Abortion and..

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

No, he said that pro-lifers want to 'control the destiny' of all families. Which is ridiculous.

Eliminating choice determines an action by default and is thus controlling the destiny of those who must take that action. So I disagree it is ridiculous to make that claim.

No, just that the kid has a chance to be born. He/she doesn't have to cure cancer.

I know, but after you accused someone else of being facetious I couldn't resist.

There are fools on every side of every debate. The fools usually get the press, which in turn tends to convince people on the other side of the argument that everyone who disagrees with them is that type of fool. I don't think anyone really thinks blowing up abortion clinics accomplishes anything. Besides the fools, of course.

Not sure how this relates to my post, but I do agree.

No doubt. Is choice the most important thing in our world? Should the right to choose be a higher priority than the right to live? If I were to choose to, could I gun you down in the street?

This is where I disagree with you're statement that the only debatable point of the abortion discussion is whether or not the fetus is a living human being. If we were discussing the moral justification of random shootings in the street I would agree with you that such an act is reprehensible and should be viewed as unacceptable in our society. But we're not talking about that, we're discussing whether a person (a mother) or a couple should have the freedom to eliminate a pregnancy before the baby is born on the basis of their own justifications. I think that choice is important, more important and desirable than forced child-birthing. If they want to make that choice regardless of their belief that the blastocyst is for all intents and purposes the equivalent of a child it remains their decision to make, not yours or mine.

I said that pro-lifers strive to give a voice to the children that have no voice. Is that really hard to understand?

Yes, its actually that hard to understand. I have no idea what it means and it reads like meaningless rhetoric to me. Do you want to scream wildly in pain beside the womans bed as she has the procedure to remind her and the doctor that they are killing a person? Are you going to give speeches on behalf the child based on what you think this person you've never met, who has no capacity to think or form arguments, would say if were able to comprehend the situation?

What is your voice supposed to accomplish?

[V]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

This is where I disagree with you're statement that the only debatable point of the abortion discussion is whether or not the fetus is a living human being. If we were discussing the moral justification of random shootings in the street I would agree with you that such an act is reprehensible and should be viewed as unacceptable in our society. But we're not talking about that, we're discussing whether a person (a mother) or a couple should have the freedom to eliminate a pregnancy before the baby is born on the basis of their own justifications. I think that choice is important, more important and desirable than forced child-birthing. If they want to make that choice regardless of their belief that the blastocyst is for all intents and purposes the equivalent of a child it remains their decision to make, not yours or mine.

"Eliminate a pregnancy before the baby is born on the basis of their own justifications."

Now, if you say it really doesn't matter whether or not the unborn child is a living human or not, I can take your statement and replace it with:

"Kill a living, innocent human on the basis of their own justifications."

What gives the couple the ability to kill that child? Do they own him/her? Is it like a dog that they're trying to put down?

Are you going to give speeches on behalf the child based on what you think this person you've never met, who has no capacity to think or form arguments, would say if were able to comprehend the situation?

No capacity to think? That's surprising. And if I could read that baby's thoughts, I'd bet I would hear, "Hmmm, yeah, I'd really rather not die right now".

What is your voice supposed to accomplish?

I've already mentioned that. In the post that you quoted.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Are you going to give speeches on behalf the child based on what you think this person you've never met, who has no capacity to think or form arguments, would say if were able to comprehend the situation?

I've got a few things to say in rebuttal.

1. A 6 month old baby can't make argument or comprehend a situation.

2. An in utero baby does think, in fact you can pick out pieces of their personality based on their actions inside the womb.

3. A baby in utero has a heart beat, breathes, eats, has brain activity, feels pain, hiccups, and responds to light. Most of these are happening as early as early as 6 weeks.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

"Eliminate a pregnancy before the baby is born on the basis of their own justifications."

Now, if you say it really doesn't matter whether or not the unborn child is a living human or not, I can take your statement and replace it with:

"Kill a living, innocent human on the basis of their own justifications."

What gives the couple the ability to kill that child? Do they own him/her? Is it like a dog that they're trying to put down?

