Abortion

[fireshot91]

So my friends and I are having a heated discussion on Abortion.


And if its right or wrong.

What do you think?

I'm on the side that its wrong, its just like me killing somebody. Why do I go to jail if I kill some person, and a doctor doesn't if he kills a baby?

[mactastic]

Oh, this ought'a be fun... :p

It all comes down to when you define life beginning.

[Schtumple]

Oh, this ought'a be fun... :p

It all comes down to when you define life beginning.

+1

inb4 divulging into petty rants...

Personally, I'm pro choice, to a certain extent, if it's really in both the baby and the parents interest that it should be aborted, then it should be aborted, but if it's just because the girl is some slut who can't keep her legs closed for 5 minutes, then that's her fault...

[fireshot91]

Life beginning, after the sperm and Egg join.


Life begging- when the sperm and egg multiply so its not 2 cells anymore, its a multi-cellular organism (Even though 2 cells is multi-cellular)

[bruinsrme]

Not my body = not my choice

[obeygiant]

if it's really in both the baby and the parents interest that it should be aborted,

It's rarely within the baby's best interest to be aborted.

[fireshot91]

It's rarely within the baby's best interest to be aborted.


...if ever. :p.

[benbondu]

It's rarely within the baby's best interest to be aborted.

Yeah, I noticed that too. What a strange pro-choice argument. I'm much more comfortable imagining the fetus isn't an individual and therefore doesn't have any interests.

[Schtumple]

It's rarely within the baby's best interest to be aborted.

I mean in terms of whether it will grow up with severe mental disabilities.

I'm out this thread now, because everyone has really overly sensitive views on this, and I cba getting down to petty arguments of "I'm right, you're wrong"

No offense obeygiant, wasn't intended at you.

[zap2]

Personally, I'm fine with it, and if you aren't, then don't have one...doesn't both me


But when people start saying we should take the choice away from people to have one or not, then there is an issue.


Using terms like "killing a baby" is clearly putting it in a way suggests that its bad. You have to be alive to be killed.

[iJohnHenry]

So my friends and I are having a heated discussion on Abortion.


And if its right or wrong.

What do you think?

I'm on the side that its wrong, its just like me killing somebody. Why do I go to jail if I kill some person, and a doctor doesn't if he kills a baby?

Life beginning, after the sperm and Egg join.


Life begging- when the sperm and egg multiply so its not 2 cells anymore, its a multi-cellular organism (Even though 2 cells is multi-cellular)

...if ever. :p.

And that is the reason I have avoided this thread until now.

You don't really want to know what others think, you only wish to profess your own view.

[fireshot91]

Well, I fully accept any other person's opinion....after all, it is there opinion.

I, for one, won't be affected by other people's opinions.

If I agree, I agree. If I disagree, I disagree, you shouldn't want to change my opinion.

[zap2]

Well, I fully accept any other person's opinion....after all, it is there opinion.

I, for one, won't be affected by other people's opinions.

If I agree, I agree. If I disagree, I disagree, you shouldn't want to change my opinion.

:confused::confused:
Then what's the point in talking about it?

I talk/debate to see new sides of the argument, to understand it better, and maybe change my mind

[JG271]

when the sperm and egg multiply so its not 2 cells anymore, its a multi-cellular organism (Even though 2 cells is multi-cellular)

It could be argued that cancer is a multi cellular organism too. Thats why I wouldn't classify that as life.

Why would you start a thread if you aren't even going to consider, or find reasons to object to other people's opinions and views?

I don't think anyone wants to change your opinion as such, just helps give different angles on it. After all, you only form a proper opinion after hearing many sides of the argument I suppose.

[iJohnHenry]

If I agree, I agree. If I disagree, I disagree, you shouldn't want to change my opinion.

Of course not, I just don't want to see rebuffs for everyone that posts something contrary to your beliefs.

Otherwise, you should have crafted your original post more carefully.

[fireshot91]

Well, yes, thats what I meant. I don't want to change anybody's opinions on purpose. Its they're choice of what side to be on...as it is mine.

Ok, I take back my previous statement, I just want to see other point-of-view's in this matter. And maybe, just maybe I'll change my opinion.

[atszyman]

I've done all my arguing on this topic already here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=639257). You can find a pretty good debate in the latter pages of that thread.

or at least as good as any PRSI debate. We haven't started name calling... yet.

[iJohnHenry]

Ok, I take back my previous statement, I just want to see other point-of-view's in this matter. And maybe, just maybe I'll change my opinion.

OK, fair enough, although I am still sceptical of your intent.

Abortion of a foetus is not an issue, IMO, as it is not yet a sentient being. I refuse to be swayed by pictures of baby-like images.

But, abortion should not be a replacement for birth control. Both parties should agree, as they did for the conception.

Incest, rape, etc, no question. Only the Mother need be consulted. The male, nor anyone else, has anything to say in this matter.

[Sky Blue]

Personally, I'm fine with it, and if you aren't, then don't have one...doesn't both me


But when people start saying we should take the choice away from people to have one or not, then there is an issue.



This.

[synth3tik]

I'm all for reversible castrations until one can prove their ability to raise a child. However this introduces a plater of new issues.

[calculus]

However this introduces a plater

Is this part of the pre-castration relaxation technique?

[fireshot91]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[zap2]

OK, fair enough, although I am still sceptical of your intent.


I'd like to give the OP the benefit of the doubt, but then you see this

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And it goes out the windows!

[paddy]

Blanketing it as completely right or completely wrong doesn't advance an honest debate at all imho.

It's completely circumstantial.

[Ugg]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There's no guarantee whatsoever that the fetus will become a human being. Up to 25% of all pregnancies end up as miscarriages.

With the growing obesity epidemic and the heavy burden of chemicals in the environment, I wouldn't be surprised if that percentage increased.

Is one truly able to pursue happiness when a baby is burdened by the obesity or drug dependency or poverty of its mother? We now have the ability to discover whether a fetus has potential health issues. Is it fair to burden the parents and society in general with children who are horribly misshapen?

I think the xian right has blinded itself to the realities of modern society.

[SactoGuy18]

My view on abortion comes down to this:

1) If it's necessary to save the mother's life, absolutely yes.

2) If the unborn child is the result of incest, most likely yes (due to potentially serious health problems with such a child).

3) If it's within the first trimester, probably yes.

4) If it's beyond the first trimester, definitely no unless there are serious health problems with unborn child or affecting health of mother.

I base my views on the fact too many abortions are being used as a convenient means of birth control despite vastly better birth control options.

[iJohnHenry]

We now have the ability to discover whether a fetus has potential health issues.

Ah, now this brings the genetic engineering opponents into the discussion. ;)

If it's beyond the first trimester, definitely no unless there are serious health problems with unborn child or affecting health of mother.

So, we can sign you up as a foster parent??

[SteveMobs]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This is completely out of context and has no place in this discussion.

If, hitting people with bats on the street makes me happy, do I have a right to do it? I mean, I do have the right to pursue happiness.

The reason abortion is such an iffy subject is because of the moral guidelines by which it should be judged. That's where the question of "when life begins" comes from and that's why it's tough to implement any laws regarding abortion, whose moral values are you going to follow?

Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence have nothing to do with abortion.

[quagmire]

It is too late to get an abortion when the heart and brain begins to function. Then it is a life on life support. With the exception being it brings up health issues with the mom.

IMHO

[SmartIndianKid]

Where do I stand on abortion?

Not making other people's choices for them.

[iJohnHenry]

Not making other people's choices for them.

An interesting concept.

Good luck with that. ;)

[TuffLuffJimmy]

If you don't like abortion then don't have one.

[SmartIndianKid]

An interesting concept.

Good luck with that. ;)

One can only hope, heh.

[danvan21]

Where do I stand on abortion?

Not making other people's choices for them.

but its ok for the mom to chose for the child? great point!

[SmartIndianKid]

but its ok for the mom to chose for the child? great point!

Excellent point.

Let us ask the child what it thinks.

Wait what, it doesn't have a functional brain? B..b..but it's still a person right? Let's create more burden on society, and risk the mother's health!

[SteveMobs]

If you don't like abortion then don't have one.

Exactly, if you feel it's immoral then don't have one.

But don't take away other people's right to have one. Sure, I think it's wrong if some skank cant keep her legs closed and gets abortions all the time. But if you make the whole practice illegal, you're limiting the care that can be provided to citizens.

If it were illegal, a lady who was incestuously raped and is having a deformed baby, can not have an abortion, because you think it's wrong. Not because of what she thinks, but you, you have nothing to do with her, think it's wrong.

Then, when you've made it illegal, people that want or need an abortion are going to revert to old-school methods (e.g. close hangers and other dirty tools) then you have a bunch of venereal infections and more sick/dead people.

Really rational!

[pooky]

2) If the unborn child is the result of incest, most likely yes (due to potentially serious health problems with such a child).

FYI, the chance of serious health problems (or even minor health problems) as a result of a single instance of incest is vanishingly small. Incest is, by and large, a societal taboo, not a biological one. The chance of incest related problems is generally much smaller than, say, the chance of a baby born to a 35+ year old mother having Down's syndrome.

[SteveMobs]

FYI, the chance of serious health problems (or even minor health problems) as a result of a single instance of incest is vanishingly small. Incest is, by and large, a societal taboo, not a biological one. The chance of incest related problems is generally much smaller than, say, the chance of a baby born to a 35+ year old mother having Down's syndrome.

Citation or reference please.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Sure, I think it's wrong if some skank cant keep her legs closed and gets abortions all the time.
I still don't see the moral issue like this. It would be equivalent to someone constantly skiing poorly, and breaking a bone every month. It's not in their best interest, but it's not my problem.

[zap2]

I still don't see the moral issue like this. It would be equivalent to someone constantly skiing poorly, and breaking a bone every month. It's not in their best interest, but it's not my problem.

I agree....I'd advise a friends(heck or a complete stranger if they asked) against getting pregnant so many time and then aborting it, but I wouldn't make a law stopping it.

Not to mention, how many time would be to many times?(to people who want a limit)

[obeygiant]

I still don't see the moral issue like this. It would be equivalent to someone constantly skiing poorly, and breaking a bone every month. It's not in their best interest, but it's not my problem.

haha. Or a woman has sex, albeit poorly, but keeps trying to improve her game. Then keeps having abortions due to the consequences of intercourse. Not really in her best interest...

The whole "not my problem" argument doesn't work because many things could be conceived as "not my problem". We're all a society and there comes a point where it becomes everyones problem. So much time and money is spent by the government on things that really aren't my problem yet I still pay my taxes. Actually now it is my problem with the recent reinstatement of funding for international family planning

Every abortion is a tragedy, but steps can be taken to limit the number and to encourage contraception.

^^I'd say twice or three times is too many. Especially within a certain time period. People with that pattern of behavior should be given mandatory IUDs.

[Rt&Dzine]

Sure, I think it's wrong if some skank cant keep her legs closed and gets abortions all the time.

And don't forget the skankers that are getting her pregnant all the time ...

[TuffLuffJimmy]

And don't forget the skankers that are getting her pregnant all the time ...

Did someone spot a double standard? Why don't we start forcing guys who get girls pregnant (on accident) to get vasectomies.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

haha. Or a woman has sex, albeit poorly, but keeps trying to improve her game. Then keeps having abortions due to the consequences of intercourse. Not really in her best interest...

The whole "not my problem" argument doesn't work is much because many things could be conceived as "not my problem". We're all a society and there comes a point where it becomes everyones problem. So much time and money is spent by the government on things that really aren't my problem yet I still pay my taxes. Actually now it is my problem with the recent reinstatement of funding for international family planning

Well, ok, "not my problem" may not have been the best wording, but no one is affected but the person getting the abortion (and I suppose, whoever is getting paid to perform it).

Obviously it would be healthier and more economical to use a superior means of contraception, but mandating such would be an infringement of civil liberties.

Every abortion is a tragedy, but steps can be taken to limit the number and to encourage contraception.

Although I obviously support the encouragement of contraception, calling every abortion a tragedy is merely guilt tripping those who have them.

[zap2]

The whole "not my problem" argument doesn't work because many things could be conceived as "not my problem". We're all a society and there comes a point where it becomes everyones problem. So much time and money is spent by the government on things that really aren't my problem yet I still pay my taxes.

While I don't think the government has right to out law what she does, I agree good education is key in stopping unwanted abortions, and that would be a great solution to curving unwanted pregnancies, and I full support that

[Rt&Dzine]

Did someone spot a double standard? Why don't we start forcing guys who get girls pregnant (on accident) to get vasectomies.

Unless there's a lot of immaculate conceptions taking place ... you may be on to something. That'll cut down on abortions.

