Sayounara
King
America should begat babies and sell them to Russia $
Abortion: Here We Go Again
- Thread starter Jeratain
- Start date
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
Yes I do! But with an important restriction. Using drugs can cause a man doing things beyond his knowledge. He might harm others, without being aware of it. If this is or can be the case, I think there should be restrictions.
This is differet from 'don't drink and drive policies', as a man who is completely drunk can still realize he should not drive.
As far as marihuana, hashes or cocaine, I don't think legalizations is a problem.
This is off topic, but might make clear how I think about things.
On topic again:
How is it done? Is birth artificially triggered by medication? And then when the not-fully-developed fetus comes out, it gets an injection in the head?
Still a very bizar way!
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
I've said this before, maybe here, maybe elsewhere. We are not just what we are now, we are also what we were, and what we will become. It is a known fact that the human body exists in at least four dimensions, including time. We are long pink worms stretching back to our mothers, reaching into an indetrerminate future. I am the fertilized egg that resided in my mother in early February of 1969. I am the geek typing a forum message at his office computer right now. I could well be an old man, a dead man, or a youthfully restored man in thirty-odd years, depending on how things go.
In the discussion of when a human is a human, time is irrelevant, and so are any factors that depend upon time alone. A normal embreyo will develop a brain and sentience, an abnormal one will not. The normal one is clearly a human, the abnormal just as clearly is not. A man in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) is not a human anymore, he is a pile of meat kept ticking by life support. A man in a coma with a better than 0 chance of recovery is a human, until his condition is downgraded to PVS.
Time is irrelevant. Seperation is key. The embreyo resides within the woman's body, but is by no means part of it. HUGE difference.
Honestly, I don't care if the law is 'enforceable' by your standards or not. This is the problem with society today, if it's too hard to do the right thing, we make the wrong thing legal. People who think like that should be removed from positions of political or social prominence so they can't do any harm to society.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Actually we were talking about small infants, or at least potential infants, since that is what the case before the Supreme Court covers. This explains some of my confusion.
Personally I would be forced to make that distinction when the fetus displays an independant heart beat. Since this is with the "few weeks" you describe, it gets me in trouble with the Pro Choice group. As I said above, it is moot in the instant case, since the fetus is viable, which in my mind is the last reasonable distinction. When a doctor kills a viable fetus, the operative word is "kills."
What a society will tolerate and what it endorses are two different, albeit nonexclusive, things. The current drug laws demonstrate the falicy of prohibiting what is tolerable. The whole of the social fabric plays into it. The point that the original advocates made is that same one that you do: it will happen anyway. The question then becomes one of balancing the harm of women dying of botched abortions and children growing up unwanted and unloved against the taking of life. Since I hold that the State has the right and power to decide when life should be taken, this is a valid excersize in political will. The law is the law. The law is not a social engineering instrument, however much social engineering advocates wish it to be.
J
Its funny how things work. Until now, I wasnt even inclined to peek in this thread; however today, not only I read it all, Im also taking the time to reply.
Anyway, before I begin, let me make some very important statements:
I love live. I support it all the way. I hate the idea of killing a baby, and I find it outrageous that someone is willing to end the life of a child that will be born just because they lack the material resources to raise s\he as well as desired. In anyway whatsoever Id encourage someone for doing an abortion, and any girlfriend of mine that came up with such idea would be in for being dumped quite loudly.
However, Im pro-choice. And why? Well, for starters, because I dont believe Im the moral paradigm of humanity, so I cannot force people to agree or live by the standards I set for myself.
There are some pretty pragmatic reasons as well. Fact is that forbidding abortion simply does not prevent it from happening. Woman who wants one will get one. In fact, making it against the law only encourages one of two things: That people with enough resources travel to do it in some place where its legal, or that people try to do it by themselves or without proper medical assistance.
That is what I find funny when people who are against abortion claim to be pro-life; They are, in fact, encouraging the increase of the number of deaths, as many mothers will die untimely as well. Sincerely, I think that the term pro-life is complete cow poop, They should call themselves pro-pregnancy or something, as the choice they advocate, unlike they believe, does result in deaths in not too few occasions, specially in poor countries like mine, while the legalization would at least guarantee that the procedure would be done properly.
But the question gets real tricky when we are dealing with the moral reasons and the moment when abortion becomes the demise of a whole human being. That is, for sure, the dispute that is going on here.
Ill add my two cents now, that have plenty in common with what has been discussed do far, but is also fundamentally different, as anyone who cares to read with attention shall notice.
