NationStates Jolt Archive

They do have that potential.

But that potential does not make them a cake. And you don't treat them like a cake.

So if I came to your house and broke all your raw eggs you wouldnt be upset?

So if I came to your house and broke all your raw eggs you wouldnt be upset?

Of course I would. But I wouldn't bitch that you ate my cake.

Of course, I have the ability to be upset, being a person and all.

Of course I would. But I wouldn't bitch that you ate my cake.

Of course, I have the ability to be upset, being a person and all.

But would you be upset that you lost some raw eggs, or would you be upset because now that thing you planned to make with the eggs couldn't be made?

I see what she was getting at, but as i said before I do not think the severity or gravity of the situation lends itself to such comparisons.

Fixed


Also, it's the exact same argument, what about it are you not getting?

But would you be upset that you lost some raw eggs, or would you be upset because now that thing you planned to make with the eggs couldn't be made?

Irrelevant. No matter how you look at it, if you come break a bunch of eggs, you didn't break or destroy a cake.

Fixed


Also, it's the exact same argument, what about it are you not getting?

"Severity and gravity" what are you not getting.

Irrelevant. No matter how you look at it, if you come break a bunch of eggs, you didn't break or destroy a cake.

Wrong (IMO)

Naughty JuNii! now I have the urge to PhotoChop.....

This is mostly your fault.... ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/eviction.jpg?t=1206143594

OH GODS!

*Cackles*

Wrong (IMO)

This isn't something you can have an opinion on. It is a fact-based discussion. You are objectively wrong.

It's like saying, "Wood comes from Cow spleens (IMO)."

"Severity and gravity" what are you not getting.

What I'm not getting is how you don't understand the analogy. So the "severity and gravity" isn't the same, so what? It is the exact same argument.

Wrong (IMO)

What part is wrong?

What I'm not getting is how you don't understand the analogy. So the "severity and gravity" isn't the same, so what? It is the exact same argument.

And "severity and gravity" only matter if the argument is logical in the first place.

A=B because A will eventually become B is not a logical argument.

As another analogy, suppose I had some eggs.

I point to those eggs and say, "That's a cake. Eat it for dessert."
You say, "That's not a cake. It's just eggs."
I say, "But it could be a cake, if I mixed it with some other things and let it cook. Therefore it is a cake right now and should be treated as such."

You say.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/pre-baked.jpg

Sorry... never thought I'd get to use that one again. ;)

And "severity and gravity" only matter if the argument is logical in the first place.

A=B because A will eventually become B is not a logical argument.

Shhhh!!

THoB might hear you...

I am fully aware that "back alley abortions" are extremely dangerous, however, making abortion legal to reduce the risk of the operation is just not justifiable to me.

You rather spectacularly miss the point -- whether you do so deliberately or out of obtuseness, I don't know.

It is not just that legalizing abortion saves tens of thousands of lives and millions from injury -- although your dismissal of that fact is rather callous -- BUT ALSO that making abortion illegal doesn't actually do much to reduce abortion.

I agree with this statement so much that it makes me ashamed not to have mentioned it earlier. I do not believe that any woman takes pleasure in abortion and the idea that one would is disgusting. Education of both men and women on the issue is of the utmost importance, and if the abortion issue can be nullified through education then I will be the first one to support tax dollars being spent in such a way. Thank you for bringing this issue to light.

Um. Okey, dokey. But I wasn't talking about educating people on the issue of abortion. I was talking about sex education, family planning, and contraception. THOSE are what reduce abortions.

In fact most parolees must submit to drug testing and the "possession" of drugs is not really taken into consideration at all. As an example (of which there are copious more).

So now your comparing the rights of women to those of PAROLEES -- i,e., CONVICTS out on special release? Doesn't that tweak your sensibilities at all?

A Norwegian Blue.

No, no it's not dead, it's pining for the fjords!

No, no it's not dead, it's pining for the fjords!
Pining? It's passed on!

I would warn you from trying to read the minds and heart of others...it is quite hard.

unnecessary. their words and actions tell the story.

I was indeed point to a fundamental flaw in "belief" but if one uses this flaw to discredit one side of the argument, one most also consider it true for the otherside. That was my main point.

wtf are you talking about?

But would you be upset that you lost some raw eggs, or would you be upset because now that thing you planned to make with the eggs couldn't be made?

dunno about Dem, but I'd be upset about the mess you made.

ok, I'm not in the right mindset for this thread... I'll leave now.

Nice pics Kat! :D

your analogy doesn't work because eggs can be used for many, many things. so their possiblities are endless.

now if your analogy is that you pull the cake batter out of the oven before it's baked...

the question of when a fetus is human can also relate when can the ingrediants be considered a cake? when they are combined? or when it's pulled out of the oven? or at some point inbetween?

As a biologist, allow me to reassure you:

Procreation is not the sole biological purpose of sex between humans. It never has been.

Indeed, our sexual makeup is partially due to the important NON-procreative functions of sexual contact. Part of the reason why human female fertility is so well concealed (relative to other species) is to increase the probability of mating regardless of the female's fertility status.
Of course not. If it were the sole biological purpose, I doubt people would engage in it and consciously try to avoid procreating.
However, reproduction is certainly a purpose, and a very important one. It is not a side effect, I guess was my point.

Of course not. If it were the sole biological purpose, I doubt people would engage in it and consciously try to avoid procreating.
However, reproduction is certainly a purpose, and a very important one. It is not a side effect, I guess was my point.

That would be relative would it not, to the intent of those engaging in it? If there is no intent or desire to procreate, pregnancy would be quite literally a side effect.

That would be relative would it not, to the intent of those engaging in it? If there is no intent or desire to procreate, pregnancy would be quite literally a side effect.

I don't think so. As Bottle said, sex is not only about procreation, and so its pleasure is not simply Mother Nature's way of tricking people into having kids. However, if you consciously do not want to have children, you take measures to prevent it. If you don't, we have to assume you felt the possible cost of a pregnancy was much less than the certain cost of having to get birth control, or just abstain altogether.

we have to assume you felt the possible cost of a pregnancy was much less than the certain cost of having to get birth control
Hospitals should not be allowed to treat car-crash survivors.
We have to assume the driver felt the possible cost of hitting the bridge abutment was less than the certain cost of some delay from driving slower.

But would you be upset that you lost some raw eggs, or would you be upset because now that thing you planned to make with the eggs couldn't be made?

Your argument seems to be making the case for not forcing sterilisation on someone (as opposed to your intention of making a case for not allowing abortions).

As such, I will agree with your written argument then :p.

Possibly the most amusing thing about this debate is almost everyone who takes part in it has never been through an unintended pregnancy. And why is it that the biggest pro-life champions are men, who can't be pregnant to begin with?

And besides, in a debate like this, there is no winner.
For example:
Suicide is illegal, but is that going to stop someone from killing themselves?

Regardless of if abortion is legal or not, abortions will still be performed;
The debate about legality is pointless. The argument should be about whether or not it's worth it to force pregnant mothers to resort to coat hanger abortions or abdominal pressure abortions, or if she can be given the privilege of sterilized surgical abortions.

Of course not. If it were the sole biological purpose, I doubt people would engage in it and consciously try to avoid procreating.


Um, what?

Um, what?

if the only purpose for sex was procreation we would only have sex when we wanted to procreate.

as it is we have sex thousands of times and most of those times we try to prevent pregnancy.

Possibly the most amusing thing about this debate is almost everyone who takes part in it has never been through an unintended pregnancy. And why is it that the biggest pro-life champions are men, who can't be pregnant to begin with?

Just to be devils' advocate, how can you even make that assumption?

'Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later? Where do you draw the line?'

24 weeks.

'The fact that you got drunk one night and had unprotected sex does NOT entitle you to kill another person.'

Not all abortions are performed on single teenage mothers who got knocked up at some party. Of course, should that teenager be forced to have their life ruined, as well as the life of the unborn child? Should that kid be born to a family which probably wouldn't care for it, thus ruining its life?

'Abortion isn't murder, because it is legal, but it is killing another person. Does anyone in here deny this? And is killing another person not immoral? '

Like I said, 24 weeks, it's not a person. It's a little lizard-midget combination which doesn't even notice the world around it.

'Ok, so is it ok to torture the baby? No? So the only right it doesn't have is to life?'

Does it have the right to vote? In fact, is it possible to torture it whilst it's still in the womb?

'You have no right to kill anyone, except in self defence. (which is why if a woman's health is in danger, abortion is fine). '

But if the woman would have to live a life of misery, knowing full well that she now has to care for something born out of their own actions? Is that truly fair on the mother?

I too am a liberal atheist recently-turned pro-lifer! What a coincidence! I find it ridiculous for me to have always been completely against war, the death penalty and all killing and then have ignored the destruction of so much possible life going on in my own country. I realize population growth and adoption overflow are problems, but this should not justify killing babies. More needs to be done to promote birth control so that pregnancy can be avoided before a mother thinks it necessary to murder. From now on I shall be consistently pro-life from conception to grave and protesting murder from abortion clinic to lethal injection table.

I too am a liberal atheist recently-turned pro-lifer! What a coincidence! I find it ridiculous for me to have always been completely against war, the death penalty and all killing and then have ignored the destruction of so much possible life going on in my own country. I realize population growth and adoption overflow are problems, but this should not justify killing babies. More needs to be done to promote birth control so that pregnancy can be avoided before a mother thinks it necessary to murder. From now on I shall be consistently pro-life from conception to grave and protesting murder from abortion clinic to lethal injection table.

Newsflash:
Abortion does not kill babies.
1: an extremely young child; especially : infant
2: an extremely young animal b: the youngest of a group
2 a: one that is like a baby (as in behavior)
b: something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest
3 slang a: girl, woman —often used in address
b: boy, man —often used in address

Dyakovo, stop it. You're letting accuracy in language, accuracy in medical terminology, logic, and facts get in the way of appeals to emotion again!

I find it ridiculous for me to have always been completely against war, the death penalty and all killing and then have ignored the destruction of so much possible life going on in my own country.

I fail to see why this thread is still alive.

Destruction of possible life? You are destroying possible life every time you use some form of contraception. You are destroying a very likely possibility of life when doing so while your girlfriend is in her ovulation period.

Dyakovo, stop it. You're letting accuracy in language, accuracy in medical terminology, medical terminology, logic, and facts get in the way of appeals to emotion again!

Sorry... :( ;)

So it should be killed? Unless in cases of rape, it was the woman's choice to put it there. If she changes her mind, it should be killed?

What a poor argument. It's still a part of the woman's body, and until it comes out and is able to live on its own, I believe she has jurisdiction over it.

Do you propose we should not eat eggs (which are, in fact, chicken embryos)?

Do you propose we should not eat eggs (which are, in fact, chicken embryos)?

Eggs are embryos now?

Eggs are embryos now?

Chicken eggs. They do not require sperm in order to form an embryo.

Chicken eggs. They do not require sperm in order to form an embryo.

Wow, I learned something today! :fluffle:

Wow, I learned something today! :fluffle:

You also failed to see the point of my analogy. Congratulations.

You also failed to see the point of my analogy. Congratulations.

And how do you come to that conclusion?

(What makes you think I did not simply ignore the part of your post I actually understood in order to avoid spamming the thread?)

if the only purpose for sex was procreation we would only have sex when we wanted to procreate.

as it is we have sex thousands of times and most of those times we try to prevent pregnancy.

but isn't it true that a woman is... Hornest during her ovulation period?

add to that the woman's fertile period is not limited to 'seasons' like other animals.

and just because we (humans) actively prevent conception doesn't mean Sex isn't only for Procreation.

and to make it clear, I really have no stance on the issue, due to the facts that 1) I cannot get pregnant 2) I have no significant other who can get pregnant 3) I am not the one going through the procedure.

however, should any of that change, my stance would be to support the choice made by my GF/Wife.

Regardless of this whole "when does a fetus become a person" debate, my belief is that a fetus' status as a "human in development," if you will, entitles it to a basic right to be born.

Regardless of this whole "when does a fetus become a person" debate, my belief is that a fetus' status as a "human in development," if you will, entitles it to a basic right to be born.

And yet the woman doesn't have the right to control over the use of her own body?


Yay!! Women are all slaves now!

Regardless of this whole “when does a fetus become a person” debate, my belief is that a fetus’ status as a “human in development,” if you will, entitles it to a basic right to be born.
And where does this right come from?

And yet the woman doesn't have the right to control over the use of her own body?

Frankly, I can't comprehend how someone favors the killing of a fetus over what amounts to an inconvenience.


Yay!! Women are all slaves now!

Yep, you got it.

And where does this right come from?

Where do any rights come from? Nowhere, it's just what governments decide.

Is killing ants OK? Is killing squirrels OK? Is killing dolphins OK? Is killing people OK?

The pattern here is that the more intelligent something is, the worse you are if you kill it. And a fetus is not very intelligent.

The fact that a fetus has the *potential* to turn into something highly intelligent is largely irrelevant. Unfertilized sperm and eggs have the same property.

Try this experiment: Imagine that someone invents a procedure that can be performed on a chicken that can give it human intelligence. Does killing chickens become wrong?

Suffice to say that if you are anti-abortion, you should also be a strict vegeterian, because most livestock animals are at least as intelligent as a human fetus.

Keep in mind one more thing: The female body also aborts fetuses itself at times, for whatever reason. So abortion (like carnivorism) is a natural process.

Frankly, I can't comprehend how someone favors the killing of a fetus over what amounts to an inconvenience.

So you would be ok with being made a slave for 9 months...

So you would be ok with being made a slave for 9 months...

What?

Where do any rights come from?
That’s why I have problems with rights. But anyhoo...

Nowhere, it’s just what governments decide.
If you’re just talking about legal rights then, no, a fetus doesn’t have a ‘right’ to be born. There is no worldwide law granting fetus rights.

If you’re just talking about legal rights then, no, a fetus doesn’t have a ‘right’ to be born.

Legal rights, the ones that actually matter. Too bad you're correct in that regard.

Legal rights, the ones that actually matter. Too bad you’re correct in that regard.
Then your statement “my belief is that a fetus’ status as a ”human in development,“ if you will, entitles it to a basic right to be born” is nonsense.

Then your statement “my belief is that a fetus’ status as a ”human in development,“ if you will, entitles it to a basic right to be born” is nonsense.

......or an opinion?

What?

You are in favor of making a women a slave for 9 months, because its just 'an inconvenience' therefore you should be ok with it being done to you...

The excuse that the baby is within the woman's body gives her the right to kill said baby because it is "part of her body" is laughable. Does that mean we can kill babies when they still have their embicial cord attached because its part of a woman's body? I swear, feminazis make my head hurt.

......or an opinion?

a nonsensical one.

You are in favor of making a women a slave for 9 months, because its just 'an inconvenience' therefore you should be ok with it being done to you...

If, somehow, I became pregnant, then yes. I would be a "slave" for 9 months in order to save the fetus' life.

And I hope I don't encounter a "no you wouldn't" comment. You do not know me, and are in no position to make that assertion.

Does that mean we can kill babies when they still have their embicial cord attached because its part of a woman's body?

Yes?

......or an opinion?
If legal rights are “the ones that actually matter”, then until a government decide what rights to enshrine in law, your opinion that such-and-such a right should exist means diddly-squat.

You do not know me, and are in no position to make that assertion.
True, but you don't know every single women in the US/on this planet, and it seems mighty strange and not a little unfair to assume all women would want the same as you. For some, it would be a terrible thing to become pregnant.

If, somehow, I became pregnant, then yes. I would be a "slave" for 9 months in order to save the fetus' life.

It shouldn't matter whether you're pregnant or not, you feel their rights should be able to be taken away, if its ok for that to be done to them, why isn't it ok for it to be done to you?

If legal rights are “the ones that actually matter”, then until a government decide what rights to enshrine in law, your opinion that such-and-such a right should exist means diddly-squat.

You're right, but this isn't a debate between legislators or judges (at least I'm pretty sure). Opinions should be respected equally, regardless of whether it is the current law.

You're right, but this isn't a debate between legislators or judges (at least I'm pretty sure). Opinions should be respected equally, regardless of whether it is the current law.

Regardless of law, yes. Regardless of logic and facts, no.

It shouldn't matter whether you're pregnant or not, you feel their rights should be able to be taken away, if its ok for that to be done to them, why isn't it ok for it to be done to you?

You know what, Dyakovo, you're right. I hate women's rights. No rights to women. Male-dominated society, blah blah blah.

Keep on the subject. This isn't a generic discussion about the rights of a woman's body. This is about abortion: it's a complicated issue about where one's individual sovereignty should extend.

Opinions should be respected equally, regardless of whether it is the current law.
Why the fuck should they be respected? The opinions might be completely inane, like suggesting that sentient life begins at conception, or that a zygote is of the same worth as a 9-month-old baby, etc.

You know what, Dyakovo, you're right. I hate women's rights. No rights to women. Male-dominated society, blah blah blah.

Keep on the subject. This isn't a generic discussion about the rights of a woman's body. This is about abortion: it's a complicated issue about where one's individual sovereignty should extend.

I am on the subject. And no, unless you're a misogynist, its actually rather simple...
Does a women have the same rights to the control of her own body as a man?

Does a women have the same rights to the control of her own body as a man?

I'm pro-life. I guess I'm a misogynist.

This has nothing to do with equal rights for genders. When men can become pregnant, you let me know. I'm pro-life in the cases of both a male and female fetus.

I'm pro-life. I guess I'm a misogynist.

This has nothing to do with equal rights for genders. When men can become pregnant, you let me know. I'm pro-life in the cases of both a male and female fetus.

You're a misogynist because you apparently don't believe that a woman should have any say in what goes on in her body.

You're a misogynist because you apparently don't believe that a woman should have any say in what goes on in her body.

You're right. I'm leaving.

If, somehow, I became pregnant, then yes. I would be a "slave" for 9 months in order to save the fetus' life.

And I hope I don't encounter a "no you wouldn't" comment. You do not know me, and are in no position to make that assertion.

And under the current laws, you can choose to remain pregnant. And those women who wouldnt want to be a slave dont have to. See? No issues. Its all about choice.



And Ill counter this before you even say it, a 12 week old cluster of cells that is parasitically leeching off someone else's body is not self aware, and therefoe does not get a choice, as it cant make one.

And under the current laws, you can choose to remain pregnant. And those women who wouldnt want to be a slave dont have to. See? No issues. Its all about choice.



And Ill counter this before you even say it, a 12 week old cluster of cells that is parasitically leeching off someone else's body is not self aware, and therefoe does not get a choice, as it cant make one.

No, no, no don't you see? It's obvious that the non-person should have more rights than the person... :rolleyes:

The excuse that the baby is within the woman's body gives her the right to kill said baby because it is "part of her body" is laughable. Does that mean we can kill babies when they still have their embicial cord attached because its part of a woman's body? I swear, feminazis make my head hurt.

One is a fully developed, self aware creature with a central nervous system.

The other is a small cluster of cells that is not self aware, does not have a centrel nervous system, and for all intents and purposes, a parasite.


See the difference? Your comparison is nonsensical.

I too am a liberal atheist recently-turned pro-lifer! What a coincidence! I find it ridiculous for me to have always been completely against war, the death penalty and all killing and then have ignored the destruction of so much possible life going on in my own country. I realize population growth and adoption overflow are problems, but this should not justify killing babies. More needs to be done to promote birth control so that pregnancy can be avoided before a mother thinks it necessary to murder. From now on I shall be consistently pro-life from conception to grave and protesting murder from abortion clinic to lethal injection table.

The bolded part is absolutely correct. Any government which bans abortion should also make contraception available free or at nominal cost to anyone who wants it. I wouldn't even put a lower age limit on that: if kids around puberty have to prove they're fertile to be entitled to subsidized (or free) contraception, they'd need to see a doctor ... and then you get parental consent problems.

You OK with that?

Fetuses are not babies, as you would know by now if you'd followed even the first few pages of the thread. It's a very long thread, I know, but if you use the search-this-thread button and seek the word "person" you will see the difficulty in being so certain about this that you can say that a fertilized egg (ONE cell) is equivalent to a human, and therefore "killing" it murder.

If being self-consistent is your motive for changing opinion on this, I think you want to at least get all your terms straight.

=============

Chicken eggs. They do not require sperm in order to form an embryo.

You don't know much about chickens, do you? :p

There is a particular kind of chicken which is bigger, noisier and more brightly coloured than the kind which lays eggs. This is a cock, or as the squeamish Americans call it, a rooster.

No cock, no fertilized eggs.

Sometimes, with eggs from a barnyard where there's a cock, you might find a little spot of blood in the yolk of the egg. That is an embryo ... you can pick it out and eat the rest of the egg just fine.

============

my stance would be to support the choice made by my GF/Wife.

Most excellent.

While I'm still quite pro-choice (oppose laws banning abortion) in a political sense, I certainly wouldn't badger a pregnant woman who felt it was wrong to terminate her pregnancy. It would be entirely her choice, even if it was me who'd got her pregnant.

==========

Try this experiment: Imagine that someone invents a procedure that can be performed on a chicken that can give it human intelligence. Does killing chickens become wrong?