You should have bolded a little further, I already addressed that point. Their right to choose must be maintained regardless of how the situation is worded.

The ability, or I suppose the right, is theirs because it is the pregnant woman's body and the majority of Canadians (among whom I can be counted) have agreed that the right to choose is a legitimate one.

No capacity to think? That's surprising. And if I could read that baby's thoughts, I'd bet I would hear, "Hmmm, yeah, I'd really rather not die right now".

So the group of cells would not only have the capacity to understand mortality and language, but also possesses a dry wit that can be appreciated by all? Lovely. I'd bet you would hear nothing at all.

I've already mentioned that. In the post that you quoted.

You're voice is supposed to be a voice? I'm not sure if you're intentionally avoiding answering the question or if I'm not being clear. Please expand on what you would do specifically while acting as a voice for the unborn human living, breathing, loving, singing, peaceful, good-natured, beautiful baby? And why you think your actions are beneficial to society in general.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

I've got a few things to say in rebuttal.

1. A 6 month old baby can't make argument or comprehend a situation.

2. An in utero baby does think, in fact you can pick out pieces of their personality based on their actions inside the womb.

3. A baby in utero has a heart beat, breathes, eats, has brain activity, feels pain, hiccups, and responds to light. Most of these are happening as early as early as 6 weeks.

1. I wasn't suggesting that in utero babies should be aborted simply because they can't form an argument. Only that I object to speaking on behalf of something that there is no chance it could be agreeing. Speaking on behalf of the right to life is different than associating your intellectual argument with a fetus.

2. I'm going to have to take your word on that. It doesn't change my opinion though since I am not 'anti-life', I am pro-choice and suggest the moral justification used for the decision be that of the mother or couple.

3. Okay? A cockroach possesses all of these traits as well, but I wouldn't consider them the equivalent of humans. (Nor do I think cockroaches and fetus' are equal either, only commenting on the attributes, maybe they don't hiccup I'm not sure.)

I'm not advising people to abort their pregnancies. It's an argument for freedom of choice, one that is currently in favour in Canada. My opinion is that choice should be maintained so you can make your individual choice and another person can make theirs.

[V]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

The ability, or I suppose the right, is theirs because it is the pregnant woman's body and the majority of Canadians (among whom I can be counted) have agreed that the right to choose is a legitimate one.

That supercedes my point completely, though, if you want to follow that path. Was it not mentioned earlier in this thread that in Canada an unborn child is not a living human? And so that right that a woman has is given to her strictly because the child is not considered a living human? Do you not believe that said right would be reconsidered if the unborn child was considered a living human being?

Also, I never thought someone could possibly say what you're saying, but I suppose it takes all kinds out there. I cannot believe that someone can think it's a-ok to terminate the life of an innocent living human. As I said earlier in this thread, the very idea that someone could argue that would blow my mind. The idea that abortion's ok because the child isn't a living human yet I can understand. Saying that living or not, the child is killable just blows me away. Obviously we are so very polar opposite that there's no point in furthering this discussion. I'm just shocked.

You're voice is supposed to be a voice? I'm not sure if you're intentionally avoiding answering the question or if I'm not being clear. Please expand on what you would do specifically while acting as a voice for the unborn human living, breathing, loving, singing, peaceful, good-natured, beautiful baby? And why you think your actions are beneficial to society in general.

I thought I was clear, as well. Stolen straight from this thread, "I would imagine that most pro-lifers would hold higher goals such as the abolition of the abortion procedure."

There are plenty of ways to go about this agenda, none of which involve blowing up abortion clinics.

Is it beneficial to society? I believe so. But my idea of a better society does not include killing innocent human beings.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

I've got a few things to say in rebuttal.

1. A 6 month old baby can't make argument or comprehend a situation.

2. An in utero baby does think, in fact you can pick out pieces of their personality based on their actions inside the womb.

3. A baby in utero has a heart beat, breathes, eats, has brain activity, feels pain, hiccups, and responds to light. Most of these are happening as early as early as 6 weeks.

