the other.

Smart! Right as Rain. that is the problem. I agree that.

Suzy

okay then... at what point - if any - does this "tapeworm" get rights?

after organs differentiate? after the heartbeat starts? after fingerprints form? or how about after the "tapeworm" could survive on its own outside the womb?

As far as I am concerned: the moment it is capable of having experiences of its own. For this it requires a brain and functioning neural net. Before labour, but well after the first months of pregnancy.

Other people prefer to just give more and more rights as the foetus develops further. Like how children do not have the right to vote or drive until they reach a certain level of development/age - so do they determine the amount of rights the foetus has at any time. I can live with that compromise.

okay then... at what point - if any - does this "tapeworm" get rights?
It is a being capable of being the victim of homicide only after "live birth". That is after "the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles."

well, expelling an adult human out of one's body would (most likely) NOT lead to his/her immediate demise... the same does not hold true for abortions. analogies only work so far, i know, but this one isn't quite up to snuff, i'd say
Assuming that the adult human dies in the analogy (which I didn't think need to be explicitly stated), the rational response would be the same. I have the right to expel whatever I want from my body, regardless of whether it kills it, and regardless of whether it is a person (which a foetus is not).

It is included in the word "happiness". To be happy, I wish to be able to make my own choices. To not let my choices infringe upon the rights of others to be happy however, I should however also be held responsible for the results of my decisions.

In other words: if I want to utterly destroy my body - my choice. If that hurts others - my choice results in punishment for me.
then you've more or less nullified your opinion on abortion - if abortion was illegal, and having an abortion makes you "happy," then you're admitedly okay with it being illegal and sufferent the consequences.

expand that train of thought more, and it's "okay" to murder, rape, steal, carbomb, etc., as long as one suffers the consequences; the whole debate becomes non-sensicle(sp?)/arbitrary/moot

Smart! Right as Rain. that is the problem. I agree that.

Suzy
lol... somehow i think the world would be a simpler, happier place if there were more Suzies ;)

then you've more or less nullified your opinion on abortion - if abortion was illegal, and having an abortion makes you "happy," then you're admitedly okay with it being illegal and sufferent the consequences.

You underestimate the influence the extent of the consequences would have on my choice. You also ignore the fact that noone is harmed by early abortion, except the mother.

expand that train of thought more, and it's "okay" to murder, rape, steal, carbomb, etc., as long as one suffers the consequences; the whole debate becomes non-sensicle(sp?)/arbitrary/moot

That is correct. It is also how society works. You can murder - but then you go to jail/get the chair. Simple. And very freedomloving.

*LOL* that was funny. A baby is not a tapworm. It is a human being. fine fine, it is not a person B 4 it is born. But it is still a human being. It is not a tapeworm, a fish or a cow.

Thank U 4 the laugh. :)

Suzy

Even if it is a human being, the point is that it's not a person. I wouldn't even go so far as to call it a human being; it's no more a human being than a cancerous tumor. Show me evidence that an early foetus can think, and I'll immediately agree that abortion is murder.

what studies have you been reading?
abortion is usually very psychologically and emotionally traumatizing, and it throws the body for a loop, since hard-core armounts of hormones released for the complex process that is developing a fetus suddenly have no target.

"not harmful" my left foot...

Maybe it wouldn't be so psychologically traumatising if it wasn't for all those anti-abortionists screaming about how she just became a murderer...

I think you missed the salient point of my argument.

Let me give you another example. Say there was an adult human being inside your body (ignore the physical imposibilities). This is both a human and a person (which a foetus is not). And yet I doubt that you would argue a woman does not have the right to expel it from herself. It is her body.

Oh, really I did get UR point. And no tapeworm will kill U giving birth 2 it. I am woman and I got the right 2 everything about my body.

But *my* point is, that it is a Baby!!!!! It is a human being. I don't care if it got 5 toes yet or not, it is still that. I think Zygoats R a Miracle! And so? My point is the *problem* is that 2 many got no repect 4 life. Well? What 2 expect from a bunch of innocent cow eating meaters. I am 100% vegetarian of course.

U kno a long long time ago, the people respect the Earth. The respect the animals on it. They give like prayers and stuff of thanks B 4 the kill the animal bcuz they need 2 eat it. But? Today the piece of the Dead Cow comes in the plastic package with a date of when it rots on it. And so? There is no respect 4 what it was at all. I am off the point no?

There is no respect 4 a Zygote, Fetus, Baby or even children, or Teens, or even other Human Being adults! That is the problem 2 me.

Maybe the effect of that is like 2 many abotions? Abortion used 4 birth control? U like my point?

Suzy :)

Assuming the human would die, the rational response would be the same. I have the right to expel whatever I want from my body, regardless of whether it kills it, and regardless of whether it is a person (which a foetus is not).
what lawbooks have you seen that talk about the right to expel "whatever you want" from your body?

sure, we can excise tumors and moles, take antibiotics, etc., but many legal cases i can think of would put a single human life (and even a single mammalian, non-human life, at times) above another human's discomfort.

Assuming that the adult human dies in the analogy (which I didn't think need to be explicitly stated), the rational response would be the same. I have the right to expel whatever I want from my body, regardless of whether it kills it, and regardless of whether it is a person (which a foetus is not).
I think that's an astonishingly selfish attitude to have. You brought this thing into existence; you are responsible for your own actions. Yet rather than deal with the consequences you fall back on a 'right' to kill?

I hate it when people throw 'rights' about like this. Just because it's your right doesn't make it right.

then you've more or less nullified your opinion on abortion - if abortion was illegal, and having an abortion makes you "happy," then you're admitedly okay with it being illegal and sufferent the consequences.t
Since The Alma Mater is arguing for the legalisation of cocaine use, it is obvious to assume that he or she does not refer to legal consequences when he or she talks about consequences, which makes you entire post non sequitor.

lol... somehow i think the world would be a simpler, happier place if there were more Suzies ;)

Of course!! All my friends agree with that. :)

But? dont' U think the world sorta *is* a simple place, and people make it 2 complicated and then they get confused?

I do.

