New Abortion Laws
Pages
| Author | Topic: New Abortion Laws |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 15:07
Profile
What is it you want references for? To prove it's not alive? I never said it wasn't a living blob. Going back to the Ameba comment. I'm saying it is not “human” in the sense of now having, or ever having thoughts or feelings. You want me to prove it's not “human”, in the functional sense, not literal? This cannot be proven either way. Everyone has a different take one when life is truly instated. The only scientific test for this would be that of a heartbeat, brain waves, and reaction to stimuli. A first trimmest embryo has none of these. If you try to look this stuff up all you get is a bunch of idealists debating on what is considered “life.” What you are saying is that is it a living thing, and yes like any blob of any kind of cell it is. Every debate on this involves morals, religion, ethics, and personal preference. Little is said about this that is strictly science. This is because this is more a human concept of right and wrong that it is of protecting the quality of life of the masses. What it sounds like you want to do is put them into the world without a true care of what becomes of them after that. To say there should be government organization to fund the care of unwanted children is unrealistic. Anti-choice people are always talking about what “should” be done to protect the potential lives, but there is currently no care available once the babies are born. What will happen to them? They will live their fist 18 years in some sort of childcare facility, (assuming there is space for them in the fist place.) and finally will be sent out into the world to fend for themselves having no parental guidance or love. This doesn't sound to me like it will build happy productive humans. You say, “at least they are alive”, the embryo was never conscious in the fist place; it didn't know it was alive. Hospitals around here (I don't know about else ware) offer a “drop off, no questions asked program.” This has not ended abortion. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 15:16
Profile
Homepage
quote:Again, you are missing my point. Legally, stolen property must be confiscated and returned to its original owner even if the person currently in possession of it is completely innocent of any wrongdoing, regardless of how badly the person currently in possession of it may need it. Why should this be any different? -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 18:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:Depends on the amount of time that property is in your possession. -------------------- I stop rubber at 160km/h, five times a week. CANUCKS RESPEK! My Style The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 18:38
Profile
Homepage
quote:For illegally occupied land, the period before adverse possession kicks in is typically several years, depending on where you live. 9 months is a fair bit less than that. :P -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 18:41
Profile
Homepage
Yeah that's true. I was referring more to property possession than the whole abortion thing. -------------------- I stop rubber at 160km/h, five times a week. CANUCKS RESPEK! My Style The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 19:04
Profile
quote:OK, I got angry. I tend not to shoot the culprit, but just everybody, for that I apologize. I kept myself away from really exploding though. More calmly now, what made me feel like going on a killing spree: the mounting disregard for the pregnant woman's life situation, and her value as a human being brought down to be a vessel for a child. Culminating in Creator's statements that it's not the woman he's considering, but the child, and that he would deny her abortion even if her own father raped her. She would have to accept a few hardships. Yes I know, he phrased it differently, but I'm more blunt, and in the end that's what he said. Worse, that's what he meant. [ Saturday, March 26, 2005 19:16: Message edited by: ef ] -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Shake Before Using
Member # 75
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 19:58
Profile
The pro-life side here has provided a massive amount of links and papers explaining pro-life positions, but oddly enough I have not seen any posted for pro-choice positions. A Defense of Abortion So I'll provide an interesting one. Posts: 3234 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 20:09
Profile
Homepage
I am intensely irritated that this has turned into a debate on whether or not abortion, itself, is moral. It is not the purview of the State to decide moral issues, but rather to legislate on issues as relate to the public good. The clearest benefit to the public good is given by laws which allow for legal and safe abortion; the alternative is laws against legal and safe abortion, which hurts aborting women without causing a clear social benefit (e.g. those fetuses which are terminated will still be so, only the risk to the parent will change). The only perceived benefit is moral, e.g. taking a stance against something percieved to be evil. Moralistics are the purview of the private sector, not the government, and as such it is against the spirit of the laws to outlaw abortion. Action against abortion, e.g. 'Abortion is evil, don't do it' advertising campaigns, are acceptable, but not through the government, nor are laws demanding the will of such a viewpoint be executed acceptable. That is the basis of the pro-choice argument. Whether or not abortion is an abomination against God, it is not the place of a lay government to outlaw it. Further contentions on how despicable, evil, etc. abortion is, or whether or not it is the right of a woman to exercise control over her bodily functions, should be treated as non-germane, because they fail to address the critical factor of the social-contractual motives behind legislation against it. [ Saturday, March 26, 2005 20:11: Message edited by: Bad-Ass Mother Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 20:12
