What is your deffinition of abortion? [Archive]

mattv2099

02-27-2005, 03:12 PM

I am just wondering what you all think of abortion and we should probably have a thread about it...

I am pretty much a right winger (not so much of a Bush fan), but i dont agree with right wingers at all half of the time, this is one of them. This whole left right thing is kinda silly really...

Any way here is what i feel it should be like:

A woman should have the right to have an abortion at any time, but cannot kill the baby after it has come out of the womb... and that the husband has no say in weather the baby gets aborted or not.

I believe it is kinda silly that people draw a line in the sand by saying the you can only have an abortion have X ammount of weeks. Next thing you know theyll say that using condoms is abortion and so is the day after pill.

DAMN YOU RELIGION!!! :mumble: :mumble: :stosh:

I'm from a pretty liberal area of the country and consider myself extremely liberal...

however... As far as abortion is concerned there is a time when it is OK and a time when it is not OK.

for instance. morning after pill or early abortion are OK by me.
However, an 8th month abortion is completely evil and wrong, in my opinion. If the kid could survive outside of the womb then i definately think it's murder if you abort. The problem is I am not qualified to decide when it's ok and when it's wrong. say if a woman gets kicked int he stomach in the first month and has a mis caraaige.. coolness. but if some chick is due to give birth and 1 week before the due date has an abortion. dude that's just f*cked up and wrong.

Changleen

02-27-2005, 03:20 PM

Morning After Pill = Fine, should be promoted more.
Abortion should be freely and discreetly availible in the first and second trimester, and availible under medical advice in the third trimester under exceptional circumstances such as dangers to the health of the mother.
I have no 'moral' issues with the destruction of a foetus before it is demonstrably and normally 'conscious' and 'self aware'. I do not believe this occurs until after birth, but would allow for the possibilty in the later stages of pregnancy, hence my attitude toward third trimester abortion.
Until it becomes self aware then I really don't think it's fundamentally different from any other collection of living cells, such as a tomato.

mack

02-27-2005, 03:21 PM

genetically you're 16% more like your mom than your dad?

NO NO NO!!! damn it cant be true... wait genetics... that doesnt mean I think like her does it? I hope not. :dead:

dhtahoe

02-27-2005, 03:29 PM

I'm from a pretty liberal area of the country and consider myself extremely liberal...

however... As far as abortion is concerned there is a time when it is OK and a time when it is not OK.

for instance. morning after pill or early abortion are OK by me.
However, an 8th month abortion is completely evil and wrong, in my opinion. If the kid could survive outside of the womb then i definately think it's murder if you abort. The problem is I am not qualified to decide when it's ok and when it's wrong. say if a woman gets kicked int he stomach in the first month and has a mis caraaige.. coolness. but if some chick is due to give birth and 1 week before the due date has an abortion. dude that's just f*cked up and wrong.

Well said Matt. We just had a scary thing happen to us and I'm glad it's legal. Back in 2000 I had cancer so the chances of me fathering a child was slim and none. Well as it turns out slim had not left town and my girl got pregnet. At first we were sooooo excited. The bummer was that she is on Acutane the acne drug that has been in the news alot lately because it has been causing SEVERE birth defects. By law she had to terminate it. But hey now I have proven the doctors wrong... Again. Oh and to top it all off he father owns a "womans clinic" in Vagas and is the third Dr. on the pro-life hit list. So I am for it all the way.

$tinkle

02-27-2005, 03:34 PM

i think changleen should be re-defined as a foetus in his/her 25th+ trimester & let us exercise our right to choose.

maybe then he'd appreciate my pro-life stance just a little more

-dustin

02-27-2005, 03:35 PM

off-subject-

that Acutane...man, i was gonna get on that, but i've heard some bad news regarding it. seems like it works wonders, but can have some intense side effects.

-back to subject.

Silver

02-27-2005, 03:53 PM

Since I don't feel like typing, this is pretty much my view:

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

I also refuse to take the pro-life side of the debate even somewhat seriously as long as they are the same group of people (with a very large overlap, not perfect, but close) that want to keep birth control and sex education out of the hands of teenagers.

Changleen

02-27-2005, 03:55 PM

i think changleen should be re-defined as a foetus in his/her 25th+ trimester & let us exercise our right to choose.

maybe then he'd appreciate my pro-life stance just a little moreAre you pro-life because killing children is absolutely evil no matter what?

binary visions

02-27-2005, 05:21 PM

off-subject-

that Acutane...man, i was gonna get on that, but i've heard some bad news regarding it. seems like it works wonders, but can have some intense side effects.

-back to subject.
--continuing off subject--
This will make you never want to use Accutane:
http://www.rocheusa.com/products/accutane/pi.pdf

I just read the first 15 pages and ... :eek: !!

dhtahoe

02-27-2005, 06:40 PM

off-subject-

that Acutane...man, i was gonna get on that, but i've heard some bad news regarding it. seems like it works wonders, but can have some intense side effects.

-back to subject.

Oh man stay away. It causes extreme mood swings, depression, birth defects. She switched to pro-active and it's better I think. Not to mention that it has little or in her case no side effects. Try that.

Game on.

-dustin

02-27-2005, 06:46 PM

i used that a while ago. wasn't too impressed. i've tried 3 or 4 different treatments...Proactive, some rx stuff, some rx cream, and Neutrogena. none really impressed me too much. but i'm also not one of the severe cases, either. the rx stuff made my skin waaay sensitive. i'd get done riding and it would feel like my face was on fire. i'm liking Neutrogena. store generally has it on sale, and it's pretty mild.

Changleen

02-27-2005, 08:36 PM

The Kadvang

02-27-2005, 08:49 PM

Doc once told me moderate UV exposure was one of the best treatments for such things. A healthy tan is very beneficial. Just don't go melanoma wild.

Very true... I swim every day and so have a deep tan + the drying of the chlorine helps alot... I have almost no acne at all.

-dustin

02-27-2005, 08:56 PM

doesn't a deep tan helping go against a lot of what dermatologists say?

mack

02-27-2005, 08:56 PM

-dustin

02-27-2005, 08:58 PM

pretend i'm loco -

you mean "a lot", don't you?

is there a law regarding age limit for purchasing condoms? i'd assume no, but i've never actually asked anyone.

mack

02-27-2005, 09:03 PM

I wouldnt know either... unfortunatly ive never needed one. Damn. :angry:

-dustin

02-27-2005, 09:05 PM

just 'cause you don't need one doesn't mean you can't buy them. we used to buy them and tape them to exhaust pipes. or pee in them and throw them at a certain someone.

The Kadvang

02-27-2005, 09:10 PM

is there a law regarding age limit for purchasing condoms? i'd assume no, but i've never actually asked anyone.

I don't believe so... hell I'm 16 and I've never had any trouble :sneaky:

-dustin

02-27-2005, 09:12 PM

the flavored/glow in the dark/scented one in the bathroom don't count.

mack

02-27-2005, 09:16 PM

I don't believe so... hell I'm 16 and I've never had any trouble :sneaky:

Bastard, it is discomforting to know that other people my age are getting some :angry: W/e, i will just have to settle with 3rd.

The Kadvang

02-27-2005, 09:24 PM

the flavored/glow in the dark/scented one in the bathroom don't count.

Hahahaha

-dustin

02-27-2005, 09:24 PM

mack, chicks will dig innocence in college. at least, quality chicks will.

The Kadvang

02-27-2005, 09:43 PM

mack, chicks will dig innocence in college. at least, quality chicks will.

shuttup

ALEXIS_DH

02-27-2005, 10:35 PM

am quite liberal but i believe abortion is any interruption of the embryo any time AFTER the embryo has implanted itself on the walls of the uterus.

once the embryo has implanted, BANG!, you got a kid in progress. and touching it, is killing a whole new life (as evidenced by the new dna), doesnt matter if its unconscious or not. that is BS makeup to cover what really has a name.

morning after pills are OK with me, since they work by not allowing the embryo to stick to the uterus walls.

ALEXIS_DH

02-27-2005, 10:40 PM

mack, chicks will dig innocence in college. at least, quality chicks will.

bwhahahahahahaha. one thing is voluntary innocence, and another is not getting laid even trying.
girls can smell the difference...

Silver

02-27-2005, 10:42 PM

TheInedibleHulk

02-27-2005, 10:42 PM

Uh, hem... <back on subject>

I think that once the old people die and the 30 year olds get to be 50 there will be allot more abortions and less people running around saying that young kids cannot buy condoms.

Shouldn't more condoms equal less unwanted pregnancies and therefore less abortions? I think abortion is an ugly thing and I sincerely hope that one day it becomes obsolete. My personal values and convictions tell me that abortion is wrong, but I can admit that it is a grey issue and my beliefs are influenced by morays that come from a religious tradition. Because of this fact, I do not think the government should outlaw abortion entirely since it is not the place of the government to tell people what they should believe. That said, partial birth and 3rd trimester abortions are murder. If the fetus can survive on its own than how can you even deny that it is not a seperate human being from the mother? If I had my way any mother that has ever had, or any doctor that ever performed a partial birth abortion would be considered culpabale for first degree murder. Scum of the earth.

It is highly unfortunate and illogical that often the same people who are against abortion are also against sexual education and safe sex. I doesnt make a damn bit of sense and I can provide no explanation for it other than that those people are stupid jackasses.

ALEXIS_DH

02-27-2005, 10:49 PM

That doesn't make sense. You have new DNA before the embryo implants in the uterus.

I just thought of something else too...what do pro-lifers think about ectopic pregnancies?

yup, but until it doesnt reach the uterus walls is just polen in the wind... like with embryos in labs and stuff.

i dont say that it shouldnt be touched ONLY because is new DNA. i say once it has IMPLANTED into the moms, is alive and able to continue its growth but at the same time, a different entity from the mother.

while it hasnt attached to the uterus, is new dna with no chances of development, like any little piece of tissue.

