Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion

Is anyone actually "abortion - yay"?

No.

Be for or against the right/choice to have them, NO ONE is happy when a person feels that they need one.

Just being nitpicky.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 1:35 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

There are many valid reasons to have the choice available. If you think it's wrong, don't have one.

[]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 2:05 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
If you think it's wrong, don't have one.

Why, that's so crazy an idea, it just might work!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 2:19 AM

JOSSISAGOD

It's not about abortion, for me, it's about choice. I think no matter what personal beliefs people have, people should keep options open, for those who feel differently.

Fe'nos Tol
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 3:42 AM

Okay, well we are treating the life of an unborn human child like a show on cable, which sort of enunciates my whole problem with the issue of the pro-Choice argument. It never seems to take the life of an unborn child seriously. Almost everyone believes that there are conditions under which abortion is necessary; even staunch abortion critics will usually conceded that such conditions exist, but should we necessarily view abortion so cavalierly. Is it really appropriate to use abortion as a form of birth control? And if so, is it then appropriate to draw analogies between an unborn human child and a rat or some other animal that is often exterminated because we don’t want it around? And what does such callous consideration for our unborn offspring say about ourselves?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Is it really appropriate to use abortion as a form of birth control? And if so, is it then appropriate to draw analogies between an unborn human child and a rat or some other animal that is often exterminated because we don’t want it around? And what does such callous consideration for our unborn offspring say about ourselves?

I don't think it's that people do not consider the unborn life as significant. It's more that they assign an equal or greater importance to the effects of pregnancy and birth on the mother who is essentially the host to this unborn life, which comes with pain and discomfort and risks to physical well-being even under the best of circumstances (i.e. a wanted, uncomplicated pregnancy).

Factors like age, health and mental state of the pregnant woman do become important factors in that regard, and as such also the circumstances of conception.

And there's also the right of the general population to interfere with what is for a long period of time a body-internal process. It's a question of how much control other people are allowed to have over an individual's body. People obviously have very differing opinions about that.

If it was only about the body of the unborn, it would be that easy, yes. But it's not. And it's not just a question of responsibility for personal behavior, if you disregard how a pregnancy even came about. Incest, rape and high-risk pregnancies, those are very complex issues.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 4:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Not an ideal choice, but sometimes necessary.

What people do is load up the fetus with all of their hopes and dreams until it becomes an idealized vision. They're not seeing the fetus as it is but as they would LIKE it to be: an angelic, quiet, thumb-sucking, pretty bundle of joy, all tucked up and happy with oodles and oodles of potential. But once it's born, especially if it's disabled or born to a poor black or brown mother it becomes just another squalling welfare-sucking gangbanger wannabe, not worth WIC or medical care or funds for education. I find great irony, and truth, in the statement "For Republicans life begins at conception and ends at birth."

The tragedy isn't that a human is killed- hell, we sacrifice humans every day by the hundreds of thousands for "profit" or "power", and IMHO a fetus is not even a "human". The tragedy is that we have such a system that causes women to kill their dreams and hopes.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 5:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

The tragedy isn't that a human is killed- hell, we sacrifice humans every day by the hundreds of thousands for "profit" or "power", and IMHO a fetus is not even a "human". The tragedy is that we have such a system that causes women to kill their dreams and hopes.

In all fairness, and I am saying this as a pro-choice person, it's wrong not to consider a fetus "human".

It is human. A human being at an early stage in its development. To deny that is dishonesty and just as hypocritical as the people who like to pretend all aborting women are using the procedure like a morning-after pill.

Nor do I think that the majority of woman choose abortion against their inclination to actually have the child. Generally, women choose their dreams and hopes and sacrifice the child-in-the-making, because they aren't compatible.
Be their dreams and hopes the idea of finishing college (or highschool) or not sinking into poverty or having a fulfilling career - or not having to carry a child to term that was conceived without consent, or not having to raise a child with severe disabilities, or not having to go through nine months of pregnancy and the process of birth and then the pain of giving away a child for the sake of those dreams.