[pooky]

Citation or reference please.

Don't worry, I'm working on it. Data are scant, due to the obvious problem that children of incest are often not reported as such. But when I have time to do a real literature search, I'll do it.

[Ugg]

Don't worry, I'm working on it. Data are scant, due to the obvious problem that children of incest are often not reported as such. But when I have time to do a real literature search, I'll do it.

I don't have a source either, but I believe it's the degree of separation that counts. First cousins, ok, but anything closer and you're playing with fire.

[SteveMobs]

I agree....I'd advise a friends(heck or a complete stranger if they asked) against getting pregnant so many time and then aborting it, but I wouldn't make a law stopping it.

Not to mention, how many time would be to many times?(to people who want a limit)

I would strongly oppose a law that outlaws abortion. But, if there were some hypothetical person that fits the bill in my example (see skank) I would think, "dude, that's a little ******** up" and I would advise that she get some other method (e.g. birth control)

[pooky]

Long post ahead...

Like I said before, data are scant, but I found one good review. Citation is below, but I can't link to the full text. You can get the abstract on PubMed (www.pubmed.org).

Bennett RL, Hudgins L, Smith CO, Motulsky AG. 1999. Inconsistencies in genetic counseling and screening for consanguineous couples and their offspring: the need for practice guidelines. Genet Med. 1(6):286-92.

Not only are the data scant, they are wildly variable. For first-order incest, reported rates of "birth defects" range from 1% to 75%, and from 0.25% to 20%. No information is given about what "birth defects" really means, so I'm assuming they are including both serious problems (e.g. severe retardation, serious genetic disease, etc) as well as minor defects (e.g. single-digit polydactyly, which is the most common inbreeding-related birth defect in humans if I'm remembering my genetics class correctly). The safest way to interpret the ranges given above is that both extremes probably represent outliers, and are not reliable. The low range probably reflects studies only considering serious defects, the high range probably reflects studies considering all defects.

For information about risks of pregnancy in older women, look here (http://www.socalfertility.com/age-and-fertility.html) and here (http://womenshealth.aetna.com/WH/ihtWH/r.WSIHW000/st.36127/t.36231.html). At 25 years old, miscarriage rates are low, and about 0.08% of children are born with Down syndrome. This increases to 0.26% at 35, with a 25% miscarriage rate, and up to about 1% at 40, with a 33% miscarriage rate. The overall risk of serious genetic abnormalities at 40 is about 2.5%. Also keep in mind that the increased miscarriage rate is probably due to an increase in fetal chromosomal defects.

So, I will admit my previous post was an exaggeration; the risk of incest is real, and not "vanishingly small" compared to pregnancy in older women. However, the risks are comparable. A 2.5% risk of serious problems in a 40-year old is comparable to the risk in first cousins. The risk in a 40-year old is also considerably higher than the risk in a "normal" (i.e. 19-34 year-old woman's) pregnancy.

So, in response to the post I originally quoted (and playing devil's advocate, as I wouldn't support criminalizing abortion in any situation); if abortion should be an acceptable option in the case of incest due to a percieved risk of genetic defects, then what about older women? The same risk is there. What about people with known genetic disease? Should we require genetic screening before permission for an abortion is granted? If not, what's the difference between the screening and allowing abortion following incestuous conceptions? And isn't that playing awfully close to eugenics?

Finally, if you are in favor of banning abortion except in cases of rape or incest, isn't that a bit hypocritical? Why do those children have less of a right to live than others? Does a child with Down syndrome have less of a right to live than a healthy child?

[skunk]

The dangers of close cousin (and closer) marriage are very real:

Backing for minister over first-cousin marriage comments
Andrew Sparrow, senior political correspondent

guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 February 2008 13.14 GMT

A Labour MP today gave her backing to the government minister who spoke out about the health risks associated with Pakistanis marrying their cousins.

Ann Cryer, MP for Keighley, said she was delighted that Phil Woolas had triggered a public debate on the issue which she said affected some sections of the Pakistani population in her constituency.

An expert in genetics, Steve Jones, also defended Woolas today, saying that first-cousin marriages doubled the risk of babies being born dead or disabled.

Woolas, the environment minister and MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, told the Sunday Times: "If you have a child with your cousin, the likelihood is there'll be a genetic problem. The issue we need to debate is first-cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability."

The minister was criticised at the weekend for his comments. The Muslim Public Affairs Council accused Woolas of being racist, while the Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne said he should have raised the issue more sensitively,

But Cryer, who, like Woolas, has a significant Pakistani community in her constituency, said that her Labour colleague was right to raise the issue.

"I am delighted we are talking about. I have been fretting about this for 10 years and at last we are having a debate about something that is having a very large impact on my Pakistani constituents," Cryer told the Today programme.

She stressed that she was only talking about "certain sections" of the Pakistani community. The problem related to families who engaged in "trans-continental marriages" because most of those marriages were between cousins.

There was often "a price to pay", she went on. "The price to pay is often babies being born dead, or babies being born very early or babies being born with very severe genetically-transmitted disorders."

Jones, professor of genetics at University College, London, said that the effect of a first-cousin marriage on the health of the offspring varied, but that "in general it is mortality or disability going up by about almost twice" compared to the norm.

"Bear in mind that overall levels of disability are fairly low. But the effect is certainly there," he said.

Jones said the Office for National Statistics had estimated that in Bradford there was an increase of about five infant deaths a year because of cousin marriages, particularly among the Asian community.

"That's five deaths too many. But bear in mind that there are something like 70 infant deaths altogether in Bradford a year."

Jones pointed out that factors like drinking during pregnancy or smoking during pregnancy, which were not particular problems among Muslim mothers, could have a more serious effect on the health of babies.

He also stressed that marrying first cousins was not a practice exclusive to some Muslim communities. He said that it used to be very common in Europe and that it was still fairly common in Spain.

And he defended Woolas's right to raise the subject. "As a matter of public health, of course it should be raised," Jones said.

Cryer claimed that Pakistani community leaders were "in denial" about the problem. But she said she hoped they would now debate the issue, and encourage parents to move away from first-cousin marriages.

Downing Street was more cautious than Cryer in its response to Woolas's decision to spark a public debate on the issue of cousin marriages.

The prime minister's spokesman stressed that Woolas was speaking in his capacity as a constituency MP, and not as a minister, when he spoke out at the weekend.

"We believe that these matters are best addressed locally by local members of the community, as well as by the relevant professionals," the spokesman said.

The Department of Health said in a statement that it did not issue blanket advice to health professionals or members of the public on such a "complicated and sensitive" issue as the risk of inheriting rare genetic disorders.

"While it is the case that marriages between cousins can result in an increased risk of inherited disease and disability, the key factor in understanding a family's risk is understanding the relevance of any existing history of genetic conditions within the family," it went on.

"This is best discussed and assessed in the context of a referral to specialised genetics services. We need to ensure that ethnic minority communities know how to access these services and the advice and support they can offer."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/11/religion.medicalscience

[iJohnHenry]

How dare you interfere with my culture in this manner.

I'm going to the Human Rights Tribunal with this!!!

[PlaceofDis]

I would strongly oppose a law that outlaws abortion. But, if there were some hypothetical person that fits the bill in my example (see skank) I would think, "dude, that's a little ******** up" and I would advise that she get some other method (e.g. birth control)

wtf? so guys shouldn't have to worry about getting a woman pregnant? why can't they keep it in their pants then? or you know, buy some condoms. i'd say that its just as much a man's responsibility as a woman's. just because you can't get pregnant as a man does not relieve you of the burden of practicing safe sex.

[EricNau]

The dangers of close cousin (and closer) marriage are very real:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/11/religion.medicalscience
Not according to a study by the University of Washington.

From the Press Release (http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/04-02archive/k040302a.html):
[T]he authors estimate the additional risk to range from 1.7 to 2.8 percent for first cousin unions. From her experience in counseling, Bennett believes these numbers are far lower than most people's perception of the risk.

[zap2]

wtf? so guys shouldn't have to worry about getting a woman pregnant? why can't they keep it in their pants then? or you know, buy some condoms. i'd say that its just as much a man's responsibility as a woman's. just because you can't get pregnant as a man does not relieve you of the burden of practicing safe sex.

An interesting idea for sure(the idea that its the woman job to ensure it doesn't happen or they are both equal in blame)....but if both are equal for blame, does the man get a(n equal) say in an abortion? If not, does he get a chance to "opt out" of having to support the child?

As a man(and I assume this holds true for women), practicing safe sex just seems like common sense, no unwanted kids, no STDs. Win-Win!

[SteveMobs]

wtf? so guys shouldn't have to worry about getting a woman pregnant? why can't they keep it in their pants then? or you know, buy some condoms. i'd say that its just as much a man's responsibility as a woman's. just because you can't get pregnant as a man does not relieve you of the burden of practicing safe sex.

So I list one example and you find a reason to kirk out?! One! Birth control, do I have to name more or can you figure them out on your own?

Yeah it takes two people to make a baby, so two people are responsible for a baby.

[chrmjenkins]

There's no guarantee whatsoever that the fetus will become a human being. Up to 25% of all pregnancies end up as miscarriages.

With the growing obesity epidemic and the heavy burden of chemicals in the environment, I wouldn't be surprised if that percentage increased.

Is one truly able to pursue happiness when a baby is burdened by the obesity or drug dependency or poverty of its mother? We now have the ability to discover whether a fetus has potential health issues. Is it fair to burden the parents and society in general with children who are horribly misshapen?

I think the xian right has blinded itself to the realities of modern society.

Just because something could go wrong doesn't justify any course of action.

My opinion is this. In almost all cases, the both parties are both consenting and fully aware of the possible outcomes of the situation. If you are prepared to undergo a risk, you must be prepared to take responsibility. That's why states require insurance for licensed vehicles.

As for the extreme cases of incest and rape, I cannot personally imagine what that situation is like. Therefore I cannot form an opinion on that.

The biggest problem I have is when people begin to pick discrete points for which life begins. Some say a heart beat, others say that it can be sustained outside the womb. I have difficulty accepting any kind of arbitrary line in the sand. My rebuttal is to ask someone to imagine a machine in which a baby could be extracted from day one and be brought to full term (I imagine the axltol tanks from Dune). Then, the alternative to any abortion becomes that the baby could survive otherwise. It also brings up interesting questions, such as who really is the mother of the child at that point.

In the end, while I am personally against abortion, I think it must be allowed in some capacity under law. Measures have to be taken to safeguard those who would pursue the course no matter the personal risks.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Just because something could go wrong doesn't justify any course of action.

My opinion is this. In almost all cases, the both parties are both consenting and fully aware of the possible outcomes of the situation. If you are prepared to undergo a risk, you must be prepared to take responsibility. That's why states require insurance for licensed vehicles.

As for the extreme cases of incest and rape, I cannot personally imagine what that situation is like. Therefore I cannot form an opinion on that.

The biggest problem I have is when people begin to pick discrete points for which life begins. Some say a heart beat, others say that it can be sustained outside the womb. I have difficulty accepting any kind of arbitrary line in the sand. My rebuttal is to ask someone to imagine a machine in which a baby could be extracted from day one and be brought to full term (I imagine the axltol tanks from Dune). Then, the alternative to any abortion becomes that the baby could survive otherwise. It also brings up interesting questions, such as who really is the mother of the child at that point.

In the end, while I am personally against abortion, I think it must be allowed in some capacity under law. Measures have to be taken to safeguard those who would pursue the course no matter the personal risks.

What's your opinion on abortions regarding immaculate conception? Like that could still be rape...

[chrmjenkins]

What's your opinion on abortions regarding immaculate conception? Like that could still be rape...

Depends who the father is ;)

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Depends who the father is ;)

:D nice

[ntrigue]

There is a direct correlation between when a state adopted Roe vs. Wade and a significant decrease in crime when said child would have been a juvenile delinquent.

[PcBgone]

Its a child not a choice!

Excellent point.

Let us ask the child what it thinks.

Wait what, it doesn't have a functional brain? B..b..but it's still a person right? Let's create more burden on society, and risk the mother's health!

If you want to play by that rule, then why is it that if a baby of a few months old is killed it is murder. It doesnt have a functional brain at that point, as the brain is still under development. With your arguement, parents could off their kids after birth and not have any consequences. Might as well kill the elderly then. As their brains are no longer functioning due to Alzheimer's. Whos next? The mentally retarded? How about the Autistics after that? How about those in a coma?

Every Life is Precious. From the moment the egg is fertilized. Miscarriages do happen. However a natural miscarriage does not condone a horrific murder of an unborn child. You lefties can de-humanize a Unborn Child all you want to make you feel better about Killing him/her. But it is still a child. And has the right to Live!

