And why doesn't it? Why do YOU get to say what I do with my body or in the course of my life? If I want to participate in high risk activities, that's on me. You have no right to say that I can't juggle chainsaws and kittens at the same time. What happens is on me, not on you. Why is it that some people just feel obligated to regulate the things that others do because they don't like it?
And you have no right to saw what a woman does with her womb. PERIOD. If you do, I get a say in what you do with your testes because the sperm that is generated there could ultimately become a person. No more jerking off for you! Gotta protect those possible babies!
A two year old, or even a new born baby, is a little bit different from a gop of cells that does not resemble human life in any shape or form. Again, we should be focusing in on what determines a human life and the sustainability of that life.Allow science to determine when an embryo becomes viable of sustaining itself without the sustenance or nutrients from the mother/host. Because if you start down that road, anything created in a petri dish is considered life and worthy of protection. IMO, human life doesn't start until the fetus can survive outside the womb without technological intervention. Once that happens, welcome to humanity. Oh, you still have no rights under the law, but carry on.
Yeah, that's the point. Keep your morality to yourself and allow the individual the right to do what they want with their own body as they see fit.
I agree that the Petri dish isn’t human life yet.
You are aware the bolded occurs before the fetus is out of the womb? This directly conflicts with your No right to say what happens in a women’s womb. So you should be able to at least recognize that there is a reasonable ethics argument that at some point there is a reasonable debate between a fetus and body autonomy .
It's so odd that this is a constant high visibility political issue. With the exception of places like Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Burma and Alabama, the breakdown of Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life must be around 9-1.
The debate that we should be having is one of free speech, allowing the minority Pro-Life movement free access to relay their message. That is a fight that would put the majority on the side of Pro-Life advocates rights to speak openly.
Because of the messed up way that the American electoral system works, there is a never ending string of 'debate' over this issue that will never be resolved. It is pretty clear that any legislation should be voted on by the people in a referendum and not in a legislative body that is strife with corruption.
If the Pro-Life argument is good enough, it will sway enough people to win a referendum. That is a massive swing of opinion that needs to be achieved, and godspeed to you attempting it.
In the meantime, abortion will be used as a smokescreen to move eyes away from other more potentially damaging issues. We should stop pretending that there is a 50-50 split on the issue of abortion.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
It is a complicated issue, with no way to really validate right and wrong other than a persons individual philosophy and morality. There are many good arguments both ways. But to say it isn’t your business, who cares it doesn’t affect you, or you don’t get to have a moral opinion if you are a male, it is just a terrible argument.
Really? Then maybe we can bring in an arbiter to decide? Maybe we can bring in a Sufi to put their moral imperative as the standard by which we all have to live? Would that be fair? Or would you view that as not being fair to your worldview and your particular moral beliefs?
You're right, the issue is very complex. The only way to resolve this issue is to remove all the morality from it and make it a scientific study to determine the feasibility of fetuses at given stages of development. If we can have them make a determination that a fetus can survive on its own at "week X" without technological intervention, and a reasonable (80%) chance of survival, then I think that is the best resolution to this argument. If we could all agree on this, and abide by the findings, I think we would all be able to put this mess behind us. Sad thing is, there is one group I know for certain that will not.
Then we must also agree that life does not begin at conception.
Quote:
You are aware the bolded occurs before the fetus is out of the womb? This directly conflicts with your No right to say what happens in a women’s womb.
I said body. Period. You have no right to say what a woman, or anyone else does with their body. The uterus is just a part of a woman, and a part she should have full control over.
Quote:
So you should be able to at least recognize that there is a reasonable ethics argument that at some point there is a reasonable debate between a fetus and body autonomy .
I don't, because I do not see an ethics question here. If all life is sacred, then we should be protecting all life at all costs. But the reality is that all life doesn't matter, and we see examples of it every day. If all life is sacred, then these people should be anti-gun, anti-war, pro-immigration, pro-education, and so on. But the reality is that the debate is not about life, it is about dogma and the control dogma places on our ability to make our own decisions.
Really? Then maybe we can bring in an arbiter to decide? Maybe we can bring in a Sufi to put their moral imperative as the standard by which we all have to live? Would that be fair? Or would you view that as not being fair to your worldview and your particular moral beliefs?
You're right, the issue is very complex. The only way to resolve this issue is to remove all the morality from it and make it a scientific study to determine the feasibility of fetuses at given stages of development. If we can have them make a determination that a fetus can survive on its own at "week X" without technological intervention, and a reasonable (80%) chance of survival, then I think that is the best resolution to this argument. If we could all agree on this, and abide by the findings, I think we would all be able to put this mess behind us. Sad thing is, there is one group I know for certain that will not.