Dude, it becomes essential. Intelligent flying dinosaurs would threaten our very existence! :p

==============

The excuse that the baby is within the woman's body gives her the right to kill said baby because it is "part of her body" is laughable.

And who said that? You should address your point to them.

*big snip*
You don't know much about chickens, do you? :p

There is a particular kind of chicken which is bigger, noisier and more brightly coloured than the kind which lays eggs. This is a cock, or as the squeamish Americans call it, a rooster.

No cock, no fertilized eggs.

Sometimes, with eggs from a barnyard where there's a cock, you might find a little spot of blood in the yolk of the egg. That is an embryo ... you can pick it out and eat the rest of the egg just fine.

*big snip*


That's what I meant earlier, although I wasn't quite so sure about the limits of the definition of "embryo", thus the reason for accepting I was wrong so quickly. Thanks for making me unlearn! :)

but isn't it true that a woman is... Hornest during her ovulation period?

add to that the woman's fertile period is not limited to 'seasons' like other animals.

and just because we (humans) actively prevent conception doesn't mean Sex isn't only for Procreation.

and to make it clear, I really have no stance on the issue, due to the facts that 1) I cannot get pregnant 2) I have no significant other who can get pregnant 3) I am not the one going through the procedure.

however, should any of that change, my stance would be to support the choice made by my GF/Wife.

you should probably go back and look for bottles post on the subject. biology is her area of expertise.

and yeah, the part where we almost never have sex for procreation means that sex isnt only for procreation.

That's what I meant earlier, although I wasn't quite so sure about the limits of the definition of "embryo", thus the reason for accepting I was wrong so quickly. Thanks for making me unlearn! :)

Nice snip. The patronizing tone was at least half humorous ... glad you took it the right way.

Actually, in the course of a very repetitive argument we had once here, about "asexuality" it came to light that a few (a very few) animals can self-fertilize. Including the turkey!

The excuse that the baby is within the woman's body gives her the right to kill said baby because it is "part of her body" is laughable. Does that mean we can kill babies when they still have their embicial cord attached because its part of a woman's body? I swear, feminazis make my head hurt.

Except, not all the people arguing that a woman has a right to bodily integrity in this thread is a woman.

I swear, cavemen who need to control theys womens to feel like they are worth anything give me heartburn.

you should probably go back and look for bottles post on the subject. biology is her area of expertise.

and yeah, the part where we almost never have sex for procreation means that sex isnt only for procreation. the biology question is open for anyone. so yes, I do welcome bottle's views on ovulation.

Don't mistake me, i didn't say sex was only for procreation. I said that just because we find ways around conception doesn't remove that procreation is one of the driving forces for sex.

Just like your last statement, "and yeah, the part where we almost never have sex for procreation means that sex isnt only for procreation." the reasons we tell ourselves why we have sex doesn't negate one of the reasons why it's natural to have sex.

you should probably go back and look for bottles post on the subject. biology is her area of expertise.

This one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13542193), perhaps? I found it helpful.

However, it is possible for a woman to tell when she's ovulating, at least within a few days. Traditionally this was done by taking body temperature (obviously not very reliable) but now a blood test can pin it down fairly accurately if the woman has a regular cycle.

In a few cases (two) I've been able to tell when a woman is ovulating. I can't be absolutely sure that I'm picking up the changes with my own senses (most notably smell) or from the fact that she knows.

the biology question is open for anyone. so yes, I do welcome bottle's views on ovulation.

Don't mistake me, i didn't say sex was only for procreation. I said that just because we find ways around conception doesn't remove that procreation is one of the driving forces for sex.

Just like your last statement, "and yeah, the part where we almost never have sex for procreation means that sex isnt only for procreation." the reasons we tell ourselves why we have sex doesn't negate one of the reasons why it's natural to have sex.

i rechecked your post, the sloppy posting was yours.

yeah sex IS for procreation but in humans (and bonobos) its not even the usual reason for having sex.

This one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13542193), perhaps? I found it helpful.

However, it is possible for a woman to tell when she's ovulating, at least within a few days. Traditionally this was done by taking body temperature (obviously not very reliable) but now a blood test can pin it down fairly accurately if the woman has a regular cycle.

In a few cases (two) I've been able to tell when a woman is ovulating. I can't be absolutely sure that I'm picking up the changes with my own senses (most notably smell) or from the fact that she knows.

thanks, I was persuing the whole thread and didn't get to that one. :cool:

i rechecked your post, the sloppy posting was yours.

yeah sex IS for procreation but in humans (and bonobos) its not even the usual reason for having sex.

I just wanted to be sure to state that my stance was never "sex is only for making babies" :p

I believe also dolphins have sex for fun... or so I remember an article read sooo long ago... :cool:

I just wanted to be sure to state that my stance was never "sex is only for making babies" :p

I believe also dolphins have sex for fun... or so I remember an article read sooo long ago... :cool:

honestly, junii, i thought i was responding to someone else. i was distracted by "i am legend" on my tv. i wouldnt have bothered to say it to someone i knew understood stuff.

honestly, junii, i thought i was responding to someone else. i was distracted by "i am legend" on my tv. i wouldnt have bothered to say it to someone i knew understood stuff.

no worries, I know (and know you know) that my posts tend not to be the neatest anyway. :p

good movie? (never saw it in the theaters)

no worries, I know (and know you know) that my posts tend not to be the neatest anyway. :p

good movie? (never saw it in the theaters)

i liked it very much. but you have to like "last man on earth fights intractable zombies" movies.

i liked it very much. but you have to like "last man on earth fights intractable zombies" movies.

gonna rent it... but can't help but renting 'Omega Man' with Charlton Heston for comparison.

i liked it very much. but you have to like "last man on earth fights intractable zombies" movies.

gonna rent it... but can't help but renting 'Omega Man' with Charlton Heston for comparison.

gonna rent it... but can't help but renting 'Omega Man' with Charlton Heston for comparison.

get the novella out of the library too. they are quite different stories and the book has some very creepy and poignant parts.

thanks, I was persuing the whole thread and didn't get to that one. :cool:

For some reason even I don't understand, I've have read every post in this stupid thread.

I think there has been a marginal improvement in the level of debate since the last abortion thread I saw. But it still has all the lucidity of a boot in a tumble-dryer.

So there's a ton of replies and the first ones convinced me not to bother reading too many more... but here's an attempt at a short answer for a complicated question. I think the bottom line of your concern is the issue with the definition of "life" and "human". We kill things all the time. Bugs, animals, other people, bacteria, etc. Some are seen as bad - killing humans, and sometimes killing animals, or even bugs depending on your beliefs. On the other hand, no one seems to have any problem killing bacteria or viruses (that's what medicine does). To me, a "fetus" is not human nor has a life when it is conceived... to me it's a parasite, much like a stomach worm is, until the 2nd or 3rd trimester, when it may begin to have sensations or could live without its host. Others may define it differently... but as you state, the big question is where is the line drawn? No one can answer that for you on a personal basis, but for me, I'd much rather not have the government draw that line for me when it's clearly so ambiguous and opinions are so varied on it. A fetus is never a parasite I'm going to have to carry, so I don't see why I should be allowed to legally bind someone else in a restrictive definition.

~Merric

For some reason even I don't understand, I've have read every post in this stupid thread.

I think there has been a marginal improvement in the level of debate since the last abortion thread I saw. But it still has all the lucidity of a boot in a tumble-dryer.

most Abortion and Religion threads are different because it's dealing with values. it's not as clear cut as right and wrong or even Good vs Evil. values differ between people. and such debates do tend to devolve into a flame fest rather quickly.

So there's a ton of replies and the first ones convinced me not to bother reading too many more... but here's an attempt at a short answer for a complicated question. I think the bottom line of your concern is the issue with the definition of "life" and "human". We kill things all the time. Bugs, animals, other people, bacteria, etc. Some are seen as bad - killing humans, and sometimes killing animals, or even bugs depending on your beliefs. On the other hand, no one seems to have any problem killing bacteria or viruses (that's what medicine does). To me, a "fetus" is not human nor has a life when it is conceived... to me it's a parasite, much like a stomach worm is, until the 2nd or 3rd trimester, when it may begin to have sensations or could live without its host. Others may define it differently... but as you state, the big question is where is the line drawn? No one can answer that for you on a personal basis, but for me, I'd much rather not have the government draw that line for me when it's clearly so ambiguous and opinions are so varied on it. A fetus is never a parasite I'm going to have to carry, so I don't see why I should be allowed to legally bind someone else in a restrictive definition.

~Merric

When you press "Enter" (on some keyboards "Return"), it produces a blank line that increases the readability of your text.

Well, I can see your point, I am actually very much like you in terms of viewpoints (liberal Atheist, Anti death penalty, pro gay marriage, but pro choice). What if the woman feels that she would not be able to provide for her child, that if she carried on and gave birth then she would not be able to give him/her a good life, not only ruining the baby's future but her own life as well, that is perhaps a situation where she has a choice.

I did not bring up Nazism, someone else asked me a question about it and I responded.

Furthermore, if you equate my angst at ending the potential life of a human being as melodramatic then I believe you are at fault and not me. I contest that even those in favor of prochoice would not feel any glee in abortion and would not consider it so lightly.

Your "angst" expresses itself by demonizing people who need abortions by equating them with deliberate murderers and other criminals, ignoring the fact that abortion is not a crime. Also by making appeals to emotion that have zero foundation in nor relevance to facts about pregnancy. Also by creating strawman arguments to further demonize your opponents by pretending they say things or hold an attitude that none of them has expressed anywhere. Kindly quote the post that shows any pro-choice person expressing "glee in abortion" or "consider it so lightly." All of these are the standard tactics of anti-choice arguers, right out of the talking points catalogue. Regardless of how sincere your "angst" may be, your [i]argument is just the same hackneyed tripe and fictions we have been wrangling over for years.

Let people do what they want, if they can live with the guilt then whatever, as long as it doesn't impact me I don't care. Legalize suicide while we're at it! [Up to this point I am not being sarcastic.] The joy of modern society is we haven't got to pay for any of our mistakes....oh yeah unless you get HIV....but hey that can't happen if you're risking pregnancy right? At least you can get an abortion...that makes up for it right? Right?

I hate how abortion is considered "humane and legal" while murdering a pregnant woman counts as two murders.
Doesn't make sense to me...

I hate how abortion is considered "humane and legal" while murdering a pregnant woman counts as two murders.
Doesn't make sense to me...

Because a pregnant woman who gets murdered presumably wants the baby.

If a woman is a fully human citizen, she has the right to decide what to do with her body. She can decide what medical procedures are appropriate for herself with the advice of a doctor. If she does not have ownership over her own body, then she is not treated with all the rights of a human being.

Just as you said the right to swing a hammer ends where it would contact your face, the right of a fetus to exist within a woman's uterus ends with her unwillingness to carry it.


Firstly, how have you determined that it was the woman's choice to put it there even assuming consensual sex? There is such a thing as contraceptive failure -- which would speak toward NOT wanting it there.

I find the exception for rape that most people make when they are against abortion to be hypocritical in the extreme. It's either wrong all the time or none of the time. I'd err on the side of the bodily integrity of the complete and existing human, thanks.

Do not actions bring consequences? You shoot the gun (No pun intended), you pay the price.

Do not actions bring consequences? You shoot the gun (No pun intended), you pay the price.

... I really, really, really, really, really wish people would stop saying pregnancy is a justifiable punishment. Or even a punishment at all.

People have sex. People want to and like having sex. There's probably 3 people on the entire planet who don't like having sex. Why should someone have their entire life turned upside down for something every-goddamn-body does?

There's probably 3 people on the entire planet who don't like having sex.

And who are those 3 people?

Do not actions bring consequences? You shoot the gun (No pun intended), you pay the price.

No, quite honestly, one person shoots the gun and the other, by your standards, pays the price.

A woman has the right to kill her own baby if she wishes. A baby is nothing but a parasite that does nothing for society or his/her follow people.

And who are those 3 people?

DF, some random Canadian, and my ex boyfriend. There ya go. ^_-

Because a pregnant woman who gets murdered presumably wants the baby.

It's still a rubbish law. Once she's dead, what she wanted is rather irrelevant.

=======

No, quite honestly, one person shoots the gun and the other, by your standards, pays the price.

Haha, you fell for that.

=======

A woman has the right to kill her own baby if she wishes. A baby is nothing but a parasite that does nothing for society or his/her follow people.

Eureka Australis! It's you, right?

EDIT: I fell for it. This was some other poster, whose trollish efforts and impersonation of a puppet of Andaras/Eureka Australis got him a warning (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13549187). But not for the above post.

=======

DF, some random Canadian, and my ex boyfriend. There ya go. ^_-

And me. I don't like having sex. So that's BUSTED, without even going beyond NSGers and people they know.

Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later? Where do you draw the line?


I think you will find it is illegal to abort a baby 30 seconds before it is born.

And me. I don't like having sex. So that's BUSTED, without even going beyond NSGers and people they know.

I thought you were the random Canadian. Damn.

I thought you were the random Canadian. Damn.

Actually, your ex in disguise.

Actually, your ex in disguise.

That's meant to be a joke, right?

Hang on, tell me if I'm getting it. I'll put it in different words:

nyuk nyuk nyuk internet stalking nyuk nyuk !

... like that?

Eureka Australis! It's you, right?

EDIT: I fell for it. This was some other poster, whose trollish efforts and impersonation of a puppet of Andaras/Eureka Australis got him a warning (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13549187). But not for the above post.



It was me. *sigh* I learned my lesson, i'll never try that again.

That's meant to be a joke, right?

Survey says no.

It was me. *sigh* I learned my lesson, i'll never try that again.

Thanks for owning up. I felt pretty foolish when I saw the Moderation thread.

Babies. :rolleyes: Andaras isn't that stupid.

Just to be devils' advocate, how can you even make that assumption?


Because there is a vast majority of women on earth who have not experienced an unintended pregnancy resulting in an abortion. This is an obvious reason, which with even basic research can be proven countless times over. With such a small slice of the world population actually receiving abortions, it has been blown way out of proportion by people who have gotten only close enough to the issue to form an opinion, and nothing else.

This gives any woman who has not experienced such an ordeal as little right to speak about it as any man because really, what do either of them base their opinion on? What they've heard from religious organizations? What they've heard from someone else? Word of mouth? A news editorial? This immediately negates, in my mind, any valid argument they might bring up. Until a woman has felt a fetus living inside of her and has then made the decision to abort it, or a man has been with a woman and had to share the ordeal with her, I don't think anyone has a valid opinion to voice about the pain, loss, and sacrifice of an abortion.

You might note I've been through this ordeal with the woman I'm still very much in love with. It isn't as simple or convenient as "I don't want this child, I'll have to kill it." There are societal pressures, moral reasonings and extreme pain that comes with the decision to go the route of abortion, regardless of what personal reasons there are for going through with such an operation.

And after going through something like that, there are differing opinions on if it was right to do something like that, even from among women and men who have agreed on abortion. But they have the experience and emotional tenderness that is needed in such a debate.
You have to be able to see both sides of the argument, or you don't know the argument at all. And in order to see both sides clearly, you must experience firsthand.

To clarify my point: The only people who should, in any real sense, be debating about abortion on either side of the fence should be women or men who have experienced it firsthand to begin with.

As a woman who is currently a pregnant teen, and one who has been through multiple failed pregnancies including one from a sexual assault. I've had the option but chose not to abort, yes even facing being a 15 year old mother impregnated against her will I will not abort.I don't expect everyone to make that choice but I do believe that as soon as the cells start devideing it is a Baby and in my opinion deserves to live even if you can't take care of it and you give to a loving adoptive family. I do believe that all life is precious and perposeful though I do recognize that we all have a right to have differing opinions and if you feel otherwise is up to you.

Abortion is only legal before the.. uh... third trimester I think. They only allow abortion before the spinal column has properley formed, which is before the baby has a 'Brain' so to speak. So, the child at that point is less developed than a newborn cow or perhaps rodent, and probably about as anatomically human.

Arguing that the fetus in this case is still human is like arguing a sperm is human, or an egg. Just because it could be a child eventually doesn't mean it is one today.

As for the guy above me ^, I have right to say what i think about this issue, regardless of my knowledge. It could be argued you should not speak as you are not aware of the medical effects or implications.

To clarify my point: The only people who should, in any real sense, be debating about abortion on either side of the fence should be women or men who have experienced it firsthand to begin with.

Well, that's a nice way of dismissing the entire pro-life position. Don't let them participate in the debate at all. Or else participate as hypocrits: people who do one thing and say another.

When I say "nice" I mean utterly corrupt and self-serving.

As a man, I find it utterly offensive that you would claim this right to debate the issue because you "went through it" yet DENY an opinion to women who might have to make that decision tomorrow.

Yes, I see that you had empathy for the woman who did. I see that you are still carrying some of the distress of that time. It's even rather touching that you were (are still?) so close to her feelings that you think you went through it yourself.

But "shut up" is never the right answer. If the subject is so painful to you that you can't bear to hear off-hand or ideological opinions about this subject you have personal (even if second-hand) experience of, you should never have started reading this thread.

There are other forums where abortion is discussed with much more sensitivity. Here, abortion is a war-horse, it's a stamping-ground, it's a bone of contention. It's political.

Maybe it shouldn't be. Maybe we should be more considerate of the feelings of women who have found abortion distressing ... and yes, I've met a few ... but "shut up" is never the right answer.

Because there is a vast majority of women on earth who have not experienced an unintended pregnancy resulting in an abortion. This is an obvious reason, which with even basic research can be proven countless times over. With such a small slice of the world population actually receiving abortions, it has been blown way out of proportion by people who have gotten only close enough to the issue to form an opinion, and nothing else.

To begin with, your premises about how few women have experienced an unintended pregnancy and/or abortion are incorrect -- at the very least for the United States:

Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion
At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, about one-third will have had an abortion
link (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)

This gives any woman who has not experienced such an ordeal as little right to speak about it as any man because really, what do either of them base their opinion on? What they've heard from religious organizations? What they've heard from someone else? Word of mouth? A news editorial? This immediately negates, in my mind, any valid argument they might bring up. Until a woman has felt a fetus living inside of her and has then made the decision to abort it, or a man has been with a woman and had to share the ordeal with her, I don't think anyone has a valid opinion to voice about the pain, loss, and sacrifice of an abortion.

You might note I've been through this ordeal with the woman I'm still very much in love with. It isn't as simple or convenient as "I don't want this child, I'll have to kill it." There are societal pressures, moral reasonings and extreme pain that comes with the decision to go the route of abortion, regardless of what personal reasons there are for going through with such an operation.

And after going through something like that, there are differing opinions on if it was right to do something like that, even from among women and men who have agreed on abortion. But they have the experience and emotional tenderness that is needed in such a debate.
You have to be able to see both sides of the argument, or you don't know the argument at all. And in order to see both sides clearly, you must experience firsthand.

To clarify my point: The only people who should, in any real sense, be debating about abortion on either side of the fence should be women or men who have experienced it firsthand to begin with.

I see what you are getting at here and, as someone who has gone through a partner's unintended preganacy and abortion, I can sympathize with your point. Experience can clarify the issue.

But, I don't think you have to have relevant personal experience to speak out about abortion. For example, on the one hand, everyone has an interest in liberty and equal protection under the law, so everyone has an interest in seeing the rights of women are protected. On the other hand, for example, I vehemently disagree with, but would not expect someone who is anti-choice to refrain from seeking to stop what they erroneously view as murder because of a lack of relevant experience than I would expect silence from abolitionists that had not been a slave or owned slaves.

A woman has the right to kill her own baby if she wishes. A baby is nothing but a parasite that does nothing for society or his/her follow people.

I always used to think of myself as pro-choice. However, it was the por-choicers on another thread, that made me reconsider my position. It was the same ridiculous 'parasite' argument which made me feel sick to my stomach and completely disgusted that someone would call a baby a parasite.

And the more I think about it, the argument that a fetus isn't a human, is also completely ridiculous. A dog will give birth to a dog. A human will give birth to a human. And even the claim that the baby is a 'lump of cells' isn't right. It is a biologically seperate entity from conception, with different DNA from the mother and father. It is a new, unique person. It is just in the early development of life. Just like a child will develop into an adult if given all the necessities of life, the fetus will develop into a human child and then a human adult. The fact that it doesn't have all the capacities of an adult doesn't disqualify it from being human.
And since the fetus is human, surely then it deserves the very basic of human rights-the right to live...
Didn't society originally believe that the unborn had inherit rights? Pregnant women given the death sentence would be spared until after the child was born. They were able to inherit property in wills etc. And even if we're looking to modern times, recently in the US (a few years back) a man murdered his new wife and unborn baby...and was tried for double murder.
Out of curiousity, if the fetus/baby had been unwanted would they have still been able to charge double murder? Why should the idea of whether the fetus is wanted or not affect its status as being human?
And why is it that we are so quick to judge the undeveloped human as less worthy of basic human rights than one than is developed? Would be judge a child as less worthy of the right to live than an adult? And now I expect the, 'but it isn't aware of anything' speech...but do we classify profoundly disabled people, who are unaware of their surroundings and incable of self-care as unworthy to live? The profoundly disabled will never develop the ability to be aware, while the fetus will, in a matter of weeks if the process isn't interupted...a very short time span, considering the length of a life.

