For the Pro-Lifes, If Abortions were banned would you adopt the unwanted children? [Archive] - Page 2

Bruarong

10-01-2007, 15:14

Bullshit. In my community, embryos are not recognized as members of the human race. In countless cultures around the world, embryos are not recognized as such. Hell, in many cultures and for much of human history, a born infant wasn't even considered a real person until it was a year or more old.

YOU may personally decide that embryos are human persons. Not everybody shares your belief, and nobody is beholden to you or your "community" simply because you believe certain things about embryos. I'm under no obligation to you, or to anybody else, to house any other being inside my body.

So at what point do you decide that an embryo is a human?

That is only one of a great many reasons why abortion might be made illegal. It's also a polite way of saying that these policies are about making women's bodies public property, as if women have some obligation to the community to donate their bodies or organs even if they don't want to.

In a sense, women's bodies ARE public property, as are men's bodies, and those of children. We are allowed a certain level of autonomy, but only within certain guidelines. What we do to our own bodies affects people around us. That's why some substances are outlawed.

Sorry, but that's just the same old sexist BS. Grow your own damn embryos.

In a sense, I am, because when I married my wife, we agreed to belong to each other. Thus my wife's eggs are mine, and my sperm is hers.

An embryo is alive. A human embryo is human and also alive.

Right.

Human cancer cells are also human and alive. Human liver cells are also human and alive.

Human cancer cells are no more human than a human fingernail clipping. And yet there is a difference between a fingernail clipping and an embryo, is there not?

What you are asking is about PERSONHOOD. Is a fertilized egg a human person? Is an embryo? A fetus? A baby?

If you are asking me, I would say that anything that is ON THE WAY to being a human individual ought to recieve protection as such. That excludes sperm and eggs, because they are not 'on the way', but are waiting for the 'combination event'. It also excludes liver cells, because they are also not 'on the way', and fingernails, for that matter.

Why I have that position is because I am not comfortable in naming any other point in the development of a baby before birth as the 'humanizing' point. There doesn't seem to be a definite point where a fertilized egg suddenly becomes human during development, nor do I consider the birth event to have any 'right conferring' magic, since babies can survive after only a six month pregnancy.

As far as I'm concerned, none of it is remotely relevant to the subject of a woman's right to choose. Even if we assume that a fertilized egg, an embryo, and a fetus are all human persons with rights completely equal to any born person, a woman still should have the right to end her body's participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

What you are demanding is complete autonomy, despite the fact that it does not exist in any society that is not under anarchy.

I've said it a million times but nobody seems to bother to read it: NO BORN HUMAN BEING HAS THE RIGHT TO USE MY BODY TO SUSTAIN THEIR OWN LIFE AGAINST MY WISHES. I see no reason to grant "unborn people" superhuman rights.

The way to fix that problem is to not have sex, not to kill.

No. What happens at birth is that the infant is no longer physically dwelling inside the body of another human being. Remember that other human being? The woman? The one the embryo is living inside? Yeah, guess what...she matters too.

Of course the woman matters. But no human being matters so much that society should preserve her autonomy at the expense of the life of another.

No, it doesn't. A normal human infant does not physically require the presence of its biological mother to survive.

Sigh. OK. Call it 'mothering' then. Every human infant needs 'mothering', whether that be by a man or a woman or even a robot (though I am a bit doubtful over the robot).

No, it's absolutely nothing like a fertilized egg. You see, a fertilized egg requires a uterus to survive. If a fertilized egg is going to be made into a baby, a woman's body must do the work. Period.

Your just playing games here. Of course a uterus is needed. But sperm and egg donors are also needed for most of the humans born into this world. All that may change, with technological advances, but you are really twisting words around here. That's just silly.

Your mistake is that you seem unable to actually focus on the WOMAN in question.

Perhaps you are too focussed on the woman in question.

The "humanity" of the embryo is irrelevant.

No it definitely isn't. If we don't protect the 'humanity' of the embryos, we are failing to protect our own humanity.

No human person has the right to harvest the body of another non-consenting human person. It doesn't matter how "human" an embryo is, it still doesn't have any "right" to live inside an unwilling woman.

That's something you should think about before you have sex.

Blah blah, Godwin, blah blah...

I've never read anything written by Godwin, whoever that is.

Again we find that women's bodies have become public property, and women are obligated to let their bodies be used for the good of "humanity." Never mind that women are actual human people themselves and might deserve the fundamental right to live their own lives and own their own bodies. No, to protect HUMANS we just need to make sure that women understand their duty provide babies for the Fatherland.

Can't you see that my arguments would be the same even if it were men who carried the babies in their bodies? Or do you really believe that this is all about the suppression of women? Some sort of gender conflict?

Women don't just get abortions because they find a pregnancy "inconvenient." In countries where abortion is illegal, women shove broken glass into their bodies in an effort to end a pregnancy. Even in countries where abortion is nominally legal, women thrown themselves down stairs, drink toxic house cleaning products, or even shoot themselves in the stomach when they cannot find a way to obtain a safe medical abortion. Do you really think that they do this because they don't want to be "inconvenienced"?

There will always be a certain number of women who do foolish things to their bodies, just as there are also men who do foolish things to their bodies. Are you arguing that we ought to allow abortion in order to prevent women from doing such things to their bodies? It might stop a few incidents, but at what cost?

Such self mutilation incidents indicate that the woman needs psychological help, or perhaps some genuine compassion and understanding--neither of which I believe are administered by an abortion doctor.

Or is it, perhaps, possible that women actually have reasons to get abortions beyond simply not wanting to be inconvenienced?

If it is more than social standing, something like life-threatening (the life of the mother, that is), then perhaps a case can be made for an abortion. But the daughter of a politically or religiously prominent parent who is under pressure to have an abortion to save the reputation of her parent is not a good case for an abortion.

Meh. I know plenty of women who think abortion is perfectly acceptable and reasonable, and they aren't any more likely to come from shitty backgrounds than anybody else.

I wasn't talking about women who find abortion acceptable, but women who had been through the operation. I even have a friend who did a home-made job of it in a country where abortion is legal. She was very young and in a terrible family situation, and thought that was the best way. Laws didn't protect her.

Actually, they're a product of research. If you'd like to present your own studies on the subject, I'm sure we'd all be delighted to read them.

Research, eh? By whom?

Ain't no baby until her body builds one. Sorry boys, that's just how nature works.

Actually, the baby builds itself, and the mother supplies the necessary ingredients.

People want healthy white babies. There are far more children waiting to be adopted than there are parents to adopt them, because a surprising number of children have the bad taste to be born non-white and non-healthy.

That almost sounds like you are accusing people of being racist. Personally, I would love to adopt a dozen baby girls from India, because I hear that the little girls there are often unwanted, and it makes me sick to think that someone would kill a baby just because of its gender. But international adoption is really really expensive. It really ought to change, but governments get nervous about it, for several reasons.

Bullshit. I've explicitly described the exact legal parallel on this very thread. You've just chosen to ignore it.

I really haven't tried to ignore any of your points.

The rights of a kidney donor are completely protected at the potential expense of the recipient. Somebody's need of a kidney NEVER trumps the right of the donor to refuse. Even if the person needing the kidney is the donor's child, or spouse, or parent, or anything else. Even if the person needs the kidney specifically because of the potential donor's actions (i.e. if the donor shot the patient in the kidney or something).

This seems to be your favourite analogy. But I have several times suggested that the analogy falls down because it isn't directly comparable to that of a mother and child situation. The relationship between a potential kidney donor and the recipient is quite different from that between mother and child. The law recognises this. Apparently, you don't.

You've actually got it completely backwards on this one. Pregnant women are the only people who are NOT granted these legal protections. Convicted serial killers retain the right to refuse use of their bodies and organs, but pregnant women do not. How's that for "unfair"?

If you could point out that in the case of the life of a serial killer, that if there was more than one life involved, you would have a point. As it is, however, the reason why we don't force convicted felons to donate their organs is because we recognise that they are still humans, regardless of whether other law-abiding citizens may need those organs. The law recognises that the relationship between the donor and the recipient is not an exclusive one. Using force would degrade humanity, not preserve it.

The same reasoning should apply to the life of an unborn child. They may not be exactly like us, but they are human. They don't demand the use of their mother's bodies, they simply need them. Abortion is the use of force to destroy that life. It should not be an option, if it results in the unnecessary degradation of humanity.

You're the one who wants to consider embryos/fetuses/babies equal to human persons. So let's do that.

Actually, I never said 'equal'. There is very little equality involved. I do not consider my baby daughter my equal, but I do try to put her needs before mine. In such a situation, I'm not focussing on equality, but on her, because she needs my attention.

"Sacred" is subjective. You define sacred that way; many other people don't. I don't, nor does anybody in my family, nor does my lover, nor do my coworkers, nor does my boss...I could go on and on. I see no reason why your definition should be legally imposed on anybody else.

Because when it comes to making laws, there needs to be some sort of consensus. Currently, I may not agree with the laws of the land that I live in, but I recognise them as the consensus. Meanwhile, I will continue arguing for my definition, since I think it is better, and there is no law against arguing. And I feel that it is important to preserve our humanity.

The idea that "the decision is already made" just because an egg has been fertilized is fundamentally the same as the idea that a woman doesn't get to say "no" to sex once she's been making out with a guy. She consented to mess around, so she's committed herself to the "full process!" She can't back out now!!

No, not at all. Not under any circumstances. Although that is probably the argument of someone who is really keen to have sex. But such an argument could not hold up in a court of law.

Forced childbirth robs women of their dignity.

I don't think dignity comes from this. If it was the law, then no dignity would be lost. If it was a forced childbirth from the pressure of society, or of the father or someone else, then that might be a loss of dignity. But loss of dignity would not come from obedience to the law in this case. On the other hand, I see abortion as a loss of dignity for the human race. What sort of species would kill their own young? Surely not an intelligent one. There must be a better alternative, or are we committed to animal-like survival instincts?

Sex doesn't make babies at all. No sex, in the history of the human species, has ever made a baby. Sex sometimes makes fertilized eggs. Women's bodies, and women's bodies alone, make babies.

You are playing word games. Just before you were saying the the embryo 'harvests' the woman's body to build itself, and now you are saying that the woman's body makes the baby, and as if sex had nothing to do with it.

Hopefully some day we will be able to make babies through other means, or even allow men's bodies to make babies, but for the time being we are limited by how nature has shaped our species.

I'm not attracted by the thought of making babies in test tubes, much less having them grow in them. But I've often thought it would be better for men to carry the babies in their bodies. Some women just never stop bitching about it being a disadvantage. Some women don't, thankfully.

Back to remedial sex ed. Sex doesn't make babies. Ever. No matter how big your penis is. Women's bodies make babies, and it takes them months to do it. Sex sometimes is the way in which an egg cell is fertilized by a sperm cell. This fertilized egg is sometimes made into a baby by the active and extensive involvement of a woman's body, in a process that takes roughly 9 months for human beings.

And how is this point relevant to this argument?

Bottle

10-01-2007, 16:02

So at what point do you decide that an embryo is a human?

Based on my definition of personhood, an embryo cannot possess personhood. An embryo may be living and human, but it is not a "person."

In a sense, women's bodies ARE public property, as are men's bodies, and those of children. We are allowed a certain level of autonomy, but only within certain guidelines. What we do to our own bodies affects people around us. That's why some substances are outlawed.

My body is not public property. Restrictions on my rights are not due to public ownership of my body.

In a sense, I am, because when I married my wife, we agreed to belong to each other. Thus my wife's eggs are mine, and my sperm is hers.

Gee, that sure sounds nice, doesn't it?

Of course, the reality is that your body won't do any of the work in growing any embryos. It's lovely to say that you "belong" to one another and all, but it doesn't actually count for much when you get down to the physical realities. Her body makes babies. Yours doesn't.

If you want to comfort yourself by saying that her body "belongs" to you, then that's between you and her. Do remember, however, that I didn't marry you, nor did anybody other than your wife, so you probably shouldn't go around acting as though you own our bodies.

Right.

Human cancer cells are no more human than a human fingernail clipping. And yet there is a difference between a fingernail clipping and an embryo, is there not?

Human cancer cells are as human as fingernail clippers or embryos. In terms of the quality of "humanness," all three are equally human.

The fact that they are equally human does not mean there are no differences between them.

I could have a ball that is blue and a shirt that is equally blue. In terms of the "blueness" of the objects, they are the same. However, this does not mean that the ball is the same as the shirt. There clearly are differences between ball and shirt, even if they have one particular quality in equal measure.

If you are asking me, I would say that anything that is ON THE WAY to being a human individual ought to recieve protection as such. That excludes sperm and eggs, because they are not 'on the way', but are waiting for the 'combination event'.

A sperm and egg are one step along the process to producing a finished human individual. A fertilized egg is another step. Sure, a sperm and egg are awaiting "the combination event," but the fertilized egg is awaiting the implantation event, the division event, and countless other events without which it will never be anything other than a fertilized egg.

It also excludes liver cells, because they are also not 'on the way', and fingernails, for that matter.

You seem to be mixing up "human" and "person." You were originally talking about whether or not an embryo is human. My point was that it obviously is human, in much the same way that any other human cells are human. Whether or not it is a human person is a different discussion.

Why I have that position is because I am not comfortable in naming any other point in the development of a baby before birth as the 'humanizing' point. There doesn't seem to be a definite point where a fertilized egg suddenly becomes human during development, nor do I consider the birth event to have any 'right conferring' magic, since babies can survive after only a six month pregnancy.

There is no point in the human life cycle where non-human material magically becomes human material.

What you are demanding is complete autonomy, despite the fact that it does not exist in any society that is not under anarchy.

Not in the least. I'm demanding the fundamental right to ownership of one's own person. This does not require anarchy in any way.

The way to fix that problem is to not have sex, not to kill.

? There is no "problem" that requires "fixing." No human being has the right to use my body to sustain their life against my wishes. I have absolutely no problem with that.

Of course the woman matters. But no human being matters so much that society should preserve her autonomy at the expense of the life of another.

Every human being matters enough for that, and our laws reflect this.

Sigh. OK. Call it 'mothering' then. Every human infant needs 'mothering', whether that be by a man or a woman or even a robot (though I am a bit doubtful over the robot).

Human infants require care to survive, yes. However, this care can be provided by pretty much any capable source or sources.

Your just playing games here. Of course a uterus is needed. But sperm and egg donors are also needed for most of the humans born into this world. All that may change, with technological advances, but you are really twisting words around here. That's just silly.

No "game." No "twisting." Very simple concept. Sperm and eggs can only produce fertilized eggs. They cannot produce a baby. To produce a baby, you need a woman's body (or, theoretically, technology capable of simulating the contributions of the woman's body).

Perhaps you are too focussed on the woman in question.

Nope.

No it definitely isn't. If we don't protect the 'humanity' of the embryos, we are failing to protect our own humanity.

Bull.

My own "humanity" is of absolutely no value if I lack the fundamental right to my own body. Being "human" means fuckall if I can be forced to bear children against my wishes. If that's what "human" means, count me out.

That's something you should think about before you have sex.

You're not even trying any more.

Yes, I think about my rights before I have sex. Also after I have sex. Hell, I think about my right to bodily autonomy during sex, in a way, because I know that I always have the right to say "STOP" if something is done to my body that I don't like.

I've never read anything written by Godwin, whoever that is.

It shows.

Can't you see that my arguments would be the same even if it were men who carried the babies in their bodies? Or do you really believe that this is all about the suppression of women? Some sort of gender conflict?

You are arguing for the suppression of the human beings who make babies inside their bodies. All of those human beings happen to be women right now. The fact that you would also oppress men if you had the chance is not really a point in your favor.

There will always be a certain number of women who do foolish things to their bodies, just as there are also men who do foolish things to their bodies. Are you arguing that we ought to allow abortion in order to prevent women from doing such things to their bodies? It might stop a few incidents, but at what cost?

Such self mutilation incidents indicate that the woman needs psychological help, or perhaps some genuine compassion and understanding--neither of which I believe are administered by an abortion doctor.

I know this may come as a total shock to you, but women actually are thinking creatures with the ability to make decisions and judgments all by themselves.

If a woman wants to end her pregnancy so badly that she is willing to shove a broken coke bottle up her vagina, that should be a hint to you. No, it's not that she is so silly and reckless and needs somebody to pat her head and comfort her. No, it does not mean that she needs to be forced to bear a child against her wishes. It means she really, really does not want to be pregnant, and she is willing to do whatever it takes to stop being pregnant.

Wanting to end an unwanted pregnancy is not "foolish." It is reasonable, rational, and completely sane. Women do not need some paternal bullshit thrust at them. They need their personal decisions to be respected and their intelligence recognized. If a woman decides that an abortion doctor has the "understanding and compassion" that she needs, then who the fuck are you to over-ride her decision?

If it is more than social standing, something like life-threatening (the life of the mother, that is), then perhaps a case can be made for an abortion. But the daughter of a politically or religiously prominent parent who is under pressure to have an abortion to save the reputation of her parent is not a good case for an abortion.

It is as wrong to pressure somebody to have an abortion as it is to pressure them to not have an abortion. That decision is for the woman to make.

I wasn't talking about women who find abortion acceptable, but women who had been through the operation.

So was I.

Actually, the baby builds itself, and the mother supplies the necessary ingredients.

Ahh, the classic myth of the passive female body. Sorry, but it just ain't so.

That almost sounds like you are accusing people of being racist.

Imagine that!

Personally, I would love to adopt a dozen baby girls from India, because I hear that the little girls there are often unwanted, and it makes me sick to think that someone would kill a baby just because of its gender. But international adoption is really really expensive.

Golly, that's real white of you! You'd sure love to adopt some of them brown babies from one of them far-away countries, but durned if it isn't really expensive!

Let me reassure you: there are plenty of brown babies right in your very own country. There are more than enough children in urgent need of a home right at this very moment.

I really haven't tried to ignore any of your points.

Yet you've succeeded. Well done.

This seems to be your favourite analogy. But I have several times suggested that the analogy falls down because it isn't directly comparable to that of a mother and child situation. The relationship between a potential kidney donor and the recipient is quite different from that between mother and child. The law recognises this. Apparently, you don't.

Darling, my entire point is that our laws aren't consistent on this topic. I specifically state as much when I say things like, "pregnant women are the only class of people not granted this fundamental right to bodily autonomy."

Wow, look at that, you ignored my point (without even trying!) yet again!

If you could point out that in the case of the life of a serial killer, that if there was more than one life involved, you would have a point. As it is, however, the reason why we don't force convicted felons to donate their organs is because we recognise that they are still humans, regardless of whether other law-abiding citizens may need those organs. The law recognises that the relationship between the donor and the recipient is not an exclusive one. Using force would degrade humanity, not preserve it.

The fact that you can write this paragraph and yet still advocate forced childbirth is mind-boggling. You just flat-out stated that women don't count as human the way that serial killers do. It would "degrade humanity" to force serial killers to donate their organs, but it somehow saves humanity to force pregnant women to do so.

Sickening.

The same reasoning should apply to the life of an unborn child. They may not be exactly like us, but they are human. They don't demand the use of their mother's bodies, they simply need them. Abortion is the use of force to destroy that life. It should not be an option, if it results in the unnecessary degradation of humanity.

Irrelevant. The "humanness" of an embryo does not carry with it any right to use another human person's body against their wishes, because human persons do not have any such right.

Because when it comes to making laws, there needs to be some sort of consensus. Currently, I may not agree with the laws of the land that I live in, but I recognise them as the consensus. Meanwhile, I will continue arguing for my definition, since I think it is better, and there is no law against arguing. And I feel that it is important to preserve our humanity.

No consensus is required on the subject of the "sacredness" of humanity.

No, not at all. Not under any circumstances. Although that is probably the argument of someone who is really keen to have sex. But such an argument could not hold up in a court of law.

Yet you have advocated that line of reasoning throughout the last several pages of this thread.

I don't think dignity comes from this. If it was the law, then no dignity would be lost. If it was a forced childbirth from the pressure of society, or of the father or someone else, then that might be a loss of dignity. But loss of dignity would not come from obedience to the law in this case.

Given that you will never be in the position of having to "obey" the law in this case, since you can never be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy of your own, you'll have to forgive my uproarious laughter.

If you can't see why human dignity might be injured when a person's body is violated against their wishes, then there's really not much more to say to you.

On the other hand, I see abortion as a loss of dignity for the human race. What sort of species would kill their own young? Surely not an intelligent one.

Countless species do this. Crack open a basic evo-bio text and you will find plenty of examples of situations where the most intelligent choice for an animal is to kill its own young (or allow them to die).

You are playing word games. Just before you were saying the the embryo 'harvests' the woman's body to build itself, and now you are saying that the woman's body makes the baby, and as if sex had nothing to do with it.

The growing embryo does harvest from a woman's body. The woman's body does build the baby.

Sex has "something to do with it," in the sense that sex may lead to the fertilization of an egg. A fertilized egg may then be made into a baby by the woman's body. However, sex does not every make a baby. Sex can make fertilized eggs, but it cannot make babies.

I'm not attracted by the thought of making babies in test tubes, much less having them grow in them. But I've often thought it would be better for men to carry the babies in their bodies. Some women just never stop bitching about it being a disadvantage. Some women don't, thankfully.

I would love to have it be possible for both men and women to gestate embryos/fetuses. That would make it possible for a couple/family to decide who is best equipped to take on that physical burden.

A personal example is that a good friend of mine was diagnosed with an illness that makes it extremely unsafe for her to become pregnant. She very much wants biological children, and she's completely fertile, but she will most likely die if she tries to carry a pregnancy to term. It would be wonderful if she and her boyfriend/husband could opt to have him experience the pregnancy, because then she'd be able to have biological kids without having to use a surrogate or something.

And how is this point relevant to this argument?
It is relevant because of the continual references to fertilized eggs, embryos, fetuses, and babies as if these were all interchangeable. It is important because of the continual failure by many people to recognize that the woman's body is an active participant THROUGHOUT pregnancy.

The idea that "the decision is made" once an egg is fertilized can only work if you assume that nothing much important happens between fertilization and birth.

Kryozerkia

10-01-2007, 16:28

Oh, God, not this shit again.

Just when you think the trolls have fallen off the face of the earth...

Bottle

10-01-2007, 16:34

Oh, God, not this shit again.
Hehe, he said "harlot."

Compulsive Depression

10-01-2007, 16:53

That's because in the eyes of the unmarried harlot who whores herself out shamelessly on the town, the unborn child, a gift of God is an 'inconvenience'. She has been lured in by the temptations of the devil and he would love for her to do nothing more than to murder the most sacred gift that God can give a person, a child.

Her body belongs to God. It is not hers. Her spirit merely rents it while she is given the privilege of being able to live on God's green earth. She has no right to end a life God has decided must live in her womb for nine months. If she took the seed voluntarily, she must finish the job.

When the girl chooses to have sex, she agrees to take the pious route and nobly carry the baby to term. She must rise up over the vices of today's immoral, deprave society and understand that she has no right to decide whether or not the child lives.

Abortion is nothing more than an excuse of 'convenience' developed by morally bankrupt feminazis who want to destroy the family institution by legalising abortion so whores don't have to reap that which they have sown when they spread their legs for some sex-hungry man she'll never see again.

:D
Hehehe, that's even better than my ironic rant on page 13, well done :)
And "harlot"! I wish I'd thought to use the word! Brilliant :)

... It was irony, right?

Bruarong

10-01-2007, 17:52

Based on my definition of personhood, an embryo cannot possess personhood. An embryo may be living and human, but it is not a "person."

So when does a lump of cells become a 'person'?

My body is not public property. Restrictions on my rights are not due to public ownership of my body.

But what you do with your body is restricted by laws.

Gee, that sure sounds nice, doesn't it?

Of course, the reality is that your body won't do any of the work in growing any embryos. It's lovely to say that you "belong" to one another and all, but it doesn't actually count for much when you get down to the physical realities. Her body makes babies. Yours doesn't.

If you want to comfort yourself by saying that her body "belongs" to you, then that's between you and her. Do remember, however, that I didn't marry you, nor did anybody other than your wife, so you probably shouldn't go around acting as though you own our bodies.

Have I ever tried to act as if I own your body? Where did I do that? You are free to do lots of things, but there are some thing you may not do, including killing another human. Regardless of where the baby grows, you should not be able to kill it.

Human cancer cells are as human as fingernail clippers or embryos. In terms of the quality of "humanness," all three are equally human.

The fact that they are equally human does not mean there are no differences between them.

I could have a ball that is blue and a shirt that is equally blue. In terms of the "blueness" of the objects, they are the same. However, this does not mean that the ball is the same as the shirt. There clearly are differences between ball and shirt, even if they have one particular quality in equal measure.

But the cancer is not A human, while an embryo is a human, or at least in the process of becoming human.

A sperm and egg are one step along the process to producing a finished human individual. A fertilized egg is another step. Sure, a sperm and egg are awaiting "the combination event," but the fertilized egg is awaiting the implantation event, the division event, and countless other events without which it will never be anything other than a fertilized egg.

The 'combination event' is where the parents get to exercise their rights and their choice. Any time after that is messing with a 'person', not a potential person, but an individual--unless you have a better definition of when a person is a person.

Not in the least. I'm demanding the fundamental right to ownership of one's own person. This does not require anarchy in any way.

You should not be allowed to kill the very person you are responsible to care for.

Every human being matters enough for that, and our laws reflect this.

Except for the human beings that cannot communicate with us, apparently.

No "game." No "twisting." Very simple concept. Sperm and eggs can only produce fertilized eggs. They cannot produce a baby. To produce a baby, you need a woman's body (or, theoretically, technology capable of simulating the contributions of the woman's body).

Go back to the original argument, and you will see that this was the point that I was making. The point is that the unborn is needy. Should we consider them devoid of human rights simply because they are needy?

My own "humanity" is of absolutely no value if I lack the fundamental right to my own body. Being "human" means fuckall if I can be forced to bear children against my wishes. If that's what "human" means, count me out.

That is not that far away from saying that 'My humanity means nothing unless I am allowed to kill other people.'

You are arguing for the suppression of the human beings who make babies inside their bodies. All of those human beings happen to be women right now. The fact that you would also oppress men if you had the chance is not really a point in your favor.

You are arguing for the allowance to kill human beings. If I have to support 'suppression' in order to prevent killing human beings, then count me in.

I know this may come as a total shock to you, but women actually are thinking creatures with the ability to make decisions and judgments all by themselves.

If a woman wants to end her pregnancy so badly that she is willing to shove a broken coke bottle up her vagina, that should be a hint to you. No, it's not that she is so silly and reckless and needs somebody to pat her head and comfort her. No, it does not mean that she needs to be forced to bear a child against her wishes. It means she really, really does not want to be pregnant, and she is willing to do whatever it takes to stop being pregnant.

If anyone resorts to shoving broken glass up inside their body, sorry, but that's very close to suicidal, and suicidal people are generally thought of as sick, or needing help. They may be intelligent, educated, etc., but still sick.

Wanting to end an unwanted pregnancy is not "foolish." It is reasonable, rational, and completely sane. Women do not need some paternal bullshit thrust at them. They need their personal decisions to be respected and their intelligence recognized. If a woman decides that an abortion doctor has the "understanding and compassion" that she needs, then who the fuck are you to over-ride her decision?

Wanting to kill someone might also be reasonable, rational and completely sane. But we do not allow it, and rightly so. Or should we just respect a serial killer's right to kill? It's his/her personal decision, isn't it?

It is as wrong to pressure somebody to have an abortion as it is to pressure them to not have an abortion. That decision is for the woman to make.

There is always pressure involved, even if it is pressure from one's own desire to live a life that is free from the pressure of giving birth. And if there is another life involved, then it should not be the woman's decision.

Golly, that's real white of you! You'd sure love to adopt some of them brown babies from one of them far-away countries, but durned if it isn't really expensive!

That is just being nasty and rude. And I'm not even American, so I don't even say the word 'durned'.

Let me reassure you: there are plenty of brown babies right in your very own country. There are more than enough children in urgent need of a home right at this very moment.

Let me assure you that you are full of crap on that point. Have you ever applied for adoption? One of the questions they ask is if race is important. We would have said it wasn't, had we applied.

Darling, my entire point is that our laws aren't consistent on this topic. I specifically state as much when I say things like, "pregnant women are the only class of people not granted this fundamental right to bodily autonomy."

Wow, look at that, you ignored my point (without even trying!) yet again!

I do support a certain level of autonomy for women, but only when it doesn't result in harm to others. See, I didn't ignore your point. You are just ignoring mine.

The fact that you can write this paragraph and yet still advocate forced childbirth is mind-boggling. You just flat-out stated that women don't count as human the way that serial killers do. It would "degrade humanity" to force serial killers to donate their organs, but it somehow saves humanity to force pregnant women to do so.

Sickening.

That's ridiculous. Do you do this sort of thing to all your opponents? Try to make their arguments say things that they never said or meant?

It saves humanity to outlaw (or severely restrict) abortions because it prevents the killing of a human.

Irrelevant. The "humanness" of an embryo does not carry with it any right to use another human person's body against their wishes, because human persons do not have any such right.

The embryo should have that right, because it cannot survive any other way. It is its only chance to live. Adult humans should not have that right because they don't need it to live, unless they are really sick--which is a different case.

No consensus is required on the subject of the "sacredness" of humanity.

But laws protecting the 'sacredness' of humanity DO require consensus.

Given that you will never be in the position of having to "obey" the law in this case, since you can never be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy of your own, you'll have to forgive my uproarious laughter.

Quit asserting that my view points are simply because I'm male. That is a false assertion. My wife is far more anti-abortion than I am.

If you can't see why human dignity might be injured when a person's body is violated against their wishes, then there's really not much more to say to you.

Well, perhaps this conversation is at end then. You don't seem to see that human dignity might be injured when a person's life is violated.

Countless species do this. Crack open a basic evo-bio text and you will find plenty of examples of situations where the most intelligent choice for an animal is to kill its own young (or allow them to die).

I like to think that we humans have more morals than an animal, certainly more intelligence.

I would love to have it be possible for both men and women to gestate embryos/fetuses. That would make it possible for a couple/family to decide who is best equipped to take on that physical burden.

Although it might cause a whole heap of more unforseen problems. Perhaps we shall live long enough to see.

A personal example is that a good friend of mine was diagnosed with an illness that makes it extremely unsafe for her to become pregnant. She very much wants biological children, and she's completely fertile, but she will most likely die if she tries to carry a pregnancy to term. It would be wonderful if she and her boyfriend/husband could opt to have him experience the pregnancy, because then she'd be able to have biological kids without having to use a surrogate or something.

If she loved the child rather than the pregnancy, why can't she adopt?

It is relevant because of the continual references to fertilized eggs, embryos, fetuses, and babies as if these were all interchangeable. It is important because of the continual failure by many people to recognize that the woman's body is an active participant THROUGHOUT pregnancy.

Do you mean that I personally am failing to recognise that a woman's body is an active participant throughout pregnancy, or just others in this discussion forum?
Is this point relevant to our discussion, or to this thread? And if it is relevant to our discussion, how?

The idea that "the decision is made" once an egg is fertilized can only work if you assume that nothing much important happens between fertilization and birth.

Not necessarily. The decision is not necessarily to have a child, but it could be to allow for the possibility of having a child.

Kytzenia

10-01-2007, 18:31

Hehe, he said "harlot."

Yes I did. A far superior word to slut, though slut is more to the point. Another excellent adjective would be: strumpet or trollop.

:D
Hehehe, that's even better than my ironic rant on page 13, well done :)
And "harlot"! I wish I'd thought to use the word! Brilliant :)

... It was irony, right?
Of course. I'm trolling for fun. Of course, no one will ever guess who I truly am.

Neesika complained that there is nothing happened and other people have said that there are no good trolls around, so, I will try and fill that void in my own special way.

By day I'm a humbled nation years old, but my night my schizophrenia kicks in and I cannot help but to let my devilish side take control.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 18:32

Well if you really cared about the babies you would take care of them since the mother didn't want them.

Yep.

Too bad no such system exists.. where unwanted babies can be taken to a place that will dedicate itself to finding loving, caring homes with parents that do want them... Oh wait...

Adoption Agencies!

So what's your point?

Dempublicents1

10-01-2007, 18:36

Yep.

Too bad no such system exists.. where unwanted babies can be taken to a place that will dedicate itself to finding loving, caring homes with parents that do want them... Oh wait...

Adoption Agencies!

So what's your point?

Interestingly enough, adoption agencies aren't adequate on their own. They need loving, caring homes with parents that want the children, and often can't find such homes. Wouldn't it be lovely if the people who claim to care about the unborn would care enough after they are born to want to give them loving, caring homes?

