New Abortion Laws
Pages
| Author | Topic: New Abortion Laws |
|---|---|
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 07:52
Profile
Well, my thoughts went in the same direction, though I went on with: stop eating. Protect DNA. More seriously, Creator, Overwhelming and others: You have all the right in the world to reject abortion. But I reject your right to tell a woman what her moral obligations are. Women have sought abortion even when they had to go to the stake, if they were found out. They probably had a reason for this. It is never an easy decision, not one a woman ever forgets. It is highly emotional. And most importantly, it is a decision between her and her child and the Source of Love, but whatever name she calls it, not between her and society, or her and a man. quote:Even for an anti-abortionist, aren't you taking this a bit too far? There cannot be any rules and it certainly depends on circumstances, but it can very easily be psychologically murderous for such a traumatized woman to have to nourish a part of her violator with her own body and give birth to it. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 08:18
Profile
Homepage
@ef: quote:Rape and incest are the hard-case "what-ifs" pro-abortionists raise in almost every public forum: "How can you deny a hurting young girl safe medical care and freedom from the terror of rape or incest by forcing her to maintain a pregnancy resulting from the cruel and criminal invasion of her body?" The emotion of the argument often deflects serious examination of its merits, or how it is used as a pretext for unlimited abortion for any woman, for any reason, and at any time throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy, and regardless of the condition under which she became pregnant. It is important to note that the incidence of pregnancy as a result of rape is extremely small (one study put it at 0.06 percent). If we had legislation restricting abortion for all reasons other than rape or incest, we would still save the vast majority of the 1.8 million preborn babies who die annually in America through abortion. It should be patently obvious that one does not obviate the real pain of rape or incest by compounding it with the murder of an innocent preborn child. Moreover, "To argue for abortion on demand from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare instances, such as when one's spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital." quote:First, always try to discern the hidden assumptions behind the pro-abortion beliefs. You might think it’s a question of whether one should impose one’s beliefs on others. However, all laws impose morality — laws against murder and rape impose on murderers and rapists the moral view that murder and rape are wrong! In reality, the only question is ?Whose morality should be imposed?’ The pro-abortionist has no qualms about imposing his pro-abortion morality on the unborn babies! So what this hypothetical person really means is that s/he doesn’t want Christian morality imposed on him or her, not that s/he doesn’t want to impose a humanist morality on the unborn baby if that baby has committed the capital crime of being ?unwanted’. Yes, the abortion industry is a horrible business that leaves women with deep emotional scars and much guilt over what they have participated in. Killing unborn babies is not the solution to anything and only brings more trouble on those involved. It is a sign of a very sick society that any woman feels that she has to abort her child. Toleration is the "great commandment" the pro-abortion movement levels agains't its opponents. "We're not making you have an abortion; just be tolerant of those who choose to." Frequently, this false tolerance commandment is supported by an appeal to religious pluralism, the American separation of church and state, or the alleged impropriety of imposing one's morality on another. Ironically, the pro-abortionists fail to perceive their own violation of this ridiculous standard — they're intolerant of those of us who think tolerance is less important than preserving innocent human lives! One of the characteristics inherent in every society is the obligation to impose universal morals on its members. Toleration works in the world of expressing opinions, not in a crowded movie theater when someone chooses to yell "Fire!" We may be tolerant of one's religious views, but not if they include enslaving grandmothers or cannibalizing teenagers. Toleration between church and state does not extend to divorcing all moral values from the state, else we would need to eliminate all legislation that has anything in common with any religious viewpoint — including the very idea of social law itself. -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 09:14
Profile
Homepage