The majority of pregnancies do not endanger the mother's life. Yeah, big changes happen which may greatly affect her life. But should the life of an undeveloped human, just as human as an adult, just in a different period of development, be terminated based on the woman's life being altered? The mother’s right to a certain lifestyle should not take precedence over the unborn’s right to life. If the unborn is given all the necessities of life, then it will develop into a child. Just like a child, if given all the necessities of life, will develop into an adult. Would you deny a child the necessities of life, in order to maintain your own lifestyle? And I don't believe, at any stage of life, that we are completely independant. A fetus relies on its mother. A child relies on its mother. A disabled person relies on their carer. An aged person relies on their carer. An injured person relies on their family/friends. We are all a big inconvience at one stage of our lives or another.

Its common sense that when you have sex, even with contraceptives, there is a possibility to getting pregnant. You may not want to get pregnant, it might not be planned. But a side effect of sex is pregnancy, if you consented to sex, you accept the consequences. A=B as the OP put it. From the moment of conception, there is another life, a human developing into an eventual adult.
I get that men have been able to scapegoat out of the abortion dilema. But here's the thing. Women are not equal to men. And when we try to be, we deny what it is that makes us women.
And abortion isn't always a liberated decision. It is often a decision influenced heavily on the man's opinion. Especially where sex determination is involved, it is an opressive tool in some societies. E.g. the huge numbers of females aborted in china, simply because they are female. And to those of you who would say it would be better for them not to be born than to be disgarded to a chinese orphanage...It isn't about the quality of life someone is born into. It is about their basic human right to be born. If they don't like it, and not that i'm advocating suicide, they can then choose to end it. But at least they have a choice, to do something with their lives or not.

And lastly, abortion isn't the only choice. There are huge adoption waiting lists. Single mothers have more support than ever. And even in the case of rape, where the mother did not consent to intercourse, I don't believe the unborn human should be made to pay for the rapists crime. Especially when support is so readily available in today's society.

Rant finished :)

And lastly, abortion isn't the only choice. There are huge adoption waiting lists.

Mind explaining why there are more orphans than there are adoptive parents then?

And now I expect the, 'but it isn't aware of anything' speech...but do we classify profoundly disabled people, who are unaware of their surroundings and incable of self-care as unworthy to live?

If their guardian so wishes, no we don't?

Mind explaining why there are more orphans than there are adoptive parents then?

I'll rephrase that. In Western countries, adoption lists are long

If their guardian so wishes, no we don't?

It is illegal to euthanase a disabled person in Australia.
And you're saying that because a person is disabled, they are unworthy of the right to live?

I always used to think of myself as pro-choice. However, it was the por-choicers on another thread, that made me reconsider my position. It was the same ridiculous 'parasite' argument which made me feel sick to my stomach and completely disgusted that someone would call a baby a parasite.

<SNIP>

Rant finished :)

the question isnt what you think about abortion but what should be DONE about abortion.

its not a "well in a perfect world abortion would be limited to dire necessity" question. this isnt a perfect world and our preferences are not relevant.

we have to make laws that cover the potential medical decisions of half our population. they need to be reasonable and compassionate.

so what do you think is a reasonable and compassionate way to legally deal with abortion?

It is illegal to euthanase a disabled person in Australia.
And you're saying that because a person is disabled, they are unworthy of the right to live?

Euthanasia, however, is not the same as disconnecting life support, which an adult in a similar state to a foetus would clearly need. An adult with the same cognitive capability as a foetus most of the way through the first trimester would be medically brain-dead. No, I don't consider them to have any meaningful right to life.

<snip rant>

None of which adresses the two key points about abortion :

1) It's every human being's right to decide who can and who can't benefit from their body. We don't promote compulsory organ harvesting, nor do we force every healthy adult to donate blood every 4 weeks. Yet you would force women to give up control over their bodies for the benefit of something that by all legal, biological and social standarts is not even a living person yet?

2) A person is declared dead once his/her higher brain functions are gone.
Yet you claim that something that does not have any higher brain function yet be declared not only alive, but a full human being with full legal rights?

You ingore these two arguments simply because the biological similarities between a foetus and a parasite offend your sensibilities? Because something that you consider disgusting cannot possibly be a responsible choice in some circumstances?

the question isnt what you think about abortion but what should be DONE about abortion.

its not a "well in a perfect world abortion would be limited to dire necessity" question. this isnt a perfect world and our preferences are not relevant.

we have to make laws that cover the potential medical decisions of half our population. they need to be reasonable and compassionate.

so what do you think is a reasonable and compassionate way to legally deal with abortion?

I didn't think thats what the OP was asking, but thats cool :)

I understand that there are women who will want an abortion and will seek one out, whether illegal or not. But I would have to say that it would be decreased number seeking them out, than when abortions are legal and the option is easily accessible.
The point I made about the undeveloped human is that abortion means they are denied the right to live. So what course of action should be taken for this? If we truly believed that abortion was the killing of a human, then the only reasonable and compassionate course of action would be to make abortion illegal and a criminal offence.

I understand that there are women who will want an abortion and will seek one out, whether illegal or not. But I would have to say that it would be decreased number seeking them out, than when abortions are legal and the option is easily accessible.

Well, no, they don't, really.... (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/12/news/12abortion.php)

I'll rephrase that. In Western countries, adoption lists are long

And yet strangely, orphanages in western countries are more often than not, quite fully occupied, with tenants growing to adulthood.

Why is that, when there are supposedly so many more adoptive parents?

I didn't think thats what the OP was asking, but thats cool :)

I understand that there are women who will want an abortion and will seek one out, whether illegal or not. But I would have to say that it would be decreased number seeking them out, than when abortions are legal and the option is easily accessible.
The point I made about the undeveloped human is that abortion means they are denied the right to live. So what course of action should be taken for this? If we truly believed that abortion was the killing of a human, then the only reasonable and compassionate course of action would be to make abortion illegal and a criminal offence.

making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of abortions. it makes it more dangerous and more expensive. education and access to contraception reduce the number of abortions.

yes, what laws should be in place to regulate abortion? are you really wanting to force all women to carry all pregnancies to term? are there no circumstances where the "undeveloped human life" is so undeveloped that it is OK to abort? are there no circumstances that a woman might find herself in where it might be better to allow legal abortion in the earliest stages of embryo/fetal development?

Euthanasia, however, is not the same as disconnecting life support, which an adult in a similar state to a foetus would clearly need. An adult with the same cognitive capability as a foetus most of the way through the first trimester would be medically brain-dead. No, I don't consider them to have any meaningful right to life.

The person on life support, does not have the potential to live without it. While a fetus, given 9 months, can and does.
The brain capacity of a fetus is constantly developing, while an adult in a similar state has reached their capacity.
Would you still eunthanise a person who is guarenteed to be off life support within a certain time frame?

None of which adresses the two key points about abortion :

1) It's every human being's right to decide who can and who can't benefit from their body. We don't promote compulsory organ harvesting, nor do we force every healthy adult to donate blood every 4 weeks. Yet you would force women to give up control over their bodies for the benefit of something that by all legal, biological and social standarts is not even a living person yet?
2) A person is declared dead once his/her higher brain functions are gone.
Yet you claim that something that does not have any higher brain function yet be declared not only alive, but a full human being with full legal rights?
You ingore these two arguments simply because the biological similarities between a foetus and a parasite offend your sensibilities? Because something that you consider disgusting cannot possibly be a responsible choice in some circumstances?

1) Firstly, what society thinks is often misguided. It was 'scientifically' proven, biologically 'proven' and socially accepted, to deem coloured people as less intelligent and sub-human. It was socially acceptable to kill off the aborigines in australia, because they were not classified as humans and it was legal for us to take their children, deny them the vote or right to own land. What society thinks is contantly changing, and its people who question the norm that change it.
Compulsary organ harvesting and blood donation are not forced, nor should they be. But they can hardly be placed in the same category as consenting to sex, and a new life beginning, no-matter how undeveloped, starting at conception.
Pregnancy involves 2 lives. Not the one which would be affected by the organs or blood donations. Our legal standards in Australia (sorry rest of the world) are that you can have a legal abortion up to 12 weeks, and a medically necessary abortion thereafter. At 11 weeks and 6 days, we have a non-human, at 12 weeks and 1 day a human. Does anyone else see the madness in that? It is a human from the first moment, but it has different developmental stages. Just like a baby-child-teenager-adult...you cannot seperate one from the other with any real clarity. And certainly not within a time span of weeks.
When it comes to control, we were in control when we made the informed decision to have intercourse. That is where our control ends. The fact that men are able to escape from consequences more easily than women, is a bit of biological bad luck for us. But we cannot expect to have the same control over our bodies as men, because women are physically different and designed to bare children. Once the woman is pregnant, it is not only her rights or control to be considered, there is now an undeveloped human who should have equal rights. If she does not wish to keep the baby after it is born, then it is within her control to give it up for adoption. However, it is not within her rights or control, to end another human's life.

2) A person declared dead has no higher brain function, and no possibility of regaining it. A fetus is alive, constantly growing, and will develop higher brain functions. A human will give birth to a human. A human egg and a human sperm will create a human fetus, with biologically different DNA than both parents. A unique person. And I'm not asking for all full legal rights, only one right, the right to live. Just as we wouldn't expect a child to have differing rights to live from an adult, why would we need differing rights for a human at yet another stage of development?

I do find calling a fetus a parasite in poor taste, because at no stage are we completely independant in life. Part of being human is that we rely on each other, so why it should be any different for the unborn is beyond me. And also, because I find the similarities quite demeaning. But your right about that just being my opinion and not really relevant to the debate. But it is what originally got me thinking and changed my mind..

We don't promote compulsory organ harvesting, nor do we force every healthy adult to donate blood every 4 weeks.

I'd like compulsory organ donation once the person is dead (though not compulsory blood donation, mainly because the majority would have to be alive).

I'm not a fan of abortion at all, but we can't outlaw it. It has to stay a women's right issue. I wish everyone could just put the baby up for adoption. But we can't outlaw it, at least not easily, because it's in the constitution that it is a woman's right (one of the court cases, i don't remember which). Let's be theoretical, let's say we make abortion illegal. It will still happen. The worse part is it will be done by a lot of do-it-yourself people and not doctors. It will still occur but in the background in some dirty room.

And people get desperate. The female may be so afraid to tell her boyfriend or her parents (and trust me this has happened) that they do anything to cause a miscarriage. I've heard stories of girls putting coat hangers up their tubes. Also, I've heard about girls throwing themselves down stairs. That will happen. That's why we can't outlaw it. I also believe people need to own up to their mistakes and accept the consequences, but bringing life into this world cannot be considered a consequence.

I'm not a fan of abortion at all, but we can't outlaw it. It has to stay a women's right issue. I wish everyone could just put the baby up for adoption. But we can't outlaw it, at least not easily, because it's in the constitution that it is a woman's right (one of the court cases, i don't remember which). Let's be theoretical, let's say we make abortion illegal. It will still happen. The worse part is it will be done by a lot of do-it-yourself people and not doctors. It will still occur but in the background in some dirty room.



adoption isnt really an alternative to abortion. it seems to make sense but on a practical level it obviously isnt. few women who give birth are willing to hand that baby over to someone else to raise. it happens but most women are not willing to do it. (obvious because we have more births to unmarried women than ever but there are thousands of couples waiting to adopt newborns. when it is socially acceptable to have a baby out of wedlock women keep those babies the vast majority of the time)

the actual alternative to abortion is having the baby and raising it yourself no matter what your circumstances.

making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of abortions. it makes it more dangerous and more expensive. education and access to contraception reduce the number of abortions.

yes, what laws should be in place to regulate abortion? are you really wanting to force all women to carry all pregnancies to term? are there no circumstances where the "undeveloped human life" is so undeveloped that it is OK to abort? are there no circumstances that a woman might find herself in where it might be better to allow legal abortion in the earliest stages of embryo/fetal development?

How do we know that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce the number of abortions? If an abortion is not readily available, then the logical conclusion would be more women would carry to term. And I already agreed that there would be women that would seek out abortions, whether there were laws in place or not. But an abortion is performed as a medical procedure, and so would be monitored as such. The fact that it would become more expensive, would not be an issue, seeing as it would be illegal. And the idea of it being dangerous, most illegal abortions are done through medical professionals, so the risk isn't as high as what it once was. But yes, there is an increased risk. However, seeing as the fetus is now classified as human in this hypothetical, what the woman would be seeking out is to kill another human
And I have no problem with more education and contraceptive use. I am not against people having sex.
Seeing as all pregnancies are human, then why would carrying them to term be such a terrible idea? Seeing as the human is developing from conception, I would say there is no time where the life is so undeveloped it can be aborted. And the only exception would be where there is danger to the mother.
You may have to give me examples of where it would be better to abort in earlier stages..

Yes. Even if she agreed beforehand, she is free at any point to change her mind about her own body.

Ah, except here, you're talking two bodies--the woman's, which happens to be carrying the fetus, which is another body. She can affect her own body, certainly, but to destroy another is unjust.

I don't see why this is such a cause of such huge debate.

An unborn fetus is not a baby. It's not even a human being.
What is a human being is the mother, therefore she has the right to say "No, I don't want this."

Because there is a vast majority of women on earth who have not experienced an unintended pregnancy resulting in an abortion.

That still does not in any way "prove" that the people speaking here about the topic have not faced the possibility -- the majority of people in the world are female, and yet as has been tossed around for years "there are no women on the internet". And yet I ran an RPG site where the women outnumbered the men at one point.

In other words, you have zero idea of what your actual population sample is here, anonymous as they are. Telling everyone they have no right to voice an opinion unless they have gone through your experience -- pretty silly. And not to say it IS the case, but as this is an anonymous medium, you could tell us any story you liked about your experiences, and there'd be no way to verify them.

You're just going to have to deal with the content and logic of the arguments here, rather than set a limit on who is entitled to speak.

How do we know that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce the number of abortions? If an abortion is not readily available, then the logical conclusion would be more women would carry to term. And I already agreed that there would be women that would seek out abortions, whether there were laws in place or not. But an abortion is performed as a medical procedure, and so would be monitored as such. The fact that it would become more expensive, would not be an issue, seeing as it would be illegal. And the idea of it being dangerous, most illegal abortions are done through medical professionals, so the risk isn't as high as what it once was. But yes, there is an increased risk. However, seeing as the fetus is now classified as human in this hypothetical, what the woman would be seeking out is to kill another human
And I have no problem with more education and contraceptive use. I am not against people having sex.
Seeing as all pregnancies are human, then why would carrying them to term be such a terrible idea? Seeing as the human is developing from conception, I would say there is no time where the life is so undeveloped it can be aborted. And the only exception would be where there is danger to the mother.
You may have to give me examples of where it would be better to abort in earlier stages..

If you really believe we need to outlaw abortions. We can't just outlaw it right away, but it would have to be through a series of regulations over a long period of time. And I'm talking a long period of time like generations. We can't just slam the door shut. I'm for a mild form of regulation as well. But really, I don't know what it's like. I've never dealt with a friend who was pregnant, I've never been in that situation. And until I am, I don't think I am able to properly pick a side.

But I am for very mild regulations. Such as a limit of abortions in a certain amount of time. But like I said earlier, making it illegal will stop some, but definitely not all. We'd see a decrease no matter what. Why? Why would someone document illegal activity at risk of losing a license to practice medicine(if the person even has one).

Mind explaining why there are more orphans than there are adoptive parents then?

Because many people are looking for perfectly healthy blonde, blue-eyed, non-brown babies. There are PLENTY of brown babies languishing in foster care -- and special needs babies, in addition.

I don't see why this is such a cause of such huge debate.

An unborn fetus is not a baby. It's not even a human being.
What is a human being is the mother, therefore she has the right to say "No, I don't want this."

Certainly, if a fetus were nothing more than a cancerous tumor.

A fetus is not a human in the same way a gestating acorn is not an oak tree.

I don't particularly care if abortion is carried out or not; I do not support government subsidization, but legalization, absolutely; I do however argue the moral basis for what makes an abortion acceptable or not. And much of that stems from the assumption that a human fetus is not a human, and this is wrong; it is not a person, as a child is not an adult, but it is the only thing that can and will grow and develop into a fully-grown adult.

How do we know that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce the number of abortions? If an abortion is not readily available, then the logical conclusion would be more women would carry to term. And I already agreed that there would be women that would seek out abortions, whether there were laws in place or not. But an abortion is performed as a medical procedure, and so would be monitored as such. The fact that it would become more expensive, would not be an issue, seeing as it would be illegal. And the idea of it being dangerous, most illegal abortions are done through medical professionals, so the risk isn't as high as what it once was. But yes, there is an increased risk. However, seeing as the fetus is now classified as human in this hypothetical, what the woman would be seeking out is to kill another human


follow the link from cabra west's post above. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/12/news/12abortion.php



And I have no problem with more education and contraceptive use. I am not against people having sex.
Seeing as all pregnancies are human, then why would carrying them to term be such a terrible idea? Seeing as the human is developing from conception, I would say there is no time where the life is so undeveloped it can be aborted. And the only exception would be where there is danger to the mother.
You may have to give me examples of where it would be better to abort in earlier stages..

it might not be terrible to YOU, but it sucks for the woman involved.

upwards of 50% of all fertilized eggs do not produce a pregnancy. they fail to implant or die shortly after implantation and the woman never knows that it was there. why is it worse to take a "morning after pill" (or plan B) than it is for it to happen without intervention?

it is always better to abort in early stages if abortion is chosen. but that is probably not your point.

its better for a 12 year old who was molested by her neighbor to have an abortion at 6 weeks than to have to bear the child of her rapist.

it is better for a 50 year old woman with grown children who doesnt want to start child rearing all over again to have an abortion at 6 weeks than have a baby.

it is better for a soldier in iraq to have an abortion than to be forced to continue a pregnancy.

it is better for a college student who had sex with a frat boy while under the influence of alcohol and drugs to take "plan b" than it is to have the baby.

it is better for the mother of 5 who cant make ends meet now to have an abortion than to have another baby.

(all these examples suppose that the woman involved wants an abortion) the examples are irrelevant. every woman who gets an abortion has a good reason for it. her reasons are none of our business.

i have to run into town for a while. ill be back later to respond.

The person on life support, does not have the potential to live without it. While a fetus, given 9 months, can and does.
The brain capacity of a fetus is constantly developing, while an adult in a similar state has reached their capacity.
Would you still eunthanise a person who is guarenteed to be off life support within a certain time frame?

You are of course aware that up to 50% of pregnancies do end in natural, spontaneous abortions, right?



1) Firstly, what society thinks is often misguided. It was 'scientifically' proven, biologically 'proven' and socially accepted, to deem coloured people as less intelligent and sub-human. It was socially acceptable to kill off the aborigines in australia, because they were not classified as humans and it was legal for us to take their children, deny them the vote or right to own land. What society thinks is contantly changing, and its people who question the norm that change it.
Compulsary organ harvesting and blood donation are not forced, nor should they be. But they can hardly be placed in the same category as consenting to sex, and a new life beginning, no-matter how undeveloped, starting at conception.
Pregnancy involves 2 lives. Not the one which would be affected by the organs or blood donations. Our legal standards in Australia (sorry rest of the world) are that you can have a legal abortion up to 12 weeks, and a medically necessary abortion thereafter. At 11 weeks and 6 days, we have a non-human, at 12 weeks and 1 day a human. Does anyone else see the madness in that? It is a human from the first moment, but it has different developmental stages. Just like a baby-child-teenager-adult...you cannot seperate one from the other with any real clarity. And certainly not within a time span of weeks.
When it comes to control, we were in control when we made the informed decision to have intercourse. That is where our control ends. The fact that men are able to escape from consequences more easily than women, is a bit of biological bad luck for us. But we cannot expect to have the same control over our bodies as men, because women are physically different and designed to bare children. Once the woman is pregnant, it is not only her rights or control to be considered, there is now an undeveloped human who should have equal rights. If she does not wish to keep the baby after it is born, then it is within her control to give it up for adoption. However, it is not within her rights or control, to end another human's life.

So would you refuse medical assistance to the victim of a car crash? Cause their control over what will happen to their body ended when they got in the car?
And, yes, compulsory organ harvesting and blood donations are the logical extension of denying women to decide who, where and when gets to use their body. If they don't want an embryo in their body, nobody has the right to force them to. Anything else is a form of rape.

And are you really saying that a change in legal systems to view women as human beings with less rights than men would be something you'd hope for? Cause that's more or less what you're saying there...


2) A person declared dead has no higher brain function, and no possibility of regaining it. A fetus is alive, constantly growing, and will develop higher brain functions. A human will give birth to a human. A human egg and a human sperm will create a human fetus, with biologically different DNA than both parents. A unique person. And I'm not asking for all full legal rights, only one right, the right to live. Just as we wouldn't expect a child to have differing rights to live from an adult, why would we need differing rights for a human at yet another stage of development?

Actually, no. As said before, a feotus has about a 50% chance of becoming a human being. And a good deal less with lacking medical care.

And we don't legislate possibilities.
If you happen to kill a cow belonging to someone else, you will be forced to pay the value of the cow, not the cow + all the milk it would have given in its life + all the calves it would have had in its life.
So claiming that even though it's not alive yet, it might be at some point, does not mean that aborting it now would kill anyone. It's not a living human being, and giving more rights than any actually living human being is ridiculous (and no, no living human being is allowed to use the body of another for its own survival. See the compulsary organ harvesting. So you're actually trying to give a feotus more rights than a living human being.)


I do find calling a fetus a parasite in poor taste, because at no stage are we completely independant in life. Part of being human is that we rely on each other, so why it should be any different for the unborn is beyond me. And also, because I find the similarities quite demeaning. But your right about that just being my opinion and not really relevant to the debate. But it is what originally got me thinking and changed my mind..

The difference between us and parasites is that we're not biologically dependant on another organism (as a feotus would be), but socially dependant. That's a massive difference.

I'll rephrase that. In Western countries, adoption lists are long

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/foster.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_the_United_States
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071029183943AAOeRg0
http://www.adoption.ca/viewpoints/adopt_research.htm
http://www.baaf.org.uk/info/firstq/adoption.shtml
http://www.wiaa.org/children_list.asp
http://kasih.bunda.free.fr/uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=9&Itemid=73


This doesn't even address the number of children waiting for adoption in Africa and in Asia... so where in the west are there too few children to be adopted?

We're not talking about where in the west are the laws so incredibly stringent that people would rather adopt from the former Soviet Union, China, and Africa, either. Where in the west are there no children being raised by the state because there are so many adults who want them?

How do we know that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce the number of abortions? If an abortion is not readily available, then the logical conclusion would be more women would carry to term. And I already agreed that there would be women that would seek out abortions, whether there were laws in place or not. But an abortion is performed as a medical procedure, and so would be monitored as such. The fact that it would become more expensive, would not be an issue, seeing as it would be illegal. And the idea of it being dangerous, most illegal abortions are done through medical professionals, so the risk isn't as high as what it once was. But yes, there is an increased risk. However, seeing as the fetus is now classified as human in this hypothetical, what the woman would be seeking out is to kill another human



Here (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/12/news/12abortion.php) and here (http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/Abortion-Numbers-Fall-Worldwide-3566-1/).
I've posted the links before in reply to your posts, glad to see you don't like facts dabble with your opinions.

How do we know that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce the number of abortions? If an abortion is not readily available, then the logical conclusion would be more women would carry to term.

Because when it was illegal, women still had them by leaving the country or risking death at the hands of a back-alley abortionist.

And look how WONDERFUL Prohibition went over in the US -- it pretty much entrenched organized crime in the United States as people bought illegal alcohol and went to speakeasies. It also lead to people poisoning themselves on bathtub gin.

follow the link from cabra west's post above. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/12/news/12abortion.php.
I've got no problem with what that article says. And I don't think that this issue is black and white, nor am I without compassion.
But what I was saying was, that if a fetus is human, then the only response is to make abortions illegal. How that would work, I don't know, there are smarter people than me to work all that out.
However if they are human, then what you're essentially saying is...because these people die or are harmed while killing another human, we should drop the standards and make it safer for them to do that, because they will do it anyway..



it might not be terrible to YOU, but it sucks for the woman involved.
upwards of 50% of all fertilized eggs do not produce a pregnancy. they fail to implant or die shortly after implantation and the woman never knows that it was there. why is it worse to take a "morning after pill" (or plan B) than it is for it to happen without intervention?
it is always better to abort in early stages if abortion is chosen. but that is probably not your point.
its better for a 12 year old who was molested by her neighbor to have an abortion at 6 weeks than to have to bear the child of her rapist.
it is better for a 50 year old woman with grown children who doesnt want to start child rearing all over again to have an abortion at 6 weeks than have a baby.
it is better for a soldier in iraq to have an abortion than to be forced to continue a pregnancy.
it is better for a college student who had sex with a frat boy while under the influence of alcohol and drugs to take "plan b" than it is to have the baby.
it is better for the mother of 5 who cant make ends meet now to have an abortion than to have another baby.
(all these examples suppose that the woman involved wants an abortion) the examples are irrelevant. every woman who gets an abortion has a good reason for it. her reasons are none of our business.
i have to run into town for a while. ill be back later to respond.

Yeah, it does suck for the woman. No argument there. But does being in a sucky situation give you the right to kill someone in order to alleviate your circumstances?
I know that most fertilized eggs never reach term. However, there is a huge difference between an egg failing to implant...and an implanted, growing egg being being aborted. It is worse for it to happen with prior knowledge, because you are taking a life into your own hands. Whereas an egg which doesn't plant, or which the body naturally miscarries, is an unpleasant reality of life. People die at every developmental stage. They die as babies, they die as children, teenagers, adults, elderly people....
Pretend for a moment that you believe that a fetus is human....if your mother died naturally, it is accepted as life....if someone kills your mother, thats an entirely different story. Because her rights were violated and it ended in her life being cut short....
All those examples were very dramatic, most cases aren't like that. And I am compassionate enough to know that for most women abortion isn't an easy choice....
Is it better for the guilty person to be punished, instead of punishing the undeveloped human, who is as innocent as the 12 year old? I understand the trauma involved with being sexually assaulted. However, the 12 year old will not be making the decision about whether she carries the baby or not. Not to mention the health risks involved with someone that young carrying a baby. If she is medically able to carry the baby, then yes, she should. There are 2 innocent parties involved, not just the one.
A woman at 50, is also quite unlikely to get pregnant in the first place. But should it happen...the life inside her would take priority over whether she feels like raising another child or not...
It would be better for the soldier in iraq to return home from the fighting until the baby is born. Even if she had an abortion in iraq, she would not be physically or emotionally/mentally fit to be in that type of atmosphere.
The college student. I have 2 issues with this example. One, if she is under the influence of drugs/alcohol then she is unable to give consent, and the issue is once again rape. And second, this college student would be facing the consequences of bad decisions. I would ask for her to be accountable for those decisions, instead of taking 'plan b' which involves terminating another human.
And for mother of 5, again, her circumstances don't take priority over another life, unless hers is in danger.

No, not every woman who gets an abortion has a good reason for it. Most have decided that it would inconvience their lifestyle too much. They wouldn't be ready for that kind of committment as mothers. etc etc. There is never a good reason to deny another human the right to live.

Because many people are looking for perfectly healthy blonde, blue-eyed, non-brown babies. There are PLENTY of brown babies languishing in foster care -- and special needs babies, in addition.

Oh I know. I just didn't want to raise the point since I wanted to see what his reply would have been without feeding a precondition.

Most have decided that it would inconvience their lifestyle too much. They wouldn't be ready for that kind of committment as mothers. etc etc. There is never a good reason to deny another human the right to live.

And you are omniscient, I suppose, because you KNOW the reasons women decide to have abortions?

Let me say that knowing you are unable to provide for another human life, and are emotionally, financially, and physically not ready for that commitment strikes me as the PERFECT reason to deny a potential human a life of suffering and want.

Here (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/12/news/12abortion.php) and here (http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/Abortion-Numbers-Fall-Worldwide-3566-1/).
I've posted the links before in reply to your posts, glad to see you don't like facts dabble with your opinions.

I haven't had time to reply to you yet. I've had a lot of people speaking to me at once. Nothing to do with ignoring facts.
Do you think, that abortion numbers could be dropping, not simply because abortion is legal, but because sex education is better and contraceptives are more effective and easier to get now??

And you are omniscient, I suppose, because you KNOW the reasons women decide to have abortions?

Let me say that knowing you are unable to provide for another human life, and are emotionally, financially, and physically not ready for that commitment strikes me as the PERFECT reason to deny a potential human a life of suffering and want.

She may be unable to provide for another human life...therefore, kill it? There are other options.
And when most people choose to abort, they are not thinking of the life of a potential child...they are thinking of their own.
I don't think there's ever a PERFECT reason to deny a human life.
And here's a thought, give someone the chance to 'get over' this life of suffering and want. Give them a chance to overcome and succeed, instead of deciding for them.

I've got no problem with what that article says. And I don't think that this issue is black and white, nor am I without compassion.
But what I was saying was, that if a fetus is human, then the only response is to make abortions illegal. How that would work, I don't know, there are smarter people than me to work all that out.
However if they are human, then what you're essentially saying is...because these people die or are harmed while killing another human, we should drop the standards and make it safer for them to do that, because they will do it anyway..

And why would you want to use two seperate standarts for when human life begins, and when it ends?
If your idea that a fertilised egg is a living human being would apply to all human life, we could only really declare people dead who have more or less completely decomposed... for no sane medical reason other than not to offend your sensibilities?



Yeah, it does suck for the woman. No argument there. But does being in a sucky situation give you the right to kill someone in order to alleviate your circumstances?

If that person was effectily living off your own body, yes.


I know that most fertilized eggs never reach term. However, there is a huge difference between an egg failing to implant...and an implanted, growing egg being being aborted. It is worse for it to happen with prior knowledge, because you are taking a life into your own hands. Whereas an egg which doesn't plant, or which the body naturally miscarries, is an unpleasant reality of life. People die at every developmental stage. They die as babies, they die as children, teenagers, adults, elderly people....

The 50% don't refer to fertilised cells that fail to implant. It refers to naturally occuring abortions, as in implanted and developing cells that fail to suppress the natural reaction of the females body and get expelled.


Pretend for a moment that you believe that a fetus is human....if your mother died naturally, it is accepted as life....if someone kills your mother, thats an entirely different story. Because her rights were violated and it ended in her life being cut short....
All those examples were very dramatic, most cases aren't like that. And I am compassionate enough to know that for most women abortion isn't an easy choice....

If my mother died because she had a kidney failure and the only possible donor refused to give his kidney, would you consider that a violation of her right to live? I wouldn't.


Is it better for the guilty person to be punished, instead of punishing the undeveloped human, who is as innocent as the 12 year old? I understand the trauma involved with being sexually assaulted. However, the 12 year old will not be making the decision about whether she carries the baby or not. Not to mention the health risks involved with someone that young carrying a baby. If she is medically able to carry the baby, then yes, she should. There are 2 innocent parties involved, not just the one.

So, in your view pregnancy is punishment for sex, then?


A woman at 50, is also quite unlikely to get pregnant in the first place. But should it happen...the life inside her would take priority over whether she feels like raising another child or not...

It happens. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50#Cases_of_pregnancy_over_50) You really don't like doing your homework, as in checking your assumptions before posting, do you?



The college student. I have 2 issues with this example. One, if she is under the influence of drugs/alcohol then she is unable to give consent, and the issue is once again rape. And second, this college student would be facing the consequences of bad decisions. I would ask for her to be accountable for those decisions, instead of taking 'plan b' which involves terminating another human.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to decide rape cases in court, even if there is plenty of evidence? By the time the girl could be legally granted that abortion, the baby might be in college itself.
And you can only ask people to make a responsible choice if you acutally GIVE them a choice. And believe it or not, in many cases abortion is more responsible than carrying the pregnancy to term.


And for mother of 5, again, her circumstances don't take priority over another life, unless hers is in danger.

See, this is what I like about moral absolutists... no regard for human condition, as long as your idea of what's morally right is enforced no matter what. Charming.


No, not every woman who gets an abortion has a good reason for it. Most have decided that it would inconvience their lifestyle too much. They wouldn't be ready for that kind of committment as mothers. etc etc. There is never a good reason to deny another human the right to live.

How many women have you met who had an abortion?
I know a good few, and I would say that abortion in every single case was the responsible thing to do, rather than having a child while being in an abusive relationship, rather than having the child while being mentally unstable, rather than having the child without being able to take care of it and due to having the childe without being able to take care of oneself either.

I haven't had time to reply to you yet. I've had a lot of people speaking to me at once. Nothing to do with ignoring facts.
Do you think, that abortion numbers could be dropping, not simply because abortion is legal, but because sex education is better and contraceptives are more effective and easier to get now??

Well, guess what, that's what the article says. Kudos for getting that.
It also says that abortion rates do not go down depending if abortions are legal or illegal, they are pretty much constant under these conditions. What does bring them down is women having the possibility and knowledge to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Guess what, most women don't have sex to get pregnant and then have an abortion. If there's a choice, they'll use contraception.

She may be unable to provide for another human life...therefore, kill it? There are other options.
And when most people choose to abort, they are not thinking of the life of a potential child...they are thinking of their own.
I don't think there's ever a PERFECT reason to deny a human life.
And here's a thought, give someone the chance to 'get over' this life of suffering and want. Give them a chance to overcome and succeed, instead of deciding for them.

Again, it is not yet alive.
As she can't care for a child, the responsible thing is to avoid letting one develop.

She may be unable to provide for another human life...therefore, kill it? There are other options.
And when most people choose to abort, they are not thinking of the life of a potential child...they are thinking of their own.
I don't think there's ever a PERFECT reason to deny a human life.
And here's a thought, give someone the chance to 'get over' this life of suffering and want. Give them a chance to overcome and succeed, instead of deciding for them.

I notice you completely ignored the fact that there are many hundreds of thousands of UNADOPTED children who grow up in the orphanages around the world when you blithely say that "there are options".

There are options, and they suck. And to be perfectly honest, there is no good reason to have your life turned upside down and your health and emotional/mental wellbeing for something you never wanted, never asked for, can't raise, and would be condemning to being raised by the state, when there is the chance to stop the whole process before there is any cognition, sense of pain, or sense of being unwanted.

And why would you want to use two seperate standarts for when human life begins, and when it ends?
If your idea that a fertilised egg is a living human being would apply to all human life, we could only really declare people dead who have more or less completely decomposed... for no sane medical reason other than not to offend your sensibilities?.

We were talking about when someone is clinically brain dead. And I'm sorry but what you've just said doesn't make one scrap of sense.
I would apply it to all human LIFE. A clinically dead person is not alive, they are DEAD and so would not have anymore rights....they are dead.

If that person was effectily living off your own body, yes. .

They are living off your body because of your own choices. They didn't choose to be there. And if the fetus is not medically doing harm to your body, then no, you don't have the right to terminate it

The 50% don't refer to fertilised cells that fail to implant. It refers to naturally occuring abortions, as in implanted and developing cells that fail to suppress the natural reaction of the females body and get expelled..I think you've mentioned that point enough now. I've already defined the difference between a naturally occuring abortion and an induced one.



If my mother died because she had a kidney failure and the only possible donor refused to give his kidney, would you consider that a violation of her right to live? I wouldn't..

Then I feel a little bit sad for your mother. Because I would be fighting for mine with everything I had. But thats beside the point...as is your example...which is completely irrelevant to my original one. There is a difference between naturally occuring death, and a planned death.

So, in your view pregnancy is punishment for sex, then?.
No. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex. It results in another life. That is the primary reason for sex!! to reproduce. If you are not responsible enough to handle the consequences, I suggest waiting until you are. I am not against having sex, but a little maturity wouldn't go astray.





Do you have any idea how long it takes to decide rape cases in court, even if there is plenty of evidence? By the time the girl could be legally granted that abortion, the baby might be in college itself.
And you can only ask people to make a responsible choice if you acutally GIVE them a choice. And believe it or not, in many cases abortion is more responsible than carrying the pregnancy to term. .
Yes, I do know how long rape cases take. I do believe in giving people choices. The right to kill another human, isn't one of them.
And in regards to the 50 yr old. Of course it happens. Read my original post, where I said every example was dramatic and rarely happens. Most 50 year olds don't get pregnant. Their hormones are changing again and the likelihood isn't great. I didn't say it never happens.


See, this is what I like about moral absolutists... no regard for human condition, as long as your idea of what's morally right is enforced no matter what. Charming..

We differ on whether a fetus is human or not. Therefore, we can never agree or even find common ground. I am only as absolute for my beliefs as you are for yours that a fetus is not human. But its good to see you taking the high road, and avoiding the character attacks. Charming.

How many women have you met who had an abortion?
I know a good few, and I would say that abortion in every single case was the responsible thing to do, rather than having a child while being in an abusive relationship, rather than having the child while being mentally unstable, rather than having the child without being able to take care of it and due to having the childe without being able to take care of oneself either.

I have met many women who have had abortions. I work in a women's shelter. And I'm glad you can say with such conviction that killing the fetus was the right thing to do. I can't say the same thing. Most of the women I've met are incredibly selfish. Abortions are like another form of contraceptive.
For the record, I have been the child in the abusive relationship. It wasn't unusual for me to see my own blood when I was beaten to a pulp. And yet, I can say with absolute certainty that I love my life and I am glad I was born, nomatter the circumstances. I know what its like to be neglected, when both parents are unable to give anything close to a normal upbringing. I am still glad I was born. I'm glad I was given the choice to be the person I am now.
And it annoys me that people would terminate a life, based on what they deem appropriate in that sense....because I would have been aborted. People can get through anything.

I notice you completely ignored the fact that there are many hundreds of thousands of UNADOPTED children who grow up in the orphanages around the world when you blithely say that "there are options".

There are options, and they suck. And to be perfectly honest, there is no good reason to have your life turned upside down and your health and emotional/mental wellbeing for something you never wanted, never asked for, can't raise, and would be condemning to being raised by the state, when there is the chance to stop the whole process before there is any cognition, sense of pain, or sense of being unwanted.

Yeah, some options suck. Killing another human being right up there.
Something you never asked for? oh come on....its hardly going to be a shock if you have sex to end up pregnant.
You know, sometimes life will suck even when you have the picture perfect family. There is no guarentee that a child won't feel unwanted, that an adult won't feel unwanted.
And please don't pretend the decision would have anything to do with the child based on that answer.

And here's a thought, give someone the chance to 'get over' this life of suffering and want. Give them a chance to overcome and succeed, instead of deciding for them.

Fat chance of that happening with people like you denying them abortions, based on your own emotional sensibilities.

They are living off your body because of your own choices. They didn't choose to be there. And if the fetus is not medically doing harm to your body, then no, you don't have the right to terminate it

People in car accidents should not get treated, because they got into the accident because of their own choices.

That doesn't make much sense now, does it?

Then I feel a little bit sad for your mother. Because I would be fighting for mine with everything I had.

You would make another human being your slave to save your mother?

I'm not too sure your mother would be pleased by that ;)

No. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex. It results in another life. That is the primary reason for sex!! to reproduce.

Actually no. Humans are notoriously bad at reproducing through sex, because the primary function of sex is not reproduction, but intimacy. Essentially, it's a good way to keep the couple together so that they can raise the child.

Yes, I do know how long rape cases take. I do believe in giving people choices. The right to kill another human, isn't one of them.

A fetus is not a human person. A child is. It would be far better to avoid an unwanted human person coming into being.

For the record, I have been the child in the abusive relationship. It wasn't unusual for me to see my own blood when I was beaten to a pulp. And yet, I can say with absolute certainty that I love my life and I am glad I was born, nomatter the circumstances. I know what its like to be neglected, when both parents are unable to give anything close to a normal upbringing. I am still glad I was born. I'm glad I was given the choice to be the person I am now.
And it annoys me that people would terminate a life, based on what they deem appropriate in that sense....because I would have been aborted. People can get through anything.

If you weren't aborted, you couldn't care. Let go of the emotional arguments.

We were talking about when someone is clinically brain dead. And I'm sorry but what you've just said doesn't make one scrap of sense.
I would apply it to all human LIFE. A clinically dead person is not alive, they are DEAD and so would not have anymore rights....they are dead.

Because they don't have any higher brain activity.
Neither has a foetus.
A foetus is not a living human being, biologically nor legally.


They are living off your body because of your own choices. They didn't choose to be there. And if the fetus is not medically doing harm to your body, then no, you don't have the right to terminate it

Even if I had caused that other person's kidney failure would not give them the right to my kidney.
And having sex does not mean consenting to having another using your body for its own purposes.


Then I feel a little bit sad for your mother. Because I would be fighting for mine with everything I had. But thats beside the point...as is your example...which is completely irrelevant to my original one. There is a difference between naturally occuring death, and a planned death.

And how would you do that? By sneaking up on the donor and stealing the kidney?

It does. I'm saying that nothing and no one has the right to use another human's body (or parts of it) without consent. If the pregnant woman does not consent to the pregnancy, she should be able to get an abortion.
Otherwise you would be granting a non-person more rights that you would a living person.


No. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex. It results in another life. That is the primary reason for sex!! to reproduce. If you are not responsible enough to handle the consequences, I suggest waiting until you are. I am not against having sex, but a little maturity wouldn't go astray.

*lol
I'm sorry, but the primary reason I'm having sex is not because the thought of reproduction makes me feel so good.
Sex can result in pregnancy, but not all pregnancies result in babies, nor should they.



We differ on whether a fetus is human or not. Therefore, we can never agree or even find common ground. I am only as absolute for my beliefs as you are for yours that a fetus is not human. But its good to see you taking the high road, and avoiding the character attacks. Charming.


Oh boy... ok, to begin with, I never said the foetus isn't human. Of course it is. I said it's not a living human being, and not a person. To be that, it needs a functioning brain as the minimum basic requirement.
And you callously dismissing the suffering of the potential mother (a living breathing human being with hopes, thought, feelings) for the sake of something that only has the capacity of possibly one day being a living human being but that at the moment has no self-awareness, no thoughts, no hopes and as far as evidence goes no feelings does point to a rather arrogant and inhuman attitude towards women and the choices some have to make in their lives. Sorry if you regard that as attack on your character.