Smunkeeville

10-01-2007, 18:40

Interestingly enough, adoption agencies aren't adequate on their own. They need loving, caring homes with parents that want the children, and often can't find such homes. Wouldn't it be lovely if the people who claim to care about the unborn would care enough after they are born to want to give them loving, caring homes?

so to care about the unborn and not be a hypocrite you have to have the money to adopt and support an unnamed number of children?

Compulsive Depression

10-01-2007, 18:44

Of course. I'm trolling for fun. Of course, no one will ever guess who I truly am.

Jolly good! You often can't be sure around here, so thought I'd check. Keep up the good work! :D

Dempublicents1

10-01-2007, 18:47

so to care about the unborn and not be a hypocrite you have to have the money to adopt and support an unnamed number of children?

No, you have to have the willingness to do so. If you don't have the means, you obviously shouldn't do it. Of course, if you don't have the means to support a child, and you are so opposed to abortion that you would ban it, you also shouldn't be having sex without being sterilized. Someone who keeps having children of their own, and then claims they don't have the means to adopt, is simply making excuses.

In my experience, the same people who rant and rave about abortion and how evil it is often also rant and rave that they should never be called upon to provide for any child not their own in any way, whether they have the means or not. *That* is hypocritcal. It demonstrates pretty clearly that they don't care about the welfare of the child who is born from a forced pregnancy. They care about controlling the woman who happens to be pregnant.

Smunkeeville

10-01-2007, 18:53

No, you have to have the willingness to do so. If you don't have the means, you obviously shouldn't do it. Of course, if you don't have the means to support a child, and you are so opposed to abortion that you would ban it, you also shouldn't be having sex without being sterilized. Someone who keeps having children of their own, and then claims they don't have the means to adopt, is simply making excuses.

In my experience, the same people who rant and rave about abortion and how evil it is often also rant and rave that they should never be called upon to provide for any child not their own in any way, whether they have the means or not. *That* is hypocritcal. It demonstrates pretty clearly that they don't care about the welfare of the child who is born from a forced pregnancy. They care about controlling the woman who happens to be pregnant.

I am pro-choice for all the wrong reasons........but I would be willing to take care of children who needed me, if it wouldn't detract from being able to take care of the ones I already have.

However, from a moral standing (which is not a "I want to force it into law" standing) I think if you don't want kids or can't afford them you probably shouldn't have sex at all.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 18:56

Interestingly enough, adoption agencies aren't adequate on their own. They need loving, caring homes with parents that want the children, and often can't find such homes. Wouldn't it be lovely if the people who claim to care about the unborn would care enough after they are born to want to give them loving, caring homes?

If such agencies have trouble finding homes then it's because the process is too expensive and complex. There is a backlog of willing parents but many can't afford the legal expenses and red tape, or don't qualify because they don't earn enough money or one of the prospective parents has a manic depressive grandmother.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 19:01

No, you have to have the willingness to do so. If you don't have the means, you obviously shouldn't do it. Of course, if you don't have the means to support a child, and you are so opposed to abortion that you would ban it, you also shouldn't be having sex without being sterilized. Someone who keeps having children of their own, and then claims they don't have the means to adopt, is simply making excuses.
I actually agree with most of this.

In my experience, the same people who rant and rave about abortion and how evil it is often also rant and rave that they should never be called upon to provide for any child not their own in any way, whether they have the means or not. *That* is hypocritcal. It demonstrates pretty clearly that they don't care about the welfare of the child who is born from a forced pregnancy. They care about controlling the woman who happens to be pregnant.

But not this. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that pro-life advocates are interested simply in controlling people. One doesn't have to have a certain amount of money or resources to know the difference between right and wrong.

Dempublicents1

10-01-2007, 19:05

If such agencies have trouble finding homes then it's because the process is too expensive and complex.

And it's because prospective parents would rather sit on a waiting list for years for a perfectly healthy, white infant than take in a a child with health problems, or one who is not an infant. Heaven forbid the child you adopt not be a perfect little specimen of the correct ethnicity.

But not this. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that pro-life advocates are interested simply in controlling people. One doesn't have to have a certain amount of money or resources to know the difference between right and wrong.

How else do you explaiin the plethora of people who claim to be "pro-life", but are rabidly opposed to providing any aid to the children of unplanned pregnancies after they are born?

I didn't say that all people who are pro-life feel this way. Heck, some of us are pro-life and pro-choice. But there certainly are a lot of people out there for whom it does seem to be about control, rather than any moral sense of right and wrong.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 19:14

And it's because prospective parents would rather sit on a waiting list for years for a perfectly healthy, white infant than take in a a child with health problems, or one who is not an infant. Heaven forbid the child you adopt not be a perfect little specimen of the correct ethnicity.

That's not fair to say, and it's untrue.

How else do you explaiin the plethora of people who claim to be "pro-life", but are rabidly opposed to providing any aid to the children of unplanned pregnancies after they are born?

Who? Where are they? I haven't seen this epidemic of rabid hypocrisy. I've seen a couple opinions like that on here, but out in the real world, I haven't seen it.

But then again, the church I go to also has examples of children adopted from other countries/ethnicities, and children with health issues.

I didn't say that all people who are pro-life feel this way. Heck, some of us are pro-life and pro-choice. But there certainly are a lot of people out there for whom it does seem to be about control, rather than any moral sense of right and wrong.

Just out of curiosity, could you elaborate on what you mean when you say you're both pro-life and pro-choice?

I dont know of anyone who has agrued for pro-life laws who is interested in exercising control. When I hear it, it's all about protecting the helpless. I do find it interesting that you're portraying a theoretical mentality that says these people aren't willing to look after these kids but at the same time apparently have a vested interest in pulling the puppet strings.

I will say, there is a movement to encourage people who would have abortions for reasons of personal convenience to take care of the child instead of giving him/her up. Too often avoiding responsibility is the motivation for abortions, and that s houldn't be encouraged.

P.S. No, having an abortion isn't dealing with responsibility. It's a way of dodging it by taking the easy way out.

The Lone Alliance

10-01-2007, 19:25

Yep.

Too bad no such system exists.. where unwanted babies can be taken to a place that will dedicate itself to finding loving, caring homes with parents that do want them... Oh wait...

Adoption Agencies!

So what's your point?

Adoption takes forever, and until then they are stuck in a Foster home or shuffled back and forth by the state, imagine how much 'quality' of life they have then? Some Life.

so to care about the unborn and not be a hypocrite you have to have the money to adopt and support an unnamed number of children? Yes, that's what I say exactly because if you think the overcrowded Foster and Adoption system could handle taking care of every unwanted child (Because you banned Abortion) when they can't even take care of all the children they have, you are either a fool or you don't care.

The Adoption system is backed up enough as it is, add thousands more to the equation. And the economics, Imagine the money problems alone, the government would have to divert a ton of funds just to take care of them all.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 19:28

Adoption takes forever, and until then they are stuck in a Foster home or shuffled back and forth by the state, imagine how much 'quality' of life they have then? Some Life.
Sounds like a flawed system that needs to be fixed. I don't see how that justifies killing.

Yes, that's what I say exactly because if you think the overcrowded Foster and Adoption system could handle taking care of every unwanted child (Because you banned Abortion) when they can't even take care of all the children they have, you are either a fool or you don't care.

Maybe the system wouldn't be so overburdened if:
1)More people raised their own child where possible
2)Fewer unwanted pregnancies took place in the first place, because of (dare I say it?) abstinence!

Dempublicents1

10-01-2007, 19:38

That's not fair to say, and it's untrue.

No, it really isn't. There are plenty of children already in the system, yet prospective parents are all too happy to sit on a waiting list for a newborn. Children with health problems, even infants, are almost never adopted. And healthy white babies are snapped up almost immediately, while those of other ethnicities are likely to spend all or most of their childhood in an orphanage or foster care system.

There certainly are those willing to adopt older children, minority children, and sick children, but they are the minority among prospective parents.

Who? Where are they? I haven't seen this epidemic of rabid hypocrisy. I've seen a couple opinions like that on here, but out in the real world, I haven't seen it.

I've seen it from most of the politically anti-choice people I've known or seen online.

But then again, the church I go to also has examples of children adopted from other countries/ethnicities, and children with health issues.

LOL, you keep thinking that a comment made about the trends equates to "everybody." The fact is that healthy, white infants are adopted preferentially over other children. This does not mean that no one ever adopts children who are not healthy, white infants. It simply means that too many people will wait for such infants, instead of adopting the children who are already in need.

Just out of curiosity, could you elaborate on what you mean when you say you're both pro-life and pro-choice?

It's simple. I am pro-life, in that I am nearly always opposed to abortion. Potential though it may be, I value the life that can come out of a pregnancy, and I think that it should be preserved. As such, I am philosophically pro-life (as far as that word applies to abortion).

At the same time, I recognize that I am not every pregnant woman. While I would choose to carry any pregnancy of my own to term, barring life-threatening medical issues or serious, deadly defects, I have no right to enforce that upon any other woman. As such, I am politically pro-choice. I may think that abortion is all too often the wrong choice, I realize that it is not my choice to make.

I dont know of anyone who has agrued for pro-life laws who is interested in exercising control. When I hear it, it's all about protecting the helpless.

That's what they say. And then, when it comes down to it, they don't actually do anything to protect the helpless. Children of forced pregnancies are born to women who did not want to have them and do not want responsibility for them. They are all too often raised by a mother who wants nothing to do with them or thrown into a flawed system in which they are likely to be shuttled from home to home to home until they either run away or turn 18. Who could be more helpless than a child with no one to love and care for him?

Of course, only some of them actually say that. Others start in with the Dirty Whore argument or what I like to call "punishment by baby" right away. Arguments like, "She spread her legs so now she has to deal with the consequences!" are quite common. There is no compassion in such a statement. In fact, it wrongly assumes that any woman who would consider abortion is a dirty slut who is perfectly capable of "dealing with" a pregnancy and childrearing.

I do find it interesting that you're portraying a theoretical mentality that says these people aren't willing to look after these kids but at the same time apparently have a vested interest in pulling the puppet strings.

Some people like the power. I don't understand it, but I've certainly seen it. They are usually the same people who want to legislate what sex acts two consenting adults can and cannot engage in, who can receive birth control and for what reasons, and think they can control the sexual experimentation of all teenagers by keeping them ignorant.

I will say, there is a movement to encourage people who would have abortions for reasons of personal convenience to take care of the child instead of giving him/her up. Too often avoiding responsibility is the motivation for abortions, and that s houldn't be encouraged.

So, the woman who has an abortion because she already has three children to take care of and cannot go through pregnancy, childbirth, and try to raise another without endangering them is "avoiding responsibility"? A woman who knows she does not have the means to take care of a child is "avoiding responsibility"?

I'm sure there are women who abort for no other reason than, "I want to be able to go the club every night," or something similiar, but I hardly think they are in any sort of majority. And would we really want a person like that in charge of a child's life anyways?

P.S. No, having an abortion isn't dealing with responsibility. It's a way of dodging it by taking the easy way out.

You really think abortion is easy, eh? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never known anyone who had to make that agonizing decision and live with it for the rest of her life.

Bottle

10-01-2007, 19:48

You really think abortion is easy, eh? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never known anyone who had to make that agonizing decision and live with it for the rest of her life.
I'm going to guess that he actually does know at least several women who have made such a decision, but they (very rightly) do not choose to confide in him.

One in three American women will have an abortion. Do you know three women? Do you have at least three female friends? Three female family members?

Anti-choicers love to paint this issue as though only careless, reckless, immoral women have abortions. The reality is that their own mothers, sisters, lovers, friends, and daughters will face this choice. Intelligent, rational, thoughtful, careful, loving women will face this choice. Some choose to abort their pregnancies. Some do not. Regardless of which choice they make, they're still intelligent, rational, thoughtful, careful, loving human beings. The fact that anti-choicers feel the need to dehumanize them and reduce them to the "reckless slut" stereotype is cowardly in the extreme.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 20:12

I'm going to guess that he actually does know at least several women who have made such a decision, but they (very rightly) do not choose to confide in him.
You've guessed wrong.

You know, just because I have the perspective that I do doesn't make me judgmental or controlling. I realize that one of your tactics is to demonize and shout down people that don't hold with your opinions, but doing that tends to lead you to some very wrong conclusions.

In fact, contrary to your assumption, not only do I know several women who have made that decision, they did choose to confide in me and continue to do so. Why? Because unlike you, I don't feel the need to destroy everybody that disagrees with me.

Which makes me a minority on this board, but I knew that coming in so it's all good.

Anti-choicers love to paint this issue as though only careless, reckless, immoral women have abortions. The reality is that their own mothers, sisters, lovers, friends, and daughters will face this choice. Intelligent, rational, thoughtful, careful, loving women will face this choice. Some choose to abort their pregnancies. Some do not. Regardless of which choice they make, they're still intelligent, rational, thoughtful, careful, loving human beings. The fact that anti-choicers feel the need to dehumanize them and reduce them to the "reckless slut" stereotype is cowardly in the extreme.

I don't doubt that you've debated with people who dehumanize such women, but I don't. I could list how many of the people in your list above I know who have had abortions, but that isn't any of your business anyway. The fact is, of that list, quite a number of them were of the "I want to be able to go to the club every night" mentality (If I may borrow the phrase from Dempublicents). A couple did it out of medical necessity, which I support, and a couple rationalized it for various reasons.

Please, don't presume to know anything about me based exclusively on the fact that I disagree with you.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 20:23

No, it really isn't. There are plenty of children already in the system, yet prospective parents are all too happy to sit on a waiting list for a newborn...There certainly are those willing to adopt older children, minority children, and sick children, but they are the minority among prospective parents.

Sounds like your opinion is largely formed by some of the things you've seen. Mine ist he opposite. The reality is probably somewhere in between.

I've seen it from most of the politically anti-choice people I've known or seen online.
So if you're going to use the phrse "anti-choice" will you criticize me if I start saying "anti-life?"

LOL, you keep thinking that a comment made about the trends equates to "everybody." The fact is that healthy, white infants are adopted preferentially over other children. This does not mean that no one ever adopts children who are not healthy, white infants. It simply means that too many people will wait for such infants, instead of adopting the children who are already in need.
It's just as erroneous for me to apply my perspective to everybody as it is for you to apply yours that way.

It's simple. I am pro-life, in that I am nearly always opposed to abortion. Potential though it may be, I value the life that can come out of a pregnancy, and I think that it should be preserved. As such, I am philosophically pro-life (as far as that word applies to abortion).

At the same time, I recognize that I am not every pregnant woman. While I would choose to carry any pregnancy of my own to term, barring life-threatening medical issues or serious, deadly defects, I have no right to enforce that upon any other woman. As such, I am politically pro-choice. I may think that abortion is all too often the wrong choice, I realize that it is not my choice to make.
Just wondered. Thank you.

That's what they say. And then, when it comes down to it, they don't actually do anything to protect the helpless. Children of forced pregnancies are born to women who did not want to have them and do not want responsibility for them. They are all too often raised by a mother who wants nothing to do with them or thrown into a flawed system in which they are likely to be shuttled from home to home to home until they either run away or turn 18. Who could be more helpless than a child with no one to love and care for him?

Sounds to me as if the real problem is elsewhere, and abortion, even adoption, are treating symptoms, not the actual problem.

Of course, only some of them actually say that. Others start in with the Dirty Whore argument or what I like to call "punishment by baby" right away. Arguments like, "She spread her legs so now she has to deal with the consequences!" are quite common. There is no compassion in such a statement. In fact, it wrongly assumes that any woman who would consider abortion is a dirty slut who is perfectly capable of "dealing with" a pregnancy and childrearing.
I'm of the mind that the "just deal with it" mentality is far from constructive. There are indeed cases where the best thing for the child is to have another home. I just don't happen to think that destroying the child is the answer.

Having said that, there are also plenty of cases where the child could be raised and raised well, but pressure from outside pushes the prospective mother into an abortion that isn't anything like necessary.

Some people like the power. I don't understand it, but I've certainly seen it. They are usually the same people who want to legislate what sex acts two consenting adults can and cannot engage in, who can receive birth control and for what reasons, and think they can control the sexual experimentation of all teenagers by keeping them ignorant.

I agree that there are such people, and I find their perspective repugnant for the same reasons you do, but they're not as common as often portrayed.

I think the real reason some zealots want to control others is because on some level they ned to validate themselves, and so try to get others to fall in line. It's not about power, it's about affirmation. That usually comes from people who have weak personal testimony.

So, the woman who has an abortion because she already has three children to take care of and cannot go through pregnancy, childbirth, and try to raise another without endangering them is "avoiding responsibility"? A woman who knows she does not have the means to take care of a child is "avoiding responsibility"?
Hey wow how about birth control? How about abstinence? Yes, I realize that regular forms of birth control can fail, but with birth control methods' effectiveness in the 98 and 99 percentile, the failure rate isn't large enough to really support this point.
.

I'm sure there are women who abort for no other reason than, "I want to be able to go the club every night," or something similiar, but I hardly think they are in any sort of majority. And would we really want a person like that in charge of a child's life anyways?
That's an example of the underlying problem not being addressed. What leads to a person whose mentality is such that their main p riority is clubbing? if you're talking about a teenager then they should have been abstinent. Parents should be more involved in their child's life. if you'r etalking about an adult, then there's other issues involved there as well.

The problem with abortion is that in most cases it's nothing but a band-aid that lets people avoid the real issues.

You really think abortion is easy, eh? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never known anyone who had to make that agonizing decision and live with it for the rest of her life.
You'd be wrong. But I'm not the one who's painting abortion as the miraculous solution to life's woes. If it's so difficult then perhaps the better solution is adoption, or abstinence. You can't have it both ways.

Compulsive Depression

10-01-2007, 20:40

I'm going to guess that he actually does know at least several women who have made such a decision, but they (very rightly) do not choose to confide in him.

One in three American women will have an abortion. Do you know three women? Do you have at least three female friends? Three female family members?

Right, I'm going to pull you up on your implication here, no matter how viciously you're going to savage me for it:

1/3 of American women will have an abortion*. You know three American women. That doesn't mean that you know one American woman that will have an abortion. You may know no American women that have had an abortion (probability 2/3^3; about 0.296), you may know three American women who will have abortions (probability 1/3^3; about 0.037). That one of the three will have an abortion is merely the expected value.

I'm quite sure you know that, of course, but maybe others don't. And also this shouldn't be taken to suggest that, in general, I disagree with you on this topic.

*I'd actually query this in itself; probably 1/3 of American women have had an abortion, but that's not the same thing; "will have" is, probably, an extrapolation of this, and if you don't suggest that it feels dishonest to me. But this is a tangent and that's not the point.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 20:51

Right, I'm going to pull you up on your implication here, no matter how viciously you're going to savage me for it:

1/3 of American women will have an abortion*. You know three American women. That doesn't mean that you know one American woman that will have an abortion. You may know no American women that have had an abortion (probability 2/3^3; about 0.296), you may know three American women who will have abortions (probability 1/3^3; about 0.037). That one of the three will have an abortion is merely the expected value.

I'm quite sure you know that, of course, but maybe others don't. And also this shouldn't be taken to suggest that, in general, I disagree with you on this topic.

*I'd actually query this in itself; probably 1/3 of American women have had an abortion, but that's not the same thing; "will have" is, probably, an extrapolation of this, and if you don't suggest that it feels dishonest to me. But this is a tangent and that's not the point.

Actually I was also thinking that the figure of 1/3 women in America have had an abortion is a VERY exaggerated figure. I wonder how they calculate that, exactly... and still take into consideration cases where one single woman has had a number of abortions (I know a couple such cases personally) and whether it includes ones that were medically necessary.

Dempublicents1

10-01-2007, 20:53

Sounds like your opinion is largely formed by some of the things you've seen. Mine ist he opposite. The reality is probably somewhere in between.

Some of the things I've seen, yes. Also, the facts of the matter. The demographics of children who are and are not adopted make it pretty clear. If a child, even an infant, has health problems, he is less likely to be adopted. If a child is not an infant, she is less likely to be adopted. If a child is white, he is more likely to be adopted than a child who is not.

So if you're going to use the phrse "anti-choice" will you criticize me if I start saying "anti-life?"

Yes. As I've already pointed out, it is possible to be both pro-life and pro-choice, so it makes no sense to see them as opposed positions. The position that is opposed to "pro-choice" is "anti-choice" - those who would deny the choice to others.

A person who is pro-choice is not "anti-life". They may be (and many are) morally opposed to most abortions and nearly all see abortion as something that, in a perfect world, would never be needed.

[quote]It's just as erroneous for me to apply my perspective to everybody as it is for you to apply yours that way.

Your perspective appears to be fully derived from "I know some people who...." Mine, on the other hand, is derived from the actual state of the foster care and adoption systems. I'm not applying any perspective to everybody. I'm simply pointing out the facts of the matter.

Just wondered. Thank you.

NP.

Sounds to me as if the real problem is elsewhere, and abortion, even adoption, are treating symptoms, not the actual problem.

In many cases, that is true. Lack of education is a huge contributor. A society that simultaneously tells people (women anyways) that they are immoral if they have sex and that they are undesireable if they do not is a part of the problem. Lack of availability of contraceptives is a problem. Unwillingness of many insurance companies to properly cover prenatal and infant healthcare is a problem. The fact that maternity and paternity leave are considered to be a huge problem on companies is an issue.

And yes, lack of responsibility - specifically responsibility in planning and discussion between those who are romantically involved - is an issue.

If we can correct these issues, the rates of elective abortions would plummet. But banning abortion isn't the answer. Addressing these issues is.

I'm of the mind that the "just deal with it" mentality is far from constructive.

And yet it is disturbingly prevalent.

I agree that there are such people, and I find their perspective repugnant for the same reasons you do, but they're not as common as often portrayed.

I have seen no evidence that they are not.

I think the real reason some zealots want to control others is because on some level they ned to validate themselves, and so try to get others to fall in line. It's not about power, it's about affirmation. That usually comes from people who have weak personal testimony.

On this point, I agree. Those who feel the need to force their religious views on others are, almost invariably, weak of faith themselves.

Hey wow how about birth control? How about abstinence? Yes, I realize that regular forms of birth control can fail, but with birth control methods' effectiveness in the 98 and 99 percentile, the failure rate isn't large enough to really support this point.

Most women who have abortions were using at least one form of birth control. Failure rates are calculated in best-case scenarios, not in the real world. Not to mention the numerous things that might have happened. Perhaps her husband had a vasectomy and she had a tubal ligation but the surgery reversed itself (it does happen). Perhaps she was perfectly able to take care of another child when she conceived, but now her husband has died/left her or she's lost her job. There are two many possibilities - too many actual occurences - to simply try and dismiss them out of hand.
.
That's an example of the underlying problem not being addressed. What leads to a person whose mentality is such that their main p riority is clubbing?

Selfishness. Believe it or not, there are very selfish people out there who want what they want, and they want it now. While some such people can change, many of them should never have children, as they are incapable of the self-sacrifice that is necessary.

You'd be wrong. But I'm not the one who's painting abortion as the miraculous solution to life's woes. If it's so difficult then perhaps the better solution is adoption, or abstinence. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not painting abortion as any such thing, either. But I know how difficult this type of decision can be on a woman. I know how one thing can happen that shatters her entire view of her life and makes her rethink everything. I've known a woman who, even though she feels that she made the right choice, she still cries for the child who might have been every Mother's Day.

These women make difficult life choices - and the choices are sometimes ones that we don't agree with - but demonizing them over it is pointless. Maybe the better solution is adoption. Maybe it isn't. But none of us are in the position to make that choice until we are pregnant. This isn't a world where the streets are paved with gold and chocolate rains from the sky. It's the real world. And, however we get to that point, sometimes we are faced with a situation where every choice is a crappy one, and all we can do is try to choose the least crappy.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 21:24

Some of the things I've seen, yes. Also, the facts of the matter. The demographics of children who are and are not adopted make it pretty clear. If a child, even an infant, has health problems, he is less likely to be adopted. If a child is not an infant, she is less likely to be adopted. If a child is white, he is more likely to be adopted than a child who is not.

I can't disagree with the statistical reality, but there are factors other than simple preference. If a child is less likely to be adopted as a result of medical problems, it's unfair to say it's simply because couples are simply unwilling to take them. Considering the difficulty and expense of getting an adoption in the first place, the added expense of medical care can put the adoption out of reach entirely. Also, adoption of children who are older than infants can lead to problems. In my family there's a case where someone was adopted at a couple years of age that had severe emotional issues due to an abusive home prior. I can't say the parents who adopted this child are glad they did it later, as these emotional problems led to destructive behavior for the next twenty years.

At the same time, I would not agree that the child should have been aborted in the first place.

So yes, I know that healthy infant white kids are easier to get parents for, but there are factors involved and it's not fair to say it's simply because people are just being elitist.

Yes. As I've already pointed out, it is possible to be both pro-life and pro-choice, so it makes no sense to see them as opposed positions. The position that is opposed to "pro-choice" is "anti-choice" - those who would deny the choice to others.

A person who is pro-choice is not "anti-life". They may be (and many are) morally opposed to most abortions and nearly all see abortion as something that, in a perfect world, would never be needed.

I'll say this but I don't htink we should spend a whole lot of time going back and forth on terms, but you said it's wrong to call a pro-choice believer "anti-life" because their belief focuses on the choice, not that they want to see babies aborted (necessarily). Well, the same logic applies to pro-life. The focus is on the preservation of life, not on depriving people of choices (necessarily). To use either of the terms "anti-choice" OR "anti-life" are inflammatory.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;12195720]
Your perspective appears to be fully derived from "I know some people who...." Mine, on the other hand, is derived from the actual state of the foster care and adoption systems. I'm not applying any perspective to everybody. I'm simply pointing out the facts of the matter.

No, not fully derived, but I find that first-hand experience trumps most things, including statistics that can be biased and manipulated. Granted, the perspective of one person doesn't necessarily cover the majority of cases, but each of us does the best we can with what we see around us.

In many cases, that is true. Lack of education is a huge contributor. A society that simultaneously tells people (women anyways) that they are immoral if they have sex and that they are undesireable if they do not is a part of the problem. Lack of availability of contraceptives is a problem. Unwillingness of many insurance companies to properly cover prenatal and infant healthcare is a problem. The fact that maternity and paternity leave are considered to be a huge problem on companies is an issue.

And yes, lack of responsibility - specifically responsibility in planning and discussion between those who are romantically involved - is an issue.

Agreed.

If we can correct these issues, the rates of elective abortions would plummet. But banning abortion isn't the answer. Addressing these issues is.

I agree that the issues need addressing, but I see abortion as a band-aid that not only fails to solve the underlying problems, but makes it easier to put off the solution even longer.

And yet it is disturbingly prevalent.

I have seen no evidence that they are not.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I think we do agree that zealots have suspect motives, we just disagree on their numbers.

On this point, I agree. Those who feel the need to force their religious views on others are, almost invariably, weak of faith themselves.

You'll find the same sort of thing on any religious debate. I've debated with members of my own family who had an issue with my religious choices and virulently attacked them. It wasn't that they really believed the nonsense they were spouting, they just needed the validation of trying to get me to change to their belief.

Most women who have abortions were using at least one form of birth control. Failure rates are calculated in best-case scenarios, not in the real world. Not to mention the numerous things that might have happened. Perhaps her husband had a vasectomy and she had a tubal ligation but the surgery reversed itself (it does happen). Perhaps she was perfectly able to take care of another child when she conceived, but now her husband has died/left her or she's lost her job. There are two many possibilities - too many actual occurences - to simply try and dismiss them out of hand.

Frankly, I think the highest failure rate in birth control is improper use. Condoms are notorious for that. Maybe this can be placed in the education column. This is why abstinence = good.

Typically, people who shouldn't reasonably HAVE to practice abstinence, liek married couples or monogamous couples who are committed, can rely on more reliable forms of birth control than condoms. The examples you cited above are good examples, but occurrences of both are pretty rare.

Most abortions that are done for women who were on birth control at the time of conception are in cases where that birth control was condoms that were either used improperly or broke. Chances are, if that's the case, we're not talking about a committed couple and therefore a couple who probably should have abstained.

Selfishness. Believe it or not, there are very selfish people out there who want what they want, and they want it now. While some such people can change, many of them should never have children, as they are incapable of the self-sacrifice that is necessary.

true, and shouldn't be having sex either.

I'm not painting abortion as any such thing, either. But I know how difficult this type of decision can be on a woman. I know how one thing can happen that shatters her entire view of her life and makes her rethink everything. I've known a woman who, even though she feels that she made the right choice, she still cries for the child who might have been every Mother's Day.

These women make difficult life choices - and the choices are sometimes ones that we don't agree with - but demonizing them over it is pointless. Maybe the better solution is adoption. Maybe it isn't. But none of us are in the position to make that choice until we are pregnant. This isn't a world where the streets are paved with gold and chocolate rains from the sky. It's the real world. And, however we get to that point, sometimes we are faced with a situation where every choice is a crappy one, and all we can do is try to choose the least crappy.

We agree, but not on the available options.

And hey, I'm not a fool. I know abortion clinics aren't smiling happy places that people eagerly look forward to visiting. I've done the reasearch and I've known women who have gone. I am as well aware of the emotional issues as any person can be who hasn't done it themselves. That's why it mystifies me that more people don't see this as something to be avoided. You've probably noticed how derisive people can get when one suggests abstinence or other solutions, as if abortion was really the only option worth considering... and yet the process itself and its aftermath is something that any sane person would dread having to go through.

I mean, hasn't it occurred to people that that very thing is one of the factors behind th epro-life movement? It's because we KNOW the emotional impact. We KNOW how it can lead to depression and guilt. We just don't understand why people don't look at those problems and see it as proof that abortion is a BAD THING.

And I'm glad you see it as a crappy option. I do too. I just don't see it as an option at all because I believe that it takes a life, and that isn't justifiable in the vast majority of cases.

The Lone Alliance

10-01-2007, 22:16

2)Fewer unwanted pregnancies took place in the first place, because of (dare I say it?) abstinence!
So you want to FORCE people not to have sex. hmm... Good luck with that.

Abstinence is part of the problem. It can not and will never be useful teaching.

Those who preach abstinence are simply reinforcing the whole "Sex is immoral" system.

Abstinence education in the US, ignores Birth control and protected sex, and basicly tells everyone to be good little (Insert Religion)s and to not have sex.

90% of the time, it won't work.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 22:22

So you want to FORCE people not to have sex. hmm... Good luck with that.

if the grounds for your point are so weak you have to mis-quote or twist my words, then I invite you to re-evaluate your position honestly.

What I said:

Maybe the system wouldn't be so overburdened if:
1)More people raised their own child where possible
2)Fewer unwanted pregnancies took place in the first place, because of (dare I say it?) abstinence!

Where did I say anything about force?

Dempublicents1

10-01-2007, 22:23

So yes, I know that healthy infant white kids are easier to get parents for, but there are factors involved and it's not fair to say it's simply because people are just being elitist.

I didn't say "elitist". I simply pointed out that part of the reason that prospective parents often have to wait quite a while is that they are waiting for that healthy, white infant. It isn't that the system is keeping them from adopting, it's that they are waiting for a specific type of child.

I'll say this but I don't htink we should spend a whole lot of time going back and forth on terms, but you said it's wrong to call a pro-choice believer "anti-life" because their belief focuses on the choice, not that they want to see babies aborted (necessarily). Well, the same logic applies to pro-life. The focus is on the preservation of life, not on depriving people of choices (necessarily). To use either of the terms "anti-choice" OR "anti-life" are inflammatory.

Yes, necessarily. The method of "preservation of life" is "depriving people of choices."

Like I said, it would be improper to call the two political camps (those who wish to make abortion illegal and those who do not) "pro-life" and "pro-choice." The fact that it is possible to be both means that one must be a poor descriptor. In this case, it is "pro-life" that is a poor descriptor. The fact that a person is opposed to abortion does not mean that they wish to make it illegal. To properly describe that position, you need a term to do so.

I agree that the issues need addressing, but I see abortion as a band-aid that not only fails to solve the underlying problems, but makes it easier to put off the solution even longer.

Only because people are so busy fighting it instead of addressing the underlying issues. If those who spend so much time protesting outside women's clinics would start contributing to solving the other issues, they'd get solved much faster. Interestingly enough, those who are pro-choice are generally already involved in such things - pushing for comprehensive sex ed, easy access to contraceptives, responsible sexual conduct, etc., etc. And they could spend much more time doing it if they weren't constantly being attacked as "baby-killers" and needing to go to court to block legislation that would outlaw safe medical procedures used when an abortion is carried out for medical reasons.

Frankly, I think the highest failure rate in birth control is improper use. Condoms are notorious for that. Maybe this can be placed in the education column.

Probably. But nobody is perfect. I'm well aware that the birth control pill is most effective if taken at the exact same time of day every day, and I definitely try to do this. But I sometimes end up taking it earlier or later. On rare occasions, I end up missing a pill altogether. It isn't that I'm a horrible, irresponsible person. It's that I'm human, and I make mistakes.