-dustin

02-27-2005, 10:53 PM

bwhahahahahahaha. one thing is voluntary innocence, and another is not getting laid even trying.
girls can smell the difference...

true.

Silver

02-27-2005, 11:02 PM

yup, but until it doesnt reach the uterus walls is just polen in the wind... like with embryos in labs and stuff.

i dont say that it shouldnt be touched ONLY because is new DNA. i say once it has IMPLANTED into the moms, is alive and able to continue its growth but at the same time, a different entity from the mother.

while it hasnt attached to the uterus, is new dna with no chances of development, like any little piece of tissue.

Well, it's only going one way. If you assume that a full human life is at stake right after implantation, then surely taking away the ability to implant by artificial means isn't right.

ALEXIS_DH

02-27-2005, 11:17 PM

then surely taking away the ability to implant by artificial means isn't right.

i dont understand that. care to elaborate??

Silver

02-27-2005, 11:24 PM

i dont understand that. care to elaborate??

Like birth, there is nothing magical about the moment of implantation. If the fetus is human (and by human I don't mean simply genetically) after implantation, it's human before implantation.

caputo1989

02-27-2005, 11:30 PM

I am a facist. LOL

J/K I am conservitive though i dont care if a woman wants to have an abortion.
But i think the woman should only be in a early stage of pregnancy to have one.

ALEXIS_DH

02-27-2005, 11:32 PM

Like birth, there is nothing magical about the moment of implantation. If the fetus is human (and by human I don't mean simply genetically) after implantation, it's human before implantation.

but a embryo floating around doesnt stand any chance at all of development, so its already a truncated life. it is not a kid in progress and wont be, UNLESS an external force act upon it.

on the other hand an embryo sticked to the walls of the uterus will develop into a kid unless external forces act upon it.

one will never be unless you help, and the other will be unless you interrupt.

fluff

02-28-2005, 08:23 AM

but a embryo floating around doesnt stand any chance at all of development, so its already a truncated life. it is not a kid in progress and wont be, UNLESS an external force act upon it.

on the other hand an embryo sticked to the walls of the uterus will develop into a kid unless external forces act upon it.

one will never be unless you help, and the other will be unless you interrupt.
A baby after birth has no chance of development without an external force acting on it. Try telling me that ain't human..

$tinkle

02-28-2005, 08:43 AM

I just thought of something else too...what do pro-lifers think about ectopic pregnancies?that & other complications which are inviable & a threat to the life of the would-be mother should be terminated.

my vows are first & foremost to my wife/marriage; hence my creed: "let all that may become, be"

one thing i have not considered, but would also like fellow pro-lifers to chime in on is what they consider to be the boundary for a "life". examples:
- severly disabled (cannot chew, swallow, ambulate)
- life expetancy of < 1 yr
- severly deformed

now THAT should bring some healthy debate/in-fighting.

$tinkle

02-28-2005, 08:47 AM

Shouldn't more condoms equal less unwanted pregnancies and therefore less abortions? I think abortion is an ugly thing and I sincerely hope that one day it becomes obsolete.
<snip>
this is going to hurt you more than it hurts me...

i agree with your post

ALEXIS_DH

02-28-2005, 09:42 AM

A baby after birth has no chance of development without an external force acting on it. Try telling me that ain't human..

a newborn is definately a human, so the same criteria doesnt apply to decide whether or not its a kill.

llkoolkeg

02-28-2005, 09:57 AM

Why do we need yet another thread on abortion when there has been a new one every six months or so since RM came online? Use the *search* function and stop picking at old scabs.

Suffice it to say Mack's position is completely idiotic and Changleen's one skip this side of that. I applaud Changleen, however, for finally finishing somewhere other than Dead Fuggin' Last.

binary visions

02-28-2005, 10:17 AM

Suffice it to say Mack's position is completely idiotic
Shocker, huh?

TheInedibleHulk

02-28-2005, 10:55 AM

this is going to hurt you more than it hurts me...

i agree with your post

I was afraid of that :D

llkoolkeg

02-28-2005, 11:37 AM

Shocker, huh?

Thanks, but no thanks. Too early in the day for that brand of eye-opener. ;)

binary visions

02-28-2005, 12:04 PM

Thanks, but no thanks. Too early in the day for that brand of eye-opener. ;)
Maybe some other time, then?

I'll buy you dinner first, if it'll make you feel better.

llkoolkeg

02-28-2005, 12:08 PM

Maybe some other time, then?

I'll buy you dinner first, if it'll make you feel better.

Hahaha...not to be a buzzkill, but again, I'll have to pass. :D

Andyman_1970

02-28-2005, 12:20 PM

Why do we need yet another thread on abortion when there has been a new one every six months or so since RM came online? Use the *search* function and stop picking at old scabs.

I agree, this is a dead horse let's stop beating it............

-BB-

02-28-2005, 12:23 PM

Abortion = Bailing off your bike mid Jump.

;)

mack

02-28-2005, 01:46 PM

I dont understand how my position is idiotic?

Other than you are and Ass and feel the need to insult people when you dont agree. :stosh:

llkoolkeg

02-28-2005, 02:08 PM

I dont understand how my position is idiotic?

Other than you are and Ass and feel the need to insult people when you dont agree. :stosh:

I didn't answer specifically because I have already done so here SO MANY TIMES in the past. If you want to see what was idiotic, behold:

A woman should have the right to have an abortion at any time, but cannot kill the baby after it has come out of the womb... and that the husband has no say in weather the baby gets aborted or not.

I believe it is kinda silly that people draw a line in the sand by saying the you can only have an abortion have X ammount of weeks. Next thing you know theyll say that using condoms is abortion and so is the day after pill.

DAMN YOU RELIGION!!! :mumble: :mumble: :stosh:

I do not deny that I am an ass, but I take issue with your second statement. I insult people that I both agree AND disagree with.

To indulge you briefly, though, saying that women should be able to kill their children up to the point they push them out of the womb belies not only your ignorance of anatomy and biology, but it is also a position so indefensible that only the most extreme of "womens' rights" advocates even dare to speak it. Saying that men have no rights whatsoever in the issue is rather naive, also. If you did have any knowledge of human development, you would not have made such a silly statement as the last one. You should be not angry at religion, but at yourself for not listening in class more. Then again, as long as you can shoot the stork an email telling him not to deliver the baby, I guess all's well that ends well, right?

Really, Mack, I have no personal issue with you but you should really research a topic more thoroughly before making such foolish pronouncements.

Andyman_1970

02-28-2005, 02:24 PM

.........you should really research a topic more thoroughly before making such foolish pronouncements.

OWN3D................

(I've always wanted to do that.......)

fluff

02-28-2005, 02:47 PM

OWN3D................

(I've always wanted to do that.......)

Dude, nooooooo! Please don't do that again.

mack

02-28-2005, 03:04 PM

I

To indulge you briefly, though, saying that women should be able to kill their children up to the point they push them out of the womb belies not only your ignorance of anatomy and biology,

Maybe that was a little redundant on my part... but in many past and present cultures people consider their children property. Why dont humans kill other humans? Why is it wrong, people kill deer without blinking an eye, so why cant you dismantle a creature that you have created. Maybe i am just a evil person and my connection with society is some what vague. I just want to know what makes it wrong.

I dont really see what my ignorance of science class has to do with this, weather the baby is alive or not i still think it is a right not to have one.

I am going to delete this thread in a few hours then...

-dustin

02-28-2005, 03:47 PM

ridemonkey would die if posts weren't repeated.

no, it would revive around Interbike, then go into a coma for 10months. awaken, sleep, awaken, sleep...

llkoolkeg

02-28-2005, 03:48 PM

Maybe that was a little redundant on my part... but in many past and present cultures people consider their children property. Why dont humans kill other humans? Why is it wrong, people kill deer without blinking an eye, so why cant you dismantle a creature that you have created. Maybe i am just a evil person and my connection with society is some what vague. I just want to know what makes it wrong.

I dont really see what my ignorance of science class has to do with this, weather the baby is alive or not i still think it is a right not to have one.

I am going to delete this thread in a few hours then...

Well, now we are entering into a much broader philosophical debate.
Humans DO kill other humans. There are only a very few "acceptable" reasons for doing so, e.g. self-defense, war, etc. Deer = non-human; human = human...two totally different premises. You CAN dismantle a creature you have created, but in many cases, it is wrong to do so. Even though it was a plodding story at times, you might enjoy this topic as addressed by Ron Howard in the movie "A.I.". I didn't say you were evil, but I did suggest that more research into human development (week-by-week) would profit your ability to discuss the topic knowledgeably. The reason I suggest this is because the more science and medicine teaches us about the development of babies, the more it becomes obvious that killing unborn babies is wrong...independent of whether or not you believe in God. The popular belief (or at least, party line) amongst many hard-line "women’s rights" advocates is that a baby is not a baby until it is born into this world. This is a self-serving, conscience-easing falsehood propagated for political gain that becomes all the more obvious to rational thinkers as babies are born grossly premature, yet still live and grow to become fully-functional members of society. I agree that women have a right not to have children; I just don't believe they have a right to kill them once they have already been created except for the most grievous of circumstances that can already be addressed with "morning after" pills.

Silver

02-28-2005, 05:58 PM

The reason I suggest this is because the more science and medicine teaches us about the development of babies, the more it becomes obvious that killing unborn babies is wrong...independent of whether or not you believe in God.

Actually, that's a very non-obvious point. Care to elaborate on that?

Toshi

02-28-2005, 07:28 PM

Actually, that's a very non-obvious point. Care to elaborate on that?
i agree. i like to think that i've studied a bit of biology, human development, and anatomy, and yet i fail to see a clear "right" viewpoint, let alone consensus among the "educated". llkoolkeg, good try in smacking mack down but you can't hide behind or justify your personal position with science on this one.