I have met many women who have had abortions. I work in a women's shelter. And I'm glad you can say with such conviction that killing the fetus was the right thing to do. I can't say the same thing. Most of the women I've met are incredibly selfish. Abortions are like another form of contraceptive.
For the record, I have been the child in the abusive relationship. It wasn't unusual for me to see my own blood when I was beaten to a pulp. And yet, I can say with absolute certainty that I love my life and I am glad I was born, nomatter the circumstances. I know what its like to be neglected, when both parents are unable to give anything close to a normal upbringing. I am still glad I was born. I'm glad I was given the choice to be the person I am now.
And it annoys me that people would terminate a life, based on what they deem appropriate in that sense....because I would have been aborted. People can get through anything.

Well, gald you can say that.
See, so was I. And I still maintain that it would have been best for all involved (including most of all my mother) if she had aborted me. \

I've been in a situation where I thought I had to decide about an abortion, and in that case (had I turned out to be pregnant), I would have aborted. It would have been the responsible choice, as for me at the time it would have been abortion or suicide.
The women I know are anything but selfish, and none of them decided lightly. Many are still working through the emotional consequences, and I help them as best I can, but despite not being easy, it was the right thing for them to do.

I've got no problem with what that article says. And I don't think that this issue is black and white, nor am I without compassion.
But what I was saying was, that if a fetus is human, then the only response is to make abortions illegal. How that would work, I don't know, there are smarter people than me to work all that out.
However if they are human, then what you're essentially saying is...because these people die or are harmed while killing another human, we should drop the standards and make it safer for them to do that, because they will do it anyway..




Yeah, it does suck for the woman. No argument there. But does being in a sucky situation give you the right to kill someone in order to alleviate your circumstances?
I know that most fertilized eggs never reach term. However, there is a huge difference between an egg failing to implant...and an implanted, growing egg being being aborted. It is worse for it to happen with prior knowledge, because you are taking a life into your own hands. Whereas an egg which doesn't plant, or which the body naturally miscarries, is an unpleasant reality of life. People die at every developmental stage. They die as babies, they die as children, teenagers, adults, elderly people....
Pretend for a moment that you believe that a fetus is human....if your mother died naturally, it is accepted as life....if someone kills your mother, thats an entirely different story. Because her rights were violated and it ended in her life being cut short....
All those examples were very dramatic, most cases aren't like that. And I am compassionate enough to know that for most women abortion isn't an easy choice....
Is it better for the guilty person to be punished, instead of punishing the undeveloped human, who is as innocent as the 12 year old? I understand the trauma involved with being sexually assaulted. However, the 12 year old will not be making the decision about whether she carries the baby or not. Not to mention the health risks involved with someone that young carrying a baby. If she is medically able to carry the baby, then yes, she should. There are 2 innocent parties involved, not just the one.
A woman at 50, is also quite unlikely to get pregnant in the first place. But should it happen...the life inside her would take priority over whether she feels like raising another child or not...
It would be better for the soldier in iraq to return home from the fighting until the baby is born. Even if she had an abortion in iraq, she would not be physically or emotionally/mentally fit to be in that type of atmosphere.
The college student. I have 2 issues with this example. One, if she is under the influence of drugs/alcohol then she is unable to give consent, and the issue is once again rape. And second, this college student would be facing the consequences of bad decisions. I would ask for her to be accountable for those decisions, instead of taking 'plan b' which involves terminating another human.
And for mother of 5, again, her circumstances don't take priority over another life, unless hers is in danger.

No, not every woman who gets an abortion has a good reason for it. Most have decided that it would inconvience their lifestyle too much. They wouldn't be ready for that kind of committment as mothers. etc etc. There is never a good reason to deny another human the right to live.

the undeveloped human is not the same as a baby. it is only a potential baby and the younger the embryo/fetus the more "potential" it is.

lets try that famous thought experiment to illustrate how fully you already understand this.


imagine for a moment that you are escaping from a burning building. you must get out as fast as possible or you will be trapped and die inside.

on your way out you notice 2 babies in 2 baby carriers all by themselves who will die if you dont pick them up and carry them out with you. you would of course do this. anyone would.

then you notice that beside them are 2 metal carriers that are marked "FROZEN HUMAN EMBROYS" and you can see at a glance that there are 100 embryos in each. they are as easy/difficult to carry as the babies but you cant take them all. you only have 2 hands and time is of the essence.

would you drop the babies to save 200 embryos?

you dont have to answer, you know you wouldnt. you would do whatever it took to save the babies. you might even try to save the babies even if it meant your certain death.

if instead of babies there were 2 dog carriers with puppies in them you would probably save the puppies instead of the embryos.

if there were only the embryos but taking them would lower your chances of getting out safely, you would probably leave them behind.

Yeah, some options suck. Killing another human being right up there.


Care to explain how you came to the conclusion that a zygote is a living human being? An embryo? Or a foetus without brain activity, for that matter?

Care to explain how you came to the conclusion that a zygote is a living human being? An embryo? Or a foetus without brain activity, for that matter?

Is a cell alive?

And the follow-up: if so, and it has human DNA, it is a living human. Not a person, but a human, and a necessary differentiation.

Is a cell alive?

And the follow-up: if so, and it has human DNA, it is a living human. Not a person, but a human, and a necessary differentiation.

Though that leads to further implications. Should spermicidal contraceptives not be used, then, because they kill human cells?

Though that leads to further implications. Should spermicidal contraceptives not be used, then, because they kill human cells?

I say no, because it is the union of sperm and egg that provides the correct amount of chromosomes for the resulting cluster to develop into an human being.

Also, from a mathematical standpoint, it doesn't make sense that spermicidal contraceptives cannot be used (because they kill cells that do not on their own make up a human being) because only one sperm out of so many billions makes it to the egg; thus, technically speaking, 1/x billion essentially being zero, and considering that natural processes eliminate most of the sperm (except 1--some of the time) anyway, so a contraceptive simply makes the probability of that one sperm less than a percent of a percent, maintaining the actual "dead sperm count" at essentially 100%, only with a greater probability that it will be exactly 100%.

Also, from a mathematical standpoint, it doesn't make sense that spermicidal contraceptives cannot be used (because they kill cells that do not on their own make up a human being) because only one sperm out of so many billions makes it to the egg; thus, technically speaking, 1/x billion essentially being zero, and considering that natural processes eliminate most of the sperm (except 1--some of the time) anyway, so a contraceptive simply makes the probability of that one sperm less than a percent of a percent, maintaining the actual "dead sperm count" at essentially 100%, only with a greater probability that it will be exactly 100%.

Did that make sense? I'm not a math major, but I hope my point made it across anyway...

Did that make sense? I'm not a math major, but I hope my point made it across anyway...

i suppose. but the point of spermicide is not to kill all the sperm but to kill that one that will fertilize the egg. not knowing which one that will be, it tries to kill every possible candidate. but the important ones are the ones that will get close enough to the egg to fertilize it.

you dont really have a problem with avoiding fertilization do you?

i suppose. but the point of spermicide is not to kill all the sperm but to kill that one that will fertilize the egg. not knowing which one that will be, it tries to kill every possible candidate. but the important ones are the ones that will get close enough to the egg to fertilize it.

you dont really have a problem with avoiding fertilization do you?

Haha no, not at all. I definitely say that avoiding pregnancy is the best way to get out of it.

I always used to think of myself as pro-choice. However, it was the por-choicers on another thread, that made me reconsider my position. It was the same ridiculous 'parasite' argument which made me feel sick to my stomach and completely disgusted that someone would call a baby a parasite.

1. Not that I doubt your honesty, but is it really true you were pro-choice but changed your mind after hearing someone refer to the unborn as a parasite? If so, I'm afraid your opinions on the matter are a bit shallow.

2. For some unknown reason the argument may sicken you, but it is a simple truth that the unborn is a parasite. A parasite is defined (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/parasite?view=uk) as "an organism which lives in or on another organism and benefits at the other’s expense." That definition fits the unborn.

And the more I think about it, the argument that a fetus isn't a human, is also completely ridiculous. A dog will give birth to a dog. A human will give birth to a human.

1. Um. You are confusing the terminology. Whether the unborn is human is different than whether the unborn is a human being. A better, clearer question is whether the unborn is a person.

2. Just for the record, the majority of abortions don't involve fetuses, as the occur earlier in gestation than the fetal stage.

And even the claim that the baby is a 'lump of cells' isn't right. It is a biologically seperate entity from conception, with different DNA from the mother and father. It is a new, unique person. It is just in the early development of life. Just like a child will develop into an adult if given all the necessities of life, the fetus will develop into a human child and then a human adult. The fact that it doesn't have all the capacities of an adult doesn't disqualify it from being human.

1. Most abortions do involve little more than a "lump of cells." That these may be biologically seperate cells with unique DNA is of little moral relevance.

2. The unborn prior to viability or consciousness are NOT persons. On what basis do you assert otherwise?

And since the fetus is human, surely then it deserves the very basic of human rights-the right to live...

Again, you confuse human with "a human" or "a person with a right to life"? That a cell is of human origin is not sufficient to entitle it to a right to life.

Didn't society originally believe that the unborn had inherit rights? Pregnant women given the death sentence would be spared until after the child was born. They were able to inherit property in wills etc. And even if we're looking to modern times, recently in the US (a few years back) a man murdered his new wife and unborn baby...and was tried for double murder.

I'm not going on a major sidetrack into history, but the short answer is NO, society has not traditionally treated the unborn as having rights -- at least not until the unborn reached important developmental stages such as quickening.

And why is it that we are so quick to judge the undeveloped human as less worthy of basic human rights than one than is developed? Would be judge a child as less worthy of the right to live than an adult? And now I expect the, 'but it isn't aware of anything' speech...but do we classify profoundly disabled people, who are unaware of their surroundings and incable of self-care as unworthy to live? The profoundly disabled will never develop the ability to be aware, while the fetus will, in a matter of weeks if the process isn't interupted...a very short time span, considering the length of a life.

There is several rather big differences between being an unborn with no significant brain function and being profoundly disable. One obvious difference is the existence of consciousness. Another is whether the entity in question requires the use of another's body to survive. We aren't objecting to the existence of the unbron, but to forcing women to carry the unborn in their womb until birth.

The mother’s right to a certain lifestyle should not take precedence over the unborn’s right to life. If the unborn is given all the necessities of life, then it will develop into a child. Just like a child, if given all the necessities of life, will develop into an adult. Would you deny a child the necessities of life, in order to maintain your own lifestyle? And I don't believe, at any stage of life, that we are completely independant. A fetus relies on its mother. A child relies on its mother. A disabled person relies on their carer. An aged person relies on their carer. An injured person relies on their family/friends. We are all a big inconvience at one stage of our lives or another.

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. No one is saying that you can kill anything that isn't wholly independent. We are merely saying the unborn doesn't have the right to use a woman's body against her will.

Its common sense that when you have sex, even with contraceptives, there is a possibility to getting pregnant. You may not want to get pregnant, it might not be planned. But a side effect of sex is pregnancy, if you consented to sex, you accept the consequences. A=B as the OP put it.

Others have pointed out the many fallacies here. If I ride in a car, I take a significant risk that I will be injured in an accident. I don't consent to being injured by getting in the car. Nor should I be denied medical treatment for my injuries because I have to "accept the consequences" of having gotten in the car.

Plus, you make it clear that you oppose abortion even in the case of rape, so your "consent " argument is rather irrelevant.


I get that men have been able to scapegoat out of the abortion dilema. But here's the thing. Women are not equal to men. And when we try to be, we deny what it is that makes us women.

Oh. You're one of those. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but unlike the unborn, women are undeniably persons. As such they are entitled to equal rights afforded to all persons. Among these rights are rights to privacy, self-ownership, and autonomy. Women are not mere baby factories.

And even in the case of rape, where the mother did not consent to intercourse, I don't believe the unborn human should be made to pay for the rapists crime. Especially when support is so readily available in today's society.

So a woman that has had her bodily integrity violated by a rapist should be forced to further have her bodily integrity violated for nine more months by the rapist's child? How compassionate of you. :rolleyes:

I understand that there are women who will want an abortion and will seek one out, whether illegal or not. But I would have to say that it would be decreased number seeking them out, than when abortions are legal and the option is easily accessible.

What you "would say" is rather spectacularly different than what is the reality. Reputable and authoritative scientific studies of worldwide abortion laws show, among other things, that laws against abortion DO NOT significantly decrease the number of abortions in a nation. They do, however, create massive numbers of deathes or injuries to women forced to seek illegal abortions. (You've already been given links to these studies and I provided links earlier in this thread, but here are more links again: link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html), link (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html), link (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract).)

1) Firstly, what society thinks is often misguided. It was 'scientifically' proven, biologically 'proven' and socially accepted, to deem coloured people as less intelligent and sub-human. It was socially acceptable to kill off the aborigines in australia, because they were not classified as humans and it was legal for us to take their children, deny them the vote or right to own land. What society thinks is contantly changing, and its people who question the norm that change it.

You act as if we can do away with the differentiation between those entities that have a right to life (i.e., persons) and those that do not. Many animals, such as pigs, have a better claim to personhood than the early unborn, but we don't believe such animals have a right to life.

Regardless, your argument that we have abused human rights at prior points in our history is hardly relevant to the question of whether we are doing so now in allowing abortion. One could just as easily compare your treatment of women to those "colored people" or aborigines.

Our legal standards in Australia (sorry rest of the world) are that you can have a legal abortion up to 12 weeks, and a medically necessary abortion thereafter. At 11 weeks and 6 days, we have a non-human, at 12 weeks and 1 day a human. Does anyone else see the madness in that? It is a human from the first moment, but it has different developmental stages. Just like a baby-child-teenager-adult...you cannot seperate one from the other with any real clarity. And certainly not within a time span of weeks.

The law does not say that the unborn is a non-human one day and a human the next day. What the law does is err rather significantly on the side of outlawing abortion when there is even the slightest possiblity of personhood. I would think you would support such caution rather than ridicule it.

2) A person declared dead has no higher brain function, and no possibility of regaining it. A fetus is alive, constantly growing, and will develop higher brain functions. A human will give birth to a human. A human egg and a human sperm will create a human fetus, with biologically different DNA than both parents. A unique person. And I'm not asking for all full legal rights, only one right, the right to live. Just as we wouldn't expect a child to have differing rights to live from an adult, why would we need differing rights for a human at yet another stage of development?

We don't afford those without human brain function the status of personhood. It is really that simple. There is no significant moral difference between the brain dead and the early unborn. And you are asking for more than simply the right to live for the unborn. You are asking for the right to use someone else's body for nine months against their will!

How do we know that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce the number of abortions? If an abortion is not readily available, then the logical conclusion would be more women would carry to term. And I already agreed that there would be women that would seek out abortions, whether there were laws in place or not.

We know because studies show it to be true. Facts don't cease to be facts because you find them inconvenient or counter-intuitive.

But an abortion is performed as a medical procedure, and so would be monitored as such. The fact that it would become more expensive, would not be an issue, seeing as it would be illegal. And the idea of it being dangerous, most illegal abortions are done through medical professionals, so the risk isn't as high as what it once was. But yes, there is an increased risk.

:headbang:

Legal abortion is among the safest of surgical procedures and results in extremely few deaths and very few injuries worldwide annually. Illegal abortion results in 70,000 deaths and some five million serious injuries every year!! That is more than just an "increased risk" you can shrug off so callously.

Ah, except here, you're talking two bodies--the woman's, which happens to be carrying the fetus, which is another body. She can affect her own body, certainly, but to destroy another is unjust.

You miss the point. The point is not that a woman has the right to destroy the unborn as such. A woman has a right to control her own body, which includes the right to evict the unwanted. That expulsion from the woman's body is fatal for the unborn is unfortunate, but not prohibitive.

I've got no problem with what that article says.

Except that you ignore its implications.

However, there is a huge difference between an egg failing to implant...and an implanted, growing egg being being aborted.

What exactly is the "huge" moral difference?


All those examples were very dramatic, most cases aren't like that. And I am compassionate enough to know that for most women abortion isn't an easy choice....

1. How do you know "most cases aren't like that"?

2. You asked for examples of when abortion would be a moral, responsible choice. Presented with such examples, you try to dismiss them as "very dramatic."

No, not every woman who gets an abortion has a good reason for it. Most have decided that it would inconvience their lifestyle too much. They wouldn't be ready for that kind of committment as mothers. etc etc.

1. So all women should be deprived of the right to choice merely because some women may not have a good reason for abortion?

2. Again, where are you getting your data about "most" women?

We were talking about when someone is clinically brain dead. And I'm sorry but what you've just said doesn't make one scrap of sense.
I would apply it to all human LIFE. A clinically dead person is not alive, they are DEAD and so would not have anymore rights....they are dead.

1. And, when the unborn has the same or less brain function than the clinically brain dead, why do you insist they are persons with rights?

2. The clinically brain dead can be without brain function, but nonetheless be otherwise alive -- with functioning organs and living cells. If brain function is the measure of life for the clinically dead, why is it not an appropriate measure for the unborn?


No. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex. It results in another life. That is the primary reason for sex!! to reproduce. If you are not responsible enough to handle the consequences, I suggest waiting until you are. I am not against having sex, but a little maturity wouldn't go astray.

I love how you casually dismiss the maturity and responsibility of the millions of women who have abortions each year. I guess they are women after all, so who cares what they think?

We differ on whether a fetus is human or not. Therefore, we can never agree or even find common ground. I am only as absolute for my beliefs as you are for yours that a fetus is not human.

1. Most aborted unborn are NOT fetuses.

2. You have yet to explain the moral significance of human DNA.

3. Even if the unborn is a person, that does not settle the issue. The unborn may have a right to life, but not a right to the use of a woman's body. THAT right to violate another's bodily integrity and self-ownership doesn't belong to ANY persons.

I have met many women who have had abortions. I work in a women's shelter. And I'm glad you can say with such conviction that killing the fetus was the right thing to do. I can't say the same thing. Most of the women I've met are incredibly selfish. Abortions are like another form of contraceptive.

1. On the face of it, I would think that women that are living in women's shelther are probably living under circumstances that would justify abortion.

2. Unlike you, I trust the general moral judgment of women. It may not always be perfect, but I trust women in general over your judgment on their behalf.

3. That there are significant numbers of women who treat abortion as a convenient contraceptive is a well-rebutted myth.

Is a cell alive?

And the follow-up: if so, and it has human DNA, it is a living human. Not a person, but a human, and a necessary differentiation.

Does every live cell have a right to life? What is the moral significance of human DNA? Why do we care if , as you admit, the entity is not a person?

I agree with the first post, before you ask, I'm a Conservative Southern Baptist.

I agree with the first post, before you ask, I'm a Conservative Southern Baptist.

Both statements go along together nicely to prove your ignorance.

I've been keeping up with thread and have dipped in three times so far, and my complaint remains the same: After 45 pages, I am still waiting to see an anti-choice argument that has any intellectual validity whatsoever.

A good number of posters have launched and tried to defend anti-choice arguments so far, and they ALL have the exact same features:

-- They reject fact in favor of inflammatory appeals to emotion. No matter how many authoritative sources are presented debunking their mythical claims, they persist in reciting their myths.

-- They use incorrect and misleading language. Examples: saying that abortion kills "babies" when that is patently impossible, given what the word "baby" means; saying that abortion kills fetuses, when in fact the VAST majority of abortions occur before a fetus has developed; comparing abortion to crimes, as if it is a crime. This is related the to the appeals to emotion referenced above.

-- They argue in favor of inequality. They argue in favor of laws and social systems that have no effect on pregnancy, abortion, birth, or children's welfare whatsoever, but have (and can have) only one effect, which is to deny legal rights to women and force women into a socially inferior position that puts their bodies and their lives under the arbitrary control of the state.

-- Their arguments are based exclusively on subjective moral attitudes, even if they try to deny it. They universally adopt an attitude of blame, judgmentalism and moral superiority towards women, characterizing women as irresponsible, stupid, immoral, untrustworthy, even murderous creatures who must be controlled by some other authority to keep them from willy-nilly killing their own young. They cop this attitude regardless of whether they claim to be religious or non-religious.

-- Their arguments really have nothing at all to do with the "babies" they constantly rant about. The longer they argue, the less they talk about "babies" and the more they talk about women -- and all the things they think women do wrong, and all the liberties and powers they think women should not have. In fact, they soon stop worrying about the "welfare" of fetuses and babies altogether and concentrate instead on parsing out their measures of the relative guilt of women in various situations (rape versus consensual sex, married versus single, etc.).

At what point are we going to stop pretending that the anti-choice argument is about anything other than wanting to force women into a subservient social role in order to create a basically unequal social structure? It has nothing at all to do with "babies" or anyone's "right to life." Those noble-sounding talking points are mere window dressing for what amounts to a generally authoritarian worldview that just wants to see women's liberties curtailed and placed under the control of other people.

Those noble-sounding talking points are mere window dressing for what amounts to a generally authoritarian worldview that just wants to see women's liberties curtailed and placed under the control of other people.