Typically, people who shouldn't reasonably HAVE to practice abstinence, liek married couples or monogamous couples who are committed, can rely on more reliable forms of birth control than condoms. The examples you cited above are good examples, but occurrences of both are pretty rare.

What methods of birth control can a married couple practice that an unmarried couple cannot?

Most abortions that are done for women who were on birth control at the time of conception are in cases where that birth control was condoms that were either used improperly or broke. Chances are, if that's the case, we're not talking about a committed couple and therefore a couple who probably should have abstained.

Eh? Committed couples don't use condoms and never have issues with them? That's funny. My fiance and I certainly used condoms for quite a while, and we were as committed as any couple.....

true, and shouldn't be having sex either.

Isn't it a bit unreasonable to think that a person who is unfit to raise a child is also unfit to live a full life that includes a romantic relationship?

And hey, I'm not a fool. I know abortion clinics aren't smiling happy places that people eagerly look forward to visiting. I've done the reasearch and I've known women who have gone. I am as well aware of the emotional issues as any person can be who hasn't done it themselves. That's why it mystifies me that more people don't see this as something to be avoided.

The vast majority of people see it as something to be avoided. I've only met a few people in my life who are like, "Hey, there should be more abortions!" Most people will tell you that the best thing is to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

You've probably noticed how derisive people can get when one suggests abstinence or other solutions, as if abortion was really the only option worth considering... and yet the process itself and its aftermath is something that any sane person would dread having to go through.

It isn't that "abortion is the only option worth considering." It's simply that the people who blurt out "ABSTINENCE!" like saying it over and over again is going to do something are being entirely impractical. People are going to have sex. Sometimes, irresponsible people are going to have sex. Sometimes, otherwise responsible people are going to have irresponsible sex. Sometimes, responsible people are going to weigh the odds and decide to have sex, even if they don't want children. This is the reality of the world, and it is silly to ignore it.

Once you are already pregnant, "ABSTINENCE!!!" doesn't help much, now does it?

And I'm glad you see it as a crappy option. I do too. I just don't see it as an option at all because I believe that it takes a life, and that isn't justifiable in the vast majority of cases.

I don't see it as an option in most cases either. And, if I am pregnant, that is my choice to make. I have already ruled out that option except in the most extreme of cases, and I live my life accordingly. When you're pregnant, that is your choice to make. And when Jane Doe is pregnant, that's her choice to make.

Dempublicents1

10-01-2007, 22:28

So you want to FORCE people not to have sex. hmm... Good luck with that.

Abstinence is part of the problem. It can not and will never be useful teaching.

Those who preach abstinence are simply reinforcing the whole "Sex is immoral" system.

Abstinence education in the US, ignores Birth control and protected sex, and basicly tells everyone to be good little (Insert Religion)s and to not have sex.

90% of the time, it won't work.

I think that what you are meaning to refer to is "abstinence-only" education, which is an irresponsible system that, for all its proponents think they are going to stop teenage sex, actually ends up leading to higher rates of teenage STDs and pregnancies. Abstinence-only education is a bit like refraining from teaching children how to use a fire extinguisher or call the fire department, because they shouldn't be playing with matches anyways....

Abstinence can certainly be part of a comprehensive sex education plan, however. There are many reasons that most teens shouldn't be sexually active and there are also many reasons that many teens think they cannot abstain. Both should be addressed in a truly comprehensive sex ed class.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 22:48

I didn't say "elitist". I simply pointed out that part of the reason that prospective parents often have to wait quite a while is that they are waiting for that healthy, white infant. It isn't that the system is keeping them from adopting, it's that they are waiting for a specific type of child.
Fine, but what I'm saying is that there woul dbe a lot more adoptions taking place if the process were simplified and made less expensive.

Yes, necessarily. The method of "preservation of life" is "depriving people of choices."

Like I said, it would be improper to call the two political camps (those who wish to make abortion illegal and those who do not) "pro-life" and "pro-choice." The fact that it is possible to be both means that one must be a poor descriptor. In this case, it is "pro-life" that is a poor descriptor. The fact that a person is opposed to abortion does not mean that they wish to make it illegal. To properly describe that position, you need a term to do so.
I disagree. To call someone "anti-choice" is to move the focus of their argument away from preserving life and toward limting choices for its own sake. I strongly disagree with the Pro-Choice position, but I acknowledge that people who take that position aren't about killing, they're about preservging what they perceive to be a legitimate choice.

If you refuse to make a similar acknowledgement about those who are Pro-life, at least not the extremists, then you're being unfair.

Only because people are so busy fighting it instead of addressing the underlying issues. If those who spend so much time protesting outside women's clinics would start contributing to solving the other issues, they'd get solved much faster. Interestingly enough, those who are pro-choice are generally already involved in such things - pushing for comprehensive sex ed, easy access to contraceptives, responsible sexual conduct, etc., etc. And they could spend much more time doing it if they weren't constantly being attacked as "baby-killers" and needing to go to court to block legislation that would outlaw safe medical procedures used when an abortion is carried out for medical reasons.

You'd be surprised to find that most pro-life adherents have no problem with abortion when medically necessary, just FYI.

And as for the rest... You're now blaming pro-life supporters for all of the ills that are essentially symptoms of the same problems that contribute to the number of elective abortions. That's ridiculous.

A lot of your arguments seem to be based on the perception that the vast and overwhelming majority of pro-life advocates are virulent, rabid religious zealots out to impose themselves on the world. You paint them as control freaks who are so myopic they can't see the forest through the trees.

Reality: No. I am aware that there is a vocal minority who are like that, but I categorize them along with the ilk that protest at funerals for gay soldiers and who go from day to day trying to beat people over the heads with Bibles. To paint every one of us as being like that would be like me characterizing all homosexual men as being like Jack on Will & Grace. It's insulting, it's inaccurate and it doesn't do any good in establishing real and useful dialogue.

Probably. But nobody is perfect. I'm well aware that the birth control pill is most effective if taken at the exact same time of day every day, and I definitely try to do this. But I sometimes end up taking it earlier or later. On rare occasions, I end up missing a pill altogether. It isn't that I'm a horrible, irresponsible person. It's that I'm human, and I make mistakes.

Fine. My fiancee forgets hers sometimes too. But at the same time, we're emotionally prepared for what can happen as a result. Financially, not really prepared but we're confident we could handle it. If it were really that awful if she were to get pregnant now, then we'd supplement the pill with something else, or find some way to help her remember it better.

In any case, we wouldn't punish our unborn child for our mistake.

What methods of birth control can a married couple practice that an unmarried couple cannot?

Eh? Committed couples don't use condoms and never have issues with them? That's funny. My fiance and I certainly used condoms for quite a while, and we were as committed as any couple.....

Let me rephrase my point to make it more clear. I said that committed couples (in general) tend to rely on more reliable methods. Most casual encounters rely on condoms, not only to prevent pregnancy but to avoid STDs.

Isn't it a bit unreasonable to think that a person who is unfit to raise a child is also unfit to live a full life that includes a romantic relationship?
If they're unwilling to face the potential result, then yes. There's nothing wrong with holding to a standard.

The vast majority of people see it as something to be avoided. I've only met a few people in my life who are like, "Hey, there should be more abortions!" Most people will tell you that the best thing is to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Most people will, but then there's a chunk of the population that plays it fast and loose because they know that if they should happen to get pregnant, they have a simple solution. (Simple as opposed to carrying the child.)

It isn't that "abortion is the only option worth considering." It's simply that the people who blurt out "ABSTINENCE!" like saying it over and over again is going to do something are being entirely impractical. People are going to have sex. Sometimes, irresponsible people are going to have sex. Sometimes, otherwise responsible people are going to have irresponsible sex. Sometimes, responsible people are going to weigh the odds and decide to have sex, even if they don't want children. This is the reality of the world, and it is silly to ignore it.

Once you are already pregnant, "ABSTINENCE!!!" doesn't help much, now does it?
Not ignoring it... But I'm not unwilling to just dismiss abstinence as an option just because of those problems. The mentality "I can't stop my teenage son/daughter from having sex so I'm just going to do my best to keep them safe" is foolish. The fact is, parents have a LOT more control than they're willing to use.

I have a son who's now a teenager, and he's been told already that he can bring his girlfriends home and hang out up in his room if they want to, but the bedroom door will remain WIDE OPEN when they're up there and he can't bring them home if no adults are present.

Might he disobey and find a way to have sex with a girl? Yeah, it's possible. This is why I supplement the "birds and the bees" talk with the information that would mitigate any unplanned pregnancies or STDs. In other words, I approach it from two fronts.

Too often parents just give up and admit that they have no control, which a teen essentially interprets as encouragement or at the very least, permission. Believe it or not, it makes a difference.

I don't see it as an option in most cases either. And, if I am pregnant, that is my choice to make. I have already ruled out that option except in the most extreme of cases, and I live my life accordingly. When you're pregnant, that is your choice to make. And when Jane Doe is pregnant, that's her choice to make.

The reason I disagree with that philosophy is that we're not talking about JUST the body of a woman. If we were, then I'd be right beside you agreeing completely. As it is, we're not. We're also talking about another human who isn't given a choice or a voice. Pro-Life people advocate for them.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 22:53

So you want to FORCE people not to have sex. hmm... Good luck with that.

Abstinence is part of the problem. It can not and will never be useful teaching.

Those who preach abstinence are simply reinforcing the whole "Sex is immoral" system.

Abstinence education in the US, ignores Birth control and protected sex, and basicly tells everyone to be good little (Insert Religion)s and to not have sex.

90% of the time, it won't work.

Wow so you had time to edit your post but not address my reply. Cool.

Abstinence is not part of the probelm. Abstinence needn't be tied to morality. Don't people have reasons enough to be abstinent? Unwanted pregnancy, STDs, emotional issues, date rape... None of which has anything to do with sin or religion.

And WHAT Abstinence education? Most schools that teach sex ed emphasize birth control procedures as if it were a foregone conclusion that these kids are going to do it, in effect granting permission. People in that age bracket aren't emotionally equipped to make decisions like that yet and here we are teaching them how.

I used to work with the youth in my church and I can tell you from direct observational experience that abstinence CAN be taught and successfully adhered to. And yes, it was in a church because churches are among the last remaining groups that are still willing to try it. Not by using guilt, but by telling it like it is. Making the decision to become sexually active is a BIG decision and there are results and rammifications. Most people like to ignore that.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 22:54

I think that what you are meaning to refer to is "abstinence-only" education, which is an irresponsible system that, for all its proponents think they are going to stop teenage sex, actually ends up leading to higher rates of teenage STDs and pregnancies. Abstinence-only education is a bit like refraining from teaching children how to use a fire extinguisher or call the fire department, because they shouldn't be playing with matches anyways....

Abstinence can certainly be part of a comprehensive sex education plan, however. There are many reasons that most teens shouldn't be sexually active and there are also many reasons that many teens think they cannot abstain. Both should be addressed in a truly comprehensive sex ed class.

Agreed.

Compulsive Depression

10-01-2007, 22:59

Abstinence is not part of the probelm. Abstinence needn't be tied to morality. Don't people have reasons enough to be abstinent? Unwanted pregnancy, STDs, emotional issues, date rape... None of which has anything to do with sin or religion.

Surely, in that case, one party has chosen abstinence?

Arthais101

10-01-2007, 23:02

I don't doubt that you've debated with people who dehumanize such women, but I don't.

The minute you argue that women should lose fundamental human rights because you disagree with how they exercise those rights is the minute you dehumanize women.

Sorry, but denying human rights is pretty much the definition of dehumanizing.

Dempublicents1

10-01-2007, 23:12

I disagree. To call someone "anti-choice" is to move the focus of their argument away from preserving life and toward limting choices for its own sake.

Not at all. Perhaps if you looked at it in a less limited context, but it's pretty clear in most discussions that you are specifically discussing the topic of abortion. A person who wishes to ban abortion isn't likely to be any more anti-abortion than many who are pro-choice. They aren't likely to value life any more than many who are pro-choice. The only point on which they differ is on whether or not the choice should be there. Thus, in this context, a person who wants to remove the option, is anti-choice. They do not wish for the choice to be available.

If you refuse to make a similar acknowledgement about those who are Pro-life, at least not the extremists, then you're being unfair.

I am pro-life in regards to abortion, so I know what the term means. What it doesn't mean, is that I want to legislate my viewpoint. A different term is necessary to denote someone who does wish to legislate that viewpoint.

You'd be surprised to find that most pro-life adherents have no problem with abortion when medically necessary, just FYI.

Why would I be surprised by that?

And as for the rest... You're now blaming pro-life supporters for all of the ills that are essentially symptoms of the same problems that contribute to the number of elective abortions. That's ridiculous.

No, I'm blaming them for being a part of the problem, rather than the solution. The problems are there whether we have protesters at women's clinics are not. The problems are there whether we have people marching on Washington or not.

I expect the same thing from these people that I would expect from anyone. If you really think abortion is a bad thing, be a part of the solution.

It's pretty clear that standing outside abortion clinics with pictures of late-term fetuses and calling women "baby-killers" isn't going to do it. Considering the fact that abortions have happened throughout history - even during the brief period of history in which they were widely illegal - making laws against it isn't going to do it. If you want to prevent abortions, then be a part of preventing the need for the decision at all.

A lot of your arguments seem to be based on the perception that the vast and overwhelming majority of pro-life advocates are virulent, rabid religious zealots out to impose themselves on the world. You paint them as control freaks who are so myopic they can't see the forest through the trees.

When "pro-life" means "I want to impose my religious beliefs upon others through legislation," that's pretty much the case. They are trying to take their own beliefs and force others to adhere to them. Instead of addressing reality as it is, they either suggest that every woman who would consider abortion help further overburden the foster care and adoption systems or think that the phrase, "Welll, she should have been abstinent," will somehow solve the problem. How can one be more myopic?

Let me rephrase my point to make it more clear. I said that committed couples (in general) tend to rely on more reliable methods. Most casual encounters rely on condoms, not only to prevent pregnancy but to avoid STDs.

And I don't think you really have anything to back that up. Plenty of women who have casual sex are on the birth control pill, or couple it with some other form of contraceptive. A man pretty much only has the option of a condom, but there are many options out there for women, and she will quite often use more than one of them - regardless of whether it is casual or committed sexual contact.

If they're unwilling to face the potential result, then yes. There's nothing wrong with holding to a standard.

And here, you end up pushing those who wish to have long-term, stable romantic relationships to believe that they must have children, even if they are not going to be good parents.

It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that people who should not or do not want to have children shouldn't seek emotional fulfillment in their lives. Now, I would argue that such a person should be sterilized, but most doctors simply won't perform such procedures on men or women who are young and childless. And even then, some of the procedures have a pesky chance of reversing themselves...

Most people will, but then there's a chunk of the population that plays it fast and loose because they know that if they should happen to get pregnant, they have a simple solution. (Simple as opposed to carrying the child.)

Yeah, a tiny chunk.

Not ignoring it... But I'm not unwilling to just dismiss abstinence as an option just because of those problems. The mentality "I can't stop my teenage son/daughter from having sex so I'm just going to do my best to keep them safe" is foolish. The fact is, parents have a LOT more control than they're willing to use.

Really? Unless they can watch their teen every second of every day, they cannot physically prevent sex. Oh, they can advise against it. They can even downright forbid it. But there have always been teenagers having sex behind their parents' backs. There always will be.

Instruction in abstinence or protection doesn't have to be an either/or option. It is important for teens to know both things. Interestingly enough, from what I've seen, teens who are exposed to comprehensive sex ed are more likely to abstain longer. It doesn't have the "taboo" factor to them and they are much more aware of the risks

If all we tell our children is, "Don't do it!" we not only run into the "taboo" factor of making them even more likely to try, but we also leave them in the dark - unable to make a responsible decision about whether or not to be sexually active, and what protection to use if they do.

Might he disobey and find a way to have sex with a girl? Yeah, it's possible. This is why I supplement the "birds and the bees" talk with the information that would mitigate any unplanned pregnancies or STDs. In other words, I approach it from two fronts.

Exactly.

The reason I disagree with that philosophy is that we're not talking about JUST the body of a woman. If we were, then I'd be right beside you agreeing completely. As it is, we're not. We're also talking about another human who isn't given a choice or a voice. Pro-Life people advocate for them.

Define "human being". Objectively. Do so in a way that includes embryos and early fetuses but does not include skin cells or organs. Do not use an argument from potential, as what something will become is not what it already is. Be careful to consider twins and chimeras in your definition.

When you can do this, then you'll have a reason for subjecting others to your beliefs. Until then, all you have is your own philosophy, most likely based in religion.

Of course, once you do this, you'll have to answer Bottle's argument - why no human being on the planet has the right to use a person's body against their will, but an embryo/fetus should.

As soon as you can do this,

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 23:30

Surely, in that case, one party has chosen abstinence?

Yep. Would have been better if it were both, no?

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 23:31

The minute you argue that women should lose fundamental human rights because you disagree with how they exercise those rights is the minute you dehumanize women.

Sorry, but denying human rights is pretty much the definition of dehumanizing.

Nobody has the fundamental right to kill another.

Ironically, it's your argument that dehumanizes the unborn.

Arthais101

10-01-2007, 23:32

Nobody has the fundamental right to kill another.

Ironically, it's your argument that dehumanizes the unborn.

well...yes, it does. That mainly has to do with the fact that the "unborn" aren't human.

And once we remove the "human" aspect of it, the argument of "nobody has the fundamental right to kill another" kinda loses weight the first time you eat a hamburger.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 23:42

Not at all. Perhaps if you looked at it in a less limited context, but it's pretty clear in most discussions that you are specifically discussing the topic of abortion. A person who wishes to ban abortion isn't likely to be any more anti-abortion than many who are pro-choice. They aren't likely to value life any more than many who are pro-choice. The only point on which they differ is on whether or not the choice should be there. Thus, in this context, a person who wants to remove the option, is anti-choice. They do not wish for the choice to be available.

I am pro-life in regards to abortion, so I know what the term means. What it doesn't mean, is that I want to legislate my viewpoint. A different term is necessary to denote someone who does wish to legislate that viewpoint.
This is because, fundamentally, you and I have different worldviews on the subject. Despite the fact that personally, we would not support/have an abortion, we differ in whether it should be legal. Why? Because I see the unborn child as being a person who also has rights, and you do not. If you did, then you would see no difference between an abortion and killing a baby.

No, I'm blaming them for being a part of the problem, rather than the solution. The problems are there whether we have protesters at women's clinics are not. The problems are there whether we have people marching on Washington or not.

I expect the same thing from these people that I would expect from anyone. If you really think abortion is a bad thing, be a part of the solution.

I agree that people ought to be a part of that solution, and I try to do so myself. The problem is that people often argue that abortion is some kind of fundamental right, no different from any of the other rights that we support and defend. In doing so, those people separate abortion from being a simple society problem and turn it into an issue all its own.

It's pretty clear that standing outside abortion clinics with pictures of late-term fetuses and calling women "baby-killers" isn't going to do it. Considering the fact that abortions have happened throughout history - even during the brief period of history in which they were widely illegal - making laws against it isn't going to do it. If you want to prevent abortions, then be a part of preventing the need for the decision at all.

When abortion was illegal, the number of abortions performed was a small fraction of the ones being performed now. That counts for something.

When "pro-life" means "I want to impose my religious beliefs upon others through legislation," that's pretty much the case. They are trying to take their own beliefs and force others to adhere to them. Instead of addressing reality as it is, they either suggest that every woman who would consider abortion help further overburden the foster care and adoption systems or think that the phrase, "Welll, she should have been abstinent," will somehow solve the problem. How can one be more myopic?

It's not a purely religious idea. To me, and a good many of the people I've spoken to who agree with me, it's an idea of simple logic. When have you seen me argue from a religious point of view? When have I ever said on these forums "abortion is wrong because it's a sin?" I think it's wrong because my common sense tells me so.

And I don't think you really have anything to back that up. Plenty of women who have casual sex are on the birth control pill, or couple it with some other form of contraceptive. A man pretty much only has the option of a condom, but there are many options out there for women, and she will quite often use more than one of them - regardless of whether it is casual or committed sexual contact.
If so then there wouldn't be that many instances of elective abortion.

And here, you end up pushing those who wish to have long-term, stable romantic relationships to believe that they must have children, even if they are not going to be good parents.

I dind't say they MUST. I said they need to be prepared for the possibility of pregnancy... An event they DO have control over.

It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that people who should not or do not want to have children shouldn't seek emotional fulfillment in their lives. Now, I would argue that such a person should be sterilized, but most doctors simply won't perform such procedures on men or women who are young and childless. And even then, some of the procedures have a pesky chance of reversing themselves...

Such procedures are not impossible to attain and they don't reverse themselves nearly as often as you imply.

Yeah, a tiny chunk.

I wish that were true.

Really? Unless they can watch their teen every second of every day, they cannot physically prevent sex. Oh, they can advise against it. They can even downright forbid it. But there have always been teenagers having sex behind their parents' backs. There always will be.

I addressed this already.

Define "human being". Objectively. Do so in a way that includes embryos and early fetuses but does not include skin cells or organs. Do not use an argument from potential, as what something will become is not what it already is. Be careful to consider twins and chimeras in your definition.

I'm not belaboring that point. If you think so little of an unborn child then why are you oppsed to abortion personally?

When you can do this, then you'll have a reason for subjecting others to your beliefs. Until then, all you have is your own philosophy, most likely based in religion.
if I'm subjecting people to my beliefs then so are you for supporting laws illegalizing robbery, murder and rape. After all, who are you to tell other people what to do?

Of course, once you do this, you'll have to answer Bottle's argument - why no human being on the planet has the right to use a person's body against their will, but an embryo/fetus should.
Bottle's argument would hold water if an unborn baby were some kind of hostile alien parasite that invades a woman's body. It isn't.

Neo Bretonnia

10-01-2007, 23:43

well...yes, it does. That mainly has to do with the fact that the "unborn" aren't human.

And once we remove the "human" aspect of it, the argument of "nobody has the fundamental right to kill another" kinda loses weight the first time you eat a hamburger.

People who support elective abortion MUST dehumanize the unborn baby because it's the only way to rationalize the action. You form that opinion as a result of your support of abortion, not the other way around.

Compulsive Depression

10-01-2007, 23:54

Yep. Would have been better if it were both, no?

Certainly for the victim, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say...
Um, that date rape wouldn't occur if people were told to abstain from sex?
I'm honestly flummoxed.

well...yes, it does. That mainly has to do with the fact that the "unborn" aren't human.

That's not true. A human embryo is human. So are cancer cells (in a human. Cancer in a dog wouldn't be, obviously). Not a "person", in many peope's opinions, but quite human. This was brought up earlier in the thread, forget where though.

Dempublicents1

11-01-2007, 00:26

This is because, fundamentally, you and I have different worldviews on the subject. Despite the fact that personally, we would not support/have an abortion, we differ in whether it should be legal. Why? Because I see the unborn child as being a person who also has rights, and you do not. If you did, then you would see no difference between an abortion and killing a baby.

It wouldn't matter if I did think abortion was "killing a baby". The fact of the matter remains: There is no objective definitely of "human person" that includes the embryo and early fetus that does not also include many things that we do not consider to be human person's - like human bladders. Even if, in my subjective opinion, abortion were an evil, evil action that involved killing a human person, it would still be based in an entirely subjective definition of "human person" that would basically boil down to, "It is because I say it is." As such, I still would not have any right to enforce that opinion upon others.

When abortion was illegal, the number of abortions performed was a small fraction of the ones being performed now. That counts for something.

Do you really think so? Anyone with the money still had abortions. They paid doctors to mislabel it on a chart, left the country for a while, or concocted a medical reason. The only population in which there is any evidence for an increased rate of abortion is the poor - because they actually have access to it now.

It's not a purely religious idea. To me, and a good many of the people I've spoken to who agree with me, it's an idea of simple logic. When have you seen me argue from a religious point of view? When have I ever said on these forums "abortion is wrong because it's a sin?" I think it's wrong because my common sense tells me so.

Your common sense, eh? And yet you refuse to back it up with any actual logic. Your so-called "logic" has been, "Because I say so." In the end, it all boils down to your philosophical and religious viewpoint on what equates to a human person and what level of protection specific human persons should receive.

If so then there wouldn't be that many instances of elective abortion.

Why not? I've known more than one woman using multiple forms of birth control who got pregnant.

I dind't say they MUST. I said they need to be prepared for the possibility of pregnancy... An event they DO have control over.

They are prepared for the possibility of a pregnancy. In the case of someone who would abort, they have decided to end any possible pregnancy.

Such procedures are not impossible to attain and they don't reverse themselves nearly as often as you imply.

You'd be surprised just how nearly impossible they are for a 20-something to obtain. Doctors are all too often convinced that it's just a phase that the person is going through and that they will actually want children later that they generally refuse to carry them out, fearing a later lawsuit.

And it doesn't matter how often these procedures reverse themselves. The point is that they do. Even a person who has been medically sterilized has a chance of ending up with an unplanned pregnancy.

I wish that were true.

What reason do you have to believe that it isn't?

I'm not belaboring that point. If you think so little of an unborn child then why are you oppsed to abortion personally?

Who said I think little of the unborn? From an emotional viewpoint, were I to find out tomorrow that I am pregnant, the entity growing within me would, to my mind, be a baby - period. If I were to miscarry or have a medical necessity to abort, it would be like losing an actual infant. From a scientific viewpoint, I recognize that this emotional reaction is my own subjective reaction, and many don't share it. An embryo doesn't even meet all the biological requirements to be considered an organism, much less a human being.

Your problem is that you don't want to recognize that your opinions and your values are subjective. You cannot objectively demonstrate them. I have no problem recognizing this fact. I have my own subjective opinions, and I will live by them. But unless I can objectively demonstrate them to be true, I'm not going to try and enforce them on others.

Subjectively, I think that sex should be confined to a committed, loving relationship between two people. But there is no way to objectively demonstrate this. So, I don't try and legislate against casual sex or multiple partners.

In the end, it seems as if you are falling victim to exactly what we described earlier - you need validation for your opinion. You can't get it from any objective source, so you seek to force it upon others.

if I'm subjecting people to my beliefs then so are you for supporting laws illegalizing robbery, murder and rape. After all, who are you to tell other people what to do?

Ah, there is one major difference there. I can objectively demonstrate that those actions harm another human being, rather than a potential human being which I subjectively place value on.

Bottle's argument would hold water if an unborn baby were some kind of hostile alien parasite that invades a woman's body. It isn't.

Actually, Bottle's argument completely relies upon the unborn being human. If I cannot even force you to donate blood to keep me alive (and bear in mind that I am objectively a human person), something which would cause no major pain or lasting changes to your body and from which you would recover completely in pretty much no time at all, because of your own human rights, why on Earth should any human being have the right to take over another's body, co-opt their organ systems, and cause a great deal of pain and lasting changes that can affect their health for the rest of their lives?

Arthais101

11-01-2007, 00:30

People who support elective abortion MUST dehumanize the unborn baby because it's the only way to rationalize the action. You form that opinion as a result of your support of abortion, not the other way around.

not at all, in fact I can even keep my pro choice position even theoretically conceeding the fact that the "unborn" is a person (I don't in practice however).

And it works something like this. No human being, NONE, none what so ever, has the right to use another human being's body without that person's consent.

Thus even if the fetus is a fully fledged person, and has all the human rights of a person, it also has all the human limitations of a person, which includes an absence of right to utilize another person's body without the consent of that person.

And if the host choses to eject that person from his or her body since she has withdrawn her consent, then that human being thus ejected may continue to do whatever it wishes once ejected. The fact that all it may do is die is not the fault of the prior host. If you find it objectionable that the unborn human can not continue to live once it is ejected from the unwilling host, take that up with god.

Arthais101

11-01-2007, 00:32

Bottle's argument would hold water if an unborn baby were some kind of hostile alien parasite that invades a woman's body. It isn't.

alien in the sense that it comes from another planet it is not. Alien in the sense that it is not a part of the woman's body it is. But since we're dealing with humans here the first definition of "alien" is rather pointless in the discussion.

Parasite it most certainly is, by every textbook definition of the word.

And when has the requirement ever been that it need be hostile?

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 01:01

alien in the sense that it comes from another planet it is not. Alien in the sense that it is not a part of the woman's body it is. But since we're dealing with humans here the first definition of "alien" is rather pointless in the discussion.

Parasite it most certainly is, by every textbook definition of the word.

And when has the requirement ever been that it need be hostile?

Not to sound unkind, but the idea that a fetus is a parasite is utterly idiotic.

A woman's body goes to extraordinary lengths to protect and nourish the baby inside it. In fact, it's the woman's body that begins construction in the first place.

But once again, if this is what you have to believe in order to dehumanize that baby...

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 01:05

not at all, in fact I can even keep my pro choice position even theoretically conceeding the fact that the "unborn" is a person (I don't in practice however).

And it works something like this. No human being, NONE, none what so ever, has the right to use another human being's body without that person's consent.

Thus even if the fetus is a fully fledged person, and has all the human rights of a person, it also has all the human limitations of a person, which includes an absence of right to utilize another person's body without the consent of that person.

And if the host choses to eject that person from his or her body since she has withdrawn her consent, then that human being thus ejected may continue to do whatever it wishes once ejected. The fact that all it may do is die is not the fault of the prior host. If you find it objectionable that the unborn human can not continue to live once it is ejected from the unwilling host, take that up with god.

That's idiotic too. That's like saying that since I have a right to decide who can and can't be a guest in my high-rise apartment, and decide at some point that a person is no longer welcome there, then I can shove him out of the window because, after all, nobody has a right to be in my apartment even if I previously gave consent to let them be there. The fact that the person will probably die as a result is not my fault. If you find the fact that humans can't fly objectionable, take that up with God.

P.S. If you think the analogy is flawed because I have a perfectly safe front door, then pretend the front door has been welded shut. Does that make it any more justifiable?

Arthais101

11-01-2007, 01:18

Not to sound unkind, but the idea that a fetus is a parasite is utterly idiotic.

definition of a parasite: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of

Now what part of that definition doesn't apply? If you find it dehumanizing that's your particular state of mind, however under every proper technical definition, a fetus is a parasite.

Arthais101

11-01-2007, 01:21

That's idiotic too. That's like saying that since I have a right to decide who can and can't be a guest in my high-rise apartment, and decide at some point that a person is no longer welcome there, then I can shove him out of the window because, after all, nobody has a right to be in my apartment even if I previously gave consent to let them be there. The fact that the person will probably die as a result is not my fault. If you find the fact that humans can't fly objectionable, take that up with God.

Not at all. You do have the right to remove anyone you no longer find welcome in your property at any time. However you have an obligation to do so in a way that would cause the least amount of harm. In other words you can't throw out the window when a door will do.

If however you can find a way of taking a fetus out of a body without...you know...taking it out of the body, I will fully endorse that method.

There is only one way to remove a fetus from a host, and that is to remove it. If the fetus can live after its removal then you certainly have an obligation to do it in a way that will maximize the chances of its survival (if we're still operating under the belief that it's a person).

If however no possible method will keep it alive, then the most expedient method is fine

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 01:33

It wouldn't matter if I did think abortion was "killing a baby". The fact of the matter remains: There is no objective definitely of "human person" that includes the embryo and early fetus that does not also include many things that we do not consider to be human person's - like human bladders. Even if, in my subjective opinion, abortion were an evil, evil action that involved killing a human person, it would still be based in an entirely subjective definition of "human person" that would basically boil down to, "It is because I say it is." As such, I still would not have any right to enforce that opinion upon others.

Sophistry. The onus isn't on the baby to prove that he or she is human, the onus is on those who would destroy him/her to prove they aren't.

If you're going to get into the business of trying to stamp an ironclad definition then you've got an uphill battle. Even the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion admits that they couldn't define at what point the fetus becomes a person, and so they simply set an arbitrary number of weeks.

Do you really think so? Anyone with the money still had abortions. They paid doctors to mislabel it on a chart, left the country for a while, or concocted a medical reason. The only population in which there is any evidence for an increased rate of abortion is the poor - because they actually have access to it now.

Ah so poor people don't count. I happen to think that they count just as much as the children of the rich... But then I don't have to dehumanize anyone to make my point stand.

Your common sense, eh? And yet you refuse to back it up with any actual logic. Your so-called "logic" has been, "Because I say so." In the end, it all boils down to your philosophical and religious viewpoint on what equates to a human person and what level of protection specific human persons should receive.

What do you want me to back it up with? You want a chart that tracks a pregnancy and establishes some arbitrary place where they cease to be a worthless bunch of cells and start to be a human? My fiancee' was born something like 9 week premature, a time when in some places it's still legal to abort. Was she not a human then? What about after she was born? Biologically no different from babies that were still in the womb about to be aborted. What exactly do you want for backup?