ALEXIS_DH

02-28-2005, 07:44 PM

Toshi

02-28-2005, 07:48 PM

ALEXIS_DH

02-28-2005, 08:19 PM

mack

02-28-2005, 08:23 PM

Id just like to ad that you all were 16 somtime too. :blah:

Changleen

02-28-2005, 09:08 PM

Suffice it to say Mack's position is completely idiotic and Changleen's one skip this side of that. I applaud Changleen, however, for finally finishing somewhere other than Dead Fuggin' Last.Whatever hippy. My position is the law so :eviltongu

$tinkle

02-28-2005, 09:16 PM

i'm also fond of the criteria of whether a fetus could survive on its own outside the womb.malaproping "criteria" aside, isn't a fetus outside the womb called a baby?

Changleen

02-28-2005, 09:23 PM

Hmm, How timely:

Another attempt by your retarded administration to take a good step back to the stone age:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1427583,00.html

America urges UN to renounce abortion rights
The Bush administration was accused yesterday of trying to roll back efforts to improve the status of the world's women by demanding that the UN publicly renounce abortion rights.

America's demand overshadowed the opening yesterday of a conference intended to mark the 10th anniversary of the Beijing conference on the status of women, an event seen as a landmark in efforts to promote global cooperation on women's equality.

The US stand was also widely seen as further evidence of the sweeping policy change in Washington under the Bush presidency. The last four years have seen a steady erosion of government support for international population projects, due to the administration's opposition to abortion.

The UN's commission on the status of women had drafted a brief declaration reaffirming support for the Beijing declaration, and calling for further effort to implement its recommendations.

Organisers had hoped that informal discussions last week would reach a consensus on the draft, leaving the next fortnight clear for government officials and women's activists to hold more substantive talks on advancing economic equality and political participation, and fighting violence against women.

But those hopes were crushed in a closed-door session late last week when Washington demanded the declaration reaffirm its support for the declarations made in Beijing 10 years ago only if "they do not include the right to abortion", says a copy of the US text obtained by the Guardian.

"We were not able to conclude informal consultations as we had originally hoped and planned for," said Beatrice Maille, the vice-chair of the UN commission.

The chief of the US delegation, Sichan Siv, went on to tell his counterparts that Washington opposed the ratification of the international treaty on women's equality, as well as resolutions that would "place emphasis on 'rights' that not all member states accept, such as so-called 'sexual rights'."

Mr Siv also told diplomats that Washington opposed any move to seek funds from industrialised countries to implement the reforms called for under the Beijing declaration.

The stand left America almost entirely isolated at the pre-conference sessions. According to officials who were at the meetings, only the Vatican observer supported Washington's hard line. There was harsh criticism of the Bush administration yesterday from diplomats and women's activists.

"This sort of statement is a clear signal to everybody present that the US does not support the Beijing agreement perspective on the human rights of women," said Adrienne German, president of the International Women's Health Coalition.

"It clearly demonstrates that this government has taken a 180-degree reversal from the US government in 1995 and 2000."

Private talks were under way yesterday to persuade Washington to reverse its stand. Although there are expectations that the US will eventually relent, several officials accused the US of igniting the controversy - and sabotaging the conference - to try to score points with Bush supporters on the Christian right.

The Clinton administration was a strong supporter of the Beijing declaration in 1995, and until President Bush took power in 2001, Washington was viewed as a leader in international family planning efforts. The US government began providing aid to developing countries in 1965, and its organisations were seen as leaders in population control.

But President Bush has steadily reversed Washington's support for such initiatives, blocking US funds to the UN population fund, and diverting cash towards programmes promoting abstinence.

A spokesman for the US delegation described the controversy over Washington's stand on abortion as "motivated".

"We just wanted to make clear what the assumptions were about the Beijing document," said Rick Grenell, the US spokesman. "We don't believe that it recognises abortion as an international human right." :dead: Wankers. Complete and utter Wankers.

$tinkle

02-28-2005, 09:56 PM

Changleen

03-01-2005, 03:49 AM

gee, i wonder if this is just a "u.s. problem":

australia faces anti-abortion movement (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/213105_abortion23.html).

want some more fun? google for "john howard" "late term abortion". by the way, what was birth control back in the stone ages? you seem primed to offer pearls of wisdom on what is to us proles a convoluted topic.Just because a few Oz politicians feel the need to cowtow to the blindly religious segment of their populus doesn't mean they're gonna get anywhere with it - Fortunately the majority of Austrailians still have the sense they were born with.

The US is the only country making wild, innapropriate demands on the global stage these days. 'Throw Russia out of the G8!' - 'Renounce Abortion!' Thankfully everyone else will continue to ignore the increasingly isolated noisy fascist and it's childish concepts of self serving 'good and evil'.

As for birth control in the past, well, essentially there was none. Women died in horrible slow deaths from labour complications, children of rape were brought up hated an shunned by their families. Millions were forced into poverty from the burden of bringing up too many children. And now 'pro-life' advocates want to return us to those happy times. Huzzah! Go you. :stosh:

fluff

03-01-2005, 04:16 AM

fluff

03-01-2005, 04:17 AM

Id just like to ad that you all were 16 somtime too. :blah:
Yeah. And some of us were probably full of it at some point too. :evil:

MMike

03-01-2005, 06:45 AM

My four month old little boy cannot survive on his own, so not necessarily a relevant criterium.

Since becoming a father my views on abortion have changed somewhat.

Me too.... it happened right around that first ultrasound........

Andyman_1970

03-01-2005, 07:10 AM

Dude, nooooooo! Please don't do that again.

Sorry..................... :o:

llkoolkeg

03-01-2005, 08:15 AM

Whatever hippy. My position is the law so :eviltongu

Not that I feel particularly insulted, but just for the record, I am most definitely NOT a hippy. :rolleyes:

Jr_Bullit

03-01-2005, 08:32 AM

my view is that life begins when the fetus is visibly different from, say, a chicken or lizard fetus. (the similarities are shocking in early development.) i don't have a number for this.

i'm also fond of the criteria of whether a fetus could survive on its own outside the womb.

Just to support/define Toshi's statement :D

By "surive on its own outside the womb" you mean things like - be able to breathe on its own - be able to swallow/eat on its own (not intravenously thorugh a tube attached between it and it's mother).

Then don't you come back to the question of:
If you disagree with the concept of abortion for a normal, healthy child, do you believe it is the parents' right to choose abortion if the child can be proved to be deformed or malign in some way prior to it's birth?

$tinkle

03-01-2005, 08:47 AM

My four month old little boy cannot survivecongrats! i missed the general announcement...relevant criterium [sic].this may be the only indication you rideSince becoming a father my views on abortion have changed somewhat.having that in your face does give one pause, no? however i need to remind you any new found positions are under the duress of sleep deprivation.

maybe your opinion of torture will now slide a little right knowing what you can endure?

$tinkle

03-01-2005, 08:54 AM

The US is the only country making wild, innapropriate demands on the global stage these days. 'Throw Russia out of the G8!' - 'Renounce Abortion!' Thankfully everyone else will continue to ignore the increasingly isolated noisy fascist and it's childish concepts of self serving 'good and evil'. it would give me no greater honor than the UN to take on your point of view & pack up; maybe they should be in amsterdam - a true cultural hodge-podgeMillions were forced into poverty from the burden of bringing up too many children. i don't believe there were millions of people during the stone age, but i will understand your point to be hyperbolic in scopeAnd now 'pro-life' advocates want to return us to those happy times. the debate should be framed in terms of the value of lifeHuzzah! :stosh:no-one here says that; it never caught on. you hear someone trying to talk american to you by saying that should be tea-bagged.

fluff

03-01-2005, 08:56 AM

congrats! i missed the general announcement
Thanks. My announcements tend to haphazard, this one particularly, for obvious reasons.

this may be the only indication you ride

I just thought that the singular of criteria would be criterium. Ride what?
having that in your face does give one pause, no? however i need to remind you any new found positions are under the duress of sleep deprivation.Ah sleep, I remember that.

maybe your opinion of torture will now slide a little right knowing what you can endure?
Perhaps, although my position is mostly results-based.

llkoolkeg

03-01-2005, 10:23 AM

i agree. i like to think that i've studied a bit of biology, human development, and anatomy, and yet i fail to see a clear "right" viewpoint, let alone consensus among the "educated". llkoolkeg, good try in smacking mack down but you can't hide behind or justify your personal position with science on this one.

I never said that there was a clear "right" viewpoint. If it were clear and obvious to most people, there would be little debate. What I am saying is that as the age of viability continues to decrease due to scientific and medical advances, it becomes harder and harder to justify killing babies that could otherwise live. BTW, have you seen the latest 3-D intrauterine imaging technologies? Perhaps prospective abortion "patients" should have 15 minutes alone in a room with the new sonograms hooked up and going real-time before the procedure can go forth. A brief meet-&-greet, if you will, between a baby and his mother before final consent for the procedure is collected. Why should a woman be able to make such a critically important decision in a comparative emotional vacuum w/o ALL the ramifications of it before her? Even convicted murderers get the opportunity to make a final appeal to the governer for a stay of execution. Surely an unborn child deserves no less! Then again, abortionists are not interested in putting before their customers information that would surely impact profits negatively.

My goal is not to smack anyone down; my jollies are not met so easily and I have nothing against Mack personally. It is to prod people to open their eyes, consider current relevant data, and think before they parrot the answer that they feel is most consistent with their chosen political affiliations or status as a person deemed sensitive to females and their issues. I personally find it nauseating that supposedly "pro-women" groups can find nothing more worthy of their time and passion than lobbying for their continued "right" to off their offspring for no reason greater than inconvenient timing. Whatever happened to "equal pay for equal work"? Is there yet a cure for breast cancer or an effective treatment for endometriosis? Apparently, such issues are less worthy of effort than advancing the state-of-the-art in fetal death and disposal. Maybe 24-hour abortion clinics would be nice with layaway or flexible financing options. Perhaps throw up a flat panel plasma w/ Dolby 7.1 in the procedure room, comfier chairs, umbrella drinks and hors d' ourves and turn it into a real pleasant experience!