Suzy :)

Since The Alma Mater is arguing for the legalisation of cocaine use, it is obvious to assume that he or she does not refer to legal consequences when he or she talks about consequences, which makes you entire post non sequitor.
well, seeing how the OP was talking about a proposed amendment to the Constitution, i'd think that ignoring legal rammifications would make Alma Mater's post(s) non sequitor :p

But? dont' U think the world sorta *is* a simple place, and people make it 2 complicated and then they get confused?
rarely is wisdom such as this achieved, Suzy :)

what lawbooks have you seen that talk about the right to expel "whatever you want" from your body?
It is an obvious inference from the principle of sovereignty of the individual, which is what the western legal tradition is based on. I am the ultimate arbiter of what I do to my own body.

No person, and certainly no non-person (foetus) should extinguish that right.

sure, we can excise tumors and moles, take antibiotics, etc., but many legal cases i can think of would put a single human life (and even a single mammalian, non-human life, at times) above another human's discomfort.
How many cases do you know where a person has been forced to give blood to save another, or forced to donate a kidney to save another? None. No person has the right to harm another, not even to save a thousand lives.

In the case of pregnancy the choice is even more clear cut, since the foetus is not a person.

Just because it's your right doesn't make it right.
Just because you don't think it is "right" does not mean you can infringe on others' rights. Your subjective morals have no place in the law. What I think is "right" is not the same as what you think is "right", nor need it be.

well, seeing how the OP was talking about a proposed amendment to the Constitution, i'd think that ignoring legal rammifications would make Alma Mater's post(s) non sequitor :p
What on earth do legal ramifactions have to do with whether or not certain conduct should be criminalised?? :rolleyes:

Human rights should NEVER be put up for a popularity contest. Medical rights and right to privacy fall under those rights.

rarely is wisdom such as this achieved, Suzy :)

:) Thank U very much 4 the compliment. ( shhhhhhhhhh )

I do it all the time really.

Suzy

It is an obvious inference from the principle of sovereignty of the individual, which is what the western legal tradition is based on. I am the ultimate arbiter of what I do to my own body.

No person, and certainly no non-person (foetus) should extinguish that right.

but you DON'T have that right! the government forbids you from certian activities (drugs, prostitution [most of the time], etc.), can bodily imprison you, and can *gasp* end your life. it's true that you have vast freedoms in regards to your person, but those legal allocations right there prove that you do not have ultimate sovereignty. period.

I think that's an astonishingly selfish attitude to have.
Selfishness (which is an objective opinion and that I personally do not think is in any way a cause of choising to have an abortion) is not grounds for criminalising conduct.

Just because you don't think it is "right" does not mean you can infringe on others' rights. Your subjective morals have no place in the law.
Who even mentioned subjective morals? This is about a clear cut fact; a life is a life, and it is wrong to extinguish that life simply because it's inconvenient to you.

You can try all you like to make out that it is not really a life, but, if that is the case, where did we come from? If conception is not the start of human life, then what other event is there that places that life in the growing cells?

If you are going to be totally 'objective' and remove any sense of morality, then you have no choice but to accept that life starts at the biological beginning, not at an arbitary point of convenience.

but you DON'T have that right! the government forbids you from certian activities (drugs, prostitution [most of the time], etc.), can bodily imprison you, and can *gasp* end your life. it's true that you have vast freedoms in regards to your person, but those legal allocations right there prove that you do not have ultimate sovereignty. period.
Here we come again to the harm principle (And I'm not about to debate the merits or otherwise of legalising the large slew of examples you provide, very possible many of those things should not be criminalised. Those are different topics for a different time). Suffice it to say, where something is criminalised it should be because of the harm principle, which does not apply to abortion.

As far as I am concerned: the moment it is capable of having experiences of its own. For this it requires a brain and functioning neural net. Before labour, but well after the first months of pregnancy..

If you would agree that the heart stoping permeanantly is a condition for death, would you also agree that the heart starting is a condtion for life.

Who even mentioned subjective morals? This is about a clear cut fact; a life is a life, and it is wrong to extinguish that life simply because it's inconvenient to you.

You can try all you like to make out that it is not really a life, but, if that is the case, where did we come from? If conception is not the start of human life, then what other event is there that places that life in the growing cells?

If you are going to be totally 'objective' and remove any sense of morality, then you have no choice but to accept that life starts at the biological beginning, not at an arbitary point of convenience.
er, Philosopy... most pro-choicers (i'd assume) wouldn't argue that the fetus isn't a life, but rather that it's not a person. people ARE allowed to extinguish a life because it's an inconvenience - antibiotics, case-in-point.

it may seem like i'm nit-picking semantics here, but i've found that continual minor slides in terminology and definition can quickly kill an otherwise enjoyable/productive debate :)

er, Philosopy... most pro-choicers (i'd assume) wouldn't argue that the fetus isn't a life, but rather that it's not a person. people ARE allowed to extinguish a life because it's an inconvenience - antibiotics, case-in-point.

it may seem like i'm nit-picking semantics here, but i've found that continual minor slides in terminology and definition can quickly kill an otherwise enjoyable/productive debate :)
I shall bare that in mind in future. :)

I think the meaning was clear, though.

Who even mentioned subjective morals? This is about a clear cut fact; a life is a life, and it is wrong to extinguish that life simply because it's inconvenient to you.
It is not wrong to "extinguish" all life, however. It is not wrong for me to "extinguish" the life of my chicken. It is not wrong for me to "extinguish" the life of my a person trying to serious injure me. And it is not wrong to "extinguish" something that I do not wish to exist inside my body.

If you are going to be totally 'objective' and remove any sense of morality, then you have no choice but to accept that life starts at the biological beginning, not at an arbitary point of convenience.
Non sequitor, again.

A being only becomes capable of being the victim of homicide after "live birth". Even then, killing that being is not necessarily homicide (only if it is both unlawful and intentional or reckless).

Here we come again to the harm principle (And I'm not about to debate the merits or otherwise of legalising the large slew of examples you provide, very possible many of those things should not be criminalised. Those are different topics for a different time). Suffice it to say, where something is criminalised it should be because of the harm principle, which does not apply to abortion.
and we're back to the core of the debate. pro-lifers think abortion does harm a person, while pro-choicers do not.

to be honest, i've not fully decided one way or the other if i personally think it's morally wrong... guess i just picked one side to play the "devil's advocate" on this one, if you will ;)

even if it seems like i'm getting riled up about this, it's been a fun debate for me, and i truely enjoyed going back-and-forth with people who don't simply resort to "well, ur a stupid and gai liar!"

food is a-calling; got time for a few more posts though, prolly...