Profile
Homepage
quote:Some would argue that morality and the public good are the same thing. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 20:24
Profile
Homepage
quote:Irrelevant. We're not here to debate utilitarianism and you know it. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 20:30
Profile
Homepage
Okay then. If not in the moral sense, then in what sense "ought" the state to legislate in the public good? Setting aside the definition of the public good for now, how is saying that the state ought to legislate in the public good not a prescriptive moral statement? -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 20:35
Profile
quote:I take it you didn't read my reasons for my positions on this issue. They are not moral reasons, but purely practical ones. For this, I feel that society needs to decide the greater good. Deciding what life should be created, destroyed, or not allowed to emerge is a societal issue as it affects everyone. We put people to death, in part, because the person's acts are so heinous that the person is a net negative on society. I do realize there are arguments for deterrence, but I find them lacking as evidence for the effectiveness is specious. I digress, these are potential people, with potential contributions to humanity that cannot be carried out if not allowed to develop. It is therefore humanity's right, as a whole, to decide whether or not what is the most beneficial course of action for its membership. The other semi-moralistic stance that I have is the issue of social responsibility. Should we, as a society, allow behaviors that allow abdication of responsibility for ones actions? In this case, it would be consensual sex that leads to pregnancy with the consequence of childbirth (which as I explained above, is humanity as a whole's intereset). Allowing abortion would essentially allow people to not be accountable for actions of known consequence. Allowing abdication of responsibility in any case would weaken our species accountability for its own actions. Social cooporation and accountability are essential to the working of society. Our ability to function in complex societies is our primary evolutionary advantage. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 20:54
Profile
Homepage
Unprotected sex can also lead to transmission of disease. Does that mean that if someone contracts syphilis it should be illegal to prescribe antibiotics for them? -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 21:46
Profile
No, because it goes back to the first point. If someone contacts an STD, or any other disease for that matter, it is in the best interest of society to treat that disease. Keeping the reproductive lines clean of disease is fairly important for obvious reasons. There is no real good that can come from allowing STDs to remain rampant other than to punish people for "irresponsible behavior". The goal is not to punish, but to make sure people are accountable for the consequences of their actions. The responsibility of a person who gets an STD is to seek treatment (if possible) and take efforts to prevent spreading it further. Failure to do so, one could argue, could be considered neglect and be against the law. Abortion is not a "treatment" to a "disease" as reproduction is necessary. [ Saturday, March 26, 2005 21:49: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 21:53
Profile
Perhaps over population and millions of unloved unwanted people can be equally harmful. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 22:09
Profile
Homepage
quote:Surely if those consequences can be minimised, then making people accountable for them is no longer necessary. In the end, the raison d'etre of society is to minimise the harmful consequences of people's actions; thanks to social progress we can go on a walk alone without running the risk of being eaten by bears, we can inadvertently cut ourselves without running the risk of dying of an infection, and eventually we should aim to be able to have sex without running the risk of pregnancy. We've come reasonably close already, but there's plenty of room for improvement in contraceptive methods. [ Saturday, March 26, 2005 22:16: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, March 26 2005 22:26
Profile
Overpopulation is a problem, yes, but abortion is not the best answer to it. Free access to contraceptives and modernization of the third world is. I address this point below. Also, I'm willing to bet most abortions occur in the first world where growth rates are low or even negative anyway, and unwanted children can be supported. If somehow all knowledge of how to perform abortions were to disappear right now I doubt it would seriously exacerbate that problem. Growth rates need to be brought down, yes, but economics seems to be the best driver for that. In the long term, we need to expand sustainable energy production methods to maintain us, but that is another issue altogether. quote:I agree 100%, as a society we should continue to make progess to ensure that population is controlled. Contraceptives offer an excellent avenue for this. It is still, however, the responsibility of the individual to use such methods. [ Saturday, March 26, 2005 22:27: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 01:00
Profile
Homepage