[EricNau]

Every Life is Precious. From the moment the egg is fertilized. Miscarriages do happen. However a natural miscarriage does not condone a horrific murder of an unborn child. You lefties can de-humanize a Unborn Child all you want to make you feel better about Killing him/her. But it is still a child. And has the right to Live!
I suppose you "righties" can call it whatever you want, but it's not a child because it has no characteristics of a child, it is not sentient, and is not viable outside of the mother's womb. It's no more human than ficus; I'm sorry to be brusque, but it simply isn't the child you claim it to be.

[zap2]

Its a child not a choice!


Save use your sermon

then why is it that if a baby of a few months old is killed it is murder.

Are you talking outside of the womb?

Because if so, thats pointless statement

With your arguement, parents could off their kids after birth and not have any consequences.
What are you talking about?


As their brains are no longer functioning due to Alzheimer's. !
That doesn't happen... Alzheimer's doesn't stop the brain from functioning, it alters it

The mentally retarded?


What are you talking about! No one buys into this crazy abortion will lead to mass murder arguements


How about those in a coma?

Still on that?

(And this one is different, if the person is in a coma that they CAN NOT come out of, then I'm fine with the family ending it, but thats a different argument totally)


very Life is Precious.

Yes(I'm assuming you mean human life), but we are talking about unborn fetuses


From the moment the egg is fertilized.

:rolleyes:


. However a natural miscarriage does not condone a horrific murder of an unborn child.

Even using your "logic", if abortion is murder, then a miscarriage is an accidental death. Do you hold funerals and wakes for it? I doubt it


You lefties can de-humanize a Unborn Child all you want to make you feel better about Killing him/her.

:rolleyes: Come off it now


But it is still a child.

No, it is not

This is a child

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

And this a fetus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

You can see this difference, no?

[SmartIndianKid]

Its a child not a choice!



If you want to play by that rule, then why is it that if a baby of a few months old is killed it is murder. It doesnt have a functional brain at that point, as the brain is still under development. With your arguement, parents could off their kids after birth and not have any consequences. Might as well kill the elderly then. As their brains are no longer functioning due to Alzheimer's. Whos next? The mentally retarded? How about the Autistics after that? How about those in a coma?

Every Life is Precious. From the moment the egg is fertilized. Miscarriages do happen. However a natural miscarriage does not condone a horrific murder of an unborn child. You lefties can de-humanize a Unborn Child all you want to make you feel better about Killing him/her. But it is still a child. And has the right to Live!

I do want to play by that rule, but I suggest you know the rules before you play the game.

While babies don't have fully mature brains, their brains still function. Without the medulla regulating breathing, they'd be dead anyway. Alzheimer's patients also have functional brains, just memory problems. Same with trisomy 21, brain function is there, but learning is disabled.

The only plausible point you bring up is a coma patient, but even then, the person was at one point living. A fetus never was.

You can call me left, right, up, down, 278 degrees from the vertex, whatever you want, but it doesn't make my point any more or less valid.

[chrmjenkins]

I suppose you "righties" can call it whatever you want, but it's not a child because it has no characteristics of a child, it is not sentient, and is not viable outside of the mother's womb. It's no more human than ficus; I'm sorry to be brusque, but it simply isn't the child you claim it to be.

No more human than a ficus? Well, I guess I need to research when its chromosomes start showing. Silly me, I thought they were there right from the start, half from the mother and half from the father.

How can you define characteristics? Limbs, head and a midsection? What about children who have the misfortune of being born without limbs? What if they are born with a brain that will develop to no more than a 1 year old's capacity?

If dependency is the issue, just because a child is outside the womb doesn't mean it's not just as dependent on the mother as it was inside. It can't even really start taking care of its own most basic needs until after it has been alive for over a year.

There is a direct correlation between when a state adopted Roe vs. Wade and a significant decrease in crime when said child would have been a juvenile delinquent.

Actually, this is irrelevant. Unless you are saying this justifies an otherwise unjustifiable action, in which case, you are in effect saying the ends justify the means.

[EricNau]

No more human than a ficus? Well, I guess I need to research when its chromosomes start showing. Silly me, I thought they were there right from the start, half from the mother and half from the father.
Plants have chromosomes too, in fact, all living organisms share this trait. Chromosomes aren't uniquely human.

How can you define characteristics? Limbs, head and a midsection? What about children who have the misfortune of being born without limbs? What if they are born with a brain that will develop to no more than a 1 year old's capacity?
Last I checked, one year olds aren't typically aborted. Now, if a child was born with the brain capacity of a 3 month old fetus (an age at which abortion is still an option), it would not be alive or sentient.

[thebassoonist]

Its a child not a choice!

If you want to play by that rule, then why is it that if a baby of a few months old is killed it is murder. It doesnt have a functional brain at that point, as the brain is still under development. With your arguement, parents could off their kids after birth and not have any consequences. Might as well kill the elderly then. As their brains are no longer functioning due to Alzheimer's. Whos next? The mentally retarded? How about the Autistics after that? How about those in a coma?

Every Life is Precious. From the moment the egg is fertilized. Miscarriages do happen. However a natural miscarriage does not condone a horrific murder of an unborn child. You lefties can de-humanize a Unborn Child all you want to make you feel better about Killing him/her. But it is still a child. And has the right to Live!

Are you against progestin-only birth control?

[chrmjenkins]

Plants have chromosomes too, in fact, all living organisms share this trait. Chromosomes aren't uniquely human.


Last I checked, one year olds aren't typically aborted. Now, if a child was born with the brain capacity of a 3 month old fetus (an age at which abortion is still an option), it would not be alive or sentient.

Yes, but chromosomes of humans have one thing in common: they are always human. Everything that determines what that child is going to be is present at the moment of conception.


So, what you're saying is that there is a clear definition of brain function that determines life. This definition persists beyond the womb as well. Meaning that the child/person cannot be killed because they aren't alive.

The central problem I have is that there is this arbitrary line of function we are using to determine what constitutes life. So, for instance, it's completely plausible that a person could be aborting their child at what they think is this development phase, but due to whatever miscalculation, it's actually past that point. What's the price for crossing that line? Is that simply an acceptable risk?

The problem is, this line of development would be reach if left uninhibited. The conception arose (in our case) out of a consensual act. The whole situation could have been avoided, but we've have given them a line at which we consider it ok for them to not take responsibility of what the act will eventually produce.

If people believe their actions have consequences, they will be more hesitant to engage in them on a whim. Sex that leads to pregnancies is also sex that can lead to the spread of STD's. In many cases, this is a case of poor judgment of the people involved. If someone contracts an STD, that has an attached medical cost. Whether the government pays for it or an insurer, the rest of us are contributing monetarily to a person's poor judgment. There needs to be a standard of conduct in our society regarding what is responsible behavior, and what true responsibility means. Ideally, we should strive for a culture in which abortion is a question we don't even have to ask.

[Scarlet Fever]

I'm pro-choice (btw, I hate the term pro-life). I reckon this quote sums the issue up perfectly;
Personally, I'm fine with it, and if you aren't, then don't have one...doesn't both me

But when people start saying we should take the choice away from people to have one or not, then there is an issue.

Abortions aren't always going to be dealt to women who have regular unprotected sex.

What if a young couple have sex, the condom breaks, and the male unintentionally impregnates his partner. They have no real intention of spending the rest of their lives together, and they are both far from ready to start a family. She doesn't take the morning after pill, because she is scared and confused, and believes everything will be ok. By 1-2 months, the signs of pregnancy are obvious, and the couple are willing to abort the pregnancy. Should they not be allowed to abort?

[djellison]

Personally, I'm fine with it, and if you aren't, then don't have one...doesn't both me

But when people start saying we should take the choice away from people to have one or not, then there is an issue.

Quoted for truth.

[djellison]

...things...

So - what do you say to the victim of a rape?

"Well done - you've been through the most traumatic abuse in your entire life - and your prize - because the state now owns your womb, not you, is an unwanted preganacy, the child of a rapist to give birth to, potentially life threatening risk to you and this child you don't want, and frankly - the end of your life as you know it"

It's very simple - you let people who want a termination have one, legally, in a safe environment. Or you try and ban it, and those who want a termination have to go underground, some dodgy back-street deal which puts the women at great risk of injury and potentially death

Women have a right to decide what goes on in their lives. Just because an egg and a sperm have met - her womb is not the property of the state. What happens to her body is HER choice - not yours, no anybody else's.

You are clearly very much against it. That's fine. But that gives you no jurisdiction of another person - none whatsoever.


Doug

[blackfox]

The whole "not my problem" argument doesn't work because many things could be conceived as "not my problem". We're all a society and there comes a point where it becomes everyones problem. So much time and money is spent by the government on things that really aren't my problem yet I still pay my taxes. Actually now it is my problem with the recent reinstatement of funding for international family planning




Is what I quoted related to abortions, or were you making a general point?

As one could argue that abortions are a cost-effective way of dealing with the "problem" of unwanted pregnancies, as related to the cost incurred by society in bringing the child to term, adoption proceedings and/or subsidizing a child in a poor/dysfunctional household.

Speaking strictly as a taxpayer, considering funding is going into abstinence-only education, which is piss-poor at educating kids about proper sex practices and responsibilities, I feel fully comfortable allowing people the option of having an abortion if they wish.

Personally, I am not a fan - I don't think anyone is. Still, until we get our sh** together and allow kids access to real and practical information about safe-sex practices and the like, abortions will remain higher than most people would like.

Abortions are not the problem - it is just a symptom of the problem we have with education and sex as a nation.

[mithrilfox]

So my friends and I are having a heated discussion on Abortion.


And if its right or wrong.

What do you think?

I'm on the side that its wrong, its just like me killing somebody. Why do I go to jail if I kill some person, and a doctor doesn't if he kills a baby?

Actually the law equivocates in numerous instances on this issue. There is no consistency.

Legally, the unborn child is not defined as a human being (citizen) with rights (in the US). However, murdering a pregnant woman has often ended with the criminal being charged for a double-homicide. Yet, if that woman chooses to "terminate" that child on her own, no crime has been committed.

In many states, a child of *exactly* the same age can be "terminated" while it's head is still inside the woman, but if the head is outside the woman this is "killing."

In many states, a viable (able to live outside the womb) baby can be "terminated" inside the woman without penalty, but performing the same operation on that baby outside the woman's body is murder.

Additionally, the methods for "terminating" pregnancies are very much not pretty. Slice and dice is popular. Cut 'em up like a grasshopper in science class. Reassemble the pieces on a tray to ensure that you've got 'em all.

Or the old stick 'em in the head, break the cranium open, suction out the brains, and you got a nicely dead baby ... err sorry, fetus on your hands.

The same procedures on humans outside of the womb would be considered heinous murders that are generally only the realm of serial killers and torturers, but doctors can perform these operations free of fault as long as that baby is inside the mother.

No consistency in the laws, no consistency in the general public morals on this issue.

Guess we want our cake and we're eating it too :rolleyes:

[djellison]

What I suprise, someone attempting to project an image of an horrific late-term termination as typical for terminations in general. What you describe is, of course, an horrific thing and something that no one wants to see happen. But by attempting to push that as the general image of what terminations are, you are being intentionally dishonest and missleading.

Late term terminations are rare. Typically 1% of all terminations are the type you describe. Nearly half of those who elect to have a late term termination do so because they found it hard to arrange a termination at an earlier point. In most countries - a termination late enough to be as you describe is infact illegal, and only allowed in extreme clinical situations where the health of the mother is at mortal risk.

The massive majority of terminations - 95% - occur before 16 weeks and are infact safer for the mother at that time, than going through the rest of pregnancy and childbirth.

According to the WHO, approx 68,000 women die each year because they had to go and have an illegal abortion that then went wrong.

People can object to abortions - that is utterly fine - that means they would not have an abortion themselves or would not want their partner to have one. But people who think that they should be able to have an abortion, should be able to have one - legally and safely.

The alternative is to declare the womb of every women the property of the state, to send abortion procedures underground, and result in unsafe abortions killing women - more than the 68,000 that get killed by unsafe abortions every year already.


Give people the option

[mithrilfox]

What I suprise, someone attempting to project an image of an horrific late-term termination as typical for terminations in general. What you describe is, of course, an horrific thing and something that no one wants to see happen. But by attempting to push that as the general image of what terminations are, you are being intentionally dishonest and missleading.

No.




According to the WHO, approx 68,000 women die each year because they had to go and have an illegal abortion that then went wrong.

See below.


People can object to abortions - that is utterly fine - that means they would not have an abortion themselves or would not want their partner to have one. But people who think that they should be able to have an abortion, should be able to have one - legally and safely.