Why not? I've known more than one woman using multiple forms of birth control who got pregnant.

That sounds unlikely. The odds being slim and all. At least, if the birth control methods were being used correctly.

They are prepared for the possibility of a pregnancy. In the case of someone who would abort, they have decided to end any possible pregnancy.

Which, as I've said, is a copout.

You'd be surprised just how nearly impossible they are for a 20-something to obtain. Doctors are all too often convinced that it's just a phase that the person is going through and that they will actually want children later that they generally refuse to carry them out, fearing a later lawsuit.

And it doesn't matter how often these procedures reverse themselves. The point is that they do. Even a person who has been medically sterilized has a chance of ending up with an unplanned pregnancy.

There's a big difference between a procedure that reverses itself 75% of the time and one that reverses itself only a few times. You can't take an incident that is rare and apply it as a major factor.

What reason do you have to believe that it isn't?

Personal experience and supplemental research.

Who said I think little of the unborn? From an emotional viewpoint, were I to find out tomorrow that I am pregnant, the entity growing within me would, to my mind, be a baby - period. If I were to miscarry or have a medical necessity to abort, it would be like losing an actual infant. From a scientific viewpoint, I recognize that this emotional reaction is my own subjective reaction, and many don't share it. An embryo doesn't even meet all the biological requirements to be considered an organism, much less a human being.

Neither do people on life support, in some cases. Does that make them less a human?

And I'm sorry but if you sincerely, honestly truly believe that a baby growing inside you is a baby, a human baby, then so id that growing in every other woman's womb, and that being the case, abortion = infanticide. If you truly see it as infanticide then you'd agree it should be illegal.

Your problem is that you don't want to recognize that your opinions and your values are subjective. You cannot objectively demonstrate them. I have no problem recognizing this fact. I have my own subjective opinions, and I will live by them. But unless I can objectively demonstrate them to be true, I'm not going to try and enforce them on others.

If my opinions are meaningless simply because you call them subjective, then so are opinions that believe murder, robbery and rape should be illegal. It's very simple logic.

Premise 1:An unborn baby is a human being
Premise 2:It is wrong to kill a human being
Conclusion:Abortion is wrong.

It's really that simple. Where you and I disagree is on the validity of premise 1. We'd have to, because I don't think you'd be in favor of legalizing murder. Therefore for us to disagree then premise 1 must be the point of contention.

What you've done is taken the easy way out. You know abortion to be what it is, the killing of a baby, but you stop short of saying that it should be illegal on that basis. In a way, it puts you in a position to agree with everybody, on some level.

And that's validating, isn't it?

Subjectively, I think that sex should be confined to a committed, loving relationship between two people. But there is no way to objectively demonstrate this. So, I don't try and legislate against casual sex or multiple partners.
Same here. What's the relevance? (Although for the record, I think one could make an objective case for committed monogamy)

In the end, it seems as if you are falling victim to exactly what we described earlier - you need validation for your opinion. You can't get it from any objective source, so you seek to force it upon others.

I require no validation because I know what I know. My coming on here to express my opinion is no more a sign of a need for validation than yours is. You insist that I have no objective source, but the reality is that you've dismissed it. What can I do? I'm not going to alter my point just tto try and convince you. if I did that, then I WOULD be guilty of fishing for validation.

Ah, there is one major difference there. I can objectively demonstrate that those actions harm another human being, rather than a potential human being which I subjectively place value on.

The phrase "potential human being" is a way to dodge the reality. It makes as much sense as taking a person in a vegitative coma and refering to them as a "former human being."

Actually, Bottle's argument completely relies upon the unborn being human. If I cannot even force you to donate blood to keep me alive (and bear in mind that I am objectively a human person), something which would cause no major pain or lasting changes to your body and from which you would recover completely in pretty much no time at all, because of your own human rights, why on Earth should any human being have the right to take over another's body, co-opt their organ systems, and cause a great deal of pain and lasting changes that can affect their health for the rest of their lives?

The difference is that a person who needs a blood transfusion is in a position to choose, or not, to try and force someone to donate blood, in your example. They can, or not, try to violate you in that way.

A baby is another matter entirely. Babies don't get to make that choice. They don't get to say "well, mommy is in a really rough patch in her life right now, so maybe I shold wait a couple years" or "Wow I'd hate to cramp this lady's style so I'll just skip her and go on to someone else." No. That baby doesn't ask to be conceived, doesn't ask to be born into a crappy life or a good one. That baby is there because of a decision made by someone else. If anything, it's the woman who has dragged the baby into the situation against the baby's will, and who now imposes her will upon him/her.

But the baby can't complain. Can't defend himself/herself. Powerless. But yet people come on here and treat that child as if he/she were a parastie, an invader... some life-sucking unwanted guest and how DARE they come in and expect the woman to use her body to help them to live?

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 01:34

definition of a parasite: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of

Now what part of that definition doesn't apply? If you find it dehumanizing that's your particular state of mind, however under every proper technical definition, a fetus is a parasite.

And what about the survival of the species of the host?

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 01:36

Not at all. You do have the right to remove anyone you no longer find welcome in your property at any time. However you have an obligation to do so in a way that would cause the least amount of harm. In other words you can't throw out the window when a door will do.

If however you can find a way of taking a fetus out of a body without...you know...taking it out of the body, I will fully endorse that method.

There is only one way to remove a fetus from a host, and that is to remove it. If the fetus can live after its removal then you certainly have an obligation to do it in a way that will maximize the chances of its survival (if we're still operating under the belief that it's a person).

If however no possible method will keep it alive, then the most expedient method is fine

Convenient how you snipped off the rest o fmy post where I specifically addressed the front door issue, but hey, if you want to post in an intellectually dishonest way, who am I to stop you?

Arthais101

11-01-2007, 01:38

And what about the survival of the species of the host?

how does the presence of the fetus improve the survivability of a host?

Arthais101

11-01-2007, 01:38

Convenient how you snipped off the rest o fmy post where I specifically addressed the front door issue, but hey, if you want to post in an intellectually dishonest way, who am I to stop you?

mainly because I didn't understand what the hell you were talking about, try to make a more coherent analogy?

Bruarong

11-01-2007, 14:19

I am pro-life in regards to abortion, so I know what the term means. What it doesn't mean, is that I want to legislate my viewpoint. A different term is necessary to denote someone who does wish to legislate that viewpoint.

So you are against abortion generally, but you don't want to see it enforced. I would say most people would prefer not to see any--except people who like it as some sort of population control (and who would probably see AIDS as a good thing).

The bigger issue for most people, of course, is really about the legislation issue. I also have struggled with the legislation, unwilling to be in a situation where I am forcing others to conform to my subjective point of view. How do I know that my subjective point of view isn't wrong? But then again, who is to say that it isn't right?

If there is no point at which we can definitely say that an embryo becomes a human person, shouldn't we err on the side of caution? Shouldn't we prefer to protect the life of the unborn, even if it means the 'loss of a certain degree of autonomy for the mother'--because we cannot define what it means to be a human person? It might mean more compensation for the mother, if we take away her right to kill her unborn. Heck, I would support more compensation without hesitation. Give her money, an easy job, a home free of rent, etc., just don't kill the life.

It might be a mistake to outlaw abortions, but I feel it would be an even bigger mistake to allow them. Just look at Russia. Currently, official figures show that 60 percent of first pregnancies in Russia are medically terminated.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0828/p01s03-woeu.html

This is what happens when we don't legislate against abortion (in Russia anyway). Does that strike you as being terribly wrong? Something like 6 million lives annually. That is like having the whole Jewish holocaust every year--in terms of numbers anyway. Allowing these abortions is just not helping the problem. Rather, it perpetuates it. Because these abortions are allowed, it means that more abortions will occur.

Define "human being". Objectively. Do so in a way that includes embryos and early fetuses but does not include skin cells or organs. Do not use an argument from potential, as what something will become is not what it already is. Be careful to consider twins and chimeras in your definition.

When you can do this, then you'll have a reason for subjecting others to your beliefs. Until then, all you have is your own philosophy, most likely based in religion.

I probably couldn't define 'human being' very satisfactorily. Thus, this means that I would be even more cautious about allowing abortions. I don't want to be guilty of murder. And because I have a vote, I am responsible, to a certain degree.

Of course, once you do this, you'll have to answer Bottle's argument - why no human being on the planet has the right to use a person's body against their will, but an embryo/fetus should.

Bottle's argument isn't very good, because it fails to take into account that when the person in question happens to be the parent, that parent has an obligation to care for their child, even though it costs the parent. Current laws recognise this for children that are already born. What is it about the birth event that changes this?

Descendants of Latta

11-01-2007, 14:35

Abortion is just wrong.

Its that bit that "when does a foetus become a human"? that no one can answer part of the argument that stops and makes you think.

Then you hear from girls trying to justify the abortion by saying "well i was doing my A levels at the time and I had to make a choice"?. Its just madness and there seems to be a self perpetuating industry of psychologists, psychiatrists and medical doctors who buy into it and give some poor kid the answers that she needs at the time to justify what they know is wrong. It gives them an easy choice backed by the medical profession and the medical profession can be so reassuring about anything to make it sound an easy choice.

What about back street abortions? Yes what about them! Millions of foetuses, or, humans as they are more commonly known, have been killed because of this lunacy. Its about proportionality at the end of the day and the longer abortion goes on the more potential human beings will have been snuffed out before they began and that is just got to be wrong...the only form of legal murder known to man

Bottle

11-01-2007, 14:37

Bottle's argument isn't very good, because it fails to take into account that when the person in question happens to be the parent, that parent has an obligation to care for their child, even though it costs the parent. Current laws recognise this for children that are already born. What is it about the birth event that changes this?
Bottle's argument very specifically does take that into account, and I specifically addressed it in an earlier post. You are either being sloppy in your reading or are deliberately lying.

No parent is required to donate any part of their body to their born children. No parent is charged with neglect or abuse if they decline to donate an organ to their own child. No parent is legally prosecuted if they decline to donate blood or plasma or bone marrow or organs to save the life of their own born child.

So why should parents have a legal obligation to an embryo/fetus that exceeds any legal obligation they have to their born children?

Bottle

11-01-2007, 14:39

Not to sound unkind, but the idea that a fetus is a parasite is utterly idiotic.

Actually, it's utterly factual. A fetus is a parasite.

A woman's body goes to extraordinary lengths to protect and nourish the baby inside it. In fact, it's the woman's body that begins construction in the first place.

But once again, if this is what you have to believe in order to dehumanize that baby...
It is perfectly possible for something to be both human and a parasite. A pre-viable human fetus is both human and a parasite.

Koramerica

11-01-2007, 14:50

Eve Online

11-01-2007, 14:51

Shame on you for saying a baby is a parasite. Nine months is not a prolonged period of time.

Let's put a sandbag up your ass for nine months, and see what you think about it.

Koramerica

11-01-2007, 14:52

Let's put a sandbag up your ass for nine months, and see what you think about it.

Don't be stupid a baby is not a sandbag either and I would love to be able to get pregnet.

Compulsive Depression

11-01-2007, 14:54

usually the lifetime of one of the individuals.

"Usually". And I don't even have to paint it red.

The Lone Alliance

11-01-2007, 14:56

Parasitism: is one version of symbiosis ("living together"), a phenomenon in which two organisms which are phylogenetically unrelated co-exist over a prolonged period of time, usually the lifetime of one of the individuals. I guess that means Ticks and Fleas aren't parasites right? Since I doubt they stay on animals for a lifetime.

Koramerica

11-01-2007, 14:58

"Usually". And I don't even have to paint it red.

You are missing my point, babies are HUMAN BEINGS, and deserve to be loved and nutured ... not killed because some folks like the act of sex but not the responsiblity of it.

Koramerica

11-01-2007, 15:02

I guess that means Ticks and Fleas aren't parasites right? Since I doubt they stay on animals for a lifetime.

I'm sure both ticks and fleas would love to stay on your pet it's entire life if you allow them too. Talk about insulting, you like babies to ticks and fleas ... unbelievable!

Bottle

11-01-2007, 15:09

Parasitism: is one version of symbiosis ("living together"), a phenomenon in which two organisms which are phylogenetically unrelated co-exist over a prolonged period of time

Some parasites remain in their hosts for a matter of days. Others, for years.

Many life forms go through multiple stages in their life cycle. Many life forms have a parasite stage that is then followed by non-parasitic stages.

I think perhaps the problem is that people attach some horrible connotation to "parasite," and assume that it must be a pejorative term. I know that in my society it is an insult to call somebody a "parasite," such as when somebody is called a "parasite on society" or something like that.

However, biology does not make this kind of judgment about living things. The fact that a particular form of life is a parasite does not automatically make it "bad" or of less value than a non-parasite.

The fact that a growing embryo or fetus has a parasitic relationship to the woman in whom it is gestating does not mean that said fetus is bad or icky or wrong. It does not alter the value of the embryo or fetus, whatever that might be.

Bruarong

11-01-2007, 15:14

Bottle's argument very specifically does take that into account, and I specifically addressed it in an earlier post. You are either being sloppy in your reading or are deliberately lying.

No parent is required to donate any part of their body to their born children. No parent is charged with neglect or abuse if they decline to donate an organ to their own child. No parent is legally prosecuted if they decline to donate blood or plasma or bone marrow or organs to save the life of their own born child.

So why should parents have a legal obligation to an embryo/fetus that exceeds any legal obligation they have to their born children?

True, no parent is required to donate any part of their body to their born children, but they are required to donate a good deal of their time and money. If they fail this, it is considered neglect, and the government takes the child away. In pregnancy, the taking away is not an option (without the death of the child), thus another reason why your comparison is not fair.

Furthermore, in pregnancy, the woman's body harbours the child, but the child does not actually take an organ from the mother. Rather, new organs are generated. What is required is warmth, nutrients, time, moisture, etc.

Bruarong

11-01-2007, 15:15

Some parasites remain in their hosts for a matter of days. Others, for years.

Many life forms go through multiple stages in their life cycle. Many life forms have a parasite stage that is then followed by non-parasitic stages.

I think perhaps the problem is that people attach some horrible connotation to "parasite," and assume that it must be a pejorative term. I know that in my society it is an insult to call somebody a "parasite," such as when somebody is called a "parasite on society" or something like that.

However, biology does not make this kind of judgment about living things. The fact that a particular form of life is a parasite does not automatically make it "bad" or of less value than a non-parasite.

The fact that a growing embryo or fetus has a parasitic relationship to the woman in whom it is gestating does not mean that said fetus is bad or icky or wrong. It does not alter the value of the embryo or fetus, whatever that might be.

Next you will be describing the born child as a parasite. After all, it does suck.

Hamilay

11-01-2007, 15:19

Next you will be describing the born child as a parasite. After all, it does suck.
To my knowledge, I don't think a baby lives, grows and is sheltered on its mother's breast. :rolleyes:

Compulsive Depression

11-01-2007, 15:24

You are missing my point, babies are HUMAN BEINGS, and deserve to be loved and nutured ... not killed because some folks like the act of sex but not the responsiblity of it.

Right, babies are quite different to zygotes, embryos or foetuses. That's been discussed quite a lot, and you should go and read the thread to see the difference, as it's been described by greater minds than mine. But an abortion is no more "killing a baby" than eating an egg is killing a chicken.

Are any of these states human? Yes. All of them. That's been discussed too. A cancer is human, too, and we don't see many people bitching about chemotherapy killing poor, defenceless cancer cells.

Also, you don't get some sort of magical intrinsic value attached to your existence because of your species. The value of your existence is because of what you do, your interactions with others and your effects on the world. An embryo or foetus has little more value than an unfertilised egg, one of your sperm, or the skin cells you lost last time you scratched an itch, because it has almost no more capability of affecting people or the world than those things. I'd even go so far to argue that a foetus that causes consternation to the mother has negative value, meaning that aborting it would be better than not.

Even if you take the position that an embryo is just as much a full human person as you or I, with all the same rights, you stumble across Bottle's argument.

Even if you want to give the embryo more rights than a fully-grown human to counter that, do you really see the value of an unborn human as greater than the value of the happiness and wellbeing of conscious, aware, grown humans? Is it better that three people live in poverty than two people live in comfort? And what about the happiness of the embryo if it comes to term? Is it better to live in misery, be unwanted, or whatever, than to never exist, never even be capable of being aware that you might be capable of existing?

Bruarong

11-01-2007, 15:24

Actually, it's utterly factual. A fetus is a parasite.

That is utterly wrong. The two organisms in question must be 'phylogenetically unrelated'.

Bruarong

11-01-2007, 15:25

To my knowledge, I don't think a baby lives, grows and is sheltered on its mother's breast. :rolleyes:

It does spend a lot of it's time there. Sure, it may not need to be there all the time, but then again, the same goes for tics and fleas, doesn't it?

Hamilay

11-01-2007, 15:28

It does spend a lot of it's time there. Sure, it may not need to be there all the time, but then again, the same goes for tics and fleas, doesn't it?
Not that much time. Also, a baby doesn't need breast milk to survive. By your definition, two people who frequently kiss would be counted as parasites.

Bottle

11-01-2007, 15:31

That is utterly wrong. The two organisms in question must be 'phylogenetically unrelated'.
That is not required in the definition of a parasite.

A parasite is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism, and cannot live independently. (For a long time, this definition included that the parasite does this while not contributing to the survival of its host, but we now know that some parasites do contribute to the survival of their hosts in some ways.)

Bottle

11-01-2007, 15:33

Koramerica

11-01-2007, 15:45

Bottle

11-01-2007, 15:53

You have a right to your own opinion, but I don't have to agree with you.

Of course not. But if everybody just pouted, "I don't agree with you, so there!" then we'd have very boring threads.

I will be interested to see how you explain your position to the lord.
You can see exactly how we explain ourselves right here on this thread.

Of course, what you probably were hinting at is your eagerness to see "the lord" smite us for holding the beliefs we do. I know it's fun to fantasize about punishments being inflicted on the people you disagree with, but it really doesn't contribute anything useful to a discussion.

Koramerica

11-01-2007, 15:58

Of course not. But if everybody just pouted, "I don't agree with you, so there!" then we'd have very boring threads.

You can see exactly how we explain ourselves right here on this thread.

Of course, what you probably were hinting at is your eagerness to see "the lord" smite us for holding the beliefs we do. I know it's fun to fantasize about punishments being inflicted on the people you disagree with, but it really doesn't contribute anything useful to a discussion.

I'm sure you are going to have the attitude when speaking to the lord that you have on these forums.

Compulsive Depression

11-01-2007, 16:00

You have a right to your own opinion, but I don't have to agree with you. I will be interested to see how you explain your position to the lord.

And that's the point, isn't it? If abortion is legal, then people can choose to have one or not. If person X's god says they're wrong, person X doesn't have to have one if they get pregnant. I've not forced my view on anyone.
If abortion is illegal, then (it is intended, anyway) person X cannot have one, no matter how badly they may want one. The people who think that abortions are wrong have imposed their will on person X.

Bruarong

11-01-2007, 16:01

Right, babies are quite different to zygotes, embryos or foetuses. That's been discussed quite a lot, and you should go and read the thread to see the difference, as it's been described by greater minds than mine. But an abortion is no more "killing a baby" than eating an egg is killing a chicken.

I grew up on a farm, and my job was to feed the chickens and collect the eggs. Sometimes, the hens found a place to hide their nest, and I couldn't find them for a while. But when I did, some of the eggs turned out to have developed. When we cracked open the shell, a chicken fell into the frying pan. The chicken was not yet hatched, but we always thought of it as a chicken, nonetheless, even in the absence of the abortion debate.

Are any of these states human? Yes. All of them. That's been discussed too. A cancer is human, too, and we don't see many people bitching about chemotherapy killing poor, defenceless cancer cells.

Obviously that's because people see a difference between a cancerous lump and a human being.

Also, you don't get some sort of magical intrinsic value attached to your existence because of your species.

No, nothing magical, but it is our species.

The value of your existence is because of what you do, your interactions with others and your effects on the world.

Then I suppose a newborn baby has no value in your eyes.

An embryo or foetus has little more value than an unfertilised egg, one of your sperm, or the skin cells you lost last time you scratched an itch, because it has almost no more capability of affecting people or the world than those things. I'd even go so far to argue that a foetus that causes consternation to the mother has negative value, meaning that aborting it would be better than not.

I pretty much completely disagree with your value system. Humans are not comparable to the dollar. The value does not change depending on it's ability. The value I place on a human comes from the same source that I value myself. And I don't judge my value according to my ability to perform.

Even if you take the position that an embryo is just as much a full human person as you or I, with all the same rights, you stumble across Bottle's argument.

But Bottle seems to disregard the point that in order to sustain the high level of autonomy that she demands, someone must die--not because they are sick or in need of an organ, but because they exist. That is a long way from giving the embryo equal rights.

Even if you want to give the embryo more rights than a fully-grown human to counter that, do you really see the value of an unborn human as greater than the value of the happiness and wellbeing of conscious, aware, grown humans?

It is precisely because happiness and wellbeing don't come at the expense of another person's life that the anti-abortionists are so vocal, despite the claims that anti-abortionists are all about forcing their religious views on other people.

Is it better that three people live in poverty than two people live in comfort?

Or would you say it is better for one person to live in luxury and complete self-autonomy? See where your mathematics are leading you? Why not kill the second person while you are at it?

And what about the happiness of the embryo if it comes to term? Is it better to live in misery, be unwanted, or whatever, than to never exist, never even be capable of being aware that you might be capable of existing?

Why not just shoot every miserable looking person you come across? No wait, just ask them if they are happy to be alive first. And when they say no, well, you are doing them a favour by 'putting them out of their misery'.

I wouldn't do that because I value human life, because I am human, because that is what I think it means to be human. I don't think humanity is defined by being wanted, or any amount of happiness.

Bottle

11-01-2007, 16:03

I'm sure you are going to have the attitude when speaking to the lord that you have on these forums.
Why not?

Do you behave toward your fellow humans in a way that you'd be ashamed to behave in front of your lord?

Hamilay

11-01-2007, 16:03

I'm sure you are going to have the attitude when speaking to the lord that you have on these forums.
Huh? She's going to have attitude when speaking to the mods? :p

Bottle

11-01-2007, 16:04

Huh? She's going to have attitude when speaking to the mods? :p
Heh. If I didn't show some "attitude," they'd probably assume somebody hijacked my account! :D

Bruarong

11-01-2007, 16:07

That is not required in the definition of a parasite.

A parasite is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism, and cannot live independently. (For a long time, this definition included that the parasite does this while not contributing to the survival of its host, but we now know that some parasites do contribute to the survival of their hosts in some ways.)

Then your definition of 'parasitism' has lost it's meaning, because virtually every living thing on the planet is or has been a parasite in one form or another. Why do we have the word 'parasite' if not to distinguish one type of organism from another? Isn't it a description of a phylogenetic species?

Rave Shentavo

11-01-2007, 16:13

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 16:19

how does the presence of the fetus improve the survivability of a host?

Once more, if you're going to quote me, quote me correctly. I said the survivability of the species of the host.

Honestly, if you're not going to bother to take the time to actually read my post, then you have no business expecting me to take your posts seriously, or waste time having to repeat myself because you can't be bothered to conduct the discussion in an intellectually honest way.

Hamilay

11-01-2007, 16:23

Then your definition of 'parasitism' has lost it's meaning, because virtually every living thing on the planet is or has been a parasite in one form or another. Why do we have the word 'parasite' if not to distinguish one type of organism from another? Isn't it a description of a phylogenetic species?
a) Not organisms that live in eggs.
b) So what? Semantics. This has got to be the most posted definition ever.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source par·a·site (pār'ə-sīt') Pronunciation Key
n.
Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.
My dictionary (Penguin English) agrees.

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 16:26

No parent is required to donate any part of their body to their born children. No parent is charged with neglect or abuse if they decline to donate an organ to their own child. No parent is legally prosecuted if they decline to donate blood or plasma or bone marrow or organs to save the life of their own born child.

So why should parents have a legal obligation to an embryo/fetus that exceeds any legal obligation they have to their born children?

My god... what kind of parent would NEED to be legally compelled? Is THAT the perspective you endorse? The one that protects a parent who's so callous and self-serving that they'd decline to save their own child's life even at the expense of part of their body?

A parent who wouldn't do that for their own child is beneath contempt. I hope you have a better analogy than that. I understand that you're talking specifically form a legal standpoint.. but if your point is as strong as you think it is, then surely you must be ablle to come up with something better.

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 16:30

Actually, it's utterly factual. A fetus is a parasite.

It is perfectly possible for something to be both human and a parasite. A pre-viable human fetus is both human and a parasite.

That's your opinion. Not fact. No matter how many people you can get to agree with you on here, it doesn't move it from the opinion column to the fact column.

From where I sit, dehumanizing a fetus to the level of a mere parasite is a blatant and callous method of soothing the conscience of people who have had or who support abortions. It's what they tell themselves to keep from admitting that they're either killed or endorsed the unjust killing of defenseless human beings. In our society, crimes committed against children are considered the most heinous of all, and heaven forbid someone actually look into a mirror and admit they've done it when there's this nice convenient excuse prepackaged and ready made for them:

"A fetus is just a parasite, not a human"

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 16:31

Bottle

11-01-2007, 16:32

Then your definition of 'parasitism' has lost it's meaning, because virtually every living thing on the planet is or has been a parasite in one form or another.

?? What are you talking about?

Why do we have the word 'parasite' if not to distinguish one type of organism from another?

There are organisms that may be parasites at one stage of their life cycle, and not parasites during another stage. There are organisms which are parasites throughout their entire life cycles. There are multiple species, in multiple phyla, which are parasites. They are not the same species, but they share the quality of being parasitic.

Isn't it a description of a phylogenetic species?
No, "parasite" is not a description of a "phylogenetic species."

"Phylogenetic species" refers to species that are defined based on the sharing of synapomorphic characters. A synapomorphy is a character different organisms that is similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. Homologous characteristics, in other words.

However, there are species that do not derive their parasitic characteristics from any common ancestor. Parasitism has evolved independently in different places.

It's kind of like bat wings and bird wings; they are analogous structures that have evolved through different routes.

Bruarong

11-01-2007, 16:33

a) Not organisms that live in eggs.
b) So what? Semantics. This has got to be the most posted definition ever.

In this case, semantics is important. If the baby is a parasite, then so is the mother, because they both belong to the same species. Thus, if you are going to call the mother a parasite, then every human is. And if so, then you are in the process of changing the original intended use of the word 'parasite', not to mention generally contributing to the confusion that already exists in this debate.

But as far as organisms the live in eggs, is the fertilized chicken egg suddenly considered a chicken the moment the egg fertilized, is laid, or the moment the chick hatches? If you ask me, I couldn't tell you for sure, but I would call it a chicken the moment I cracked open the egg and saw something in there that looks more than just egg yolk and egg white. That little white fleck floating in the egg-white is a chicken to me.

At any rate, when in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Bottle

11-01-2007, 16:33

Fine. Then you've invalidated your own argument.
Which argument?

Hamilay

11-01-2007, 16:34

In this case, semantics is important. If the baby is a parasite, then so is the mother, because they both belong to the same species. Thus, if you are going to call the mother a parasite, then every human is. And if so, then you are in the process of changing the original intended use of the word 'parasite', not to mention generally contributing to the confusion that already exists in this debate.

But as far as organisms the live in eggs, is the fertilized chicken egg suddenly considered a chicken the moment the egg fertilized, is laid, or the moment the chick hatches? If you ask me, I couldn't tell you for sure, but I would call it a chicken the moment I cracked open the egg and saw something in there that looks more than just egg yolk and egg white. That little white fleck floating in the egg-white is a chicken to me.

At any rate, when in doubt, err on the side of caution.
Err, how does the mother live off the baby?

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 16:35

Bottle

11-01-2007, 16:39

That's your opinion. Not fact.

It is a fact that human embryos fit the biological definition of the word "parasite." It is also a fact that this definition does not carry the kind of value judgment in a scientific context that it does in many social contexts.

My opinion is that being a parasite does not inherently increase or decrease the "value" of any organism, including human embryos or fetuses. My opinions regarding the moral worth of embryos or fetuses are not grounded on whether or not they are parasites.

No matter how many people you can get to agree with you on here, it doesn't move it from the opinion column to the fact column.

That is true. The facts will not be changed based on how many people agree with me in an internet forum.

From where I sit, dehumanizing a fetus to the level of a mere parasite is a blatant and callous method of soothing the conscience of people who have had or who support abortions.

You appear to simply not be reading my posts.

Being aware that a fetus is a parasite does not require that the fetus be "dehumanized." It is perfectly possible for a fetus to be both human and a parasite. Indeed, that is the case. I have no desire to "dehumanize" any stage of human life. That would be silly.

It's what they tell themselves to keep from admitting that they're either killed or endorsed the unjust killing of defenseless human beings.

Ahhh, I see, you are confusing "human" with "human being."

Many things are human but are not human persons.

Of course, my stance on abortion is unchanged regardless of the "personhood" of a fetus or embryo. I am more than willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that an embryo is a full human person and entitled to the same respect and human rights as all other human persons. If that is the case, then I still maintain that a woman has the right to end her body's participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. That is completely consistent with my views on human rights.

In our society, crimes committed against children are considered the most heinous of all, and heaven forbid someone actually look into a mirror and admit they've done it when there's this nice convenient excuse prepackaged and ready made for them:

"A fetus is just a parasite, not a human"
You are the only person asserting that at the moment.

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 16:42

Which argument?

The one where you justify dehumanizing a fetus by classifying it as a parastite. If it isn't a parasite, or if it simpply doesn't matter that it is, then it becomes irrelevant to the debate.

Compulsive Depression

11-01-2007, 16:45

I'm going to snip your reply a bit, because I don't have time to craft the reply it probably deserves - and some of the points would probably just waffle off into tangent-land or "fair enough, then", like the chickens. So apologies in advance.

Obviously that's because people see a difference between a cancerous lump and a human being.
Indeed. And some people see a difference between any of the early stages of human development and a baby, child or adult.

Then I suppose a newborn baby has no value in your eyes.
Very little.
"Sir, what's the use of a newborn baby?" - Benjamin Franklin (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1048646)

The value they have is that they are capable of (not, as with an embryo, may become capable of) learning and growing. They also, often, provide happiness to their parents.

I pretty much completely disagree with your value system. Humans are not comparable to the dollar. The value does not change depending on it's ability. The value I place on a human comes from the same source that I value myself. And I don't judge my value according to my ability to perform.
Hmm. I probably didn't explain myself properly. I wasn't trying to imply that monetary was the only value (in fact, when people act that way I get quite annoyed). But I wouldn't claim that everyone has equal value at all. For instance, someone who made one person happy but earned no money would be greater in my estimation than someone who made nobody happy but earned a vast fortune. I hope that's cleared it up a little, and value is, of course, entirely subjective.

But Bottle seems to disregard the point that in order to sustain the high level of autonomy that she demands, someone must die--not because they are sick or in need of an organ, but because they exist. That is a long way from giving the embryo equal rights.
Because they are incapable of surviving on their own. That isn't the fault of the pregnant woman. But this is Bottle's argument, and she'll argue it far better than I...

Or would you say it is better for one person to live in luxury and complete self-autonomy? See where your mathematics are leading you? Why not kill the second person while you are at it?
Because the first gains more happiness from the existence of the second than the financial gains would be worth to them? People, in general, value their children.

Why not just shoot every miserable looking person you come across? No wait, just ask them if they are happy to be alive first. And when they say no, well, you are doing them a favour by 'putting them out of their misery'.

I wouldn't do that because I value human life, because I am human, because that is what I think it means to be human. I don't think humanity is defined by being wanted, or any amount of happiness.
If somebody wants to be put out of their misery I have no problem with that, the same as it's better - for the animal - to put a suffering, terminally ill animal out of its misery than force it to endure until it dies naturally. I don't see why species should make a difference to this. But that leads us to the whole suicide/euthenasia right/wrong debate.
But to relate it back to the embryo or foetus - that has no will, so its will cannot be acted on. Also, any act upon it cannot be said to be against its will, any more than rolling a stone up a hill can be said to be against the will of the stone.

Bruarong

11-01-2007, 16:46

There are organisms that may be parasites at one stage of their life cycle, and not parasites during another stage. There are organisms which are parasites throughout their entire life cycles. There are multiple species, in multiple phyla, which are parasites. They are not the same species, but they share the quality of being parasitic.

As far as I can see, you are trying to redefine the definition of 'parasite'. Either an organism is parasitic, or it isn't. Even if an organism has a parasite stage in it's life cycle, it is described as a parasite, even in it's non-parasitic stages, e.g. a leech. You are therefore claiming that humans are parasites.
Away with your nonsense. How can you claim to be a scientist?

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 16:47

It is a fact that human embryos fit the biological definition of the word "parasite." It is also a fact that this definition does not carry the kind of value judgment in a scientific context that it does in many social contexts.