It's clear that you didn't read the whole thread, so I'll summarize briefly. Point # 1 isn't really much of an argument. A dog can't do that either, yet most people think it's cruel to hurt dogs. The reason is that a dog very clearly has subjective experiences, can be afraid, can feel pain, can be content, be hungry, etc.

Point # 2. You're talking about "in utero" as though it were one thing. It's not. A zygote doesn't think. Actions inside the womb are actually involuntary until around 15 weeks. Concluding things about "personality" based on actions in the womb is nonsense.

3. Actually, the only thing on that list that happens within 6 weeks is a heartbeat. The rest happen much later. Response to light doesn't happen until the 15th week. Also, a fetus is floating in amniotic fluid. It gets oxygen from the mother through the umbilical cord--ergo, it does not breathe. Hiccups start from the 13th-14th week, and are probably in preparation for learning to breathe.

As for brain activity--it's hard to characterize just what that means. A fruit fly has "brain activity." Until you have a developed nervous system, it's hard to imagine you have any thoughts at all. An embryo moves, but the motions are not connected to the brain--they're involuntary. It's not until well into the fetus stage that it starts to make voluntary motions.

This is a complicated issue--but it becomes that much more complicated when people spread misinformation.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't think that makes you a hypocrite at all. It just means you have compassion for other humans. These aren't easy issues, and I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution.

For me, the reason I've been talking about zygotes and blastocysts is that this is a stage at which I feel pretty comfortable saying that these are not human beings in any real or measurable sense.

However, it becomes vastly more complicated for me once you get past that stage. An embryo is still a pretty simple organism, but it's undeniably alive. It has a heartbeat. A fetus has starrted to do some of the things you talked about as defining life. They soon begin to swallow amniotic fluid and pass it as urine. They begin to make spontaneous movements at just 8 weeks.

My wife is currently 15 weeks pregnant. Do I believe that she's carrying a human being inside her? You bet I do.

I'm pro-choice, but I do recognize the complexity of these issues. When can we say life begins? I honestly can't answer that. What I do know is that if I were to decide on some time period, that would be arbitrary, and there's no reason for me to impose that on somebody else.

I just hope we can be clear about abortion, what it means, and how it's currently handled. So-called "late-term" abortion, which pro-lifers are generally up in arms about, is as I understand it only performed in cases where it's deemed medically necessary, which is more common than you think. It used to be that getting pregnant and having a baby were the most dangerous thing a woman could do--not that long ago, in fact. It's better now, but it's still really risky, particularly for women with pre-existing medical conditions such as diabetes or hypertension.

Elective abortions are usually carried out in the first trimester. Someone said earlier that many places will not do them after 20 weeks. This idea that plenty of women are out there having abortions at 5-6 months as a "form of contraception" is just nonsense. It doesn't happen. If she's having an abortion that late, it may well be that it's medically necessary. I would consider that a tragedy, but I don't see myself as in a position to judge them.

Given a choice, I probably would not have an abortion. I would not ask my wife to have one, and I would hope that she would choose not to have one, regardless of our circumstances. But I'm pro-choice because I believe that this is a choice that I have made, and I respect her and every other woman's right to choose for herself on this very difficult moral issue.

This is quite possibly the clearest, most reasonable write up on abortion that I have ever read. I agree with you 100%. To be honest, I don't know how any rational person can come to any other conclusion.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

I've got a few things to say in rebuttal.

1. A 6 month old baby can't make argument or comprehend a situation.

2. An in utero baby does think, in fact you can pick out pieces of their personality based on their actions inside the womb.

3. A baby in utero has a heart beat, breathes, eats, has brain activity, feels pain, hiccups, and responds to light. Most of these are happening as early as early as 6 weeks.

Worst rebuttal ever!

You say these things like fact, when more than half of them are false and purely your own subjective conjecture. If anything this post weakens your stance by undermining any credibility.