It's a wide spectrum of reasons, most of them not actually selfless, but still of very real impact and importance to the woman making the choice and pretty much her only.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 6:16 AM

TAKEMEFLYING

Is there really a large population of girls and women out there using abortion as birth control??? It is a medical procedure that is costly, uncomfortable at best, and potentially dangerous. It isn't something you can do every other week, like a manicure or something! That isn't a valid argument.

As far as choice is concerned, well, let's see - do I want the government (or anyone else for that matter) to treat me like a child and decided for me what is a very very personal choice? Or do I rather consider myself educated, intelligent, and sensible enough to make that decision myself?

I'd just as soon keep the White House, the Senate and the Church out of my womb, thanks, there just isn't enough room for all that! (even after carrying twins

)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 6:17 AM

Abortions will happen regardless. You can be pro choice or pro backstreet abortion that leaves most women that have them sterile or dead or abandoning the child after birth, because those are the real choices.

Quote:
In all fairness, and I am saying this as a pro-choice person, it's wrong not to consider a fetus "human".

I cut my finger earlier, how many miniture humans died there I wonder? A collection of Cells isn't a human, it has potential perhaps, but still not a Human.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 6:40 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Well, being a pinko, I believe it's between the (potential) parents, their doctor, and their God. If there is a God and abortion is wrong, they will be judged accordingly.

However, one of the points Finn was making is my problem with this debate as well:

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Almost everyone believes that there are conditions under which abortion is necessary; even staunch abortion critics will usually conceded that such conditions exist...

I do not understand any moderate position on this issue. To my mind, a fetus is either an innocent life or is not. There is no middle ground or halfway. It's a black and white thing. Yes or no.

If it is not a human life, then abortion is acceptable in all circumstances and should be available on demand, right?

If it is a human life, then it is never acceptable. It is then murder, agreed?

So, following this logic (flawed as it may be), how can the moderates pick out specific times when it is okay and times when it is not?

The most egregious example I can think of is when I hear social conservatives pledge to outlaw abortion, except in cases of rape, or incest. Why? If it's an innocent life, the method of its conception does not change that. A child born of rape or incest is just as innocent as a child born of love. Sin is not sexually transmitted, nor is it passed down from mother to child (maybe with Catholics).

To me, it's all or nothing. Right or wrong. I don't know which, but it can't be both.

As a side note, I think it's important to realize that making abortion illegal will only stop the poor from having abortions. The rich will still be capable of hoping on a plane and flying to another country to recieve any medical procedure they wish. Also, legalized abortion has had a direct correlation to the drop in crime in the US (according to "Freakonomics", Levitt & Dubner). Fewer poor babies means fewer poor adults, which means fewer crimes. I think some conservative radio guy gots' himself in hot water for pointing this out about a year ago...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 6:42 AM

PENGUIN

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
There are many valid reasons to have the choice available. If you think it's wrong, don't have one.

I agree with PR...

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 6:50 AM

The problem is that no one can answer the question 'when does life begin?' I can't accept that it begins at birth, since there's no real difference between a baby thirty seconds before it's born and thirty seconds after. So then where's the cut off? I don't know. But if I don't know, neither does anyone else, because it may be an unanswerable question. So for people who believe an unborn child is alive, the whole 'my body my choice' argument is irrelevant because it requires a basic assumption that they reject and that can't be proven. And the attitude of 'if you don't support it, don't have one' is similarly meaningless to someone who considers abortion murder. It's like saying 'well, I don't believe in murder, but I wouldn't oppose someone else doing it.' Which is of course ludicrous.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 7:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
I don't know. But if I don't know, neither does anyone else,

It's unknowable because you don't?

One cell in my body has all my DNA. What's the difference between a culture of cells from my body and a zygote?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 7:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
In all fairness, and I am saying this as a pro-choice person, it's wrong not to consider a fetus "human".