This argument does not answer the concern of those who are truly opposed to abortion. It completely ignores the issue that those people consider the fetus/unborn child as a living person who has rights like anyone outside the womb, therefore, saying what you say is analogous to saying, "Don't like people getting murdered? Don't murder them, and let others choose whether to murder or not."


The alternative is to declare the womb of every women the property of the state, to send abortion procedures underground, and result in unsafe abortions killing women - more than the 68,000 that get killed by unsafe abortions every year already.

Again, it is not a valid argument, for anti-abortionists, to say "let them do or people will do it illegally anyway." That is akin to saying, "if you make rape illegal, people will do it in back alleys and away from public view and harm the victim." True... but we do not legalize rape so that women can somehow experience a less traumatic or damaging rape.

We make things illegal because, as a society, we consider them wrong. Anti-abortionists feel that way, that it should be illegal because it is, in fact, wrong, and that it should be a crime because it effects the death of a living human being that they believe should have rights the same as those outside the womb.

The fact that people will do it anyway simply means that people will choose to violate the law. This is a well-known fact and is occurring all over the country, whether drug use, drug sales, pirated software, rape, murder, theft, speeding, etc.

Your logic, applied to similar circumstances, would be as follows, IMO:

* People will speed anyway, so remove the speed limits.

* People will steal anyway, so make shop-lifting legal.

* People will sell drugs anyway, so legalize the sale of all currently illegal drugs.

* People will rape anyway, so legalize rape.

* People will pirate software anyway, so legalize software piracy.



Give people the option

If what the anti-abortionists are saying is true, then abortion is the legalized killing of human beings with rights. It would therefore be a human rights violation. I believe this to be true. Not everyone does, but I do, and therefore, the "don't do it yourself, let others decide" is not a happy medium by any stretch of the imagination.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

[schizoidwoman]

What's your opinion on abortions regarding immaculate conception?

Can you imagine filling in the child support forms for that one?

[djellison]

We make things illegal because, as a society, we consider them wrong.

We, as a society, do not consider abortion wrong.

Debate finished.

For extra credit - what would you tell a 13 year old girl made pregnant by rape?

[iJohnHenry]

Every sperm is sacred??

[.Andy]

Interestingly concepts such as every sperm is sacred can be partially traced back to thinking in terms of a sperm (or egg) containing a homunculus. The ramifications of anachronistic theories can still carry weight in some colloquial circles.

[iJohnHenry]

Well sure. Monty Python represents some great minds. :p

[Hawkeye411]

Well, I fully accept any other person's opinion....after all, it is there opinion.

I, for one, won't be affected by other people's opinions.

If I agree, I agree. If I disagree, I disagree, you shouldn't want to change my opinion.

You don't want anyone to change your opinion? So what is the real purpose of the thread. Are you looking for ammunition that you can use to change you friends opinions? Or are you trying to change our opinions?

Cheers.
:):apple:

[skunk]

Interestingly concepts such as every sperm is sacred can be partially traced back to thinking in terms of a sperm (or egg) containing a homunculus. The ramifications of anachronistic theories can still carry weight in some colloquial circles.An anachronism is something that belongs in another age: surely this doesn't apply to iJohnHenry, who is contemporary with the dinosaurs, or so we are told.

[.Andy]

An anachronism is something that belongs in another age: surely this doesn't apply to iJohnHenry, who is contemporary with the dinosaurs, or so we are told.
It's not just hearsay. I've seen iJH's Man Track™ :eek:.

[skunk]

It's not just hearsay. I've seen iJH's Man Track™ :eek:.He must have been HUGE in his younger days! :eek:

[iJohnHenry]

An anachronism is something that belongs in another age: surely this doesn't apply to iJohnHenry, who is contemporary with the dinosaurs, or so we are told.

I am more aligned with the DoDo, as has been previously discussed elsewhere. :p

It's not just hearsay. I've seen iJH's Man Track™ :eek:.

Can't be mine. My GP says I have flat-feet.

[Dont Hurt Me]

It's not just hearsay. I've seen iJH's Man Track™ :eek:.Wow thats pretty cool, I wonder how old that foot print is?

[.Andy]

Wow thats pretty cool, I wonder how old that foot print is?
Probably a matter of minutes before the photo was taken. Unfortunately it was a hoax. Otherwise it would have made for some exciting biology conferences :D!

[SLC Flyfishing]

What if a young couple have sex, the condom breaks, and the male unintentionally impregnates his partner. They have no real intention of spending the rest of their lives together, and they are both far from ready to start a family..........By 1-2 months, the signs of pregnancy are obvious, and the couple are willing to abort the pregnancy. Should they not be allowed to abort?

First off, what are two young people who are both far from ready to start a family doing having sex anyway. Ideally people shouldn't be taking the risk until they are ready and able to deal with the potential consequences (as I think someone else already alluded to).

Secondly no, they shouldn't be allowed to abort, they should put the child up for adoption when it's born. Then they can wash their hands of the situation and nobody has to die!

SLC

[XnavxeMiyyep]

First off, what are two young people who are both far from ready to start a family doing having sex anyway. Ideally people shouldn't be taking the risk until they are ready and able to deal with the potential consequences (as I think someone else already alluded to).

Secondly no, they shouldn't be allowed to abort, they should put the child up for adoption when it's born. Then they can wash their hands of the situation and nobody has to die!

SLC

Nobody dies anyway. It's a fetus.

The consequences of the risks of having sex when you don't want a kid are getting an abortion if your contraception fails.

[Dagless]

If there's some kind of life limiting or risk to either baby or mother then I'm for it. If it's a product of rape then I'm for it. If something goes drastically wrong whilst the child is in the very early stages (loss of house, loss of income, loss of partner) then I'm for it.

I don't like it being used as a form of contraception. No matter how rare that excuse happens.

[djellison]

Ideally people shouldn't be taking the risk until they are ready and able to deal with the potential consequences

Meanwhile - in the real world - sensible, grown up, consenting adults, using contraception, have sex. It's nice. It's part of a loving relationship. Sorry if that contradicts your outdated religiously fundamental views on the world - but that's just how life is.

If the contraception doesn't work for some reason - then it is not your place to take ownership of the womens womb and dictate what should or shouldn't happen to the collection of cells in there.

And again - I'm yet to see anyone give a response to this:

What do you say to the 13 year old girl pregnant thru a rape. You want HER to go through with it? What gives you that right.

[No1451]

Tricky situation, only really resolvable based on when we decide that life begins.

I have long since given up trying to convince anyone, I have my convictions, if anyone asked for my advice, I would tell them not to terminate. Making it illegal is like having weed illegal, it will just force those who want abortions into unsafe situations.

[trule]

Where do I stand on abortion?

Not making other people's choices for them.

Amen!

[iJohnHenry]

It's in the woman's body, it's her right to choose.

You do know the relative size of the egg and sperm, do you not??

I rest my case. :p

http://z.about.com/d/biology/1/0/_/2/eggsperm.jpg

[SLC Flyfishing]

Meanwhile - in the real world - sensible, grown up, consenting adults, using contraception, have sex. It's nice. It's part of a loving relationship. Sorry if that contradicts your outdated religiously fundamental views on the world - but that's just how life is.

If the contraception doesn't work for some reason - then it is not your place to take ownership of the womens womb and dictate what should or shouldn't happen to the collection of cells in there.

And again - I'm yet to see anyone give a response to this:

What do you say to the 13 year old girl pregnant thru a rape. You want HER to go through with it? What gives you that right.

Where exactly have I mentioned Religion in this thread?

Your bigotry is showing again:)

[decksnap]

First off, what are two young people who are both far from ready to start a family doing having sex anyway.
SLC

As far as I know this is a religious notion that sex is only for marriage/families.

[NT1440]

Where exactly have I mentioned Religion in this thread?

Your bigotry is showing again:)

Your saying your views are 100% yours and not influenced by your religion at all?

[iJohnHenry]

Then they can wash their hands of the situation and nobody has to die!

Where exactly have I mentioned Religion in this thread?

Hello!!! :mad:

If that isn't a religious distinction, then I don't know what one is.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Hello!!! :mad:

If that isn't a religious distinction, then I don't know what one is.


Then you don't know what one is!

[SLC Flyfishing]

As far as I know this is a religious notion that sex is only for marriage/families.

No that's a common sense notion. You are 100% not ready for the possibility of a baby, so you refrain from taking part in the activity that nature has designed for the creation of one!

It's the only way to guarantee that pregnancy doesn't occur. Though responsibility and accountability Are in short supply these days!

[NT1440]

Then you don't know what one is!

Not gonna answer then huh?

[SLC Flyfishing]

Your saying your views are 100% yours and not influenced by your religion at all?


My views are based entirely upon what I judge to be right and wrong.

I've not heard much of anything at all on the subject from my religion.

SLC

[skunk]

My views are based entirely upon what I judge to be right and wrong.Hey, that's what we godless atheist types say, too! Coincidence?

[wronski]

No that's a common sense notion. You are 100% not ready for the possibility of a baby, so you refrain from taking part in the activity that nature has designed for the creation of one!

It's the only way to guarantee that pregnancy doesn't occur. Though responsibility and accountability Are in short supply these days!

Where does it say that nature designed human sex just for the creation of another human being? That's a bit like saying nature has designed us to walk and run around instead of driving in vehicles. If you have an accident your response could be "well, you shouldn't have been driving in the first place." Having sex is completely sensible and good and in many cases a beautiful expression of one's love. Not only that, but just like there are seat belts/safety features in cars there are very practical and reasonable measures that prevent a pregnancy from occurring if not desired.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

No that's a common sense notion. You are 100% not ready for the possibility of a baby, so you refrain from taking part in the activity that nature has designed for the creation of one!

It's the only way to guarantee that pregnancy doesn't occur. Though responsibility and accountability Are in short supply these days!

....

Or one could get an abortion, should your contraceptives fail, a far more responsible choice than having an unwanted child.

If I were to go to the beach every day for a month, I would use sunscreen instead of just going with the intention of getting sunburns and skin cancer. There would be nothing "responsible" about doing it the "natural" way.

[iJohnHenry]

Hey, that's what we godless atheist types say, too! Coincidence?

I too have no problem with that.

Let's vote!!! :rolleyes:

[skunk]

Look! The Saudis agree with you too!

Girl gets a year in jail, 100 lashes for adultery

By Adnan Shabrawi

JEDDAH – A 23-year-old unmarried woman was awarded one-year prison term and 100 lashes for committing adultery and trying to abort the resultant fetus.
The District Court in Jeddah pronounced the verdict on Saturday after the girl confessed that she had a forced sexual intercourse with a man who had offered her a ride. The man, the girl confessed, took her to a rest house, east of Jeddah, where he and four of friends assaulted her all night long.
The girl claimed that she became pregnant soon after and went to King Fahd Hospital for Armed Forces in an attempt to carry out an abortion. She was eight weeks’ pregnant then, the hospital confirmed.
According to the ruling, the woman will be sent to a jail outside Jeddah to spend her time and will be lashed after delivery of her baby who will take the mother’s last name. – Okaz/SG
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009020828735

Notice the matter-of-fact reporting. Allahu Akbar indeed.

[iJohnHenry]

Yes, I saw that yesterday.

Shoot the messenger is all I can come up with. :mad:

[SLC Flyfishing]

Where does it say that nature designed human sex just for the creation of another human being? That's a bit like saying nature has designed us to walk and run around instead of driving in vehicles. If you have an accident your response could be "well, you shouldn't have been driving in the first place." Having sex is completely sensible and good and in many cases a beautiful expression of one's love. Not only that, but just like there are seat belts/safety features in cars there are very practical and reasonable measures that prevent a pregnancy from occurring if not desired.

The car analogy isn't bad, but do you use your seatbelt as a means of preventing you from getting in an accident? No, you drive your car acknowledging that there is a risk of getting in an accident, but you're prepared to accept that risk. If you weren't you would never set foot in a car.

So I wouldn't tell someone who got in a car accident that they shouldn't have been driving in the first place; unless they thought for some reason that it wasn't going to happen to them.

So if one isn't 100% ready to accept the responsibility that goes along with a baby, one shouldn't be having sex. There are many other ways to show someone you love them that don't carry the same risks!

[decksnap]

No that's a common sense notion. You are 100% not ready for the possibility of a baby, so you refrain from taking part in the activity that nature has designed for the creation of one!

It's the only way to guarantee that pregnancy doesn't occur. Though responsibility and accountability Are in short supply these days!

yep, and the only way to guarantee you don't drown is to never get in the water. Doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy a nice dip every so often. I know I do. :D

[SLC Flyfishing]

Sounds to me like you've accepted the risk then?