I, for one, believe that its irrelevant what the moment that the fetus becomes human is. I recognize humanity in growth, I mean, I recognize the fact that, unlike, say, finger cells (sorry Akka
), a fetus, even if its just a single cell without spine, brain or soul (to those who believes in souls anyway), it will become a whole person if allowed. So for me, the human life starts in the very second that fertilization takes place. A fetus is a human being, regardless of how young it is.
But what I ask here is: Does it really matter?
We have to remember that we are dealing with two basic rights here; one that of the baby, there is, living. Another is that of the mother, that is, the right to use her own body in anyway she sees fit.
So, even if we recognize the human status of the baby, we have to keep in mind that we cannot force the mother to give up the resources of her body if she is unwilling. Heck, despite I think abortion is a terrible choice, I cannot accept the idea of people, or the law, trying to exercise any sort of power of how people dispose of their own physical constitution, the most personal and intimate thing any human being possess.
Now, as this have answered the shameful question posed by Elden in page 4 about "the legality of the abortion", its my turn to ask a hard questions for the pro-life crowd:
So there you have it; for me, life is the greatest value and the fetus lives, whatever is the moment you choose to look at it. However, none of those things changes my perspective, as I do not perceive them as obstacles. A woman cannot be forced to give up the free disposition of her body for a human being, her child, that is inside, just like she cannot be forced to do that for one that happens to be outside. This because Im the one that really does not draw lines between those two moments here, that perceives life in those two different moments as the very same thing, and entitled the exact same guarantees.
That said, there is even more to say. You guys repeatedly mention that abortion in the event of rape is more acceptable than abortion in the event of being careless. I ask you, why so? Is the children any more guilty, in any way, because of the horrible event of the conception? I mean, if you guys consider yourselves pro-life in such a deep manner that the will, free, rational, contentious and unbiased of the mother is not an obstacle to the course of the pregnancy, why do you guys admit that the emotional, unbalanced, infuriated decision taken with the indignation of being violated in mind, can do so?
Is that because of the suffering? Because of the memories of what happened? So I am forced to ask, arent there other kinds of suffering related to the child that allow such decision?
What do you guys think of a child conceived in an act of love by a man that later comes to kill the father of his lover? Is that having the father killed reason enough to hate her lover in a way that it makes unbearable having his offspring? What about if her lover later rapes her sister? Or lets take it to another area to get away of criminal behavior, what if the father, that she loves deeply, dies right after the conception, and her reaction to it is that she cannot have his child because it will be an everlasting reminder of her lost love?
No woman would see it that way? Likely so. But what if one DOES see it that way? Would it be reason enough? If not, what makes the suffering from a rape being the superlative of the mental pains, in a way that its the only one able to legitimate a mother to murder, as you guys put it, flesh of her flesh?
Thats another difficult question that I really would like to see you people answer.
All that said, I repeat. I do not like abortion. If it was for me, no one would do it. I treasure life too much to condone any form of termination of it. Nevertheless, I do not accept the excuses of those who, under the excuse of loving life among all things, try to invade the private sphere of other people and tell them what to do or not to do with their own body.
Regards
.
Edit: For clarity, and to correct some misspellings.
Anyway, before I begin, let me make some very important statements:
I love live. I support it all the way. I hate the idea of killing a baby, and I find it outrageous that someone is willing to end the life of a child that will be born just because they lack the material resources to raise s\he as well as desired. In anyway whatsoever Id encourage someone for doing an abortion, and any girlfriend of mine that came up with such idea would be in for being dumped quite loudly.
However, Im pro-choice. And why? Well, for starters, because I dont believe Im the moral paradigm of humanity, so I cannot force people to agree or live by the standards I set for myself.
There are some pretty pragmatic reasons as well. Fact is that forbidding abortion simply does not prevent it from happening. Woman who wants one will get one. In fact, making it against the law only encourages one of two things: That people with enough resources travel to do it in some place where its legal, or that people try to do it by themselves or without proper medical assistance.
That is what I find funny when people who are against abortion claim to be pro-life; They are, in fact, encouraging the increase of the number of deaths, as many mothers will die untimely as well. Sincerely, I think that the term pro-life is complete cow poop, They should call themselves pro-pregnancy or something, as the choice they advocate, unlike they believe, does result in deaths in not too few occasions, specially in poor countries like mine, while the legalization would at least guarantee that the procedure would be done properly.
But the question gets real tricky when we are dealing with the moral reasons and the moment when abortion becomes the demise of a whole human being. That is, for sure, the dispute that is going on here.
Ill add my two cents now, that have plenty in common with what has been discussed do far, but is also fundamentally different, as anyone who cares to read with attention shall notice.