I cut my finger earlier, how many miniture humans died there I wonder? A collection of Cells isn't a human, it has potential perhaps, but still not a Human.

Oh, come on.

I'm not using this fact as an argument to cut down on choice, so don't treat me like a brainless enemy.

A fetus is not NOT human. And without outside interference, it would continue to develop into a baby, which will be born and then grow into a child and a teen and an adult and an old geezer and then die.

It's a fact, not a manipulative lie to make women feel guilty.

I still don't consider it wrong to interfere and end that life, as long as it is dependent upon the woman's body for survival.

That's the real argument for me. What the continuation of life depends on, and whom, and if that responsibility can be transfered.

Death penalty, euthanasia, organ transplantation and abortion all fall into that spectrum for me. The measure of how sacrosanct you consider an individual's body - and what level of interference society should be allowed to engage in, in terms of control of responsibility.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 7:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
I don't know. But if I don't know, neither does anyone else,
It's unknowable because you don't?

One cell in my body has all my DNA. What's the difference between a culture of cells from my body and a zygote?

Well it's easy to take extreme examples. Answer the question. When's the cutoff for not alive/alive? First trimester? Second? Birth? Cutting of the cord? Drawing of first breath? What's the basis for the answer? It's unknowable because it's subject to personal belief.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
So for people who believe an unborn child is alive, the whole 'my body my choice' argument is irrelevant because it requires a basic assumption that they reject and that can't be proven.

Actually... That's not always true.

I am pro-choice but I realize that the embryo, fetus, whatever, is a living human organism.

There is no cut-point marked "beginning of life" for me. The question I ask is at what point can this human being survive without the pregnant woman surrounding it.

Which leads me to wondering just how far along scientists are in the Artificial Womb Research. Does it exist? Does it get funding? That'd seem to me like something that the pro-life community should invest in, if they really want to save all those would-be-aborted fetuses.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 7:31 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

OK, I should really be asleep, but here's something to ponder on top of the "If you think it's wrong, don't have one" thing, 'K?

If you can't trust me to make the best choice for me and my own life, how on Earth can you trust me with a baby?

And while it is used as 'birth control' sometimes, that's a whole other problem and a whole other debate involving actually educating people and allowing them access to simple things like the pill and condoms. Sometimes an abortion is all they know about. Don't get down on them for being ignorant, because that's not their fault. It should be the absolute last option, last-ditch birth control if everything else fails and you really can't have a baby, for whatever reason. Is it always that way? No. But it should be. And that option should be available.

[]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 8:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Well it's easy to take extreme examples. Answer the question. When's the cutoff for not alive/alive? First trimester? Second? Birth? Cutting of the cord? Drawing of first breath? What's the basis for the answer? It's unknowable because it's subject to personal belief.

Oh, and in keeping with the spirit of the season, guess what region of the US has the most abortions...yep, the blood-red Republican Bible Belt South!
Abortions went down under Clinton. They're up under Bush.

You didn't ask a question, you made a statement, so it would be actually better for you to answer my question, especially since the answer moves us closer to answering yours that was posed after mine.

How is a Zygot, one stage in the development of the embryo, any different to a tissue culture. They're both a collection of Cells, and frankly I don't consider a collection of cells with Human DNA 'Human', if you do make your case. So for a definate cut off point we have the first 8 Weeks where the embryo is little more than a collection of Cells. Maybe we can now move forward a little further to see if that is the cut off point or if we can go further.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 8:41 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Where we draw moral lines in society about what is wrong and what is right for other people to do, is a very touchy issue. These are lines we must draw. To say that the counry can impose no American concept of decency on its citizens would be to ignore all kinds of potential cases,

such as the one about the man who was just sentenced to prison for genitally mutilating his little girl. In that case he said he didn't do it, but there are cultures with belief's that support doing so. How can we have true religious freedom in this country if we don't allow parents to raise their own children with their religious practices?

How do we make a distinction? Some people call circumcision genital mutilation, but in our society we accept it.

..................

This is my guideline. America is a secular nation made up of religious people. America cannot rule on things based upon religious morality because such morality varies within our culture. Americans should not merely be vying for a simple majority in order to outlaw those things that half the population finds despicable.

But as a secular nation, science can and should be a benchmark for our tough decisions.

Scientifically, there is no benefit at all to female genital mutilation, and the harms are staggering. Scientifically, there is some nerve damage done when we circumcise males, but there are some advantages against possible infections as well, and it has become normalcy in our society. It is probably minor, but there may be a psychological benefit to circumcision for the sake of that normalcy.

And now we come to it.

Morally, the nation is divided on abortion. Scientifically though, a human fetus is less developed, and in that way, less human than the livestock we eat. Yes, conceptually, morally, this image is unpleasant, callous, cold...

because what we are reacting to is not actual human life but the idea of human life, the potential human life that we are presiding over. And that can hardly be a fair litmus test. Certainly, there are religions that are just as furious over birth control because they disrupt the potential human life, but when it comes to potential life, where would we draw the line?

Should girls get pregnant after their first period, because to let an egg pass on its own would be the loss of potential life? Should boys be required to wear some sort of condom to bed so that when they have a wet dream they don't waste the potential?

I will say this. It is potential life that makes it hard for anybody to have an abortion. It shouldn't be an easy decision, and it never is. Abortions should be reduced in this nation,
but illegalizing abortion does not have the full support of the people and it does not have the backing of science.

And I hate to say it(not really), but in the 8 years prior to the Bush administration being in office, abortion rates went down dramatically. That decline basically leveled off in 2001. If you want to reduce abortions, then those of you who believe it is so wrong should start promoting sex education in schools rather than the failure that is abstinence only...you should promote rather than hinder the protections of birth control...

but this isn't a matter of reducing abortions. This is a matter of penitence for the sin of pleasure. This is penitence for the ignorance that got the person into this mess in the first place - an ignorance you would perpetuate if you had your way. That is hardly moral by any standard.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 8:47 AM

SAHARA

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:

Well it's easy to take extreme examples. Answer the question. When's the cutoff for not alive/alive? First trimester? Second? Birth? Cutting of the cord? Drawing of first breath? What's the basis for the answer? It's unknowable because it's subject to personal belief.

Exactly, "subject to personal belief". I believe that it's between a woman and her doctor and her conscience.
If you don't want an abortion, or think it's morally wrong, then don't have one.

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 8:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I have to say I'm PRO abortion. Yes, I really like it. In fact I'm waiting to get a good price on it so I can get it in bulk. You can never have too much abortion, so it pays to stock up.

Wait a minute ... what are we talking about here? Oh, that's right, a poorly worded question.

I don't think anyone is PRO abortion. They are PRO choice. Abortion is best between the woman, her doctor and her conscience. If she is some non-western religion (like Shinto) she - and her religion - may not regard it as bad. In that case why should she be forced to follow the Christian religion?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 8:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
How is a Zygot, one stage in the development of the embryo, any different to a tissue culture.

I don't know.

Quote:

They're both a collection of Cells, and frankly I don't consider a collection of cells with Human DNA 'Human', if you do make your case. So for a definate cut off point we have the first 8 Weeks where the embryo is little more than a collection of Cells. Maybe we can now move forward a little further to see if that is the cut off point or if we can go further.

Well okay, but how about 9 weeks? Or 7? Point is, I think there may not be a cut off. The progression from 'collection of cells' to sentient being may be too gradual to define. Depends on how you define sentience. Is a 30-week fetus self-aware?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 9:01 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by FLF:
Any other opinions here? Can anyone suggest how I can convince my friend or shall I just give up?

How about a legal perspective. Row v. Wade is based on outdated science regarding viability. If it is to remain good law, then it must be periodically revised to reflect changes in the science. Thus as science increases viability then the abortion window will shrink and someday Row v. Wade could be the decision that outlaws abortion.

I also like the property argument. Who owns the fetus? Certainly the man has an interest...if not how can he then have post-birth interests that give rise to support obligations. The child has an interest as well. Isn't this really a contractual service agreement between mother and child. Or perhaps a landlord-tenant argument could be made. In most states its a murder to commit a felony that results in the death of an unborn child regardless of viability.

Still, in fifty years it'll be the lifers defending Row v. Wade from the Choicers because it limits choice based upon viability.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 9:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Still, in fifty years it'll be the lifers defending Row v. Wade from the Choicers because it limits choice based upon viability.

H

The majority of abortions are performed at a stage where viability outside the mother is utterly and totally out of the question, so I don't see this argument going far.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 9:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Eric:

"When's the cutoff for not alive/alive?" That is badly worded. The egg and sperm are alive. The cells that generate them are alive. There is a continuous chain of life all the way back to the beginning. The question is better asked as 'when is it HUMAN?'

Basic biology - when the egg and sperm fuse, they multiply into a cluster of cells. That cluster specializes into the placenta and the embryo. So you can have a fertilized egg that fails to actually form the embryo (which routinely happens). Now, the other thing that can happen is one cluster becomes two individuals - or almost two. Up until about day 14 the cell clump can divide and form two individuals (after about day 14 they become conjoined twins). Or the cell clump can divide and one set just goes away.

Many early pregnancies end up disappearing b/c of early failure to form a viable embryo (roughly 10% of all pregnancies end this way). Many times one of a set of 'twins' will disappear (another 10% of all pregnancies). This has become recently known due to early pregnancy detection and early sonograms done for other reasons.

For those reasons - failure to create any embryo or to differentiate one viable individual - to call a fertilized egg 'human' is a misnomer. Because it can easily go from being human as a fertilized egg, to being non-human as a placental mass. Or it can go from being one human to two humans back to one human, with no ability to distinguish which cells will go forward and which won't.

A fertilized egg is a potential human.

Personally, I think if we draw the line at the end of life at the end of brain activity, the beginning of life should be drawn from the same criteria. The beginning of life happens at the beginning of normal human brain activity. That happens roughly at 4 months. Oddly enough it is around the same time as 'quickening' - when fetal movement becomes palpable from the outside. British common law drew the line at quickening - when the pregnancy becomes a public rather than private event.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 9:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Well okay, but how about 9 weeks? Or 7? Point is, I think there may not be a cut off. The progression from 'collection of cells' to sentient being may be too gradual to define. Depends on how you define sentience. Is a 30-week fetus self-aware?

I said a collection of cells is definatly not Human. No 7-weeks about it, it's still a collection of cells at that stage, and in fact could still be aborted naturally because it's not until then that the embryo starts releasing chemicals that stop the menstrual cycle.

BTW you still haven't answered my question, I don't know is not a valid responce, it either is different because X, or it is not. I don't know is "I don't want it to be but can't think why".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sahara:

Exactly, "subject to personal belief". I believe that it's between a woman and her doctor and her conscience.
If you don't want an abortion, or think it's morally wrong, then don't have one.
/B]

Again, that argument doesn't work
on someone who believes abortion is murder. It always comes back to whether the fetus is a sentient human entitled to life. For instance, I've read of some ancient peoples who believed that a child was not imbued with a soul until given a name. So would someone with such a belief be justified in killing their newborn so long as it had no name?

This is such a horrid issue because it will never be resolved...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 9:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"For instance, I've read of some ancient peoples who believed that a child was not imbued with a soul until given a name."

If I recall correctly the Japanese held that belief until recently. The time limit was three days, after which it was given a name and introduced into society. What I read was that since perinatal mortality was so high, birth itself wasn't considered the final goal post, just one event on the way to personhood and life.

But in fact, in Japan, while abortion is legal, birth control is not. As I've read, that is due to religious belief being written into law (which the US should be trying to avoid.) If you are conceived and then aborted, you must have earned some really bad karma. But to not be conceived blocks the cycle of reincarnation.

Also, I'm curious what you think of using brain activity to find the beginning of an individual life the same way it's used to find the end.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 9:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Also, I'm curious what you think of using brain activity to find the beginning of an individual life the same way it's used to find the end.

That's an interesting point. I believe Terri Schiavo was already dead long before they pulled the plug, so maybe that could be a criterion...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 10:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I said a collection of cells is definatly not Human. No 7-weeks about it, it's still a collection of cells at that stage, and in fact could still be aborted naturally because it's not until then that the embryo starts releasing chemicals that stop the menstrual cycle.

BTW you still haven't answered my question, I don't know is not a valid responce, it either is different because X, or it is not. I don't know is "I don't want it to be but can't think why".

Do I think there is much difference between zygote and culture? No, except for the potential for personhood unless killed. Which is a sticking point for a lot of people, but I'm not going to argue it. Do I think a zygote is a human? No. But the point is if you look for a cut off point where abortion goes from 'okay' to 'not okay'(say, from 8 weeks to the 4 months where brain activity starts (vide supra)), you're still going to get a multitude of answers.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't think it's that people do not consider the unborn life as significant. It's more that they assign an equal or greater importance to the effects of pregnancy and birth on the mother who is essentially the host to this unborn life, which comes with pain and discomfort and risks to physical well-being even under the best of circumstances (i.e. a wanted, uncomplicated pregnancy).

This is a common argument, but I don’t know that it is a particularly strong one. Essentially the argument boils down to responsibility. Yes, it is true that an unexpected pregnancy can result in considerable changes in a woman’s and often a man’s life, and sometimes these changes are not positive ones, but perhaps often these individuals shouldn’t have been having unprotected sex (or sex at all) if they weren’t prepared for this eventuality? Basically, this argument implies that we are pushing the parent’s responsibility off on to an unborn child.

Quote:
Originally posted by TakeMeFlying:
Is there really a large population of girls and women out there using abortion as birth control???

In fact, the majority of abortions preformed in the United States are essentially birth control. Very few of these abortions are actually done for health reasons or reasons like incest and rape. Most of them are done because the mother/father simply doesn’t want a child at that time, which is something that probably could have been dealt with in another way.

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
I do not understand any moderate position on this issue. To my mind, a fetus is either an innocent life or is not. There is no middle ground or halfway. It's a black and white thing. Yes or no.

I disagree. I think the lack of moderate arguments in this debate is much of the problem. In this kind of environment, the pro-choice argument sometimes embraces what might amount to callous disregard for human life, simply because they are unwilling to accept any argument that criticizes abortion or how it’s used. The epitome of this is the objectification of a human fetus as a “blob of cells,” or as “not human.” First of all the argument is trivial, all humans are just ‘blobs of cells.’ The human fetus is as human as an adult human. There is no more question about whether a human fetus will potentially develop into a human child, then whether a human child will potentially develop into a human adult. So the issue cannot be whether it is human or not, but at what point in the development of a human being does that human life become important. Attempting to categorize a human fetus as “not human” simply because it is underdeveloped raises the question of whether a human child is human since it is likewise underdeveloped. So this “black and white thing,” as you say, goes in some terrifying directions that I don’t ever want to have to seriously debate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 10:11 AM

If you ask whether god created all the species or if there was some mechanism of evolution you get a multitude of answers. sometimes people are wrong, doesn't mean sane people should worry to much about it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There is no more question about whether a human fetus will potentially develop into a human child, then whether a human child will potentially develop into a human adult.

Lets change the wording to something a little less deceptive eh finn.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 10:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Eric,

"you're still going to get a multitude of answers"
Such was the case with death, until the medical and legal community settled on 'brain death'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 10:17 AM

There's nothing deceptive about my wording. It's a statement of fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 10:23 AM

Is it bollocks.

Firstly the wording makes it more sound like will the potentially, and suggests that abortion is the same as killing a child. You're setting up the pro-life abortion is murder side as the moderate option. But I guess that wouldn't be deceptive now, because whatever comes from you is fact right.

Secondly we can already tell that 20% of embryos don't make it within the first few weeks. A great deal of pregnancies require medical intervention to bring to term. Pregnancy in Humans is much more dangerous and less successful than other animals, that's a fact. The potentiallity between an embryo becoming a child and a child becoming an adult are not the same thing.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 10:28 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"There is no more question about whether a human fetus will potentially develop into a human child ..." Assuming of course everything goes normally.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 10:28 AM

CENTURY22

I wasn't aborted, so I'd prefer not to have that option available to be used on my children.

Guy killed me Mal. He killed me with a sword.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 10:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Eric,

"you're still going to get a multitude of answers"
Such was the case with death, until the medical and legal community settled on 'brain death'.

True true. Dumb thing for me to say. But the same community settles on personhood as being bestowed at birth, and clearly there has not been as much consensus on it among the public at large, or this debate wouldn't exist. The focus of it should I think shift there instead of the inflammatory extremes of "You hate women!" vs "You hate babies!"

But if there is an answer, it exists independent of what anyone believes (unless you believe in Bush-style subjective reality, like 2 + 2 = 5 if you really want it to). Until it can be found, 'I don't know' is the only valid response.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 10:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

Here's a link for your education: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/HumanBioogy/birth_defects.htm

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"There is no more question about whether a human fetus will potentially develop into a human child ..." Assuming of course everything goes normally.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 11:27 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Anyway, for those who've had a chance to ponder the above site, let me just use a hackneyed but appropriate phrase: there's many a slip twixt cup and lip.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Firstly the wording makes it more sound like will the potentially, and suggests that abortion is the same as killing a child. You're setting up the pro-life abortion is murder side as the moderate option. But I guess that wouldn't be deceptive now, because whatever comes from you is fact right.

That’s your imagination.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Secondly we can already tell that 20% of embryos don't make it within the first few weeks. A great deal of pregnancies require medical intervention to bring to term. Pregnancy in Humans is much more dangerous and less successful than other animals, that's a fact. The potentiallity between an embryo becoming a child and a child becoming an adult are not the same thing.

So what? Show me a fully developed human fetus that is not a human, and I’ll reword my post. It is a fact that a human fetus develops into a human child, not a chicken or a cow. Unless, like rue, you define people with physical abnormalities as not being human, but that is a compassionless opinion that I doubt many people will be willing to accept.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Here's a link for your education: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/HumanBioogy/birth_defects.htm

A human being with a deformity is not human? So your definition of someone’s humanity is dependent on how normal they appear? Granted birth defects can be horrifying, but I’m not sure I’m ready to say they aren’t human.

Is an adult with Elephantiasis human? Someone suffering from skeletal dwarfism can often appear very different, should these people not be considered human?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 11:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Eric,

AFAIC, the answer is always socially defined. Why was the end of human life defined the way it was? It was a consensus answer reached after MUCH struggle and debate. The same will be true of the beginning of human life. I simply proposed what seemed to me a viable (ahem) definition.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 11:34 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So this “black and white thing,” as you say, goes in some terrifying directions that I don’t ever want to have to seriously debate.

Someone say 'black and white'?
Let's make it personal...

My mother gets prenant, and has me, unprepared psychologically, financially- whatever, and I have a resent filled and horrible childhood. NOT GOOD

My mother has me and gives me away; I got a 50/50 chance of either getting into a questionable adoption/not getting adopted, or finding myself in a good environment. MAYBE GOOD

I'm aborted, and go back to God, how can this be bad? GOOD

I'm aborted, and my soul just goes to the next available fetus presently under construction. GOOD

I'm aborted, and become nothing, which is sort of how I felt before I achieved a consciousness not yet available to me as a fetus. GOOD OR BAD NOT APPLICABLE AS LIFE IS MEANINGLESS

So, as we've learned today class, abortion is not as bad as we seem to think, eh?

Ducking the inevitable rocks for this Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 11:36 AM