If you hadn't you would stay out of the water!

[iJohnHenry]

Drowning is self-actualising, and driving around in a car does not produce children, unless you pause for a while.

This is becoming idiotic.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

So if one isn't 100% ready to accept the responsibility that goes along with a baby, one shouldn't be having sex.

I still don't see why that is. There's a solution that will, in cases of emergency, give you a 100% chance of not having a baby, which is the topic of the thread.

Sounds to me like you've accepted the risk then?

If you hadn't you would stay out of the water!

Right. There is a risk of drowning. But if you do end up starting to drown while swimming at a beach with a lifeguard, do you think the lifeguard will sit there and say, "Hmm, you should be more responsible! It is against my ethics to help you for being so careless!" or help save you?

[decksnap]

Drowning is self-actualising, and driving around in a car does not produce children, unless you pause for a while.

This is becoming idiotic.

I just don't believe that people who get on a plane, for instance, are fully 'accepting' or prepared for the outcome of a fiery death. But millions of people do it anyway, and they are not all morons. Running a risk and being prepared for the consequences are separate things.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

I just don't believe that people who get on a plane, for instance, are fully 'accepting' or prepared for the outcome of a fiery death. But millions of people do it anyway, and they are not all morons. Running a risk and being prepared for the consequences are separate things.

If a plane goes down, the pilot should not try to save it! That would be shirking personal responsibility! ;)

[SLC Flyfishing]

Where does it say that nature designed human sex just for the creation of another human being? That's a bit like saying nature has designed us to walk and run around instead of driving in vehicles. If you have an accident your response could be "well, you shouldn't have been driving in the first place." Having sex is completely sensible and good and in many cases a beautiful expression of one's love. Not only that, but just like there are seat belts/safety features in cars there are very practical and reasonable measures that prevent a pregnancy from occurring if not desired.


I have never seen where it says anything other than sex is for reproduction. At lease from a biological standpoint.

I do acknowledge that it's great for promotion of a pair bond, but that's probably a function of a human's increased brain capacity.

But it should still be used only by those who are acquainted with and ready to accept it's risks, which unfortunately in this day and age is more than even just pregnancy!

[iJohnHenry]

I just don't believe that people who get on a plane, for instance, are fully 'accepting' or prepared for the outcome of a fiery death.

If they aren't, then they are idiots.. A landing is but a controlled crash. Ask any pilot.

I have been on a flight that dropped about 300 feet upon approach, due to wind-sheer, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth was laughable. And so I did.

This precept of people being invincible is rubbish.

[SLC Flyfishing]

This is becoming idiotic.

It never takes long around here does it?

SLC

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I have never seen where it says anything other than sex is for reproduction. At lease from a biological standpoint.

I do acknowledge that it's great for promotion of a pair bond, but that's probably a function of a human's increased brain capacity.

But it should still be used only by those who are acquainted with and ready to accept it's risks, which unfortunately in this day and age is more than even just pregnancy!

Then I hope people start having babies with as many partners as possible. That's the most logical way to keep your bloodline alive.

[iJohnHenry]

If you can "do the dance" that attracts them, then I agree.

Assisted fertilisation is not in the plan, Mother Nature wise. ;)

[zap2]

But it should still be used only by those who are acquainted with and ready to accept it's risks, which unfortunately in this day and age is more than even just pregnancy!


If only we had a say to deal with these risk, like condoms, birth control pills and say, abortions!

[MacNut]

The only argument I will throw into the mix is this,

Why was Scott Petterson charged with double murder of his wife and unborn child if it is a fetus and not a human life?

[EricNau]

The only argument I will throw into the mix is this,

Why was Scott Petterson charged with double murder of his wife and unborn child if it is a fetus and not a human life?
She was 32 weeks pregnant at the time of her (their) murder, which is about 8 weeks past viability. At that point in a pregnancy abortion is no longer an option.

Besides, according to Roe v. Wade the choice is the mother's to make; Scott Peterson never had the legal right to terminate that pregnancy.

[MacNut]

The argument is when is it a human life, not when is an abortion not viable.

[chrmjenkins]

She was 32 weeks pregnant at the time of her (their) murder, which is about 8 weeks past viability. At that point in a pregnancy abortion is no longer an option.

Besides, according to Roe v. Wade the choice is the mother's to make; Scott Peterson never had the legal right to terminate that pregnancy.

The argument is when is it a human life, not when is an abortion not viable.

This.

Say the baby had been before the point of viability. Would murder still be a chargeable offense in that case? If so, we are saying the mother has special privileges which invalidate the ability to consider it a crime since she is the one that has to bear the burden. If that isn't making an exception to prevent responsibility, I don't know what it is. However, if you disagree with the premise, the point is moot.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

This.

Say the baby had been before the point of viability. Would murder still be a chargeable offense in that case? If so, we are saying the mother has special privileges which invalidate the ability to consider it a crime since she is the one that has to bear the burden. If that isn't making an exception to prevent responsibility, I don't know what it is. However, if you disagree with the premise, the point is moot.

If it was before the point of viability, then no, it shouldn't have been considered a double homicide.

[EricNau]

The argument is when is it a human life, not when is an abortion not viable.
According to Roe v. Wade, after the point of viability. Therefore, there is no inherent contradiction in the Scott Peterson case.

[MacNut]

If it was before the point of viability, then no, it shouldn't have been considered a double homicide.So is it a human life after 32 weeks? Is that the conclusion?

[.Andy]

This.

Say the baby had been before the point of viability. Would murder still be a chargeable offense in that case?
If it was done intentionally to kill the foetus in my opinion yes it should be murder. If it was done by accident then manslaughter. One has no right to physiclaly harm a woman in a way to destroy her foetus. She is the only one that can make that decision. Abortion is a medical procedure that requires her consent. And even then abortion must be carried out within the specified developmental limits of the locale.

If so, we are saying the mother has special privileges which invalidate the ability to consider it a crime since she is the one that has to bear the burden.
She most certainly does have special priviledges. She is an integral part of the developing foetus and as such has more say into what happens than anyone.

If that isn't making an exception to prevent responsibility, I don't know what it is.
A pregnant woman going through the emotion pain of a aborting her foetus is taking an agonising amount of responsibility.

[marbles]

Abortion: Not nice, whichever way one looks at it.

Time to abort this thread?.

[MacNut]

If it was done intentionally to kill the foetus in my opinion yes it should be murder. If it was done by accident then manslaughter. One has no right to physiclaly harm a woman in a way to destroy her foetus. She is the only one that can make that decision. Abortion is a medical procedure that requires her consent.What if the mother is in a coma and the only way to save her life it to terminate the pregnancy, did the doctor commit murder? No consent was given.

[EricNau]

So is it a human life after 32 weeks? Is that the conclusion?
The point of viability is already set by Roe v. Wade at around 7 months (24 to 28 weeks).

What if the mother is in a coma and the only way to save her life it to terminate the pregnancy, did the doctor commit murder? No consent was given.
The choice would lie with her power of attorney.

[MacNut]

The point of viability is already set by Roe v. Wade at around 7 months (24 to 28 weeks).So the argument that it isn't a human until birth is out the window.

[.Andy]

What if the mother is in a coma and the only way to save her life it to terminate the pregnancy, did the doctor commit murder?
Under what conditions would a mother be in a coma and saving the foetus would save her life?

[EricNau]

If it was before the point of viability, then no, it shouldn't have been considered a double homicide.
It actually is according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (signed by President Bush), in addition to other state laws such as California's fetal homicide law.

However, I still don't see an inherent contradiction. The choice is the mother's to make; if anyone takes that choice from her by forcefully aborting her pregnancy, it should be considered murder.

[MacNut]

Under what conditions would a mother be in a coma and saving the foetus would save her life?Undo stress on the mothers body, either the pregnancy is terminated or neither survive.

[.Andy]

Undo stress on the mothers body, either the pregnancy is terminated or neither survive.
If the mother's body was under stress from the foetus it would likely abort it spontaneously anyway. I don't think your hypothetical is reflected by reality. Has this actually happened (serious question)?

[MacNut]

However, I still don't see an inherent contradiction. The choice is the mother's to make; if anyone takes that choice from her by forcefully aborting her pregnancy, it should be considered murder.That is the argument, take away the chances of something becoming life.

[EricNau]

So the argument that it isn't a human until birth is out the window.
Was it an ever an official argument? Roe v. Wade is clear on the issue: you can't abort a 36 week pregnancy unless there's a risk to the mother's safety.

[MacNut]

Was it an ever an official argument? Roe v. Wade is clear on the issue: you can't abort a 36 week pregnancy unless there's a risk to the mother's safety.Im certain that argument was raised in this thread.

Now a legal question, if the mothers life is at risk, can the father agree to the abortion.

[EricNau]

That is the argument, take away the chances of something becoming life.
The law doesn't exist to protect the baby, but rather to protect the mother's right to have her baby. It's purely for the sake of the mother (and family). If the mother doesn't wish to have the baby, it is her choice (and her's alone) to abort.

Where's the contradiction?

[MacNut]

Where's the contradiction?That murder is murder, it doesn't matter who does it. Taking away the chance at something becoming human life.

[EricNau]

Now a legal question, if the mothers life is at risk, can the father agree to the abortion.
No, not technically. The choice would lie with the mother's power of attorney. However, oftentimes that is also the father.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

It actually is according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (signed by President Bush), in addition to other state laws such as California's fetal homicide law.

However, I still don't see an inherent contradiction. The choice is the mother's to make; if anyone takes that choice from her by forcefully aborting her pregnancy, it should be considered murder.

Going to have to disagree here. Not that I don't think it's a terrible crime, but it seems like the laws were enacted (especially if signed by Bush) as a back door attempt at making abortions illegal with this argument.

If it's not a person, it's not a homicide.

[NT1440]

That murder is murder, it doesn't matter who does it.
Are we still talking about the Petersons or are we talking about abortion in general?

[.Andy]

Now a legal question, if the mothers life is at risk, can the father agree to the abortion.
I think it would depend entirely on the laws of the location. If the father is power of attourney then problaby yes. But it's such a specialised and rare case that it's encroaching on needing a medical ethicist or medical tribunal to answer.

[MacNut]

Are we still talking about the Petersons or are we talking about abortion in general?In general, either it is a human life and an abortion is murder or it is just a thing and you can't be charged with murder no matter what the circumstances.

[chrmjenkins]

She most certainly does have special priviledges. She is an integral part of the developing foetus and as such has more say into what happens than anyone.


The said privileges were contingent upon whether or not an outside party would be committing murder by terminating the pregnancy without the mother's consent regardless of progression of the child.

Under what conditions would a mother be in a coma and saving the foetus would save her life?

Do you guys get House down under? ;)

[EricNau]

Going to have to disagree here. Not that I don't think it's a terrible crime, but it seems like the laws were enacted (especially if signed by Bush) as a back door attempt at making abortions illegal with this argument.
No, the text is clear.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act §1841 (18 USC 1841):
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Again, this law protects a women's right to have her child if she so chooses. If you murder her fetus, you're depriving the mother of her baby; to her it would be the same as killing her child after its birth.

This law is all about the mother's rights, not the baby's.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

No, the text is clear.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act §1841 (18 USC 1841):
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Again, this law protects a women's right to have her child if she so chooses. If you murder her fetus, you're depriving the mother of her baby; to her it would be the same as killing her child after its birth.

This law is all about the mother's rights, not the baby's.

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be a crime at all, but it seems like an extension of practicing medicine without a license would be a more appropriate law than something inaccurately sensationalized like "infant homicide" or "unborn victims of violence act," especially since there would already be another crime committed against the woman, such as assault, battery, homicide, etc.

[zap2]

Taking away the chance at something becoming human life.

So anal, masturbating, blowjobs, etc...those all had a chance at becoming a human life had the man put it this "stuff" in a different place.


And when a women menstruates...that could have been a baby!

[Gelfin]

If it's not a person, it's not a homicide.

The California law explicitly rejects this theory. It defines homicide as the malicious killing of a person or fetus. For good measure it explicitly excludes legal abortion.

Some scholars have pointed out that there is no innate constitutional reason a state could not define malicious killing of a dog to be homicide if they had an interest in doing so. That would not in itself confer any measure of personhood on a dog, or grant the dog any additional legal protection in other circumstances. It would not, for instance, interfere with an animal shelter humanely destroying unwanted animals.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

The California law explicitly rejects this theory. It defines homicide as the malicious killing of a person or fetus. For good measure it explicitly excludes legal abortion.

Some scholars have pointed out that there is no innate constitutional reason a state could not define malicious killing of a dog to be homicide if they had an interest in doing so. That would not in itself confer any measure of personhood on a dog, or grant the dog any additional legal protection in other circumstances. It would not, for instance, interfere with an animal shelter humanely destroying unwanted animals.