Silver

03-01-2005, 10:38 AM

fluff

03-01-2005, 10:44 AM

So the definition of human depends on the current state of medical technology?

By that reasoning, abortions in third world countries don't count as killing a human, and ones in first world countries do.
I didnt think third world deaths at any age registered as a blip in the West..

You're twisting his argument. If medical research suddenly demonstrated conciousness at 8 weeks then those who seek medical proof would have a new barometer.

mack

03-01-2005, 10:46 AM

You're twisting his argument. If medical research suddenly demonstrated conciousness at 8 weeks then those who seek medical proof would have a new barometer.

No I think Silver has a good point.

$tinkle

03-01-2005, 10:53 AM

So the definition of human depends on the current state of medical technology?

By that reasoning, abortions in third world countries don't count as killing a human, and ones in first world countries do.the definition would transcend geo-political borders.

if only such were also true of genocide, eh? maybe then the sudan would get help all the sooner to prevent the continuance of the ethnic [read: chrisitian] cleansing.

oh, was i supposed to stay on topic?

llkoolkeg

03-01-2005, 11:06 AM

So the definition of human depends on the current state of medical technology?

By that reasoning, abortions in third world countries don't count as killing a human, and ones in first world countries do.

No. The definition of a human depends upon a fertilized egg implanting and cell division and growth proceeding unless acted upon by an unnatrual external force...kinda like that fetus-sucking shop vac or the chop-shop "extraction" tools. The definition you speak of is only the most basic and minimal one relevant to a particular population. But for a scant few exceptions, abortion is wrong wherever it takes place. If the child's life can be spared, however, it should be spared. I would say it's fairly obvious and not particularly relevant to the scope of this debate that the ability of local hospitals to save the lives of children varies greatly.

Silver

03-01-2005, 11:06 AM

the definition would transcend geo-political borders.

if only such were also true of genocide, eh? maybe then the sudan would get help all the sooner to prevent the continuance of the ethnic [read: chrisitian] cleansing.

oh, was i supposed to stay on topic?

You're willing to pay for health care in third world countries then? I think we may have a breakthrough here...

Silver

03-01-2005, 11:20 AM

No. The definition of a human depends upon a fertilized egg implanting and cell division and growth proceeding unless acted upon by an unnatrual external force...

Serious question here: Would you consider a zombie human?

(Zombie in the philosophical sense, not the horror movie sense. I'm talking about a being that is functionally like us, but absent conscious experience.)

$tinkle

03-01-2005, 11:23 AM

You're willing to pay for health care in third world countries then? I think we may have a breakthrough here...you mean more health care? not sure if you're talking about abortion in general or genocide :wretchedly_confused:

$tinkle

03-01-2005, 11:23 AM

Serious question here: Would you consider a zombie human?

(Zombie in the philosophical sense, not the horror movie sense. I'm talking about a being that is functionally like us, but absent conscious experience.)burly would most likely hit it

llkoolkeg

03-01-2005, 11:42 AM

Silver

03-01-2005, 11:46 AM

That would depend upon what his genus and species are.

He'd be human, wouldn't he? All he's missing is conscious experiences.

You think that taxonomy defines our existence?

llkoolkeg

03-01-2005, 11:51 AM

He'd be human, wouldn't he? All he's missing is conscious experiences.

You think that taxonomy defines our existence?

No; just being a wiseass and assisting you in steering the debate onto an offramp and away from abortion.

Silver

03-01-2005, 11:53 AM

No; just being a wiseass and assisting you in steering the debate onto an offramp and away from abortion.

I'm not trying to move the debate away. I'm trying to get you to justify your statement made earlier to mack. You're not doing very well.

llkoolkeg

03-01-2005, 11:56 AM

I'm not trying to move the debate away. I'm trying to get you to justify your statement made earlier to mack. You're not doing very well(in my personal estimation).

Which one? The one about werewolves or the one about vampires? :D

Speaking of Mack,

Mack- can you PLEASE correct the spelling of 'definition' in the thread title? It's driving me nuts every time I click it!

Toshi

03-01-2005, 12:02 PM

BTW, have you seen the latest 3-D intrauterine imaging technologies? Perhaps prospective abortion "patients" should have 15 minutes alone in a room with the new sonograms hooked up and going real-time before the procedure can go forth. A brief meet-&-greet, if you will, between a baby and his mother before final consent for the procedure is collected.
no, but i have seen photos of and actual fetuses from just about every stage of development. i think it was tulane that had a particularly grisly museum of embryos and fetuses...

Silver

03-01-2005, 12:09 PM

Which one? The one about werewolves or the one about vampires? :D

Speaking of Mack,

Mack- can you PLEASE correct the spelling of 'definition' in the thread title? It's driving me nuts every time I click it!

Why do you feel the need to doctor quotes? ****, I hate that.

llkoolkeg

03-01-2005, 12:10 PM

no, but i have seen photos of and actual fetuses from just about every stage of development. i think it was tulane that had a particularly grisly museum of embryos and fetuses...

I have noticed amongst members of the medical community a pervasive cold detachment from both the living and the divine. I have always concluded that it is a self-defense mechanism to protect their fragile IDs from the harsh realities of an exceedingly complex world that cannot always be boiled down to a quantifiable phenomenon or mathematical formula.

llkoolkeg

03-01-2005, 12:12 PM

Why do you feel the need to doctor quotes? ****, I hate that.

Just being lazy. Sorry. That's why I put it in parentheses.

Toshi

03-01-2005, 12:15 PM

I have noticed amongst members of the medical community a pervasive cold detachment from both the living and the divine. I have always concluded that it is a self-defense mechanism to protect their fragile IDs from the harsh realities of an exceedingly complex world that cannot always be boiled down to a quantifiable phenomenon or mathematical formula.
funny you mention that. :D i probably am that way just by my nature, but the majority of my class is extremely touchy-feely, i-love-babies-and-kittens!, and dedicated to primary care. furthermore, they seem to hate physics (while i love it), just to pick one example from the curriculum.

ALEXIS_DH

03-01-2005, 12:30 PM

no, but i have seen photos of and actual fetuses from just about every stage of development. i think it was tulane that had a particularly grisly museum of embryos and fetuses...

i have seen those!!, when i was like 14 i went to a med school and saw hundreds of jelly jars with fetuses inside from all kinds, shapes, malformations and ages, and in third world stardards of maintenance.. waaaaaaay more visceral than watchng faces of death, or paramedics....

so, for all those who say human life depends on consciousness... what about temporal unconsciousness??

like if you pass out, or in a temporal comma, or knocked out cold by a punch in the head, or under deep trance in hypnosis.... do you give up your human-dom then??? is the killing of a temporarily unconscious being a murder??? isnt a fetus in the fist months a temporarily unconscious being??

Silver

03-01-2005, 12:39 PM

Temporary unconsciousness is a bit different from potential consciousness.

That reminds me...I still need to type up a living will. Damn, I keep putting that off.

ALEXIS_DH

03-01-2005, 12:48 PM

Temporary unconsciousness is a bit different from potential consciousness.

That reminds me...I still need to type up a living will. Damn, I keep putting that off.

care to explain what are the main points of the difference??? and how it applies to the unborn??

dont most "unconscious" fetus in the 3rd trimester actually get to go into the "conscious" 2nd trimester???

Silver

03-01-2005, 12:57 PM

I think you meant 1st to 2nd.

And the answer is no. With the stats I've seen (and maybe Toshi can help out here) up to half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.

ALEXIS_DH

03-01-2005, 01:05 PM

I think you meant 1st to 2nd.

And the answer is no. With the stats I've seen (and maybe Toshi can help out here) up to half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.

depends again where you draw the line of a pregnancy. if you say pregnancy starts with the fertilized egg, then yes, most pregnancies end before the the 9th month.
if you think pregnancy starts with implantation, then the % of failed pregnancies decreases a lot.

but, well, lets say it a 50-50 chance of a 1st trimester fetus surviving into the 2nd....

for the sake of the argument, lets make up the situation in which 50% of the people in temporary unconsicousness get to survive ... would it be ok to kill them then??? (and by kill i mean purposely interrumpting their lifes, not just "not helping" only).

$tinkle

03-01-2005, 01:05 PM

With the stats I've seen (and maybe Toshi can help out here) up to half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.i'd like some clarity on that too, along w/ "mortality" or "success" rates among the implanted by sex. (i've heard that although "male" sperm are better swimmers, they are less likely to hang on to the uteran wall)

isn't spontaneous abortion "miscarriage"? probably a toe-MAH-toe/toe-MAH-toe thing.

Silver

03-01-2005, 01:10 PM

depends again where you draw the line of a pregnancy. if you say pregnancy starts with the fertilized egg, then yes, most pregnancies end before the the 9th month.
if you think pregnancy starts with implantation, then the % of failed pregnancies decreases a lot.

but, well, lets say it a 50-50 chance of a 1st trimester fetus surviving into the 2nd....

for the sake of the argument, lets make up the situation in which 50% of the people in temporary unconsicousness get to survive ... would it be ok to kill them then??? (and by kill i mean purposely interrumpting their lifes, not just "not helping" only).

Do I have to tote the unconscious guy around for 9 months to see? :sneaky:

ALEXIS_DH

03-01-2005, 01:18 PM

Do I have to tote the unconscious guy around for 9 months to see? :sneaky:

would that be relevant to the strict definition of murder??? :confused:

Silver

03-01-2005, 01:21 PM

would that be relevant to the strict definition of murder??? :confused:

We need a woman to chime in on this, since we've been ignoring that there are two entities involved here...

Where is Jr_Bullit? :sneaky:

So, no, not relevant to that, but relevant to the abortion debate.

ALEXIS_DH

03-01-2005, 01:24 PM

Silver

03-01-2005, 01:25 PM

isnt the abortion debate whether an abortion if a murder or not??

We murder fully formed humans all the time. The question is how should we treat potential ones.

ALEXIS_DH

03-01-2005, 01:32 PM

We murder fully formed humans all the time. The question is how should we treat potential ones.

if you start by the premise that a fetus is no more than a "potential human", then you have pretty much closed your argument already.

i think the abortion debate is about whether a fetus is a human or not, thus whether killing it is a murder or not.

we are discussing when does human life starts with the whole conscious argument. said argument is not about when "potential human" life starts.

potential is too vague... sperm is a potential human.. same with any cell now that we have cloning available....

$tinkle

03-01-2005, 01:35 PM

consider the bunker twins (http://www.blueridgecountry.com/twins/twins.html)

ALEXIS_DH

03-01-2005, 01:40 PM

consider the bunker twins (http://www.blueridgecountry.com/twins/twins.html)

i´ve thought about that... if abortion is ok, then a siamese twin should have the right to kill its unconscious siamese, or to chop it for parts, or to do whatever she/he wants with she/he??....

would it be ok to pluck the arm off a 1st trimester fetus, while its unconscious, or torture it, and then letting it grow into birth??? all as part "of the rights of a woman over her body"?? would that be no different than said woman tatooing or piercing herself.

Silver

03-01-2005, 01:45 PM

i´ve thought about that... if abortion is ok, then a siamese twin should have the right to kill its unconscious siamese, or to chop it for parts, or to do whatever she/he wants with she/he??....

In many of those operations that you see publicized to sepearate siamese twins, one of them is at much greater risk than the other.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/913083.stm

ALEXIS_DH

03-01-2005, 01:49 PM

In many of those operations that you see publicized to sepearate siamese twins, one of them is at much greater risk than the other.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/913083.stm

but that doesnt mean they are purposely killing one that would otherwise stay alive for a while.

ALEXIS_DH

03-01-2005, 01:51 PM

$tinkle

03-01-2005, 01:53 PM

from the beeb article"She is unnaturally hooked onto her sister, draining her sister's life and, in the end, is going to kill her sister.should she then have been charged w/ murder (as a juvenile, obviously)?

interesting to see how jodie & her family is doing these days

Silver

03-01-2005, 01:53 PM

well, again if anyone wants to answer.

would it be ok to pluck the arm off a 1st trimester fetus, while its unconscious, or torture it, and then letting it grow into birth??? all as part "of the rights of a woman over her body"?? would that be no different than said woman tatooing or piercing herself.

does a life starts with pregnancy???

Ok in what sense?

I don't think cruelty to animals is ok either, but there is a difference between running over a dog for fun and running over a kid in a crosswalk for fun.

ALEXIS_DH

03-01-2005, 02:00 PM

Ok in what sense?

I don't think cruelty to animals is ok either, but there is a difference between running over a dog for fun and running over a kid in a crosswalk for fun.

but.. would it be it self-cruelty?? or is it cruelty to another human being??

llkoolkeg

03-01-2005, 02:02 PM

I have been quietly viewing this from time-to-time and must say that I am pleasantly surprised with Alexis' arguments. Normally, I'm too busy arguing with him about the U.S. South to notice that he might have something of value to contribute! :thumb:

Silver

03-01-2005, 02:07 PM

but.. would it be it self-cruelty?? or is it cruelty to another human being??

It's not self-cruelty. I'm not arguing that the fetus isn't another entity. I'm arguing that it's missing (for the first 6 months if you want to be safe, but probably longer than that) the very thing that makes a human special.

ALEXIS_DH

03-01-2005, 02:15 PM

It's not self-cruelty. I'm not arguing that the fetus isn't another entity. I'm arguing that it's missing (for the first 6 months if you want to be safe, but probably longer than that) the very thing that makes a human special.

and people knocked out cold, or people doped into unconsciousness, or deeply autistic people also lacking temporarily the very thing that makes a human special????

why is ok to interrupt the life of one, and not the other one???

how does temporarily differs from potential in this context???

what about the deeply autistic?? those with no chance at all of gaining consciousness and self awareness at all???

Silver

03-01-2005, 02:29 PM

and people knocked out cold, or people doped into unconsciousness, or deeply autistic people also lacking temporarily the very thing that makes a human special????

why is ok to interrupt the life of one, and not the other one???

how does temporarily differs from potential in this context???

what about the deeply autistic?? those with no chance at all of gaining consciousness and self awareness at all???

All of those examples have brain function. A first trimester fetus doesn't. Toshi could chime in here as well... :D

(I'm not speaking strictly of brain waves, either. My dog has those too. I'm talking about higher level functioning.)

$tinkle

03-01-2005, 02:36 PM

All of those examples have brain function. A first trimester fetus doesn't.as all adults have been children, who have all been babies, who have all been fetuses, who have all had brain development. (that last "who" may be a stretch - but don't let it distract)

shouldn't it just come to the fact that if you regard the life as having value, then dispense with these arbitrary lines in the sand? either you value life, or you don't.

we can intellectualize this to death, until more research has reached further into the abyss

llkoolkeg

03-01-2005, 02:41 PM

All of those examples have brain function. A first trimester fetus doesn't. Toshi could chime in here as well... :D

And if our powerful modern tools are not able to detect something, it therefore does not exist. It's a good thing that Zacharias Janssen, Robert Hooke and Anton van Leeuwenhoek did not share that opinion!

Silver

03-01-2005, 02:45 PM

as all adults have been children, who have all been babies, who have all been fetuses, who have all had brain development. (that last "who" may be a stretch - but don't let it distract)

shouldn't it just come to the fact that if you regard the life as having value, then dispense with these arbitrary lines in the sand? either you value life, or you don't.

we can intellectualize this to death, until more research has reached further into the abyss

Can we stop with the bull****? You don't value life any more than I do.

I don't think abortions are good. I don't think they should be illegal, however.

Silver

03-01-2005, 02:46 PM

And if our powerful modern tools are not able to detect something, it therefore does not exist. It's a good thing that Zacharias Janssen, Robert Hooke and Anton van Leeuwenhoek did not share that opinion!

Just say it. You believe in a soul, I don't. That's where we differ.

$tinkle

03-01-2005, 02:51 PM

Can we stop with the bull****? You don't value life any more than I do.having 2 mad-as-a-box-of-frogs-ex-gf's who have aborted, and now being a parent, i certainly value life more than i did years ago; we don't need to compare mastsI don't think abortions are good. I don't think they should be illegal, however.agreed.
however the capriciousness with which it is done needs to eliminated; this in turn will be for the greater good (imho)

ALEXIS_DH

03-01-2005, 02:55 PM

All of those examples have brain function. A first trimester fetus doesn't. Toshi could chime in here as well... :D

(I'm not speaking strictly of brain waves, either. My dog has those too. I'm talking about higher level functioning.)

what about when your "higher level of functioning" is impaired only temporarily, which is the case of a fetus.

strictly speaking, i dont think you dont have a higher level functioning when you pass out by lack of oxygen either....

does purposely interrupting a self-started act that would mantain alive a temporarily unconscious person is considered murder??

isnt abortion purposely interrumpting the fetus from reaching a conscious state that it would probably reach otherwise?????

Silver

03-01-2005, 03:02 PM

what about when your "higher level of functioning" is impaired only temporarily, which is the case of a fetus.

strictly speaking, i dont think you dont have a higher level functioning when you pass out by lack of oxygen either....

does purposely interrupting a self-started act that would mantain alive a temporarily unconscious person is considered murder??

isnt abortion purposely interrumpting the fetus from reaching a conscious state that it would probably reach otherwise?????

An unconscious person has brain activity.

llkoolkeg

03-01-2005, 03:51 PM

Just say it. You believe in a soul, I don't. That's where we differ.

True, but I think it's more than that. I simply do not believe in killing living things needlessly, lower animal or human, even though I don't think lower animals have a soul. My position on abortion has less to do with my religious beliefs than what I have learned and witnessed over the years about the human body and its development. I did not start practicing religion until much later in life. Doctors in my lifetime used to discount as nonsense parental protests against circumcision, too, basically saying that it was a minor procedure that the baby hardly feels, would never remember and that their agonized screaming afterwards was because "...babies cry; you'll have to get used to that pretty quick."

Human babies deserve better than to be killed and end up in a medical waste landfill or pickled in jar. If you take notice of where the predominant medical opinions lie with regard to nearly all matters of ethics, you will see that like lawyers, they usually follow the dollar. e.g. Aged vegetables need to be kept alive no matter what the cost because there is money to be made in sustaining their existence, especially if they are wealthy or covered by a good insurance policy. Here they "value life". Unborn babies, however, are not babies or even human- they are just unthinking clots of blood and cells to be disposed of like a tumor. I'm sure it is just a coincidence that unborn babies have no money, no rights, no legal advocates and don't have their own insurance policies to bilk.

ALEXIS_DH

03-01-2005, 06:00 PM

An unconscious person has brain activity.

i think using only the brain analogy to determine if something is alive or not, or human or not, or for example, comparing a brain dead 80yo and a brain dead fetus doesnt work quite well.

a 80yo old brain dead, doesnt grow anymore, its cells start to die right after... on the other hand, a "dead or un-human" 1st trimester fetus without brain actitivy, which according to such reasoning is dead, is still developing and its cells are reproducing and stuff, regardless of the brain activity, which it will probably develop...
so is not as "dead" as a grown-up brain dead.

Toshi

03-01-2005, 07:29 PM

ok, as it happens two of my lectures today were on birth defects. and the stats for first trimester were that 50% of pregnancies spontaneously abort during that period, with 30% of the total aborting unnoticed to the mother (detected using other means, monitoring hormones in particular), 10% being "normal" in the gross sense of not having duplicate or missing chromosomes, 10% having drastic chromosomal abnormalities. i don't have a citation handy but it was in an m.d.'s (a pathologist to be specific) lecture slides for what that's worth.

you pro-lifers, what are your stances on terminating pregnancies with catastrophic birth defects such as failure of the neural tube to close? where is your line drawn in terms of what should be allowed to come to term (and die a death within a month or a year without ever becoming conscious) and what shouldn't?

Silver

03-01-2005, 07:37 PM

i think using only the brain analogy to determine if something is alive or not, or human or not, or for example, comparing a brain dead 80yo and a brain dead fetus doesnt work quite well.

a 80yo old brain dead, doesnt grow anymore, its cells start to die right after... on the other hand, a "dead or un-human" 1st trimester fetus without brain actitivy, which according to such reasoning is dead, is still developing and its cells are reproducing and stuff, regardless of the brain activity, which it will probably develop...
so is not as "dead" as a grown-up brain dead.

Wait wait wait.

You said temporarily unconscious before. Not brain dead.

Jr_Bullit

03-01-2005, 09:31 PM

We need a woman to chime in on this, since we've been ignoring that there are two entities involved here...

Where is Jr_Bullit? :sneaky:

So, no, not relevant to that, but relevant to the abortion debate.

Ahhhh - thanks for thinkin of me darlin - I was in meetings all day ;). I'm not done catching up on what all you boys have been discussing today, but...one thought did occur in reviewing this thread...

Why is it only men seem to find this subject worthy of debate on this site? Or is it, because "men" (yes yes, you great evil lot ;) ) are viewed as trying to force women to do a particular thing with their bodies that they (men) will never fully comprehend, so thus women choose to not participate?
I haven't had kids yet - so all I can say is maybe once I have this particular argument will no longer have any interest for me at all...

In either case...to respond to the individual who wondered why "women are so eager to off their unborn child" first of all - what a bastardly thing to say...
and second of all - until you are in a position to do so yourself, then you really have no right to comment. A child and a mother's body are one - and the loss of the child affects the woman deeply - (I'm sure some of you won't agree with that, but regardless of the woman, you are cutting away a part of yourself that is growing to become another human).

Women are not eager to "off" their unborn children - they ARE eager to remove the influence of men on what they are "Allowed" to do with their bodies.
Sometimes I wonder if Abortion were legal, the debate dropped and women's right to choose accepted as a natural state of being, and there was conseling available for those who considered it an option, if the numbers of those who pursued it would drop naturally to those who physically or mentally cannot raise a child. I certainly wouldn't expect to see the numbers increase.

Sometimes, listening to those of you who froth over the prospect of a woman removing from her a life that is growing, I wonder if you picture women as some big black widow? An evil out to be conquered and stepped on, rather than treated wtih mutual respect and care?

Jr_Bullit

03-01-2005, 09:33 PM

as all adults have been children, who have all been babies, who have all been fetuses, who have all had brain development. (that last "who" may be a stretch - but don't let it distract)

shouldn't it just come to the fact that if you regard the life as having value, then dispense with these arbitrary lines in the sand? either you value life, or you don't.

we can intellectualize this to death, until more research has reached further into the abyss

Ahh stinkle - do you start to foam at the mouth when you click on the Poli Debate forum?

Silver

03-01-2005, 09:54 PM

Why is it only men seem to find this subject worthy of debate on this site? Or is it, because "men" (yes yes, you great evil lot ;) ) are viewed as trying to force women to do a particular thing with their bodies that they (men) will never fully comprehend, so thus women choose to not participate?

I think you're reading way too much into that. You're pretty much the only woman that ventures in here on a regular basis.

Jr_Bullit

03-02-2005, 08:00 AM

I think you're reading way too much into that. You're pretty much the only woman that ventures in here on a regular basis.

Good point....:think:

But it is true that I'm not sure I fully understand why men often seem more passionate on this subject then women...Except for the nutty elderly 80 yo that stands outside the abortion clinic in the southend with the sign...

$tinkle

03-02-2005, 08:27 AM

you pro-lifers, what are your stances on terminating pregnancies with catastrophic birth defects such as failure of the neural tube to close? where is your line drawn in terms of what should be allowed to come to term (and die a death within a month or a year without ever becoming conscious) and what shouldn't?that decision would need to be an informed one (obviously), and as of now, i'm pretty ignorant.

it would be noble to take this to term, & for it to endure/suffer until its death as you've described. it's quite another deal to go through with it.

suffice it to say, i'll keep my options open (until jr_b finds out, then i have no rights to even speak on this topic)

Jr_Bullit

03-02-2005, 08:33 AM

that decision would need to be an informed one (obviously), and as of now, i'm pretty ignorant.

it would be noble to take this to term, & for it to endure/suffer until its death as you've described. it's quite another deal to go through with it.

suffice it to say, i'll keep my options open (until jr_b finds out, then i have no rights to even speak on this topic)

Ahh yes - the noble woman is she who suffers through....

Toshi - could you explain what happens to the kiddo and mom in the situation you described?

And Stinkle - I didn't say you have no rights to debate this subject, I just find it odd that men are more passionate than women in debating it. It seems to coincide with my human anthropology professor's description of men: genetically, men will do what it takes to assure the successful birth of their seed, and since they cannot do more than simply fertilize, then they must fight the decisions the woman may make in regards to their "kids".

But - it still makes me laugh to read your responses, because they really do at times seem to be stated by someone who is frothing at the mouth, eager for battle.

$tinkle

03-02-2005, 08:33 AM

and second of all - until you are in a position to do so yourself, then you really have no right to comment. so we should overturn roe v. wade b/c the counselors & judges were male?
A child and a mother's body are one - and the loss of the child affects the woman deeply - (I'm sure some of you won't agree with that, but regardless of the woman, you are cutting away a part of yourself that is growing to become another human).if you mean one in the chromosonal sense, i disagree. also, there's two heartbeats; the unborn will demonstrate other signs of dependent yet separate life. i do see your point & have never disagreed that it affects the woman deeply. it's more the proponents of this issue (a lot of males!!!) with whom i take issue.Sometimes, listening to those of you who froth over the prospect of a woman removing from her a life that is growing, I wonder if you picture women as some big black widow? An evil out to be conquered and stepped on, rather than treated wtih mutual respect and care?it's not the woman doing the removing; maybe if abortion were legal but had to be performed by the would-be mother it would be given more thought well ahead of time? maybe then we would then - as you suggest - begin to treat the would-be mother with more respect.

llkoolkeg

03-02-2005, 09:16 AM

In either case...to respond to the individual who wondered why "women are so eager to off their unborn child" first of all - what a bastardly thing to say...
and second of all - until you are in a position to do so yourself, then you really have no right to comment. A child and a mother's body are one - and the loss of the child affects the woman deeply - (I'm sure some of you won't agree with that, but regardless of the woman, you are cutting away a part of yourself that is growing to become another human).

Women are not eager to "off" their unborn children - they ARE eager to remove the influence of men on what they are "Allowed" to do with their bodies.

Well, I'm not positive this was directed at me, but if it was, let me repost my misinterpreted quote-

"I personally find it nauseating that supposedly "pro-women" groups can find nothing more worthy of their time and passion than lobbying for their continued "right" to off their offspring for no reason greater than inconvenient timing.

Did I say women are eager to off their unborn children? No. Does my quote above make me a bastard? No, literally or figuratively. Let me paraphrase myself for clarity's sake- It makes me ill to see NOW and other such groups focus so much of their energy on fighting for what they call abortion rights when there are so many other worthy womens issues to fight for. Of course, abortion in not a right but a ghastly medical procedure allowed by law, but let's try and keep this simple. If they were only fighting to keep it legal in cases of medical necessity, rape, incest, or perhaps even very early in the 1st trimester, that would be one thing. That is not the case, however. They want abortion to be legal with almost no restrictions. Why should a baby have to die because his parents were stupid or careless? Why should a baby have to die because after things didn't work out with the dad, a mother decides to abort his child? Why should babies have to die because their creation-something THEY cannot be blamed for- occurs at a time inconvenient for the parents. Why should babies have to die because "condoms just don't feel good"? THAT is what pisses me off about pro-abortionists. The inability to see the procedure as inherently wrong or to support any rational regulation of it. I'd really love to thank the idiot who first verbalized the meritless "slippery slope" argument; undoubtedly, it was a lawyer. :rolleyes:

Now, regarding the comment that "until you are in a position to do so yourself, then you really have no right to comment." Bull$hit. Do I not live in this society too? As a citizen, do I not get a say in how our laws should be written and enforced? It is a fallacy to believe that only women get to decide laws that affect women. Most women don't have a penis, but they are certainly within their rights as citizens to have a say in laws that limit what I am allowed to do with mine! Don't assume I know nothing about the loss of a pregnancy, either, as a few years back, that happened to my wife right in front of me. It affected us both very deeply and from time-to-time, she cries over it even to this day. And please, do not equate the accidental loss of a pregnancy with the deliberate one. A woman who has a non-essential abortion SHOULD have to face the demons over her decision. Not at all the same as when two parents have planned and celebrated a pregnancy, announced it to others, prepared a nursery, discussed possible names before falling asleep...only to have a miscarriage destroy it all in a matter of moments. Why don't you try walking a mile in my shoes before telling me I have no right to comment on abortion.

The last sentance I quoted really says it all-

"Women are not eager to "off" their unborn children - they ARE eager to remove the influence of men on what they are "Allowed" to do with their bodies."

It's about power. Some women see a man's protest of abortion as nothing more than an attempt to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body. Newsflash- paying someone to kill your baby without a darn good reason is WRONG. It's like women have retreated so far from the concept of equality that they now feel that they have to hunker down and defend their last bastion of self-determination...their bodies. "We're not going to be paid as well, respected as much, honored as highly or consulted on matters of importance, but I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to let some guy tell me what I have to do with my body!" That, I believe, is almost as sad as abortion. To be made to feel so small and insignificant by society that the only way you can feel empowered is by holding the fragile life of an unborn child in the palm of your hand. God, what a pitiful world this is after all. :(

If jrb's commentary was not directed at me, I apologize...but I think I said what was needed to be said.

Toshi

03-02-2005, 12:22 PM

Toshi - could you explain what happens to the kiddo and mom in the situation you described?
the kid probably would be spontaneously aborted (that is, "naturally") before coming to term. if it did it would be born with no hope for ever being human, in the sense that if your neural tube doesn't close up top you don't have a brain (often accompanied by lack of skull and tissue -- just primordial nervous system tissue exposed to the winds).

Velocity Girl

03-02-2005, 12:47 PM

Well, I'm not positive this was directed at me, but if it was, let me repost my misinterpreted quote-

"I personally find it nauseating that supposedly "pro-women" groups can find nothing more worthy of their time and passion than lobbying for their continued "right" to off their offspring for no reason greater than inconvenient timing.

Did I say women are eager to off their unborn children? No. Does my quote above make me a bastard? No, literally or figuratively. Let me paraphrase myself for clarity's sake- It makes me ill to see NOW and other such groups focus so much of their energy on fighting for what they call abortion rights when there are so many other worthy womens issues to fight for. Of course, abortion in not a right but a ghastly medical procedure allowed by law, but let's try and keep this simple. If they were only fighting to keep it legal in cases of medical necessity, rape, incest, or perhaps even very early in the 1st trimester, that would be one thing. That is not the case, however. They want abortion to be legal with almost no restrictions. Why should a baby have to die because his parents were stupid or careless? Why should a baby have to die because after things didn't work out with the dad, a mother decides to abort his child? Why should babies have to die because their creation-something THEY cannot be blamed for- occurs at a time inconvenient for the parents. Why should babies have to die because "condoms just don't feel good"? THAT is what pisses me off about pro-abortionists. The inability to see the procedure as inherently wrong or to support any rational regulation of it. I'd really love to thank the idiot who first verbalized the meritless "slippery slope" argument; undoubtedly, it was a lawyer. :rolleyes:

Now, regarding the comment that "until you are in a position to do so yourself, then you really have no right to comment." Bull$hit. Do I not live in this society too? As a citizen, do I not get a say in how our laws should be written and enforced? It is a fallacy to believe that only women get to decide laws that affect women. Most women don't have a penis, but they are certainly within their rights as citizens to have a say in laws that limit what I am allowed to do with mine! Don't assume I know nothing about the loss of a pregnancy, either, as a few years back, that happened to my wife right in front of me. It affected us both very deeply and from time-to-time, she cries over it even to this day. And please, do not equate the accidental loss of a pregnancy with the deliberate one. A woman who has a non-essential abortion SHOULD have to face the demons over her decision. Not at all the same as when two parents have planned and celebrated a pregnancy, announced it to others, prepared a nursery, discussed possible names before falling asleep...only to have a miscarriage destroy it all in a matter of moments. Why don't you try walking a mile in my shoes before telling me I have no right to comment on abortion.

The last sentance I quoted really says it all-

"Women are not eager to "off" their unborn children - they ARE eager to remove the influence of men on what they are "Allowed" to do with their bodies."

It's about power. Some women see a man's protest of abortion as nothing more than an attempt to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body. Newsflash- paying someone to kill your baby without a darn good reason is WRONG. It's like women have retreated so far from the concept of equality that they now feel that they have to hunker down and defend their last bastion of self-determination...their bodies. "We're not going to be paid as well, respected as much, honored as highly or consulted on matters of importance, but I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to let some guy tell me what I have to do with my body!" That, I believe, is almost as sad as abortion. To be made to feel so small and insignificant by society that the only way you can feel empowered is by holding the fragile life of an unborn child in the palm of your hand. God, what a pitiful world this is after all. :(

If jrb's commentary was not directed at me, I apologize...but I think I said what was needed to be said.

Ok, so I mainly lurk in the forums because I don't always have time to post, but now I feel the need to step in and voice an opinion.

I find some of your comments very offending. You say that women are fighting for the right to control thier bodies just to spite men? I call BS! And as for having other issues better to fight about, there are other very vaild issues out there but I think this is one of the more important ones, it's my body and I feel I have the right to decide if I should continue down the life-altering path of bringing a fetus to term or not.

You say "Why should a baby have to die because his parents were stupid or careless? Why should a baby have to die because after things didn't work out with the dad, a mother decides to abort his child? Why should babies have to die because their creation-something THEY cannot be blamed for- occurs at a time inconvenient for the parents. Why should babies have to die because "condoms just don't feel good"? " Your statements generalize all women who want aboritions into categories of being stupid or careless and although some might, not all do.

Your comments also bring up the debate that started this thread which is when does life begin or when is it considered to be it's own person/human. Your views obviously differ from others because I don't see this in anywhere near the same light as you do. I don't agree with abortion basically in the third trimester, when the baby is developed and can survive outside the womb (or in the cases of harm to the mother or severe deformity). But I think every women should have the right to an abortion before then for whatever reason they so choose. I have no intentions of ever having children and take precautions so that this will not happen, but until I can get "fixed" it's not foolproof. I can do everything I'm supposed to do and still have an accident. Well I am not about to bring an unwanted child into the world. To me that is worse than having an abortion in the early stages of pregancy.

Everyone has to make a decision for themselves as to how they feel on this issue and what they can and can not live with, but just because you don't agree with my decision doesn't mean I should have that right taken away.

Another interesting twist to this argument. If you're saying I shouldn't have the right to decide if I can or can not bring a child to term.....should the government then be able to dictate who is allowed to get pregnant in the first place there by dictating further what you can and can't do with your body?

llkoolkeg

03-02-2005, 01:06 PM

the kid probably would be spontaneously aborted (that is, "naturally") before coming to term. if it did it would be born with no hope for ever being human, in the sense that if your neural tube doesn't close up top you don't have a brain (often accompanied by lack of skull and tissue -- just primordial nervous system tissue exposed to the winds).

That sounds very similar to something that happened to a young couple at my old church. When presented with the prognosis, they discussed abortion but ultimately decided to leave it in God's hands. The carried on...not quite as normal, but they carried on nonetheless. When their daughter was born, she lived only a few hours but her parents were with her the whole time and she died in their arms. They grieved, buried her and have gone on with their lives. Bravest thing I have ever personally witnessed to this day.

I'm not sure I could have done it. Had I been in their situation with an outlook SO grim, I probably would have just nudged my wife towards abortion. Ultimately, it would have been her decision to take with my support. I am not as spiritually strong as many, though. Did they take the right decision? Who knows. I believe they took the right one for their particular set of circumstances and I am certainly not wise enough to have seen a better path. I saw them this past Thanksgiving and they have a beautiful little boy now. Not being a very good Christian myself, I thought that was the least that God should have provided for what he put them through the first go around. I guess I'll never be able to comprehend or accept why the nicest people always seem to suffer so much.

Changleen

03-02-2005, 01:20 PM

Not being a very good Christian myself, I thought that was the least that God should have provided for what he put them through the first go around. I guess I'll never be able to comprehend or accept why the nicest people always seem to suffer so much.
Because you start with the flawed preposition that god exists?

mack

03-02-2005, 01:30 PM

Because you start with the flawed preposition that god exists?
:thumb:

llkoolkeg

03-02-2005, 01:57 PM

Ok, so I mainly lurk in the forums because I don't always have time to post, but now I feel the need to step in and voice an opinion.

I find some of your comments very offending. (Sorry; I don't intend to do so but I do speak my mind without reservation.) You say that women are fighting for the right to control thier bodies just to spite men? I call BS! (No, that was not what I was saying, but SOME certainly do.) And as for having other issues better to fight about, there are other very vaild issues out there but I think this is one of the more important ones, it's my body and I feel I have the right to decide if I should continue down the life-altering path of bringing a fetus to term or not. (It would agree but for the fact that it's your body AND your baby's body. You have a fiduciary duty to protect your offspring and far better that you endure a life-altering experience than a baby endure a life-ending one)

You say "Why should a baby have to die because his parents were stupid or careless? Why should a baby have to die because after things didn't work out with the dad, a mother decides to abort his child? Why should babies have to die because their creation-something THEY cannot be blamed for- occurs at a time inconvenient for the parents. Why should babies have to die because "condoms just don't feel good"? " Your statements generalize all women who want aboritions into categories of being stupid or careless and although some might, not all do. (I was not generalizing ALL women; I only had time to provide four examples. Perhaps you will chime in with a few good reasons for having an abortion. Also, you might have not noticed that I used the word "parentS" instead of "women" where possible; the father of the child should certainly not escape his share of the culpability for the situation.)

Your comments also bring up the debate that started this thread which is when does life begin or when is it considered to be it's own person/human. Your views obviously differ from others because I don't see this in anywhere near the same light as you do. I don't agree with abortion basically in the third trimester, when the baby is developed and can survive outside the womb (or in the cases of harm to the mother or severe deformity). But I think every women should have the right to an abortion before then for whatever reason they so choose. I have no intentions of ever having children and take precautions so that this will not happen, but until I can get "fixed" it's not foolproof. I can do everything I'm supposed to do and still have an accident. Well I am not about to bring an unwanted child into the world. To me that is worse than having an abortion in the early stages of pregancy.(I don't think we disagree quite as much as you may think. I do not believe abortion should be outlawed for many reasons, one of which you list. But at the same time, I don't think it should be taking place after the 1st trimester or hopefully even earlier w/o a VERY good reason. Are you telling me it takes a woman three months to figure out she's pregnant? Are you telling me that you think a woman deserves up to six months after becoming pregnant to decide whether or not to end her child's life? Now I know y'all can be indecisive at times, but a developing child should not have to become even MORE developed while you slowly ponder his fate. If you don't want a child make up your mind before his develpment grows ever closer to the age of viability. Even though 24 weeks is the generally accepted age of viability, children as young as 19 weeks old have survived premature birth. You would bestow upon women the power and "right" to kill their children past the point they might well survive even without their mother's help!)