Creator, attacking the general thrust of a pro-choice argument while pretending that you're addressing my individual points is kind of disingenuous. quote:My point was indeed that I think that a similar number of abortions would happen whether they were illegal or legal, and I think that a significant number of the illegal ones would killed the woman involved, since there would be no doctor supervising. This may be a cultural difference: I feel relatively certain that this would happen in the United States in the present day, but I am not sure that it would happen in Australia. quote:If you look back and read carefully, you may notice that I didn't say that the fetuses weren't human. I didn't even say the fetuses weren't alive. I was saying that your previously made equivalence between the dependence of a newborn and the dependence of a fetus is false, which takes that particular piece of your argument apart. I do think the fetuses aren't fully alive, yet. I think that's a gradual process that happens during the course of the fifth and six months, mostly, when brain activity starts, the heart starts beating, the lungs start breathing, and various other basic human activities begin. (There's a fairly interesting argument to be made that breathing is the most essentially alive part of human activity, since certainly linguistically this is true. This is why "spirit" and "expire" are related to the root that means "breathe.") But anyway, I digress. The fetus's ability to survive outside the mother with special technology is irrelevant; I was talking about the ability to survive with the same sorts of things that any other human being needed. So no, the fetus wouldn't become alive. quote:No, but it might mean that he or she isn't alive anymore. A persistent vegetative state hardly seems like full-fledged human life to me. Even that person would fit the "breathing" definition, and such a person has some brain function -- it's more alive than a two-month-old fetus. I guess the issue here is that "alive" is not an absolute state. Something can be in the process of becoming alive or in the process of dying. I just think that a fetus, within the first three months, is not yet alive. I don't think it matters, because I think that even if we were to say that abortion is really murder in all cases, we'd have to look at the situation realistically, and my argument above about making it illegal being worse would still stand. We should put lots of effort into preventing unwanted pregnances rather than trying to ban abortion, and that means genuine sex education, not this abstinence-only BS. [ Friday, March 25, 2005 09:31: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 09:30
Profile
Homepage
(Keeping the responses to Creator and Overwhelming separate...) Overwhelming, I wish you would stop generalizing the "pro-abortion" crowd as being completely uniform in the most extreme viewpoint possible. Virtually no one supports unlimited abortions at any time during pregnancy. Most people in the U.S. who are pro-choice are pro-Roe v. Wade, which means that we're talking about abortions early in the term, and most of those people also agree that abortion should not be used as the primary form of birth control. quote:I've always thought that this counter-argument was silly, but now I recognize why: just about everyone, including most murderers and rapists, believe that murder and rape are wrong. Generally such people believe that they have made a mistake. (Or even if they don't, they believe that such an act in general is a mistake.) However, many people, including those who have had an abortion, do not think that abortion is wrong. Imposing the consequences of shared morality and imposing an external morality are two very different things. [ Friday, March 25, 2005 09:34: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 10:52
Profile
"Pro-abortion" is a misnomer. People who support choice don't necessarily like abortions. Sometimes, however, an abortion is necessary. "Pro-choice" standpoint is that if an abortion is necessary, a woman should be able to have access to professional medical care such that the procedure will be conducted in the safest manner possible. Personally, I think that anyone in the position such that they need to consider an abortion is in rough enough shape as it is. It is not an easy choice to make (I know people who have), and I can't imagine anyone going through with one feels good about it. The reality, however, is that even if abortions are made illegal, they will still occur, and when they do, it will be without the benefit of trained physicians and medicine. This will only increase the suffering involved. In an ideal world, abortions wouldn't be necessary. However, as the last 8000 years of human history ably demonstrate, its not going to be an ideal world anytime soon. Given that, I think that the "culture of life" crowd, though their intentions may be in the right place, are doing more harm than good. I think this is well demonstrated in the places where these groups tend to dominate society, i.e. the "red states" in the US, where teenage pregnancy rates are higher and more "backwoods" abortions occur. What boggles my mind is why, if this crowd is so anti-right-to-abortion, do they not encourage education in methods of contraception? Effective education about and use of contraception can eliminate the need for this whole debate entirely. As with many things, yet again it boils down to education, education, education. Unfortunately, some people aren't willing to consider reality. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 12:03
Profile
Homepage
quote:Absolutely right. I think a lot of people have been going into a sort of over-idealized fantasy world with legislation and policy lately, believing abstinence-only education and anti-choice legislation is going to help society where the body of evidence shows it harming, and not achieving its stated ends. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 12:21
Profile
Homepage