That goes against the very definition of homicide though. The legal system should not be able to simply redifine this at will.

[Gelfin]

That goes against the very definition of homicide though. The legal system should not be able to simply redifine this at will.

The legal system wouldn't. The legislative system would, and has, however counterintuitive that may seem to you. If you can support that intuitive "should not" of yours with a legal argument, file a suit and take it to court.

Believe me, I understand that most feticide laws were intended as backdoor attacks on abortion; however, I am somewhat persuaded by the argument that the door anti-abortionists are attempting to wedge open doesn't go where they think it does. The are, in fact, redefining "homicide," not "person."

As a supporter of reproductive choice, I don't think I have any substantial problems with a legal system that protects a woman's choice to give birth as strongly as it protects her choice not to.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

The legal system wouldn't. The legislative system would, and has, however counterintuitive that may seem to you.
My bad! And to think I was complaining about the misuse of words...:p

The are, in fact, redefining "homicide," not "person."
Still, the ability to redifine words like that is a loophole in our government that should be closed.

As a supporter of reproductive choice, I don't think I have any substantial problems with a legal system that protects a woman's choice to give birth as strongly as it protects her choice not to.

Neither do I, but the term double homicide would still be inappropriate, since stopping someone from having a child against her will is not equivalent to murdering her.

[Gelfin]

Still, the ability to redifine words like that is a loophole in our government that should be closed.

Neither do I, but the term double homicide would still be inappropriate, since stopping someone from having a child against her will is not equivalent to murdering her.

I don't necessarily disagree with you enough to argue about it; however, that's the way it is, and it is the answer to MacNut's question about Scott Peterson.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

I don't necessarily disagree with you enough to argue about it;
I suppose it's an issue for another thread.

[djellison]

Then you don't know what one is!

What I do know is that you're avoiding the question I've asked you. Give it a go. I dare you.

[SLC Flyfishing]

What I do know is that you're avoiding the question I've asked you. Give it a go. I dare you.

I'm not avoiding anything, I merely don't think you and your pathetic attempts at rationalizing the murder of an unborn child warrant any additional effort.

But since you probably aren't going to drop it I'll refer you to my comments in another thread on this topic. Most people didn't like them, and I assume you won't either. At the end of the day you're really just trying to pick a fight with anyone who doesn't think exactly like you aren't you?

The thread can be found here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=639257 , my comments are on the first page! I've bolded, reddened, and increased the size of the important part so you won't miss it this time!


Prof,

You've nailed down my feelings on the matter perfectly. I'm for abortion in the case of danger to the mother's life, rape, incest, or obvious deformation of the fetus. Otherwise I think it should be forbidden.

SLC

If you read on, you'll see that most pro-abortion folks gave me a lot of grief for that. I guess they want me to be against abortion in all situations instead. I happen to feel that if a Woman didn't willingly partake in the sexual act by which she became pregnant, then she shouldn't be required to carry that baby to term. It's not something I'm particularly excited, but I can see where banning all abortions is not practical.

I just don't like the idea of using abortion as a means of contraception. I say again, that if somebody isn't prepared to deal with the possible consequences of being sexually active, then they shouldn't be sexually active. End of story!

Now get over yourself D, it's getting tiresome listening to you and those like you come up with situation after hypothetical situation to try and paint me as some overbearing person who wants to take control of people's reproduction. Quite the contrary actually, I want people to take control of their own reproduction, and not resort to the killing of defenseless human children, fetuses, embryos etc when the natural result of sexual reproduction happens to take effect.

SLC

[XnavxeMiyyep]

I happen to feel that if a Woman didn't willingly partake in the sexual act by which she became pregnant, then she shouldn't be required to carry that baby to term.

Does the fetus have a "right" to life? If it doesn't, why should the government be part of determining when someone can or cannot have an abortion? If it does, then why does its right disappear due to circumstance?

[zap2]

Does the fetus have a "right" to life? If it doesn't, why should the government be part of determining when someone can or cannot have an abortion? If it does, then why does its right disappear due to circumstance?

I agree, if you support a ban on abortion due to a (misguided) claim that its a human "life" from day 1, then how can you say its ok it "kill" it, regardless of mom or dad?

[SLC Flyfishing]

Does the fetus have a "right" to life? If it doesn't, why should the government be part of determining when someone can or cannot have an abortion? If it does, then why does its right disappear due to circumstance?

It's a paradox, I realize this. But it's just one of those things that I think warrants an exception based on the situation, carrying that baby everyday would be a grim reminder of the violence that was perpetrated on the woman. And something that she would be unable to get away from. I'm not going to pretend, even for a second that I could ever understand that kind of anguish and mental pain, and a woman who has had this sort of violence committed on her shouldn't be required to deal with the pregnancy should that result. I think rape warrants an exception, one that an accidental pregnancy between two consenting sexual partners doesn't warrant.

Abortion shouldn't be used as an easy way of shirking responsibility.

SLC

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Abortion shouldn't be used as an easy way of shirking responsibility.

What responsibility? Why is she obligated to carry to term an unplanned pregnancy, due to failing of contraceptives, when she could abort it, with the same methods one would use to abort a pregnancy resulting from rape?

It seems like it's more about punishing the woman than preserving the fetus.

[djellison]

It seems like it's more about punishing the woman than preserving the fetus.


SLC has some very strange thought processes (and some highly outdated opinions of modern adult relationships) to come to the conclusion that murdering a foetus is very very much wrong and should never be done, unless you've been raped first. Me thinks it would be a very different opinion where he - a she.

Murdering an unborn child ( his lexicon, not mine ) is either acceptable, or not. Essentially - his conclusion is that murder is OK - as long as you're murdering the child of a criminal.

A very warped and bizarre view of the world, and a very strange manifestation of morals.

[chrmjenkins]

What responsibility? Why is she obligated to carry to term an unplanned pregnancy, due to failing of contraceptives, when she could abort it, with the same methods one would use to abort a pregnancy resulting from rape?

It seems like it's more about punishing the woman than preserving the fetus.

There's a clear distinction between a willful act and a crime against the woman's will.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Here are the simple facts. Like marijuana even if it's illegal people are still going to do it. So if you outlaw abortion you're not saving anyone, you're just putting a lot of desperate people in danger. Coat hangers, anyone?

[benflick]

Here are the simple facts. Like marijuana even if it's illegal people are still going to do it. So if you outlaw abortion you're not saving anyone, you're just putting a lot of desperate people in danger. Coat hangers, anyone?

Agreed.

As for abortion, do you (not you TuffLuffJimmy) but anyone think that it would be better for the baby to be born and be put up for adoption, where it could sit for all of it's childhood in a shelter. Or even have foster parents, but ones that may be abusive?

[chrmjenkins]

Agreed.

As for abortion, do you (not you TuffLuffJimmy) but anyone think that it would be better for the baby to be born and be put up for adoption, where it could sit for all of it's childhood in a shelter. Or even have foster parents, but ones that may be abusive?

Yeah, only bad crap happens to people who are put up for adoption:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_jobs

[benflick]

Yeah, only bad crap happens to people who are put up for adoption:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_jobs

Did I say that only bad crap happens to people who are put up for adoption?
No, I didn't. I've seen Pirates of Silicon Valley like 6 times lol.

[chrmjenkins]

Did I say that only bad crap happens to people who are put up for adoption?
No, I didn't. I've seen Pirates of Silicon Valley like 6 times lol.

No, but the notion that we should avoid things simply because things could go wrong is preposterous. Life is about taking the right risks to make things work out better in the end.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

There's a clear distinction between a willful act and a crime against the woman's will.

Right, a crime against the woman's will would be forcing her to have a child she doesn't want, while a willful act would be aborting and getting on with her life as she sees fit.

[chrmjenkins]

Right, a crime against the woman's will would be forcing her to have a child she doesn't want, while a willful act would be aborting and getting on with her life as she sees fit.

She only arrived in that condition as a consequence of her own willful actions. If you rob a bank, the police are going to act against your will to stay out of jail. If she didn't want the child, she could have avoided the action that produced it.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

She only arrived in that condition as a consequence of her own willful actions. If you rob a bank, the police are going to act against your will to stay out of jail. If she didn't want the child, she could have avoided the action that produced it.

Right, but she could avoid the action that produces it by getting an abortion.:confused:

[SLC Flyfishing]

Right, but she could avoid the action that produces it by getting an abortion.:confused:

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain how that one works to me.

SLC

[XnavxeMiyyep]

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain how that one works to me.

SLC

If she gets an abortion, she won't have a kid. It's pretty simple.

[chrmjenkins]

Right, but she could avoid the action that produces it by getting an abortion.:confused:

No, the action that produces it is intercourse.

[zap2]

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain how that one works to me.

SLC

By have an abortion, the baby is not born, so she doesn't have it


Look, it seems like you think women who get pregnant by mistake should have to live with it(because the rape/abortion thing shows its not about you thinking the fetus is a human life)...because we have safe abortions now, we now longer have to "live with it" because we can handle it responsibly with condoms, the pill and abortions!

[MacNut]

If she gets an abortion, she won't have a kid. It's pretty simple.Why not go further back and say if she didn't have sex.

[Lau]

No, but the notion that we should avoid things simply because things could go wrong is preposterous.

Exactly. Hence, why people have sex even though, very occasionally, things don't go as planned.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

No, the action that produces it is intercourse.
That is part of it. So is the pregnancy. And it can be stopped then.

Why not go further back and say if she didn't have sex.
Why would I? There's the whole freedom and civil rights thing.

[MacNut]

That is part of it. So is the pregnancy. And it can be stopped then.


Why would I? There's the whole freedom and civil rights thing.Do cops go around telling people who can and cannot have sex? It should be a judgement call, if a person can't afford the risk don't do it.

[SLC Flyfishing]

It should be a judgement call, if a person can't afford the risk don't do it.

Exactly what I've been trying to say!

[SLC Flyfishing]

If she gets an abortion, she won't have a kid. It's pretty simple.

I don't think that's what Mr. Jenkins was referring to buddy!

SLC

[floyde]

Well I'm mostly on the liberal side here, but dear Void, have I been running into some nasty examples lately! My GF knows this girl who just had her third abortion. She's almost literally using them instead of condoms. At least two of her friends have had one, and there's this other girl who's constantly buying morning after pills (aren't condoms much cheaper?).

I find this type of behavior pretty disgusting (abortion as a substitute for better, cheaper contraception). It's one thing to own one's body, but it's a much different thing to have this level of selfishness and disregard for responsibilty.

(Note that I forgot to mention that these people had an abortion not because their contraception failed, but because they consciously chose not to use any. They're not stupid teenagers either.)

[EricNau]

Well I'm mostly on the liberal side here, but dear Void, have I been running into some nasty examples lately! My GF knows this girl who just had her third abortion. She's almost literally using them instead of condoms. At least two of her friends have had one, and there's this other girl who's constantly buying morning after pills (aren't condoms much cheaper?).

I find this type of behavior pretty disgusting (abortion as a substitute for better, cheaper contraception). It's one thing to own one's body, but it's a much different thing to have this level of selfishness and disregard for responsibilty.

(Note that I forgot to mention that these people had an abortion not because their contraception failed, but because they consciously chose not to use any. They're not stupid teenagers either.)
For which the only solution is education.

[floyde]

For which the only solution is education.

Indeed, these people are in dire need of it. I still was quite shocked though.

[chrmjenkins]

Exactly. Hence, why people have sex even though, very occasionally, things don't go as planned.

There are tons of ways to mitigate that risk, not the least of which is a condom, which should always be used for other reasons. On top of that, the female can use contraception, the male can get a reversible vasectomy etc. Use any combination of those and you are talking 1/100,000 to 1/1,000,000 or greater odds. As with other health care, prevention is always cheaper.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

As with other health care, prevention is always cheaper.

No one is arguing against that.

However, that doesn't make abortion unethical or worthy of being illegal.

[zap2]

Do cops go around telling people who can and cannot have sex? It should be a judgement call, if a person can't afford the risk don't do it.

Exactly what I've been trying to say!

So no abortions because it lowers the risk?

So condoms either? Or anything self that makes things safer

This argument is pretty awful, I'm sorry.

[Lau]

There are tons of ways to mitigate that risk, not the least of which is a condom, which should always be used for other reasons. On top of that, the female can use contraception, the male can get a reversible vasectomy etc. Use any combination of those and you are talking 1/100,000 to 1/1,000,000 or greater odds. As with other health care, prevention is always cheaper.

And the vast majority of people do this. (Although I'm pretty sure a reversible vasectomy can be risky, for the record.)

----------------------------

For every sensationalised news story and anecdotal "I know this dumb slut who..." story, most people, shockingly enough, don't want to get pregnant and use contraception to prevent this.

The idea that all women have an abortion in a frivolous "Whoops, I've got pregnant again!" way is ludicrous. It must be an unbelievably harrowing and emotionally fraught thing to go through. Just because you don't want to have a baby doesn't mean it wouldn't be a deeply upsetting and unpleasant thing to go through, and I can't imagine taking it lightly. But I'll fight until the end to keep having the right to do it.

Again, there are always going to be a minority of people who don't feel like this about it and behave irresponsibly about it. The question is whether you ban something because a tiny minority use it irresponsibly or whether you look a bit more sensibly at it and realise that the rest of the population may never have one, but in the unlikely case of a mistake or a failure in their prevention for whatever reason, they want the right to have one.

[Lau]

Whoops.

Whoops! There's a way I can undo that, right? ;)

[Mord]

Infertility FTW!

[skunk]

Whoops! There's a way I can undo that, right? ;)Right... :D
Morning after typo pills FTW!

[Lau]

Right... :D
Morning after typo pills FTW!

Although it doesn't mean I don't feel bad about it. :p

[iBlue]

Whoops! There's a way I can undo that, right? ;)

:D I <3 you. It just needed to be said.



These threads are something else. As if abortion is ever anyone's first choice. :rolleyes: I don't like the whole idea of them either but it's certainly not my place to condemn it. I don't think it's anyone's place to be a judgemental buttwad about what difficult decisions other people need to make for their own lives. Accidents happen and for some people who aren't in a position to raise a child they may need to make the excruciating decision to terminate a pregnancy. Likewise, I also think it certainly is not the government's place to make that decision for anyone. We're just going to have to let people make their own choices and live with our own.

[calculus]

I wish that people would realise that there is a difference between what you don't agree with and what ought to be legislated against. The decision to have an abortion is nobody's business but the people involved. If you dissaprove then tough, there are plenty of things I don't approve of too.

I doubt if many of the people who oppose abortion know anyone that has had one. It certainly isn't something that (most people) take lightly. An unwanted pregnancy, for whatever reason, is a situation that any woman could find themselves in, so stop being so judgemental.

[Gelfin]

I doubt if many of the people who oppose abortion know anyone that has had one.

On the contrary, I remember reading an anecdotal account (which I cannot find now, and so I apologize for the lack of a link) suggesting that stern anti-abortionists are actually surprisingly common participants in the procedure.

As it turns out, their cases are always special and unique, involving the untimeliness and impracticality of giving birth to a child and the wholly accidental nature of the pregnancy, unlike those other horrible sluts who use abortion as birth control because they enjoy murdering babies. Often these poor unfortunate souls helpfully lecture other women in the clinic on their sinfulness before going back (or sending their daughters back) for their own procedures.

[obeygiant]

Just some data on abortions:

The study, released Tuesday by the non-profit Guttmacher Institute, which specializes in research on reproductive and sexual health, examined abortion rates in the U.S. from 1974 — the year after Roe v. Wade deemed abortion a "fundamental right" — through 2004. The total number of abortions has dropped over the last two decades, from nearly 1.6 million in 1984 to 1.2 million in 2004. The abortion rate hit its peak in 1980 at 29 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44; in 2004, that number had dropped to 20 per 1,000 women.

Statistically one in three U.S. women will have an abortion in her lifetime, the study found, but that risk does not apply to all women equally. Women who choose abortion are more likely to be in their 20s or 30s than in their teens or 40s; they're more likely to have children already; and they're also more likely to be black or Hispanic than white. The abortion rates in 2004 were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women and 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, compared with 11 out of every 1,000 white women.

"This is the first time that somebody's really sat down and said, in this 30-year time period, what have been some of the changes in characteristics of women obtaining abortions?" says Rachel Jones, a senior research associate at the Guttmacher Institute and the project manager for the new study.

In 2004, 60% of women who had abortions had already given birth to at least one child, an increase from 50% in 1989, while 47% of women who had an abortion had already undergone the procedure at least once before (the study's authors point out, however, that the trend in multiple abortions may already be declining). Between 1974 and 2004, the percentage of abortions performed among women in their 20s increased from 50% to 57%; the percentage among women in their 30s increased from 15% to 24%. Meanwhile, the proportion of abortions sought by patients under 20 fell from 33% in 1974 to 17% three decades later.Time (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1843717,00.html)

Figures obtained by the Department of Health (DoH) show around 15,000 women had their third or more abortion in 2006, out of a total of 193,737 terminations.
A department spokesman said: "Women who have undergone abortion are at risk of future unintended pregnancies and represent an important group with unmet contraceptive needs.
"Future contraception should be discussed, and supplies offered, before a woman is discharged following abortion."
More than 17,000 terminations were sought by women under 18, with 1,341 having their second abortion. Abortion remains most common among the 18- to 24-year-old age group.politics.co.uk (http://www.politics.co.uk/news/health/tory-mp-attacks-multiple-abortions-$1214223.htm)

The state should make contraceptives readily available to women who have had at least one abortion to avoid more trips to the clinic.

[iBlue]

...

The state should make contraceptives readily available to women who have had at least one abortion to avoid more trips to the clinic.

Maybe the state should provide adequate access to contraception for everyone regardless. In the UK you get birth control pills for free under the NHS. Every time I pick them up I feel appreciative to have such a system in place. Not that it stops every unwanted or unwise pregnancy but it helps. I don't miss the days of paying $30 per month for the pill.

[imac/cheese]

Here are the simple facts. Like marijuana even if it's illegal people are still going to do it. So if you outlaw abortion you're not saving anyone, you're just putting a lot of desperate people in danger. Coat hangers, anyone?

I disagree with your reasoning here. There are a lot of people that do not smoke pot because it is illegal. I believe that outlawing abortions would decrease the total number of abortions, while at the same time increase the risks and problems associated with the newly illegal abortions.

Agreed.

As for abortion, do you (not you TuffLuffJimmy) but anyone think that it would be better for the baby to be born and be put up for adoption, where it could sit for all of it's childhood in a shelter. Or even have foster parents, but ones that may be abusive?

I definitely think it would be better for the baby to be born and put up for adoption sitting for all of its childhodd in a shelter than to be aborted. Abortion is not about what is better for the fetus, it is about what is better for the mother.

Well I'm mostly on the liberal side here, but dear Void, have I been running into some nasty examples lately! My GF knows this girl who just had her third abortion. She's almost literally using them instead of condoms. At least two of her friends have had one, and there's this other girl who's constantly buying morning after pills (aren't condoms much cheaper?).

I find this type of behavior pretty disgusting (abortion as a substitute for better, cheaper contraception). It's one thing to own one's body, but it's a much different thing to have this level of selfishness and disregard for responsibilty.

(Note that I forgot to mention that these people had an abortion not because their contraception failed, but because they consciously chose not to use any. They're not stupid teenagers either.)

I am wondering why you find this behavior to be disgusting? If the fetus is not a life yet, why is it disgusting to abort it? Why is it selfish to use abortion as a form of contraception? What is the difference between condoms and morning after pills and abortions? If a fetus is not a living human, it is not at all irresponsible to abort the fetus.

Now if fetuses are living humans, it would be disgusting to abort them no matter what the circumstances. I don't really see any grey area in between. Either the fetus is a human life that should be protected like any other life or it is a mass of tissue that can be disgarded like a tumor.

I wish that people would realise that there is a difference between what you don't agree with and what ought to be legislated against. The decision to have an abortion is nobody's business but the people involved. If you dissaprove then tough, there are plenty of things I don't approve of too...

This is an arguement that is often regurgitated in the abortion debate, but it doesn't really hold water. The debate is not (or shouldn't be) about what a woman can do with her own body. It is about whether or not the fetus is a human life deserving protection. If the fetus is a human life, of course I do not agree with killing it and I feel that no matter who thinks it would be a good idea to kill it, the fetus should be protected by law, just like any other human life. On the other hand, if the fetus is just a mass of tissue and part of the mother's body, I don't think there is any problem aborting it and no one should be able to tell the mother what to do with her own body.

You have stated that abortion is nobody's business but the people involved. Do you feel the father should have any say in whether or not the pregnancy is terminated? If so, why? To me the only reason a father should have any say in the mother having an abortion, is if we have come to the conclusion that the fetus is not just a part of the mother's body but a life on its own, in which case the life should be protected no matter what the father thinks.

[chrmjenkins]

You have stated that abortion is nobody's business but the people involved. Do you feel the father should have any say in whether or not the pregnancy is terminated? If so, why? To me the only reason a father should have any say in the mother having an abortion, is if we have come to the conclusion that the fetus is not just a part of the mother's body but a life on its own, in which case the life should be protected no matter what the father thinks.

Yeah, that's the central issue where the disagreement occurs. Either it's a human life, and as such, deserves protection, or its a mass of cells over which the woman has sole discretion.

[floyde]

I am wondering why you find this behavior to be disgusting? If the fetus is not a life yet, why is it disgusting to abort it? Why is it selfish to use abortion as a form of contraception? What is the difference between condoms and morning after pills and abortions? If a fetus is not a living human, it is not at all irresponsible to abort the fetus.

Now if fetuses are living humans, it would be disgusting to abort them no matter what the circumstances. I don't really see any grey area in between. Either the fetus is a human life that should be protected like any other life or it is a mass of tissue that can be disgarded like a tumor.


Hey that's cheating imac/cheese! I haven't even expressed my opinions on the subject ;):p. I personally feel that an embryo is not a human being, a developed fetus with a nervous system (and a capacity to suffer) is. It's a very fine line and thus abortions are something to be considered only in emergencies IMHO (to avoid it while having crossed that line). What I find disgusting is the complete lack of seriousness with which this person approached the issue. She could've bought a pack of condoms for $10 and instead she chose to be in that situation where there is the potential for harming a living creature (even though it doesn't necessarily happen that way all the time).

Not sure that was clear enough, but my point is, even if your pro-abortion, it's not an issue to be taken lightly.

Yeah, that's the central issue where the disagreement occurs. Either it's a human life, and as such, deserves protection, or its a mass of cells over which the woman has sole discretion.

Except that it's both. It starts out as a mass of cells and eventually becomes a human. I'm not in favor of abortion on the latter case, except for several exceptions which have already been discussed (rape, health issues, etc.).

[chrmjenkins]

Except that it's both. It starts out as a mass of cells and eventually becomes a human. I'm not in favor of abortion on the latter case, except for several exceptions which have already been discussed (rape, health issues, etc.).

To me, it's logically inconsistent to consider it both. Currently, it seems that we determine the point of being a live human based on a scientific definition. Science is ever-changing, and as such, our understanding of how babies develop in the womb will. To allow something inherently devoid of morality decide a moral question for us is a flaw, I believe. Despite the development of technology over the ages, our core views of morality have remained fairly constant. If morals and ethics are influenced by science, how can we expect them to be the unbiased observer that holds it accountable for the consequences of its developments?

[PlaceofDis]

The state should make contraceptives readily available to women who have had at least one abortion to avoid more trips to the clinic.

the state should make contraceptives available to all. men and women alike regardless of if they have had an abortion in the past. why is it that we as a society have deemed women responsible for pregnancies when a man is just as involved in the process.

after sex and the pregnancy occurs it is the woman's body that is undergoing change, not the man's, thus it is up to her to come to the ultimate decision. i do think the father should be consulted and a part of the process, but that is up to an individual. a man should not be able to force a woman to carry the child through if it is not what she wants.

why are we promoting abstinence only sexual education rather than one that teaches safe sex?

why are we only blaming the women who get pregnant rather than the men who don't wear condoms?

[floyde]

To me, it's logically inconsistent to consider it both.

Why do you think it's inconsistent? The embryo goes through several stages. In one stage it is something, in the next it is something else. It's pretty simple, really. If the fetus came into existence completely developed, I would agree with you that it is inconsistent to consider it two different things.

Currently, it seems that we determine the point of being a live human based on a scientific definition. Science is ever-changing, and as such, our understanding of how babies develop in the womb will. To allow something inherently devoid of morality decide a moral question for us is a flaw, I believe. Despite the development of technology over the ages, our core views of morality have remained fairly constant.

How is a constant morality something desirable? What if we got it wrong? (We certainly have been wrong, many, many times). Wouldn't an evolving morality with the ability to correct itself be much more adequate?

If morals and ethics are influenced by science, how can we expect them to be the unbiased observer that holds it accountable for the consequences of its developments?

There's no such observer. Science is actually the most capable tool we have for such scenarios, since it is the only one with a built-in mechanism to reduce bias. Note that I used the word "reduce", elimination of bias is simply not possible.

[chrmjenkins]

Why do you think it's inconsistent? The embryo goes through several stages. In one stage it is something, in the next it is something else. It's pretty simple, really. If the fetus came into existence completely developed, I would agree with you that it is inconsistent to consider it two different things.

I go through many stages as a human. Baby, child, adult, and senior. During this, I undergo mild to moderate changes (the morphological form of a baby is quite different than an adult even given the same parts are all still there) including many different hormonal functions dependent upon the stage of my life. I am still and can be nothing else besides a human. A child in the womb is the same. It undergoes many changes, develops systems, but it is still at every instant a human containing DNA that defines its every characteristic. To me, conception and a period of-pre viability are not the processes that allow a human to exist. Ovulation and conception are. After that, a human has been created. All the processes necessary for that being to be able to exist have been fulfilled, and it only has to mature. Creating a line which separates life from non-life is ludicrous to me.



How is a constant morality something desirable? What if we got it wrong? (We certainly have been wrong, many, many times). Wouldn't an evolving morality with the ability to correct itself be much more adequate?

Notice I said mostly constant. Certainly things change, and often for the better. How can you qualify the statement by saying we got it wrong? We are the ones that determine what is right and wrong. This is different than science, where correct exists, and we only need to endeavor to discover it.



There's no such observer. Science is actually the most capable tool we have for such scenarios, since it is the only one with a built-in mechanism to reduce bias. Note that I used the word "reduce", elimination of bias is simply not possible.

The inability of total elimination of bias is implicit in any scenario. We as humans are subject to conditioning based on our experiences. The thing is, we often treat morality and science as absolutes in our society. (Rightly so, science doesn't want religion guiding its course anymore than people want science defining their religious beliefs). We should no more use science to determine morality than we should use morality to determine the types of science to pursue. They can and do, however, provide limits for one another. Morality tells us that we should not clone humans, science tells us that sometimes abortion is the only option to save the mother.

[skunk]

We should no more use science to determine morality than we should use morality to determine the types of science to pursue. They can and do, however, provide limits for one another. Morality tells us that we should not clone humans, science tells us that sometimes abortion is the only option to save the mother.You appear to have contradicted yourself completely here: in using an abortion to save the life of a mother you are using science to determine morality, and in asserting that we should not clone humans you are using morality to determine what sort of science to pursue. Why should we not clone humans? Because you believe it is your god's prerogative? This is nothing properly to do with morality, more to do with a jealous god. Is safeguarding the rights and privileges of your deity the basis of your morality? Why should we allow any elective abortion if it equates to murder? Because we can? Is the taking of life not also your god's prerogative? Your stance appears to have little consistency.

[floyde]

I go through many stages as a human. Baby, child, adult, and senior. During this, I undergo mild to moderate changes (the morphological form of a baby is quite different than an adult even given the same parts are all still there) including many different hormonal functions dependent upon the stage of my life. I am still and can be nothing else besides a human. A child in the womb is the same. It undergoes many changes, develops systems, but it is still at every instant a human containing DNA that defines its every characteristic. To me, conception and a period of-pre viability are not the processes that allow a human to exist. Ovulation and conception are. After that, a human has been created. All the processes necessary for that being to be able to exist have been fulfilled, and it only has to mature. Creating a line which separates life from non-life is ludicrous to me.


I expected that you would use that analogy :). The line does not separate life from non-life. It separates human from multicellular organism and consciousness and pain from lack of awareness and inability to feel any harm. Fetal development is more akin to a metamorphosis, while human growth is a much milder change. This is still only my opinion though.


Notice I said mostly constant. Certainly things change, and often for the better. How can you qualify the statement by saying we got it wrong? We are the ones that determine what is right and wrong. This is different than science, where correct exists, and we only need to endeavor to discover it.


You qualify it against the current best understanding of an issue. That is the best we can hope to do. I have not yet seen any proof of an absolute morality that we can use to compare and match our moral decisions with.


The inability of total elimination of bias is implicit in any scenario. We as humans are subject to conditioning based on our experiences. The thing is, we often treat morality and science as absolutes in our society. (Rightly so, science doesn't want religion guiding its course anymore than people want science defining their religious beliefs). We should no more use science to determine morality than we should use morality to determine the types of science to pursue. They can and do, however, provide limits for one another.

Science shouldn't be treated as an absolute but as a tool. I agree with that. But if we are not to use science to aid our moral decisions, what do you suggest?

Morality tells us that we should not clone humans, science tells us that sometimes abortion is the only option to save the mother.

Really? I should speak to this Morality person then :p. I think you're missing the part where people decided to repudiate human cloning based on our best current understanding of that matter. That notion may change, we don't know that for sure. But I can almost guarantee that there's no golden inscription with the words "Homo sapiens from planet Earth on the Milky Way galaxy shalt not clone themselves" at the center of the Universe or something like that. Cloning is wrong simply because we currently don't like it.

[chrmjenkins]

You appear to have contradicted yourself completely here: in using an abortion to save the life of a mother you are using science to determine morality, and in asserting that we should not clone humans you are using morality to determine what sort of science to pursue. Why should we not clone humans? Because you believe it is your god's prerogative? This is nothing to do with morality, more to do with a jealous god. Why should we allow any elective abortion if it equates to murder? Because we can? Is the taking of life not also your god's prerogative? Your stance appears to have little consistency.

No, there's a difference. The veracity of the correct or right thing is undermined in neither case, only the ability of its implementation.

In the case of saving the mother, the moral imperative would be to save both. Science tells us this isn't possible, so we choose. Science hasn't changed the original moral belief though, and it stays intact in that the overall goal is still to save life.

The question of why or why not we should clone humans is irrelevant. It's a common example and many people have views on it. Morality doesn't say that the science leading to its possibility be undone (for it often coincides with other scientific developments), it merely defines an application of said science that we agree should not take place.


I expected that you would use that analogy :). The line does not separate life from non-life. It separates human from multicellular organism and consciousness and pain from lack of awareness and inability to feel any harm. Fetal development is more akin to a metamorphosis, while human growth is a much milder change. This is still only my opinion though.

The point is, we are utilizing scientific knowledge of particular stages to help us arrive at this conclusion. Without scientific knowledge, what we would know would only be what is derived by logic (intercourse leads to impregnation). If at that point, we held the moral belief that human life is sacred, then knowledge of impregnation would be enough to say interfering is off limits.



You qualify it against the current best understanding of an issue. That is the best we can hope to do. I have not yet seen any proof of an absolute morality that we can use to compare and match our moral decisions with.

Correct, the only absolute morality comes from religion. However, there are many common morals that we agree on as a society.



Science shouldn't be treated as an absolute but as a tool. I agree with that. But if we are not to use science to aid our moral decisions, what do you suggest?

I don't think you quite understood me. We can use science to guide our decisions, but it's not being used to determine our beliefs in the matter.



Really? I should speak to this Morality person then :p. I think you're missing the part where people decided to repudiate human cloning based on our best current understanding of that matter. That notion may change, we don't know that for sure. But I can almost guarantee that there's no golden inscription with the words "Homo sapiens from planet Earth on the Milky Way galaxy shalt not clone themselves" at the center of the Universe or something like that. Cloning is wrong simply because we currently don't like it.

I was using an example, not necessarily using my own personal beliefs.

[thebassoonist]

The inability of total elimination of bias is implicit in any scenario. We as humans are subject to conditioning based on our experiences. The thing is, we often treat morality and science as absolutes in our society. (Rightly so, science doesn't want religion guiding its course anymore than people want science defining their religious beliefs). We should no more use science to determine morality than we should use morality to determine the types of science to pursue. They can and do, however, provide limits for one another. Morality tells us that we should not clone humans, science tells us that sometimes abortion is the only option to save the mother.

Science does define my religious beliefs. Morality tells us we should not clone humans? That's odd. I didn't know "morality" told us anything. I don't think that cloning is absolutely immoral, in some cases, perhaps, but there are certain ways that cloning could be beneficial to humanity.

I hope you know that by your definition of life, MANY, MANY abortions happen every day by women of all (fertile) ages. Progestin-only birth control stops the zygote (or embryo, I forget my stages) from implanting (but can also stop the ovaries from ovulating, too), as do IUDs and, obviously, Plan B. If people with your beliefs make bills about life starting at conception, we will have taken a HUGE step backward for reproductive rights. Also, under your definition, any couple undergoing in vitro fertilization (or is this immoral as well, the Catholic church says it is?) must attempt to implant every embryo, otherwise they will be used for "immoral" research or be thrown in the trash. Then we will have parents raising way too many children; there is a point where a parent can no longer do a good job with a child's emotional development and a point where another infants' needs put an older child's life in danger.

Life is so complicated, our psyches are so complicated, that we cannot say with absolutes that abortion is wrong in one case and right in another. We need to try to remember what women are going through. Maybe they already have a child, and having another would put the entire family at risk. Maybe it was a rape, but for reasons many of us cannot understand, they cannot admit it was. Maybe by forcing women to bring a child to full term is a form of rape -- it is, after all, a form of control over the woman's body and life.

When people say that abortion harms women, I have to wonder why they think that. Yes, certainly, in some cases women feel horrible guilt about doing it. But the exact same can be said about adoption (the emotional trauma of adoption is quite saddening). We need to think realistically about women go through. Not every woman is meant to be a mother, not every woman can heal after an adoption or an abortion. But maybe one of these options is best for the individual woman.

Just my $0.02.

[skunk]

In the case of saving the mother, the moral imperative would be to save both. Science tells us this isn't possible, so we choose. Science hasn't changed the original moral belief though, and it stays intact in that the overall goal is still to save life.The moral imperative is not an imperative after all, then.

The question of why or why not we should clone humans is irrelevant. It's a common example and many people have views on it. Morality doesn't say that the science leading to its possibility be undone (for it often coincides with other scientific developments), it merely defines an application of said science that we agree should not take place.There is no absolute moral basis on which to define any such prohibition.

[chrmjenkins]

The moral imperative is not an imperative after all, then.

The existence of moral truths does not necessitate the strict abidance by them. Reason dictates it is not always possible. For instance, it's a moral imperative that everyone should be fed and free of disease, but we know it's not possible. That doesn't invalidate the holding of such an idea.

There is no absolute moral basis on which to define any such prohibition.

Of course not, which makes the decision all the more precarious because it takes into account a wealth of beliefs from an entire society.

[skunk]

For instance, it's a moral imperative that everyone should be fed and free of disease, but we know it's not possible. That doesn't invalidate the holding of such an idea.That is a concept of "negative freedom", not morality. What has disease to do with morality?

[chrmjenkins]

That is a concept of "negative freedom", not morality. What has disease to do with morality?

I don't see how this refers to negative freedoms, which is the freedom to be left alone.

To answer your question, person A has a disease. Person B has the cure, but could also sell it or keep it for himself. What does morality dictate here?

[Iscariot]

What has disease to do with morality?

Diseases are the toughest to cure, often requiring the services of a druid. Without a druid, you may lose a large percentage of your hit points.
containing a homunculus.

Man, I'm glad they went extinct in the 1980s. Creepy little guys.

[skunk]

I don't see how this refers to negative freedoms, which is the freedom to be left alone.Negative freedom is the freedom to be able to do things without constraints, of which illness and hunger are two.

To answer your question, person A has a disease. Person B has the cure, but could also sell it or keep it for himself. What does morality dictate here?You must inhabit a world where nobody wealthy gets ill and/or all disease is curable. Disease has nothing whatever to do with morality, except where druids are involved, of course.

[chrmjenkins]

You must inhabit a world where nobody wealthy gets ill and/or all disease is curable. Disease has nothing whatever to do with morality, except where druids are involved, of course.

That's part of my point, science dictates the limits because it doesn't have cures for everything.

Helping a person if need, if able, is concerned with morality, and applies in this case.

[kainjow]

I find it incredibly ironic how most pro-lifers tend to be pro-war (death on a massive scale) and anti-taxes (less assistance for single mothers).

[imac/cheese]

I find it incredibly ironic how most pro-lifers tend to be pro-war (death on a massive scale) and anti-taxes (less assistance for single mothers).

Unfortunately, you are absoultely right. Pro-war, Pro-death penalty, Pro-life...

Not all pro-lifers feel that way though. Personally I am pro-life, anti-war, anti-death penalty.

[chrmjenkins]

Unfortunately, you are absoultely right. Pro-war, Pro-death penalty, Pro-life...

Not all pro-lifers feel that way though. Personally I am pro-life, anti-war, anti-death penalty.

Same here. If you're going to make a policy of not killing people, better be consistent, eh?