Abortion - What do you think about it?

[allan2]

"Think about it: One day, the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade[Law in the U.S that legalized abortion. I'm looking at this from an American's perspective.]. Now, all abortions are illegal,"

Just a clarification: Roe v. Wade simply made legislation that was originally a STATE decision into a federal one. Before Roe, a few states already had legal abortions. If Roe were repealed, many states would still have legal abortions--while others, indeed, would not.

I disagree with Roe--in that it used very faulty arguments regarding the 14th Amendment ("equal protection of the laws") to override what were state decisions of common law. I tend to agree with states' rights, except where federal authority is granted in the Constitution (by a strict and quite literal interpretation), or where states likewise are constrained by the Bill of Rights.

So is abortion murder or a simple medical procedure? Let the states decide on this. Then let the results of their particular decisions be compared to the results of other states' different decisions, and if there becomes a "black market coat hanger" problem in the abolitionist states, the people there can weigh this against whatever they feel about abortion itself.

My personal views? I'll admit I sit on the fence. There are definitely good arguments for both of these views: the fetus is a fully living human being, and the fetus is not a fully living human being.

Fully living being: its heart beats, it can receive stimuli (including, responding to the voice and moods of the mother), it may actually be able to "learn" (albeit unconsciously) in the womb according to some research, it is believed to feel pain when aborted by suction devices, and of course genetically it IS human.

Not fully living being: Legally its age is not measured from conception but from birth (and this has been traditionally the case, in Western culture at least), it is not counted in censuses, it has no name (except I suppose in the cases where the mother knows its sex and has already chosen a name), it is not sentiently conscious yet (although I'm not sure a newborn infant is for awhile yet), and its body is symbiotic with the mother (not just dependent--all children are dependent--but SYMBIOTIC. Well actually this is not an accurate term, in that the dependency isn't even mutual).

I personally would never want a child of mine aborted. And if a loved one asked my advice, I would counsel against abortion to the best of my ability.

But both views are valid. If we ever decide one way or the other in complete consensus (this is VERY doubtful in the near future, but in the far future who knows?), then....

But if a fetus is a fully living human being, then abortion is murder--in which case, there are no "pragmatic" considerations, it must be treated as a crime, just like murder, without prejudice. But if a fetus is NOT a fully living human being, then abortion is NOT murder.

Since we haven't resolved this, I'd prefer states TRY to for themselves, rather than the feds. If you live in a state that doesn't allow abortions, and you feel strongly enough about it (or suspect you may want to get one sometime), then move to a state that allows it (or take a little trip to one for the procedure).

I DEFINITELY am against tax money being used for abortions--why should someone who sincerely believes the act is murder, be forced to contribute his resources to the act?

Well, that's my two pesos worth....

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by allan2
So is abortion murder or a simple medical procedure? Let the states decide on this. Then let the results of their particular decisions be compared to the results of other states' different decisions, and if there becomes a "black market coat hanger" problem in the abolitionist states, the people there can weigh this against whatever they feel about abortion itself.

Laws should not be decided over "let's see if it works", but on principles.


Your acceptation of both points of view about the fetus being a full human being show you have an open mind on the issue. Though, your arguments are somewhat weird.

Not fully living being: Legally its age is not measured from conception but from birth (and this has been traditionally the case, in Western culture at least), it is not counted in censuses, it has no name (except I suppose in the cases where the mother knows its sex and has already chosen a name), it is not sentiently conscious yet (although I'm not sure a newborn infant is for awhile yet), and its body is symbiotic with the mother (not just dependent--all children are dependent--but SYMBIOTIC. Well actually this is not an accurate term, in that the dependency isn't even mutual).

Really, all the reasons listed here are, excuse me for the word but it's what I think, completely stupids.
That the age would be legally counted since birth and not conception, that the censuses do not count it and that the fetus has no name... Really, would it have the slightiest importance ???
People of the amazonian forest does not have legal name nor census, you still don't have the right to kill them, do you ?

IF the fetus was a human being, nothing of this legal crap would have the slightiest importance.
Symbiotism and still not sentient are better, but still aren't completely sufficient.

Fully living being: its heart beats, it can receive stimuli (including, responding to the voice and moods of the mother), it may actually be able to "learn" (albeit unconsciously) in the womb according to some research, it is believed to feel pain when aborted by suction devices, and of course genetically it IS human.

Then you make a big mistake : what you describe here is a VERY ADVANCED fetus, not the kind you abort. A fetus able to respond to voice and moods, able to learn even inconsciously, and feeling pain, all that refer to a fetus that has already developped a nervous system (you can't feel pain without a brain and without nerves, and "learning" and responding REQUIRE a brain). Nervous system does not start to appear before the 10th or 12th week, and it's usually the deadline for abortion.

Being pro-choice, like I am, does not mean you consider that you can abort on the 8th months nor that the fetus become magically sentient and human three second after being born, and wasn't three second before.
It's just that, as it's biologically obvious, without nervous system you just don't exist (I'm talking about humans, here, not fundamentally different organisms), and so abortion at this state is just getting rid of a unwanted pack of cells.
Once the nervous system is here, well, then it's another story.

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by Akka


Laws should not be decided over "let's see if it works", but on principles.

True, VERY true. Rest assured, I agree! BUT, we as a society have not come to a consensual definition of what a fetus is vis a vis a full human being. The principle of the sanctity of human life which forbids murder, cannot be applied well where the definitions are incomplete.

And who defines? THAT'S a hard question. I would have to say by default, the culture does. Granted I don't like this really, but it's a default. Perhaps one day, our civilization will define fetuses as equals to the born--just as it has broadened this umbrella to many fellow born humans throughout history.

Or perhaps they will define them the other way.

But right now we are having trouble agreeing on definitions. And believe me, that is hard for someone who values principle as much as I do. But what to do?

Your acceptation of both points of view about the fetus being a full human being show you have an open mind on the issue. Though, your arguments are somewhat weird.

It shows that I don't know, that's all. Believe me, if I were fully convinced that fetuses were the same as any other human, that would be enough to make me want all abortions banned (except medical emergency--mother's self-defense).

Really, all the reasons listed here are, excuse me for the word but it's what I think, completely stupids.
That the age would be legally counted since birth and not conception, that the censuses do not count it and that the fetus has no name... Really, would it have the slightiest importance ???
People of the amazonian forest does not have legal name nor census, you still don't have the right to kill them, do you ?

No, that's not how I meant it. In our society, a fetus CANNOT be counted in a census (this is in the form rules I think). Whereas an Amazonian who came to our society, COULD be counted legally. I.e., IN OUR SOCIETY, there is a distinction that includes our hypothetical Amazonian immigrant, but not a fetus.

I was speaking in the context of our culture and society, not globally. Other cultures may have different views on the status of fetuses (in many Asian cultures for instance, a newborn baby is already "one year old"!)

IF the fetus was a human being, nothing of this legal crap would have the slightiest importance.
Symbiotism and still not sentient are better, but still aren't completely sufficient.

Never said they were completely sufficient--they are just arguments.

ARE fetuses fully human beings? Do you KNOW? I honestly don't.

Then you make a big mistake : what you describe here is a VERY ADVANCED fetus, not the kind you abort. A fetus able to respond to voice and moods, able to learn even inconsciously, and feeling pain, all that refer to a fetus that has already developped a nervous system (you can't feel pain without a brain and without nerves, and "learning" and responding REQUIRE a brain). Nervous system does not start to appear before the 10th or 12th week, and it's usually the deadline for abortion.

I'll admit I don't follow the issue too much, but I believe in the US abortions up to the second trimester are legal in some states (Roe has allowed SOME states' authority to remain, but not all). The trend may be for diminishing the fetal age limit, though. (IMHO, that's probably for the best--if a woman wants to "choose", then "CHOOSE", dammit--if not by three months time, then you have made a choice by default....)

Being pro-choice, like I am, does not mean you consider that you can abort on the 8th months nor that the fetus become magically sentient and human three second after being born, and wasn't three second before.
It's just that, as it's biologically obvious, without nervous system you just don't exist (I'm talking about humans, here, not fundamentally different organisms), and so abortion at this state is just getting rid of a unwanted pack of cells.
Once the nervous system is here, well, then it's another story.

I'll add your GOOD argument ( ) to the list, then!

 

[Fez_Monk]

Ok, I wasn't feeling well when I typed up that paranoid conspiracy stuff[being sick sucks ], so I didn't get many facts right and what not. Looking back, I seem to have posted a lot of spam. Oops.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by allan2

I'll admit I don't follow the issue too much, but I believe in the US abortions up to the second trimester are legal in some states

Well, it's the 10th to 12th week limit I talked about

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Abortion is acceptable:

In cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life would be put in serious jeopody.

Also in cases when the mother is under 16 years of age.

In cases where the child is disabled with a major malady...e.g Down Syndrome...but only before 20 weeks can this be allowed.


Otherwise the mother must have the child and if she cannot or doesn't want to look after it there are alot of people that want to adopt babies (teenagers with problems, no, babies yes!).

 

[rjgo]

if i masturbate, am i killing innocent lives. no, because they are not humans yet, but little tiny sperm.

abortion should be legal.


shalom

rjgo

p.s. according to the moderators, this thread is illegal to their rules.
it has to do with sex.

I didnt make the rules, i just enforce them.

 

[napoleon526]

Everyone needs to stop talking about abortion RIGHT NOW. Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. You could call pro-choicers baby killers or defenders of civil liberties. You could call pro-lifers evil government fascists or defenders of life. I AM SICK TO DEATH OF BOTH SIDES. The abortion issue will be resolved around the same time that a lasting peace agreement is reached in the middle east, or possibly by the time the earth crashes into the sun, whichever comes sooner.

 

[philippe]

Originally posted by rjgo
if i masturbate, am i killing innocent lives. no, because they are not humans yet, but little tiny sperm.

abortion should be legal.


shalom

rjgo

p.s. according to the moderators, this thread is illegal to their rules.
it has to do with sex.

I didnt make the rules, i just enforce them.

i thought jews wherent supposed to masturbate......
and this has nothing to do with sex and now i know you are a dirty little boy.
and this thread has nothing to do with sex.it is about abortion.

 

[Fez_Monk]

There is one thing that can describe the current state of this thread......

spam spam wonderful spam lovely spam baked beans!!!!!!!

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by napoleon526
Everyone needs to stop talking about abortion RIGHT NOW. Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. You could call pro-choicers baby killers or defenders of civil liberties. You could call pro-lifers evil government fascists or defenders of life. I AM SICK TO DEATH OF BOTH SIDES. The abortion issue will be resolved around the same time that a lasting peace agreement is reached in the middle east, or possibly by the time the earth crashes into the sun, whichever comes sooner.

i guess we need to stop discussing the middle east, gun control, capitalism, socialism, creationism, football (soccer), basketball, etc., etc. After all, we'll never resolve those issues and stop arguing about them....

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Why even bother talking about it? The instant-gratification-demanding whiners of the world have spoken, and abortion is what they want. They've got it in the US, they've got it in other countries, and they'll keep pushing until they get it in every other 'beknighted, backwards' country that doesn't have it yet.

You can weep, wail, and guh-nash your teeth all you want, but don't bother trying to talk them out of it, or explain to them why it's wrong via a moral argument. You'd have better luck exhorting stopped motorists to put those sacks of money back in the armored car whose guards died in the crash...

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Why even bother talking about it? The instant-gratification-demanding whiners of the world have spoken, and abortion is what they want. They've got it in the US, they've got it in other countries, and they'll keep pushing until they get it in every other 'beknighted, backwards' country that doesn't have it yet.