quote:Oh, sure. You know what all rapists and murderers think and feel. I don't know where did you get that idea that everyone of them knew they were wrong or making a mistake... :P Anyway, just because one doesn't feel something is wrong, it doesn't make it right. So if a rapist rapes a little girl and feels no remorse, no guilty, then it's ok, let's keep him free from jail? Of course not! And it's not "pro-choice", there no choice for the baby. It's "pro-abortion", in other words, "baby killing". Opium dulls the senses chemically. In much the same way, the term-twisting tactics of the pro-abortionists are an "opium of the masses" designed to mentally dull the senses of an unquestioning public that would otherwise reject legalized murder. Pro-abortion is repositioned as pro-choice; babies become products of conception; killing an unwanted child becomes exercising freedom of choice; and committed pro-lifers become social terrorists. The list of terms camouflaged by the pro-abortionists is seemingly endless. Unless we scale the language barrier of the pro-abortion lobby, the masses will continue to overdose on the opium of clever code words. -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 12:47
Profile
Homepage
quote:No, but the fact that a significant percentage of the population of a country doesn't feel that something is wrong means that the thing shouldn't be made illegal. The number of people that you could find to support the idea that murder or rape is okay is negligible. The number of people that you could find to support the idea that abortion is sometimes okay is not. That is the difference, as far as governmental responsibility goes. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 12:51
Profile
quote:The sword cuts both ways, friend. I recognize the fact that you aren't from the U.S., but your particular stance falls in line with the conservative side of the fight here, and they are masters of definition-wrangling and word-twisting. It's not about the "baby." Technically, it isn't a "baby" at all - it's an embryo (essentially a mass of stem cells) that developes into a fetus (which is entirely dependent on the mother). Embryos and fetuses don't "get a choice" because they are physiologically incapable of thinking. That is, for most of the pregnancy they aren't cogniscent or aware. Does your perspective come from your religion? It seems strange to me that you would have so much concern for THIS life, since there's that wonderful afterlife awaiting. Late-term abortions are grizzly, and I don't like the idea of them, but the capital-R REALITY is that even if they are made illegal, they will still happen - ESPECIALLY IF sex education doesn't include contraceptive measures. Given that this is a REALITY, should a woman be punished with potential loss of her life or a crippling condition for the rest of her days because she has found it emotionally, economically, and, most importantly on account of people with your viewpoint, societally worse to have the child? Where is your heart? Rest assured, almost women who turn to abortion see it as a convenient means of contraception. It is almost always a decision considered with the appropriate gravitas. Given that, does it make it any better that people such as you shout that she'll go to hell and berate her outside a clinic when she's making this decision? Where is your heart? The choice for a woman is difficult enough as it is. Almost every woman I've talked with about this has said that she would never have an abortion herself, but she appreciates the fact that she has the right to make the choice if it came down to it. I don't like abortions either - I don't think anyone likes abortions. But denying that they should be legal won't stop them from occurring, and will only lead to more suffering. [ Friday, March 25, 2005 13:02: Message edited by: andrew miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 13:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:I disagree with this on a fundamental level. Popular opinion is dangerous in governing a country. This leads to things like slavery's continued existence, a lack of justice for people in lynch mobs, etc. Pro-choice vs. pro-abortion is merely semantics. Everyone knows that pro-choice people want abortions to be available, and that pro-abortion people are not in favor of abortions at any stage. Abortion is not baby-killing. Abortion is not very different from a morning after pill, although much more serious. I believe that abortions in the third trimester should only be allowed in cases where the mother's life is endangered. Before that, if it will benefit the soon-to-be-mother, it is her prerogative. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 13:41
Profile
Homepage
quote:So, if more people agreed with rape, then it would be aceptable to make it legal? There are certain things that are plain wrong: murdering is one of them. No matter how many people agrees with murdering, it'll be always wrong. It goes agains't the human rights! Fortunately we aren't in an amoral world (i don't know if that's an english word, so I explain: amoral means no moral. It's not moral neither immoral). Hey, this would be worse than a jungle. The strongest survives and imposes his will. But democracy it's not only about what the mejority thinks and wants. It's about human rights and respects minority and different opinions. It has the duty to defend and provide health (among other things) to its society. Abortion goes agains't democracy (murder, pre-baby can't defend himself, etc). -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 13:51
Profile
Homepage
I'm willing to drop that line of argument for the moment (not that I actually agree with you, but that I think it's a less useful discussion to have), but you might want to address the points that I addressed to Creator. Those are probably much more significant anyway. [ Friday, March 25, 2005 13:51: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 13:51