My opinion is that being a parasite does not inherently increase or decrease the "value" of any organism, including human embryos or fetuses. My opinions regarding the moral worth of embryos or fetuses are not grounded on whether or not they are parasites.
...

Being aware that a fetus is a parasite does not require that the fetus be "dehumanized." It is perfectly possible for a fetus to be both human and a parasite. Indeed, that is the case. I have no desire to "dehumanize" any stage of human life. That would be silly.

Alright then let's move on. Being a parasite, or not, is irrelevant.

Ahhh, I see, you are confusing "human" with "human being."

Many things are human but are not human persons.

No, that's the point of contention. Whether or not the unborn child is a human being.

Of course, my stance on abortion is unchanged regardless of the "personhood" of a fetus or embryo. I am more than willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that an embryo is a full human person and entitled to the same respect and human rights as all other human persons. If that is the case, then I still maintain that a woman has the right to end her body's participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. That is completely consistent with my views on human rights.

Alright then let's address this. All the rest of that business about whether the fetus can be defined as a human, human being, parasite, not a parasite, whatever is irrelevant then. Let's talk about this.

You assert that it is morally justifiable to end the life of a person who was brought into your body, without having been given a choice, as a direct result of your own actions, in order to preserve your quality of life.

You are the only person asserting that at the moment.

No, there are others. Maybe not you, but there are. If that stament doesn't apply to you then ignore it.

Bottle

11-01-2007, 16:48

In this case, semantics is important. If the baby is a parasite, then so is the mother, because they both belong to the same species.

You're going to need to hold multiple concepts in your head at the same time.

A parasite is not just defined as "something of the same species."

But as far as organisms the live in eggs, is the fertilized chicken egg suddenly considered a chicken the moment the egg fertilized, is laid, or the moment the chick hatches? If you ask me, I couldn't tell you for sure, but I would call it a chicken the moment I cracked open the egg and saw something in there that looks more than just egg yolk and egg white. That little white fleck floating in the egg-white is a chicken to me.

Funny you should choose that example, because my current job focuses on the study of chick embryos!

We perform detailed studies on developmental neurobiology using the chick embryo as our model system. My personal focus is on the development of the vestibular nuclei, and I study embryos that are 13 days old (E13), 16 days old (16), and 5 day old hatchlings (H5). My thesis involves the mapping of a particular vestibular nucleus and its neuron populations at these different ages.

I am telling you this because I want you to know that I am NOT talking out my ass on this particular topic. You seem very concerned that the definition of "parasite" may be muddled or expanded to be so large that it becomes meaningless. Well, I can personally assure you that it is ludicrous to consider an embryonic chicken as "a chicken" in the same way that a hatchling is a chicken, let alone considering the embryo as equal to the adult chicken. They all are stages of the same animal's life cycle, but refering to them all as "a chicken" blurs away the critical distinctions that exist between these stages of life. A single day in the life of a chick embryo will include dramatic changes throughout the organism!

At any rate, when in doubt, err on the side of caution.
That is wise, true. I consider it even wiser to do everything in your power to reduce your own doubt. I do this by researching areas where I am unsure of what is the case, or consulting with those who have researched in a given field. If you are in doubt regarding the distinctions between embryos and "born" animals, I can recommend several excellent labs for you to visit.

Compulsive Depression

11-01-2007, 16:50

I wonder what sort of person plays god enough to decide whose life is worth living and whose isn't.

Of course it's better for three to live in poverty than two to live in comfort. Are you so materialistic that this analogy ACTUALLY makes sense to you?

Are you so idealistic that, in the context of abortion at least, it doesn't?
But you'll say yes, and we'd disagree, and so on. ;)

Fengzhuozi

11-01-2007, 16:50

Even if you want to give the embryo more rights than a fully-grown human to counter that, do you really see the value of an unborn human as greater than the value of the happiness and wellbeing of conscious, aware, grown humans? Is it better that three people live in poverty than two people live in comfort? And what about the happiness of the embryo if it comes to term? Is it better to live in misery, be unwanted, or whatever, than to never exist, never even be capable of being aware that you might be capable of existing?

This is an argument that I have never understood. You said give the embryo "more rights than a fully-grown human". How would giving an embryo 1 right be more than a fully-grown human? You are giving the embryo the right to live. That is it. The "fully-grown" human is only losing one right...the right to convenience. The right to not face consequences of decisions. We take away the rights of fully-grown humans all the time.

As far as what a fully grown human is, we are all developing. At what point does a person become "fully grown"?

As to the question that began this thread, I disagree with all of the ppossible answers to the question. I think that it is wrong to say that because someone thinks that abortion is wrong they should take care of the children. I personally desire to adopt later in life, but it has nothing to do with my stance on abortion. No one would say to a person who advocates prison sentences for murderers that they should take care of the children of the people in prison.

The answer to the question doesn't make abortion any more wrong or right. In honesty, the person who wouldn't be allowed to have the abortion is merely reaping the consequences of their actions. I am not trying to be cold, but contrary to popular belief there are consequences to actions. Sometimes we have to accept those consequences because the only way to get away from the consequences is WRONG! Such is the case with abortion.

Bottle

11-01-2007, 16:54

No, that's the point of contention. Whether or not the unborn child is a human being.

When discussing this topic with me, that is not a point of contention at all. My stance on the subject of abortion has nothing to do with whether or not the "unborn child" is a human being. I am more than willing to accept that it is a human being for the purposes of the discussion; my stance will be unchanged. Still pro-choice.

You assert that it is morally justifiable to end the life of a person who was brought into your body, without having been given a choice, as a direct result of your own actions, in order to preserve your quality of life.

I assert that it is morally justifiable to deny any other being the use of my body if I do not wish them to use it. I believe that no other being is entitled to use my body, even to sustain its own life, against my wishes. This applies to born human beings, human embryos, human fetuses, and all other forms of life.

No, there are others. Maybe not you, but there are.
Note that I said "at the moment." Nobody else on this thread is currently posing that argument.

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 16:57

Are you so idealistic that, in the context of abortion at least, it doesn't?
But you'll say yes, and we'd disagree, and so on. ;)

LOL Well that's true. :p

Bottle

11-01-2007, 16:59

As to the question that began this thread, I disagree with all of the ppossible answers to the question. I think that it is wrong to say that because someone thinks that abortion is wrong they should take care of the children. I personally desire to adopt later in life, but it has nothing to do with my stance on abortion. No one would say to a person who advocates prison sentences for murderers that they should take care of the children of the people in prison.

The answer to the question doesn't make abortion any more wrong or right. In honesty, the person who wouldn't be allowed to have the abortion is merely reaping the consequences of their actions. I am not trying to be cold, but contrary to popular belief there are consequences to actions. Sometimes we have to accept those consequences because the only way to get away from the consequences is WRONG! Such is the case with abortion.
You could have just typed, "Babies are a fitting punishment for harlotry!" and saved yourself a lot of bother. :D

Fengzhuozi

11-01-2007, 17:03

You could have just typed, "Babies are a fitting punishment for harlotry!" and saved yourself a lot of bother. :D

Certainly not! Pregnancy is not a punishment although others may disagree with me. It is a consequence. We accept many consequences in our lives, both good, bad, and ambiguous, but we also fail to accept many. It is a failing of our society. I just find abortion particularly repugnant because people are willing to end "life/possible life/whatever" in order to stop the consequences of something that they had other ways of stopping.

I will tell you that I am a Christian, but my stances often differ from most Christians.

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 17:04

When discussing this topic with me, that is not a point of contention at all. My stance on the subject of abortion has nothing to do with whether or not the "unborn child" is a human being. I am more than willing to accept that it is a human being for the purposes of the discussion; my stance will be unchanged. Still pro-choice.

Pleae understand that most of my comments are directed to a more general audience, since you aren't the only one debating from your side. When I say "That's the point of contention" then you can usually safely apply the suffix phrase "...of this debate."

Although your loyal followers to seem to take your cues on what to argue against and what not to. Hm... maybe you ARE the only one really arguing your side. :D

I assert that it is morally justifiable to deny any other being the use of my body if I do not wish them to use it. I believe that no other being is entitled to use my body, even to sustain its own life, against my wishes. This applies to born human beings, human embryos, human fetuses, and all other forms of life.

If you were talking about a scenario in which some person came up to you out of the blue and demanded it of you, then I would agree. As it is, that's not the case. We're talking about a person whom YOU brought into it, who never had the chance to choose or not to be there, whose existence is a DIRECT result of your own actions and whose presence in your body is also a direct result of your actions.

A person doesn't have the right to force another to use their body to save them, because the bystander isn't involved, and isn't responsible for the situation. In the case of a pregnancy, you ARE responsible for the situation.

Note that I said "at the moment." Nobody else on this thread is currently posing that argument.
fine :rolleyes:

LiberationFrequency

11-01-2007, 17:05

I just find abortion particularly repugnant because people are willing to end "life/possible life/whatever" in order to stop the consequences of something that they had other ways of stopping.

What if those other ways failed?

Bruarong

11-01-2007, 17:08

I'm going to snip your reply a bit, because I don't have time to craft the reply it probably deserves - and some of the points would probably just waffle off into tangent-land or "fair enough, then", like the chickens. So apologies in advance.

Then perhaps you didn't get the point. Or perhaps I do waffle. The point was that you said that killing an embryo is like eating an egg, because the egg is not a chicken. I was pointing out that if the egg is fertilized, I do consider it a chicken, but I would still eat it (if I was hungry enough) because it is a chicken, not a human.

Very little.
"Sir, what's the use of a newborn baby?" - Benjamin Franklin (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1048646)

Are you talking about 'use' or 'value'? And perhaps you ought to put Mr Franklin's quote into perspective instead of making him out to be void of morals.

The value they have is that they are capable of (not, as with an embryo, may become capable of) learning and growing. They also, often, provide happiness to their parents.

So, newborn babies are capable of learning, given time, while embryos are not? I would say that both are capable of learning, the embryo just needs a little more time.

Embryos also provide happiness for their parents.

Hmm. I probably didn't explain myself properly. I wasn't trying to imply that monetary was the only value (in fact, when people act that way I get quite annoyed). But I wouldn't claim that everyone has equal value at all. For instance, someone who made one person happy but earned no money would be greater in my estimation than someone who made nobody happy but earned a vast fortune. I hope that's cleared it up a little, and value is, of course, entirely subjective.

In Aborigine culture, (before the arrival of the white man) the very old people (probably something like 40 years) were left in the desert to die once they were of no further use for the community. So they basically starved or died of thirst. I'm not criticising Aboriginal culture. They did this in order to survive, since there was often not enough food for all, and it was better to give it to the young ones. But we don't need to do this. We don't need to kill people because they cannot contribute to our society. (Hmmmm, was that too waffly for you?)

Because they are incapable of surviving on their own. That isn't the fault of the pregnant woman. But this is Bottle's argument, and she'll argue it far better than I...

So you are allowed to kill anyone who is incapable of surviving on their own? You would be a dangerous person in a hospital.

Because the first gains more happiness from the existence of the second than the financial gains would be worth to them? People, in general, value their children.

Oh, so you don't kill people so long as you obtain happiness from them?

If somebody wants to be put out of their misery I have no problem with that, the same as it's better - for the animal - to put a suffering, terminally ill animal out of its misery than force it to endure until it dies naturally. I don't see why species should make a difference to this. But that leads us to the whole suicide/euthenasia right/wrong debate.

If someone wants to end their own life, surely that is different from the issue of someone wanting to ends someone else's life?

I am in favour of putting terminally ill and severely suffering animals out of their misery. But these are animals, not humans, and the humans (embryos) that you are comparing them to are not suffering. Perhaps we could predict that their life might involve a good deal of suffering, due to the circumstances of their parents, but is that grounds enough to kill them? And whose life is free from suffering anyway?

But to relate it back to the embryo or foetus - that has no will, so its will cannot be acted on. Also, any act upon it cannot be said to be against its will, any more than rolling a stone up a hill can be said to be against the will of the stone.

You don't know that it doesn't have a will. Does a newborn have a will? If so, where did it get one from, and when? At the birth event?

It may not be able to communicate it's will to us (if it had one), but a safe bet would be to predict that it would want to live, rather than want to die.

Fengzhuozi

11-01-2007, 17:09

What if those other ways failed?

Pregnancy is still a consequence even if you try to reduce its possibilities. The only sure fire way is abstinance, not that I say everyone should be abstinant until marriage. I am just saying that even with birth control you know and should accept that pregnancy is a possibility and consequence, no matter how small.

Dempublicents1

11-01-2007, 17:10

Not to sound unkind, but the idea that a fetus is a parasite is utterly idiotic.

A woman's body goes to extraordinary lengths to protect and nourish the baby inside it. In fact, it's the woman's body that begins construction in the first place.

But once again, if this is what you have to believe in order to dehumanize that baby...

The mother's body goes to those "extraordinary lengths" because of signals put out by the embryo/fetus. Without those signals, the mother's body would attack it as foreign and destroy it.

There are numerous parasites with similar mechanisms - signals that keep the immune system from destroying them.

While I would say there is certainly a difference between parasites of other species and an embryo/fetus, the fact remains that they are parasitic - living in their host, drawing all nourishment from said host, and excreting all wastes into that host's system.

Bottle

11-01-2007, 17:11

Pleae understand that most of my comments are directed to a more general audience, since you aren't the only one debating from your side. When I say "That's the point of contention" then you can usually safely apply the suffix phrase "...of this debate."

I understand. I was simply clarifying so that you could save time when replying specifically to me.

Although your loyal followers to seem to take your cues on what to argue against and what not to. Hm... maybe you ARE the only one really arguing your side. :D

I'm flattered, as always, by the number of people who seem to like what I have to say. However, I don't think popularity defines a good argument.

If you were talking about a scenario in which some person came up to you out of the blue and demanded it of you, then I would agree. As it is, that's not the case. We're talking about a person whom YOU brought into it, who never had the chance to choose or not to be there, whose existence is a DIRECT result of your own actions and whose presence in your body is also a direct result of your actions.

In my country, you still have the right to refuse to donate your body even if you are the specific reason why it is needed. If I hit somebody with my car and they require a blood transfusion, and I am a perfect match for them, I cannot be forced to donate blood against my wishes. If they go into kidney failure and I am the only available donor, I still cannot be forced to make that donation.

Even if I deliberately and intentionally caused the injury that puts them in this condition, our laws STILL do not allow my body to be used against my wishes.

A person doesn't have the right to force another to use their body to save them, because the bystander isn't involved, and isn't responsible for the situation. In the case of a pregnancy, you ARE responsible for the situation.

Under the laws of my country, you cannot be forced to donate your body/organs/fluids/tissues/etc even if you are 100% responsible for the fact that they are needed.

Hamilay

11-01-2007, 17:11

So, newborn babies are capable of learning, given time, while embryos are not? I would say that both are capable of learning, the embryo just needs a little more time.

Embryos also provide happiness for their parents.
A newborn baby begins learning from the moment it's born, it doesn't really need time. Perhaps a better word than learning would be 'experiencing'.
You don't know that it doesn't have a will. Does a newborn have a will? If so, where did it get one from, and when? At the birth event?

It may not be able to communicate it's will to us (if it had one), but a safe bet would be to predict that it would want to live, rather than want to die.
It got a will when it developed higher brain functions. A fetus has none, therefore it's not a human (being).

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 17:13

LiberationFrequency

11-01-2007, 17:13

Pregnancy is still a consequence even if you try to reduce its possibilities. The only sure fire way is abstinance, not that I say everyone should be abstinant until marriage. I am just saying that even with birth control you know and should accept that pregnancy is a possibility and consequence, no matter how small.

What if you get pregnant via mutual masterbation?

Bottle

11-01-2007, 17:14

While I would say there is certainly a difference between parasites of other species and an embryo/fetus, the fact remains that they are parasitic - living in their host, drawing all nourishment from said host, and excreting all wastes into that host's system.

Exactly.

I keep trying to be clear on this:

I am NOT saying that an embryo/fetus is the same as any other parasite. Obviously they are different! It's just that they share the quality of being parasites.

A shirt can be blue and a ball can be blue, but that doesn't mean the shirt is the same as the ball. They share the quality of being blue, but they are still very different things on the whole.

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 17:22

In my country, you still have the right to refuse to donate your body even if you are the specific reason why it is needed. If I hit somebody with my car and they require a blood transfusion, and I am a perfect match for them, I cannot be forced to donate blood against my wishes. If they go into kidney failure and I am the only available donor, I still cannot be forced to make that donation.

Even if I deliberately and intentionally caused the injury that puts them in this condition, our laws STILL do not allow my body to be used against my wishes.

Under the laws of my country, you cannot be forced to donate your body/organs/fluids/tissues/etc even if you are 100% responsible for the fact that they are needed.

Just out of curiosity, if that really did happen and you caused an accident in which a victim would die without one of your kidneys, would you not feel any moral obligation to donate it?

Anyway, my response to your analogy is that you're talking about a very different scenario. When a person gets into a car to go somewhere, running into someone along the way is an anomalous result. The intent of driving a car is *never* to strike someone. The express purpose for the existence of cars is transportation.

Sex is, biologically, specifically intended to cause reproduction. If the body becomes pregnant, then biologically speaking, it has been successful. This is an intended result (by the body, if not the will of the person) and the main reason why sex exists in the first place. (biologically)

Therefore, one can easily argue against being legally obligated to donate of their own body to save the victim because the accident itself was an anomaly, and could as easily have been the fault of the pedestrian as the driver. (as far as can be determined by the law.) On the other hand, there is NEVER a scenario in which a baby is "to blame" for developing in the body of a woman.

the reason I repeated the word "biologically" so many times is to avoid wasting time with someone responding by saying "Oh so you're saying sex sghould be exclusively for procreation!" Because I'm not saying that. We have sex for fun, for expression of feeling, etc. All that's fine, but the fact is that from a strictly biological standpoint, sex exists for the primary purpose of procreation.

Bruarong

11-01-2007, 17:23

The mother's body goes to those "extraordinary lengths" because of signals put out by the embryo/fetus. Without those signals, the mother's body would attack it as foreign and destroy it.

There are numerous parasites with similar mechanisms - signals that keep the immune system from destroying them.

While I would say there is certainly a difference between parasites of other species and an embryo/fetus, the fact remains that they are parasitic - living in their host, drawing all nourishment from said host, and excreting all wastes into that host's system.

Wouldn't it be better to say that embryos exhibited some parasite-like characteristics rather than calling it a parasite? Then everybody could agree and get on with the more important points of the debate.

The thing is, it is one of perspective. If you love the embryo growing in your body, you wouldn't dream of calling it a parasite. You would be happy to provide for its needs, and be happy that you can provide.

But if you resented it for taking away your liberty or changing your life style, then you are probably more likely to call it a parasite, despite the fact that that is not generally recognised as a parasite in the world of biology.

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 17:23

What if you get pregnant via mutual masterbation?

Are you trying to completely deflect Fengzhouzi's point by belaboring it with irrelevant minutia?

Hamilay

11-01-2007, 17:25

Just out of curiosity, if that really did happen and you caused an accident in which a victim would die without one of your kidneys, would you not feel any moral obligation to donate it?

Anyway, my response to your analogy is that you're talking about a very different scenario. When a person gets into a car to go somewhere, running into someone along the way is an anomalous result. The intent of driving a car is *never* to strike someone. The express purpose for the existence of cars is transportation.

Sex is, biologically, specifically intended to cause reproduction. If the body becomes pregnant, then biologically speaking, it has been successful. This is an intended result (by the body, if not the will of the person) and the main reason why sex exists in the first place. (biologically)

Therefore, one can easily argue against being legally obligated to donate of their own body to save the victim because the accident itself was an anomaly, and could as easily have been the fault of the pedestrian as the driver. (as far as can be determined by the law.) On the other hand, there is NEVER a scenario in which a baby is "to blame" for developing in the body of a woman.

the reason I repeated the word "biologically" so many times is to avoid wasting time with someone responding by saying "Oh so you're saying sex sghould be exclusively for procreation!" Because I'm not saying that. We have sex for fun, for expression of feeling, etc. All that's fine, but the fact is that from a strictly biological standpoint, sex exists for the primary purpose of procreation.
Bottle's point was that even if you deliberately run someone over, you're not required to donate body parts to help save their life. Although I agree with this and it certainly legalises abortion, I don't like it, since it's a great idea to force criminals to donate organs to their victims. :p I prefer the nature of personhood of the fetus line.

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 17:28

Bottle's point was that even if you deliberately run someone over, you're not required to donate body parts to help save their life. Although I agree with this and it certainly legalises abortion, I don't like it, since it's a great idea to force criminals to donate organs to their victims. :p I prefer the nature of personhood of the fetus line.

She didn't say deliberately, but even if she did, that would only strengthen my argument, since we all know what the law says, and the law says abortion is legal. The point of contention is whether it should be.

LiberationFrequency

11-01-2007, 17:29

Are you trying to completely deflect Fengzhouzi's point by belaboring it with irrelevant minutia?

Yez I ma

Bruarong

11-01-2007, 17:34

A newborn baby begins learning from the moment it's born, it doesn't really need time. Perhaps a better word than learning would be 'experiencing'.

They actually begin learning before they are born. The recognise voices, for example.

It got a will when it developed higher brain functions. A fetus has none, therefore it's not a human (being).

Higher brain functions, eh? What are they? And are they somehow stimulated by the birth event? What happens when a baby is born three months early? Is that void of 'higher brain functions'? And how do you know that a fetus doesn't have 'higher brain functions'?

Hamilay

11-01-2007, 17:38

They actually begin learning before they are born. The recognise voices, for example.

Higher brain functions, eh? What are they? And are they somehow stimulated by the birth event? What happens when a baby is born three months early? Is that void of 'higher brain functions'? And how do you know that a fetus doesn't have 'higher brain functions'?
Weeks 23 to 26, when the brain develops mostly. Several things, but I'd say the ability to retain experiences is one of the most important.

Bottle

11-01-2007, 17:39

Just out of curiosity, if that really did happen and you caused an accident in which a victim would die without one of your kidneys, would you not feel any moral obligation to donate it?

Would I, personally, feel obligated to donate under those circumstances? Absolutely.

Would I, personally, feel entitled to demand that somebody else make that donation if our positions were reversed? Nope. (I'd probably demand it any way, because I'd be pissed off and scared and I wouldn't want to die, but I don't always manage to do the right thing.)

Anyway, my response to your analogy is that you're talking about a very different scenario. When a person gets into a car to go somewhere, running into someone along the way is an anomalous result. The intent of driving a car is *never* to strike someone. The express purpose for the existence of cars is transportation.

Sex is, biologically, specifically intended to cause reproduction.

We have to stop right there, because that is simply not the case.

Reproduction is one of the many functions served by sexual contact between human beings. Humans, like many other organisms, also use sex for non-reproductive purposes. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of sex between human beings does not result in reproduction. Human females remain sexually receptive even during times when they are not able to become pregnant at all...some women even say that they are at their horniest during the stages of their cycle when they are not able to conceive.

Biologically speaking, sex serves many different functions in our species. Reproduction is certainly an important function, but it is most definitely not the only one.

If the body becomes pregnant, then biologically speaking, it has been successful. This is an intended result (by the body, if not the will of the person) and the main reason why sex exists in the first place. (biologically)

If the body becomes pregnant, it has succeeded in becoming pregnant. Whether or not carrying the pregnancy to term will be the most evolutionarily advantageous path for that body is a very different matter. It is a mistake to assume that the most "successful" strategy for an organism is to become pregnant or to carry any particular pregnancy to term.

Therefore, one can easily argue against being legally obligated to donate of their own body to save the victim because the accident itself was an anomaly, and could as easily have been the fault of the pedestrian as the driver. (as far as can be determined by the law.) On the other hand, there is NEVER a scenario in which a baby is "to blame" for developing in the body of a woman.

My entire point was that "blame" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if I was to blame or not, I still cannot be required to donate my body or my body parts against my wishes.

the reason I repeated the word "biologically" so many times is to avoid wasting time with someone responding by saying "Oh so you're saying sex sghould be exclusively for procreation!" Because I'm not saying that. We have sex for fun, for expression of feeling, etc. All that's fine, but the fact is that from a strictly biological standpoint, sex exists for the primary purpose of procreation.
And allow me to reassure you that, from a strictly biological perspective, you are mistaken.

In some species, sexual contact serves no purpose other than procreation (as far as we can tell). In our species, and in some other species, that is not the case.

Dempublicents1

11-01-2007, 17:42

Sophistry. The onus isn't on the baby to prove that he or she is human, the onus is on those who would destroy him/her to prove they aren't.

No, the onus is not on the embryo/fetus. The onus is on those who wish to make laws restricting that actions of others to demonstrate that they have an objective reasoning for doing so. In other words, the onus is on you.

If there were no laws against stealing, those who would seek to make it illegal would have to demonstrate that it is an issue that the government should get involved in. They would have to demonstrate that, in order to protect its citizens, the government should take action regarding theft.

Why? Because they are the ones trying to pass restrictive laws, and thus must be the ones to provide support for those laws.

If you're going to get into the business of trying to stamp an ironclad definition then you've got an uphill battle. Even the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion admits that they couldn't define at what point the fetus becomes a person, and so they simply set an arbitrary number of weeks.

Actually, the lines aren't arbitrary at all. They are based in medical science and what we know of development at that point, as well as what we know of the health issues the mother might face. They are somewhat arbitrary, as all pregnancies do not progress at the exact same rate, but they are based in very real science.

At some point between weeks 10 and 12, the fetus meets all of the biological requirements of life - to be defined as an organism, but it still cannot feel pain, nor has it developed any of the brain function necessary for cognitive function. Between 20 and 22 weeks, the fetus has developed the necessary structures for cognitive function and can feel pain as a born child could. By pretty much every definition, including the medical definitions used to diagnose brain death, the fetus is a living human being at this time.

You want it to all be arbitrary so you can say, "My opinion is as good as any and so it's right because I say so!" but you actually need something to back it up.

Ah so poor people don't count. I happen to think that they count just as much as the children of the rich... But then I don't have to dehumanize anyone to make my point stand.

I didn't say poor people don't count. The fact that you have to twist my comments is making it look less and less like you have a leg to stand on here.

What do you want me to back it up with? You want a chart that tracks a pregnancy and establishes some arbitrary place where they cease to be a worthless bunch of cells and start to be a human?

No, I want a non-arbitrary place. I want it to be based on something more than, "Because I say so." Basing it on the medical definition of a living human being would work, but then you'd have to be ok with abortions up until at least the 20th week. Even basing it on the scientific definition of an organism might work, but then you'd have to be ok with it until at least the 10th week.

If you have a definition that will work to ban all abortions, by all means, bring it forward.

My fiancee' was born something like 9 week premature, a time when in some places it's still legal to abort.

What places? It isn't legal to have an elective abortion at that point anywhere in the US, that's for sure. In most places in Europe, the cutoff is at or around 22 weeks, so it wouldn't work there either. And in most of the rest of the world, it either isn't legal at all or isn't accessable, so I'm not really sure where you're talking about.

Was she not a human then? What about after she was born? Biologically no different from babies that were still in the womb about to be aborted. What exactly do you want for backup?

You are really pushing it here, and demonstrating that you don't have an actual argument. Pregnancies at 27 weeks are not "about to be aborted." The only legal reasons to have an abortion at that point are (a) medical necessity and (b) gross chromosomal or physical defects. Women don't wait until 27 weeks and then say, "Oh! I want to have an abortion now!" The women who end up aborting that late are women who wanted to have a child.

That sounds unlikely. The odds being slim and all. At least, if the birth control methods were being used correctly.

It does sound unlikely, and yet it still happens! Odd, that. I've known one couple who had a child as a result of a reversed vasectomy, one as a result of a reversed tubal ligation, and one woman who was having sex for the first time, was on the birth control pill, used a diaphgragm, used a sponge, and her partner wore a condom, which showed no signs of breakage. Sometimes, these things just happen.

Which, as I've said, is a copout.

You can say that all you want. But you haven't really shown how. It still boils down to, "Because I say so."

There's a big difference between a procedure that reverses itself 75% of the time and one that reverses itself only a few times. You can't take an incident that is rare and apply it as a major factor.

So you'd be fine with someone who could not and should not ever have children having a vasectomy or tubal and then aborting if a pregnancy did happen, since it never should have happened? After all, according to you, there's no reason to take the incidence of reversal into account when planning...

Personal experience and supplemental research.

So you can provide this "supplemental research", or at least tell us all what it is?

Neither do people on life support, in some cases. Does that make them less a human?

What people on life support wouldn't qualify as an organism?

And I'm sorry but if you sincerely, honestly truly believe that a baby growing inside you is a baby, a human baby, then so id that growing in every other woman's womb, and that being the case, abortion = infanticide. If you truly see it as infanticide then you'd agree it should be illegal.

Only if I can demosntrate it objectively. Meanwhile, I said that I see it as a baby from an emotional point of view. From a scientific point of view, I know better.

If my opinions are meaningless simply because you call them subjective, then so are opinions that believe murder, robbery and rape should be illegal. It's very simple logic.

Wrong. As I've already said, I can objectively demonstrate that murder, robbery, and rape harm actual, living human beings. Until you can demonstrate the same thing for abortion, you have no argument here.

Premise 1:An unborn baby is a human being
Premise 2:It is wrong to kill a human being
Conclusion:Abortion is wrong.

My dear, this wouldn't be a legal argument anyways. The law doesn't deal in right and wrong. It accepts that many things that are "wrong" are legal. The law deals in protecting its citizens. It legislates against that which will harm its citizens.

What you've done is taken the easy way out.

Yes, yes, actually being able to support my opinions with something more than, "Just because," is the easy way out. Wow, I wish I could take the hard way like you and try to enforce my opinions without any backing.

I require no validation because I know what I know. My coming on here to express my opinion is no more a sign of a need for validation than yours is. You insist that I have no objective source, but the reality is that you've dismissed it. What can I do? I'm not going to alter my point just tto try and convince you. if I did that, then I WOULD be guilty of fishing for validation.

Oh dear, now you're trying to change the subject. I never said anything about you expressing your opinion. We were talking about trying to legally enforce your opinion.

And, if you have an objective source, what is it? You have yet to bring it up.

The phrase "potential human being" is a way to dodge the reality. It makes as much sense as taking a person in a vegitative coma and refering to them as a "former human being."

Is it a coma or a persistent vegetative state? If it is the latter, then they are a former human being. At that point, they are a body on machines - essentially braindead, and therefore, essentially dead. Calling an embryo a potential human being makes equivalent sense with calling a braindead body a former human being. Would you object to that characterization?

The difference is that a person who needs a blood transfusion is in a position to choose, or not, to try and force someone to donate blood, in your example. They can, or not, try to violate you in that way.

They didn't choose to need a blood transfusion, now did they? Besides, the whole point is irrelevant. The law doesn't care about what choices the person who needs the transfusion makes. It says, straight up, that they cannot force the other person to do it. No one can, not the mother of the person who needs it, not their spouse, not the government. Your body is your own and you cannot be legally compelled to use it for that purpose.

If you choose to do so, that's wonderful. I, for one, give blood every 8-16 weeks, depending on the method they use at the time. But I don't legally have to do so, even if a person will die otherwise.

But the baby can't complain. Can't defend himself/herself. Powerless. But yet people come on here and treat that child as if he/she were a parastie, an invader... some life-sucking unwanted guest and how DARE they come in and expect the woman to use her body to help them to live?

You can expect all you want, just as most would expect someone to be willing to donate blood, or a kidney, or any number of other things to help them live. What you cannot do is legally force it. You can think the woman who chooses not to do so is a bad person. I certainly think that those who take the, "ZOMG! It's my blood and no one else can have it!" route are selfish and inconsiderate. But selfish and inconsiderate isn't against the law, now is it?

Bottle

11-01-2007, 18:03

*a lot of awesome*

I feel the need to mention, once again, how swell it is to have you around, Dem.

For those who may not know, Dem and I actually disagree on several areas of this topic. This is important because it shows how it is possible to disagree even if you accept all the relevant facts on a given topic.

Dempublicents1

11-01-2007, 18:26

So you are against abortion generally, but you don't want to see it enforced.

I'm against adultery always, but I don't want it legally enforced. Weird, huh?

I would say most people would prefer not to see any--except people who like it as some sort of population control (and who would probably see AIDS as a good thing).

I would prefer not to see any abortion. I would prefer never to see any woman who does not wish to have a child or who cannot take care of a child get pregnant.

The bigger issue for most people, of course, is really about the legislation issue. I also have struggled with the legislation, unwilling to be in a situation where I am forcing others to conform to my subjective point of view. How do I know that my subjective point of view isn't wrong? But then again, who is to say that it isn't right?

Doesn't sound very unwilling when you immediately start advocating doing just that....