Not other people, other person...

Me!

MWAHAHAHAHA!!

;)

You know, I keep seeing you come into threads acting so unbeleviably cocky attacking these alleged arguments (i.e. mythical strawmen).

-snip-

It's great to see you fellate yourself on attacking positions a two year old can debunk, or massive over simplifications of far more complex arguments. Unfortunately, some posters do come in here and make hit and run posts that resemble these sorts of arguments. I was about to forgive you for it, then you made this unbelievably inane comment.

At what point are we going to stop pretending that the anti-choice argument is about anything other than wanting to force women into a subservient social role in order to create a basically unequal social structure? It has nothing at all to do with "babies" or anyone's "right to life." Those noble-sounding talking points are mere window dressing for what amounts to a generally authoritarian worldview that just wants to see women's liberties curtailed and placed under the control of other people.

I mean, I'm starting to think you are trolling. Perhaps you could at least try to support this with a post that shows this which isn't from a hit and run poster. Do you not see how huge a generalisation this is? Even if an argument is flawed, there is no logical step in believing: having a flawed argument against abortion = uber secret conspiracy to make women subservient. You may have been more accurate if you were referring to xtian evangelicals only, but of course not all anti choicers are xtian evangelicals, fuck there are even feminist anti choicers. And don't give me this "abortion is inherently sexist" bullshit, as I have said 100000 times, you will be incredibly hard pressed to find any anti choicer who would allow for men, if they could get pregnant, to have an abortion. As I have mentioned before, major concepts surrounding this issue, such as the idea of the 'sanctity of life' have no link to sexism at all, and are instead linked to vague passages in scripture (while ignoring others) and other vague philosophies. To believe that they all secretly realise their arguments are all flawed and are using it as an excuse to promote their misogynist interests is equivalent to Andaras' ranting of how almost everything wrong in the world is really just a product bourgeois interests (read nonsense).

Is a cell alive?

This is actually a very important question.

A single human cell is not viable on its own, but in its proper place it has various processes going on inside it which seem to fit the definition of life.

But it would be ridiculous to extend a principle like "thou shalt not kill" to a single cell. Even scratching an itch kills individual cells, so what acts would you have to avoid to "not kill" ...?

For that matter, is the intention to kill at that scale really significant, when millions of individual cells are dying each second within a body?

And the follow-up: if so, and it has human DNA, it is a living human. Not a person, but a human, and a necessary differentiation.

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous position. If a single cell is "a living human" then what do we call an ordered collection of over 10 trillion of them? If you'd call the mass of cells which make up a person's body "a living human" too, then you've basically said that 10,000,000,000,000 == 1.
And before you say "it is a person" consider that the cells may still be living but the person brain-dead or even actually dead.

===========




-- They use incorrect and misleading language. Examples: saying that abortion kills "babies" when that is patently impossible, given what the word "baby" means; saying that abortion kills fetuses, when in fact the VAST majority of abortions occur before a fetus has developed; comparing abortion to crimes, as if it is a crime. This is related the to the appeals to emotion referenced above.

...

If we are going to use proper terms, we had better come up with something other than "clump of cells" for the stage between "fertilized egg" and "fetus." Do you happen to know the term?

If it served my ends, I could call a living person a "clump of cells."

Or, given the interdependence of humans in a society, I could call a living person a "parasite." In their current state (a civilized individual with specialized skills,) they are probably incapable of independent survival.

We pro-choicers have a difficult question with no clear answer to address: the point at which a "person" becomes. But at least we can 'bracket' it -- a fertilized egg is not a human person, an adolescent is a human person. Of course we can narrow the bracket more than that, but that's not my point. We can put the line somewhere (say end of the first trimester) and say "personhood does not begin before this, ever."

Strong pro-lifers ("all abortion is murder") have a far more difficult problem, because they define when a person becomes at a very specific event -- the fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm. This is dire, if they also believe in the soul or in "personhood" as anything but genetically human cells with biological processes going on! (If they take that latter definition, they have to define a finger or a drop of mucus as a person, an absurd position)

We have pictures (fuzzy ones admittedly) of the formation of the unique DNA from two different DNA's from the parents. That is a chemical process, it is not entirely predictable at our current level of understanding, but it will be. No wonder many pro-lifers are afraid of genetic engineering or even of genetic science. The bracket of unknown processes where this mystery of "a person becoming" is so narrow!

Does the person become when the chains first touch? When the first allele forms? When the creation of the new DNA is complete? Somewhere in between? Exactly where, if this entirely observable process is the becoming of philosophical personhood. And if our understanding extends to making the combination of two given chains completely predictable, the situation becomes quite untenable for free will, awareness, conscience and all the other features we recognize as our own personhood.

That must be a very uncomfortable position to be in. Looking at a film of a predictable, mechanical process and insisting "this is a person becoming."

And here's a poser: are twins from the same egg one person, or two ? If two, where did the second "person" come from?

I'm still quite comfortable with placing the legal becoming of personhood at birth, and allowing mystery for now as to what constitutes philosophical personhood. It will be a long time, perhaps forever, before we pro-choicers have to face a completely deterministic description of development up to babyhood, and have the same problem of "where, exactly" in such a process a person becomes.

If we are going to use proper terms, we had better come up with something other than "clump of cells" for the stage between "fertilized egg" and "fetus." Do you happen to know the term?

If it served my ends, I could call a living person a "clump of cells."

Or, given the interdependence of humans in a society, I could call a living person a "parasite." In their current state (a civilized individual with specialized skills,) they are probably incapable of independent survival.

Zygote, and later embryo are the correct terms, I belive.

We pro-choicers have a difficult question with no clear answer to address: the point at which a "person" becomes. But at least we can 'bracket' it -- a fertilized egg is not a human person, an adolescent is a human person. Of course we can narrow the bracket more than that, but that's not my point. We can put the line somewhere (say end of the first trimester) and say "personhood does not begin before this, ever."


It might be just me, but I think if brain activity demarks the boundary between life and death when dealing with dying, why wouldn't the same apply for becoming alive? I'm sure the minimum requirement for being regarded as a human being would be a functioning brain?
In which case the embryo would become a living human being around the 20th week of pregnancy. Since abortions usually take place in the first trimester (with the exception of medical necessesary abortions), there's no legal killing of any human beings.

You know, I keep seeing you come into threads acting so unbeleviably cocky attacking these alleged arguments (i.e. mythical strawmen).

It's great to see you fellate yourself on attacking positions a two year old can debunk, or massive over simplifications of far more complex arguments. Unfortunately, some posters do come in here and make hit and run posts that resemble these sorts of arguments. I was about to forgive you for it, then you made this unbelievably inane comment.

Pretty big talk for someone (1) who claims to be pro-choice but plays at making pro-life arguments and (2) whose attempts at such "far more complex arguments" have fallen flat on their face.

Muravyets was not arguing against strawmen, since as even you admit, people DO MAKE the arguments that Muravyets was disputing. More importantly, many of your so-called "complex arguments" boil down to little more than what Muravyets was dismissing.


I mean, I'm starting to think you are trolling. Perhaps you could at least try to support this with a post that shows this which isn't from a hit and run poster. Do you not see how huge a generalisation this is? Even if an argument is flawed, there is no logical step in believing: having a flawed argument against abortion = uber secret conspiracy to make women subservient. You may have been more accurate if you were referring to xtian evangelicals only, but of course not all anti choicers are xtian evangelicals, fuck there are even feminist anti choicers. And don't give me this "abortion is inherently sexist" bullshit, as I have said 100000 times, you will be incredibly hard pressed to find any anti choicer who would allow for men, if they could get pregnant, to have an abortion. As I have mentioned before, major concepts surrounding this issue, such as the idea of the 'sanctity of life' have no link to sexism at all, and are instead linked to vague passages in scripture (while ignoring others) and other vague philosophies. To believe that they all secretly realise their arguments are all flawed and are using it as an excuse to promote their misogynist interests is equivalent to Andaras' ranting of how almost everything wrong in the world is really just a product bourgeois interests (read nonsense).

First, it is incredibly easy to SAY that the abortion debate would be the same if men got pregnant, but does not mean it is true. It is a simple fact that the anti-choice crowd historically and socially tends to disdain women. Does that mean that everyone that is anti-choice is a raving misogynist? Of course not. But there is a degree of sexism inherent in most -- if not all -- of the anti-choice arguments.

I'm not sure which is funnier (or more sad, really): your claim that the anti-choice crowd is really motivated by an overarching concern for "the sanctity of life;" your assertion that such concern can be traced to passages in scripture; or your failure to recognize that such "scripture" tends to be patriarchial and often openly sexist.

Second, it is pretty pathetic that you complain about strawmen and then rant about the non-existence of an "uber secret conspiracy to make women subservient." No one alleged that there was such a secret conspiracy going on. To the contrary, the anti-choice movement tends to be pretty open about its desire to enslave women (which makes your denials all the more hollow).


Or, given the interdependence of humans in a society, I could call a living person a "parasite." In their current state (a civilized individual with specialized skills,) they are probably incapable of independent survival.

First, "parasite" has more than one meaning and the biological/medical definition of the term is perfectly accurate for the unborn but would not fit living persons outside the womb.

Second, even the more generic meaning of "parasite" implies unfair exploitation or lack of adequate return. Merely being interdependent does not make one a parasite.

And please don't pretend the decision would have anything to do with the child based on that answer.

There you go being omniscient again. I wish I know someone who knew what was in everyone's heart and judged them on that basis infallibly.

Oh, right.

Is a cell alive?

And the follow-up: if so, and it has human DNA, it is a living human. Not a person, but a human, and a necessary differentiation.

So is a rectal polyp, but no one minds removing them.

Pretty big talk for someone (1) who claims to be pro-choice but plays at making pro-life arguments and (2) whose attempts at such "far more complex arguments" have fallen flat on their face.


I haven't attempted to make any complex argument, all I have done is challenged the idea that fetus' aren't human and claimed that personhood is subjective. I haven't actually made any argument attempting to justify the anti choice idea.


Muravyets was not arguing against strawmen, since as even you admit, people DO MAKE the arguments that Muravyets was disputing. More importantly, many of your so-called "complex arguments" boil down to little more than what Muravyets was dismissing.


Muravyets was arguing that every post was really just misogynistic or fitting into his nice and convenient mythical strawman, not just some of them. I'll let this one slip however, because I can't be bothered to go through the whole thread and assess the worth of every single argument. Secondly, I have made no "complex argument", so your premise is non existent.


First, it is incredibly easy to SAY that the abortion debate would be the same if men got pregnant, but does not mean it is true. It is a simple fact that the anti-choice crowd historically and socially tends to disdain women.

This is where the problem begins. There isn't one anti choice crowd, you may have encountered a particular politically active xtian crowd a whole lot, especially from studying law, and these tend to be very sexist etc... but this is by no means the only group of people who are anti choice, and this doesn't even mean that they are being anti choice for sexist reasons, just because they hold other sexist positions.


Does that mean that everyone that is anti-choice is a raving misogynist? Of course not.

Then why argue with me?


But there is a degree of sexism inherent in most -- if not all -- of the anti-choice arguments.


I would like to see some examples.


I'm not sure which is funnier (or more sad, really): your claim that the anti-choice crowd is really motivated by an overarching concern for "the sanctity of life;"

Again, there is no one single anti choice hive mind, there are many different movements. I don't see why you must assume that not a single anti choice movement actually cares about the sanctity of life (i.e. they are completely lying about what they believe).


your assertion that such concern can be traced to passages in scripture

What's so ludacris about this? Shit loads of philosophers and doctrines explicitly reference scripture as support, and often being almost the soul prime justification for being anti choice. Perhaps some of them are using this as an excuse to justify their sexism, but to say all of them is an extremely far fetched claim.


; or your failure to recognize that such "scripture" tends to be patriarchial and often openly sexist.


Anyone with half a brain can acknowledge this. However your statement is a non sequitur, sexism is not an overriding theme in every single passage, just because some parts of the Bible are sexist does not mean that every single concept and idea from the Bible will have sexist roots.


Second, it is pretty pathetic that you complain about strawmen and then rant about the non-existence of an "uber secret conspiracy to make women subservient." No one alleged that there was such a secret conspiracy going on. To the contrary, the anti-choice movement tends to be pretty open about its desire to enslave women (which makes your denials all the more hollow).


Yet you constantly reference this supposed anti-choice movement which every single anti-choicer is supposedly part of. To then believe that this movement is sexist, as muryavyets believes, is basically believing in a far fetched conspiracy theory. That is the strawman that I am attacking.

Yet you constantly reference this supposed anti-choice movement which every single anti-choicer is supposedly part of. To then believe that this movement is sexist, as muryavyets believes, is basically believing in a far fetched conspiracy theory. That is the strawman that I am attacking.

I'm not quite sure you understand what a strawman is. If anything, to equivocate a belief that implicit in the "pro-life" stance is a certain degree of sexism with a conspiracy of misogyny is the actual strawman in this little debate.

Cabra, I'm quite happy to discuss where personhood begins, but I want to say first that it is irrelevant to the point I was making where, or when we draw a line -- I was referring to what I see as a strength of one side and a critical weakness in the other. Defining "becoming of a person" as the fertilizing of the egg leaves too little room for the mysteries I think we need to leave undefined philosophically.

Perhaps I was being too abstract, but I was really trying to make a point about the "mystery" of personhood. I experience personhood, I would experience nothing were I not a person. As such, I suspect it is impossible to really define it precisely.

Since the subject is legal rights, of course we must reach some conclusion as to what personhood is, and admit that law isn't going to be entirely satisfactory philosophically.

It might be just me, but I think if brain activity demarks the boundary between life and death when dealing with dying, why wouldn't the same apply for becoming alive? I'm sure the minimum requirement for being regarded as a human being would be a functioning brain?

I respect that. But I must say that the situation isn't that symmetrical. The functioning brain of an old person is the repository of unique memories. The person has character, they are known to others as a person. The uniqueness of their experiences in life is tied directly to the (subjective) exercise of free will -- they chose to go places and do things, and they responded to circumstances in an individual way which affected what they experienced thereafter. For me, that is a more essential part of personhood than any other.

If the brain of an adult stops working (coma) we allow time for them to recover before turning off their life-support. "Recover" is a key word, because what we hope for is to get back a person who we know existed before. The symmetrical case, "becoming" of a person, is essentially different. When the brain starts working it is the repository of nothing at all, it's all potential.

We cannot help seeing the adult in a child. Children change so quickly, it's impossible to ignore potential and have faith in it being fulfilled. And of course we should protect children, we should treat them kindly and try to influence them positively, because they are still in the process of becoming a person!

This might sound fuzzy, but we are all continually in the process of becoming people. Completion of that process, if it happens at all, is at death. In a sense, it continues after death, the person "lives on" in the memories of others.

But this is all philosophy, it's the pondering of unanswerable questions. To make law, we must reach conclusions. And this is a question of making a law which, if we get it wrong, affects a person who we have complete power over.

Making law, we must be somewhat arbitrary. We must make informed guesses and lay down some objective criteria for what is or is not a person. "Brain activity" is erring on the side of caution. Dogs have brain activity. Lizards have brain activity.

The situation will improve. MRI has given us huge insights into the physical functioning of the brain and the relation of that to subjective experience. We can see on a screen the functioning of another person's brain, and say "that person just had a though" and even make good guesses about what kind of thought it was. We can see moods in a brain!

If that progresses as it seems it will (most of the information there is still undecipherable) we might be able to tell if self-awareness exists in a brain. If consciousness exists to the point where a person is aware of actions and consequences.

Then we will be able to draw a line that almost everyone is happy with. No curiosity, no memory, no imagination about the future. Not a person, even if it does suck its thumb.

We might even be able to test a specific fetus in late term, and terminate for disability without fear of killing a person.

In which case the embryo would become a living human being around the 20th week of pregnancy. Since abortions usually take place in the first trimester (with the exception of medical necessesary abortions), there's no legal killing of any human beings.

Yes, I'm fine with killing an embryo which has no brain activity. I'd set the standard even further towards personhood than "brain activity." When we have more evidence of how the brain works, and can observe or even "tap into" the perceptions of creatures unlike ourselves (be they dolphins or fetuses) we can safely move the law that way.

But the law is for everyone (yes, it must be acceptable even for those it cannot apply to -- the opinion of men cannot simply be dismissed. If all men were pro-life, abortion would be illegal because it would only take a few percent of women to take that side, which some obviously do, and abortion would be quite democratically banned) the case must be argued from principles. "It's my right and I'm taking it" doesn't work for anyone. We must make a case and win the majority over.

I really think we're killing a generic human, and not a person, even if we kill a baby at birth. But that is an argument which can wait.

If the brain of an adult stops working (coma) we allow time for them to recover before turning off their life-support. "Recover" is a key word, because what we hope for is to get back a person who we know existed before.

There's the first flaw in your reasoning. If the brain of an adult "stops working" this is not a coma. A coma is caused by a lot of things, brain damage, infammation, poisoning, and many other factors. However a "coma" is not in any way equated with "brain stops working". A coma might be a situation in which the brain is not working quite right, but certainly not one in which the brain is not working.

When "your brain is not working" that is called brain death. At that point, you are dead. Not in a coma, not hoping to recover. Dead. We don't "allow time to recover" except perhaps for the greiving to come to terms with it, and that is a useless endeavor. Nobody recovers from "brain stops working". Nobody recovers from brain death.

Brain damage? Yes. But that's damage, that's not working fully. For the brain to stop working is the precise definition of death, and once it stops, nobody, nobody has ever recovered from it.


The situation will improve. MRI has given us huge insights into the physical functioning of the brain and the relation of that to subjective experience. We can see on a screen the functioning of another person's brain, and say "that person just had a though" and even make good guesses about what kind of thought it was. We can see moods in a brain!

And yet no scan, no MRI, no advancement in medical technology will ever accurately detect brain activity in something that has no brain

due to the huge arguements about this, is this a large issue in america, cos in the uk i odnt htink we really care
my opinion any1 can abort up until whatever that point was, second trimester ?

I haven't attempted to make any complex argument, all I have done is challenged the idea that fetus' aren't human and claimed that personhood is subjective. I haven't actually made any argument attempting to justify the anti choice idea.

Muravyets was arguing that every post was really just misogynistic or fitting into his nice and convenient mythical strawman, not just some of them. I'll let this one slip however, because I can't be bothered to go through the whole thread and assess the worth of every single argument. Secondly, I have made no "complex argument", so your premise is non existent.

This is where the problem begins. There isn't one anti choice crowd, you may have encountered a particular politically active xtian crowd a whole lot, especially from studying law, and these tend to be very sexist etc... but this is by no means the only group of people who are anti choice, and this doesn't even mean that they are being anti choice for sexist reasons, just because they hold other sexist positions.

Then why argue with me?

I would like to see some examples.

Again, there is no one single anti choice hive mind, there are many different movements. I don't see why you must assume that not a single anti choice movement actually cares about the sanctity of life (i.e. they are completely lying about what they believe).

What's so ludacris about this? Shit loads of philosophers and doctrines explicitly reference scripture as support, and often being almost the soul prime justification for being anti choice. Perhaps some of them are using this as an excuse to justify their sexism, but to say all of them is an extremely far fetched claim.

Anyone with half a brain can acknowledge this. However your statement is a non sequitur, sexism is not an overriding theme in every single passage, just because some parts of the Bible are sexist does not mean that every single concept and idea from the Bible will have sexist roots.

Yet you constantly reference this supposed anti-choice movement which every single anti-choicer is supposedly part of. To then believe that this movement is sexist, as muryavyets believes, is basically believing in a far fetched conspiracy theory. That is the strawman that I am attacking.

1. I said nothing about a hive mind or a conspiracy and I was rather clear that not everyone who is anti-choice is misogynist. But you will note that everyone who is anti-choice has at least one thing in common: they are anti-choice. And, yes, I think there is at least some sexism inherent in being anti-choice -- and the public arguments of anti-choicers tend to bear this out.

2. You appear to be arguing that although someone who is anti-choice may be sexist in their views, base their views on a sexist text, and/or have inherently sexist beliefs, it is somehow unfair to call such people sexist -- even though they wish to deny fundamental human rights to women. I'm not sure what in your estimation counts as sexism!?!!? :confused:

3. As not even your own arguments seem to qualify, perhaps you can enlighten us by pointing to some of these "complex arguments" that are anti-choice, have merit, defy Muravyets's categorizations, AND are without sexism.

due to the huge arguements about this, is this a large issue in america, cos in the uk i odnt htink we really care
my opinion any1 can abort up until whatever that point was, second trimester ?

Do you speak english?

we need to leave undefined philosophically.


Why do we need that?


But this is all philosophy, it's the pondering of unanswerable questions.

If we really thought they were unanswerable, we wouldn't be pondering on them. Our doubts concerning philosophical questions is related to the fact that we haven't answered them yet. Think about slavery. Was that question answered? Yes. Philosophical questions aren't unanswerable, they only have yet to be answered.
[/QUOTE]

And, yes, I think there is often some sexism inherent in being anti-choice


Often inherent? :confused:

Often inherent? :confused:

Good point. I've corrected my awkward wording. :cool:

Asslohe.