Profile
Homepage
@andrew: The articles I've posted in another topic are my reply. Just check them out, as there are some misconceptions here. I will just add the following: Nonpersonhood is perhaps the trickiest of the contemporary pro-abortion arguments. Pro-abortionists once argued that the preborn baby was not fully human, or not human life. Now most concede that the "product of conception" is human life. Their argument, however, has become more sophisticated: "It may be human life, but it doesn't possess personhood." Even President Clinton has argued that, since learned theologians and scientists can't agree on when "personhood" begins, abortion should remain unrestricted. (Quoting) "From a strictly scientific point of view, there is no doubt that the development of an individual human life begins at conception. Consequently, it is vital that the reader understand that she did not come from a zygote, she once was a zygote; she did not come from an embryo, she once was an embryo; she did not come from a fetus, she once was a fetus; she did not come from an adolescent, she once was an adolescent." Abortion, rampant in America today, is the tragic consequence of a society that no longer values individual human worth, that worships at the feet of the idol Self, and that replaces the Word of God with social relativism. One-third of the children conceived in America this year will be murdered before they are born. And yet this brutal, widespread slaughter can be stopped if those of us who value human life and/or who worship God become informed, committed, and involved. @drakefyre: It's not only mere semantics. Pro-choice is when the mother imposes her choice over the future child's. There's no choice here. There's only someone imposing her choice with the horrible result: murder. So pro-choice sounds better and masks the horrible truth. Just as I said more above (the "opium of the masses" thing. [ Friday, March 25, 2005 13:55: Message edited by: Overwhelming ] -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 13:56
Profile
Homepage
Overwhelming, whenever you say "opium of the masses," people are going to think you mean "religion." The Karl Marx quote will drown out anything you say. And, er, a society cannot simultaneously "longer value individual human worth" and also "worship at the feet of the idol Self". With your self-contradictory histrionics, you've given no coherent argument here, except perhaps that the embryo is different from the woman carrying it. Even if that were true, that still doesn't give any reason to believe that the embryo is a fully alive human. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 14:18
Profile
Homepage
quote:I would not support laws banning slavery if I believed those laws would not significantly reduce the amount of slavery going on, and would make the treatment of existing slaves worse due to the necessity for secrecy and the fact that owning a well-treated slave would be punished just as badly as owning an ill-treated one. It's much like the calls to ban child labour in developing countries. Nobody thinks it's actively good for children to be working 80-hour weeks, but banning child labour won't put a significant dent in the amount of child labour going along; instead, the "in for a penny, in for a pound" mentality will kick in, and children will just be made to work in even worse conditions. quote:I did say "attempting to force". My implication was that such an attempt was doomed to fail and would likely make things worse. A central tenet of most ethical systems is that regardless of how good your intentions are, if the results of something you want to do are likely to be disastrous then you shouldn't do it. Look at the criteria for a just war, for example; one criterion is that there must be a reasonable prospect for victory. Frankly, you might well do less overall harm by scaring women away from having abortions through bombing abortion clinics than if you actually succeeded in making abortion illegal. quote:Again, this is a point of disagreement. quote:Let's say that we developed the technology to grow an entire, fully-grown human being from any one of your cells: a cell from the lining of your stomach, a cell from a hair follicle, any cell at all. This isn't completely unfeasible in principle. Now, would this mean that every cell in your body is now a separate person? I think this shows that attempts to define personhood in terms of potential future development are something of a dead end. quote:Why not? We accept this right in other areas of the law. Stolen property, for example, is confiscated and returned to its original owner, even if its current owner is completely innocent of any wrongdoing and relies on the stolen property for survival. In the case of pregnancy arising from rape, a woman's reproductive tract has been criminally misappropriated; the fact that an innocent party is now making use of it does not mean that its original owner has any less claim to it. quote:Unless, of course, the conceptus is a part of the mother's body, as some who support legal abortion argue. They have a fair point, too; its blood supply is continuous with its mother's, for example. And as I established in my previous post, unique DNA isn't enough for it to be considered separate from its mother's body. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 14:26
Profile