Problem nr 1) This isn't a vote to permit abortions, but to ban it.

Problem nr 2) Until the man can legally distance himself from an unwanted child, he should get to vote whether abortions are legal or not.

I shall bare that in mind in future. :)

I think the meaning was clear, though.
hehe... yeah, it prettymuch was. just making sure, though ;)

If you would agree that the heart stoping permeanantly is a condition for death, would you also agree that the heart starting is a condtion for life.
Heart stoping is a CAUSE for death ... it does not define it ... a humans heart can stop without them dying

A person is dead after their BRAIN stops working

It is not wrong to "extinguish" all life, however. It is not wrong for me to "extinguish" the life of my chicken. It is not wrong for me to "extinguish" the life of my a person trying to serious injure me. And it is not wrong to "extinguish" something that I do not wish to exist inside my body.
I think the helpful intervention above is enough to answer this point. I apologise for the confusing terminology.

A being only becomes capable of being the victim of homicide after "live birth".
I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to here, but if you're talking about a dictionary definition of homocide, I for one do not believe that a definition is a justification. That is a circular argument; a definition is just a word, not an absolute.

and we're back to the core of the debate. pro-lifers think abortion does harm a person, while pro-choicers do not.

Abortion might harm a person.

So can a pregnancy. In fact, mothers and children die in childbirth and before sometimes.

So in other words, the harm that abortion might cause is roughly equal to the harm that pregnancy might cause.

I can't seriously back this up (I'm no woman, I don't have the statistics and... I can't be bothered), but I suggest you look into this if you really are sitting on the fence.

Here we come again to the harm principle (And I'm not about to debate the merits or otherwise of legalising the large slew of examples you provide, very possible many of those things should not be criminalised. Those are different topics for a different time). Suffice it to say, where something is criminalised it should be because of the harm principle, which does not apply to abortion.

You harm the foetus. And before you say "the foetus is not alive, it cant be harmed" I have a rather large body of medical opinoin that disagrees with you


"Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization… This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…"

*"after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being."

*"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

*"By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

*"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception"


*In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the following quotes come directly from the official government record of their testimony. At this session, those who favor abortion were invited to bring expert witness to testify that life begins at any points other than conception or implantation. However, only one witness said that no one can tell when life begins

okay y'all, i'm heading out. but before i go, i just wanna say:

i'm shocked that, on a topic that can be as emotionally charged as abortion, this thread stayed so rational and well-mannered! seriously, this has been one of the most orderly threads i've seen period, hehe

peace out, and again, thank you for the pleasure

a woman should have the right to abortions on demand; but at the same, we have to acknowledge that at the sasme time there is a responsibility to the person she's carrying. There's responsibility to him or her, he or she would not exist without someone else's actions, and it's not right that their life is ended at someone else's say-so.

All that said, any poor bugger in the horrible position where an abortion is a ready option needs sympathy and support from the people who love them, not fucking placards and demonstrations from strangers; that's disgusting. Sometimes we have to make a morally wrong decision - I don't know of anyone who doesn't do at least some morally wrong actions every day of their lives. In the real world, the best we can hope for is to limit the impact of these decisions, not make people paragons of virtue through legislation.

Let folk who are thinking about abortions make their own decision; they know what they're doing and they're the ones who have to live with the consequences either way. Not our place to judge.

You harm the foetus. And before you say "the foetus is not alive, it cant be harmed"
A foetus may be alive, but it is not a person. The harm principle refers only to people.

Even if we say (for argument) that the foetus is a person, that does not mean it has the right to occupy a place within another person's body. It infringes on that persons civil rights, by being there against the will of the person. Just as you will agree that you can harm another adult human to remove it from your body, you can "harm" a foetus to remove it from your body. It is your body, and no one should have the right to extinguish your sovereignty over it.

You harm the foetus. And before you say "the foetus is not alive, it cant be harmed" I have a rather large body of medical opinoin that disagrees with you
I believe this is exactly the problem. There is a wealth of medical evidence to say life begins at conception. It starts at the biological beginning. To argue that it starts at another point is simply arbitary. You might as well take a pregnancy calender and stick a pin in it somewhere.

I have to apologise for my spelling today. I put it down to the fact that I am bloody freezing here; I think the heating is playing up.

Elgesh']a woman should have the right to abortions on demand; but at the same, we have to acknowledge that at the sasme time there is a responsibility to the person she's carrying. There's responsibility to him or her, he or she would not exist without someone else's actions, and it's not right that their life is ended at someone else's say-so.

All that said, any poor bugger in the horrible position where an abortion is a ready option needs sympathy and support from the people who love them, not fucking placards and demonstrations from strangers; that's disgusting. Sometimes we have to make a morally wrong decision - I don't know of anyone who doesn't do at least some morally wrong actions every day of their lives. In the real world, the best we can hope for is to limit the impact of these decisions, not make people paragons of virtue through legislation.

Let folk who are thinking about abortions make their own decision; they know what they're doing and they're the ones who have to live with the consequences either way. Not our place to judge.

alright, so i lied about heading out...

but yeah, this is prettymuch what my personal stance is as well. abortion should be legally, even though it's morally wrong. people considering abortions need detailed, non-biased information and support, not fire-and-brimestone condemnation. things should be well-educated, and in moderation.

kinda like this thread...

alright, so i lied about heading out...

but yeah, this is prettymuch what my personal stance is as well. abortion should be legally, even though it's morally wrong. people considering abortions need detailed, non-biased information and support, not fire-and-brimestone condemnation. things should be well-educated, and in moderation.

kinda like this thread...

Glad to find someone with a measured response to abortion :) I put it down to the high calibre of this thread!

Even if we say (for argument) that the foetus is a person, that does not mean it has the right to occupy a place within the person's body. It infringes on that persons civil rights. Just as you can harm another person to remove it from your body, you can harm a foetus to remove it from your body. It is your body, and no one should have the right to extinguish your sovereignty over it.

The only time you have that right is if that person is a threat to your life. If the fetus becomes a medical risk to the mother then it becomes a medical operation and of course she may then have an abortion.