What if the science says something like Week X is 15.
Neither side is happy.
The pro-life group is never happy because they want no abortions period.
The pro-choice group will not be happy because a women should get to choose, period.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
What if the science says something like Week X is 15.
Neither side is happy.
As unlikely as that is, I would agree with that. Science is the answer here. I think in reality that the number is around 26 weeks, and there should be plenty of statistical data through premature births to support the claim. Whatever science lands on should be a satisfactory outcome IMO.
Quote:
The pro-life group is never happy because they want no abortions period.
The pro-choice group will not be happy because a women should get to choose, period.
I agree with the pro-life camp never being happy. They have never been about compromise which is in total alignment with their dogmatic perspective. I think the pro-choice camp has been more than willing to hold fast to a standard determined and codified into law - so long as the choice is reasonable. Six weeks is not reasonable based on a woman's cycle, which is why there is push back. It is obviously an attempt to wrestle control from the individual and give it to the moral minority control. 24-26 weeks seems reasonable and workable for both parties, if they would be open to compromise.
Frankly, this a 60-40 split thing. Almost 60% say it should be legal, and only 37% say it should be illegal. You'll never guess which political group is in the minority? You'll never guess which religious group is the one who holds the heavy majority on the illegality of the issue? It always boils down to the same political and religious identification groups. Here are the stats from the latest Pew Research Poll (linked above).
Politically, 59% of Republicans think abortion should be illegal, with 37% saying it should be allowed. Democrats are 76% in support of legal abortion and only 21% against. Only the hardcore conservative Republicans hold a view that abortion should be illegal. Even moderate Republicans are in favor of abortion being legal, 58-37 split.
Religiosity is the kicker here. 61% of evangelicals say abortion should be illegal, with 34% in favor. This is the only group that has a majority in favor of outlawing abortion. Catholics hold a 51-42 split in favor of abortion being legal. White protestants hold a 67-28 split in favor of legalization. Unaffiliated people hold a 74-21 split in favor of abortion rights.
From a gender perspective, the split is similar with there being 60-36 split in favor of abortion amongst women, and a 57-37 split amongst men.
If there is a group that is easiest to tap into for the anti-abortion group, it is the uneducated, where those with a high school diploma or less level of education sees almost a dead heat - 48-47 in favor of abortion. Once you get some college education under your belt, those numbers plummet. Those with some college education favor a 60-35 split, and those who are college graduates see a 71-25 split in favor of abortion.
This is an issue driven by the vocal minority. All the survey data supports that. Even globally.
What should be very concerning, is that when abortion is legal, abortion rates decline, not rise. So if you want to see more abortions, the solution is to make it illegal!
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Speaking for myself, I reject religion in all of its denominations and doctrines, but despite having a science background I can’t reconcile life and consciousness with just complex chemical reactions. I believe there is more than we currently understand, possibly distinct from our physical selves, that I would term a soul for lack of a better description. What that it is, where it comes from, where it goes I have no idea but I don’t associate it with a god of any description.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Speaking for myself, I reject religion in all of its denominations and doctrines, but despite having a science background I can’t reconcile life and consciousness with just complex chemical reactions. I believe there is more than we currently understand, possibly distinct from our physical selves, that I would term a soul for lack of a better description. What that it is, where it comes from, where it goes I have no idea but I don’t associate it with a god of any description.
The fear of nothing is a strong human trait, but that very same fear came from religion
I grew up in a Christian family with my grandpa as a minister the idea of religion back when it was probably created was a good idea give people hope that there is something more after this life is over. But that's not what religion is now it seems more like a tool for people in power to impose their will. I dont associate myself with any religion anymore
I grew up in a Christian family with my grandpa as a minister the idea of religion back when it was probably created was a good idea give people hope that there is something more after this life is over. But that's not what religion is now it seems more like a tool for people in power to impose their will. I dont associate myself with any religion anymore
I subscribe to this view. For most of human history, life was pretty miserable. Religion was something people could put their faith into, that something better was waiting for them once this tough life was over.
this helps explain why religion is still quite big in poor regions of the world, but not so much in the West anymore. Our standard of living is so high here that we have satisfaction in our lives and don't have to look for a higher purpose of why our kids all died of malaria and we pick cotton 7 days a week.
I think religion was in place far earlier then that.
Religion allows the creation of in group/out group dynamics. Leaders are able to pass on genetic material and followers are able to as well by picking up the scraps. Independant thinking and not acting in the groups best interests is purged from the gene pool.