Everyone has to make a decision for themselves as to how they feel on this issue and what they can and can not live with, but just because you don't agree with my decision doesn't mean I should have that right taken away.(Again, abortion is is not a RIGHT; it is legal medical procedure and one that should be far more rare than it currently is. Again, I do not support outlawing it. A baby, however, is not a mole or unwanted hair to be lasered off your bikini line whenever it can be fit into your busy schedule.)

Another interesting twist to this argument. If you're saying I shouldn't have the right to decide if I can or can not bring a child to term.....should the government then be able to dictate who is allowed to get pregnant in the first place there by dictating further what you can and can't do with your body?(I'm not sure I follow. As a 58.5% Libertarian, I think the gov't should for the most part stay out of the private affairs of citizens. Killing another human, however, falls within the purview of the judiciary.)

(I just added my responses within your reply so that they would be near your comments.)

EDIT:

Changleen- :nono:
Mack- :nono: :nono: You get two for just peering from behind Changleen's skirt!

ALEXIS_DH

03-02-2005, 02:12 PM

An unconscious person has brain activity.

well, replace with temporarily unconscioue then.

I´m not christian. I dont really believe in G-d (for other than practical uses), and i dont believe in soul, nor karma, nor afterlife, nor mostly anything that i cannot validate.
and i dont rely my argument on a pre-conception of g-d, or absolutes evils and crap like that, because i dont deem them worthy.

said that, i DONT believe abortion has to do anything with woman or couples rights.
i believe abortion is about whether or not a fetus is human, thus granted human-dom rights on itself.

a woman or man can do whatever they want to their bodies... BUT a fetus IS NO LONGER THEIR BODIES.
it may be attached to, but its not theirs anymore. and in fact... if its attached to them, is because they CAUSED that in the first place.

2nd. i dont believe the lack of brain activity or consciousness ALONE is enough to decide whether a person is dead or un-human or not.
since, as validated by fetuses, human LIFE, and human cells continue to grow even in the abscense of consciousness or brain activity.

3rd. I believe the timeframe in which a fetus lacks brain activity is a temporal one, which will be over by the fetus itself, in a self-started manner, unless external interrumption. unlike a brain-dead adult in a hospital bed. Since this is a temporal abscense of brain activity and consciousness (well, at least we suspect that given current state of medicine), i dont believe thats enough grounds to declare the fetus dead or un-human, because it doesnt comply with the other requirement of celular death on its own.

about the unwanted baby VS the killing the fetus problem. I believe that is a COUPLES problem, not the baby.
if he is unwanted, though luck mommy and daddy!!!, just pay your bill now. that is not a baby´s problem. you invited him to the party.
killing it, is just passing the bill to the only person of the 3, with no word about its future, and who didnt even put itself in said situation.

Toshi

03-02-2005, 02:28 PM

2nd. i dont believe the lack of brain activity or consciousness ALONE is enough to decide whether a person is dead or un-human or not.
since, as validated by fetuses, human LIFE, and human cells continue to grow even in the abscense of consciousness or brain activity.
so you'd be against removal of cancerous tumors? they are most definitely "human cells" and they "continue to grow even in the abscense[sic] of consciousness or brain activity" by definition.

ALEXIS_DH

03-02-2005, 02:52 PM

so you'd be against removal of cancerous tumors? they are most definitely "human cells" and they "continue to grow even in the abscense[sic] of consciousness or brain activity" by definition.

no, because cancerous tumors are part of the owners body. they share the same dna, dont they??? so it would be like clipping a nail, or cutting your hair....

Velocity Girl

03-02-2005, 02:54 PM

(I just added my responses within your reply so that they would be near your comments.)

EDIT:

Changleen- :nono:
Mack- :nono: :nono: You get two for just peering from behind Changleen's skirt!

(Sorry; I don't intend to do so but I do speak my mind without reservation.) - No worries. We all have strong opinions and that's what can make good debates. I just call people out on it from time to time.

(It would agree but for the fact that it's your body AND your baby's body. You have a fiduciary duty to protect your offspring and far better that you endure a life-altering experience than a baby endure a life-ending one) -
I don't see the two as being seperate at the early stage of pregenance. I see the baby as more of an "extension" of the mother at that point, but not completely it's own entity because it still needs the mother to survive.

(I don't think we disagree quite as much as you may think. I do not believe abortion should be outlawed for many reasons, one of which you list. But at the same time, I don't think it should be taking place after the 1st trimester or hopefully even earlier w/o a VERY good reason. Are you telling me it takes a woman three months to figure out she's pregnant? Are you telling me that you think a woman deserves up to six months after becoming pregnant to decide whether or not to end her child's life? Now I know y'all can be indecisive at times, but a developing child should not have to become even MORE developed while you slowly ponder his fate. If you don't want a child make up your mind before his develpment grows ever closer to the age of viability. Even though 24 weeks is the generally accepted age of viability, children as young as 19 weeks old have survived premature birth. You would bestow upon women the power and "right" to kill their children past the point they might well survive even without their mother's help!) - I actually don't know how long it takes a women to find out they're pregnant. If you're on the pill and supressing your period or on the shots that eliminate it then it might take you longer to realize what's up....could that be 3 months? Not sure? I do see your point of waiting far into the 2nd trimester to make the decision. I think that if it's a decision of just wanting a child or not, then that should be made ASAP. If it's due to medical reasons (with mom or child, deformity, risk, etc.) then I can see that decision being made later. As for the very good reason, to me not wanting to bring a child into the world that is unwanted is reason enough.

(Again, abortion is is not a RIGHT; it is legal medical procedure and one that should be far more rare than it currently is. Again, I do not support outlawing it. A baby, however, is not a mole or unwanted hair to be lasered off your bikini line whenever it can be fit into your busy schedule.) - That's where we differ. Being able to decide what happens to my body is my RIGHT. It may be a medical procedure, but so are bood jobs, liposuction, nose jobs.....my body, my right to choose.
And I'm not trying to sound callous as I know pregnancy is vastly different from a boob job, but it's still my body and I should be able to control what happens to it.

(I'm not sure I follow. As a 58.5% Libertarian, I think the gov't should for the most part stay out of the private affairs of citizens. Killing another human, however, falls within the purview of the judiciary.) - - You see it as killing another human and I don't see it the same at earlier points in pregancy (for the reasons I stated above). Because of that this doesn't fit into your logic pattern. But I see limitations on what I can do with my body after a preganancy the same as putting a limitation on weather on not that preganancy can even happen in the first place. It's taking away a fundamental right of a person to have a say in what happens to their body....just at different time.

ALEXIS_DH

03-02-2005, 03:05 PM

(Sorry; I don't intend to do so but I do speak my mind without reservation.) - No worries. We all have strong opinions and that's what can make good debates. I just call people out on it from time to time.

(It would agree but for the fact that it's your body AND your baby's body. You have a fiduciary duty to protect your offspring and far better that you endure a life-altering experience than a baby endure a life-ending one) -
I don't see the two as being seperate at the early stage of pregenance. I see the baby as more of an "extension" of the mother at that point, but not completely it's own entity because it still needs the mother to survive.

(I don't think we disagree quite as much as you may think. I do not believe abortion should be outlawed for many reasons, one of which you list. But at the same time, I don't think it should be taking place after the 1st trimester or hopefully even earlier w/o a VERY good reason. Are you telling me it takes a woman three months to figure out she's pregnant? Are you telling me that you think a woman deserves up to six months after becoming pregnant to decide whether or not to end her child's life? Now I know y'all can be indecisive at times, but a developing child should not have to become even MORE developed while you slowly ponder his fate. If you don't want a child make up your mind before his develpment grows ever closer to the age of viability. Even though 24 weeks is the generally accepted age of viability, children as young as 19 weeks old have survived premature birth. You would bestow upon women the power and "right" to kill their children past the point they might well survive even without their mother's help!) - I actually don't know how long it takes a women to find out they're pregnant. If you're on the pill and supressing your period or on the shots that eliminate it then it might take you longer to realize what's up....could that be 3 months? Not sure? I do see your point of waiting far into the 2nd trimester to make the decision. I think that if it's a decision of just wanting a child or not, then that should be made ASAP. If it's due to medical reasons (with mom or child, deformity, risk, etc.) then I can see that decision being made later. As for the very good reason, to me not wanting to bring a child into the world that is unwanted is reason enough.

(Again, abortion is is not a RIGHT; it is legal medical procedure and one that should be far more rare than it currently is. Again, I do not support outlawing it. A baby, however, is not a mole or unwanted hair to be lasered off your bikini line whenever it can be fit into your busy schedule.) - That's where we differ. Being able to decide what happens to my body is my RIGHT. It may be a medical procedure, but so are bood jobs, liposuction, nose jobs.....my body, my right to choose.
And I'm not trying to sound callous as I know pregnancy is vastly different from a boob job, but it's still my body and I should be able to control what happens to it.

(I'm not sure I follow. As a 58.5% Libertarian, I think the gov't should for the most part stay out of the private affairs of citizens. Killing another human, however, falls within the purview of the judiciary.) - - You see it as killing another human and I don't see it the same at earlier points in pregancy (for the reasons I stated above). Because of that this doesn't fit into your logic pattern. But I see limitations on what I can do with my body after a preganancy the same as putting a limitation on weather on not that preganancy can even happen in the first place. It's taking away a fundamental right of a person to have a say in what happens to their body....just at different time.

velocitygirl. your whole argument goes around the idea of an abortion being a procedure on your body.

I dont think a baby is part of your body. its a whole different entity.

you can cut your leg of if you want... its your dna, is your body... a baby..