Abortion and..

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

No, Jiri, it really doesn't.

If the unborn child is a living human, an innocent living human at that, I cannot perceive a justifiable reason for killing him/her.

If the child is not a living human, no harm, no foul.

But clearly it is more complex. You have people out there who will state that an unborn child is a living human period. Yet those same people will agree that aborting a child that is the result of a rape is ok.

[V]

And their arguments are hilarious at best.

Assume, just for a moment, that the unborn child is a living, completely innocent, human being.

What is the difference between a living human being at 3 months before birth, and 3 months after birth? His/her environment? Anything else? I can't think of anything.

So, if there was some reason the mother couldn't go through the abortion, should she be able to kill the kid at 3 months?

Why shouldn't the mother kill herself after the birth instead? The kid has just as much right to life as the mother. Both are innocent living human beings, right? If the mother doesn't want to suffer through a lifetime of torment by looking at her child, the product of a disgustingly hideous crime, maybe she should off herself instead of the kid.

It all revolves around whether the unborn child is a living human being or not. If the child is living, he/she has just as much right to life as any other living human being. Who's to judge otherwise?

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Common sense should infer you're aware of something, when you clearly state the opposite?
That's like me saying "Iginla wear's the number 20", but you assuming I know he's 12 because of common sense.

What an awful example.

Iginla wearing number 20 is an incorrect statement. Murder being legal for self defense was not.

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The funny thing is, you're the only person in this thread who didn't have the common sense to see that murder is accepted at certain times.
You also don't have the common sense to see how that is being applied to abortions.(whether that's right or wrong)

Honestly...

Your implying that i did not know capital punishment was legal, i don't know what to say, your completely idiotic.

I was providing an example and usually when you provide such, you don't go down the entire long list from A to Z - hence example. I'm quite aware murder is deemed acceptable in war and capital punishment and for you to even begin to say i did not know this makes me LOL, seriously.

Hell i don't know why i'm still even replying to you, if i have not already made myself perfectly clear.

Aborting a baby has nothing to do with war, or crimes commited that would result in someone being put to death by the state, nor has it got anything to do with self defense. All of which are EXAMPLES where ending a life is deemed ok. Each of those examples carrys a reason and a damn good reason, now i do not support capital punishment so i won't get into that, but war is a no brainer, when you have a country on the verge of trying to take over the world(as one example - should i list 1000 more to prove i know them all?) it's inevitable you stop it.

Now a situation as serious as that, compared to a woman who made her choice to either have unprotected sex or engage in sexual activities - knowing full well of what responsibilities can arise - cannot really be compared or justified. In other words, deeming killing someone in self defense is a lot different than ending a fetus' existance because of a poor choice. Basically all i'm saying is killing someone in self defense is an extreme, war is an extreme. Making a choice to have sex is certinly not, nor should it carry an extreme outcome. (Excluding rape, brith defects, deciese.....any others? I wouldn't want to miss out on an example or two for you to simply turn around and say i never knew about it )

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

OBVIOUSLY it isn't my decision what someone else does with their body... duh. This does not mean I have to like the idea of abortion, support abortions, or have an abortion because someone else does it.

Well, then I assume you're pro-choice? Nobody on the pro-choice side is forcing anyone to have an abortion, they are just wanting the mother and father to be able to decide on their own. that's the whole point....choice! With Pro-lifers, there is no choice at all since they seem to want to control the destiny of all families.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Other things can cause an environment that is not nurturing. One of them is if your parents are poor. So by this logic, abortion should only be illegal for rich people. The fact is, as soon as you allow for environmental factors such as this, you have to also include in your thinking the fact that a child that is unwanted will also be raised in an environment that is not nurturing.

Have you ever read the book Freakanomics? Its written by an econonomist name Stephen Levit (sp?) who explores through heaps of data trying to explain things that don't have obvious answers.

In one chapter, he tries to explain the stark drop in crime in the 1990s in the US, which was the exact opposite of what all experts had predicted. He came to the conclusion the aborition being legalized in the 1970s is what had caused it. Why? Because the people that were comitting the crime were usually the poor, neglected children whose mothers did want them in the first place. Starting in the 1970s, a large portion of these babies were eliminated from the population pool and, consequently, less crime was being committed when these babies would have been coming into their peak crime committing years (late teens, early twenties). He backs up his assertion with a lot of statistical and mathematical data.

He certainly doesn't present his arguments in a pro-choice sort of view, as it may seem from my short summary above; rather just links cause and effect, stating explicitly that he's not trying to argue one way other. He in fact, makes arguments both for an against abortion. Needless to say, when he first published his conclusions it caused a lot of controversy (on both ends of the political spectrum), but it certainly makes for an interesting read.

[V]

Originally Posted by Table 5

With Pro-lifers, there is no choice at all since they seem to want to control the destiny of all families.

Oh wow. I don't know if you're just trying to be facetious, but wow.

Pro-lifers really have one agenda, and that's it. Be the voice for the living human that doesn't have a voice. The guy that everyone seems to think is just an inconsequential "thing".

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Have you ever read the book Freakanomics? Its written by an econonomist name Stephen Levit (sp?) who explores through heaps of data trying to explain things that don't have obvious answers.

I haven't read Freakonomics, but I've wanted to for a while. Sounds really interesting. I did see him interviewed on the Colbert Report.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I haven't read Freakonomics, but I've wanted to for a while. Sounds really interesting. I did see him interviewed on the Colbert Report.

I highly recommend it. It's extremely interesting, and not just from the abortion angle I mentioned above. I tore through the book in two days because I couldn't put it down.

I didn't know he was on the Colbert Report, that's cool. I'll have to see if I can find that on youtube or something.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

The argument against abortion from the possible future or robbing someone of a life doesn't really work.. As was pointed out any kind of artifical means to help people have babies usually produces far more than are necessary and develop, those are future lives wasted as well. 30% of all pregnancies are terminated by the body, often without the mother even knowing it, those are lost future lives. Wouldn't every time we have the opportunity to procreate but do not take that opportunity be the same thing? Isn't that was the anti-birth control idea comes from? I don't think that you can argue against abortion with future uknown possibilities.

Granted there are artificial ways to create life, and just for the sake of cutting around another philisophical debate (sorry about the spelling lately guys) those babies also have a soul (if there is such a thing) and a justifiable right to life. However if we're looking at the whole meta-physical thing here, every baby is unique (or parents would cookie cutter the same baby everytime), so replacing a baby with another one dosen't get around the uniqueness factor, so in theory you could abort Winston Churchill and artificially create Hitler.

On your second argument which is in essence about birth control, I do depart from any church's argument that its equivalent to murder due to the fact that procreation is an inherantly flawed process that dosen't result in pregnancy everytime, which dosen't result in the "Miracle of Life" therefore . . . to me it dosen't constitute the same argument as abortion being murder.

If you look at another factor, as soon as the sperm and the old egg collide and the cells start to split, I think at some level you have to acknowledge that it is a life form, on the level of a multicelled lifeform, but it does fall under the definition of life, it to some extent takes breath, absorbs food, and creates waste. Its not sentient for a while, but unlike a cancer, or a bacteria, it will develop sentience. So I think that ripping it out of an environment that fosters this growth is to some extent unjustified murder, especially when you consider that this life has done nothing thats wrong.

Even in the case of rape, where the baby is a byproduct, you can't punish it because of the act. I know that its hard on the mother mentally, but if having the baby is not going to harm the mother physically I think there's a certain obligation to bring the baby to term, and again let the mother decide if she wants to keep it or give it up for adoption.

Its a tough debate, and I'm not thinking clearly right now (Powerful flu medicine)



I very much agree though that I don't like the idea of abortion as a convenient method of birth control beyond a specific point (i.e. morning after pills are ok). What that point is, I don't know.[/quote]

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

Oh wow. I don't know if you're just trying to be facetious, but wow.

Pro-lifers really have one agenda, and that's it. Be the voice for the living human that doesn't have a voice. The guy that everyone seems to think is just an inconsequential "thing".

You aren't even disagreeing with him. He claimed that pro-lifers want to eliminate to choice for pregnant women to abort their fetus.

And you replied by saying that all pro-lifers want to do is ensure that the living human can grow up to find the cure for AIDS or whatever. Unless you mean anti-abortion activists really think they've accomplished something by marching outside of clinics while yelling at and judging people? Then I can see the disagreement, but I would imagine that most pro-lifers would hold higher goals such as the abolition of the abortion procedure. This is an elimination of choice (justified or not, there would still be fewer options available).

So I guess I am just curious about what you mean when you say the goal is to give human beings a voice?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

"living human"

That's your opinion. When does it become a "living human"? I for one absolutely abhor abortion because I don't think its worth the chance, but because who knows when it actually is a "living human" I am prochoice as I don't feel my opinion is more important than others, at least in this instance as it's an issue clouded by uncertainty. I could come one here and argue that I think it's absolutely ridiculous for prolifers to contribute to the killing of animals, but I don't feel like debating for 20 pages....

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you look at another factor, as soon as the sperm and the old egg collide and the cells start to split, I think at some level you have to acknowledge that it is a life form, on the level of a multicelled lifeform, but it does fall under the definition of life, it to some extent takes breath, absorbs food, and creates waste. Its not sentient for a while, but unlike a cancer, or a bacteria, it will develop sentience. So I think that ripping it out of an environment that fosters this growth is to some extent unjustified murder, especially when you consider that this life has done nothing thats wrong.