Religion has always been used as a means of control and power.
I grew up in a Christian family with my grandpa as a minister the idea of religion back when it was probably created was a good idea give people hope that there is something more after this life is over. But that's not what religion is now it seems more like a tool for people in power to impose their will. I dont associate myself with any religion anymore
Yes, but it’s also a community and I think we miss that as a society, I know I do. I’ve never been a religion is the root of all evil guy though despite its decidedly mixed past
So following the fetus viability argument if we advance technology to the point where the fetus is viable at implantation would you support outlawing all forms of abortion?
Or if you had a viability threshold for abortion would a women be able to demand being induced or get a c-section for a 22 week fetus. That seems like a reasonable compromise. However does the state want 600 additional premature babies a year with complications.
I immediately become quite pro-life when people mention cost control as a beneficial side effect of abortion.
Only in America. The vast majority of Canadians are happy with the fact that we don't have a law regulating this medical procedure.
Is that actually true though? Abortion is not the kind of fun topic that I bring up often in casual conversation, but when it does come up, and I mention the fact that there are no regulations on it in Canada, the reaction that I always get is pure disbelief that what I am saying is true. This is only my anecdotal observation obviously, but it has left me with the impression that most people don't know what the law is pertaining to abortion in Canada.
Is that actually true though? Abortion is not the kind of fun topic that I bring up often in casual conversation, but when it does come up, and I mention the fact that there are no regulations on it in Canada, the reaction that I always get is pure disbelief that what I am saying is true. This is only my anecdotal observation obviously, but it has left me with the impression that most people don't know what the law is pertaining to abortion in Canada.
That's not really true, that makes it sound like the wild west.
Quote:
Abortion was now treated like any other medical procedure, governed by provincial and medical regulations.
It's always an easy argument to make when you make it about the woman. But again, I'll caution there is an unborn fetus there that doesn't have a voice in the matter, and thus, needs the laws on gestational age to protect it at a certain point. This thread is basically to discuss that point.
Damn man, I hate playing the parent card (as much as I hate people playing the woman card), but 22 weeks is insane. Its a full on person at that point. Look at the devastation that parents go through when they lose children at that point. (Heck, for a relevent example, look at what Evander Kane went through at just 26 weeks). The kid is starting to kick and punch around.
That and even further late term abortions is exactly why people are starting to push for even early cutoffs given these late term abortions (again, non-medical) are insanity in my view.
This is 22 weeks.
I gave that timeline because it's the typical cut off.
The number of abortions performed at that time frame is very small compared to the first 2 trimesters.
People generally don't get an abortion because it's fun. It's not an easy thing for people to do so comparing that to the devastation parents go through is a little unfair. Talk to a woman that had an abortion especially later in the term. I promise you most will have very strong feelings about it.
This idea that women are using this as birth control with no feelings about it is silly.
Again if you feel 20,15,10, or 5 weeks is too late that's up to you. That's the beauty of pro choice.
I have a very young nephew that I'd do anything for so I get what you're saying but it's not up to me. That option needs to exist for people that feel they need it.
With about 100 000 abortions in Canada per year, that's around 660.It would be interesting to know what number of those are "I don't want a baby" vs. "something has gone horribly wrong", but that doesn't look to be tracked. All abortions over 21 weeks are done in a hospital.
Its a religious people who want to impose their religion vs everyone else thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
Actually it's just men trying to use religion to control women even know religion has nothing to do with abortion, in the end it means these religious men are just stupid ass~holes
This is abject nonsense. If you are pro-choice, I would very much like to understand your position. Actually understanding the position of those that you disagree with tends to be a good strategy in life. A poor strategy, however, is using silly strawman arguments such as the above to define the pro-life position. In the hopes that you can understand your claim that restricting abortion is simply about men controlling women's bodies, I hope you will consider the following:
Imagine you are at a bar and you notice a visibly pregnant woman. Imagine that you know who this woman is, and that she has told you that she plans on giving birth to the baby that she is currently pregnant with. Now, imagine that you see her drinking excessive amounts of alcohol and smoking cigarettes. How does this make you feel? Do you think that since it is her body, it should be her choice to do so regardless of the effects that alcohol and tobacco will have on her unborn child? Personally, I do not. I don't believe that she should be allowed to consume such substances that would hurt her child. However, after she gives birth and is no longer pregnant, I couldn't care less how much she drinks or smokes. Frankly, if she wants to engage in more illicit drug use, I don't particularly care then either.
This is not about controlling women, it is about protecting the unborn.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ark2 For This Useful Post:
