PDA

View Full Version : Abortion....Right under certain circumstances?



SxyFrisky
March 31st, 2005, 02:05 PM
No Way! Abortion is wrong under any circumstances. Weather is be rape, or accident. You could always put the baby up for adoption if you didnt want it at least then it would have a chance at a good life. If you kill it by getting it sucked out of you then it never even had a chance. I dont believe it is our right to decide the babies fate.

Rogue1987
March 31st, 2005, 02:11 PM
I respect a woman's right to choose, but I agree with part of your sentiment. I would prefer it if the baby were put up for adoption.

mrs_innocent
March 31st, 2005, 02:14 PM
No Way! Abortion is wrong under any circumstances. Weather is be rape, or accident. You could always put the baby up for adoption if you didnt want it at least then it would have a chance at a good life. If you kill it by getting it sucked out of you then it never even had a chance. I dont believe it is our right to decide the babies fate.


I also agree with your sentiment (to steal words from others). Abortion is wrong on many levels. My suggestion, though: don't have one. :shrugs:

Ibelsd
March 31st, 2005, 02:34 PM
The primary argument against abortion is that it is killing an innocent life. Fair enough. At which point do we assume life? I can understand creating a point of no return. At some point the fetus should be considered a life, and that point could be prior to the actual birth when it is no longer a fetus. Where does this point start? At some point the fetus is such that it may be kicked out of the body willingly as a natural part of menstruation. So, if a woman decides within the first week or two, is it still killing an innocent life? Use of the morning after pill forces menstruation as a means to abort a fetus. Is this killing an innocent life? I can buy the argument that aborting a 6 month old fetus is bordering on murder, if not an actual murder. I cannot accept that the same decision made 6 days after conception is equivalent.

CliveStaples
March 31st, 2005, 03:11 PM
Well, as I recall, St. Aquinas believed that a person was "ensouled" when that person is cognitive. But I may be mistaken.

I think that it's morally reprehensible to intentionally abort a pregnancy, no matter the method or motive. It's been said by Gloria Steinem, I believe, that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be sacred. Well, speaking for myself, even if the hypothetical that every pro-"choice" (hah, scare quotes. Take that!) advocate brings up actually occurred (what if the mother's (or in this case, father's) life were in danger?), I'd choose to risk death so that my child could live. Any other choice is, I daresay, cowardly. Sacrificing an innocent life to maintain your own is never virtuous.

Meng Bomin
March 31st, 2005, 04:22 PM
Well, as I recall, St. Aquinas believed that a person was "ensouled" when that person is cognitive. But I may be mistaken.
As well, Aquinas may be mistaken

In terms of abortion, I do not consider it a healthy practice, but it is not something that one can simply get rid of.

Apokalupsis
March 31st, 2005, 05:22 PM
As far as the "circumstances" are concerned, many see the cicumstance of DYING as a RESULT of having the baby as a valid concern for having an abortion. That is, in the event that delivery of the baby causes great harm or jeopardizes the mother's life, then an abortion should be conducted.

As far as the circumstances already described, I agree that an abortion should not be engaged in.

sbgtfJC
March 31st, 2005, 05:35 PM
As far as the "circumstances" are concerned, many see the cicumstance of DYING as a RESULT of having the baby as a valid concern for having an abortion. That is, in the event that delivery of the baby causes great harm or jeopardizes the mother's life, then an abortion should be conducted.

As far as the circumstances already described, I agree that an abortion should not be engaged in.

Agrees with Apok

SxyFrisky
April 1st, 2005, 03:49 PM
The primary argument against abortion is that it is killing an innocent life. Fair enough. At which point do we assume life? I can understand creating a point of no return. At some point the fetus should be considered a life, and that point could be prior to the actual birth when it is no longer a fetus. Where does this point start? At some point the fetus is such that it may be kicked out of the body willingly as a natural part of menstruation. So, if a woman decides within the first week or two, is it still killing an innocent life? Use of the morning after pill forces menstruation as a means to abort a fetus. Is this killing an innocent life? I can buy the argument that aborting a 6 month old fetus is bordering on murder, if not an actual murder. I cannot accept that the same decision made 6 days after conception is equivalent.


The moment the egg is fertilized by the little spermy it becomes life in the making. By killing it after that it is murder.

Fyshhed
April 2nd, 2005, 01:21 AM
The moment the egg is fertilized by the little spermy it becomes life in the making. By killing it after that it is murder.
If such a definition was as legitimate and solidly irrefutable, then we would not have such a controversy, no?

I guess I have to ask: Do you have proof?

Duo
April 2nd, 2005, 11:25 AM
I wonder, do you care only about the fetus or what happens after it is born?

Abortion should be legal, safe and rare. I agree, if males could get pregnant, abortion would be sacred, and anyone who even spoke lightly about banning it would recieve a huge torrent of hate mail.

SxyFrisky
April 2nd, 2005, 03:18 PM
If such a definition was as legitimate and solidly irrefutable, then we would not have such a controversy, no?

I guess I have to ask: Do you have proof?


Who the hell needs proof! its common sense!

SxyFrisky
April 2nd, 2005, 03:19 PM
I wonder, do you care only about the fetus or what happens after it is born?

Abortion should be legal, safe and rare. I agree, if males could get pregnant, abortion would be sacred, and anyone who even spoke lightly about banning it would recieve a huge torrent of hate mail.


How can you say abortion should be legal? Do you have a heart? Think about if your mother had aborted you. You wouldnt have gotten a chance at life.

sbgtfJC
April 2nd, 2005, 03:20 PM
I am not understanding why it is said that if men could get pregnant that abortion would be sacred. Please explain this to me.

mrs_innocent
April 2nd, 2005, 03:21 PM
its common sense!

As Fysh pointed out, it's NOT 'common sense'. If it were, there would be nothing to debate, as there would be nothing at all controversial about it.

mrs_innocent
April 2nd, 2005, 03:22 PM
I am not understanding why it is said that if men could get pregnant that abortion would be sacred. Please explain this to me.

I'm glad you said that. I was wondering that myself.

SxyFrisky
April 2nd, 2005, 03:35 PM
As Fysh pointed out, it's NOT 'common sense'. If it were, there would be nothing to debate, as there would be nothing at all controversial about it.


I guess you are right, we wouldnt' be debating it right now if it was 100% clear
Does anyone think that abortion is OK even if you accept the premis that at conception life begins?

SxyFrisky
April 2nd, 2005, 03:36 PM
I wonder, do you care only about the fetus or what happens after it is born?

Abortion should be legal, safe and rare. I agree, if males could get pregnant, abortion would be sacred, and anyone who even spoke lightly about banning it would recieve a huge torrent of hate mail.


I do care about what happens to the child after it is born. That is why i feel the way i do. If i didnt care about it then i wouldnt care what happened before it was born either.

Duo
April 2nd, 2005, 03:41 PM
How can you say abortion should be legal? Do you have a heart? Think about if your mother had aborted you. You wouldnt have gotten a chance at life.

It should be legal. Women should have control over their own lives, as well as their reproductive abilities. Also, abortion allows citizens that would other wise lose chances at education and other oppotunities to become productive members of society. I personally would rather have people raising kids when they are ready financially and mentally. Forcing a teenager to have a kid she is not ready yet in any sense is dumb. Not to mention that we still have a large population in foster homes and adoption agencies. I see no reason to add to that. Not to mention should the teenager keep the child, the stasitically probability of them ending up in poverty is high. That is a definte no-no. It's bad have one person in poverty. It's worse have a kid being raised in it. Society pays for that in the end.

Sometimes I wish I was. It would definitely spare me these unending trials as well as having to deal with a world so full of crap and hypocracy. Life is made out to be far more then it is worth.

If males were the child bearers, and assuming society had progressed in the same fashion (odd thought isn't it), then abortion would have been a sacred idea. In a patrarcial society, where males have been setting the morality for millenia, such rights would not hav ebeen in question. I don't see why it's such a hard concept to understand. Those with the power make the rights. those who have had the power for millenia ultimtely set what will be right.

sbgtfJC
April 2nd, 2005, 03:44 PM
It should be legal.Not to mention that we still have a large population in foster homes and adoption agencies.

This large population is made up of older children. Most people who want to adopt, want to adopt babies, not 6 year olds.

sbgtfJC
April 2nd, 2005, 03:51 PM
It should be legal. Women should have control over their own lives, as well as their reproductive abilities.
Of course, but not control over their child's life or death.

Also, abortion allows citizens that would other wise lose chances at education and other oppotunities to become productive members of society.
huh?


Not to mention should the teenager keep the child, the stasitically probability of them ending up in poverty is high. That is a definte no-no. It's bad have one person in poverty. It's worse have a kid being raised in it. Society pays for that in the end.
Being poor is worse than a child being dead, I see. :rolleyes:

SxyFrisky
April 2nd, 2005, 03:51 PM
Forcing a teenager to have a kid she is not ready yet in any sense is dumb.



a teenager shouldnt be having sex unless she is ready to deal with the consequences. God created sex for the sanctity of marriage not so that teenagers could go around and "have fun". THey shouldn't be able to just do whatever they want and still be able to get rid of the consequences.

mrs_innocent
April 2nd, 2005, 04:00 PM
a teenager shouldnt be having sex unless she is ready to deal with the consequences. God created sex for the sanctity of marriage not so that teenagers could go around and "have fun".

Disregarding the religious connotation, you're right. The problem though, as has been said many times over, you're looking at this in an ideal light. Life isn't ideal. Perhaps young people shouldn't be having sex, I'll grant that. But chances are they're going to. The key to reducing (or even eliminating) abortion is to properly and thoroughly educating these kids. Thanks to several groups (most of which seem to have 'Christian' in their title and/or mission statement), that isn't happening.

With that said....


Also, abortion allows citizens that would other wise lose chances at education and other oppotunities to become productive members of society.

This is a ridiculous line of thinking. A child in no way eliminates one's opporunity for self-betterment. Not at all. Those who claim this, are using it as a cop-out. There are plenty of us out there who have managed, and are continuing to do so.

SxyFrisky
April 2nd, 2005, 04:06 PM
The key to reducing (or even eliminating) abortion is to properly and thoroughly educating these kids. Thanks to several groups (most of which seem to have 'Christian' in their title), that isn't happening.


So basically what you are saying is that Christians arent doing a good enough job....well i dont see anyone else even making an attempt so therefore that isnt usable. They may not be doing as good a job as they should be, but at least they are doing something..

SxyFrisky
April 2nd, 2005, 04:09 PM
This is a ridiculous line of thinking. A child in no way eliminates one's opporunity for self-betterment. Not at all. Those who claim this, are using it as a cop-out. There are plenty of us out there who have managed, and are continuing to do so.


i completely and totally agree with this statement however.

mrs_innocent
April 2nd, 2005, 04:20 PM
So basically what you are saying is that Christians arent doing a good enough job....well i dont see anyone else even making an attempt so therefore that isnt usable. They may not be doing as good a job as they should be, but at least they are doing something..

No, that's not what I said. I said that the groups who want to block sex ed, or reduce it to strictly abstinence ed., do hold some of the responsibility in the situation. It's simply been my personal observation that many of these groups are Christian organizations. That's all, nothing more--observation.

Duo
April 2nd, 2005, 06:20 PM
This large population is made up of older children. Most people who want to adopt, want to adopt babies, not 6 year olds.

So? That doesn't change the fact that there IS a adoption problem. When we no longer have adoption agencies, then we'll talk.


Of course, but not control over their child's life or death.

Then we have the issue of when it is a child. I'm not arguing as no one has any common legal or scientific common ground.


huh?

Education. Putting capital towards things other then childcare related services.


Being poor is worse than a child being dead, I see.

In your opinion. I'd rather see the mother become a successful person in society then be forced to live in poverty raising a child who stasitically will be a societal menace.


a teenager shouldnt be having sex unless she is ready to deal with the consequences. God created sex for the sanctity of marriage not so that teenagers could go around and "have fun".

Oh boy. One of these. First of all, basing any argument off of a unprovable foundation is not a good way of getting a point across. It's even worse when you justify that as a reason aganist someone who does not share a similar belief in a higher power. Third, I can easily base my argument off of IMF, invisble flying monkeys and it has the same credibility. Teenagers will be having sex no matter what the consequence. Hormones people. The God argument has no meaning to me whatosever.


THey shouldn't be able to just do whatever they want and still be able to get rid of the consequences.

Why not? After all, wouldn't that be doing what the current adminstration is doing? :P I digress, the sitatuon was too perfect to pass up.


This is a ridiculous line of thinking. A child in no way eliminates one's opporunity for self-betterment. Not at all. Those who claim this, are using it as a cop-out. There are plenty of us out there who have managed, and are continuing to do so.

I disagree. While it does not eliminate it, it makes it much more difficult. Trying to work several jobs, get a college education and care for a child at the same time is almost impossible for the average person. It's even worse when we account for the average costs of raising a child in the US, which appear to be over $100,000 from birth to 18. While some have managed, some have not. It seems pragmatic to allow females, and males, to allow themselves to position themselves financially and mentally before having a child rather then to force them at a time they are not ready to accept a responsible they clearly cannot handle. Simply because a relatively few have managed to pull it off does not mean you toss out the entire system.

I ask you: who is better at parenting, the parents who are ready fisically and mentally or the parents who have it shoved upon when they are obviously not ready?

As for absetience only plans, they are only going to lead to more births, and more abortions, and more problems. There isn't evidence they work.

www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19531
highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1P1:105250045&refid=ink_tptd_ np
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

CliveStaples
April 2nd, 2005, 06:35 PM
In a patrarcial society, where males have been setting the morality for millenia, such rights would not hav ebeen in question. I don't see why it's such a hard concept to understand. Those with the power make the rights. those who have had the power for millenia ultimtely set what will be right.

Hmm...oddly, rape has been illegal for a while in most "patriarchal" societies...perhaps because men have mothers and sisters, and aren't necessarily misogynitic? Also, this isn't an issue of WHO is having the child, but of the CHILD him/her self. My objections to abortion have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with gender, sex, or anything of that nature.

If you're going to raise an "If it were you, you'd want an abortion, too" argument, then here's my response: I might want it, but it would still be wrong. And it should be illegal. I will NEVER sanction the murder of an innocent child, whether it be for convenience or for self-preservation.


Education. Putting capital towards things other then childcare related services.

So you can kill a child (zygote, whatever de-humanizing term best suits you) if its in your economic best interests to?


As for absetience only plans, they are only going to lead to more births, and more abortions, and more problems. There isn't evidence they work.

This raises certain questions in my mind, not the least of which is: is it moral to advocate an immoral act for a moral outcome? We want fewer abortions, so we advocate SAFE fornication. This, of course, assumes that fornication is an inevitability, so why not lessen the impact, right?


I ask you: who is better at parenting, the parents who are ready fisically and mentally or the parents who have it shoved upon when they are obviously not ready?

That doesn't really matter to an aborted child, does it?


"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan



Teenagers will be having sex no matter what the consequence.

So what? People will be stealing no matter what the consequences are, but do we make things easier on thieves? I refuse to advocate an immoral path to a moral destination.

People say, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one." How about, "Don't want a kid? Don't have sex." The ONLY safe-sex technique that "pro-choice" people DON'T want advocated is the one that works 100% of the time.

mrs_innocent
April 2nd, 2005, 06:35 PM
I disagree. While it does not eliminate it, it makes it much more difficult. Trying to work several jobs, get a college education and care for a child at the same time is almost impossible for the average person. It's even worse when we account for the average costs of raising a child in the US, which appear to be over $100,000 from birth to 18. While some have managed, some have not. It seems pragmatic to allow females, and males, to allow themselves to position themselves financially and mentally before having a child rather then to force them at a time they are not ready to accept a responsible they clearly cannot handle. Simply because a relatively few have managed to pull it off does not mean you toss out the entire system.

I ask you: who is better at parenting, the parents who are ready fisically and mentally or the parents who have it shoved upon when they are obviously not ready?

It's entirely relative. I know quite a few young parents who are awful parents compared to their older, more "stable" counterparts. Conversely, I know quite a few young parents who devote much more to their child than other older parents I know. I will tell you that, from my perspective, I am a much better parent than some others I know, both older and younger. My perspective, though, doesn't prove a thing.

The fact that success is more difficult is irrelevant. If you want to be successful, you can be, regardless. I know this firsthand. As many here know, I am 23 years old, with 3 children of my own. The first was conceived when I was 17. I never opted for abortion (obviously), and I'm currently married, in school full-time, volunteering at my oldest daughter's school, and am guiding my middle daughter (almost 3 years old) through a pre-school curriculum at home. Hence, I say your line of thinking is used by many who abort as nothing more than a cop-out. It's all relative. I don't pretend that my life is anything extraordinary, and I wouldn't say that I'm anything but average. The fact that exceptions do exist, though, tells me that some simply prefer the easy way out.



As for absetience only plans, they are only going to lead to more births, and more abortions, and more problems. There isn't evidence they work.

www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19531
highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1P1:105250045&refid=ink_tptd_ np
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

Probably not directed at me, since it's the exact same thing that I said.

sbgtfJC
April 2nd, 2005, 06:51 PM
So? That doesn't change the fact that there IS a adoption problem. When we no longer have adoption agencies, then we'll talk.

There is an adoption problem for older children, not for babies


In your opinion. I'd rather see the mother become a successful person in society then be forced to live in poverty raising a child who stasitically will be a societal mence.
Adoption, not abortion is an option then



I disagree. While it does not eliminate it, it makes it much more difficult. Trying to work several jobs, get a college education and care for a child at the same time is almost impossible for the average person. It's even worse when we account for the average costs of raising a child in the US, which appear to be over $100,000 from birth to 18. While some have managed, some have not. It seems pragmatic to allow females, and males, to allow themselves to position themselves financially and mentally before having a child rather then to force them at a time they are not ready to accept a responsible they clearly cannot handle. Simply because a relatively few have managed to pull it off does not mean you toss out the entire system.
Same as above, put the child up for adoption


I ask you: who is better at parenting, the parents who are ready fisically and mentally or the parents who have it shoved upon when they are obviously not ready?
Shoved apon them? If someone has sex they are bringing it apon themselves

Duo
April 2nd, 2005, 07:37 PM
Hmm...oddly, rape has been illegal for a while in most "patriarchal" societies...perhaps because men have mothers and sisters, and aren't necessarily misogynitic?

Perhaps. However, rape has been a mainstay of warfare, which has been a male dominated behavior. Also, Pakistan only recently overruled a local judgement, which mandated that a man's sister be gangraped for his actions.


Also, this isn't an issue of WHO is having the child, but of the CHILD him/her self. My objections to abortion have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with gender, sex, or anything of that nature.

Join the club. I don't like it myself, but the alernative in my opinion is less rosy. Hence why it should be rare.



If you're going to raise an...

I'm not.



So you can kill a child (zygote, whatever de-humanizing term best suits you) if its in your economic best interests to?

Yes. Everything we do is based on economic interests in the end. This is no different.



This raises certain questions in my mind, not the least of which is: is it moral to advocate an immoral act for a moral outcome?

Good question. Pragmatic decisions usually are outside of the scope of subjective morality.


We want fewer abortions, so we advocate SAFE fornication. This, of course, assumes that fornication is an inevitability, so why not lessen the impact, right?

Well, let's consider the past. Many males in England from the 1400s to 1800s, and some would say now, lost their viriginity in harems and that was acceptable behavior. I don't understand how people think that teens drive by hormones are not going to do it. it seems ignorant of biology.



That doesn't really matter to an aborted child, does it?

Nope. But the consitition doesn't give rights to fetus now does it?



"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan


Cept the antis.



So what? People will be stealing no matter what the consequences are, but do we make things easier on thieves? I refuse to advocate an immoral path to a moral destination.

People are not driven by biology to steal (unless it's food, but that's a whole different issue). Bad analogy.



People say, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one." How about, "Don't want a kid? Don't have sex." The ONLY safe-sex technique that "pro-choice" people DON'T want advocated is the one that works 100% of the time.

Yet that is ignorant of biology. Do you really think people can merely ignore biology?


It's entirely relative. I know quite a few young parents who are awful parents compared to their older, more "stable" counterparts. Conversely, I know quite a few young parents who devote much more to their child than other older parents I know. I will tell you that, from my perspective, I am a much better parent than some others I know, both older and younger. My perspective, though, doesn't prove a thing.

Every parent is different. However, to argue that with more funds and a more mature mind is not generally a better aspect for parenting then few funds and immaturity is insane.

Question: How much does your household make after taxes? How much of that is taken up by child needs? Are you at a community college? What state are you in?

Duo
April 2nd, 2005, 07:41 PM
There is an adoption problem for older children, not for babies

So? So what if they WANT to adopt a baby? The fact that we have parent less children is bad enough. We don't need to increase that number.



Adoption, not abortion is an option then

Please tell me how you complete 9 months of college while pregnant.



Same as above, put the child up for adoption

See above.



Shoved apon them? If someone has sex they are bringing it apon themselves

Ignoring the question I see.

sbgtfJC
April 2nd, 2005, 07:50 PM
So? So what if they WANT to adopt a baby? The fact that we have parent less children is bad enough. We don't need to increase that number.
My point is that a baby is quickly adopted whereas older children are not. It would not be an increase in the number of parentless children when a baby is put up for adoption as he or she would be quickly adopted.


Please tell me how you complete 9 months of college while pregnant.

9 months? For most of this period a woman can go about her normal life, college would not be a problem.


Ignoring the question I see.
I believe your question was rhetorical

Duo
April 2nd, 2005, 09:03 PM
My point is that a baby is quickly adopted whereas older children are not. It would not be an increase in the number of parentless children when a baby is put up for adoption as he or she would be quickly adopted.

Perhaps, but simply because they want to is a reason why abortion should be banned? Quickly adopted? Adoption processes take several months, if not years. Point stil remains, as long as we have parentless children, of any age, it seems stupid to keep adding to that pool.



9 months? For most of this period a woman can go about her normal life, college would not be a problem.

Hardly. Missing even 4 months of major classes, many of which are only offered during specific terms can cause someone to drop behind, or even fail. That by all means is not self improvement and is directly caused by forcing them to have a child. Not to mention pregnancy is no load of fun either and coupled with stress from college, obviously dire circumstnaces are bound to arise.



I believe your question was rhetorical

You could still answer it instead of acting like it did not exist.

CliveStaples
April 2nd, 2005, 09:23 PM
Perhaps. However, rape has been a mainstay of warfare,

So has pillaging. We're talking about NORMAL behavior here, not extenuating circumstances.


...which has been a male dominated behavior.

Certainly.


Also, Pakistan only recently overruled a local judgement, which mandated that a man's sister be gangraped for his actions.

Good for Pakistan.


Yes. Everything we do is based on economic interests in the end. This is no different.

If killing an innocent child is permissible when in one's own economic self-interest, then why not murder, or stealing? "Economic best interest" does NOT make an otherwise immoral or illegal act moral or legal.


Well, let's consider the past. Many males in England from the 1400s to 1800s, and some would say now, lost their viriginity in harems and that was acceptable behavior. I don't understand how people think that teens drive by hormones are not going to do it. it seems ignorant of biology.

Harems? I thought those were in the Middle East. In any case, just because an act is ubiquitous does not make it good or legal. Stealing and murdering have been engaged in by many, many people over the course of history. Are we to lessen the consequences of those bad actions simply because people engage in them? I think not.


Cept the antis.

What? "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." "Cept the antis". What, the "antis" haven't been born? Huh?


Nope. But the consitition doesn't give rights to fetus now does it?

An interesting point.

Digression: the Constitution doesn't give rights to non-American citizens, either. The Geneva conventions don't apply to Iraqi terrorists. But the same people who advocate a narrow application of Constitutional rights vis-a-vis abortion seem to follow a different philosophy when it comes to the aforementioned cases. Merely an observation.

Does the Constitution apply to unborn children? It certainly does apply to fetuses immediately prior to birth, so obviously being born isn't a necessary requirement for enjoyment of Constitutional rights. Quite a sticky wicket. I advocate a BROAD application of the protections of "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness".


People are not driven by biology to steal (unless it's food, but that's a whole different issue). Bad analogy.

People are driven by their desires to steal, murder, and rape. It is no different for those who engage in sex. Not that sex should be illegal (notice that "killing" isn't outlawed, but "murder" is), but that a wrongful act should not enjoy legal easement of its consequences.


Yet that is ignorant of biology. Do you really think people can merely ignore biology?

Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression that humans could control their actions, and restrain from engaging in riskful behavior.

Funny. "If you abstain from sex, you won't pregnant (excepting, of course, peculiar circumstances (turkey basters, etc.))." This is IGNORANT of biology?

Duo
April 2nd, 2005, 10:12 PM
So has pillaging. We're talking about NORMAL behavior here, not extenuating circumstances.

LOL. alright. Well, rape and pillage is still very much a part of warfare in some places even today.



Good for Pakistan.

You could say that. I suppose that they actually got around to it is good, but the fact they let such behavior go in the past is revolting.



If killing an innocent child is permissible when in one's own economic self-interest, then why not murder, or stealing? "Economic best interest" does NOT make an otherwise immoral or illegal act moral or legal.

Ah, but we must therefore bring in the consitution when dealing with rights. A child has rights in the US. A fetus does not. I'm not arguing if that is right or not, I'm merely stating that's how it is. The plot thickens. The moral issue, I find that to be somewhat tricky, considering morality's constant changings. Pragamtic decisions leave out morality for that very reason, and this is very much a pragmatic decision.



Harems? I thought those were in the Middle East. In any case, just because an act is ubiquitous does not make it good or legal. Stealing and murdering have been engaged in by many, many people over the course of history. Are we to lessen the consequences of those bad actions simply because people engage in them? I think not.

Stealing and murdering (lesser on murder) isn't genetic based. It's a bad analogy to compare genetics to societal pressures.



What? "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." "Cept the antis". What, the "antis" haven't been born? Huh?

Whoops. I read it wrong nm.


Digression: the Constitution doesn't give rights to non-American citizens, either. The Geneva conventions don't apply to Iraqi terrorists.

That's in question. The Bush adminstration treats it that way. Other countries do not.


But the same people who advocate a narrow application of Constitutional rights vis-a-vis abortion seem to follow a different philosophy when it comes to the aforementioned cases. Merely an observation.

Consitutional rights are not geneva rights. I am not advocating any specific application. I am merely saying how it is now.



Does the Constitution apply to unborn children? It certainly does apply to fetuses immediately prior to birth, so obviously being born isn't a necessary requirement for enjoyment of Constitutional rights.

Yes it is. The consitution and naturalization clearly states to be a US citizen you must
1) Be born on American soil , which includes embassaies, Us bases, and a few other places
2) Be naturalized
3) Be born and have a parent that is a US citizen (there are regs on this though(
4) Spend 10 years in the US
5) Join the military for a tour
6) Marry a US citizen

There's no way a fetus can do any of those. Being born is a necessary requirement for enjoyment of Constitutional rights.



People are driven by their desires to steal, murder, and rape. It is no different for those who engage in sex.

Again, comparing genetics to societal pressures. Apples and organes.



Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression that humans could control their actions, and restrain from engaging in riskful behavior.

I was too, until life and people around me told me otherwise.



Funny. "If you abstain from sex, you won't pregnant (excepting, of course, peculiar circumstances (turkey basters, etc.))." This is IGNORANT of biology?

Did I say they were ignorant about that? Dishonest quote context.

CliveStaples
April 2nd, 2005, 10:42 PM
Ah, but we must therefore bring in the consitution when dealing with rights. A child has rights in the US. A fetus does not.

Except that it's illegal to "abort" a fetus in the last trimester. So BEFORE IT IS BORN, it obviously enjoys some sort of Constitutional protection.


I'm not arguing if that is right or not, I'm merely stating that's how it is.

When you say "A fetus has no rights", you are wrong.



The plot thickens. The moral issue, I find that to be somewhat tricky, considering morality's constant changings. Pragamtic decisions leave out morality for that very reason, and this is very much a pragmatic decision.

You want to talk about pragmatism, fine. What's the reasoning behind the killing of the child? Economic convenience? That's no legal justification for killing.



Stealing and murdering (lesser on murder) isn't genetic based. It's a bad analogy to compare genetics to societal pressures.

I don't get your reasoning. The "biological" or "genetic" urge to have sex is surely a genitive one (passing on one's seed). But this urge is stifled by "safe sex" techniques. Otherwise, you're simply talking about lust. Lust for money, lust for power, lust for sex.



That's in question. The Bush adminstration treats it that way. Other countries do not.

Aww, too bad the Full Faith and Credit clause doesn't apply to other nations. Funny how we look to other nations for guidance on some legal issues (death penalty, geneva application) but not on others (abortion).



Yes it is. The consitution and naturalization clearly states to be a US citizen you must
1) Be born on American soil , which includes embassaies, Us bases, and a few other places
2) Be naturalized
3) Be born and have a parent that is a US citizen (there are regs on this though(
4) Spend 10 years in the US
5) Join the military for a tour
6) Marry a US citizen

But a fetus cannot be legally killed in the third trimester of pregnancy. Obviously a fetus enjoys some degree of protection at some point pre-birth.



Again, comparing genetics to societal pressures. Apples and organes.

If sexual lust is a "genetic" urge, then what about anger? And who's to say that society isn't pressing kids toward having sex at an earlier age?



I was too, until life and people around me told me otherwise.

If people can't control their actions, they can't be held accountable for them. Basic principle of justice.



Did I say they were ignorant about that? Dishonest quote context.

You characterized my position as lacking knowledge of biology. You didn't point out where or how my position was lacking in knowledge about biology. Certainly my position is not COMPLETELY ignorant of biology, as my previous reply indicates. Either be specific with insults to my base of knowlege, or don't make them.

sbgtfJC
April 3rd, 2005, 08:59 AM
Perhaps, but simply because they want to is a reason why abortion should be banned? Quickly adopted? Adoption processes take several months, if not years. Point stil remains, as long as we have parentless children, of any age, it seems stupid to keep adding to that pool.
I am not claiming that people wanting to adopt is a reason that abortion should be banned. What I am claiming is that there isn't a problem finding people to adopt babies, thus it isnt' a reason that abortion should remain legal.


You could still answer it instead of acting like it did not exist.

Well, here goes then: of course the better parents would be those who are prepared, but that does not mean that the less abled parents can't handle it. Furthar more, they could put the child up for adoption and then someone better able to take cared of the child would be able to.

Duo
April 3rd, 2005, 01:09 PM
Except that it's illegal to "abort" a fetus in the last trimester. So BEFORE IT IS BORN, it obviously enjoys some sort of Constitutional protection.

No, the partial birth abortion law was struck down (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5941648). It's still legal.



When you say "A fetus has no rights", you are wrong.

To the feds and most states, it has no rights.



You want to talk about pragmatism, fine. What's the reasoning behind the killing of the child? Economic convenience? That's no legal justification for killing.

I please read what I said before commenting next time.



I don't get your reasoning. The "biological" or "genetic" urge to have sex is surely a genitive one (passing on one's seed). But this urge is stifled by "safe sex" techniques. Otherwise, you're simply talking about lust. Lust for money, lust for power, lust for sex.

Safe sex is not 100%.



Aww, too bad the Full Faith and Credit clause doesn't apply to other nations. Funny how we look to other nations for guidance on some legal issues (death penalty, geneva application) but not on others (abortion).

We mutally agreed on the Geneva with other nations. We are bound to the same laws when dealing with the geneva as they are due to that nasty little thing called a signature. Besides, there is no consens in the US about the geneva at the moment.



But a fetus cannot be legally killed in the third trimester of pregnancy. Obviously a fetus enjoys some degree of protection at some point pre-birth.

Unless you're thinking of a new law, the partial birth was struck down.



If sexual lust is a "genetic" urge, then what about anger? And who's to say that society isn't pressing kids toward having sex at an earlier age?

Anger differs from person to person. Biological hormones pushing sex is present in everyone. Society is likely doing that, but even if it wasn't there is still a biological factor pressing kids to do it.



If people can't control their actions, they can't be held accountable for them. Basic principle of justice.

I wish that was true. The president is saying it's not.



You characterized my position as lacking knowledge of biology. You didn't point out where or how my position was lacking in knowledge about biology. Certainly my position is not COMPLETELY ignorant of biology, as my previous reply indicates. Either be specific with insults to my base of knowlege, or don't make them.

*sigh*. You appeared to lack biological knowledge of hormones, as did the rest of you.


What I am claiming is that there isn't a problem finding people to adopt babies, thus it isnt' a reason that abortion should remain legal.

I don't care. We have children ready to be adopted. If they want to adopt a baby, they can do it outside of the US. The fact still remains we have children who are parentless. Also, you assume that every child will be adopted. I HIGHLY question that.


Furthar more, they could put the child up for adoption and then someone better able to take cared of the child would be able to.

But that 9 months would be likely higly detremiental.

CliveStaples
April 3rd, 2005, 01:30 PM
No, the partial birth abortion law was struck down. It's still legal.

Point conceded. Fetuses do NOT enjoy Constitutional protection, although I believe that they should.



Safe sex is not 100%.

That's irrelevant. If teenagers are going to have sex and are trying to preclude pregnancy (i.e., passing of one's seed), then the motivation CANNOT be to pass on one's seed.



We mutally agreed on the Geneva with other nations. We are bound to the same laws when dealing with the geneva as they are due to that nasty little thing called a signature. Besides, there is no consens in the US about the geneva at the moment.

Justice Kennedy looked to foreign law for guidance in his Roeper decision regarding the Constitutionality of the death penalty. If he looked to foreign law for guidance regarding abortion, our abortion jurisprudence would be much more restrictive.



Unless you're thinking of a new law, the partial birth was struck down.

CliveStaples=pwned.


Anger differs from person to person. Biological hormones pushing sex is present in everyone. Society is likely doing that, but even if it wasn't there is still a biological factor pressing kids to do it.

So "horniness" is now a biological pressure? "Horniness" differs from person to person, as well. Anger is a similar response; different people react differently, but REGARDLESS of their own person desires, they are responsible for their actions. A person doesn't get a "not guilty" verdict for murder because he was "really, really pissed off". But apparently we're going to allow legal easement of fornication because the kids are "really, really horny".



*sigh*. You appeared to lack biological knowledge of hormones, as did the rest of you.

Teenagers WANT to have sex. Sometimes I WANT to steal something. Just because the teenagers' WANT is grounded in procreation and passing on one's seed (which is ENTIRELY irrelevant, as this discussion revolves around techniques that PRECLUDE such an intended goal) DOESN'T make their conduct any more excuseable.

Duo
April 3rd, 2005, 05:10 PM
Point conceded. Fetuses do NOT enjoy Constitutional protection, although I believe that they should.

Depends. I agree that partial birth should be outlawed except in cases of danger to the mother. Third term is a convience by all standards. If you had a good reason to abort, you would have done it earlier.



That's irrelevant. If teenagers are going to have sex and are trying to preclude pregnancy (i.e., passing of one's seed), then the motivation CANNOT be to pass on one's seed.

Well, I realize most teenagers aren't trying to have a kid, but are merely giving in to their biological push to have sex.



Justice Kennedy looked to foreign law for guidance in his Roeper decision regarding the Constitutionality of the death penalty. If he looked to foreign law for guidance regarding abortion, our abortion jurisprudence would be much more restrictive.

Okay...



So "horniness" is now a biological pressure?

That's a interesting way to put it.


"Horniness" differs from person to person, as well.

But basically every teenager on the planet is horny. Not even teenager is angry for biological reasons. Sure they are angry, but that's a whole different issue.


but REGARDLESS of their own person desires, they are responsible for their actions.


Should be or are?


A person doesn't get a "not guilty" verdict for murder because he was "really, really pissed off".

He gets it for claiming temporary insanity. It's not a big leap.


But apparently we're going to allow legal easement of fornication because the kids are "really, really horny".

Societal pressures and biological ones are two very different subjects.



Teenagers WANT to have sex. Sometimes I WANT to steal something.

Teenagers are driven by biological hormones to have sex. Your theft is not, unless you consider the need to eat, but then again, that;'s a different story.


Just because the teenagers' WANT is grounded in procreation and passing on one's seed (which is ENTIRELY irrelevant, as this discussion revolves around techniques that PRECLUDE such an intended goal) DOESN'T make their conduct any more excuseable.

Perhaps it doesn't, but considering the amount of things today that are excused i see no problem in keeping consistancy. ;)

CliveStaples
April 3rd, 2005, 05:40 PM
Well, I realize most teenagers aren't trying to have a kid, but are merely giving in to their biological push to have sex.

What do you mean by "biological"? Do you mean, "prompted by one's desires"? "Prompted by one's own hormones"? Clarification, please...



But basically every teenager on the planet is horny. Not even teenager is angry for biological reasons. Sure they are angry, but that's a whole different issue.

Again, clarification on what you mean by "biology", "biologically", etc.


He gets it for claiming temporary insanity. It's not a big leap.

"Extreme emotional disturbance" =/= "temporary insanity". Being really, really mad ISN'T the same as being temporarily insane.



Societal pressures and biological ones are two very different subjects.

Clarification on terms, please.


Teenagers are driven by biological hormones to have sex. Your theft is not, unless you consider the need to eat, but then again, that;'s a different story.

"Emotions" are driven by hormones, as well. Is all activity prompted by "biology" to be protected by the law?

One's desire to steal is driven by "hormones" in the case of food and water? No, it's driven by "necessity". "Hormones" can make a person angry, depressed, horny, etc. Such moods are NOT legal justification for killing.

sbgtfJC
April 3rd, 2005, 05:54 PM
So what? Teenages want/are hormonally driven to have sex. I don't see a link between that and keeping abortion legal.

Meng Bomin
April 3rd, 2005, 07:59 PM
"Emotions" are driven by hormones, as well.
Nitpick of the day: Emotions are driven by neurotransmitters and can be influenced by hormones.

Is all activity prompted by "biology" to be protected by the law?
Obviously not. However, when it comes to abortion, we are faced with a high rate of unwanted pregnancies and would-be mothers desperate to have abortions. Making abortion illegal has not worked to rid countries such of Chile and Bolivia of abortions; they have higher abortion rates than the US. European countries, which lack such laws, have lower rates of abortion. There obviously are alternatives to abortion, both before pregnancy and after.
Those before:
Contraceptives and abstention
After:
Adoption.

However, what is going to increase the use of such alternatives is not legislation; that will simply drive the practice of abortion underground, which means that abortions will be a significant danger to the mother as well as the embryo. It is education that will increase the uses of such alternatives, which is what we see happening in Europe. A ban on abortion will not help us economically and it will not remove abortion, so what is the real reason for it?

So what? Teenages want/are hormonally driven to have sex. I don't see a link between that and keeping abortion legal.
Teen pregnancy is that link. A teenage mother is going to be severely hindered by having a child and keeping it. Unfortunately, this is what many of them do. Others will secretly get abortions, both legal and illegal to avoid such a fate. What happens if illegal abortions are the only option? Illegal abortion rates go up and there is a higher rate of teen fatalities.

Missy
April 5th, 2005, 04:47 PM
I am 100%pro-life. I believe under no circumstance should anyone have the right to play god and murder a baby. There are so many means of birth control out there that if a woman were to become pregnant it would be her clumsyness, and yet it's the innocent would pay for it with thier life. Someone once said "Anyone who is for abortion has already been born".

Diary of an Unborn child.
Week 3- Today I was conceived, I wonder if my mommy knows i am here yet?
Week 5- I wonder if my mommy is pretty? Will she sing me lullabyes?
Week 8- I wonder if my mommy will protect me? She has such a soothing voice.
Week 12- I was all wrong about my mommy for today my dearest mommy killed me.

sbgtfJC
April 5th, 2005, 04:50 PM
Welcome to ODN, Missy.

Harrison383
April 6th, 2005, 10:51 AM
I am 100%pro-life. I believe under no circumstance should anyone have the right to play god and murder a baby. There are so many means of birth control out there that if a woman were to become pregnant it would be her clumsyness, and yet it's the innocent would pay for it with thier life. Someone once said "Anyone who is for abortion has already been born".

Welcome to the boards.

Clumsyness? How dare those women who got raped be so clumsy as to be held at gunpoint, most likely tied down, and taken advantage of.

And somone also said, "Kill 'em all!" doesn't mean that the quote should be used to justify it.

My stance on abortion is it should be legal. I absolutely detest the idea of killing a child, but I have not right to tell a woman what to/not to do with her body. It's simply a question of morality to me, and I don't feel that *my* morals should be used to judge *another's* actions.

And I say that a woman has a right, because as far as I'm aware, that fetus cannot exist outside her body anyway. So it is still an extension of her being. Therefore she has rights to it. And if she feels that she should destroy it, then legally I don't see a difference than that and cutting off her arm. Later on down the road that arm may do some good for society, but she has a right to her own body. I may not agree with it, but it's not my place.

Fyshhed
April 6th, 2005, 02:13 PM
Diary of an Unborn child.
Week 3- Today I was conceived, I wonder if my mommy knows i am here yet?
Week 5- I wonder if my mommy is pretty? Will she sing me lullabyes?
Week 8- I wonder if my mommy will protect me? She has such a soothing voice.
Week 12- I was all wrong about my mommy for today my dearest mommy killed me.
Sloppy appeal to emotion.

I'm sure you recall such thoughts of your own while you were developing. Like that time your brain wasn't developed and you were taking notes on your mommy. Honestly, in the uterus, even if it was conscious, it wouldn't even know where it was. No light, just a little clump that tumbles out of the fallopian tube and gets stuck in the uterus. If it was conscious at all, it sure wouldn't be thinking "I wonder if mommy..." maybe it would be thinking "Must find food source." and kill it's way through mommy's cell wall and into her circulatory system. Much love. :)


BTW, welcome to the boards :lol:

Apokalupsis
April 6th, 2005, 02:28 PM
My stance on abortion is it should be legal. I absolutely detest the idea of killing a child, but I have not right to tell a woman what to/not to do with her body.
I object to this line of reasoning on a few grounds.

1) There are numerous things that one can do to their own body, that we as a society have deemed as being innappropriate and illegal. To be consistent with JUST this line of reasoning as you have presented here, one should have the right to:


use drugs
not wear a seatbelt while in an automobile
not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle
drink as much alcohol as one wants in an establishment
drink alcohol in public places excluding an establishment
commit suicide (it is still considered illegal in some states, although rarely enforced - for those who fail to commit suicide)
etc...


2) The idea behind pro-life is NOT the intrusion upon one's personal decisions...but rather the PROTECTION of what is believed to be a living human being.

And the protection of LIFE supersedes the moral good of allowing one do whatever they personall feel compelled to do.

Harrison383
April 7th, 2005, 05:49 AM
Well *I* object to a few things here.



* use drugs
* not wear a seatbelt while in an automobile
* not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle
* drink as much alcohol as one wants in an establishment
* drink alcohol in public places excluding an establishment
* commit suicide (it is still considered illegal in some states, although rarely enforced - for those who fail to commit suicide)
etc...


2) The idea behind pro-life is NOT the intrusion upon one's personal decisions...but rather the PROTECTION of what is believed to be a living human being.

And the protection of LIFE supersedes the moral good of allowing one do whatever they personall feel compelled to do.

Number 1 is a behavior that is not just self-destructive (and also can be considered slow suicide), but is like a disease where the very infrastructure behind it is detrimental to society.

Number 2 and 3 are more safety issues than preservation of life issues. The same thing can be said about wearing a hardhat at a construction site. I do see your point here, but I think there is a difference here that I'll explain lower down.

Numbers 4 and 5 concern injesting a liquid that causes you to alter your mental state, thus preventing you from having responsibility of your actions, therefore is dangerous to those around you.

Number 6 is usually caused by depression or by someone who really shouldn't be placed as responsable for thier own actions; especially if the self-preservation instinct no longer applies in thier mind.


2) The idea behind pro-life is NOT the intrusion upon one's personal decisions...but rather the PROTECTION of what is believed to be a living human being.

See, that's where we digress. I don't see a fetus as a living "human being". As far as I'm aware, a fetus cannot exist outside of the womb of the parent, so until that thing is born, it's still just an extension of herself. Therefore I cannot see denying a woman the rights to her own body.

So the motorcycle helmets and seatbelts deal more with personal safety and the preservation of a human life. I just don't see how we can legally draw the line at conception. It's just a collection of cells. You can trace the line back further and say everytime that we don't conceive during a menstration we're denying the "potential" to a child, and therefore are aborting what could be.

Personally, aborting fetuses makes me want to vomit. But legally (unless you can convince me otherwise) I have to say that a woman is allowed to do with her body what she will.

And this:


And the protection of LIFE supersedes the moral good of allowing one do whatever they personally feel compelled to do.

Is an excellent point.

Mike
April 7th, 2005, 03:53 PM
I object to this line of reasoning on a few grounds.

1) There are numerous things that one can do to their own body, that we as a society have deemed as being innappropriate and illegal. To be consistent with JUST this line of reasoning as you have presented here, one should have the right to:

use drugs
not wear a seatbelt while in an automobile
not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle
drink as much alcohol as one wants in an establishment
drink alcohol in public places excluding an establishment
commit suicide (it is still considered illegal in some states, although rarely enforced - for those who fail to commit suicide)
etc...

So you're saying because we already stop people doing what they like with their body in some cases that we should stop them in others?

A number of these examples are not simply affecting that persons body, in a car crash if someone int he rear-seats isn't wearing a seatbelt they can kill someone sat in the front. Not to mention having to pay for treatment of injuries (government funded in Britain). Drinking in public has adverse affects on those trying to share the area. I admit some of the examples given seem slightly unjust yet this is no reason to apply it to abortion.
___________

Now being the talented debator I am, I'm going to flip the coin and argue the other side ;)
___________


I don't see a fetus as a living "human being". As far as I'm aware, a fetus cannot exist outside of the womb of the parent, so until that thing is born, it's still just an extension of herself. Therefore I cannot see denying a woman the rights to her own body.

But hold on a minute, the foetus *is* capable of life outside the womb. Advancing technology means babies can survive very premature births, the maximum time for abortion has been decreased in the past because of this. The time will have to come when we allow abortions to take place when babies who are less developed survive. As medicene advances further - how long will it be untill we have a full artificial womb that can take a baby from conception to full-term?

Now the issue becomes confusing, you supported abortion on the grounds the baby was not a life as it was dependant on its mother. How about a baby that is dependant on medical equipment? Can we still go along and chop it up as we do when its in the womb? Remember its not a life as its incapable of functioning independantly.

You might be sat there thinking "obviously not" - but why not?

Harrison383
April 8th, 2005, 06:45 AM
But hold on a minute, the foetus *is* capable of life outside the womb. Advancing technology means babies can survive very premature births, the maximum time for abortion has been decreased in the past because of this. The time will have to come when we allow abortions to take place when babies who are less developed survive. As medicene advances further - how long will it be untill we have a full artificial womb that can take a baby from conception to full-term?

Now the issue becomes confusing, you supported abortion on the grounds the baby was not a life as it was dependant on its mother. How about a baby that is dependant on medical equipment? Can we still go along and chop it up as we do when its in the womb? Remember its not a life as its incapable of functioning independantly.

You might be sat there thinking "obviously not" - but why not?

Okay, you're mixing "baby" with "fetus". A "fetus", to me (with my vast amounts of medical knowledge :rolleyes: ) seems to be an extension of a woman, that may grow to become a child, that cannot exist outside the confines of his/her mother's body. A "baby", to me, is a human infant that is able to be raised and supported by people other than his/her mom.

Now, we can argue back and forth about a gray area where we can take a kid out of a womb before he/she's to be born, but I just basically think of it that way.


how long will it be untill we have a full artificial womb that can take a baby from conception to full-term?

Until that happens, I'm going to have to stick with my opinion. The time may come when we can have our heads in jars ala Futurama. Doesn't mean I have an opinion on it.


How about a baby that is dependant on medical equipment?

Then it's a "baby" and not a "fetus". And has the same rights/privilages as another human, on life support, that cannot make it's will known.


Can we still go along and chop it up as we do when its in the womb? Remember its not a life as its incapable of functioning independantly.

I never said that. I said that because it can't function on it's own, whomever is birthing it, or caring for it, is the one who has the rights over it. I look at it the same way as a wife's legal rights over her catatonic husband.

Mike
April 8th, 2005, 07:23 AM
Okay, you're mixing "baby" with "fetus". A "fetus", to me (with my vast amounts of medical knowledge :rolleyes: ) seems to be an extension of a woman, that may grow to become a child, that cannot exist outside the confines of his/her mother's body. A "baby", to me, is a human infant that is able to be raised and supported by people other than his/her mom.

A foetus can be seperated from its mother and survive with the help of technology. We have a window of time where technology can support a baby and it is legal for a foetus of the same age to be killed just because it is still inside a mother. You base your arguemnt on the fact a foetus is an extension of the woman and is incapable of life without her, but this isn't true.

It can't see how it's ok to kill a collection of living cells inside the womb but the very same collection of living cells cannot be killed if they are outside the womb.

If you view the womb as a natural life support (which is all it is) there suddenly becomes very litte difference at all.

sbgtfJC
April 8th, 2005, 07:38 AM
Okay, you're mixing "baby" with "fetus". A "fetus", to me (with my vast amounts of medical knowledge :rolleyes: ) seems to be an extension of a woman, that may grow to become a child, that cannot exist outside the confines of his/her mother's body. A "baby", to me, is a human infant that is able to be raised and supported by people other than his/her mom.

A fetus is not a mere extension of its mother's body. There is a separate heartbeat pumping a separate blood stream, which often has a wholly different blood type. Rather or not a child is viable does not have anything to do with if the child is a separate entity from his or her mother.

Harrison383
April 8th, 2005, 07:44 AM
You base your arguemnt on the fact a foetus is an extension of the woman and is incapable of life without her, but this isn't true.

Actually, my basis is that the baby is still on life support (natural or otherwise), therefore the mother has legal rights concerning it.

If the baby can survive without life support (natural or otherwise) then it is a sustained life, and cannot be killed unless it's an evil demon hell-spawn.

Mike, I see what you're saying but I think I didn't make myself clear and for that I'm sorry. I just look a at a fetus the same way as an old person on the big machine with all the tubes that goes "beep...beep...beep..." (I have no idea what it's called). So all legal matters concerning that person should be the same as a fetus.

I was just defining where I see the difference between a fetus and a baby.

Mike
April 8th, 2005, 08:20 AM
Actually, my basis is that the baby is still on life support (natural or otherwise), therefore the mother has legal rights concerning it.

If the baby can survive without life support (natural or otherwise) then it is a sustained life, and cannot be killed unless it's an evil demon hell-spawn.

Mike, I see what you're saying but I think I didn't make myself clear and for that I'm sorry. I just look a at a fetus the same way as an old person on the big machine with all the tubes that goes "beep...beep...beep..." (I have no idea what it's called). So all legal matters concerning that person should be the same as a fetus.

I was just defining where I see the difference between a fetus and a baby.

OK I see what you're saying, in a way I agree but at the same time I don't. (I'm good like that!) You see abortion as the same as turning off a life support machine, yeh? But why are we taking this foetus of it's life support machine (the mother), not because the baby would not want to live, not because the baby cannot "recover" but simply because the mother does not want the baby. Maybe because the baby would be inconveinient for her!

A wife cannot turn off her husbands life-support machine on these grounds so the logic doesn't follow. A growing foetus is wildly different from a 90-year-old man on a life support machine, that foetus is going to "recover", it is going to lead an independant life.

Harrison383
April 8th, 2005, 10:47 AM
But why are we taking this foetus of it's life support machine (the mother), not because the baby would not want to live, not because the baby cannot "recover" but simply because the mother does not want the baby.

See, I'm with you here, but people can muddy the waters on what they consider to be harmful. They can say, "well, we won't have the economic stability, or maturity to handle this, so let's save the kid from having to grow up in a horrible household." Or another fact they'll drudge up and say that the kid isn't going to "survive". I'd rather have the kid put up for adoption...but it's not about what I want.


A wife cannot turn off her husbands life-support machine on these grounds so the logic doesn't follow. A growing foetus is wildly different from a 90-year-old man on a life support machine, that foetus is going to "recover", it is going to lead an independant life.

This is a good point. But people look at the odds of a person coming out of a coma and will still pull the plug. I'm saying that should the mother wish to have an abortion, then she should be allowed it. Yeah, people are going to abuse the system, but we see that everyday.

I hope you understand my point. Or if you don't. Or if you're not sure... :P

Booger
April 8th, 2005, 12:02 PM
I object to this line of reasoning on a few grounds.

1) There are numerous things that one can do to their own body, that we as a society have deemed as being innappropriate and illegal. To be consistent with JUST this line of reasoning as you have presented here, one should have the right to:


use drugs
not wear a seatbelt while in an automobile
not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle
drink as much alcohol as one wants in an establishment
drink alcohol in public places excluding an establishment
commit suicide (it is still considered illegal in some states, although rarely enforced - for those who fail to commit suicide)
etc...



Objection overruled. First, on the drugs issue, only a portion of society has deemed drug use to be inappropriate. Just ask Rush. Besides, a person who actually believes that one has the right to do with their body as they please would never be in favor of punishing those who use drugs; only backwards-walking conservatives would be in favor of that. In addition, drugs are illegal due to the general harm caused society. Third, as to limits on drinking alchohol, those laws are for the general welfare and safety of other citizens; a zygote is not a person. Fourth, as to suicide, we would have physician-assisted suicide in states other than Oregon if it weren't for religious conservatives. Fifth, as to seatbelts and helmets, state legislatures justify those laws on the grounds that the government may have to foot the bill for medical costs. Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the fundamental right to privacy outweighs the state's interest in protecting a fetus; the Court has not so ruled with drugs, drinking and seatbelts. Are are you arguing that the Consitution provides us with a fundamental right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? :lol:


2) The idea behind pro-life is NOT the intrusion upon one's personal decisions...but rather the PROTECTION of what is believed to be a living human being.

And the protection of LIFE supersedes the moral good of allowing one do whatever they personall feel compelled to do.

You pro-lifers are out of your gotdamn minds. Literally. You're going to tell me that if a 13 year old girl who just began to ovulate is raped by some disgusting bum and got pregnant, not only would she have to suffer the mental torment of the rape, but in your abortion-free world, she'd have to carry the child to term and actually give birth to her rape-produced child? If that were my child and you inconsistent, hypocritical "pro-lifers" had succeeded at getting abortion banned, I'd take her overseas to get the job done. But thank God that you pro-lifers will NEVER succeed in your efforts and that the backlash against the religious right is right around the corner...

CliveStaples
April 10th, 2005, 10:06 PM
Besides, a person who actually believes that one has the right to do with their body as they please would never be in favor of punishing those who use drugs;

That's true.


...only backwards-walking conservatives would be in favor of that.

No, actually "everyone who isn't a libertarian" would be in favor of that.



Third, as to limits on drinking alchohol, those laws are for the general welfare and safety of other citizens; a zygote is not a person.

There are two aspects to drunk-driving laws: one, that the drunk driver presents a danger to other drivers on the road; two, that the drunk driver is endangering his own life. Seat-belt laws are similar; a person wearing a seat-belt is less likely to become a missile in the event of an accident, and is less likely to come to harm himself.

A zygote is not a person? Do you mean that the zygote is not a human or has not achieved personhood, or both?



Fourth, as to suicide, we would have physician-assisted suicide in states other than Oregon if it weren't for religious conservatives.

Interesting point. We'd also have legal child porn in every state in the Union if it weren't for opponents of NAMBLA.


You pro-lifers are out of your gotdamn minds. Literally.

Do you mean that we are literally mentally insane, or that our minds are literally damned by God?



You're going to tell me that if a 13 year old girl who just began to ovulate is raped by some disgusting bum and got pregnant, not only would she have to suffer the mental torment of the rape, but in your abortion-free world, she'd have to carry the child to term and actually give birth to her rape-produced child?

What has the child done to deserve punishment? Why should the life of the child be ended? Because his or her life is a result of an evil action? That's rather specious thinking.


If that were my child and you inconsistent, hypocritical "pro-lifers" had succeeded at getting abortion banned, I'd take her overseas to get the job done.

Why "hypocritical"? Why "inconsistent"?



Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the fundamental right to privacy outweighs the state's interest in protecting a fetus;

Oh, PLEASE tell me that we can get into the Supreme Court's Roe decision here. I've been waiting for this.

Slipnish
April 11th, 2005, 06:18 AM
Wanna get rid of this issue? Mandatory birth control implants in all females at the onset of puberty.

No whining, no waiting, no fuss, no muss.

Just a lil shot, and you're good to go.

Unless you want to argue that birth control is a bad thing as well?

sbgtfJC
April 11th, 2005, 07:21 AM
Do you mean that we are literally mentally insane, or that our minds are literally damned by God?

Nope, damned by "got" :P

Apokalupsis
April 11th, 2005, 11:33 AM
Number 1 is a behavior that is not just self-destructive (and also can be considered slow suicide), but is like a disease where the very infrastructure behind it is detrimental to society.
How is using drugs privately, in my own home, detrimental to society. How are YOU affected by it? According to your statement : but I have no right to tell a woman [or man] what to/not to do with her body. you don't have a right to tell me what I can and can't do to my own body. So what if I wanna get high? So what if I even want to abuse it? So when if I wish to END it? It's MY body. What right do YOU have to say otherwise? And remember, according to YOU, you DON'T have a right.

It's contradictory.



Number 2 and 3 are more safety issues than preservation of life issues.
No, it's a "life-issue". They save lives. That's their purpose. However, it doesn't matter if it's a life OR safety issue.. It is STILL an individual's body. According to YOU, you do not have a right to force them to do anything in regards to it.



Numbers 4 and 5 concern injesting a liquid that causes you to alter your mental state, thus preventing you from having responsibility of your actions, therefore is dangerous to those around you.
I see. So we DO have a right to tell others what to do and what not to do (re: their own bodies) when OTHERS may be affected by it?



Number 6 is usually caused by depression or by someone who really shouldn't be placed as responsable for thier own actions; especially if the self-preservation instinct no longer applies in thier mind.
Again, it's THEIR decision, THEIR body. And not all people who commit suicide are depressed. Euthanasia is suicide.



See, that's where we digress. I don't see a fetus as a living "human being". As far as I'm aware, a fetus cannot exist outside of the womb of the parent, so until that thing is born, it's still just an extension of herself. Therefore I cannot see denying a woman the rights to her own body.
I didn't say one way or another what I believe a fetus to be. I objected to your inference that the purpose of pro-life is to be an intrusion on one's personal freedoms. Instead, it is the protection of a life. If it is true that a fetus is not a life, then pro-lifers are misinformed. If it is true that a fetus is a life, then pro-lifers are justifed. That's all I said and am saying. ;)

Apokalupsis
April 11th, 2005, 11:39 AM
So you're saying because we already stop people doing what they like with their body in some cases that we should stop them in others?
No. I objected to the idea that we do not have a right to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Of course we can. This depends upon the situation obviously. But to claim that we have NO right in an absolute sense, is false.



A number of these examples are not simply affecting that persons body,
In all of the examples it is possible that only that one person is affected. Such is the case of the context inferred.


in a car crash if someone int he rear-seats isn't wearing a seatbelt they can kill someone sat in the front.
Adding "extra" variables that were not present in the argument, does not strengthen your own, but only dodges the ACTUAL argument. ;)


I admit some of the examples given seem slightly unjust yet this is no reason to apply it to abortion.
I never claimed that we should have the right to tell others what to do concerning abortion. I objected to the claim that we don't have the right to tell others what to do regarding their bodies. We DO have that right. It DOES exist.

SO, that argument (that we don't have the right) being used to SUPPORT pro-choice, is invalid.

Booger
April 11th, 2005, 01:44 PM
Interesting point. We'd also have legal child porn in every state in the Union if it weren't for opponents of NAMBLA.

What an insightful comment! Color me impressed!


Do you mean that we are literally mentally insane, or that our minds are literally damned by God?

:rolleyes:


What has the child done to deserve punishment? Why should the life of the child be ended? Because his or her life is a result of an evil action? That's rather specious thinking.

"Specious" thinking? The irony in that statement is overwhelming hilarious. The only "specious" thinking here is to respond to my hypothetical by insisting the fetus is being punished, when in fact, if you and the rest of the pro-lifers had your way, the only child here being punished is the 13-year old.


Why "hypocritical"? Why "inconsistent"?

Why all of the rhetorical questions?

As a pro-lifer, I'll ask you: Does the "right to life" and "erring on the side of life" apply to:

1. The death penalty? The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) has compiled a list of 102 people wrongly executed between 1973 and 2000, and the actual number may be as high as 200. GW Bush himself holds the ignominious distinction of having signed 152 death warrants while governor of Texas. "Erring on the side of life?"
2. Gun control?
3. Pulling feeding tubes from indigent patients who can't afford it?
4. Stem cell research?
5. Cloning?
6. Launching pre-emptive wars in the Middle East?
7. Poverty?
8. Ectopic pregnancies?
9. Imminent death of the mother? Either the fetus has a full right to life from conception or it does not, correct?


Oh, PLEASE tell me that we can get into the Supreme Court's Roe decision here. I've been waiting for this.

Try Casey.

CliveStaples
April 11th, 2005, 02:19 PM
Do you mean that we are literally mentally insane, or that our minds are literally damned by God?

:rolleyes:

You're the one who put the "literally" there, Booger. When idiots say things like "I'm so hungry that I could LITERALLY eat a horse", it irks me. You don't mean it literally; you mean it metaphorically. So why put such a blatant contradiction in the sentence? Pure idiocy.



What an insightful comment! Color me impressed!

It's almost as good as "abortion would be legal but for its opponents". Satire is the sincerest form of contempt.



"Specious" thinking? The irony in that statement is overwhelming hilarious. The only "specious" thinking here is to respond to my hypothetical by insisting the fetus is being punished, when in fact, if you and the rest of the pro-lifers had your way, the only child here being punished is the 13-year old.


I'm still ambivalent about the legality of abortion under such circumstances. I only meant that I believe the moral decision in such a circumstance is to endure the suffering of pregnancy to grant the child an opportunity to live. Forcing such a decision through rule of law is a complicated issue.



Why all of the rhetorical questions?

Here's a clue, Booger: They're not "rhetorical" if they're meant to recieve an answer.

I suppose that I should have written "What is the reasoning behind labelling the pro-life conservatives as 'hypocritical' and 'inconsistent'?"


As a pro-lifer, I'll ask you: Does the "right to life" and "erring on the side of life" apply to:

"As a pro-lifer"; do you mean that YOU are the pro-lifer, or that I am? Regardless:


1. The death penalty? The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) has compiled a list of 102 people wrongly executed between 1973 and 2000, and the actual number may be as high as 200. GW Bush himself holds the ignominious distinction of having signed 152 death warrants while governor of Texas. "Erring on the side of life?"


I see. George W. Bush DEFINITELY factors into my philosophy about the death penalty.

No system is perfect. I don't think that we have the ideal justice system. However, having the death penalty, as wrongly as it may be applied on occasion in our justice system, is far better than not having it. The greater good is served by having the death penalty; the same cannot be said of abortion.



2. Gun control?

What the hell are you talking about? I guess we should outlaw ALL deadly weapons! I don't want to outlaw SCALPELS (or whatever they use in abortion procedures), but I disapprove of abortion. Similarly, I don't think guns should be outlawed, but I think murder should. The tools used to perpetrate an immoral action are, in these cases, themselves morally neutral.


3. Pulling feeding tubes from indigent patients who can't afford it?


Can the patients eat without the feeding tube? Is it necessary to have the feeding tube in order for the patient to survive? If not, then I don't think the tube should be removed. (Oh, no! I may actually DISAGREE with the current President! I should tune in more often to Karl Rove's mind-control beams...)



4. Stem cell research?

You mean, embryonic stem cell research, of course. As I understand it, stem cells can be extracted from adults without killing the adults. I see no problem with disallowing embryonic stem cell research if the same basic research can be accomplished through non-fatal means.



5. Cloning?

I don't think that cloning a human being is ethical or moral. Cloning specific organs, on the other hand, seems permissible.



6. Launching pre-emptive wars in the Middle East?

Nobody has a problem with "pre-emptive" wars; people have a problem with Iraq because they (wrongly, in my opinion) believe that it is not, in fact, pre-emptive.



7. Poverty?

I think that people should donate to the poor; I think that people who CAN work should do so. I think that vows of poverty are honorable, and that the poor usually possess more human dignity than the rich.



8. Ectopic pregnancies?

I'm not sure what your question is. I think everything that is possible should be done to ensure a safe delivery of the baby.



9. Imminent death of the mother? Either the fetus has a full right to life from conception or it does not, correct?

Again, I'm ambivalent about the role of law in the extreme scenarios of abortion. I believe that, if it were my choice, I would choose to risk death (or choose to die outright) in order for my child to have a chance to live.



Try Casey.

Without Roe there is no Casey. Casey is fruit of the poisonous tree.

Apokalupsis
April 11th, 2005, 03:08 PM
Objection overruled. First, on the drugs issue, only a portion of society has deemed drug use to be inappropriate. Just ask Rush. Besides, a person who actually believes that one has the right to do with their body as they please would never be in favor of punishing those who use drugs; only backwards-walking conservatives would be in favor of that. In addition, drugs are illegal due to the general harm caused society. Third, as to limits on drinking alchohol, those laws are for the general welfare and safety of other citizens; a zygote is not a person.
Problem...you are using "right" in a strict legal sense. So much so that his statement could be reworded as:

I absolutely detest the idea of killing a child, but it is against the law for me to impose upon an individual that which is illegal and that which is against their will (eg. forcing another to an abortion or not allowing an abortion to which one has the legal right to obtain).

Instead, for a MEANINGFUL discussion, the term "right" is used here in an obligatory sense. It is extended to both civic and moral responsibility. Remember, merely because something is legal or illegal, does not tell us if it is moral or immoral.

Furthermore, the fact that drugs ARE illegal is evidence that we DO have a right to tell others NOT to take druges, not the opposite thereof. Thank you kindly for making my own point. ;)



Fourth, as to suicide, we would have physician-assisted suicide in states other than Oregon if it weren't for religious conservatives.
Irrelevant.


Fifth, as to seatbelts and helmets, state legislatures justify those laws on the grounds that the government may have to foot the bill for medical costs.
Of course they do. But it does not argue AGAINST the claim that one does not have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do to their own bodies like was earlier claimed.


Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the fundamental right to privacy outweighs the state's interest in protecting a fetus; the Court has not so ruled with drugs, drinking and seatbelts.
Merely because something IS legal or illegal, does not tell us that it is moral or immoral.



You pro-lifers are out of your gotdamn minds. Literally.
First of all...I've never identified myself as a pro-lifer. Secondly, I've NOT argued the pro-life position in this thread. I've merely objected to the specific claim that one does not have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do with their OWN bodies. CLEARLY, this is NOT the case. IT CANNOT be used as an argument FOR abortion since this IS the case. Lastly, one cannot "literally" be out of their mind.


You're going to tell me that if a 13 year old girl who just began to ovulate is raped by some disgusting bum and got pregnant, not only would she have to suffer the mental torment of the rape, but in your abortion-free world, she'd have to carry the child to term and actually give birth to her rape-produced child?
First of all, I'm not telling you ANYTHING. I'm not arguing pro-life OR pro-choice in this thread.


If that were my child and you inconsistent, hypocritical "pro-lifers" had succeeded at getting abortion banned, I'd take her overseas to get the job done. But thank God that you pro-lifers will NEVER succeed in your efforts and that the backlash against the religious right is right around the corner...
Silly radical leftist. ;)

Booger
April 11th, 2005, 03:12 PM
You're the one who put the "literally" there, Booger.

And I meant it. Pro-lifers are simply out of their minds on this issue. Only an insane person would advocate requiring a 13 old girl who has been raped to bear the child.


When idiots say things like.... Pure idiocy.

I am not an idiot; I assure you.


I'm still ambivalent about the legality of abortion under such circumstances. I only meant that I believe the moral decision in such a circumstance is to endure the suffering of pregnancy to grant the child an opportunity to live.

Either the fetus has a right to life from conception or it doesn't. Inconsistency #1. Claiming that a legal outcome in the matter is "complicated" and separate from the moral issue is inconsistency #2.


Here's a clue, Booger: They're not "rhetorical" if they're meant to recieve an answer.

Thanks!


However, having the death penalty, as wrongly as it may be applied on occasion in our justice system, is far better than not having it. The greater good is served by having the death penalty; the same cannot be said of abortion.

The culture of life means the culture of life unless the greater good is served by the culture of death in which case, the culture of death trumps the culture of life. I see.


What the hell are you talking about? I guess we should outlaw ALL deadly weapons! I don't want to outlaw SCALPELS (or whatever they use in abortion procedures), but I disapprove of abortion. Similarly, I don't think guns should be outlawed, but I think murder should. The tools used to perpetrate an immoral action are, in these cases, themselves morally neutral.

Assault rifles are hardly scalpels; assault rifles are designed for one purpose--to kill other human beings.


Can the patients eat without the feeding tube? Is it necessary to have the feeding tube in order for the patient to survive? If not, then I don't think the tube should be removed. (Oh, no! I may actually DISAGREE with the current President! I should tune in more often to Karl Rove's mind-control beams...)

OK, then you're not as inconsistent as other pro-lifers, like GW Bush.


[T]he poor usually possess more human dignity than the rich.

Interesting viewpoint, but doesn't answer my question. Does the culture of life extend to poverty?


I'm not sure what your question is. I think everything that is possible should be done to ensure a safe delivery of the baby.

?? Ectopic pregnancy has nothing to do with delivery. In an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilized egg has implanted outside the uterus. The egg can also implant in the fallopian tubes, ovary, abdomen, or the cervix. None of these areas has as much space or nurturing tissue as a uterus for a pregnancy to develop. As the fetus grows, it will eventually burst the organ that contains it. This can cause severe bleeding and endanger the mother's life and is the leading cause of first-trimester maternal death in the United States.

So, should a woman who has been diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy be allowed to terminate the pregnancy?


Again, I'm ambivalent about the role of law in the extreme scenarios of abortion.

As I said, either the fetus has the right to life from conception or it doesn't. Isn't interesting, Clive, how your own reasoning leads you from insisting on the right to life for a fetus from conception, and then as the cases move from irreponsible, voluntary sex to "extreme" cases (e.g., incestual rape), you "devalue" the life of the fetus stating that you are "ambivalent" about legalized abortion in "extreme" cases. That's inconsistent.


I believe that, if it were my choice, I would choose to risk death (or choose to die outright) in order for my child to have a chance to live.

And that's where it should stay (i.e., choice).

Booger
April 11th, 2005, 03:43 PM
Problem...you are using "right" in a strict legal sense. Furthermore, the fact that drugs ARE illegal is evidence that we DO have a right to tell others NOT to take druges, not the opposite thereof. Thank you kindly for making my own point. ;)

Of course they do. But it does not argue AGAINST the claim that one does not have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do to their own bodies like was earlier claimed.

I've merely objected to the specific claim that one does not have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do with their OWN bodies. CLEARLY, this is NOT the case. IT CANNOT be used as an argument FOR abortion since this IS the case.

I fail to see any points here. What you are arguing, in essence, is that since a state legislature can require that motorists wear seatbelts, then the claim that the state cannot tell you what to do with your body cannot be used as an argument for legalized abortion.

What's the difference between the foregoing and this:

Since the state can deny gay couples the equal protection of the law and not allow them to enjoy the benefits bestowed upon married heterosexual couples, then the claim that the state cannot deny you the equal protection of the laws cannot be used as an argument against laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Again, I will ask. Does (or should) a person have a fundamental right not to wear seatbelts? And what's the state's interest in laws requiring seatbelt use? Whose interest should trump the other and why?


Lastly, one cannot "literally" be out of their mind.

One can be literally insane. And only an insane person would require the 13-year old in my hypothetical to carry the child to term.


First of all, I'm not telling you ANYTHING. I'm not arguing pro-life OR pro-choice in this thread.

?? I thought you said:


And the protection of LIFE supersedes the moral good of allowing one do whatever they personall [sic] feel compelled to do.

CliveStaples
April 11th, 2005, 04:27 PM
Either the fetus has a right to life from conception or it doesn't. Inconsistency #1. Claiming that a legal outcome in the matter is "complicated" and separate from the moral issue is inconsistency #2.

When I say that a fetus has a "right to life" from conception, I'm not talking about legal rights, as, obviously, fetuses do NOT have a legal right to life from conception. I think that a 13 year old girl should not have an abortion. I think that abortion is wrong under any circumstance. I also think that cursing is wrong under any circumstance. I also think that adultery is wrong under any circumstance. Whether laws banning such activities should be passed AGAINST MAJORITY WILL is a sticky question. Forcing people by law to suffer for others is a tricky subject.



The culture of life means the culture of life unless the greater good is served by the culture of death in which case, the culture of death trumps the culture of life. I see.


"Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man." Genesis 6:9.

What do you mean by "culture of death"? Am I taking part in a "culture of death" when I kill someone in self-defense? Desiring a "culture of life" doesn't mean "refusing to kill in any situation".

Opposing abortion is not inconsistent with supporting the death penalty. While the criminal in question merits death, an innocent child does not.




Assault rifles are hardly scalpels; assault rifles are designed for one purpose--to kill other human beings.

No, assault rifles are designed for one purpose--to shoot bullets. Who you shoot at, and the morality of that decision, depends upon the circumstances. If I were to shoot at, say, a bank teller with my AK, I'd be doing evil. If I were to shoot at a Nazi soldier, I'd be doing good.



OK, then you're not as inconsistent as other pro-lifers, like GW Bush.

Thank you!



Interesting viewpoint, but doesn't answer my question. Does the culture of life extend to poverty?

What the hell does that even mean?


?? Ectopic pregnancy has nothing to do with delivery. In an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilized egg has implanted outside the uterus. The egg can also implant in the fallopian tubes, ovary, abdomen, or the cervix. None of these areas has as much space or nurturing tissue as a uterus for a pregnancy to develop. As the fetus grows, it will eventually burst the organ that contains it. This can cause severe bleeding and endanger the mother's life and is the leading cause of first-trimester maternal death in the United States.

So, should a woman who has been diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy be allowed to terminate the pregnancy?

Let me get this straight before I answer: it is completely impossible for a woman diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy to have a baby. Is that about right?



As I said, either the fetus has the right to life from conception or it doesn't. Isn't interesting, Clive, how your own reasoning leads you from insisting on the right to life for a fetus from conception, and then as the cases move from irreponsible, voluntary sex to "extreme" cases (e.g., incestual rape), you "devalue" the life of the fetus stating that you are "ambivalent" about legalized abortion in "extreme" cases. That's inconsistent.


I'm not sure how the government fits into enforcing my moral views on this issue. I most certainly could not pass a law that banned using the Lord's name in vain. Do I want people to use the Lord's name in vain? No. Should I use the arm of the law to do so? No. Abortion is different, though. It involves ending the life of an innocent human.





Actually, Booger, you just made up my mind. I think that abortion should be illegal. Taking the life of another human who, by no actions of his/her own, threatens your life is not an activity that I think the government should tolerate.



And that's where it should stay (i.e., choice).

Yeah, but if it were my choice, I wouldn't have killed Lacy Peterson. Not all choices should escape legal consequences.

Booger
April 11th, 2005, 05:14 PM
When I say that a fetus has a "right to life" from conception, I'm not talking about legal rights, as, obviously, fetuses do NOT have a legal right to life from conception. I think that a 13 year old girl should not have an abortion. I think that abortion is wrong under any circumstance.

Regardless of the legal distinction, if you believe that abortion is wrong under any circumstance, then I assume that you would argue that if it is certain that the mother would die due to complications due to the birth of the baby, then the mother should die and the child should live. Again, not from a legal standpoint, but from a "moral" standpoint. Is this your position?


What do you mean by "culture of death"? Am I taking part in a "culture of death" when I kill someone in self-defense? Desiring a "culture of life" doesn't mean "refusing to kill in any situation".

Of course not. See below.


Opposing abortion is not inconsistent with supporting the death penalty. While the criminal in question merits death, an innocent child does not.

lol. That's not the issue. If the culture of life means to "err on the side of life" and innocent people have been/are on death row, then why don't we err on the side and get rid of the death penalty to ensure that innocent people are not executed?

That's what I mean by the culture of death trumping the culture of life, i.e. we believe in the death penalty as a proper means of punishment and don't want to get rid of it, even it means that some innocent people get executed. If one truly believes in a culture of life and that we should always err on the side of life, then one truly could not be in favor of the death penalty.

CliveStaples
April 11th, 2005, 05:19 PM
Regardless of the legal distinction, if you believe that abortion is wrong under any circumstance, then I assume that you would argue that if it is certain that the mother would die due to complications due to the birth of the baby, then the mother should die and the child should live. Again, not from a legal standpoint, but from a "moral" standpoint. Is this your position?

Yes.



That's not the issue. If the culture of life means to "err on the side of life" and innocent people have been/are on death row, then why don't we err on the side and get rid of the death penalty to ensure that innocent people are not executed?

Because when we "err on the side of life" with abortion, we only "err" about when life begins. If we "err on the side of life" with the death penalty, then criminals who merit death will escape their just punishment. There are other benefits to the death penalty as well. What benefit is there for allowing abortion at any time? Convenience? Do we let people arbitrarily decide when they get to end the lives of other humans?

Booger
April 11th, 2005, 08:56 PM
Yes.

Even if the mother doesn't want to die to give birth, and her husband does not want her to die either, if it were up to you, the mother could not have an abortion and would be required to die? Why does the life of the fetus outweigh the life of the mother? Do family wishes matter? Does her wish not to die matter?


Because when we "err on the side of life" with abortion, we only "err" about when life begins. If we "err on the side of life" with the death penalty, then criminals who merit death will escape their just punishment. There are other benefits to the death penalty as well. What benefit is there for allowing abortion at any time? Convenience? Do we let people arbitrarily decide when they get to end the lives of other humans?

A bunch of issues here, so let's take them serially:

Clive: If we err on the side of life, criminals who merit death escape just punishment.
Response: That's besides the point. If you err on the side of life with the death penalty, you can be assured that no innocent person would be put to death and if one is going to argue in, e.g., the Shiavo case, that we must err on the side of life for the innocent, then in order to be consistent, one cannot be for the death penalty and take the position that we must always err on the side of life. The two are incompatible. Now, with respect to escaping punishment, putting someone in prison for the remainder of their natural lives is hardly "escaping" punishment. Granted, they would be escaping death, but not punishment.

Clive: There are other benefits to the death penalty as well.
Response: Like what? Cost relief on housing inmates? As far as a deterrent goes, studies have shown again and again that the threat of the death penalty is not a deterrent. But this aside, I'm confused by the point you are trying to make. If the culture of life dictates that we must always err on the side of life, are we not to err on the side of life when innocent lives are at stake if there are monetary benefits to be reaped?

Clive: What benefit is there for allowing abortion at any time? Convenience?
Response: I can think of lots of reasons, e.g., rape, incest and life and health of the mother.

Clive: Do we let people arbitrarily decide when they get to end the lives of other humans?
Response: Is a pre-viable fetus a human being? Is a zygote a human being? No. The line has to be drawn somewhere and my personal belief is that if a fetus is viable outside of the womb, an abortion should only be allowed if the health or life of the mother is at stake.

Apokalupsis
April 12th, 2005, 08:51 AM
I fail to see any points here. What you are arguing, in essence, is that since a state legislature can require that motorists wear seatbelts, then the claim that the state cannot tell you what to do with your body cannot be used as an argument for legalized abortion.

What's the difference between the foregoing and this:

Since the state can deny gay couples the equal protection of the law and not allow them to enjoy the benefits bestowed upon married heterosexual couples, then the claim that the state cannot deny you the equal protection of the laws cannot be used as an argument against laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Again, I will ask. Does (or should) a person have a fundamental right not to wear seatbelts? And what's the state's interest in laws requiring seatbelt use? Whose interest should trump the other and why?
Again, you are using "right" only in the restricted legal sense. You are saying that his statement was meant as:

I absolutely detest the idea of killing a child, but it is against the law for me to impose upon an individual that which is illegal and that which is against their will (eg. forcing another to an abortion or not allowing an abortion to which one has the legal right to obtain).
IF that IS the case, that this is what he meant, then I concur and would AGREE. None have the legal right to break the law. However, that's an absurd statement to make considering this isn't the 4th grade. ;) That statement is OBVIOUS and needs not to be said.

Instead, I believe his point was that he does not have the right morally nor in a civic sense to tell another what they can and cannot do with their own body. Perhaps we need clarification from him, but I would highly doubt that he intended to maintain a strict legal sense here. It wouldn't serve any purpose.



One can be literally insane. And only an insane person would require the 13-year old in my hypothetical to carry the child to term.
Really? What studies have you read that support this?



?? I thought you said:
I did say that. But you misinterpret what that means.

And the protection of LIFE supersedes the moral good of allowing one do whatever they personally feel compelled to do.

There are 2 moral goods here. One is the protection of human life, which ought to be done. The other is the allowance of human freedom, which ought to be done. However, morals sometimes conflict (even though they are good morals) and as such, one must give way to the other. Morals have differing values. For example, it is MORE wrong to murder than it is to steal a pack of gum.

The statement above is saying that the value of protecting life is MORE good (or has more value) than whimsical personal freedom. It is saying when one's decision would result in the loss or harm of another's life, that decision of freedom should NOT be taken...it could be restrained, prohibited, removed, etc...

The abortion issue is NOT a battle whether or not human life should be protected (no pro-choice advocate says that human life ought to be killed at the mother's will), but rather what IS human life. Pro-life says the fetus is a human life and thus, needs to be protected. Pro-choice says it is not a human life, and as such, does not need said protection.

My statement does not address whether the fetus is truly human or not. I've not taken any pro-choice or pro-life position in this thread (nor elsewhere on this site as I recall). I've merely stated that between the 2 moral values, protection of human life trumps that of personal liberty.

Booger
April 12th, 2005, 09:19 AM
Really? What studies have you read that support this?

No studies; just life experience. I suppose I should have prefaced my statement with an IMO. So IMO, anyone who would require the 13 year old in my hypothetical to carry the child to term is obviously insane.


I did say that. But you misinterpret what that means. I've merely stated that between the 2 moral values, protection of human life trumps that of personal liberty.

OK, I'd agree in a general sense, but does the protection of human life trump one's own personal liberty to refuse medical treatment? Does the protection of human life trump one's own personal liberty not to carry a child to term for the sake of protection of one's own life or health? What about mental health?

Apokalupsis
April 12th, 2005, 09:50 AM
No studies; just life experience. I suppose I should have prefaced my statement with an IMO. So IMO, anyone who would require the 13 year old in my hypothetical to carry the child to term is obviously insane.
I know. I'm just bustin' yer chops. ;)



OK, I'd agree in a general sense, but does the protection of human life trump one's own personal liberty to refuse medical treatment?
Well, it was intended to refer to ANOTHER's life, not one's own. That is where the real conflict arises, which is why I made the statement. I don't really see much of a conflict between the 2 moral values if the subject is self.

So, to specifically answer the question: No, it doesn't not trump it IMO.


Does the protection of human life trump one's own personal liberty not to carry a child to term for the sake of protection of one's own life or health? Again, the subject is self. Also, life is STILL being protected...one's own. The value is still held.


What about mental health?
Be more specific. What kind of mental health problems are we talking about here?