Creator, Overwhelming, The majority of what you are saying is not scientifically grounded. You speak of your own “morals.” Who determines what is right and wrong to do with one's own body? Abortion is not equivalent to murder. An unconscious blob of cells feels no fear or pain. This is more a matter of controlling others than preserving life. You want to save lives? Adopt a child from an impoverished country. Give to charities, orphanages, or homeless shelters. Especially orphanages since you plan on filling them with unwanted children. There is no end in sight to this discussion, and neither side sees the other's view. I suggest you two find a couple of nice submissive women who will not question you imposing your will on how they should live. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 14:38
Profile
quote:Quit frothing at the mouth. The rate of abortions in the US is about 22 per 1,000 live births, hardly one-third of all children conceived. Where are you getting this? I don't worship your version of God, and I don't like your version of God. The majority of the rest of the world doesn't worship your version of God either. It seems as though your basis for making such determinations is incredibly limited. You can threaten me with the consequences for of what will happen in the hereafter, but you know what? I'm comfortable with that risk. Do you know why? Because I'm a good person, and I don't judge people on the basis of religious hearsay - I weigh individuals by their acts, and I put it in the perspective of my own choices. That you think you know what's right and seek to enforce your morals on others is the worst kind of hubris. Nevermind that you probably only selectively follow what you preach - come talk to me about the righteousness of your faith when you only ever have sex for the sake of procreation, not merely for pleasure. Is your nation much better than mine? From what I've gathered, Portugal has the second highest rate of teen pregnancies in the EU. I'm sure all of them were planned. What this is really about is that you would take away people's choice of religion. Thank God I have the freedom in my country to escape the tyranny of religious authoritarianism such as yours. I pray to God that my country will remain that way forever. [ Friday, March 25, 2005 14:39: Message edited by: andrew miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 15:59
Profile
Homepage
'Separation of church and state' were fighting words in most Catholic countries well into the 20th century. They don't exactly have it now, and I'm pretty sure Portugal is legally Catholic. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 17:55
Profile
There is no 'state religion', but Portugal is mainly catholic, yes. Southern european catholicism is usually not as extreme and violent as Overwhelming. I get images of resurfacing Inquisition, listening to him. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 18:00
Profile
quote:Sure it can. It's when people don't value any individual other than themselves. This attitude is known as "Look out for number one." quote:Well, I sort of agree with you. If I thought that by making abortion illegal there would be more death and suffering, then yes I would stop advocating for abortion to become illegal. But I really don't think this is the case. After all, when slavery became illegal things improved for the blacks. Maybe you would like to back up your position with something other than opinion. Say, the results of a poll that asked "If abortion were illegal, would you still have one?" quote:Indeed. But that wasn't what I was arguing. To clarify, I don't care about potential people (such as eggs and sperm), I only care about actual people. A skin cell is not capable of growing into a new human being by itself. It would have to have things done to it until it became a one-celled embryo. At that point it becomes a child and should be given the rights of one. In particular, the right to live. quote:I'm going to describe a similar situation to what you just did. Suppose a woman is living in her house on a freezing night, when a man breaks in, beats her into submission, and ransacks the house, stealing or destroying anything valuable. She crawls to her room and there discovers a newborn baby. Ignoring social services for the sake of the argument, she has two choices. She can take care of it, sacrificing her own needs for the sake of the child, or she can throw it out on the street where it will freeze to death. Legal? Maybe. Moral? No. But we're getting sidtracted here. Rape and incest cases only make up 1% or less of all abortions, so it's a side issue. quote:Maybe you should read Overwhelming's second article in the article topic. For my own answer, I would ask 'by what resoning would you say that it IS part of the woman? The fact that it lives inside her? If you stick your tongue in someone else's mouth that doesn't make you part of them, or even just your tongue part of them. The fact that it can't survive outside the womb? That is a measure of the quality of our medical technology, not the individuality of the child. Does the fact that if it is born premature and may have to be connected to a machine to survive make it simply a part of the machine? The fact that it's blood supply is continuous with its mother's? Their blood never mingles, as is evidenced by the fact that they frequently have different blood types, and that the DNA is different. Check a biology textbook. The fact that they are conectted physically? What about embryos formed in vitro? And even after it is born they are still connected. Does it only become