If there is no point at which we can definitely say that an embryo becomes a human person, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?

Is there no point? The issue is that we can't say when an embryo becomes a human person, really, it is that people can't seem to come up with a standard definition of "human person." The main reason for this is that, instead of looking at the entities we all consider human persons and going from there, too many people want to start with the conclusion: "The embryo is a person," and then form a definition. People don't want to define it, because then their deeply held convictions might not be backed up. Those of us who do look to science and medicine for some sort of definition end up, surprise surprise, pro-choice.

It might be a mistake to outlaw abortions, but I feel it would be an even bigger mistake to allow them. Just look at Russia. Currently, official figures show that 60 percent of first pregnancies in Russia are medically terminated.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0828/p01s03-woeu.html

Considering that we don't have numbers like that in the US or most of Europe, I'd say that the problem you're seeing is much more an issue of the quality of life in Russia than an issue with abortion.

Having abortions be legal doesn't automagically make people go out and have them. It is perfectly legal to be a racist bastard and to join the KKK, but most people don't do that. They refrain, not because it is illegal, but because they see it as wrong. Maybe, if people who are opposed to abortion would concentrate their efforts on convincing others of their point-of-view, instead of trying to force it on them, we'd see less abortions.

I probably couldn't define 'human being' very satisfactorily. Thus, this means that I would be even more cautious about allowing abortions. I don't want to be guilty of murder. And because I have a vote, I am responsible, to a certain degree.

If you don't want to be guilty of murder, and you think an abortion might be murder, don't have one. Don't try and convince anyone else to do so.

I don't think, "I think I should force this on everyone else because I can't prove it," is a very valid argument.

Bottle's argument isn't very good, because it fails to take into account that when the person in question happens to be the parent, that parent has an obligation to care for their child, even though it costs the parent. Current laws recognise this for children that are already born. What is it about the birth event that changes this?

A parent does have a legal obligation to care for a child - to a point. But a parent is not legally required to donate any tissue or allow their own bodies to be used to care for the child. It is best for a child to breastfeed, but there is no law against formula-feeding, even when the woman can breastfeed. A parent cannot even be legally compelled to undergo a medical test that would help doctors treat the child.

In fact, come to think of it, a parent isn't even legally required to seek any medical care for a child. If the parent's religion says medicine is bad, the parent can sit at home and watch their child die of a perfectly treatable infection.

Dempublicents1

11-01-2007, 18:28

Its that bit that "when does a foetus become a human"? that no one can answer part of the argument that stops and makes you think.

No one can answer it?

I've actually heard quite a few answers, some with more evidence than others.

Perhaps, what you really mean is, "I can't define the point at which a fetus becomes a human in such a way that allows me to justify banning all abortion"??

Dempublicents1

11-01-2007, 18:37

Considering due to medical issues I can't have children, and I am pro-life, I plan to adopt. I agree it's a woman's right to choose what happens to her. I DO NOT agree that it's her right to choose what happens to another person. She should not have the right to hold someone else's life in her hands. It's not her decision.

Um, if you have a problem with the mother having control over the future of an embryo/fetus, you probably should take that up with God/nature/whatever you think caused life to be this way. Even if a woman can not abort her pregnancy, her lifestyle choices will affect the health of her pregnancy, whether it continues, and whether a healthy child results.

My god... what kind of parent would NEED to be legally compelled? Is THAT the perspective you endorse? The one that protects a parent who's so callous and self-serving that they'd decline to save their own child's life even at the expense of part of their body?

A parent who wouldn't do that for their own child is beneath contempt. I hope you have a better analogy than that. I understand that you're talking specifically form a legal standpoint.. but if your point is as strong as you think it is, then surely you must be ablle to come up with something better.

Believe it or not, it isn't illegal to be "beneath contempt."

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 20:25

Weeks 23 to 26, when the brain develops mostly. Several things, but I'd say the ability to retain experiences is one of the most important.

Yah... at which age it's still legal to abort in most states.

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 20:37

Would I, personally, feel obligated to donate under those circumstances? Absolutely.

Would I, personally, feel entitled to demand that somebody else make that donation if our positions were reversed? Nope. (I'd probably demand it any way, because I'd be pissed off and scared and I wouldn't want to die, but I don't always manage to do the right thing.)

Great. So since we agree that the ethical thing to do is to sacrifice to save them. How does ethics become law? Well that's complex. Maybe in a case like this, not even possible.

What we do have are laws that say that to kill deliberately is murder (with exceptions that obviously don't apply here like execution, war, etc) Maybe it's legal to allow someone to die through omission of action, but an abortion isn't a simple act of omission. It's a focused and deliberate effort to take a human life. That is NOT justified by law in any other circumstance, except when another life is in grave and immediate danger. (And anyone who has debated this point with me before knows that I fully support medically necessary abortion.)

We have to stop right there, because that is simply not the case.

Reproduction is one of the many functions served by sexual contact between human beings. Humans, like many other organisms, also use sex for non-reproductive purposes. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of sex between human beings does not result in reproduction. Human females remain sexually receptive even during times when they are not able to become pregnant at all...some women even say that they are at their horniest during the stages of their cycle when they are not able to conceive.

Biologically speaking, sex serves many different functions in our species. Reproduction is certainly an important function, but it is most definitely not the only one.

I presume you responded before reading the whole post, so I'll comment on this at the end where you replied to my addressing this.

If the body becomes pregnant, it has succeeded in becoming pregnant. Whether or not carrying the pregnancy to term will be the most evolutionarily advantageous path for that body is a very different matter. It is a mistake to assume that the most "successful" strategy for an organism is to become pregnant or to carry any particular pregnancy to term.

That's illogical. First of all, there's no such thing as an evolutionary path for a single organism. That makes this argument non-sequitur. Secondly, there's no advantage in becoming pregnant only to terminate that pregnancy. That means the body becomes pregnant with the goal of giving birth.

My entire point was that "blame" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if I was to blame or not, I still cannot be required to donate my body or my body parts against my wishes.

Under the current state of the law, that is absolutely correct, and saying so over and over again is superfluous. My point, as well as the point of all pro-life debaters, is not to argue the legalities of this. That much is a matter of fact, not opinion. The point of the debate is whether or not it SHOULD be legal. Just because something, there's no gurarantee that it's ethical, moral or even logical.

And allow me to reassure you that, from a strictly biological perspective, you are mistaken.

In some species, sexual contact serves no purpose other than procreation (as far as we can tell). In our species, and in some other species, that is not the case.

Emotionally. The body doesn't significantly benefit from the mating process (in the short-term), except to release endorphins etc. That has the long-term effect of stress releif, well being, etc. We all know this. This is why, as I said before, we do it even when the objective is not procreation.

None of that absolves someone of the responsibility for the result.

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 20:43

I feel the need to mention, once again, how swell it is to have you around, Dem.

For those who may not know, Dem and I actually disagree on several areas of this topic. This is important because it shows how it is possible to disagree even if you accept all the relevant facts on a given topic.

(Relevant facts defined as those which their side agrees on, even when they may be subjective, debatable or just wrong.)

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 21:08

No, the onus is not on the embryo/fetus. The onus is on those who wish to make laws restricting that actions of others to demonstrate that they have an objective reasoning for doing so. In other words, the onus is on you.

If there were no laws against stealing, those who would seek to make it illegal would have to demonstrate that it is an issue that the government should get involved in. They would have to demonstrate that, in order to protect its citizens, the government should take action regarding theft.

Why? Because they are the ones trying to pass restrictive laws, and thus must be the ones to provide support for those laws.

Abortion was illegal before it was legal. IMHO the case hasn't been properly proven and the verdict ought to be reversed.

Even the people who first brought the suit to court have since reversed their opinion and gone pro-life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

Actually, the lines aren't arbitrary at all. They are based in medical science and what we know of development at that point, as well as what we know of the health issues the mother might face. They are somewhat arbitrary, as all pregnancies do not progress at the exact same rate, but they are based in very real science.

At some point between weeks 10 and 12, the fetus meets all of the biological requirements of life - to be defined as an organism, but it still cannot feel pain, nor has it developed any of the brain function necessary for cognitive function. Between 20 and 22 weeks, the fetus has developed the necessary structures for cognitive function and can feel pain as a born child could. By pretty much every definition, including the medical definitions used to diagnose brain death, the fetus is a living human being at this time.

You want it to all be arbitrary so you can say, "My opinion is as good as any and so it's right because I say so!" but you actually need something to back it up.

Even though you use the mantra that my argument is invalid because of the "I say so" premise, you're mistaken.

Imagine, for a moment, that someone set up a thread arguing that murder ought to be allowed. Make up whatever scenario you want. The "wrongness" of murdering another human being is self-evident (to most).

If one accepts the premise that an unborn baby is to be considered a full fledged human being, then that's it. getting into issues like how many weeks along the fetus is or what the mother wants to do with him/her is irrelevant once that basic premise is accepted.

I argue this point because I firmly believe that people are trying to define the unborn baby as something that's more ethically acceptable to destroy, in order to ease their conscience and enable them to support an action that allows them to escape the honest results of their own actions.

You then might talk about rights and people's bodies and so forth, and I disagree with that too, because no human has the right to kill another. If someone tresspasses into my home and I kill them, I go to prison. If someone injures me severely, and I kill them, I go to prison. Only if I am in clear, immediate, inescapable mortal danger can I justifiably kill another human, and even then there are various definitions and jurisdictions that handle that differently.

I didn't say poor people don't count. The fact that you have to twist my comments is making it look less and less like you have a leg to stand on here.
No, I don't think I twisted your words, although yuo can restate your point if you want, in case they weren't clear. I said that when abortion was illegal there were a fraction of the number of abortions performed that are done today. You responded by stating that the rich will always be able to get abortions, legal or not, and went on to somment that it's the poor who can now get abortions more than before because of accessibility.

But you can re-state that if you want.

No, I want a non-arbitrary place. I want it to be based on something more than, "Because I say so." Basing it on the medical definition of a living human being would work, but then you'd have to be ok with abortions up until at least the 20th week. Even basing it on the scientific definition of an organism might work, but then you'd have to be ok with it until at least the 10th week.

See above

What places? It isn't legal to have an elective abortion at that point anywhere in the US, that's for sure. In most places in Europe, the cutoff is at or around 22 weeks, so it wouldn't work there either. And in most of the rest of the world, it either isn't legal at all or isn't accessable, so I'm not really sure where you're talking about.
Maryland, for one.

It does sound unlikely, and yet it still happens! Odd, that. I've known one couple who had a child as a result of a reversed vasectomy, one as a result of a reversed tubal ligation, and one woman who was having sex for the first time, was on the birth control pill, used a diaphgragm, used a sponge, and her partner wore a condom, which showed no signs of breakage. Sometimes, these things just happen.

The odds against that are astronomical. I think (no offense) that more likely you've been misinformed along the way.

So you'd be fine with someone who could not and should not ever have children having a vasectomy or tubal and then aborting if a pregnancy did happen, since it never should have happened? After all, according to you, there's no reason to take the incidence of reversal into account when planning...
When you say "could not and should not" do you mean medically?

So you can provide this "supplemental research", or at least tell us all what it is?
Not without violating a confidence.

What people on life support wouldn't qualify as an organism?

Does that mean a fetus doesn't?

Only if I can demosntrate it objectively. Meanwhile, I said that I see it as a baby from an emotional point of view. From a scientific point of view, I know better.
But thanks for painting people that disagree as being either ignorant or slaves to their emotions. Why bother with us at all?

Wrong. As I've already said, I can objectively demonstrate that murder, robbery, and rape harm actual, living human beings. Until you can demonstrate the same thing for abortion, you have no argument here.

That's the point in contention. I maintain that abortion DOES harm an actual, living human being.

If you want to have a meaningful dialogue about this stuff you should be a little more able to see things from the opposing point of view, if for no other reason than to strategically find better ways to argue.

My dear, this wouldn't be a legal argument anyways. The law doesn't deal in right and wrong. It accepts that many things that are "wrong" are legal. The law deals in protecting its citizens. It legislates against that which will harm its citizens.

Sweetheart, the law does deal in right and wrong, at least partly, based on the definition that to harm is to do wrong.

Yes, yes, actually being able to support my opinions with something more than, "Just because," is the easy way out. Wow, I wish I could take the hard way like you and try to enforce my opinions without any backing.

A personal shot? Cool.

Oh dear, now you're trying to change the subject. I never said anything about you expressing your opinion. We were talking about trying to legally enforce your opinion.

You're the one that accused me of looking for validation.

Is it a coma or a persistent vegetative state? If it is the latter, then they are a former human being. At that point, they are a body on machines - essentially braindead, and therefore, essentially dead. Calling an embryo a potential human being makes equivalent sense with calling a braindead body a former human being. Would you object to that characterization?

I would.

They didn't choose to need a blood transfusion, now did they? Besides, the whole point is irrelevant. The law doesn't care about what choices the person who needs the transfusion makes. It says, straight up, that they cannot force the other person to do it. No one can, not the mother of the person who needs it, not their spouse, not the government. Your body is your own and you cannot be legally compelled to use it for that purpose.

You can expect all you want, just as most would expect someone to be willing to donate blood, or a kidney, or any number of other things to help them live. What you cannot do is legally force it. You can think the woman who chooses not to do so is a bad person. I certainly think that those who take the, "ZOMG! It's my blood and no one else can have it!" route are selfish and inconsiderate. But selfish and inconsiderate isn't against the law, now is it?

I basically addressed this above. Your argument, as well as Bottle's seem to revolve around the idea that legal=right even though you admitted above that isn't always the case. If you agree that some things are legal that are wrong, and that some things that are illegal shouldn't be, then that nullifies the "Abortion is alright because it's legal" argument.

The point of my arguments, once again, is to demonstrate why I think it ought to be illegal. To continually waste time and energy simply reminding me of the fact that it's illegal is pointless.

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 21:14

Believe it or not, it isn't illegal to be "beneath contempt."

Obviously.

But you can dispense with the mantra now, as I said in my last post :cool:

Dempublicents1

11-01-2007, 22:09

And therefore it's alright to kill them? Is that your point?

Did I say anything like that?

No.

Therefore you can be assured that is was not my point.

Dempublicents1

11-01-2007, 22:11

It got a will when it developed higher brain functions. A fetus has none, therefore it's not a human (being).

This is not technically correct. A late-term fetus has a brain developed enough to display cognitive function (which is what I am assuming you are talking about). An early fetus does not, it does not even have the structure. An embryo does not, for the same reason. But a late-term fetus does.

Btw, sorry for the multiple small posts. For some reason, I am currently unable to copy and paste. I also cannot use the apostrophe key on my computer (hence the lack of contractions).

Dempublicents1

11-01-2007, 22:16

Wouldn't it be better to say that embryos exhibited some parasite-like characteristics rather than calling it a parasite? Then everybody could agree and get on with the more important points of the debate.

The thing is, it is one of perspective. If you love the embryo growing in your body, you wouldn't dream of calling it a parasite. You would be happy to provide for its needs, and be happy that you can provide.

But if you resented it for taking away your liberty or changing your life style, then you are probably more likely to call it a parasite, despite the fact that that is not generally recognised as a parasite in the world of biology.

Oh dear. I also cannot use the backslash and split up quotes. This is really odd.

Anyways, no, it would not be better to say it has some parasite-like characteristics. It displays all of the characteristics necessary to be a parasite. Therefore, it is a parasite.

If I were pregnant, at any stage of pregnancy, I would feel responsible for the embryo or fetus and would, emotionally, view it as a baby. This would not change the fact that a fetus is a parasite and I would have no reason not to call it that. It would be a parasite - simply one that I wanted to have within me.

The problem here is that you are trying to assign a negative connotation to the word parasite that, biologically speaking, simply is not there. The word describes how a given organism lives - no more, no less. You seem to feel the need to attach a further connotation to it, to say that living off of a host is "bad".

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 22:16

Did I say anything like that?

No.

Therefore you can be assured that is was not my point.

Then perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell is what your point is. After spending all that energy ramming the idea down everyone's throat that an unborn baby is a parasite, you must have a profound and important point to make indeed.

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 22:18

Btw, sorry for the multiple small posts. For some reason, I am currently unable to copy and paste. I also cannot use the apostrophe key on my computer (hence the lack of contractions).

If you haven't tried it already, I suggest restarting your computer. I've had that problem once in awhile and I find that a reboot clears it right up. :)

Dempublicents1

11-01-2007, 23:12

Emotionally. The body doesn't significantly benefit from the mating process (in the short-term), except to release endorphins etc. That has the long-term effect of stress releif, well being, etc. We all know this. This is why, as I said before, we do it even when the objective is not procreation.

It is also why it is clear that procreation is not the only biological use for sex. Some species use it consistently to avoid physical altercations. Some use it for bonding purposes (rather important in social animals). And so on...

It is simply incorrect to try and say that procreation is the purpose of sex. It is a purpose. It is an important purpose. But it is not the purpose.

Secondly, there's no advantage in becoming pregnant only to terminate that pregnancy. That means the body becomes pregnant with the goal of giving birth.

The body doesn't really have "goals". And, in many cases, the body will end a pregnancy on its own because pregnancy is simply not advantageous. Stress, diet, hard labor, etc. can all contribute to the body self-aborting a pregnancy.

Under the current state of the law, that is absolutely correct, and saying so over and over again is superfluous. My point, as well as the point of all pro-life debaters, is not to argue the legalities of this. That much is a matter of fact, not opinion. The point of the debate is whether or not it SHOULD be legal. Just because something, there's no gurarantee that it's ethical, moral or even logical.

So, for clarity's sake, you think we should be able to legally compel people to donate blood/organs/etc.?

Meanwhile, it's a bit odd to say that you don't want to debate the legalities, but you want to debate whether or not it should be legal. It would seem, in that case, that legalities are precisely what you want to debate.

(Relevant facts defined as those which their side agrees on, even when they may be subjective, debatable or just wrong.)

If they are all of these things, then surely you can demonstrate that to be true....

Abortion was illegal before it was legal. IMHO the case hasn't been properly proven and the verdict ought to be reversed.

And it was legal before it was illegal - for most of human history, actually. What is your point?

Meanwhile, the case you are referring to has nothing at all to do with proofs or verdicts. Roe v. Wade was not a criminal case. It was a challenge to a law.

Even the people who first brought the suit to court have since reversed their opinion and gone pro-life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

My aunt once had an abortion. She later decided she was pro-life. So? People change their opinions. It is interesting that this woman wanted her own choices when faced with the decision and would now like to take that choice away from others, but not really relevant.

Even though you use the mantra that my argument is invalid because of the "I say so" premise, you're mistaken.

Then give me something more. Please. I'd like to see an actual argument.

Imagine, for a moment, that someone set up a thread arguing that murder ought to be allowed. Make up whatever scenario you want. The "wrongness" of murdering another human being is self-evident (to most).

If one accepts the premise that an unborn baby is to be considered a full fledged human being, then that's it. getting into issues like how many weeks along the fetus is or what the mother wants to do with him/her is irrelevant once that basic premise is accepted.

One must first support that premise. Otherwise, there is no reason for the law to just accept it. And, even if it did, there would be a debate over whether or not abortion is murder.

Bear in mind, of course, that pretty much no one actually considers an embryo fully a human being. They say they do, but when you ask pressing questions, they always treat the embryo as lesser than a born human being.

For instance, do you think all miscarriages should be investigated for possible child neglect?

Do you oppose in vitro fertilization?

What would be more important to you in a fire, saving a freezer full of embryos, or a five-year old child?

I argue this point because I firmly believe that people are trying to define the unborn baby as something that's more ethically acceptable to destroy, in order to ease their conscience and enable them to support an action that allows them to escape the honest results of their own actions.

For many, you've got the process backwards. Many people base their moral views on the definition of the unborn. They look at the development process and determine what they can logically support.

I'll ask you again, can you give me a definition of human person that includes an embryo, but does not include a single human cell or an organ? Once again, you cannot use the argument from potential. You cannot use religious views. And your definition must account for twins and chimeras.

If you can do this, I promise you I'll rethink my position on the matter. Unfortunately, I've yet to see it done.

You then might talk about rights and people's bodies and so forth, and I disagree with that too, because no human has the right to kill another.

Actually, there are all sorts of situations in which you have the right to kill another. In Florida these days, all you have to do is have reason to suspect that another person might be an immediate danger to you. If someone is threatening you with a deadly weapon, you can kill them. In most places, if you feel that the only way to get away from a rapist is to kill them, that is considered justified. And so on....

No, I don't think I twisted your words, although yuo can restate your point if you want, in case they weren't clear. I said that when abortion was illegal there were a fraction of the number of abortions performed that are done today. You responded by stating that the rich will always be able to get abortions, legal or not, and went on to somment that it's the poor who can now get abortions more than before because of accessibility.

Indeed. So legalization is not making people go out and get abortions. The same people who always would have sought them are seeking them. The difference now is that the poor can actually do that without death being the likely consequence.

If anything, my point was that the poor "count" just as much as the rich. They should not be treated differently simply because they are poor.

Maryland, for one.

Interesting. considering that the sources I'm seeing list Maryland as one of the states that has outlawed elective late-term abortion. In fact, it is listed as one of the few such bans that is unquestioningly constitutional, as it allows for such abortions to be carried out for the life or health of the mother. Like many states, it also allows for abortions in the instance of gross chromosomal defects.

Unless, of course, you are now saying you are opposed to abortions for the life and health of the mother.

The odds against that are astronomical. I think (no offense) that more likely you've been misinformed along the way.

I don't. I have no reason to doubt them. In each case, the parents (or parent, in case of the last one) referred to their children as "miracle babies." Yes, the odds against it are high, but that does not mean it cannot happen.

When you say "could not and should not" do you mean medically?

No, as per the conversation we were already having, I mean that they are incapable of properly raising a child, and thus should never do it. You said that such people should simply not have sex, and I pointed out that it is ridiculous to suggest that a person should never have an intimate romantic relationship simply because they never want, and are, indeed, incompetent to raise children.

Not without violating a confidence.

So, in that case, it's simply more personal stuff. No actual verifiable research. Gotcha.

Does that mean a fetus doesn't?

Are you even trying to follow the conversation? I asked you to point me to people on life support who do not meet the definition of organism, as you said there are some who do not. ((Granted, this is true, but those people are actually dead, so it's a bit beside the point))

A fetus, throughout the vast majority of its development, actually would count as an organism, as it meets all the requirements therein. An embryo, on the other hand, does not.

But thanks for painting people that disagree as being either ignorant or slaves to their emotions. Why bother with us at all?

Once again, there you go trying to twist my words. I called you neither ignorant nor "slave to your emotions." The fact that you refuse to even make a stab at objective argument suggests that, on this issue at least, it may be true, but I didn't say that it was.

If people disagree with me on an objective basis, they should be able to provide me with an objective rational and put it forth. I've asked you multiple times to do this. Are you going to do it now?

That's the point in contention. I maintain that abortion DOES harm an actual, living human being.

I didn't ask what you believe. I asked what you can objectively demonstrate.

Yes. Now provide some sort of backing for that. You claim that your argument isn't just, "I said so," but you have yet to provide anything more.

If you want to have a meaningful dialogue about this stuff you should be a little more able to see things from the opposing point of view, if for no other reason than to strategically find better ways to argue.

You have to give me a viewpoint to see it from. "I said so," isn't going to give me enough to go on.

Sweetheart, the law does deal in right and wrong, at least partly, based on the definition that to harm is to do wrong.

No, it is based on the definition that to harm is to harm, and the purpose of the law is protection.

If the law were to deal in right and wrong, we'd have many, many, many more laws. Being "beneath contempt" probably would be illegal. Of course, then we'd be delving into a lot of subjectivity. Some people think that anal sex is "wrong". If there were enough of them, it would be illegal. In fact, at one tme, it was, until it was found to be unconstitutional...

A personal shot? Cool.

Not really. You have obviously defined "my way" as the "easy way." That would seem to suggest that "your way" is the "hard way."

You're the one that accused me of looking for validation.

I said that it seemed you were looking for validation by trying to force your opinions on others through force of law. I said nothing at all about expressing your opinions on an internet forum.

Much like those who seek validation for their viewpoints that homoexual sex is wrong by trying to make it illegal, you are trying to make something that you view as wrong, but cannot objectively demonstrate to harm another human being, illegal.

I would.

Really? How interesting. So you don't think personhood has anything at all to do with being alive?

I basically addressed this above. Your argument, as well as Bottle's seem to revolve around the idea that legal=right even though you admitted above that isn't always the case. If you agree that some things are legal that are wrong, and that some things that are illegal shouldn't be, then that nullifies the "Abortion is alright because it's legal" argument.

Who made that argument?

The point of my arguments, once again, is to demonstrate why I think it ought to be illegal. To continually waste time and energy simply reminding me of the fact that it's illegal is pointless.

You think it ought to be illegal. I get that. What you haven't provided me with is any legal reasoning for that.

Obviously.

But you can dispense with the mantra now, as I said in my last post

Well, let me clarify.

It cannot, and should not, be illegal to be "beneath contempt." How would one objectively demonstrate "beneath contempt"? Who gets to determine what qualifies? I think KKK members are "beneath contempt." Should I be working to make being a member illegal?

Then perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell is what your point is. After spending all that energy ramming the idea down everyone's throat that an unborn baby is a parasite, you must have a profound and important point to make indeed.

The point is simply that - it is a parasite. You were saying something that was incorrect, and I corrected you. Do I need to have a point beyond that?

Dempublicents1

11-01-2007, 23:14

If you haven't tried it already, I suggest restarting your computer. I've had that problem once in awhile and I find that a reboot clears it right up. :)

Thanks. As it turns out, simply letting it go into standby mode did it. =)

Kianandria

11-01-2007, 23:18

Neo Bretonnia

11-01-2007, 23:23

Thanks. As it turns out, simply letting it go into standby mode did it. =)

Woot!

Neo Bretonnia

12-01-2007, 00:09

It is also why it is clear that procreation is not the only biological use for sex. Some species use it consistently to avoid physical altercations. Some use it for bonding purposes (rather important in social animals). And so on...

It is simply incorrect to try and say that procreation is the purpose of sex. It is a purpose. It is an important purpose. But it is not the purpose.

I categorized those other uses as emotional, but reproduction IS the primary biological purpose of sex. I said this repeatedly, not that it was the only, but that it was the primary. if you want to put the emotional results into the bilogical column, fine. I see no value in quibbling over that point, but my point remains the same.

The body doesn't really have "goals". And, in many cases, the body will end a pregnancy on its own because pregnancy is simply not advantageous. Stress, diet, hard labor, etc. can all contribute to the body self-aborting a pregnancy.

:rolleyes: "Goals" being used figuratively. Please, when reading my posts, look for the meaning, not a way to twist/quibble over semantics.

So, for clarity's sake, you think we should be able to legally compel people to donate blood/organs/etc.?

Meanwhile, it's a bit odd to say that you don't want to debate the legalities, but you want to debate whether or not it should be legal. It would seem, in that case, that legalities are precisely what you want to debate.

Again, please read for the meaning of my posts. I don't want to debate the legalities in that the STATE of the current law is not disputable, it is a fact. The debate is on what OUGHT to be done.

And no, I didn't say people should be forced to donate blood/rogans/etc. Read the posts. I said that in the case of abortions, there is a responsibility to carry the baby because the baby had no choice, wasn't given the chance to opt whether to be there.

And it was legal before it was illegal - for most of human history, actually. What is your point?
How do you figure?

Meanwhile, the case you are referring to has nothing at all to do with proofs or verdicts. Roe v. Wade was not a criminal case. It was a challenge to a law.
So? In a civil case or any case in a courtroom, for that matter, there is proof/evidence. You want to quibble over semantics, okay not a verdict, a decision.

Satisfied?

My aunt once had an abortion. She later decided she was pro-life. So? People change their opinions. It is interesting that this woman wanted her own choices when faced with the decision and would now like to take that choice away from others, but not really relevant.

So you dismiss her change of heart out of hand as just an example of someone becoming a control freak.

Listen to me, and hear this: Pro-Life advocates are NOT about control. Understand this because you seem to be very much in love with the idea, and while I acknowledged to you a few pages back that there are indeed some people who are, that does not fairly constitute the movement as a whole.

To be honest, I think one of the reasons people reflexively react that way is to try and erode their credibility, thus helping them to validate their own perspective.

Then give me something more. Please. I'd like to see an actual argument.

You dismiss them, which is fine, but it's intellectually dishonest to then pretend they never existed.

One must first support that premise. Otherwise, there is no reason for the law to just accept it. And, even if it did, there would be a debate over whether or not abortion is murder.

You mean like this one?

Bear in mind, of course, that pretty much no one actually considers an embryo fully a human being. They say they do, but when you ask pressing questions, they always treat the embryo as lesser than a born human being.

Pressing questions, or shouting them down? When was the last time you honestly, sincerely, open mindedly listened to someone talk about that? I don't mean to be insulting to you, but I strongly suspect you never have. Don't be offended. Most people don't. I dont object to that because it's human nature. What I object to is people who swear up and down that they're completely objective when the reality is that they're not even slightly open.

I don't think anybody really is, on a topic like this. What I have found is that very often pro-choice adherents are justifying someone's decision. Either their own or that of someone close to them. Not all caes, mind you, but fairly often.

For instance, do you think all miscarriages should be investigated for possible child neglect?

Do you oppose in vitro fertilization?

What would be more important to you in a fire, saving a freezer full of embryos, or a five-year old child?

If it weren't for the sheer volume of miscarriages, or the fact that they can happen so easily through no fault of the mother, I might.

I have no opinion on in vitro fertilization because I can't claim sufficient knowledge of the subject.

And that last analogy is silly and I believe you've thrown it at me before. I refused to respond to it then and I won't now. If, in order to make your point, you have to construct a scenario that's so unusual and fictitious then chances are, the point isn't a very strong one.

For many, you've got the process backwards. Many people base their moral views on the definition of the unborn. They look at the development process and determine what they can logically support.

I'll ask you again, can you give me a definition of human person that includes an embryo, but does not include a single human cell or an organ? Once again, you cannot use the argument from potential. You cannot use religious views. And your definition must account for twins and chimeras.

If you can do this, I promise you I'll rethink my position on the matter. Unfortunately, I've yet to see it done.

I wonder why you're so against the concept of an argument from potential, just out of curiosity. What invalidates that? Just curious.

Actually, there are all sorts of situations in which you have the right to kill another. In Florida these days, all you have to do is have reason to suspect that another person might be an immediate danger to you. If someone is threatening you with a deadly weapon, you can kill them. In most places, if you feel that the only way to get away from a rapist is to kill them, that is considered justified. And so on....

The common thread there is that generally speaking, a person must have reasonable belief that their life is in imminent danger. Some places are more stringent. For example in New York State you have to prove that not only was an intruder in y our home trying to kill you, but that you made every possible effort to escape the attacker before being forced to defend yourself. In effect, unless you're cornered by the intruder, they're going to ccharge you with a crime. (Note: I think that's completely stupid. Attempting to escape before using a weapon to defend myself only reduced the likelihood of my survival.)

Indeed. So legalization is not making people go out and get abortions. The same people who always would have sought them are seeking them. The difference now is that the poor can actually do that without death being the likely consequence.

If anything, my point was that the poor "count" just as much as the rich. They should not be treated differently simply because they are poor.

Alright, fair enough. But in terms of the debate, I see no value in legalizing it just because rich people can get away with it. Most crimes can be described that way. Take OJ Simpson. His money got him out of a double murder conviction. Shall we now say that the poor are disadvantaged there and thus murder shuold be legal?

(Note: I do think that demonstrates an inequality in legal protection, OJ would have been convicted if not for his ability to hire that defense team. The solution, however, is not to legalize the crime.)

Interesting. considering that the sources I'm seeing list Maryland as one of the states that has outlawed elective late-term abortion. In fact, it is listed as one of the few such bans that is unquestioningly constitutional, as it allows for such abortions to be carried out for the life or health of the mother. Like many states, it also allows for abortions in the instance of gross chromosomal defects.

Unless, of course, you are now saying you are opposed to abortions for the life and health of the mother.
[/quit]
I'd like very much to see that info, if you've got the link handy. I live in Maryland and it's been described as "the most liberal state in the union" as it applies to geting abortions. If what you're telling me true, then it'll make me feel much better.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;12199108]
I don't. I have no reason to doubt them. In each case, the parents (or parent, in case of the last one) referred to their children as "miracle babies." Yes, the odds against it are high, but that does not mean it cannot happen.

Well... you know them, I don't... but speaking strictly from a perspective of odds, if I were a betting man I'd bet against it.

No, as per the conversation we were already having, I mean that they are incapable of properly raising a child, and thus should never do it. You said that such people should simply not have sex, and I pointed out that it is ridiculous to suggest that a person should never have an intimate romantic relationship simply because they never want, and are, indeed, incompetent to raise children.