This is actually not true. A zygote does none of those things. Neither does a blastocyst. Most of them are not even done by an embryo. In fact, the first "waste" created by the body does not happen until it is well into the fetal stage, some 11 weeks after conception. First they urinate into the amniotic fluid, and the first stool (miconium) appears in the GI tract only at 16 or 17 weeks after conception. A baby doesn't "take breath" until it is born. It doesn't "absorb food" until the placenta is formed, and begins to provide nutrients to the embryo, which happens around 12 weeks. Before that, the nutrients come from a yolk sac inside the gestational sac.

What about a situation where that life that has done nothing wrong, through no fault of its own threatens the life of the mother? What do you do in that case?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

What an awful example.

Iginla wearing number 20 is an incorrect statement. Murder being legal for self defense was not.

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.

Honestly...

Your implying that i did not know capital punishment was legal, i don't know what to say, your completely idiotic.

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

I was providing an example and usually when you provide such, you don't go down the entire long list from A to Z - hence example. I'm quite aware murder is deemed acceptable in war and capital punishment and for you to even begin to say i did not know this makes me LOL, seriously.

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?

Hell i don't know why i'm still even replying to you, if i have not already made myself perfectly clear.

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.

[V]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

You aren't even disagreeing with him. He claimed that pro-lifers want to eliminate to choice for pregnant women to abort their fetus.

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

And you replied by saying that all pro-lifers want to do is ensure that the living human can grow up to find the cure for AIDS or whatever.

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

Unless you mean anti-abortion activists really think they've accomplished something by marching outside of clinics while yelling at and judging people?

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.

Then I can see the disagreement, but I would imagine that most pro-lifers would hold higher goals such as the abolition of the abortion procedure.

Good guess. You'd be correct.

This is an elimination of choice (justified or not, there would still be fewer options available).

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?

So I guess I am just curious about what you mean when you say the goal is to give human beings a voice?

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

[V]

Originally Posted by Sowa

That's your opinion.

Oh, for the love of Pete! Are you even reading what I'm writing?

I haven't even said whether or not it is my opinion. The whole crux of my portion of this discussion is that the only debateable point in the abortion issue is whether or not the unborn child is a living human. Everything else is inconsequential, and needlessly clouds the discussion.

[V]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

What about a situation where that life that has done nothing wrong, through no fault of its own threatens the life of the mother? What do you do in that case?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I wanted to answer. I hope that's alright.

I hope I'm never in a position to have to make that decision. Having said that, I can't possibly think that anyone can make any moral judgement towards an individual that has to make that decision, one way or the other.

Two soldiers in the war are caught in a position where only one person can survive. Can you blame the survivor for murdering the other? Of course not. I think the same rule applies here.

-Edit- This argument only carries weight if you can agree that the unborn child is a living human being.

If the unborn is not living, then the answer is a no-brainer. Save the mother.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

Oh, for the love of Pete! Are you even reading what I'm writing?

I haven't even said whether or not it is my opinion. The whole crux of my portion of this discussion is that the only debateable point in the abortion issue is whether or not the unborn child is a living human. Everything else is inconsequential, and needlessly clouds the discussion.

Ok, well I guess i skimmed through the thread and didn't catch all you were saying. It just seemed that you were stating as fact that they were speaking for the "living human"... sorry

I also would like to point out that although you said thats the only thing to debate you have been debating other aspects of this topic in this very thread...

[CaptainCrunch]

[/quote]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

This is actually not true. A zygote does none of those things. Neither does a blastocyst. Most of them are not even done by an embryo. In fact, the first "waste" created by the body does not happen until it is well into the fetal stage, some 11 weeks after conception. First they urinate into the amniotic fluid, and the first stool (miconium) appears in the GI tract only at 16 or 17 weeks after conception. A baby doesn't "take breath" until it is born. It doesn't "absorb food" until the placenta is formed, and begins to provide nutrients to the embryo, which happens around 12 weeks. Before that, the nutrients come from a yolk sac inside the gestational sac.

I stand corrected. My bad

[/quote]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

What about a situation where that life that has done nothing wrong, through no fault of its own threatens the life of the mother? What do you do in that case?

I think I stated before that I felt that in that situation the mothers physical health has to be the priority. I know that makes me a bit of a hypocrite, but what can you do?

[V]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Ok, well I guess i skimmed through the thread and didn't catch all you were saying. It just seemed that you were stating as fact that they were speaking for the "living human"... sorry

I also would like to point out that although you said thats the only thing to debate you have been debating other aspects of this topic in this very thread...

I keep trying to get back to the fact that it's the only debateable point. I never said I was the most cohesive debater.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Captain Crunch

I think I stated before that I felt that in that situation the mothers physical health has to be the priority. I know that makes me a bit of a hypocrite, but what can you do?

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.