I, for one, believe that its irrelevant what the moment that the fetus becomes human is. I recognize humanity in growth, I mean, I recognize the fact that, unlike, say, finger cells (sorry Akka
), a fetus, even if its just a single cell without spine, brain or soul (to those who believes in souls anyway), it will become a whole person if allowed. So for me, the human life starts in the very second that fertilization takes place. A fetus is a human being, regardless of how young it is.But what I ask here is: Does it really matter?
We have to remember that we are dealing with two basic rights here; one that of the baby, there is, living. Another is that of the mother, that is, the right to use her own body in anyway she sees fit.
So, even if we recognize the human status of the baby, we have to keep in mind that we cannot force the mother to give up the resources of her body if she is unwilling. Heck, despite I think abortion is a terrible choice, I cannot accept the idea of people, or the law, trying to exercise any sort of power of how people dispose of their own physical constitution, the most personal and intimate thing any human being possess.
Now, as this have answered the shameful question posed by Elden in page 4 about "the legality of the abortion", its my turn to ask a hard questions for the pro-life crowd:
So there you have it; for me, life is the greatest value and the fetus lives, whatever is the moment you choose to look at it. However, none of those things changes my perspective, as I do not perceive them as obstacles. A woman cannot be forced to give up the free disposition of her body for a human being, her child, that is inside, just like she cannot be forced to do that for one that happens to be outside. This because Im the one that really does not draw lines between those two moments here, that perceives life in those two different moments as the very same thing, and entitled the exact same guarantees.
That said, there is even more to say. You guys repeatedly mention that abortion in the event of rape is more acceptable than abortion in the event of being careless. I ask you, why so? Is the children any more guilty, in any way, because of the horrible event of the conception? I mean, if you guys consider yourselves pro-life in such a deep manner that the will, free, rational, contentious and unbiased of the mother is not an obstacle to the course of the pregnancy, why do you guys admit that the emotional, unbalanced, infuriated decision taken with the indignation of being violated in mind, can do so?
Is that because of the suffering? Because of the memories of what happened? So I am forced to ask, arent there other kinds of suffering related to the child that allow such decision?
What do you guys think of a child conceived in an act of love by a man that later comes to kill the father of his lover? Is that having the father killed reason enough to hate her lover in a way that it makes unbearable having his offspring? What about if her lover later rapes her sister? Or lets take it to another area to get away of criminal behavior, what if the father, that she loves deeply, dies right after the conception, and her reaction to it is that she cannot have his child because it will be an everlasting reminder of her lost love?
No woman would see it that way? Likely so. But what if one DOES see it that way? Would it be reason enough? If not, what makes the suffering from a rape being the superlative of the mental pains, in a way that its the only one able to legitimate a mother to murder, as you guys put it, flesh of her flesh?
Thats another difficult question that I really would like to see you people answer.
All that said, I repeat. I do not like abortion. If it was for me, no one would do it. I treasure life too much to condone any form of termination of it. Nevertheless, I do not accept the excuses of those who, under the excuse of loving life among all things, try to invade the private sphere of other people and tell them what to do or not to do with their own body.
Regards
.Edit: For clarity, and to correct some misspellings.
Once the child has left the mothers body her support in this manner would be useless/pointless. While she is pregnant however the child needs that small amount of support to survive untill it can look after itself.
If the woman doesn't want to support the child after birth in an normal manner (e.g. food, clothes, shelter etc.) then it would be better to put the child up for adoption - that way she doesn't have to murder the child at least.
EDIT: Before someone argues with this I will remind you that while I think abortions are morally wrong I think one is acceptable if it is certain that the mother will die in birth.
Not really. the child may have some sort of malfunctional organ and need donation from a parent, like a specific organ, or, considering that we are now dealing with babies (making the size of the solid organs unfit), spinal fluid. That would create a phisical necessity of the body resources that sustain a similarity with that of the unborn child, and yet, no one can force the mother to comply.
Regards
Originally posted by FredLC
Not really. the child may have some sort of malfunctional organ and need donation from a parent, like a specific organ, or, considering that we are now dealing with babies (making the size of the solid organs unfit), spinal fluid. That would create a phisical necessity of the body resources that sustain a similarity with that of the unborn child, and yet, no one can force the mother to comply.
Regards
Sometimes parents are compatible sometimes not - leave it up to the mother and test the whole family and as many friends as possible for compatibility if they are willing.
You are right. But it not only fails to dispute my point, it also makes it stronger.
Assume a given situation where the mother is not only compatible, but the only one compatible. Than you'd have the precise analogy for the situation. How would you answer in this hypothesis, that is not a very hard one to hgappen?
Now, assume that only the father is compatible. Now, shouldn't his body resources be also at disposal, when the use is possible? I mean, he's as connected to the children as the mother when it comes to parental proximity. What would make the father's commitment less invasive, the fact that he was not the one to carry the child in the belly? Is it even a defensible reason?
Let's now assume that both are compatible. Would one of them only be responsible, or both? If both, who would be primarely responsible? The mother, implying continuity of her previous duties, or the father, relieving the mother as she already has done her part?
Let's explore more. When we assume that the relationship of close relatives implies that sort of commitment, what we must say about brothers and sisters, uncles and ants, etc...? I mean, in what degree exactly does the duty of giving body resources are cut? Where does the degree of relationship are not strong enough anymore to demand that sort of commitment? What is "being close" to this purpose?
Come on, you understand the implications of what i'm saying here. Produce your answer.
Regards
.Originally posted by FredLC
Come on, you understand the implications of what i'm saying here. Produce your answer.
Each compatible person should make their own descicion, if no one is willing find a person who is compatible and willing.
Ok, but you keep dodging the question.
If the mother is compatible, why does her duty of giving up her bodily resources does not apply anymore, only because the birth already happened? Answer me that.
Well, but I have given you a situation where the children keeps depending on her to survive after the actual birth, that is depending of a biological resource that only her can offer. Come'on, it's the very essence of the point I'm making here.
Let me be even MORE clear. If it's "the fact that the child depends on the mother" that makes the abortion not be an option, then WHY OH WHY is an already born child, that is as dependent as an unborn one, and also in a biological manner, less able to exercize an ascendancy over the mother in the decisions she takes over her own body?
Got it now?
Let me be even MORE clear. If it's "the fact that the child depends on the mother" that makes the abortion not be an option, then WHY OH WHY is an already born child, that is as dependent as an unborn one, and also in a biological manner, less able to exercize an ascendancy over the mother in the decisions she takes over her own body?
Got it now?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Fred, you're the attorney. You explain the legislature. Is not this beside the point. We have a well established principle of protecting the young, at communal cost if necessary. My question is why does the mere fact of birth make a distinction of this magnitude?
I have always found fascinating the way this issue, and no other, inverts the normal politics. Libertarian conservatives favor passage of laws. Liberal enterventionists favor the most strict of hands off policies.
Consider. It is the liberal minded that promote the use of communal resources to support the invalid and defenseless. There is nothing more defenseless than a gestating child. The conservative minded are in favor of personal choices, and resulting personal responsibility. All exactly backward. It reminds me of Godel's incompleteness theorem, where the system bends back to attack itself.
For myself, I honor the State's right to make the act legal. I do not like it and would change it if I could, but through process.
J
PS Fred, have you ever read the text of the opinion in Roe or any of the mountains of work that has been written about it? I would like an informed and relatively unbiased assessment of the law involved, stripped of the morality.
Akka
Moody old mage.
This is assuming the embryo is a person, which is precisely the point that many pro-abortion (like me) are disputing.
Stile
Emperor
Careful!
No one is pro-abortion.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Well, pro-choice if you wish. Just a different wording.
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
"Pro-murder" I think you mean. 
Sir John
The evil one...
My opinion on abortion:
Abortion is murder. Thats very simple. Its a life. Some people say its not a life when its so so early, but it would become a kid anyway so its still murder.
Abortion should only be allowed under certain curcamsances. forexampel under rape or if there is danger to the mothers life..
Abortion is a problem that is very simple to resolve if people follow certain reasonable guidelines:
People that arent ready to have a child, simply shouldnt have sex. There is always a chanse of getting pregnant no matter how much protection u use. Therefor people that arent old enough or doesnt have a stabil enough life situtaion shouldnt take the risk of getting pregnant. If people did that, abrtion would be limited VERY much...
Abortion is murder. Thats very simple. Its a life. Some people say its not a life when its so so early, but it would become a kid anyway so its still murder.
Abortion should only be allowed under certain curcamsances. forexampel under rape or if there is danger to the mothers life..
Abortion is a problem that is very simple to resolve if people follow certain reasonable guidelines:
People that arent ready to have a child, simply shouldnt have sex. There is always a chanse of getting pregnant no matter how much protection u use. Therefor people that arent old enough or doesnt have a stabil enough life situtaion shouldnt take the risk of getting pregnant. If people did that, abrtion would be limited VERY much...
Similar threads