People have been deprived of sex for far stupider reasons.

So, in that case, it's simply more personal stuff. No actual verifiable research. Gotcha.

Not gonna let you bait me. If keeping a confidence means putting a 'win' in your column, then so be it.

Are you even trying to follow the conversation? I asked you to point me to people on life support who do not meet the definition of organism, as you said there are some who do not. ((Granted, this is true, but those people are actually dead, so it's a bit beside the point))

No, just trying to establish what you mean. Do you want me instead to not bother and just misinterpret you? I happen to think there's some value to understanding what your opponent actually means in a debate. Silly me.

sheesh.

Once again, there you go trying to twist my words. I called you neither ignorant nor "slave to your emotions." The fact that you refuse to even make a stab at objective argument suggests that, on this issue at least, it may be true, but I didn't say that it was.

If people disagree with me on an objective basis, they should be able to provide me with an objective rational and put it forth. I've asked you multiple times to do this. Are you going to do it now?

Relax. I'm only reacting to this:
Only if I can demosntrate it objectively. Meanwhile, I said that I see it as a baby from an emotional point of view. From a scientific point of view, I know better.

Which implies that those who do not see it your way ARE being emotional, and thus not looking at it scientifically. Maybe that's not what you meant to say, but that's the way it looks.

I didn't ask what you believe. I asked what you can objectively demonstrate.

Okay I can demonstrate harm. What's the survival rate of an aborted fetus?

Yes. Now provide some sort of backing for that. You claim that your argument isn't just, "I said so," but you have yet to provide anything more.

Again, I have done so. Your refusal to acknowledge that is beyond my power to control.

No, it is based on the definition that to harm is to harm, and the purpose of the law is protection.
Good now bring it to its logical conclusion. if something causes harm then it should be illegal, yes?

If the law were to deal in right and wrong, we'd have many, many, many more laws. Being "beneath contempt" probably would be illegal. Of course, then we'd be delving into a lot of subjectivity. Some people think that anal sex is "wrong". If there were enough of them, it would be illegal. In fact, at one tme, it was, until it was found to be unconstitutional...

Which is a sidetrack that I think we can safely move on from, yes?

Not really. You have obviously defined "my way" as the "easy way." That would seem to suggest that "your way" is the "hard way."

Granted, if by that you mean the act of carrying a baby to term as opposed to aborting it. I know that' snot what you meant though, but I'd rather not quibble.

I said that it seemed you were looking for validation by trying to force your opinions on others through force of law. I said nothing at all about expressing your opinions on an internet forum.

Much like those who seek validation for their viewpoints that homoexual sex is wrong by trying to make it illegal, you are trying to make something that you view as wrong, but cannot objectively demonstrate to harm another human being, illegal.

If you'd only shift your focus away from demonstrating harm to the part about the human being being the one harmed, you'd be right on my point. As it is, it looks like you're dodging it. (Maybe not intentionally, but that's how it looks.)

Really? How interesting. So you don't think personhood has anything at all to do with being alive?

The person in the analogy can be argued to still be living. Otherwise the funeral arrangements would be made.

Frankly, I do believe that a person who is brain dead is, for all practical purposes, dead... but they're still a person because I believe that the spirit is stuck with the body until it dies. I don't believe the spirit is housed in the brain. That's a completely unrelated subject, but since you asked, I thought I'd throw that out there.

Who made that argument?
You and Bottle.

You think it ought to be illegal. I get that. What you haven't provided me with is any legal reasoning for that.

Except for the killing of a person. Strange... I'd have thought that would be enough...

Okay Okay I know you don't count the fetus as a person. I do get that. So let's focus on that.

Well, let me clarify.

It cannot, and should not, be illegal to be "beneath contempt." How would one objectively demonstrate "beneath contempt"? Who gets to determine what qualifies? I think KKK members are "beneath contempt." Should I be working to make being a member illegal?

Oh lordy I think this is a sidetrack waiting to happen. Especially since to the extent that it's relevant, I've already addressed it.

The point is simply that - it is a parasite. You were saying something that was incorrect, and I corrected you. Do I need to have a point beyond that?
Given the context of the discussion, and the frequency with which you say it.. yeah. Kinda disappointing otherwise.

If this post seems a little dodgy it's because I'm trying to clean up some of the sidetracks and irrelevant points and get down to brass tacks. I mean this in the kindest way, (pretend I'm saying this with a sincere smile) but I've noticed in your debate style that sometimes you argue by diverting the point onto sidetracks. I don't know if it's done as a deliberate strategy or if it's an accidental thing, but I'm just trying to get back on track. No offense intended.

Dempublicents1

12-01-2007, 01:06

I categorized those other uses as emotional, but reproduction IS the primary biological purpose of sex. I said this repeatedly, not that it was the only, but that it was the primary. if you want to put the emotional results into the bilogical column, fine. I see no value in quibbling over that point, but my point remains the same.

Emotional is biological. And since a great deal more sex is used for emotional purposes - even when conception is not possible or advantageous - it would appear that the emotional effects, at least in our species, are the primary biological purpose.

And no, I didn't say people should be forced to donate blood/rogans/etc. Read the posts. I said that in the case of abortions, there is a responsibility to carry the baby because the baby had no choice, wasn't given the chance to opt whether to be there.

Are people with organ failure or blood loss generally given the chance to opt out of needing these things?

If you don't think that people should be forced to donate their bodies to the cause of another, it makes no logical sense for you to make an exception for certain "people" simply because they mean something special to you. It would be like me saying that I don't think anyone should be forced to donate blood, unless it was an infant who needed it.

How do you figure?

It is a simple historical fact. Abortion, in various forms, has been around as long as human beings have been sentient. Throughout the vast majority of human history, there were no laws against it. Women who wished to end their pregnancies simply went to a midwife or a chemist and, as long as they could pay, their pregnancies were ended. There have certainly pretty much always been philosophical and religious arguments against it, as there still are, but it hasn't been illegal. British common law, on which much of our legal system was based, held that abortion was illegal only after the quickening - when the mother began to feel movement. That was the general ruling throughout much of the US over a great deal of its history.

For the most part, it wasn't until abortion became a medical procedure, rather than one generally carried out by midwives, that states began making laws against it. Many of these laws still followed the "quickening" common law, while others were complete bans.

When it comes right down to it, abortion has only been seen as completely illegal in most of the world for a span of 50-100 years - and that only after it became a relatively safe medical procedure.

So you dismiss her change of heart out of hand as just an example of someone becoming a control freak.

On this issue, it would appear that she does want to control other people.

Listen to me, and hear this: Pro-Life advocates are NOT about control.

Pro-life, no, we aren't.

Those who would make it illegal, on the other hand, quite clearly are. They wish to control others - to enact their opinions into law. How can that not be about control?

You dismiss them, which is fine, but it's intellectually dishonest to then pretend they never existed.

Point to them, then. I'd honestly like to see them. I'm begging to see them. I'd like to see some sort of objective backing. Please? Give me your objective backing for considering an embryo to be a human person. I've been asking for it throughout the thread and, just as is in this post, you have consistently refused to give an answer.

You have not provided any backing. What you've said is, "If you hold this to be true....." You haven't told me why I should hold it to be true.

Pressing questions, or shouting them down?

Pressing questions. I'm not a big fan of shouting anyone down, unless they are trolling, in which case I'm much more likely to just ignore them.

When was the last time you honestly, sincerely, open mindedly listened to someone talk about that? I don't mean to be insulting to you, but I strongly suspect you never have.

You suspect wrong. I've listened to people with all sorts of viewpoints. Quite often, doing so has altered mine.

I don't think anybody really is, on a topic like this. What I have found is that very often pro-choice adherents are justifying someone's decision. Either their own or that of someone close to them. Not all caes, mind you, but fairly often.

That's an interesting opinion. Of course, I was politically pro-choice before I ever met anyone who I knew had ever had an abortion. I knew my aunt, but I was still one of the few people in our family who didn't know the family secret when I was first forming my viewpoints on the subject.

If it weren't for the sheer volume of miscarriages, or the fact that they can happen so easily through no fault of the mother, I might.

Do you know how many children die every year through no fault of the parents? It doesn't stop us from examining the causes to make sure we can rule out neglect. A large proportion of miscarriages occur because of genetic abnormalities. It wouldn't be all that hard to rule those out. And once we did, we'd just investigate the mother's habits to see whether or not she was eating right, avoiding drinking, smoking, etc.

I have no opinion on in vitro fertilization because I can't claim sufficient knowledge of the subject.

You are aware, I assume, that it involves the creation of multiple embryos with the intention to use only one or two? That most of the excess embryos are later destroyed?

And that last analogy is silly and I believe you've thrown it at me before. I refused to respond to it then and I won't now. If, in order to make your point, you have to construct a scenario that's so unusual and fictitious then chances are, the point isn't a very strong one.

I doubt it. I've seen it before, but can't remember using it myself. But the scenario isn't really all that fictitious. It very well could happen at any in vitro fertilization clinic in the world, if a child happened to be there with his parent. These places really do have freezers stuffed with frozen embryos. Unusual? Yes. But so is the ethical question of, "What would you do if you found $100 lying on the ground?" We still ask it.

I wonder why you're so against the concept of an argument from potential, just out of curiosity. What invalidates that? Just curious.

*sigh* You're never going to answer the question, are you? And yet you're going to keep calling me "intellectually dishonest" for pointing out that you aren't answering it. Anyways...

The fact that it is illogical invalidates it. If entity A is potentially going to become entity B, A is not currently B. As such, there is no reason to treat A as if it is B. I could potentially grow to be old, but I don't currently receive social security, and trying to do so would be illegal. I could potentially have a Ph.D. in a few years, but people don't call me "Dr." yet. Children are potential adults, but we don't grant them the rights or responsibilities of adults. And so on....

"Entity A is in the process of becoming entity B," is not a logically valid argument for treating entity A as if it is already entity B.

Defining a human being as "something that is becoming a human being," is completely illogical and is thus, as an objective definition, useless.

Alright, fair enough. But in terms of the debate, I see no value in legalizing it just because rich people can get away with it.

Nor do I. But the reality of the matter is that abortion has always occurred. It has always been looked down on by many, but it has always occurred. Kind of like prostitution. It would seem that the better approach would be to address the underlying causes of abortion, and to try to convince others of your viewpoint, rather than trying to force it upon them.

I'd like very much to see that info, if you've got the link handy. I live in Maryland and it's been described as "the most liberal state in the union" as it applies to geting abortions. If what you're telling me true, then it'll make me feel much better.

The easiest link is the wikipedia one, and this page looks fairly well referenced. I had trouble finding Maryland's actual law on the subject, so I had to go to listings of multiple states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#Legal_restrictions

Not gonna let you bait me. If keeping a confidence means putting a 'win' in your column, then so be it.

It's not a matter of baiting. If you have to keep someone's confidence here, then it isn't independent research. It is still personal anecdote. Otherwise, there'd be no reason to keep that confidence, as there would be no person's confidence to keep - you'd have researched outside of personal anecdote.

Although, I'm really having trouble figuring out how the question of how many people are having lots of loose sex thinking, "No problem, I can just have an abortion," would be a matter of personal confidence at all. One person doesn't equate to people in general.

No, just trying to establish what you mean. Do you want me instead to not bother and just misinterpret you?

There is no logical pathway from my question to yours. Your question had nothing to do with mine, except possibly as a dodge. You stated that some people on life support are not organisms. I asked for an example, and your reponse was.

"Does this mean that a fetus shouldn't be?"

How does that, in any way, follow?

Which implies that those who do not see it your way ARE being emotional, and thus not looking at it scientifically. Maybe that's not what you meant to say, but that's the way it looks.

They might have some other reasoning, but it definitely isn't purely scientific. If you can find reputable sources that refute the order of development I've seen, by all means, do it. Until then, I'm going to go with the scientific data we have for scientific reasoning.

Again, I have done so. Your refusal to acknowledge that is beyond my power to control.

WHERE!?!? Please, I'm begging you, SHOW ME!

Good now bring it to its logical conclusion. if something causes harm then it should be illegal, yes?

Not necessarily. As a general rule, it must cause harm to a citizen, or at the very least to a human being. It also must not cause greater harm by being prevented. After all, there are no laws against killing cows. And the laws against killing animals in general apply only to the level of cruelty involved. I can have, for instance, my dog killed at any time, as long as I do so in a humane manner - one where the dog feels little pain.

The person in the analogy can be argued to still be living. Otherwise the funeral arrangements would be made.

Generally, they are. The only reason they are not is the fact that there are some people who simply can't let go until the body is actually rotting on the table.

You and Bottle.

No, I haven't. Not by a long-shot. In fact, I seem to remember making it very clear that I don't think abortion is "alright".

Except for the killing of a person. Strange... I'd have thought that would be enough...

Not if you have no evidence that the "person" is a person at all.

Okay Okay I know you don't count the fetus as a person. I do get that. So let's focus on that.

I don't count an embryo as a person - it's not even truly an organism at that point. And I wouldn't consider an early term fetus a person either. I don't think an anencephalic (never develops any forebrain) fetus will ever be a person, even thought it may be born breathing.

From a logical standpoint, something has to set "biologically human" apart from "human person." My individual cells are all biologically human, as are my organs. The cells I have in culture in the next room are biologically human. But none of them are human persons.

Given the context of the discussion, and the frequency with which you say it.. yeah. Kinda disappointing otherwise.

The frequency with which I say it, eh? Are you one of those people who cannot tell one poster from the next? I didn't bring the term into the conversation, nor do I regularly refer to a fetus as a parasite, as that classification is largely irrelevant. But, when it does come up and people are yelling and screaming that it can't possibly be right, I have no problem with correcting them.

Edit: Note that I'm not trying to make fun of you here. I really would like to hear your reasoning for defining an embryo/early fetus as a complete human person that should be legally protected. I'd be interested to hear at what point you think human personhood begins and why.

Muravyets

12-01-2007, 07:04

Bruarong

12-01-2007, 11:35

Anyways, no, it would not be better to say it has some parasite-like characteristics. It displays all of the characteristics necessary to be a parasite. Therefore, it is a parasite.

If I were pregnant, at any stage of pregnancy, I would feel responsible for the embryo or fetus and would, emotionally, view it as a baby. This would not change the fact that a fetus is a parasite and I would have no reason not to call it that. It would be a parasite - simply one that I wanted to have within me.

The problem here is that you are trying to assign a negative connotation to the word parasite that, biologically speaking, simply is not there. The word describes how a given organism lives - no more, no less. You seem to feel the need to attach a further connotation to it, to say that living off of a host is "bad".

I would say that the term 'parasite' was brought into this debate by the pro-abortionists because of it's negative connotations. And you have the brass to pin the negative connotations on me. Incredible.

Furthermore, to call an embryo a parasite is not accurate, desired or not, and would not stick in the world of biology. By most definitions of the word (especially in biology), a parasite must not be a progeny of the host, but rather belong to a separate and distinct species that takes advantage of the host. Otherwise the meaning of the term 'parasite' is lost, since it would otherwise include every mammalian (mammalian) baby as a parasite. We don't do that in biology, since we reserve the term parasite for a specific list of species.

Bruarong

12-01-2007, 12:09

I'm against adultery always, but I don't want it legally enforced. Weird, huh?

That's because there is a difference.

Firstly, adultery is between two consenting adults, unlike an abortion scenario.

Secondly, adultery might do a lot of emotional harm (as might the abortion), but does no physical harm, and does not increase the risk of sterility (at least not directly).

Thirdly, adultery does not result in the death of a non-consenting individual.

I would prefer not to see any abortion. I would prefer never to see any woman who does not wish to have a child or who cannot take care of a child get pregnant.

Obviously, otherwise you would be a monster.

Doesn't sound very unwilling when you immediately start advocating doing just that....

Why? Are you unwilling to concede that I might be a reluctant supporter of anti-abortion laws, while at the same time trying to maintain that you are a reluctant supporter of legal abortions? (Reluctant in the sense that you do not support abortion personally.)

Is there no point? The issue is that we can't say when an embryo becomes a human person, really, it is that people can't seem to come up with a standard definition of "human person." The main reason for this is that, instead of looking at the entities we all consider human persons and going from there, too many people want to start with the conclusion: "The embryo is a person," and then form a definition. People don't want to define it, because then their deeply held convictions might not be backed up. Those of us who do look to science and medicine for some sort of definition end up, surprise surprise, pro-choice.

So, basically, anyone who is against abortion has not looked at the science, has approached the whole question from the basis of their religious convictions, and doesn't seem to be intelligent enough to come up with the same conclusions that you hold. That does sound very bigoted of you.

If I told you that I have looked at the science (to a certain extent) and still disagree with you, are you going to call me a liar or just unintelligent? Because that is the only two options you have left me.

Considering that we don't have numbers like that in the US or most of Europe, I'd say that the problem you're seeing is much more an issue of the quality of life in Russia than an issue with abortion.

You can sit there is your comfortable chair at your comfortable job sipping your comfortable drink, all in the comfortable USA, and talk about 6 million lives lost every year being about 'quality of life'. Doesn't that seem a bit heartless? The fact is that if abortion was illegal in Russia, there would be a lot less deaths of unborn infants. There would most likely be more deaths among mothers, because of illegal operations (as was probably the case before 1950 when Stalin made abortion illegal because he thought Russia needed more soldiers). And that is a tragedy--a need that needed answers, and I don't think legalising abortion has helped the real problem--unwanted pregnancies.

And why is it that some countries with a lower quality of life than Russia have a lower rate of abortions?

Having abortions be legal doesn't automagically make people go out and have them. It is perfectly legal to be a racist bastard and to join the KKK, but most people don't do that. They refrain, not because it is illegal, but because they see it as wrong. Maybe, if people who are opposed to abortion would concentrate their efforts on convincing others of their point-of-view, instead of trying to force it on them, we'd see less abortions.

So what do you think I am doing? Trying to convince others on a debate forum, or trying to force anti-abortion laws on people around me? Do you feel like I am holding a gun to your head, or even just twisting your arm behind your back?

If you don't want to be guilty of murder, and you think an abortion might be murder, don't have one. Don't try and convince anyone else to do so.

Didn't you just say that we ought to convince using arguments rather than use force? When have I used force? Because I vote? Do you think voting is using force? If so, then your vote is also using force.

I don't think, "I think I should force this on everyone else because I can't prove it," is a very valid argument.

My argument is that because I have come to see abortion as a type of murder, that it harms not only the unborn babies, but also humanity in general, including the mothers, I am arguing against it. I am not forcing anti-abortion laws on anyone, just stating my opinions as clearly as I can. (Unless you consider voting to be the use of force--which I would disagree with anyway.)

A parent does have a legal obligation to care for a child - to a point. But a parent is not legally required to donate any tissue or allow their own bodies to be used to care for the child. It is best for a child to breastfeed, but there is no law against formula-feeding, even when the woman can breastfeed. A parent cannot even be legally compelled to undergo a medical test that would help doctors treat the child.

I think if every child were to die if it did not receive breast milk, then you would see a law that ensured that the child received it. Just like the law that prevents mothers from killing their newborns.

In fact, come to think of it, a parent isn't even legally required to seek any medical care for a child. If the parent's religion says medicine is bad, the parent can sit at home and watch their child die of a perfectly treatable infection.

But a child dying from a sickness for which the remedy is seen as against one's religion is quite a different scenario from the one in which a woman allows a doctor to stick a needle into the brain of her child (and kill it) because of some religious belief. Hardly comparable, really.

Dempublicents1

12-01-2007, 18:59

You know what? Sometimes both sides of this debate piss me off. I think there are fundamental truths that both sides need to admit to each other. Btw, I am pro-choice and planning to adopt instead of have my own children.

1. Whether you are pro or anti-abortion, everyone knows (or should) that abortion is never a good thing. That doesn't mean, however, that it's not the best decision to make sometimes.
2. The government should not be making these decisions for the people. Period. I wouldn't trust our government (US) to babysit a stray cat, let alone make decisions that are this important and personal.
3. The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent pregnancy. Teaching abstinence is a happy idea, but it doesn't work. How about providing free birth control to any woman over 18 who wants it? How about making sure that things like emergency contraception are readily available?
4. There are women out there who use abortion for stupid, selfish reasons. There are forums out there in webspace that advocate the use of abortion for gender-selection. (Look them up if you don't believe me.) No matter how pro-choice I am, I have to admit that this is wrong.
5. BUT the small percentage that abuse this, should not make it unavailable for everyone else. (Think about 1 repeated DUI offender prompting the government to outlaw automobiles.)

Yes, I believe that having an abortion is taking a life. Just as much as killing an intruder in your home is taking a life. Does it mean I won't take a shot at the guy if I have to? I absolutely would. I'd regret it, deeply and for the rest of my life. Just as I'm sure the largest part of women who have abortions carry the weight of that decision for the rest of their life. I've met a few of them, and I know that they do. As they should. That doesn't mean it was the wrong choice.

It's a hard, heavy decision. Sometimes it's wrong. Sometimes it's right. Sometimes it's just the lesser of two evils. I would absolutely have an abortion if I felt that I could not take financial or emotional responsibility for a child. That doesn't mean I want any other woman out there to have to make that decision.

Provide the correct tools to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place, and you remove the need for abortion. The way I see it, if this is done properly, there'll be no reason to outlaw it. It makes no sense to me that neither side of this debate will realize this fundamental truth.

Not sure how I missed this yesterday, but it is a very good post.

Don't get too discouraged, however. The fact that we need to address the issues that lead to abortion, rather than focussing on abortion itself, has been brought up more than once.

I would say that the term 'parasite' was brought into this debate by the pro-abortionists because of it's negative connotations. And you have the brass to pin the negative connotations on me. Incredible.

You're the one who can't get past them and simply look at the definition.

Meanwhile, what is a "pro-abortionist"? Is that someone who wants doctors to perform lots of abortions? I'm confused.

Furthermore, to call an embryo a parasite is not accurate, desired or not, and would not stick in the world of biology. By most definitions of the word (especially in biology), a parasite must not be a progeny of the host, but rather belong to a separate and distinct species that takes advantage of the host. Otherwise the meaning of the term 'parasite' is lost, since it would otherwise include every mammalian (mammalian) baby as a parasite. We don't do that in biology, since we reserve the term parasite for a specific list of species.

The definitions in biology that I have seen say nothing about whether or not an organism is progeny of the host. It also doesn't refer only to organisms which remain parasites throughout their lifespan.

And the meaning of the word isn't lost. It refers to how an organism lives and obtains nourishment. That meaning is not magically lost if all mammalian fetuses meet the definition.

That's because there is a difference.

Of course there is, but the similarities remain.

So, basically, anyone who is against abortion has not looked at the science, has approached the whole question from the basis of their religious convictions, and doesn't seem to be intelligent enough to come up with the same conclusions that you hold. That does sound very bigoted of you.

It would sound bigotted, if I had said anything even remotely like that. Perhaps you should go back and look at what I actually said, eh?

If I told you that I have looked at the science (to a certain extent) and still disagree with you, are you going to call me a liar or just unintelligent? Because that is the only two options you have left me.

I'd ask you to tell me exactly how you came to your conclusion. I'd ask you for your definition of life and human person and how you scientifically back them up.

I'd be skeptical, since I know that you are in the habit of mixing religion and science, but I'd be willing to examine your viewpoint.

You can sit there is your comfortable chair at your comfortable job sipping your comfortable drink, all in the comfortable USA, and talk about 6 million lives lost every year being about 'quality of life'. Doesn't that seem a bit heartless?

No. In fact, it demonstrates that I would like to address the actual problem. In the US, Europe, etc. women have better access to contraceptives, so they are less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Even when such pregnancies occur, women are more likely to be able to have and support a child without losing their own health, homes, or lives and thus are less likely to be so desperate that they feel abortion is their only option. It's a tragedy that women in Russia do not have that level of quality of life - one that should be addressed.

The fact is that if abortion was illegal in Russia, there would be a lot less deaths of unborn infants.

And most likely many more deaths of born children and mothers.

Like I said, maybe we should address the underlying issues, eh?

And why is it that some countries with a lower quality of life than Russia have a lower rate of abortions?

Religion, culture, the fact that some countries have cops that are allowed to force pelvic exams upon women to look for signs of a possible abortion?

So what do you think I am doing? Trying to convince others on a debate forum, or trying to force anti-abortion laws on people around me? Do you feel like I am holding a gun to your head, or even just twisting your arm behind your back?

If you are attempting to enact laws to force your viewpoint upon others, that is what you are doing.

Didn't you just say that we ought to convince using arguments rather than use force? When have I used force? Because I vote? Do you think voting is using force? If so, then your vote is also using force.

The law is force. If you advocate putting a ban on abortion into the law, then you advocate forcing women to continue pregnancies.

My argument is that because I have come to see abortion as a type of murder, that it harms not only the unborn babies, but also humanity in general, including the mothers, I am arguing against it. I am not forcing anti-abortion laws on anyone, just stating my opinions as clearly as I can. (Unless you consider voting to be the use of force--which I would disagree with anyway.)

Now you're changing your tune. In your last post, it was, "I don't know if abortion is murder or not, so I think we should make a law against it just in case." It was all about not knowing and "erring on the side of caution." Were you somehow convinced that all abortion is murder in the interim?

Dempublicents1

12-01-2007, 20:08

I didn't reply to this yesterday, because you said it was a tangent, but it does bring up one interesting relevant point:

Frankly, I do believe that a person who is brain dead is, for all practical purposes, dead... but they're still a person because I believe that the spirit is stuck with the body until it dies. I don't believe the spirit is housed in the brain. That's a completely unrelated subject, but since you asked, I thought I'd throw that out there.

If your definition of human person relies upon the existence of and residence of a soul or spirit, you cannot honestly say that your argument is not based in religion, as we are then talking about a concept that is, itself, based in religion. Unless, of course, you are prepared to provide empirical evidence for the existence of a soul or spirit, tell us how to measure for it, and provide evidence for exactly when it takes up residence in the flesh.

As for the questions this brings up that are irrelevant to the topic at hand, I'll open up another thread. This could make for an interesting discussion.

IDF

12-01-2007, 23:13

Given the fact that there is a shortage of children available in the US (that's why adoptions from China are so popular) I think you would find homes for thekids.

Dempublicents1

12-01-2007, 23:15

Given the fact that there is a shortage of children available in the US (that's why adoptions from China are so popular) I think you would find homes for thekids.

There's a shortage of children in the US? Wouldn't that mean that all the orphanages and the foster care program would be completely empty of children who could be adopted? So, um....why are they full of children?

:rolleyes:

Bottle

12-01-2007, 23:17

There's a shortage of children in the US? Wouldn't that mean that all the orphanages and the foster care program would be completely empty of children who could be adopted? So, um....why are they full of children?

:rolleyes:
I wish people who claimed to care about Teh Baybees would actually take the time to go visit some of the kids awaiting adoption. I've got a friend who works with child protective services to place children in new adoptive homes and foster homes, and I'm sure she'd be more than willing to laugh in the face of anybody who claims there is a "shortage" of children in America.

Hyperslackovicznia

12-01-2007, 23:28

I find it disgusting that so many pro-lifers are so concerned about a fetus, but when the baby is born, the concern ends there.

What the hell are they thinking? :confused:

And the fanatics who are pro-life, yet go out and shoot doctors who perform abortions, fail to see the hypocracy there.

I never knew why we had to study "imaginary numbers" in algebra... I always joked, "why study them if they aren't there?", as many have. Now I know what they are for.

The imaginary numbers are the IQs of these types of pro-lifers.:rolleyes:

O On Das

12-01-2007, 23:43

There can be no half-assery with being pro-life. If you want the babies to be born, you should be prepared to provide for them in at least some fashion, at the very least doing what you can to protect the bio/eco systems that provide for us all and properly funding schools for them to attend. Anyone who is merely pro-birth needs to seriously re-evaluate their thinking.

As for people who believe that aborions should be allowed past the first tri-mester, and that partial-birth abortions are ok: This whole debate is over when life really begins, because after that, this becomes an issue of murder and not one of privacy for the woman. Right? Current medical science can provide for a child born pre-maturly at the nacent age (that's time since conception) of 4 months. Children born at that age can grow to lead normal, healthy, human lives. This cultural ability nigh indemnifies any abortive proceding past that time frame, and doubly so for partial-birth abortion procedings. That type of abortive surgery waits, usually until the childs normal birthing time, so that the mother can recieve the maximum benefit to her hormonal systems (that pregnant glow is more than emotions, people), and then the child is cut to peices in the womb and forcibly removed. A vain and terrible act.

Neo Bretonnia

13-01-2007, 00:29

In doing some meditating and research on this topic some spiritual issues have occured to me that have drastic rammifications on this argument.

While I have made a point of debating this topic from a religiously-neutral point of view, I do have some very deep religious feelings on it. At the same time, I acknowledge that others don't necessarily, and so I've tried to communicate on common ground. What I've learned is that sometimes there isn't any common ground. Not a bad thing, just a reality. In the meantime, while thinking about my past experiences w/respect this topic, I recalled something I try not to think about too often. It's very personal, but in this case I believe it's worth sharing.

When I was a year old, my mom had a late-term miscarriage that, had it happened today, probably would have been survivable for my would-be little brother. As the state of medical technology was in 1975, it was not.

I went to the Bishop of my congregation a couple years ago and asked him what the spiritual state of that baby would be. He asked me "Did he draw breath?" I went back and found out. No, he had not.

Now, as I apply the reasoning behind a quetsion like that to this debate, it occurs to me that one of the elements of my religion is that (as I understand it) the spirit and the body are joined the moment the baby draws his or her first breath. If so, then that would have a major impact on my point of view in this matter.

For the time being, I'm switching my official stance on pro-life/pro-choice to neutral pending the outcome of further study.

Dragon-hide Sneaks

13-01-2007, 01:09

I'd put those little bitches to work making sneakers and then retire. I've thought of this often.

Oh, and I wouldn't pay them. Just cause.

Koramerica

18-01-2007, 03:55

actually my family works with an organisation that *does* provide either support if the mother wants it, or a home for the child if she decides not to keep it. a friend of mine got pregnant in high school (or at least thought she did), and was talking about the potential of an abortion. I told my parents who sincerely promised there would be a home for the child, even if we took it ourselves. turned out to be a false alarm, but some people really do care about it enough to raise the children.

I entirely plan on spending the rest of my life promoting adoption, not just to prevent irresponsible americans from having abortions, but for children who in general have no one to take care of them, particularly in eastern bloc and latin american countries. I'm working on a psychology degree right now and will likely get a masters in social work. promoting gay adoption will be a large part of that.

I would appreciate it if you would consider working on promoting Transgendered adoption as well. I 'm sure some one out there in cyberspace will say it's the same thing, but it really isn't.

Koramerica

18-01-2007, 04:04

*rubs hands together*

I've been waiting to hear what the pro-lifers have to say about this for a long time.

I am Pro-Life and I would adopt kids like this if I was allowed to. Unforunately I am also transgendered, and alot of states won't allow transgendered people to adopt, just as they won't allow gays to adopt.

Koramerica

18-01-2007, 04:08

As much as I love the idea of making people put their money where their mouth is, I really don't think it's a good idea to have more anti-choicers rearing children.

Whats wrong you think it will cause you to lose your choice?

Koramerica

18-01-2007, 04:13

Grannie is a living being who is aware that she is alive. The fact that she may temporarily go to sleep does not change the fact that she is a living being with self-awareness. Even if she is not expressing her desire to live AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT, it's likely that she has expressed such a desire at some point during her lifetime.

An embryo is not capable of self-awareness. At no time in its existence has it been capable of registering, let alone evaluating, its life.

Can you see the distinction between your grandmother and an embryo?

Yes i see what you are getting at, but I don't believe it's a distinction, but rather a way to justify your beliefs.

Koramerica

18-01-2007, 04:18

Yes.
It is her choice who or what she allows to use her body.

I agree, she should have not allowed the guy in question to use her body in such a way that a baby was the result unless she was ready to be a mother.

Bottle

18-01-2007, 14:28

Whats wrong you think it will cause you to lose your choice?
No, I simply think it will result in more children being brought up to fear and mistrust their own bodies and natural functions, and to view sex as something that one deserves to be punished for having. I think that's sad, and I wouldn't wish that on any child.

Bottle

18-01-2007, 14:28

Yes i see what you are getting at, but I don't believe it's a distinction, but rather a way to justify your beliefs.
So you do not believe there is a difference between your grandmother and an embryo?

Amazing. I'm sure you also think that an egg is the same as a chicken, and when you are cooking you use the same methods to prepare both of them. :D

Bottle

18-01-2007, 14:29

I agree, she should have not allowed the guy in question to use her body in such a way that a baby was the result unless she was ready to be a mother.
"Allowed the guy in question to use her body..."

Yeah, that pretty much says it all. Men use women's bodies, and it's up to women to make sure they're only "used" in certain ways, otherwise they get to be punished with a baby.