That is quite uncalled-for.

If you liked or agreed with my post, feel free to say so. But I really don't need your help "refuting" Neo Art.

It is curious how your spelling is excellent but you transpose letters. (a) you're dyslexic (unlikely) or faking it, (b) you are a regular poster, puppet-trolling and faking the bad typing, or (c) your keyboard is broken.

===========

There's the first flaw in your reasoning. If the brain of an adult "stops working" this is not a coma. A coma is caused by a lot of things, brain damage, infammation, poisoning, and many other factors. However a "coma" is not in any way equated with "brain stops working". A coma might be a situation in which the brain is not working quite right, but certainly not one in which the brain is not working.

A coma is lack of consciousness, which is protracted. The brain is "not working" in the sense that there is no consciousness, which I consider an essential of personhood. Beyond a certain number of days, this is considered irreversible.

Let's move on to the next "flaw in my reasoning" because I'm putting my hand up to that one. I chose a poor phrase.

Feel free to say something substantive on the subject!

That is quite uncalled-for.

If you liked or agreed with my post, feel free to say so. But I really don't need your help "refuting" Neo Art.

It is curious how your spelling is excellent but you transpose letters. (a) you're dyslexic (unlikely) or faking it, (b) you are a regular poster, puppet-trolling and faking the bad typing, or (c) your keyboard is broken.


it was a joke.

And yet no scan, no MRI, no advancement in medical technology will ever accurately detect brain activity in something that has no brain

Sure. I'm happy with killing things that don't have a functioning brain.

My argument was more: can we kill without murdering, if that brain functions but it doesn't have patterns of activity which we recognize as consciousness?

(Realizing that "consciousness" is controversial, I acknowledge that the line might be drawn at some other kind of activity, say "retaining memories of previous thought" or "aware of consequences of action.")

This might have unintended consequences. We might be able to weigh a non-human higher mammal against a mentally-deficient human, and conclude that killing that mammal would be murder.

=========

If we really thought they were unanswerable, we wouldn't be pondering on them. Our doubts concerning philosophical questions is related to the fact that we haven't answered them yet.

But some questions ("is there a god?") we should think about even if we have no expectation of ever reaching a certain answer. To me, the question "is this being a person in the way I am?" is unanswerable. I still think it's worth thinking about, because we can rule some things out even if not reach certainty. We can get part-way!

Perhaps you are right, though. The truly imponderable (perceiving infinity, for example) does rather repel the mind.

Think about slavery. Was that question answered? Yes. Philosophical questions aren't unanswerable, they only have yet to be answered.


Slavery is not a philosophical question in the way I meant. But no, the question of slavery is not answered. We have simply defined it so narrowly that we can pass laws against a kind of slavery. We haven't "answered" (in the sense of regulating it) the wider definition of slavery: one person being subjugated to another.

We've simply chosen not to own other people in the same way as we own property (and that's not as simple as it sounds, either.) We have chosen to pass laws stopping others from owning each other like property. The laws don't even stop it from happening, let alone "answer" slavery.

*snip*

Slavery is not a philosophical question in the way I meant. But no, the question of slavery is not answered. We have simply defined it so narrowly that we can pass laws against a kind of slavery. We haven't "answered" (in the sense of regulating it) the wider definition of slavery: one person being subjugated to another.

We've simply chosen not to own other people in the same way as we own property (and that's not as simple as it sounds, either.) We have chosen to pass laws stopping others from owning each other like property. The laws don't even stop it from happening, let alone "answer" slavery.

I was referring to the morality of slavery ("Is it okay to enslave black people?"). There used to be philosophical debates on the matter. There is none nowadays, because the question has been answered, mainly by studying black people ("Hey, they have brains and can learn stuff!").

And please don't say a bunch of people shouting "White supremacy forever!" constitutes a debate.

NBHB:Slavery is not a philosophical question in the way I meant. But no, the question of slavery is not answered. We have simply defined it so narrowly that we can pass laws against a kind of slavery. We haven't "answered" (in the sense of regulating it) the wider definition of slavery: one person being subjugated to another.

We've simply chosen not to own other people in the same way as we own property (and that's not as simple as it sounds, either.) We have chosen to pass laws stopping others from owning each other like property. The laws don't even stop it from happening, let alone "answer" slavery.

I was referring to the morality of slavery ("Is it okay to enslave black people?"). There used to be philosophical debates on the matter. There is none nowadays, because the question has been answered, mainly by studying black people ("Hey, they have brains and canI was referring to the morality of slavery ("Is it okay to enslave black people?").

Uh, fair enough. I took you for an ignorant American, the kind who think that the Civil War was what ended slavery worldwide.

Now it's my turn to be ignorant, because I know very little about slavery to be honest. I'd assumed that the end of colonialist slavery was more an economic phase, rather than one of the rare cases where an ethical argument really decides policy.

In fact, it's starting to seem to me that making a distinction between "philosophical" and "legislative" issues was a mistake. Things get kind of dumb at either end of the scale; abstract models which seek objective truth, or the law itself with its dreadful pedantry about what is written. We should try to keep one hand on the example, and one on the principle at all times.

I should now go and read some stuff about the debate over slavery (I'm guessing that happened in Europe, so Britain because I enjoy quaint old English.)

This part is my personal understanding of things;

Suppose you have a car you like. It is made of metal. It can potentially be scrap, but you don't want anyone treating your car as scrap.

Your car being metal and plastic, can be recycled or thrown away.

Humans, cannot be anything else but humans. There are no questions of potentiality, because it is necessarily human in substance, just 1 + 1 is necessarily equal to 2, or a woman will be substantially woman in her DNA, no matter how much she psychologically convinces herself that she is a man, no matter how many penises she grafts onto herself. Once the human egg and the human sperm meet, it cannot eventually be a bird, or stone, or any other vegetable, animal, or mineral. It is human, unless artificial intervention, intentional or accidental, makes it otherwise. Is it morally right to destroy a human because it is not apparent that it will eventually be what it is meant to be?

As a ruler of a nation, I want my people to act by their individual conscience, not by their individual convenience or individual comfort; a morally or spiritually bankrupt nation is not worth all the material comfort in the world because even if a person lived out his lifetime in comfort, with or without knowledge that his actions affect those around him for better or for worse, what would the nation be like if all its citizenry are ignorant of the consequences of their actions and only strive towards a life of comfort?

In my nation, I urge, not command, my citizens to examine their conscience with creativity and reason, and until a general consensus is made for me to execute, I advice that they do not do anything that is outside of what is natural and ethical, in accordance to whatever our precedents tell us is natural and ethical.

That is because foreigners have different histories; they may be humans, and they may share in our circumstances, but they are from a different region and had different ways of dealing with issues like abortion. (For example, Romans did not consider children as humans until a few months after birth, which makes it legal to kill any young infants; Phoenicians practiced child sacrifice; and so forth.)

As a ruler of a nation, I want my people to act by their individual conscience, not by their individual convenience or individual comfort; a morally or spiritually bankrupt nation is not worth all the material comfort in the world because even if a person lived out his lifetime in comfort, with or without knowledge that his actions affect those around him for better or for worse, what would the nation be like if all its citizenry are ignorant of the consequences of their actions and only strive towards a life of comfort?

In my nation, I urge, not command, my citizens to examine their conscience with creativity and reason, and until a general consensus is made for me to execute, I advice that they do not do anything that is outside of what is natural and ethical, in accordance to whatever our precedents tell us is natural and ethical.

This.

Is not.

RP.

I don't want to sound like a total dick, but can you prove that a woman should have equal rights?

I am not advocating that they should not. I believe they should have equal rights.

However, there are many societies where all sorts of people are marginalized. Why should it be different for women? What inherent right do you have to rights? A constitution might say you have some but where does it say you do in nature?

If someone is just going to pull some rights out of the air and claim them, then someone else is just going to pull some rights out of the air and assign them to a fetus.

I realize this is about 20 pages late, but wow, are you a rare breed of mysoginistic ass.

I realize this is about 20 pages late, but wow, are you a rare breed of mysoginistic ass.

I hate to break it to you, but as stupid as his comment is in context, he does have a point. No one has any natural rights, only those given to them by law. And this applies to everyone really, male or female, whatever skin colour, whatever sexuality, anything.

A fetus is a parasite living off a woman's body, and it's her choice whether or not she wants to carry it around for nine months than raise it for 20 years.

As for killing the fetus.. yea, but we kill lots of things (and things that are smarter than a fetus, too).

I tried to kill a mouse today. I'd caught it in a non-lethal trap (there are lizards and such around which I don't want to kill). I put a heavy gauge plastic bag over the end of the trap and prised the trap-door open. The mouse held on inside the trap, so I shook the trap and got him down inside the bag. Then I quickly pulled the bag away from the trap, squeezing the mouth of the bag shut.

While I was doing that, I saw something move on the ground a metre away. It was brown, seemed like a leaf turning over.

I was going to dash the bag with the mouse in it on the concrete pavement there, but as I lifted the bag I realized it was empty. That mouse got out of the bag through a space no bigger than itself, so quickly I didn't even see it. I was holding the bag in my hand, looking at it, concentrating fairly closely on the exact space it got through ... and I didn't even see it escape. Nor feel it leaping through the closing hole made by my thumb and fingers. Crap!

That mouse beat me fair and square. Determined, focussed human 0. Desperate, adrenalin-fuelled mouse 1.

I'm not going to use poison or lethal traps. I want a rematch. I still can't believe that actually happened. That fucker was FAST, but I'll keep him in next time. Or kill myself ...


Don't kill yourself. It could be the beginning of an epic struggle that would make Herman Melville proud! As for me, I think I'm rooting for the mouse. :)

I hate to break it to you, but as stupid as his comment is in context, he does have a point. No one has any natural rights, only those given to them by law. And this applies to everyone really, male or female, whatever skin colour, whatever sexuality, anything.

Sure, perhaps there are no natural rights. But I grant you rights, you probably grant others rights. When a sufficient proportion of people grant each other the same right, it becomes sensible for us all to make a Law granting the same right to everybody.

Another way of saying that is: no, the law does not grant us rights. We make law to simplify the granting of rights to each other.

To obey the law is not simply to abstain from certain behaviours, it is to claim rights (those of a law-abiding person). By following the law and living in a society regulated by that law, we have a huge head-start in dealing with others. We skip what would be a long and risky process of negotiating which rights to grant each other.

(C'mon Neo Art. Surely the above is wrong in some detail.)

Don't kill yourself. It could be the beginning of an epic struggle that would make Herman Melville proud! As for me, I think I'm rooting for the mouse. :)

Oh, crap. That wasn't even meant to go in this thread. D'OH!

That mouse fckn pwnd me, I have immense respect for his tactical skills and leapingness. But if he beats me next time, I'll really doubt my ability to do anything ever again.

Next time, I will open the trap only after locking it, the mouse and me inside a sealed container (eg car) packed with explosives. Mouse not in bag, BOOM.

Sure, perhaps there are no natural rights. But I grant you rights, you probably grant others rights. When a sufficient proportion of people grant each other the same right, it becomes sensible for us all to make a Law granting the same right to everybody.

Another way of saying that is: no, the law does not grant us rights. We make law to simplify the granting of rights to each other.

To obey the law is not simply to abstain from certain behaviours, it is to claim rights (those of a law-abiding person). By following the law and living in a society regulated by that law, we have a huge head-start in dealing with others. We skip what would be a long and risky process of negotiating which rights to grant each other.

(C'mon Neo Art. Surely the above is wrong in some detail.)

This is a good philosophical debate about whether people have natural rights, and it goes into the core of the abortion debate. You say that "When a sufficient proportion of people grant each other the same right, it becomes sensible for us all to make a Law granting the same right to everybody." As a fetus does not grant other people rights, thus it forfeits a proportion of its rights.

Also, question of whether or not a fetus has "rights," as a human being goes back to the old "Does life begin at conception?" debate.

Oh, crap. That wasn't even meant to go in this thread. D'OH!

That mouse fckn pwnd me, I have immense respect for his tactical skills and leapingness. But if he beats me next time, I'll really doubt my ability to do anything ever again.

Next time, I will open the trap only after locking it, the mouse and me inside a sealed container (eg car) packed with explosives. Mouse not in bag, BOOM.

Or if explosives are in short supply and/or your car isn't fully paid off yet, what you could do is use a clear trash bag, seal the trap in the bag, then manipulate it through the bag to the open position. Once the mouse is out of the trap, you slide the trap near the opening, seal the bag again below the trap(makeshift airlock), and open the bag to recover the trap while leaving the mouse in the bag.

Nature gives no rights to anybody at all. Killing, raping, etc. are all "allowed" - who will prohibit it? And "survival of the fittest" is simply a tautology, not a right.

Human societies function by restraining certain types of actions that are deleterious to the group as a whole. Killing someone removes a (usually functioning) member of the society, usually not a good idea. Extend this down to stealing and other "wrong" acts.

"Rights" are simply an attempt to call some of the things prohibited as being fundamentally so - without external (read:divine) inspiration this can only be circular. And no laws are ever positive, they always read "you CAN'T do this". Without a law on an act, it's always "legal".

Lawmakers (or constitution writers) arbitrarily define the rights: the only control is that the people 220 years ago have accepted them (US only), and somehow that decision is binding on the present generation, who have had no say whatsoever.

Since it's all arbitrary, whether a fetus has "rights" is up to the beholder, and IF the people concerned are actually going to pass laws, it's up to the constitution (and its writers) plus how it's bent to your purpose.

A cell has "life" in isolation until it "dies" - bio textbooks will describe it. That includes cells in multicellular organisms: we talk of "dead skin cells" and "(living) red blood cells" all the time. Ditto egg cells and sperm cells, and the fertilized ovum. The entire question of "is it alive" changes when we now look at the entire organism: read any bio textbook, a recently "dead" person has many "living" cells in it. I say you're answering different questions and arguing about why the answers differ.

In any case, whether the fetus is alive or not doesn't give it "rights": pigs have no immunity to slaughter. It hinges on whether it's "human". Judged by its DNA content, it is even before fertilization human; judged by its independent survival as an organism, third trimester onwards only. I say again, you're answering different questions on the two sides. Ask the founders what they meant by "human".

In any case, whether the fetus is alive or not doesn't give it "rights": pigs have no immunity to slaughter. It hinges on whether it's "human". Judged by its DNA content, it is even before fertilization human; judged by its independent survival as an organism, third trimester onwards only. I say again, you're answering different questions on the two sides. Ask the founders what they meant by "human".

doesnt it "hinge" on whether or not society decides it has the right to live and whether or not that right trumps the rights of the woman carrying it?

doesnt it "hinge" on whether or not society decides it has the right to live and whether or not that right trumps the rights of the woman carrying it?

From a constitutional standpoint? No. The constitution says what it says, regardless of how society feels about it. Society is free to change it if they disagree

From a constitutional standpoint? No. The constitution says what it says, regardless of how society feels about it. Society is free to change it if they disagree

i was just going with his analysis which seemed to set up one idea--that there are no automatic rights then end with a different idea--human status.

but even from a constitutional standpoint, we were fine with intervention in all sorts of private issues for close to 200 years before we smarted up and realized that government should have no say over who fucks whom, who uses contraception, and who gets various medical procedures. if we, as a country, turned our opinion back we could change the constitution or even stack the supreme court with justices that follow this interpretation.

This.

Is not.

RP.

This.

Is.

SPARTA!!!!

*kicks Art down a well*

We pro-choicers have a difficult question with no clear answer to address: the point at which a "person" becomes. But at least we can 'bracket' it -- a fertilized egg is not a human person, an adolescent is a human person. Of course we can narrow the bracket more than that, but that's not my point. We can put the line somewhere (say end of the first trimester) and say "personhood does not begin before this, ever."
.

Well, that's the way it is with most things. The universe doesn't provide fixed points of reference, so we make them ourselves, and we shouldn't be surprised to find disagreement over where to draw the lines, when everything is fuzzy.

Look at things hard enough, and you see that it is pretty much impossible to provide a perfect, absolute definition of anything at all, and most things aren't nearly as complex as people.

Can anyone find an inarguable point to say, anything on this side of that point is absolutely not a desk, anything on the other side is certainly a desk?

And yet we try to do this with people.

Before you all go "OMG EBIL CHRISTIAN," let me just say that I am a liberal Atheist (Anti-death penalty, pro gay marriage, and until recently pro-choice.) And before you go, "OMG ANOTHER ABORTION THREAD", no one made you click this (sorry if they did, then you can bitch if you want). Please leave if you are bored or are not interested in what i have to say, or have nothing constructive to add to the debate.

What I fail to see, as I am sure you have gathered from the title, is how abortion is a woman's rights issue. It seems to be more of a fetus-rights issue.

The fact is, while the woman's body is involved, it would seem to me that the fetus' body is slightly more involved, namely that it is being killed. Your right to swing a hammer ends where my face begins, literally in this case. Unless a woman's life is in danger, I don't see any reason to have an abortion that justifies killing a baby. The fact that you got drunk one night and had unprotected sex does NOT entitle you to kill another person. Would it mess up your life? Damn, that sucks. You can't end his. Abortion isn't murder, because it is legal, but it is killing another person. Does anyone in here deny this? And is killing another person not immoral?

"BUT OMG, LIKE, ITS NOT BORN, SO, LIKE, IT DOESN'T HAVE RIGHTS LOL!!1!!"

Wow. Ok, so is it ok to torture the baby? No? So the only right it doesn't have is to life? Can someone explain this to me? Call me stupid (I know one of you clever, articulate debaters will say "OK YOUR STUPID LOL"), but I don't follow your logic here. Kindly explain.

Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later? Where do you draw the line?

You know what? If you don't want it, give it up for adoption. I have talked to several adopted people, and they have all told me that they would rather have been adopted than aborted. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but I'm confident you will find similar sentiments among other adopted people. It's not your choice to decide if other people die. You have no right to kill anyone, except in self defense. (which is why if a woman's health is in danger, abortion is fine).

And you know what else?
If your not prepared to deal with the consequences of an action, don't do the action. "OMG TEENS ARE GOING TO HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX LOL!!!" (Use a condom, pill, whatever.) Ya, well teens are going to have babies then too. And its going to fuck up their lives. A leads to B. Tough cookies. I can't condone killing people because you want to have fun. Actions have consequences.


I'm not pro-choice if the choice is between death and life. Life is the only choice.

Btw, don't answer any rhetorical question in here thinking your funny.

Worthy thoughts. But you're asking folks to make laws based on the "ick" factor. On a purely emotional level, I'm sure lots of people feel that way. But you are asking for basically a ban on scraping out a few cells.

You don't seem to realize that late term abortions are usually preformed to save the life of the mother, to preserve her health, or in the case of gross deformation. It is not legal to "kill a baby" thirty seconds before it's born. That is murder. I have not the tiniest twinge of conscience about first trimester abortions. I consider the life of any existing friend or relative worth more than a bunch of cells with no real nervous system.

Science is your friend. And please do a little fact finding before you make up your mind on abortion.

I realize this is about 20 pages late, but wow, are you a rare breed of mysoginistic ass.

Did you read the second line of my post? or did you just assume that the hypothetical situation I suggested was my personal belief?

,,,ignoring the fact that abortion is not a crime...

Abortion is a crime (in some places).

You rather spectacularly miss the point -- whether you do so deliberately or out of obtuseness, I don't know.

It is not just that legalizing abortion saves tens of thousands of lives and millions from injury -- although your dismissal of that fact is rather callous -- BUT ALSO that making abortion illegal doesn't actually do much to reduce abortion.



Um. Okey, dokey. But I wasn't talking about educating people on the issue of abortion. I was talking about sex education, family planning, and contraception. THOSE are what reduce abortions.



So now your comparing the rights of women to those of PAROLEES -- i,e., CONVICTS out on special release? Doesn't that tweak your sensibilities at all?

What are you blathering about? Did you even read the passages you quoted?

As a common curtsey to the person you are trying to have an intelligent (or not so intelligent) conversation/debate with would everyone please actually read the posts. This would be as opposed to skimming over the first and last sentence of each paragraph, quoting it, and adding "OMFG you are so retarded!"

If you think that someone's argument is "stupid", try reading it again before you make yourself look even more foolish.

You know, if EVERYBODY who replies to you seems to misrepresent or mischaracterize what you're saying.....ya know...maybe it's you.

Abortion is a crime (in some places).

Given that we are talking about the state of abortion in the US, this is a somewhat worthless statement.

Drinking alcohol is a crime in some places. That does not mean that the statement "drinking alcohol is not a crime," while talking about laws in the US, is inaccurate.

but isn't it true that a woman is... Hornest during her ovulation period?

Not necessarily. Many women report being horniest during their least fertile times. Quite a few actually want sex most during the week in which they menstruate (probably because of the difference in hormone balance - I believe testosterone is highest in a woman's system at that point).


Frankly, I can't comprehend how someone favors the killing of a fetus over what amounts to an inconvenience.

Frankly, I can't comprehend how anyone with any idea whatsoever what they are talking about would refer to pregnancy as "an inconvenience."

well, to be technical, late term abortions are legal in some states, and illegal in the rest.