I might agree with #1, but I recognize this is something we may never know. And is it even relevant? I could make the same bold speculations about new borns. And #2? How do you know its thinking? Because it might kick back if you poke it? What if that is just a reflex? Relex arcs do not constitute thinking as they bypass the brain all together. And to speculate on it defining personality...!? Number 3 is especially laughable and I would direct you towards most grade 12 biology books if you truly think most of that is true.
________
VAPORIZERS

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Which of these statements you made were correct?
"But murder is murder, last time i checked the definition doesn't change in relation to different circumstances."

"To my knowloge, the only time killing someone is considered "legal" is in self defense purposes."

Wrong and wrong. Common sense tells me you didn't understand why they were wrong, so I tried to tell you.
If you don't want someone to call you on you statements, don't post them.

oh, the irony.
and I didn't imply anything, I just read what you posted.


You didn't provide an example. You stated it was the ONLY example. Please look up to definition of ONLY. It means that there are no other examples then what you gave. Which I disproved by giving you 2 more.

There's a huge difference between saying here is AN example, and here is the ONLY example. Do you see this difference?


agreed. Maybe once you finish junior high English, and we can actually have a debate where your statements make sense, this can be continued.
At this rate, I'll never even get to address the topic, because it takes 3 pages just to show you what simple words like ONLY mean. It's hard to debate with someone when they don't even understand their own choice of words.

Why not reply to my full post? Or is it because you have no argument?

My choice of words may not have been the best, but to sit there and think i'm thinking capital punishment is illegal is idiotic.

To think that about a 12 year old would be idiotic as well.

Therefor, you are just that.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Why not reply to my full post? Or is it because you have no argument?

My choice of words may not have been the best, but to sit there and think i'm thinking capital punishment is illegal is idiotic.

To think that about a 12 year old would be idiotic as well.

Therefor, you are just that.

You have been thoroughly schooled in every aspect of this debate so you might want to think twice about going all out with the insults.

[Jake]

Those who are interested in this topic should take Bioethics. I'm planning on taking it either next semester or next fall at U of C. I've heard its very interesting. Aparently some things that need to be taken into consideration when deciding on where you stand on abortion are things you'd never think of in a thousand years.

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You have been thoroughly schooled in every aspect of this debate so you might want to think twice about going all out with the insults.

I don't think so.

As for insults, i was all for a friendly debate, but the first post consisted of someone rolling their eyes at me, followed by people questioning my common sense before i had even stated my opinion on the entire issue. Therefor, they get the respect they deserve - zero. Those who have replyed in a respectful way, have recieved respect in return.

All i was after was comments on the irony of how a man can be charged with killing an unborn baby when it happens thousands of times on a daily basis anyway - with absolutly no connection to the extremes of killing someone in self defense or war as one persons argument.

I never even wanted an abortion debate.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

All i was after was comments on the irony of how a man can be charged with killing an unborn baby when it happens thousands of times on a daily basis anyway - with absolutly no connection to the extremes of killing someone in self defense or war as one persons argument.

I never even wanted an abortion debate.

So you were after comments like "yeah, that's ironic"?

If you start a thread about an issue as contentious as abortion, and you link it to murder while you are at it, common sense dictates that you are going to get a debate.

In other news, I think white people are stupid. Isn't it ironic that some of them think they are smart? I don't want a debate about this, just comments on the irony of the situation.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Why not reply to my full post? Or is it because you have no argument?

My choice of words may not have been the best, but to sit there and think i'm thinking capital punishment is illegal is idiotic.

To think that about a 12 year old would be idiotic as well.

Therefor, you are just that.

If you say so
Resorting to personal insults just shows you have no rebuttle.
Moving on.... my work here is done

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

In other news, I think white people are stupid. Isn't it ironic that some of them think they are smart? I don't want a debate about this, just comments on the irony of the situation.

I agree that it is ironic. Personally, I think white people are also immoral. Not that I'm looking for a debate, but don't you also find their immorality ironic?

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So you were after comments like "yeah, that's ironic"?

If you start a thread about an issue as contentious as abortion, and you link it to murder while you are at it, common sense dictates that you are going to get a debate.

Theres a different between debating respectfuly, and rolling eyes and making someone out to be an idiot, but ok.