an individual when the umbilical cord is cut? A newly formed embryo qualifies as an individual organism, by any definition of organism you care to throw at it. It qualifies as a member of the human species by any definition of human species that you care to throw at it. It therefore qualifies as an individual human being. Does it qualify as a person? Would you care to tell me what the difference between a human being and a person is? quote:A lot of what I've been arguing with thuryl is about the science of it. Society determines what is right and wrong to do with one's own body, legally that is. For example, there are certain drugs that you are forbidden to inject into your own body. There are places you are forbidden to take your body to (trespassing). It is generally illegal to walk around naked. And in the end, it's not what they do with their body that I'm really concerned about. It's what they do with their child's body. quote:So if you are drugged up on morphine and unable to feel fear or pain, then killing you is not equivalent to murder? quote:Saving lives is the ONLY thing I am concered about here. If it means implementing controls on others (e.g. preventing people from committing murder) so be it. quote:http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html This may help show that I'm not trying to impose my religion on you. By your reasoning the north should not have imposed it's moral veiw on slavery on the south. Reasonable and intelligent people argued FOR slavery back in the day too. From what I hear the arguments then were much the same. "Keep your church off my plantation!" [ Friday, March 25, 2005 18:05: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 18:10
Profile
Abortion, a classic difficult issue. I believe I've stated my reasons for oppositions before, but I shall do so again: 1) Abortion and the removal of intelligent life in general is a great waste of potential. A truly advanced society would put its members to far better use. 2) With the exception of cases of rape, incest, threat of life to mother, the allowance promotes an abdication of responsibility for ones actions. I feel we need to force ourselves to remain accountable for our actions. Unfortunately, our culture is not advanced enough to deal with the problem. Before the abortion issue can be addressed in any real useful way, society needs to develop a solution to the problems with adoption. The problems stem from two inherencies: 1) A defunct foster care system which is a product of the old orphanages. 2) Neutral or even negative attitudes toward those who adopt. At this point, society puts no premium, gives no incentive, and makes no attempt to impose social duty for those who could adopt unwanted children. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 18:15
Profile
Homepage
quote:I don't happen to have statistics on hand (maybe someone else does), but I do think it's relatively obvious that the slavery analogy doesn't do much to inform this aspect of the discussion. Slavery is not something that a person can do by one's self in an alleyway or in a bathroom or something like that. An abortion is. The closer analogy would be to, say, alcohol. It's something with a consistent demand, and it can be hidden from the law relatively easily. Prohibition of alcohol in the United States failed rather miserably, and it did little to stop people from drinking alcohol. But by taking away a lot of alcohol treatment programs, it probably made a generation of alcoholics. It's not too far from that over to abortion: making it illegal wouldn't reduce the demand, and taking away the protections around it would lead to more deaths of pregnant women. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 18:24
Profile
quote:Once again, you constantly compare a conscious, breathing, creature that feels fear and pain to an embryo that has no brain. Making the same point several times in several ways doesn't make it any different. It's still inaccurate. quote:You don't seem to understand the difference between what is and what will be. An embryo is not yet “alive”; it is in the process of becoming alive. It has never had a brain or consciousness. I don't like the idea of abortions after the first trimester unless medically necessary. You try to make it sound like we are supporting baby killing, and this is not the case. The anti-choice people like to use words like “baby”, call it what it is, an “embryo.” -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 18:41
Profile
quote:I'm a woman, and not a young one. Moreover I have worked with women in pre- and postpartal situations for the past ten years. You may be able to order a woman to give birth and care for a child, but you cannot order her to love it. So in the end, it's what they do with their own and with the child's soul that I'm really concerned about. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Friday, March 25 2005 19:19
Profile
quote:You seem to have missed the point of the morphine argument. You don't have to be concious or experience fear or pain to be a person. You are a person by virtue of being a human being. An embryo with no brain is like a patient with a temporarily flat EEG. What do you mean by alive? Biologically, it's a living organism the moment the egg and sperm form the first cell. And I really do believe that an embryo IS a baby. That's why I'm against killing it. Why is that so hard to understand? Would you care to tell me what the difference is? [ Friday, March 25, 2005 19:26: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