Ahh, romance...

Bitchkitten

18-01-2007, 14:46

Since I'd rather have a lobotomy than a child, I'd certainly expect somebody else take care of it if I was forced to carry a child to term. If my birth control fails, I will absolutely terminate the pregnancy.

Bruarong

18-01-2007, 15:25

You're the one who can't get past them and simply look at the definition.

On the contrary, I was explaining that the term 'parasite' was brought into this discussion because of its common negative connotations. If it wasn't negative, it probably wouldn't have been mentioned here. I don't like the use of the term here, firstly because of the negative connotations, but that aside, it simply isn't accurate. Not in the medical world, nor in the biological world. In a presentation/forum about elephants, which scientist is going to refer to an elephant embryo as a parasite? It is never used to describe an embryo in the biological world. Why should it be used to describe a human embryo--if not for the negative baggage?

Meanwhile, what is a "pro-abortionist"? Is that someone who wants doctors to perform lots of abortions? I'm confused.

I don't like the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice', because they are not really what the issue is about. It really is over the issue of whether abortion should be legal or not. Those against legalising it are anti-abortion, while those for legalising it (whether they think abortion a good thing or not) are pro-abortionists.

The definitions in biology that I have seen say nothing about whether or not an organism is progeny of the host. It also doesn't refer only to organisms which remain parasites throughout their lifespan.

I recommend you read around the topic a little more. Even the Wikipedia definition specifies that the parasite and the host cannot belong to the same species.

And the meaning of the word isn't lost. It refers to how an organism lives and obtains nourishment. That meaning is not magically lost if all mammalian fetuses meet the definition.

In any meaningful list of parasites, in the world of biology, it would be senseless to list every mammal.

Of course there is, but the similarities remain.

If you are only looking at the similarities, why, then you will also find enough between God and Satan. Big deal. The differences also matter.

I'd ask you to tell me exactly how you came to your conclusion. I'd ask you for your definition of life and human person and how you scientifically back them up.

I'd be skeptical, since I know that you are in the habit of mixing religion and science, but I'd be willing to examine your viewpoint.

May that not be due to your confusion over what is science and what is not?

Like I said before, I don't know all there is to know about embryos and humans and the differences and the similarities. (If we use your logic, then finding the similarities should be enough, BTW, but luckily enough I don't agree with your logic.) What I do know is that while I do not like unwanted pregnancies, I like terminating pregnancies even less, even to the point of recognising that it might even be murder. I agree that we should outlaw murder, and if abortion is also murder, then it is only logical that we outlaw abortion too.

No. In fact, it demonstrates that I would like to address the actual problem. In the US, Europe, etc. women have better access to contraceptives, so they are less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Even when such pregnancies occur, women are more likely to be able to have and support a child without losing their own health, homes, or lives and thus are less likely to be so desperate that they feel abortion is their only option. It's a tragedy that women in Russia do not have that level of quality of life - one that should be addressed.

Perhaps, but perhaps not only access to contraceptives. There is probably a good deal of abortions that can be attributed to an attitude which says that abortion is also an option, so one needn't be so cautious with sex. There is a general recognition of the problem that most women undergoing first-time abortions are not ready for the trauma that it brings, and are generally unaware of the sterility risks. In other words, people are typically ignorant. But if the law permits something, they think that it cannot be that bad. That is a mistake that many of them will spend the rest of their lives regretting.

And most likely many more deaths of born children and mothers.

Like I said, maybe we should address the underlying issues, eh?

And like I said, outlawing abortion would definitlely be an encouragment to address the underlying issues.

Religion, culture, the fact that some countries have cops that are allowed to force pelvic exams upon women to look for signs of a possible abortion?

Are you using variables to explain a consistent observation (given that Russia has almost the highest abortion rates in the world, second only to the Ukraine)?

If you are attempting to enact laws to force your viewpoint upon others, that is what you are doing.

But I'm not enacting laws. I am not a law maker, not a politician, not a public figure, etc. So please define exactly how I am forcing my viewpoint on any other single individual in this entire world.

The law is force. If you advocate putting a ban on abortion into the law, then you advocate forcing women to continue pregnancies.

Advocating is hardly enacting laws, is it? If you advocate making abortions legal, then perhaps I could argue that you are advocating the murder of millions of babies every year. But I would stop short of claiming that you are forcing the murder of millions of babies.

Now you're changing your tune. In your last post, it was, "I don't know if abortion is murder or not, so I think we should make a law against it just in case." It was all about not knowing and "erring on the side of caution." Were you somehow convinced that all abortion is murder in the interim?

Not really changing my tune, but putting forward my viewpoint in a different way. I still maintain that I cannot be sure that abortion is murder. But I certainly am leaning that way, and as long as I do 'lean that way', I will advocate a ban on abortions, even if it only to address the initial problem of preventing unwanted pregnancies. At the end of the day, I do support women's rights, and I certainly appreciate having choice. But I cannot support something (legalising abortion) so long as I feel that it is wrong.

Initially, I can onto this thread to develop my thinking in the matter. I am what you might call a swinging voter. So long as I feel that it is murder, I am going to vote against it.

I cannot claim that my inclinations are all based on biology, and neither do I think that they should be. Ethics should not be derived from molecules, but what we do with molecules should be derived from our ethics, which is in turned based on our sense of morality, and what we think it means to be human. This will never be free of our world view, or our religion, so I think it is nonesense to even try to have a completely biological view on the issue that is separate from our world view.

Cabra West

18-01-2007, 15:40

I agree, she should have not allowed the guy in question to use her body in such a way that a baby was the result unless she was ready to be a mother.

Ah, you're one of those people going around telling vicitims of car crashs that they can't have the surgery, after all they knew the risks when they got in the car and should not have done so unless they were prepared to die in the crash, right?

Kormanthor

18-01-2007, 16:42

Ah, you're one of those people going around telling vicitims of car crashs that they can't have the surgery, after all they knew the risks when they got in the car and should not have done so unless they were prepared to die in the crash, right?

It's not the same thing and you know it, so stop being a moron.

Bottle

18-01-2007, 16:47

It's not the same thing and you know it, so stop being a moron.
Well, why should it be different with sex? After all, more people have sex than drive cars.

Cabra West

18-01-2007, 16:47

It's not the same thing and you know it, so stop being a moron.

Please refrain for personal insults.
And it is exacty the same situation. Why allow medical help to someone who engaged in risky behaviour, such as sitting in a car, or having sex?

Bottle

18-01-2007, 16:51

It's just so tiresome how the anti-choicers repeat the same lame BS over and over and over. We've addressed the "consent to sex =/= consent to childbirth" thing a million times. Anybody who can't understand this concept is simply a person who doesn't grasp the nature of consent.

They are no different than a person who fails to grasp that "consent to make out =/= consent to fuck." They're on par with a rapist, and deserve to be regarded with the same contempt.

Dempublicents1

18-01-2007, 19:28

In a presentation/forum about elephants, which scientist is going to refer to an elephant embryo as a parasite? It is never used to describe an embryo in the biological world. Why should it be used to describe a human embryo--if not for the negative baggage?

If the question actually comes up, any scientist would have to admit that the elephant fetus is parasitic, just as any fetus which gestates inside the mother is. It is highly unlikely to come up, however. Such a presentation will focus on the development of the embryo, not on its parasitic nature.

I don't like the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice', because they are not really what the issue is about. It really is over the issue of whether abortion should be legal or not. Those against legalising it are anti-abortion, while those for legalising it (whether they think abortion a good thing or not) are pro-abortionists.

Wrong. If you are opposed to abortion, you are quite obviously not "pro-abortionist." You can be anti-abortion and also pro-choice, so you're obviously misusing terms here. The choice is exactly what is about. Those who are pro-choice, whether they actually think abortions should occur or not, are in favor of leaving the choice up to the pregnant woman. Those who are for making it illegal, on the other hand, oppose having that choice open. They are therefore, anti-choice.

When it comes right down to it, pro-choice and anti-choice are really the only terms that have been put forward that actually demonstrate the actual issue. The fact that one can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion - that one can be both pro-choice and pro-life - makes it clear that neither "anti-abortion" nor "pro-life" are adequate terms for those who wish to actually make abortion illegal. I suppose you could really draw it out and say they are "anti-legal abortion" or "pro-forced pregnancy," but, it's really easier to break it down to the real issue - whether or not the individual should have the choice.

As I have pointed out before, there are many things I am opposed to (anti-), but I do not believe should be illegal.

In any meaningful list of parasites, in the world of biology, it would be senseless to list every mammal.

You wouldn't have to. Mammals that are no longer gestating are no longer parasites.

May that not be due to your confusion over what is science and what is not?

No.

I agree that we should outlaw murder, and if abortion is also murder, then it is only logical that we outlaw abortion too.

Only if you can objectively demonstrate that abortion is murder. Otherwise, it is no different from someone saying they want to make sodomy illegal because they think it is wrong.

Perhaps, but perhaps not only access to contraceptives. There is probably a good deal of abortions that can be attributed to an attitude which says that abortion is also an option, so one needn't be so cautious with sex.

I highly doubt there are many.

And like I said, outlawing abortion would definitlely be an encouragment to address the underlying issues.

No, it wouldn't. It's been tried. No one addressed the underlying issues. In those countries where it is illegal, no one is addressing those issues. All it does is mask the problem under, "Well, you shouldn't have gotten yourself in this situation, so whatever..."

But I'm not enacting laws. I am not a law maker, not a politician, not a public figure, etc. So please define exactly how I am forcing my viewpoint on any other single individual in this entire world.

If you vote to make a law, you are in favor of forcing it upon them. Hiding behind the fact that there is a step in between is idiotic. It would be like me saying, "I didn't kill the person. I fired the gun, but I'm not the bullet, therefore I didn't rip up their internal organs."

I cannot claim that my inclinations are all based on biology, and neither do I think that they should be.

If you can't objectively back it up, you have no business trying to force it on others - period. What you're essentially saying is, "I'm not really sure if this is bad. I think it might be. Maybe even probably is. So I think we should probably make it illegal, you know, just in case." You can't even give a straight answer in your own head, but you want to enforce a whole lot of "maybe"s.

Your ethics are your own. Until you can demonstrate an objective reasoning for them, they stay just your own.

Eudeminea

18-01-2007, 20:15

Well if you really cared about the babies you would take care of them since the mother didn't want them.

I would adopt.

But, people who don't want to get pregnant shouldn't be having sex. No form of contraceptive has a 100% success rate. When you commit to the action whereby children are concived, you commit to the possible consequence of conception and all the the consequences that follow conception. Abortion is a childish and selfish way for people to dodge the consequences of their actions. If you continue to allow people to practice a negative and selfish course without having to face the negative consequences thereof, they will continue to spiral downward until they don't have the capacity to care for anyone, including them selves, anymore. In short, they will be miserable, even if they don't realise it, or are unwilling to admit the truth to themselves. As Benjamin Franklin put it "A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small bundle".

I'm not so much concerned for the child, for I know that innocent children when they die go back to live with that God who gave them life. Who I am concerned for are the selfish people who deny these children their chance at life. I know a woman who had an abortion and that decision haunts her, I can see the pain it has caused her, and I say in my heart 'this ought not to be'. If it wasn't legal, women like my friend wouldn't even have considered it, and she would have been spared the painful remorse caused by that decision, which was made in haste while under extreme duress. Every messure ought to be taken to discourage women from making this selfish, and self destructive 'choice'.

Live and let die (speaking also of the emotional well-being of the mothers, not just the children) is a strange form of tolerance.

Kormanthor

18-01-2007, 20:53

Please refrain for personal insults.
And it is exacty the same situation. Why allow medical help to someone who engaged in risky behaviour, such as sitting in a car, or having sex?

No it's not the same, unless they are making babies in the back seat.

Dempublicents1

18-01-2007, 22:16

And, since I was in a hurry before...

But if the law permits something, they think that it cannot be that bad. That is a mistake that many of them will spend the rest of their lives regretting.

The law permits all sorts of things that most of society views as pretty awful. Should we ban everything that might be harmful because some people will act out of ignorance? Or should we expect adults to be adults.

Advocating is hardly enacting laws, is it?

Pulling a trigger is hardly tearing apart someone's organs, is it? :rolleyes:

If you advocate making abortions legal, then perhaps I could argue that you are advocating the murder of millions of babies every year. But I would stop short of claiming that you are forcing the murder of millions of babies.

Actually, you couldn't. If I were arguing for making abortions mandatory by law, you could perhaps make that jump. However, I am not. Abortion could be perfectly legal and still never or almost happen (except in medical emergencies). I can advocate something being legal without advocating the action itself. And having something be legal certainly doesn't force anyone to engage in it.

If you make something illegal, you are advocating the use of the law to force people not to do that thing. If it remains legal, the law forces nothing. Someone can decide to do it, or decide not to.

For instance, I have Muslim friends who do not eat pork or drink alcohol. Both things are legal, but they are not, in any way, forced to eat pork or drink alcohol. The fact that it is legal does not force them to do it. They simply choose not to.

I still maintain that I cannot be sure that abortion is murder. But I certainly am leaning that way, and as long as I do 'lean that way', I will advocate a ban on abortions, even if it only to address the initial problem of preventing unwanted pregnancies.

It is utterly ridiculous to claim that banning abortion will "address the initial problem of preventing unwanted pregnancies." Unwanted pregnancies have always occurred. They will most likely always occur, unless we actually come up with some sort of reversible and 100% accurate sterilization process that we put in the drinking water. You can try to reduce the numbers, but banning abortion isn't going to do that. What it is going to do is cause more unwanted pregnancies to be brought to term - bringing more children into the world who are not wanted by their parents.

At the end of the day, I do support women's rights, and I certainly appreciate having choice. But I cannot support something (legalising abortion) so long as I feel that it is wrong.

If that is your point of view, you should be lobbying to make everything you think is wrong illegal. Never mind that it would be a huge breach of human rights, you should at least be consistent. Either you are in favor of banning anything that you think is wrong, or you make some sort of distinction between, "I think this is wrong," and, "This should be illegal."

Cabra West

18-01-2007, 22:25

No it's not the same, unless they are making babies in the back seat.

Ah, so you're argumenting on a "Is not" - "Is too" basis.

Ok, I'll play along : It's exactly the same.

Dempublicents1

18-01-2007, 22:25

But, people who don't want to get pregnant shouldn't be having sex. No form of contraceptive has a 100% success rate.

I agree. Of course, that's not exactly something I want written into law. I don't think the government should have that kind of control over people's private lives.

When you commit to the action whereby children are concived, you commit to the possible consequence of conception and all the the consequences that follow conception. Abortion is a childish and selfish way for people to dodge the consequences of their actions.

Not necessarily. I've known several women who have had abortions. I've heard the reasons for quite a few more. Some of them are selfish. Some are not. Almost none were easy to make decisions. Is the woman who already has three kids that she can barely provide for and who cannot take time off of work without putting them in danger, much less provide for another child, being selfish when she puts her born children first and does what she feels she has to in order to take care of them? Is the woman who knows she cannot provide for a child - even a woman who knows she cannot emotionally provide for a child - and who does not wish to put that burden on anyone else acting selfishly when she realizes this?

It grossly oversimplifies things (and demonizes many women who have made very hard choices) to say abortion is "childish and selfish." It is, in some cases - I've seen at least one. Of course, she was a 17-year old child herself, emotionally immature even for her age, and definitely would not have been able to properly care for a child.

I know a woman who had an abortion and that decision haunts her, I can see the pain it has caused her, and I say in my heart 'this ought not to be'. If it wasn't legal, women like my friend wouldn't even have considered it, and she would have been spared the painful remorse caused by that decision, which was made in haste while under extreme duress. Every messure ought to be taken to discourage women from making this selfish, and self destructive 'choice'.

You can say the same thing about continuing a pregnancy, or about putting a child up for adoption, or about leaving a child at a hospital. All of these decisions are difficult for some. All of them can cause pain and remorse. All are made in a stressful situation. Even those who find the decision they made to be painful quite often still believe it was the right decision. Sometimes you're in a situation where the only options open to you are all painful and difficult. In the end, you have to choose the one that you think is best, and hope you made the right choice.

CthulhuFhtagn

18-01-2007, 23:03

I don't like the use of the term here, firstly because of the negative connotations, but that aside, it simply isn't accurate. Not in the medical world, nor in the biological world.
A parasite is defined as an organism that subsists off of another organism. It is further broken down into categories such as mutualistic parasitism, commensualistic parasitism, and classic parasitism.

In any meaningful list of parasites, in the world of biology, it would be senseless to list every mammal.
You're right. It would suffice to simply say all mammalian embryos and fetuses. Incidentally, this was how my biology textbook put it. Funny how that works out.

CthulhuFhtagn

18-01-2007, 23:08

But, people who don't want to get pregnant shouldn't be having sex. No form of contraceptive has a 100% success rate.
Sure there are. They just prevent you from ever having kids. Anyways, condoms come extremely close. If 50 couples use condoms properly for one year for all their sexual encounters, there will, on average, be a total of one condom failure. Making the assumption that 30 encounters a year is average (it's probably low), condoms end up with a 99.96r% success rate.

Ator People

19-01-2007, 02:39

"How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers."

-Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Dempublicents1

19-01-2007, 02:44

"How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers."

-Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

You mean the woman who denied pain relievers to dying children because their pain would bring them closer to Jesus?

Bottle

19-01-2007, 14:16

You mean the woman who denied pain relievers to dying children because their pain would bring them closer to Jesus?
I am so glad to know there is another person out there who knows the real story about Mother Teresa. Most of the time people yell at me for picking on a sainted old lady when I point out what a jerk she was.

Cabra West

19-01-2007, 14:44

"How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers."

-Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Yep. You just keep watering those children. Who needs food and clothes anyway?

Bottle

19-01-2007, 14:48

Yep. You just keep watering those children. Who needs food and clothes anyway?
My mom knows first-hand what happens when there are too many flowers. An avid gardener, she planted this oddball species of purple flowers a few years back. She planted a few little patches of them. The next year, her entire garden was choked with them. Apparently the purple things were a very aggressive species.

The result? Well, many of her other flowers died, of course, and the purple flowers actually overgrew themselves to the point where there were bottom layers of rotting purple flowers upon which the new flowers were growing. Her garden simply did not have the resources and space to support the growth of these flowers.

She had to control the spread of the purple flowers or else they would have decimated her garden.

Of course, my mother is also one of those sinful sluts who used contraception to limit the number of children she produced (two of us). So what does she know.

Bruarong

19-01-2007, 17:26

If the question actually comes up, any scientist would have to admit that the elephant fetus is parasitic, just as any fetus which gestates inside the mother is. It is highly unlikely to come up, however. Such a presentation will focus on the development of the embryo, not on its parasitic nature.

Not to mention that few scientists confuse progeny with parasites.

Wrong. If you are opposed to abortion, you are quite obviously not "pro-abortionist." You can be anti-abortion and also pro-choice, so you're obviously misusing terms here. The choice is exactly what is about. Those who are pro-choice, whether they actually think abortions should occur or not, are in favor of leaving the choice up to the pregnant woman. Those who are for making it illegal, on the other hand, oppose having that choice open. They are therefore, anti-choice.

But I am not anti-choice, for I believe that choice is part of what it means to be human (not unlimited choice, obviously). The term anti-choice does not describe me. Rather, I am anti-abortion and pro-choice.

When it comes right down to it, pro-choice and anti-choice are really the only terms that have been put forward that actually demonstrate the actual issue. The fact that one can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion - that one can be both pro-choice and pro-life - makes it clear that neither "anti-abortion" nor "pro-life" are adequate terms for those who wish to actually make abortion illegal. I suppose you could really draw it out and say they are "anti-legal abortion" or "pro-forced pregnancy," but, it's really easier to break it down to the real issue - whether or not the individual should have the choice.

As I have pointed out, anti-choice/pro-choice are silly, because the issue is not about choice for many people but the sanctity of human life.

As I have pointed out before, there are many things I am opposed to (anti-), but I do not believe should be illegal.

But you do believe that some things should be illegal, I am sure.

You wouldn't have to. Mammals that are no longer gestating are no longer parasites.

A leech is considered a parasite, regardless of whether it is currently sucking blood from its host or is in its free-living stages.

Only if you can objectively demonstrate that abortion is murder.

Or only if you can objectively demonstrate that abortion isn't murder.

Otherwise, it is no different from someone saying they want to make sodomy illegal because they think it is wrong.

Which definition of sodomy are you referring to? If you mean sex with animals, or sex with juveniles, then I am quite in favour of making those sorts of sodomy illegal. Are you not?

I highly doubt there are many.

Your doubts don't remove mine.

No, it wouldn't. It's been tried. No one addressed the underlying issues. In those countries where it is illegal, no one is addressing those issues. All it does is mask the problem under, "Well, you shouldn't have gotten yourself in this situation, so whatever..."

Call it a feeling if you like, but I reckon making abortion legal does nothing to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Making it illegal may not necessarily mean that the government also spends money on preventing unwanted pregnancies, unfortunately. But the facts speak for themselves. More abortions occur in countries where abortion is legal. Compare the massively high level of abortion in Russia to that of Thailand (where abortion is still illegal and where the government doesn't do that much to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and quality of life is generally lower than that in Russia).

If you vote to make a law, you are in favor of forcing it upon them.

In favour of making a law is NOT the same forcing that law upon others.

Hiding behind the fact that there is a step in between is idiotic.

No it's not. Because I am not using force. And thanks for calling me an idiot.

It would be like me saying, "I didn't kill the person. I fired the gun, but I'm not the bullet, therefore I didn't rip up their internal organs."

This is not a situation where I am holding a gun. I'm not using force. I vote, and you vote. We usually don't think of voting as the use of force.

But let's play your little game. If you call voting 'using force', then you are using as much force as I am. In that case, you are 'forcing' people to not murder or have sex with others under age, as much as I am. Do you see anything wrong with that use of 'force'? Or do you think it better to let adults be adults, and if they want to murder, that they should have the right to choose? Isn't that the real meaning of 'pro-choice', after all? The right to choose? Unless you are out of touch with reality, you would agree that some choices should not be allowed. Therefore, you end up not being so 'pro-choice' after all.

If you can't objectively back it up, you have no business trying to force it on others - period. What you're essentially saying is, "I'm not really sure if this is bad. I think it might be. Maybe even probably is. So I think we should probably make it illegal, you know, just in case."

It's hardly my fault that I cannot know all there is to know about the subject. Even if I were to devote my life to learning about it, I would still be ignorant of much. Therefore, I will always be dealing with 'maybe's'. And if you were to come down off your high horse, you would admit to the same.

An example would be cocaine. We don't really know if making it legal is really going to help the situation, but should we legalise it, just because we don't know? I guess we should just keep it illegal, you know, just in case.

You can't even give a straight answer in your own head, but you want to enforce a whole lot of "maybe"s.

I doubt, judging from your posts, that you have any straighter answers in your head, but anyway, I still don't think voting counts as the use of force. It's called democracy.

Your ethics are your own. Until you can demonstrate an objective reasoning for them, they stay just your own.

Rubbish. I share my ethics with a great many other people, much of which is not based on the 'objective reasoning' which you seem to be so proud of. But my guess is that if we were to take your 'objective reasoning' and hold it under the 'microscope' for a second, it wouldn't be so objective.

We cannot be objective unless we know all that is necessary to know. You don't seem to be able to demonstrate that knowledge, so my guess is that you aren't any more objective than I, despite your claims.

Bruarong

19-01-2007, 17:30

A parasite is defined as an organism that subsists off of another organism. It is further broken down into categories such as mutualistic parasitism, commensualistic parasitism, and classic parasitism.

That is such a broad definition of parasitism that my 6 week old daughter could also be described as a parasite. Sorry, but that doesn't work.

You're right. It would suffice to simply say all mammalian embryos and fetuses. Incidentally, this was how my biology textbook put it. Funny how that works out.

You are saying that your text book describes all mammalian embryos and fetuses as parasites? Really? That's incredible. Which text book is it, and on what page, if you don't mind me asking?

Brutland and Norden

19-01-2007, 17:44

A parasite is defined as an organism that subsists off of another organism. It is further broken down into categories such as mutualistic parasitism, commensualistic parasitism, and classic parasitism.

"That's right, Kyle, I've had enough of you!" *throws an onion to the ten-year old boy* "You leeched off me for nine months, and up to now, ten years later, you're still living off me and my efforts!"
"Mom..."
"What MOM? That so b*llsh*t! You parasite! You're nothing better than that pinworm I pulled out of your anus when you were four!" *hurls the cleaver she used to chop the parsley and hits the boy smack on the head. lots o' blood come out*
"Honey, what's - Kyle! Oh my goodness..." *turns to his wife* "Barbara, what did you do?"
"He was a parasite. A goddamn parasite - just like you."
"What the - "
"You live off my cooking, you pigheaded cretin. You were a parasite too! I can choose to kill you too!"
"Barbara, stop this madness RIGHT NOW!"
"You can't stop me, 'cause I have the choice. You were a parasite, and I choose to terminate your existence!" *smashes a heavy platter on her husband's head* "Choice rules!!!!"

Dempublicents1

19-01-2007, 19:25

I am so glad to know there is another person out there who knows the real story about Mother Teresa. Most of the time people yell at me for picking on a sainted old lady when I point out what a jerk she was.

The first time I saw you going on about her, I was a bit skeptical. But my advisor is an anesthesiologist, and she told me about various inquiries into Mother Teresa's tactics.

I don't think the woman was a horrible person. I think she really believed that what she was doing was helping people. But I disagree, and I think she caused a lot of suffering that might have otherwise been abated.

Moving on.....I'm going to drop the parasite issue here. Bruarong is obviously working off of a different definition of "parasite" than the rest of us, and it's pretty useless to go back and forth.

But I am not anti-choice, for I believe that choice is part of what it means to be human (not unlimited choice, obviously). The term anti-choice does not describe me. Rather, I am anti-abortion and pro-choice.

You are anti-choice on this issue, as you believe the choice should not even be open.

We aren't talking about a general viewpoint. We are talking about terms that refer specifically to the abortion debate. And, in that debate, you are anti-choice. You aren't just anti-abortion, because, in addition to being opposed to abortion, you also think that the option to have one should not even be open. Hence, anti-choice.

As I have pointed out, anti-choice/pro-choice are silly, because the issue is not about choice for many people but the sanctity of human life.

Irrelevant. As you pointed out, the issue is about whether or not to make abortion illegal. Thus, it boils down to two options: (a) The choice is there, whether you make it or not or (b) The choice is removed by law. Agreeing or disagreeing with abortion is a separate issue from agreeing or disagreeing with laws against it.

But you do believe that some things should be illegal, I am sure.

Indeed. Those things which serve the purpose of government - to protect its citizens - should be placed into law. But those laws must be backed up objectively, not with wishy-washy nonsense or with religious backing, or any number of other possibilities. I can demonstrate objectively that theft, murder, rape, etc. involve one person harming another and present a disruption of a peaceful society. As such, they are within the purview of the government. I can demonstrate that breaking a contract causes harm to other human beings, so I approve of the government having the power to enforce contracts. And so on...

You're basically saying, "I have no objective backing whatsoever for thinking that the government should protect embryos/early fetuses. But, since I'm not sure, we should enforce restrictive laws on people who I know for a fact are human persons that the government was formed to protect."

Or only if you can objectively demonstrate that abortion isn't murder.

I don't have to. You see, the absence of a law making something illegal is the default. Our criminal law is a restrictive system, not a permissive one. Anything for which there is no law is presumed to be legal. Action must be taken to make something illegal.

You are arguing to change from the default, so you bear the burden of proof, as it were. You wish to make something illegal, so you must objectively demonstrate that the government must do so to protect its citizens.

Which definition of sodomy are you referring to? If you mean sex with animals, or sex with juveniles, then I am quite in favour of making those sorts of sodomy illegal. Are you not?

I am referring to anal sex. Good old sodomy between two consenting adults.

Call it a feeling if you like, but I reckon making abortion legal does nothing to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

(a) There is no such thing as "making something legal." The default is for an action to be legal. You either leave it as such, or make it illegal.

(b) Irrelevant. You made a claim that making abortion illegal would somehow prevent unwanted pregnancies. I asked you to back it up, and you tried to dodge. Would you like to actually back it up now?

More abortions occur in countries where abortion is legal.

More people pursue homosexual relationships in places where it is legal, what's your point?

In favour of making a law is NOT the same forcing that law upon others.

No, it is "in favor of forcing that law upon others." If the law is passed, you and everyone who pushed for it will be responsible for forcing your own viewpoint upon others.

No it's not. Because I am not using force. And thanks for calling me an idiot.

I didn't call you an idiot. I pointed out the fact that you were making an idiotic statement. Have you ever heard the term "force of law"? Think on it for a bit.

This is not a situation where I am holding a gun. I'm not using force. I vote, and you vote. We usually don't think of voting as the use of force.

If you vote for a given law, you are voting for the use of force. If I vote to make, say, smoking marijuana illegal, I am voting for a legal construct that uses - you got it - force to achieve its end. The fact that you are a few steps removed from that force is irrelevant. You are advocating the force, and, if the law is passed, authorizing it.

The President of the US doesn't actually fire any guns in Iraq. He just tells other people to do it. Does that mean he has not used force?

But let's play your little game. If you call voting 'using force', then you are using as much force as I am.

Not on this issue.

Therefore, you end up not being so 'pro-choice' after all.

We are discussing a particular issue here. Nice try at dodging the issue, though.

It's hardly my fault that I cannot know all there is to know about the subject. Even if I were to devote my life to learning about it, I would still be ignorant of much. Therefore, I will always be dealing with 'maybe's'. And if you were to come down off your high horse, you would admit to the same.

If you don't know enough to have a solid answer, then you have no business trying to enforce it upon others. You can tell your friends that you don't think they should have abortions. You can refuse to have one yourself. But until you have more than, "Well, I'm not sure, so I think we should make it illegal just to be on the safe side...."

I don't claim to know all the answers. I don't claim to have objective backing for my opposition to abortion. And that is precisely why I am not in favor of forcing my viewpoint upon others. You, on the other hand, wish to be able to say, "I'm not sure, but everyone should be forced to live by my viewpoint anyways."

An example would be cocaine. We don't really know if making it legal is really going to help the situation, but should we legalise it, just because we don't know? I guess we should just keep it illegal, you know, just in case.

No, actually, we shouldn't. Nothing should be made illegal if the government cannot back up its reasons for having it illegal. Cocaine use may harm the person using it, but then so do many things. Unless we are going to ban them all, the government must have a specific interest in banning cocaine in particular. Since it doesn't, cocaine should not be illegal. It may be regulated - driving under the influence, for instance, could be illegal. But there is no reason that the government should block that drug in particular.

((Once again "legalise" is really not a proper term. Legal is the default. If we were to remove the laws that make cocaine use illegal, that would be simply returning to the default.))

I doubt, judging from your posts, that you have any straighter answers in your head, but anyway, I still don't think voting counts as the use of force. It's called democracy.

Believe it or not, even in most democracies, there are things we don't vote on, because we have no business enforcing them. The majority may think that the minority shouldn't be able to voice their opinions, but we don't put it up to a vote. Instead, we assure everyone the right to voice their opinions.

But, if you vote to make a law - to make something illegal - you are voting to advocate the use of force. You can't hide from that fact.

Meanwhile, I don't need straighter answers. I'm not trying to enforce my viewpoint upon others.

Rubbish. I share my ethics with a great many other people, much of which is not based on the 'objective reasoning' which you seem to be so proud of. But my guess is that if we were to take your 'objective reasoning' and hold it under the 'microscope' for a second, it wouldn't be so objective.

It doesn't matter how many people you share your ethics with. Many, many, many people think that adultery is bad. Does that mean we should be throwing every spouse who cheats in jail? Many, many, many people think that S&M is bad, immoral, etc. Does that mean we should restrict consenting adults from engaging in it? Many people think that being homosexual is an evil, evil sin and that we should purge our society of all homosexuals. Should we do it?

Your ethics only have a place in law if they (a) represent an interest of the government in protecting its citizens and (b) have objective backing behind them.

Otherwise, you just have to leave the people doing all of that horrible stuff you disagree with alone.

We cannot be objective unless we know all that is necessary to know. You don't seem to be able to demonstrate that knowledge, so my guess is that you aren't any more objective than I, despite your claims.

Once again, I have point-blank admitted that my opposition to abortion is subjective, as are all reasons I have heard thus far. That is precisely why I am pro-choice. I have no objective backing (just as you do not) and will therefore not try and force it upon others. I will advise against abortion, if asked. I will not have an abortion. My own subjective viewpoints are enough for that. But I will not make it illegal and advocate the use of force against those whose subjective viewpoints are different from my own.

NationStates Jolt Archive

For the Pro-Lifes, If Abortions were banned would you adopt the unwanted children? - Page 2