CliveStaples
April 12th, 2005, 10:55 AM
Even if the mother doesn't want to die to give birth, and her husband does not want her to die either, if it were up to you, the mother could not have an abortion and would be required to die? Why does the life of the fetus outweigh the life of the mother? Do family wishes matter? Does her wish not to die matter?

Any killing of another human must be justified. You seem to be attempting to use self-defense as a justification for abortion.

"When one without fault himself is attacked by another in such a manner or under such circumstances as to furnish reasonable grounds for apprehending a design to take away his life, or to do him some great bodily harm, and there is reasonable grounds for believing the danger imminent, that such design will be accomplished, and the person assaulted has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, such danger is imminent, he may act upon such appearances and without retreating, kill his assailant, if he has reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe, that such killing is necessary in order to avoid the apparent danger; and the killing under such circumstances is excusable . . . . "

State v. Cain


The question is, does an unborn child fit the definition of "assailant" if, by no fault or intention of its own, it threatens the life of its mother? I think not.

In any pregnancy which is NOT a product of rape, but a product of consensual sex, the mother accepts the consequences of her actions. As when a person gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a car, the consequences of risky behavior should not find easement from the law, especially when such consequences end with the termination of another human's life.

Rape, then, is a special circumstance. However, the desire to protect one's own life cannot take precedence over the life of an innocent person; in self-defense, one is being attacked or threatened by the intention of another human. There is no intent to harm in the mind of an unborn child (fetus? zygote?). I would rather accept death than live through the act of slaughtering a helpless innocent.




Clive: If we err on the side of life, criminals who merit death escape just punishment.

Response: That's besides the point. If you err on the side of life with the death penalty, you can be assured that no innocent person would be put to death and if one is going to argue in, e.g., the Shiavo case, that we must err on the side of life for the innocent, then in order to be consistent, one cannot be for the death penalty and take the position that we must always err on the side of life. The two are incompatible. Now, with respect to escaping punishment, putting someone in prison for the remainder of their natural lives is hardly "escaping" punishment. Granted, they would be escaping death, but not punishment.

"Erring on the side of life" is useful ONLY when "erring" produces good. "Erring" in the case of Schiavo means that, against her will, she would be kept alive. That's really not a big problem. "Erring" in the case of capital punishment means that criminals will NOT face the punishment they merit. Additionally, without capital punishment, their is less incentive for a defendant to plea bargain. There is less incentive to not commit capital crimes (which wouldn't be capital anymore). The magnitude of the "error" must be taken into effect; when an "error" produces less good than not "erring", only a fool would choose to err.




Clive: There are other benefits to the death penalty as well.

Response: Like what? Cost relief on housing inmates? As far as a deterrent goes, studies have shown again and again that the threat of the death penalty is not a deterrent. But this aside, I'm confused by the point you are trying to make. If the culture of life dictates that we must always err on the side of life, are we not to err on the side of life when innocent lives are at stake if there are monetary benefits to be reaped?

If the "culture of life" dictates that we must always err on the side of life, then I want no part. For example: a man is aiming a loaded gun at you. You shoot him in self-defense. But you haven't "erred" on the side of life! The man might have just been a really good actor who was just pretending, or might have just had blanks in the gun. You didn't know! HOW DARE YOU choose to kill him!



Clive: What benefit is there for allowing abortion at any time? Convenience?

Response: I can think of lots of reasons, e.g., rape, incest and life and health of the mother.

So...rape and incest are a benefit of allowing abortion? I take it that you mean that abortion negates some of the bad effects of rape and incest. But how is a child a bad effect of rape or incest? Killing the child is the best way to do it? Forget adoption, we need to think of the mother's psychological well-being, right?

The health of the mother (in rape cases) should not be maintained through evil means.



Clive: Do we let people arbitrarily decide when they get to end the lives of other humans?
Response: Is a pre-viable fetus a human being? Is a zygote a human being? No. The line has to be drawn somewhere and my personal belief is that if a fetus is viable outside of the womb, an abortion should only be allowed if the health or life of the mother is at stake.

Yeah, a pre-viable fetus isn't a human. As if it might turn out to be an elk.

My personal belief is that we shouldn't be killing innocents for convenience. We shouldn't maintain our own health through killing innocents.


Again, the subject is self. Also, life is STILL being protected...one's own. The value is still held.

Then I take it that you condone abortion when the mother's life is in danger. I would rather die than kill my own child.

Booger
April 12th, 2005, 12:01 PM
Any killing of another human must be justified. You seem to be attempting to use self-defense as a justification for abortion.

Clive, you spent the majority of your post constructing straw men then burning them down. The issue of whether a mother who is certain to die if she gives birth is not a question of "self defense," and neither is it a question as to whether one should face retribution for killing another human being during the course of a drunk driving escapade. On the contrary, it is a question as to whether the mother should be forced to give birth when the result of forcing her to give birth is her death.

Again I ask; why should the life of the fetus trump the life of the mother? Because she had sex, got pregnant "and should accept responsibility" since every reasonable person knows or realizes that if a woman becomes pregnant, there is the possibility of her dying during the birthing process? Does that accurately portray your position? If so, should the husband's wishes in the matter come into play?


However, the desire to protect one's own life cannot take precedence over the life of an innocent person.

So the mother is "guilty" and the child "innocent"? Aren't they both "innocent"? Or does having sex that results in a pregnancy render the mother's life less worthy than the child's?

I'm sensing some muddled thinking here, Clive.


"Erring on the side of life" is useful ONLY when "erring" produces good. "Erring" in the case of Schiavo means that, against her will, she would be kept alive. That's really not a big problem.

It's not really a problem to force someone to accept life-sustaining measures against their will? All I have to say is "interesting perspective."

Also, doesn't erring on the side of life in the case of the death penalty also produce something good, i.e., that we can be assured that no innocent people will be put to death?

Clive, I understand that you are attempting to reconcile a pro-death penalty viewpoint with the culture of life philosophy, but when it comes down to it, both deal with the death of innocents; you just value the life a fetus more than you value the life of an adult sitting on death row for a crime he didn't commit. There's no other way to slice it.


"Erring" in the case of capital punishment means that criminals will NOT face the punishment they merit.

I disagree. They will face the punishment they merit; the remainder of their lives behind bars.


Additionally, without capital punishment, their is less incentive for a defendant to plea bargain.

Assuming this is true (and I am highly skeptical of the truth of the statement), is this really a reason to continue the death penalty when innocent lives are at stake? I hardly think so.


There is less incentive to not commit capital crimes (which wouldn't be capital anymore).

As I said previously, numerous studies have shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.


The magnitude of the "error" must be taken into effect; when an "error" produces less good than not "erring", only a fool would choose to err.

The magnitude of the error, as applied to the death penalty, is the death of an innocent person and I believe that even 1 is too many. You have failed to convince me that any ostensible benefits of the death penalty produces more good than ensuring that the state doesn't execute the innocent.


Then I take it that you condone abortion when the mother's life is in danger.

Yes, of course. Who am I to judge who's life is more important? That choice should remain the mother's and her family's, not the state's.


I would rather die than kill my own child.

If you were a woman and would rather die during childbirth than aborting your fetus, then you would certainly have that right.

CliveStaples
April 12th, 2005, 01:06 PM
I just lost my post. I need to go break things.

Booger
April 12th, 2005, 01:19 PM
I just lost my post. I need to go break things.

lol. I absolutely hate it when that happens...

Missy
April 14th, 2005, 03:28 PM
How can someone see fit to kill a baby? And yes i call it clumsyness if a woman gets pregnant because she got caught up or whatever. I got pregnant because i was clumsy. My now 2 year old daughter is the best thing to ever come into my life. She wasn't planned but i don't know how i ever went a day without her. Abortion never crossed my mind or my boyfriends mind. We were blessed. A baby is a blessing. Why killing a blessing is legal i don't know and if it were up to me everyone who had an abortion would be charged with murder and locked away in a jail cell. Parents are supposed to protect thier children not kill them.

Missy
April 14th, 2005, 03:30 PM
Abortion is Murder plain and simple. Parents are supposed to protect thier children not kill them.

Meng Bomin
April 14th, 2005, 06:02 PM
Abortion is Murder plain and simple.
It's not that plain and simple. Early embryos aren't sentient and there tends not to be malicious intent. However, they are the product of bad decisions and they can leave a woman permanently emotionally scarred, which is IMO their biggest problem. Since the embryo is not sentient and cannot exist outside the mother, it should be treated more as a part of the mother rather than a member of society. However, abortion is not a favorable practice and should be curbed through education. The path of legislating abortion is dangerous and has been shown by other countries.

CliveStaples
April 14th, 2005, 07:36 PM
However, they are the product of bad decisions and they can leave a woman permanently emotionally scarred, which is IMO their biggest problem.

I see. The EMOTIONAL health of the mother takes precedence over the "life" of the "child". Gotcha.



Since the embryo is not sentient and cannot exist outside the mother, it should be treated more as a part of the mother rather than a member of society.

Hmm. Does it have the same DNA as the mother? Is it genetically human (which includes HUMANS with Kleinfelter's (sp?) syndrome and Down syndrome)? So it's a DIFFERENT entity than the mother. The mother is more of a CARETAKER or an oven than a person with a virus (which is how some people categorize zygotes).

Meng Bomin
April 15th, 2005, 12:06 PM
I see. The EMOTIONAL health of the mother takes precedence over the "life" of the "child". Gotcha.
Yup. The embryo* is not a part of society outside the mother.

Hmm. Does it have the same DNA as the mother? Is it genetically human (which includes HUMANS with Kleinfelter's (sp?) syndrome and Down syndrome)? So it's a DIFFERENT entity than the mother. The mother is more of a CARETAKER or an oven than a person with a virus (which is how some people categorize zygotes).
Hmm, I wonder why I worded it the way I did. Note that I did not say that the embryo* is part of the mother because, as you have pointed out, it technically is not. However, it does not interact with society like a separate person would and it cannot live outside the mother. The societal problems that stem from abortions come from the health and actions of the mother, not from the embryo*.

*note that when I say embryo, I am refering to pre-fetal embryos. Though not all fetuses can live outside the mother, at a certain point, with modern medical technology, many can, which makes the fetus's life more of an issue.

Missy
April 15th, 2005, 04:00 PM
It is so wrong and illegal for a doctor to kill a person in constant pain, who wishes to be rid of pain. But it is legal for a doctor to kill our future. Abortion isn't just the murder of one baby but that babys generation. That childs children and grandchildren.

Meng Bomin
April 16th, 2005, 04:50 AM
Abortion isn't just the murder of one baby but that babys generation. That childs children and grandchildren.
Contraception and abstention are the same in this regard. In either case, you are killing a potential. Do you think women should be producing children from puberty so that we will kill less potential children?

sbgtfJC
April 16th, 2005, 02:39 PM
Abortion isn't just the murder of one baby but that babys generation. That childs children and grandchildren.

Contraception and abstention are the same in this regard. In either case, you are killing a potential.
Something is wrong here, I agree with Neverending in an abortion thread. Runs to get head inspected.

Sam
April 18th, 2005, 03:01 PM
However, it does not interact with society like a separate person would and it cannot live outside the mother.

There are severely handicapped people who need assistance to live, are they living?






*note that when I say embryo, I am refering to pre-fetal embryos. Though not all fetuses can live outside the mother, at a certain point, with modern medical technology, many can, which makes the fetus's life more of an issue.

Medical technology has certainly advanced. Babies are able to survive at earlier and earlier stages of life. Medical technology continues to advance. Does this mean we must continue to move the point of when life begins back. How can whether life exists be dependent on medical technology?

Fyshhed
April 18th, 2005, 06:26 PM
There are severely handicapped people who need assistance to live, are they living?

Are you truly alive if you don't get a chance at the life you might want?
What is life if you don't get to live?




Medical technology has certainly advanced. Babies are able to survive at earlier and earlier stages of life. Medical technology continues to advance. Does this mean we must continue to move the point of when life begins back. How can whether life exists be dependent on medical technology?
Whether it is "alive" is hardly in question. Whether it is "human" is hardly in question. What IS in question, however, is if abortion can be justified, and how or how not so.