However up untill that point the fetus does not infringe on the mother's civil rights. If she had consentual sex then she accepted the posibility that she may become pregnant. She may not want to become pregnant and she can limit that posibility by the use of contreception. But it is still a posibility. There is normally a rather stupid argument made by Pro-choicers about having a vilonist taped up on a life support machine to you. Except that what pro choicers forget is that in the case of consentual sex, it is more akin to playing a game where you roll a die and if you get a certian number then you are tied up to a vilonist on a life support machine. But in that situation, you did have the choice about rolling the dice or not.

alright, so i lied about heading out...

but yeah, this is prettymuch what my personal stance is as well. abortion should be legally, even though it's morally wrong. people considering abortions need detailed, non-biased information and support, not fire-and-brimestone condemnation. things should be well-educated, and in moderation.

kinda like this thread...
I'm very close to this position myself. While I'm not actually sure where I stand on the issue of its morality, I do think that it is not something that should be used left, right and centre. I would strongly support an abortion in the 'usual' cases that get thrown around in these debates, ie rape, incest, mothers life in danger etc, but am equally strongly against it as a 'lifestyle' choice, ie "I can't be bothered with this right now, so I'll get rid of it."

I do usually avoid abortion debates, though. It's astonishing how charged and polarised the issue is; I can normally at least understand where the other side is coming from in other debates, but in this case I just don't get it at all.

I believe this is exactly the problem. There is a wealth of medical evidence to say life begins at conception. It starts at the biological beginning. To argue that it starts at another point is simply arbitary. You might as well take a pregnancy calender and stick a pin in it somewhere.

Exactly. Hence abortion should be outlawed since any other definition of life is arbitary.

The only time you have that right is if that person is a threat to your life.
Why? How is the infringment on the civil liberty of one's right to life any different from the infringment of the civil liberty of one's right not to have harm done to oneself (pregnancy can be regarded as harm, since it causes biological changes that may be undesired) or from the infringment of the civil liberty of one's right to determine what should be allowed in one's body?

The answer is that there is no meaningful distinction. The foetus (once again, assuming for argument that it is a person, which I think is absurd) should not be able to infringe on these rights, not even if its life is at stake.

I cannot extinguish your right not to be harmed by requiring you donate blood to me, not even if my life is at stake.

If she had consentual sex then she accepted the posibility that she may become pregnant.
If I walk onto the street I accept the possibility that I may be mugged. This does not negate my civil right to not be mugged.

She may not want to become pregnant and she can limit that posibility by the use of contreception.
I might not want to be mugged, so I can limit that possibility by, for example, carrying a weapon. This does not negate my civil right to not be mugged.

THe possibility of something happening does not negate rights.

Exactly. Hence abortion should be outlawed since any other definition of life is arbitary.

You cannot legislate based solely on morality. You have to take into account many other factors such as context, practicality, and consequences.

We live in an imperfect world, and can't _make_ people be good, nor should we try. Laws exist as an echo, a reflection of morality, that's their starting point, but's that's not all that must be taken into account.

No, deciding to have an abortion is an immoral decision; but as humans, we make immoral decisions all the time. Limit the impact of them, that's all we can do, not erase them or stop them from happening.

The only time you have that right is if that person is a threat to your life. If the fetus becomes a medical risk to the mother then it becomes a medical operation and of course she may then have an abortion.

However up untill that point the fetus does not infringe on the mother's civil rights. If she had consentual sex then she accepted the posibility that she may become pregnant. She may not want to become pregnant and she can limit that posibility by the use of contreception. But it is still a posibility. There is normally a rather stupid argument made by Pro-choicers about having a vilonist taped up on a life support machine to you. Except that what pro choicers forget is that in the case of consentual sex, it is more akin to playing a game where you roll a die and if you get a certian number then you are tied up to a vilonist on a life support machine. But in that situation, you did have the choice about rolling the dice or not.
In Germany, if you were to enter into a contract in which, if you rolled a six on a die, you had to be tied to a "vilonist" on a life support machine for nine months, that contract would probably be declared void in court, regardless whether or not that person chose to roll the die.

Elgesh']You cannot legislate based solely on morality.
One should not legislate on "morality" at all. Morality is a subjective construct which is different for everyone.

Laws should only exist to protect against the infringment of one's civil rights.

Leave "morality" up to the individual to determine.

Exactly. Hence abortion should be outlawed since any other definition of life is arbitary.
All definitions are arbitrary. There is no wealth of information about when "life" begins because life is an entirely arbitrary concept. Thus you can't outlaw abortion.

Why? How is the infringment on the civil liberty of one's right to life any different from the infringment of the civil liberty of one's right not to have harm done to oneself (pregnancy can be regarded as harm, since it causes biological changes that may be undesired) or from the infringment of the civil liberty of one's right to determine what should be allowed in one's body?
Because 'undesired' is not the same as 'harm.' And in many ways you allowed the thing inside your body by risking the conception. I am not saying that you should not be allowed to have sex, simply that sex is not something that should be treated lightly and has consequences that must first be accepted.

If I walk onto the street I accept the possibility that I may be mugged. This does not negate my civil right to not be mugged.
You're comparing the miracle of life to being mugged in the street? Again, I think there is a big distinction between an 'undesired' and harm.

I might not want to be mugged, so I can limit that possibility by carrying a weapon. This does not negate my civil right to mugged.

Choice does not negate rights.
Not in the example you give, but it does in many, many cases. You compare conception to being mugged; I would compare it to signing a form to deal some shares. You are not planning to lose all your money, no, but you have to accept and understand that the bad might well come about, and, if it does, you have to live with it.

Why? How is the infringment on the civil liberty of one's right to life any different from the infringment of the civil liberty of one's right not to have harm done to oneself (pregnancy can be regarded as harm, since it causes biological changes that may be undesired) or from the infringment of the civil liberty of one's right to determine what should be allowed in one's body?

The right to life is far superior than the right not to be harmed. Would you rather be pregnant or dead?


The answer is that there is no meaningful distinction. The foetus (once again, assuming for argument that it is a person, which I think is absurd)should not be able to infringe on these rights, not even if its life is at stake.

I cannot extinguish your right not to be harmed by requiring you donate blood to me, not even if my life is at stake.