You can weep, wail, and guh-nash your teeth all you want, but don't bother trying to talk them out of it, or explain to them why it's wrong via a moral argument. You'd have better luck exhorting stopped motorists to put those sacks of money back in the armored car whose guards died in the crash...

Hopefully, world will come to the conclusions of the "demanding whiners" that can't be explained anything via "moral arguments" rather than the arbitrary and fanatic judgement of ******** zealous biggots coming directly from the Dark Ages.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Akka


Hopefully, world will come to the conclusions of the "demanding whiners" that can't be explained anything via "moral arguments" rather than the arbitrary and fanatic judgement of ******** zealous biggots coming directly from the Dark Ages.

See?

 

[Switch625]

We need a new rule:

Whoever slings mud first, loses the argument.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2


See?

What I see is that I just put myself on the same level than you : scornful of the others' opinions, acting high with mines, and doing like if I was holding the Truth.
The fact that you did not saw the irony shows more about you than about me.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by allan2
"Think about it: One day, the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade[Law in the U.S that legalized abortion. I'm looking at this from an American's perspective.]. Now, all abortions are illegal,"

Just a clarification: Roe v. Wade simply made legislation that was originally a STATE decision into a federal one. Before Roe, a few states already had legal abortions. If Roe were repealed, many states would still have legal abortions--while others, indeed, would not.

I disagree with Roe--in that it used very faulty arguments regarding the 14th Amendment ("equal protection of the laws") to override what were state decisions of common law. I tend to agree with states' rights, except where federal authority is granted in the Constitution (by a strict and quite literal interpretation), or where states likewise are constrained by the Bill of Rights.

I myself am pro-choice, so I certainly won't be leading any efforts to strike down Roe v. Wade. Still, the points you bring up are good ones. Had Roe v. Wade not been decided how it was, the decision would be left up to the states to decide. That way we would have abortions allowed in the more liberal states and not allowed in the more conservative ones. I personally would not have a problem with this but obviously certain people would i.e. women who wanrted to have an abortion but it is illegal in their state.

The only problem I could see occuring with this scenario is if the pro-life movement gets overzealous and tries to outlaw aboriton across the ENTIRE country. Since the right to have an abortion aould not be Constitutionally protected, they may suceed in their efforts. Just a thought...

As for the decision itself, the majority essentially said that while the Constitution does not explicitly recognize any right to privacy, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy does exist based on a line of past decisions. They determined that the right to privacy, founded in the 9th and 14th Amedments, is broad enough to encompass a woman's right to choose.

Not exactly the most coherent argument, I agree, but there have been worse decisions...

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by Akka


Well, it's the 10th to 12th week limit I talked about

I should have typed, "up to and including" the second trimester, as that is what I meant. Because I have heard of abortions up to month six (24 weeks approximately).

 

[Grisu]

Here are the offical voting-results of today

72% of the voters support the "Fristenregelung" - that is the third option in this poll.

In some cantons (e.g. geneva) there were even approval-ratios of 88%.

Two cantons (Appenzell-Innerrhoden, Valais) turned it down.

Oh boy, I must say that I'm relieved. I didnt't think it would be this clear.

 

[Ohkrana]

Pro-choice is the only choice!

Womans responsibility and body to bear the child.

Therefore they should have the right to choose.

As for the it's murder debate - highly subjective. No one has clear consistant black and white proof; life begins at conception or at some stage through pregnancy.

Does life begin at conecption, or when the brain stem is formed. Or when then brain clearly divides into left and right sections at early development? All depends on your point of view.

I fail to see why MEN get involved in this debate?
You can argue all you want your rights.
But are you the ones who carry the baby to term and deliver it? NO
So stop your b*tching!

Myself I recommend against abortion - not for any moral concerns for I have none. But as any medical procedure it carries ssome inherent amount of risk, and I have a healthy distrust of doctors. But in the end if thats what the Woman chooses, after having been counselled and considered other options. Let them do it.

But at the end of the day I don't care at all. I'm male, I paid attention in sex ed and know how to practice safe sex. Perfect record so far - not a one or any scares with various partners over the years.