It is perhaps more appropriate to say that the vast majority of abortions performed in the US are legal throughout the US

You know, if EVERYBODY who replies to you seems to misrepresent or mischaracterize what you're saying.....ya know...maybe it's you.

I never said that EVERYBODY misrepresented me, in fact, I never made any generalizations indicating I thought I had been misrepresented.

True, I made several, personal statements, but never generalization.

Given that we are talking about the state of abortion in the US, this is a somewhat worthless statement.


Could you please direct me to the passage where this is agreed upon?

so anyways, why do you all see abortion in the US as a women's rights issue and not a human rights issue?

Please do not respond: "because only women can have babies."

Is there something about a woman's body that should be protected more than anyone else's body?

:fluffle:
I so enjoy watching The Cat-Tribe and Neo Art spank folks. And the gang action was even better.

so anyways, why do you all see abortion in the US as a women's rights issue and not a human rights issue?

Please do not respond: "because only women can have babies."

Is there something about a woman's body that should be protected more than anyone else's body?

The whole point is that protecting a woman's right to choose protects her equally. Not more, not less, but equally.

No born person has the legal right to attach themselves to another human being and use them as life support, male or female, even if their detachment would inevitably lead to their death.
In other words, by allowing women the right to remove the embryo through an abortion, we are affording them the same right granted to both genders: the right to bodily autonomy.

:fluffle:
I so enjoy watching The Cat-Tribe and Neo Art spank folks. And the gang action was even better.

Kinky.

Kinky.Yeah, it is a little pornographic.:D

Yeah, it is a little pornographic.:D

Nothing wrong with that.

<snip>

Muravyets was arguing that every post was really just misogynistic or fitting into his nice and convenient mythical strawman, not just some of them. I'll let this one slip however, because I can't be bothered to go through the whole thread and assess the worth of every single argument. Secondly, I have made no "complex argument", so your premise is non existent.
1) I did say that every anti-choice argument posted in this thread and all of the ones I have personally heard or read before this thread are misogynistic and I listed the specific misogynistic features of the arguments. How is that a strawman? A strawman is when you present an argument that no one has made. I am criticizing arguments that other people did in fact make. Thus, no strawman.

2) The fact that you will "let this one slip, because [you] can't be bothered to go through the whole thread and asess the worth of every single argument" proves that you have no idea what you are talking about when you criticize my remarks. Clearly you have not bothered to find out what I am actually talking about, so how can you possibly have any credibility when dismissing my remarks as invalid?

<snip>

Yet you constantly reference this supposed anti-choice movement which every single anti-choicer is supposedly part of. To then believe that this movement is sexist, as muryavyets believes, is basically believing in a far fetched conspiracy theory. That is the strawman that I am attacking.
I never said anything at all about a movement being sexist, nor about any kind of conspiracy theory. What I actually did say is that all the arguments against choice that I have seen are sexist, either in their approach or in their effects upon women/society. I have never said anything about any conspiracies. That is your fiction, not mine.

I'm not quite sure you understand what a strawman is. If anything, to equivocate a belief that implicit in the "pro-life" stance is a certain degree of sexism with a conspiracy of misogyny is the actual strawman in this little debate.
Thank you for pointing that out. :)

1. I said nothing about a hive mind or a conspiracy and I was rather clear that not everyone who is anti-choice is misogynist. But you will note that everyone who is anti-choice has at least one thing in common: they are anti-choice. And, yes, I think there is at least some sexism inherent in being anti-choice -- and the public arguments of anti-choicers tend to bear this out.

2. You appear to be arguing that although someone who is anti-choice may be sexist in their views, base their views on a sexist text, and/or have inherently sexist beliefs, it is somehow unfair to call such people sexist -- even though they wish to deny fundamental human rights to women. I'm not sure what in your estimation counts as sexism!?!!? :confused:

3. As not even your own arguments seem to qualify, perhaps you can enlighten us by pointing to some of these "complex arguments" that are anti-choice, have merit, defy Muravyets's categorizations, AND are without sexism.
Indeed, I've been asking for exactly the same thing. I'm waiting, but I'm not holding my breath while I do it. ;)

I know plenty of people who are vehemently anti-abortion, but not anti-choice. For sound pragmatic and ethical reasons, they do not want to see this matter legally restricted any more than it already is, but they work hard to try to persuade as many people as they can to agree with their views and also reject abortion as an option. I completely respect their right to do that, and if they can get people to change their minds willingly, rather than just change their behavior by force of law, I have no problem with it. I do not oppose them.

The people I oppose are those who wish to force their desires upon me by legislation and, by doing that, create a social system that will take away my civil rights and human rights, rendering me a lesser citizen without equal protection of the law, and increase a broad range of human suffering into the bargain. It does not matter whether or not oppressing women and creating suffering is the planned intention of anti-choice laws. It is the effect they have, and for that reason, I will always oppose them. The claims of anti-choicers about how they don't want to hurt women mean nothing if that is the result of their actions. As the old saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

The excuse that the baby is within the woman's body gives her the right to kill said baby because it is "part of her body" is laughable. Does that mean we can kill babies when they still have their embicial cord attached because its part of a woman's body? I swear, feminazis make my head hurt.

The problem is not that it is "part of her body". It is that it is using her body against her will for sustenance. If the only way to stop it from doing so is to kill it, then yes, she has that right, just as she would have the right to kill you if you were trying to use her body against her will and it was the only way for her to get away.

I always used to think of myself as pro-choice. However, it was the por-choicers on another thread, that made me reconsider my position. It was the same ridiculous 'parasite' argument which made me feel sick to my stomach and completely disgusted that someone would call a baby a parasite.

Ah, the old emotional issue. You would change your point of view on something like this because someone used a word you didn't like? A word that has negative connotations only because you are applying them?

Just like a child will develop into an adult if given all the necessities of life, the fetus will develop into a human child and then a human adult. The fact that it doesn't have all the capacities of an adult doesn't disqualify it from being human.

Do we treat a child as an adult or a young adult as a senior citizen?

And since the fetus is human, surely then it deserves the very basic of human rights-the right to live...

The right to live does not entail the use of another's body against their will.

Didn't society originally believe that the unborn had inherit rights?

Depends on what society you're talking about. Biblically, for instance, not in the least. Women who were sentenced to death were not in any way checkd for pregnancy. Women suspected of adultery were given an abortificant. Someone who accidentally caused a miscarriage was punished by a fine paid to the father, if the the father demanded it.

In English common law, on which most US law was based, abortion was perfectly legal up until the time of the "quickening", when the mother began feeling actual movement.

In truth, it wasn't until abortion became a fairly safe medical procedure that there was a push to make it illegal.

And why is it that we are so quick to judge the undeveloped human as less worthy of basic human rights than one than is developed?

Why should an undeveloped human have rights that no other human being has?

Would be judge a child as less worthy of the right to live than an adult? And now I expect the, 'but it isn't aware of anything' speech...but do we classify profoundly disabled people, who are unaware of their surroundings and incable of self-care as unworthy to live?

We do classify those with no higher order brain activity in this way, essentially. They can be removed from any life support by their next-of-kin. Doctors make no effort to keep an anencephalitic infant's body alive.

The majority of pregnancies do not endanger the mother's life. Yeah, big changes happen which may greatly affect her life. But should the life of an undeveloped human, just as human as an adult, just in a different period of development, be terminated based on the woman's life being altered?

In what other instance would it be ok for another human being to make permanent and irreversible changes to your body, leaving you at greater risk for multiple disease states later in life - all against your will?

And lastly, abortion isn't the only choice.

It is if you choose not to be pregnant before the point of viability.

There are huge adoption waiting lists.

And yet there are millions of children waiting to be adopted. Too bad those waiting lists are generally for perfectly healthy, ethnically-matched newborns, eh?

The whole point is that protecting a woman's right to choose protects her equally. Not more, not less, but equally.

No born person has the legal right to attach themselves to another human being and use them as life support, male or female, even if their detachment would inevitably lead to their death.
In other words, by allowing women the right to remove the embryo through an abortion, we are affording them the same right granted to both genders: the right to bodily autonomy.

Interesting argument I have never heard the "right to not have a human parasite attached to you" argument but I guess it makes sense. Cool.

Basically what it boils down to is anyone that supports abortion, supports the ending of a potential life (interpret that as "good", "bad", or however you want), the long and short of it is that a human embryo, unaborted, would more then likely develop into a human being.

If you do not find anything wrong with ending that possibility then go for the abortion. If a woman or family cannot deal with the consequences of not having the embryo become a person, then have the abortion.

Compulsary organ harvesting and blood donation are not forced, nor should they be. But they can hardly be placed in the same category as consenting to sex, and a new life beginning, no-matter how undeveloped, starting at conception.

We aren't talking about consenting to sex. We're talking about consenting to pregnancy. Organ and blood donation are actually some of the closest analogies we have to that process.

Pregnancy involves 2 lives. Not the one which would be affected by the organs or blood donations.

One? If I donate a kidney, that has affected 2 lives - my own and the person whose life I saved. If I donate blood - just once - I might be helping to save 2 or 3 people, thus making it 3 or 4 people whose lives have been affected. If I give blood every 8-16 weeks, how many people's lives am I helping to save?

When it comes to control, we were in control when we made the informed decision to have intercourse. That is where our control ends.

So sex strips women of their right to bodily autonomy?

Once the woman is pregnant, it is not only her rights or control to be considered, there is now an undeveloped human who should have equal rights.

Ok then, equal rights. That means the woman can abort, since she doesn't have the right to use another person's body against their will either.

*snip the rest because it's all argument from potential. No matter how hard you try, A will become B does not mean that A=B.

Abortion is a crime (in some places).
In 6 places, to be exact, one of them being Vatican City.

Source: http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.jsp

According to this reference, there are only 6 nations/states in the world that outlaw all abortion. All the rest allow it either with or without government restriction. Even extremely misogynist fundamentalist Islamic nations such as Afghanistan permit it under at least some circumstances. I wonder if this could possibly be because they recognize the basic medical and social necessity of abortion in some cases.

Also, if you had bothered to read my posts as carefully as you demand others read yours, you would know that I already mentioned this fact pages and pages ago.

Ok then, equal rights. That means the woman can abort, since she doesn't have the right to use another person's body against their will either.

This is a constructive argument.


No matter how hard you try, A will become B does not mean that A=B.

When A becomes B, A=B... that's what it means. Now if you think that "When" somehow weakens the argument, then we have a difference of opinion. But your statement is really of little importance to the argument, we have already established it.

In 6 places, to be exact, one of them being Vatican City.

Source: http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.jsp

According to this reference, there are only 6 nations/states in the world that outlaw all abortion. All the rest allow it either with or without government restriction. Even extremely misogynist fundamentalist Islamic nations such as Afghanistan permit it under at least some circumstances. I wonder if this could possibly be because they recognize the basic medical and social necessity of abortion in some cases.

Also, if you had bothered to read my posts as carefully as you demand others read yours, you would know that I already mentioned this fact pages and pages ago.

Ok, good so we agree! Abortion is illegal (in some places). Cool!

As to your past paragraph, I did read it and I am aware that abortion is legal in many places... non the less, as you have proven yourself,

"Originally Posted by The House of Boothby
Abortion is a crime (in some places)."

Thank you for lending evidence to my claim.

Basically what it boils down to is anyone that supports abortion, supports the ending of a potential life (interpret that as "good", "bad", or however you want), the long and short of it is that a human embryo, unaborted, would more then likely develop into a human being.

If you do not find anything wrong with ending that possibility then go for the abortion. If a woman or family cannot deal with the consequences of not having the embryo become a person, then have the abortion.
If your last paragraph was supposed to read:
If you do not find anything wrong with ending that possibility then go for the abortion. If a woman or family cannot deal with the consequences of not having the embryo become a person, then don't have the abortion.
then you have described the choice the pro-choice side argues for.

The only reason this is a debate at all is that when the anti-choice side gets laws passed that ban certain medical procedures, restrict women's access to medical services, penalize medical service providers if they offer certain services, etc., this effectively takes away the ability to make the choice you outlined above. That is why the pro-choice side opposes more legal restriction of abortion.

No, I did not mean to write "Don't".

And I prefer pro-life to "anti-choice", just as I am sure pro-choicers prefer "pro-choice" to "anti-life."

so anyways, why do you all see abortion in the US as a women's rights issue and not a human rights issue?

Please do not respond: "because only women can have babies."

Why not? That's the answer.

Is there something about a woman's body that should be protected more than anyone else's body?

No. Is there something about a woman's body that should be protected less?

Basically what it boils down to is anyone that supports abortion, supports the ending of a potential life (interpret that as "good", "bad", or however you want), the long and short of it is that a human embryo, unaborted, would more then likely develop into a human being.

This isn't actually true. It is very possible (and often, even common) for someone to support the right to choose abortion, without agreeing with that choice. There are quite a few of us who are pro-choice and still anti-abortion.

There are very few situations in which I would support abortion, but I support the idea that the person who can make that choice is the person who is pregnant.

When A becomes B, A=B... that's what it means.

And when A becomes B, you can treat A as B.

Until then, you treat it as A.

The problem with the argument is saying "A is going to become B, so we're going to say that A is B right now." If a human embryo is going to become a human person, it is not currently a human person.

so anyways, why do you all see abortion in the US as a women's rights issue and not a human rights issue?

Please do not respond: "because only women can have babies."

Is there something about a woman's body that should be protected more than anyone else's body?

ok. abortion is a human rights issue. women should have the human right to control their bodies and their reproduction.

feel better now?

Ok, good so we agree! Abortion is illegal (in some places). Cool!

As to your past paragraph, I did read it and I am aware that abortion is legal in many places... non the less, as you have proven yourself,

"Originally Posted by The House of Boothby
Abortion is a crime (in some places)."

Thank you for lending evidence to my claim.

Your claim is still worthless because:

(A) We have been discussing abortion law in the US. True this was never explicitly stated as a rule of the discussion, but it is also true that the US is the only place where this is a currently active debate and legal/political issue. With that in mind, if you wanted to make it a global discussion, you should have made that explicit.

(B) It is also true that 5 of the 6 places that outlaw abortion entirely fall well within the descriptions I gave earlier of dysfunctional states or states that do not enforce their laws. Again, in the interest of reading the arguments as thoroughly as you asked for, you should look at the chart and read the notes that follow it, which talk specifically about this. The fact that there are six states that ban all abortion does not actually mean that abortion is treated as a crime in all of those states.

By the way, the 6th state that bans all abortion, Vatican City, doesn't really count, I think.

(C) Since the current scene of this debate is the US, the laws of places like Malta and El Salvador are hardly relevant, are they?

Basically what it boils down to is anyone that supports abortion, supports the ending of a potential life (interpret that as "good", "bad", or however you want), the long and short of it is that a human embryo, unaborted, would more then likely develop into a human being.

If you do not find anything wrong with ending that possibility then go for the abortion. If a woman or family cannot deal with the consequences of not having the embryo become a person, then (dont) have the abortion.

yeah. thats what it boils down to.

and it goes both ways. if a woman DOESNT want an abortion for whatever reason, no one should be able to force her into one. even if she is dirt poor, even if she is 12 years old. her body, her choice.

No, I did not mean to write "Don't".
Then your statement makes no sense, grammatically.

And I prefer pro-life to "anti-choice", just as I am sure pro-choicers prefer "pro-choice" to "anti-life."
"Anti-choice" is an accurate description of what I oppose. I do not oppose people who are anti-abortion, because nobody likes abortion, and I do not oppose people who are pro-life, because everybody is. I only oppose people who are anti-choice because they seek to restrict to my rights and bring harm to my life. I view such people -- those who wish to take away my choice, my control of my own life -- as my enemies, and I do not care about my enemies' preferences.

And I prefer pro-life to "anti-choice", just as I am sure pro-choicers prefer "pro-choice" to "anti-life."

It really doesn't work, though. One can be "pro-life" and still be "pro-choice" as well.

We're not discussing whether or not an individual likes, agrees with, or approves of abortion. We're discussing whether or not it should be legal - whether or not a woman should have that choice.

As such, the terms used really should focus on the subject at hand. The person's individual view of abortion itself is irrelevant. What we are discussing is their view on its legality.

So terms like pro/anti-ban or pro/anti-choice make more sense in the context of the actual debate.

so anyways, why do you all see abortion in the US as a women's rights issue and not a human rights issue?

Please do not respond: "because only women can have babies."

Is there something about a woman's body that should be protected more than anyone else's body?

Because it is...
Those who want to ban abortion are saying that women should not have control over their own bodies.

And I prefer pro-life to "anti-choice",

i'm sure you do. Most people prefer not to confront the true reality of their positions, I suspect you are no different.

just as I am sure pro-choicers prefer "pro-choice" to "anti-life."

Because most pro choice people are in favor of honesty. If you seek to remove the choice from someone to have a say in her body, you are against giving her a choice. That by definition makes you anti-choice. You are against allowing people to make a choice.

However those in favor of allowing that choice are not necessarily in favor of requiring abortions. In fact I'd like you to find me someone who claims so with a straight face, and I'll show you a book on eatting babies.

Pro choicers prefer "pro-choice" to "anti-life" because they're not "anti-life" as they don't advocate taking life. Therefore calling them that is entirely nonsensical and not at all appropriate for their position.

Anti-choicers prefer "pro-life" to "anti-choice" because they don't want their ideology to be exposed for exactly what it is, something that affirmatively seeks to prevent women from being able to make a choice. however calling them that is entirely appropriate for their position.

This is a constructive argument.



If A becomes B, A=B... that's what it means. Now if you think that "If" somehow weakens the argument, then we have a difference of opinion. But your statement is really of little importance to the argument, we have already established it.

Fixed

It is a women's rights issue, but in almost all cases anti choice has absolutely nothing to do with sexism. If men could get pregnant, I very seriously doubt that anyone anti choice would approve of them getting an abortion, the intention behind being anti choice has nothing to do with sexism, despite the fact that as an implication a woman's 'right' (if the right not to be pregnant is one) will be limited.

I beg to differ, here. I believe that, were men able to have babies, there wouldn't be nearly this much "Well, if you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex!" There has long been a double-standard that men are naturally supposed to seek as much sex as possible while women should generally relegate sexual activity to serious committed relationships or marriage, and I believe that double-standard would apply in such a hypothetical scenario.

Scenario involving a female needing an abortion: "Well, what did you expect? If you'd been having sex inside a committed relationship like you're supposed to (often an erroneous assumption about women who want to abort, btw) instead of screwing around like a WHORE, you wouldn't be in this mess." This also assumes that any given woman even WANTS to have children with a spouse; some couples are child-free, after all.

Scenario involving a male needing an abortion: "You really should consider adoption instead of killing your baby. I mean, I know these things happen and all, maybe you could be a little more careful in the future, but would you at least think about not killing the baby?"

Of course, that's all just hypothetical, but I think it would go a lot like that. I think 1) mostly male legislators would have had FAR more pity on their "brethren" because 2) the sexual double-standard exists. Men are but slaves to their penises, it's just instinct, they're supposed to sleep with everything that moves, etc.

I believe most of the backlash against abortion is equivalent to the backlash birth control once received - it gives women more options besides just breeding and staying home to raise the kids. It gives them less of a "need" for a male companion or provider, and more of a choice.

since when was killing something living not murder?

So eating meat equates murder? Moronic troll.

All anyone really needs to say on this issue is STOP TRYING TO PLAY GOD.

Everyone is trying to control life and death. Give it up. You can't run everyone's lives. The woman or the unborn child. So just stop trying to play God and let other people run their own lives.

So eating meat equates murder? Moronic troll.

That's flaming, watch it.

All anyone really needs to say on this issue is STOP TRYING TO PLAY GOD.

Everyone is trying to control life and death. Give it up. You can't run everyone's lives. The woman or the unborn child. So just stop trying to play God and let other people run their own lives.

Ahh, to be young and innocent.

No, I did not mean to write "Don't".

And I prefer pro-life to "anti-choice", just as I am sure pro-choicers prefer "pro-choice" to "anti-life."

NO. Pro-life is a label attached to people by themselves to try and make it seem like those who disagree are anti-life. If everyone who used that label was demonstrably 100% pro-all-life then they'd be fair to use it. But unless you happen to be a vegetarian who opposes all wars, disagrees with the death penalty, would never let a pet be put down and opposes all animal research then please, don't try and pretend you're pro-life.

The reason people who support the right to have an abortion call themselves pro-choice is because they aren't encouraging abortions per se, just saying that a woman should be able to have one. That and anti-life is so much further reaching than simply wanting abortions for everyone, which no-one does anyway.

That's flaming, watch it.

Yeah, sorry, getting a bit frustrated reading everything. Not the way to relieve it.

NO. Pro-life is a label attached to people by themselves to try and make it seem like those who disagree are anti-life. If everyone who used that label was demonstrably 100% pro-all-life then they'd be fair to use it. But unless you happen to be a vegetarian who opposes all wars, disagrees with the death penalty, would never let a pet be put down and opposes all animal research then please, don't try and pretend you're pro-life.

Being a vegetarian doesn't work if you're going for ultimate pro-life. Plants are alive before they're harvested.

Maybe a fruititarian? One who plants the core/seeds of the fruit after eating it?