You forget, the foetus had no choice in this matter. Your acting as if it did. The foetus's right to life is far superior than the mothers right to be free from harm. The fact is that it will be over in 9 months where as the featus will be dead perminantly


If I walk onto the street I accept the possibility that I may be mugged. This does not negate my civil right to not be mugged

I might not want to be mugged, so I can limit that possibility by, for example, carrying a weapon. This does not negate my civil right to not be mugged.

Choice does not negate rights.

Bad comparison. I've dealt with this arguement before so don't for one minute think you are unique. The issue here is the solution to the problem. If a woman has sex she must accept a posibility that she will become pregnant. The same is true of your example. If you go into the street you must accept a posibility of being mugged. In both cases the acceptance is implicit. You have clearly accepted the possibility because you have done what could create that outcome. In the same way if you role a six sided die you implictly accpet that the outcome is 1-6 because you rolled it. However the soultuion to the outcome if it arrises is the issue. If you get mugged you can solve this problem by defending yourself with a weapon. And that defence may not nessecarly result in the death of the mugger. But even if it does, it was the muggers fault since it was his/her choice to attack you. However if a woman becomes pregnant but does not want to be the only solution is abortion. But the diffrence is that the foetus did nothing to deserve this and in abortion, the feotus's death is the only outcome to the solution of that situation. Think of it like this. Do you want to role a six sided die if you know that one of the six possible outcomes will mean that someone dies. Other people have attacked me on this issue with car crashes etc. The idea that if you drive a car you do not accept the possibility of being in a car crash. Well of course you do. You implicitly do by being in the car. The diffrence is however that the solution to the problem of a car crash does not nesseciate someone's death. Abortion does.

All definitions are arbitrary. There is no wealth of information about when "life" begins because life is an entirely arbitrary concept. Thus you can't outlaw abortion.

I've already provided a wealth of infomation. See post 69

Because 'undesired' is not the same as 'harm.'
Unwanted effects to ones physiology inflicted by another is not harm??

And in many ways you allowed the thing inside your body by risking the conception.
And in many ways you allowed the gunman to shoot you in the street by getting out of bed this morning.

I am not saying that you should not be allowed to have sex, simply that sex is not something that should be treated lightly and has consequences that must first be accepted.
Continuing a pregnancy need not be a consequence of sex, however, because of abortion.

You're comparing the miracle of life to being mugged in the street?
In so far as the analogy applies, yes. Accepting a possibility is not giving consent for it.

You are not planning to lose all your money, no, but you have to accept and understand that the bad might well come about, and, if it does, you have to live with it..
This analogy is deeply flawed. A contract imposes legal, binding obligations on the parties that sign them. The parties accept the legal obligations as binding on them.

People who have sex, though they recognise the possibility of a pregnancy resulting, do not accept it as a legal obligation. Likewise, when I walk down the street, though I recognise the remote possibility of being mugged, I do not accept it as a legal obligation.

Elgesh']You cannot legislate based solely on morality. You have to take into account many other factors such as context, practicality, and consequences.

We live in an imperfect world, and can't _make_ people be good, nor should we try. Laws exist as an echo, a reflection of morality, that's their starting point, but's that's not all that must be taken into account.

No, deciding to have an abortion is an immoral decision; but as humans, we make immoral decisions all the time. Limit the impact of them, that's all we can do, not erase them or stop them from happening.

We seem to think we can outlaw murder. I fail to see why this would not be a logical extention of this law.

We seem to think we can outlaw murder. I fail to see why this would not be a logical extention of this law.
Because murder is the ending of a human person
Abortion is not

It strikes me that no-one who is alive should rightly be able to convincingly argue for abortion, on grounds of hypocrisy. Someone who is alive solely by virtue of not having been aborted shouldn't be able to ague to abort someone who has yet to be born. It doesn't seem fair.
I know, the world isn't fair, but how would you like it if those not yet born decided to have you executed without your input??? bet you would object.

The right to life is far superior than the right not to be harmed.
No. One persons civil rights cannot extinguish another person's civil rights.

Do you believe that you should be forced to donate a kidney to save someone else? Would you rather have one less kidney or dead?

You forget, the foetus had no choice in this matter.
It’s "choice" is irrelevant (of course, since it is not a person it could not make a choice, but I digress).

A child has no choice about its kidney failing, but that doesn’t extinguish my right not to have to give up a kindey to keep it alive.

But the diffrence is that the foetus did nothing to deserve this and in abortion, the feotus's death is the only outcome to the solution of that situation. Think of it like this.
Whether or not the foetus did anything to deserve an abortion (and, of course, since it is not a person it could not have done anything, but I digress) is irrelevant to the analogy.

I have the civil right to private ownership of property. I may deny a homeless person the right to live in my home, even if he will die later on from the cold night.

Similarly, a women has the right to deny her body to a foetus, even if the foetus will die by being denied the womb (and also die by being expelled).

“Blame” is irrelevant.

If you left it up to the women only, I think pro-Choice would win the day, it makes too much sense for women.

Latest results in the US are that even with parental consent laws for underaged pregnancies being put into place in states where anti-abortionists have enough influence to push through limiting legislation, the number of abortion procedures has not been reduced by a significant amount. This either means that there weren't as many teen age pregnancy abortions as once thought, or, when parents were brought into the equation, they also agreed that abortion was in the best interests of their daughters.

No. One persons civil rights cannot extinguish another person's civil rights.

I have the civil right to private ownership of property. I may deny a homeless person the right to live in my home, even if he will die later on from the cold night.

Similarly, a women has the right to deny her body to a foetus, even if the foetus will die by being denied the womb (and also die by being expelled).

“Blame” is irrelevant.
This is the statement I objected to in the first place. I think to make a judgement solely on the basis of 'it's my right' is horrific. If you don't believe it is a person, fine, then you support abortion because it's not killing; but please don't say that it's all well and dandy because you're allowed to do it.

As I said originally, a right isn't always right.

It strikes me that no-one who is alive should rightly be able to convincingly argue for abortion, on grounds of hypocrisy. Someone who is alive solely by virtue of not having been aborted shouldn't be able to ague to abort someone who has yet to be born. It doesn't seem fair.
I know, the world isn't fair, but how would you like it if those not yet born decided to have you executed without your input??? bet you would object.
Hypocrisy is defined by do as I say not as I do sort of attitude.
I had no choice over if I was aborted so I did not DO anything for me to contradict.

It may be impertinent but it is not hypocritical.

Not only that most pro choice people are that
FOR CHOICE

So they are absolutely consistent as their mother had the ability to make that choice.
Her choice happened to be having me ... good for her ... but she still had that choice.

It strikes me that no-one who is alive should rightly be able to convincingly argue for abortion, on grounds of hypocrisy. Someone who is alive solely by virtue of not having been aborted shouldn't be able to ague to abort someone who has yet to be born. It doesn't seem fair.
I know, the world isn't fair, but how would you like it if those not yet born decided to have you executed without your input??? bet you would object.

Observe reductio ad absurdum (the argument is flawed because its logical extention leads to an absurdity):

"It strikes me that no-one who is alive should rightly be able to convincingly argue for the right to remain celibate, on grounds of hypocrisy. Someone who is alive solely by virtue of not having had an ancestor who was celibate shouldn't be able to ague to that he or she wishes to remain celibate. It doesn't seem fair.
I know, the world isn't fair, but how would you like it your ancestors decided to remain celibate and therefore not have you without your input??? bet you would object"

(clearly ludicrous argument)

Note: Spelling, syntax and grammar problems from quoted post intentionally left for humour.

It strikes me that no-one who is alive should rightly be able to convincingly argue for abortion, on grounds of hypocrisy. Someone who is alive solely by virtue of not having been aborted shouldn't be able to ague to abort someone who has yet to be born. It doesn't seem fair.
I know, the world isn't fair, but how would you like it if those not yet born decided to have you executed without your input??? bet you would object.
Someone "who has yet to be born" is not yet someone who has any input. There is no input to be had from them; there is no imbalance of unfairness here.

You are addressing "what might be" rather than "what is." The latter is real, the former is not.

This is the statement I objected to in the first place. I think to make a judgement solely on the basis of 'it's my right' is horrific. If you don't believe it is a person, fine, then you support abortion because it's not killing; but please don't say that it's all well and dandy because you're allowed to do it.

As I said originally, a right isn't always right.
Okay, and here we have come full circle. You, subjectively, think that abortion is horrific (for whatever reason). I don't - I do think that it is "dandy" (and I would think so even if a foetus was a person, which it is not). The law is not concerned with what you or I subjectively think (ie, it doesn't impose my beliefs on you, or vice versa), so it leaves us to make our own decisions. You can remain horrified and I can remain thinking it is "dandy".

Therefore, the conduct should be legalised.

I feel that this discussion has proven fruitful.

As I see it, a foetus is a potential human being, a thing that, if everything turns out the right way, can one day become a human being. Just as much as an unfertilized egg cell is a potential human being, a thing that, if coupled with a sperm cell, can one day become a human being. When choosing abortion, you commit no worse crime then you do when you chose not to fertilize every singe egg that pass through your uterus, the crime of not allowing a potential human being to come to life.
you can of course argue that every foetus has a god given soul, and of course you have the right to believe that, and to act accordingly. But if you deny other people the right to choose because of your religious belief, you are no better than any other religious imperialistic fundamentalist.

Okay, and here we have come full circle. You, subjectively, think that abortion is horrific (for whatever reason). I don't - I do think that it is "dandy" (and I would think so even if a foetus was a person, which it is not). The law is not concerned with what you or I subjectively think (ie, it doesn't impose my beliefs on you, or vice versa), so it leaves us to make our own decisions. You can remain horrified and I can remain thinking it is "dandy".

Therefore, the conduct should be legalised.

I feel that this discussion has proven fruitful.
Well, if we're going full circle I could point out that it is not a matter of subjectivity but biology etc, but I think it would be easier to just hit the back button on your browser.

My objection to your use of 'rights' is not something I would confine specifically to the abortion debate, but society in general. I think there is something very wrong and very selfish about a society that places the needs of an individual above everything else, up to and including matters of life.

Yes, individual rights are massively important, but I believe that where your rights are interfering with the rights of another a line must be drawn, whether that be in this case, where your rights are leaving another person dead, or in the case of someone playing music loudly in the middle of the night next door to someone trying to sleep for an exam.

It might be your right to do it, but it doesn't necessarily stop you from being an unpleasant person for exercising your right rather than being considerate to the wishes of others.

It strikes me that no-one who is alive should rightly be able to convincingly argue for abortion, on grounds of hypocrisy. Someone who is alive solely by virtue of not having been aborted shouldn't be able to ague to abort someone who has yet to be born. It doesn't seem fair.

You are quite right. I will go even further: if you do not have sex with your best friends girlfriend right now you deny the cute little baby called "Angel" the possibility to be born 9 months from now. So go fuck her !

I know, the world isn't fair, but how would you like it if those not yet born decided to have you executed without your input??? bet you would object.

Since I would have never existed I doubt that.

As I see it, a foetus is a potential human being, a thing that, if everything turns out the right way, can one day become a human being. Just as much as an unfertilized egg cell is a potential human being, a thing that, if coupled with a sperm cell, can one day become a human being. When choosing abortion, you commit no worse crime then you do when you chose not to fertilize every singe egg that pass through your uterus, the crime of not allowing a potential human being to come to life.
you can of course argue that every foetus has a god given soul, and of course you have the right to believe that, and to act accordingly. But if you deny other people the right to choose because of your religious belief, you are no better than any other religious imperialistic fundamentalist.

Hang on, are you arguing that a fertilised egg has rights from the moment of fertilisation?

If you are, then do you accept that you're calling every woman who's ever used the pill or an IUD, for contraception, a murderer?

Okay, and here we have come full circle. You, subjectively, think that abortion is horrific (for whatever reason). I don't - I do think that it is "dandy" (and I would think so even if a foetus was a person, which it is not). The law is not concerned with what you or I subjectively think (ie, it doesn't impose my beliefs on you, or vice versa), so it leaves us to make our own decisions. You can remain horrified and I can remain thinking it is "dandy".

Therefore, the conduct should be legalised.

I feel that this discussion has proven fruitful.

Small problem. What if I decide that you are not alive. Therfore it is ok for me to remove that rather large, ballish shaped thing from the two anglar things on you (IE remove head from sholders) by means of a gilotiene. The fact of the matter is that governments do all the time make decisions which some may think of as subjective but others do not. The fact is that this can be said to be an objective decision. The vast majority of the biology community agrees that life begins at conception.

Hang on, are you arguing that a fertilised egg has rights from the moment of fertilisation?

No, he /she is correctly comparing a just fertilised egg to a non-fertilised egg and a sperm cell. All of these have the potential to become human, but are not human yet. This means that if you call abortion murder, you must also call not having sex murder. Both actions result in the non-forming of human life.

Fun side-effect: following this reasoning people who preach abstinence are preaching in favour of murder. Or at least, in favour of an action just as "condemnable" as abortion.

Exactly. Hence abortion should be outlawed since any other definition of life is arbitary.

On the contrary, the biological definition of life is not arbitrary at all - it has been arrived at through obvserving what is and is not life and then determining the characteristics that set life apart. The embryo was not even considered in creating said definition. And, as it turns out, the embryo does not meet the definition, although the fetus at most stages of development does.

Another possible definition of life is the medical one. A human being is dead when the brain stops working, according to medicine. This was not something that was arrived at arbitrarily, nor did it have anything at all to do with the abortion issue. Thus, to define life at the point the brain begins to work is not arbitrary - it is simply using the definition of life already available.

Small problem. What if I decide that you are not alive. Therfore it is ok for me to remove that rather large, ballish shaped thing from the two anglar things on you (IE remove head from sholders) by means of a gilotiene. The fact of the matter is that governments do all the time make decisions which some may think of as subjective but others do not. The fact is that this can be said to be an objective decision. The vast majority of the biology community agrees that life begins at conception.

I call bullshit. I am a member of the "biology community" and I have yet to hear such an argument in a professional context....

As for your list of quotes, how dishonest of you to bring them up again when, in another thread, it was already demonstrated to you that most of them don't really support you. You are simply reading into them what you want to see - for instance taking, "This is the beginning of a human person," to mean, "This is a human person."

No, he /she is correctly comparing a just fertilised egg to a non-fertilised egg and a sperm cell. All of these have the potential to become human, but are not human yet. This means that if you call abortion murder, you must also call not having sex murder. Both actions result in the non-forming of human life.

Fun side-effect: following this reasoning people who preach abstinence are preaching in favour of murder. Or at least, in favour of an action just as "condemnable" as abortion.

I apologise profusely to Asteroid Opus, I was skim reading the thread and I wasn't really paying attention.

I will try harder in future. :)

I call bullshit. I am a member of the "biology community" and I have yet to hear such an argument in a professional context....

As for your list of quotes, how dishonest of you to bring them up again when, in another thread, it was already demonstrated to you that most of them don't really support you. You are simply reading into them what you want to see - for instance taking, "This is the beginning of a human person," to mean, "This is a human person."

If you accept that conception is the begining of a human person, to then declare anywhere else "this is a human person" is arbitary. You can only show where subjectively you believe "personhood" to be. But that is a subjetive concept, not an objecitve one like life.

If you accept that conception is the begining of a human person, to then declare anywhere else "this is a human person" is arbitary. You can only show where subjectively you believe "personhood" to be. But that is a subjetive concept, not an objecitve one like life.
So your only reason for choosing “life” is because it is objective?

Too bad you probably are not that consistent with your personal opinions on things such as morality.

So your only reason for choosing “life” is because it is objective?

Too bad you probably are not that consistent with your personal opinions on things such as morality.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here but for the record, I believe morality to be objective, but very difficult to define exactly. If you want to discuss that however I suggest you make another thread

*ahem*
<snip>

The situation would be much the same afterwards. Just because a majority wants something doesn't mean that the minority will simply see the error of its ways and agree all of a sudden.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here but for the record, I believe morality to be objective, but very difficult to define exactly. If you want to discuss that however I suggest you make another thread
Ill make one in time ... just ignore my ramblings for now :)

If you accept that conception is the begining of a human person, to then declare anywhere else "this is a human person" is arbitary. You can only show where subjectively you believe "personhood" to be. But that is a subjetive concept, not an objecitve one like life.

When they were building my house, the "beginning of my house" was when they laid the foundation. But I doubt anyone would have walked out onto that concrete slab and said, "This is a house. In fact, until it at least had walls and a roof to provide protection from the elements, I don't think anyone would have called it a house. Is that arbitrary? Of course not - the purpose of a house is not met until it can provide protection from the elements.


So your only reason for choosing “life” is because it is objective?

It is hardly objective anyways, as it requires making up an entirely new arbitrary distinction instead of those which have been devised completely outside of the abortion debate.

*ahem*

I rarely, if ever, chime in on threads regarding abortion. I personally would prefer it if abortion were illegal (aside from rape, danger to mother etc.)...but I'm also aware that making abortion illegal without accounting for the effects of such a law would cause more problems than it would solve.

Therefore, I try to maintain a neutral and indifferent view towards the whole abortion debate. However...a thought occured to me recently, and I thought I'd throw it out there and see what the NS public thinks.

In order to get the constant flame-filled debate regarding abortion finished once and for all, we'd have to have finality...an up-or-down vote on abortion, so to speak. Well, I think I thought of a way that could please both pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike.

Ignoring for a moment all of the legal and constitutional problems surrounding it, my idea is to have a national referendum on a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

I know amendments require Congress and state ratification and so forth, but we're ignoring that for the moment and pretending we can put the idea foward to the people.

The only catch is...the ONLY people who can vote on the propsed abortion ban are women.

(Unconsitutional, but again...ignore such issues for the moment)

I tend to view abortion as a women's health issue, and so I would be totally in favor of having only women vote on the matter. I would happily accept any choice made, for or against abortion, after such a vote.

Your thoughts?

POLL COMING

The man still has a role in the formation of the fetus. I think the man's vote should count 3/5 of the woman's vote, kind of like the Negro counted as 3/5 of a white man back in the day.

The reason I mentioned that was because it means there's a precedent for it, so it's the only feasable fraction.

The man still has a role in the formation of the fetus.

A man actually has a role in the formation of the zygote. Everything from there on out, he has nothing to do with.

But that is really neither here nor there, since the issue of abortion is about what a woman can do with her own body, and whether or not she can decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy. The father's role in causing the pregnancy has pretty much nothing to do with that.

*ahem*

I rarely, if ever, chime in on threads regarding abortion. I personally would prefer it if abortion were illegal (aside from rape, danger to mother etc.)...but I'm also aware that making abortion illegal without accounting for the effects of such a law would cause more problems than it would solve.

Therefore, I try to maintain a neutral and indifferent view towards the whole abortion debate. However...a thought occured to me recently, and I thought I'd throw it out there and see what the NS public thinks.

In order to get the constant flame-filled debate regarding abortion finished once and for all, we'd have to have finality...an up-or-down vote on abortion, so to speak. Well, I think I thought of a way that could please both pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike.

Ignoring for a moment all of the legal and constitutional problems surrounding it, my idea is to have a national referendum on a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

I know amendments require Congress and state ratification and so forth, but we're ignoring that for the moment and pretending we can put the idea foward to the people.

The only catch is...the ONLY people who can vote on the propsed abortion ban are women.

(Unconsitutional, but again...ignore such issues for the moment)

I tend to view abortion as a women's health issue, and so I would be totally in favor of having only women vote on the matter. I would happily accept any choice made, for or against abortion, after such a vote.

Your thoughts?

POLL COMING

Great idea. I also like how more pro-choice folk think it's a stupid idea than those who dodo, and that more pro-life folk think it's a smart idea than those who don't.

if as a soceity we criminalise abortion we will remove the ability for women no to have legal abortions, however we do not remove the desire for abortion. criminilisation will drive abortion 'underground' causing infinite harm to alreay vunerable harm. if abortion was a legal option soceity could provide support and counciling, suggesting other outcomes etc... to remove the option sweeps away the problem and makes people feel good, harm is still done.

also teach safe sex in class rooms, make contraception free, remove sex as a taboo (adam and eve covering their bits) and if all life is sacred get rid of the death penalty (america) stop bombing countries, stop enslaving third world countries, save the planet etc ...

fun to have a rant

*ahem*
-abridged-

Terrible idea, why have the collective decide what can only be effectively decided by the individual?

I honestly cannot understand any reason to have this sort of vote.

Great idea. I also like how more pro-choice folk think it's a stupid idea than those who dodo, and that more pro-life folk think it's a smart idea than those who don't.

Pro-choice folk consider the issue to be one of individual decision making. They want liberty.

Pro-life folk look at it as a societal issue, even something greater. They want a moral society. EDIT: Moral, as in their objective morality.

That is why pro-life folk irritate me.

A referendum is almost always a stupid idea. The majority of the people may well vote for the wrong option, and there is always a wrong option. Besides, even if 90% supported such a measure, who the hell are they to dictate to the other 10%?

It's an interesting idea with some merit but I think it should be up to each woman when the time comes if it does to decide. I personally just think that if someone is against an abortion then they shouldn't have one. No one has the right to make judgement over another in this sort of a case.

I have a penis. Can I vote on the poll or should I just be content with being oppressed?

I tried finding some link to link to, but I'm lazy. Anyhow, somewhere in the Bill of Rights, or some other dusty old manuscript that gives guidelines on how to run the States, it is stated and people are supposedly granted, "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Are those two thoughts connected in any way?

I like the idea

if as a soceity we criminalise abortion we will remove the ability for women no to have legal abortions, however we do not remove the desire for abortion. criminilisation will drive abortion 'underground' causing infinite harm to alreay vunerable harm. if abortion was a legal option soceity could provide support and counciling, suggesting other outcomes etc... to remove the option sweeps away the problem and makes people feel good, harm is still done.
also teach safe sex in class rooms, make contraception free, remove sex as a taboo (adam and eve covering their bits) and if all life is sacred get rid of the death penalty (america) stop bombing countries, stop enslaving third world countries, save the planet etc ...
fun to have a rant
Yes rants are fun. : )

Just wanted to mention that just because you have safe sex it does not mean you won't become pregnant. I have known multiple people who either know someone or got pregnant having safe sex. Even sex including condom and pill. Also I know a few people whose mothers had tubes tied and either found out they were pregnant with a sibling or still got pregnant.Also a guy had a visectomy and his wife got pregnant, his testicles kind of grew back apparently or something...(I didn't know him a friends sister did.)

It strikes me that no-one who is alive should rightly be able to convincingly argue for abortion, on grounds of hypocrisy. Someone who is alive solely by virtue of not having been aborted shouldn't be able to ague to abort someone who has yet to be born. It doesn't seem fair.
I know, the world isn't fair, but how would you like it if those not yet born decided to have you executed without your input??? bet you would object.

I would not have the ability to object.

you heartless basterd never have a abortion :upyours: screw you if you have a problem with that take it up with me

no one has the right to kill an unborn child it's just the same thing as murder

you heartless basterd never have a abortion :upyours: screw you if you have a problem with that take it up with me

no one has the right to kill an unborn child it's just the same thing as murder

We would not have kids if they killed us from the inside

We would not have kids if they killed us from the inside

That is an excellent point.

you heartless basterd never have a abortion :upyours: screw you if you have a problem with that take it up with me

no one has the right to kill an unborn child it's just the same thing as murder
sucks to be you.

there are close to a million abortions every year in the US alone. i have no idea how many millions more if you could add up all the ones in the rest of the world too.

and yet, for all your blustering, you can do nothing about it.

you heartless basterd never have a abortion :upyours:

But can we abort heartless bastards ? Like an embryo ;) ?

you heartless basterd never have a abortion :upyours: screw you if you have a problem with that take it up with me

no one has the right to kill an unborn child it's just the same thing as murder
Someone does not even know what murder is lol

But when, then, exactly, does a foetus become a human being.

At the moment of conception? Well, at that point it is a more simple organisms than many other organisms allready living in our bodies. Except for its potential, there's nothing human about it. Except if you believe that this is the moment when (Insert Favourite Deity) hands out the soul.

At the moment it achieves conscience? What is conscience, then, and how do we measure it? Is it brain activity, is it coherent brain activity, is it coupled with the ability to percieve, or to move?

At the moment of birth? Doesn't really add up by anyones logic... and what if you are killed when you are halfway out, is that still an abortion, then?

At the moment you develop a personality, and the ability to see your self as an individual? I mean, are you really a person before you develop personality?

At the moment you are said to have higher mental capabilities than an animal? What else should give you more rights than an anymal?

Gimme your input, folks.

Eventually we'll all be incubated by the state anyway. Brave New World, anyone?