quote:I though I had already answered in other posts. But I'll answer directly to you. I hope you can then address my former post (why do you want to impose your view (baby killing) over other's (babykilling should be illegal)? And why when you run out of arguments, you direct personally your comments agains't pro-life people, instead pro-life beliefs. quote:As already said: bioethics, universal human rights, the best for society, etc. Now, answer the post you refused to reply, and the former one, where you avoided the issues mentioned above, among others. -------------------- 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 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 01:00
Profile
Homepage
quote:To prove that it's not human life. quote:Then I guess you concept of human life is somewhat limited. Hey, even animals have thoughts and feelings. quote:Most animals, specially mammals, have heartbeat, brain waves and reaction to stimuli. Are you saying there's no scientific way to differenciate humans from animals? Then why not let someone rape and kill you? We're just animals. quote:Science, in itself, doesn't know what's good or bad. Doesn't know why should we value more human life than a bacteria. So that's why all scientific experiments are mediated by ethical commissions and a list of rights and duties. Or we would be experimenting on humans the latest guns, for example. Or cause desease to a human being to study its evolution, etc. You say this would be wrong? Then why? Whatever is your answer, also apply it to the abortion issue. quote:Sure, it's a better care to murder the preborn baby. *sigh* I repeat: if you see your neighbour molesting a child, would you do nothing, because you couldn't adopt that child? Your argument has nothing to do with the abortion issue. quote:The pro-choice people should also care about that, instead of trying to defend the murderous way. quote:While that can happen, murdered preborn babies surely won't build into happy productive humans. quote:*sigh* I repeat: since when it's right to kill a human being that haven't awareness? Somewhere you say you want to have children someday. How will you explain to your son that, if he had appeared at the wrong time, you would have killed him? Maybe: "Hey, cheer up! I would have had killed you when you were not a human being! You would have been just a blob of cells or an embryo!" Now, about the other locked topic: quote:We're making some progress, your comment to the article only shows that you have no argument agains't the fact that human life begins with the fecundation. Then you point your batteries to the people defending life calling us idealists. My answer: I don't think it's idealism to want preborn baby murdering made illegal. But even if it is being an idealist, I prefer that to be a pro-baby killing-ist. :) [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 01:00: 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 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 01:00
Profile
Homepage
quote:No, I'm not missing your point. I'm just pointing to you that your analogy can't be applied, as we have not property, to start with. -------------------- 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 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 01:00
Profile
Homepage
Is an egg a chicken? At one point, not long before it hatches, an egg houses a chicken. Before that, it most certainly is not. And I feel the same way about a fetus. -------------------- "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 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 01:00
Profile
Homepage
The discussion is getting derailed again, and it's Overwhelming's doing. We have a paradigm here, and that's legitimacy of government intervention. For your consideration, abortion still occurs in countries where it is illegal; it is just kept quiet and usually involves considerably greater risk to the carrier. The question we are answering here is this: should the government effectively impose that risk by forcing abortion into the back-alley? Do the social benefits outweigh the costs? Dive into moralistics again ('But it's a baby! It's murder! Wah, wah!' or 'You have no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do, you dirty androfascist you!') and I will shoot you. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 01:00
Profile
Homepage
quote:And the mounting disregard for the preborn baby's life situation? And his value as a human being brought to existence with no choice? Should it be murdered with no choice too? Then why do you call yourselves "pro-choice"? Oh yeah, I forgot, to mask the horrible truth: abortion is baby killing, murder. @custer quote:Public good: Instead of protecting a few thousand women, by giving them the right to murder their childs, you could protect 1,5 million children every hear (USA), by not legalizing their murder. -------------------- 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 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 01:03
Profile
Homepage
quote:A fertilized egg is a chicken. The eggs you buy in the supermarket are, usually, unfertilized eggs. Besides, human lives haven't the same value as chicken lives. If you don't agree, then you should not condemn rape, as the rapist is as good as a non-rapist. -------------------- 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 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 01:10
Profile
Homepage
quote:You should have waited for my reply. It's posted now. But replying this post: quote:Smokers who smoke near me are prejudicing my health, so it should be legal for me to kill him. One less smoker, much less cost in his hospital treatment later, and one less person prejudicing non-smokers (passive smokers in this case). So yeah, murdering smoking people would be a social benefit. And don't come with your morals/ethics/religions to impose me that it's wrong to kill a smoker! I'll shoot you (and you can't blame me for shooting you, as you can't impose me the belief that it's wrong to shoot you in the first place. Yeah, this scenario pleases me. :) (joking) -------------------- 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 |
