Jinn

Wow -- politicophile. I truly respect your rational/moralistic proof, and I actually stopped to read the entire thing because of the clarity of purpose it exhibited I agree with it for the most part, but our line of rationale diverges very early --

Agreed. I fear, however, that our definitions of human being are different.

And this, precisely, is where our opinions differ. You've clearly identified the very reason that I refuse to accept that fetuses are morally significant human beings. While I acknowledge and agree that they have human DNA (so does sperm, mind you -- and they aren't human beings), I define human being in a much more specific sense. You yourself clearly note that fetues are unable to communicate it's will or make an autonomous decision. Furthermore, you establish that it's unlikely they even have a will, and I agree. I define a morally significant human being as someone who can (a) make an autonomous decision, (b) communicate that decision.

A fetus can do neither a nor b, so I do not consider it a morally significant human being. You seemed to address this later with your response:

Yes. I wholeheartedly and earnestly believe that this being deserves less moral consideration than someone who contributes to human society in a symbiotic (rather than parasitic) manner. This is not to say that he is worthless -- only that on the scale of moral judgement, a living-breathing- "I can interact with" human deserves far more consideration than a shell of a being hooked to machines and artificial life preservation devices.

And with this, I totally agree. It's simultaneously responsible and compromising, without actively condoning.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

abaya

Interesting distinction. This reminds of debates in church (when I used to go to church) about baptism... some churches want to do infant baptism, before the child can even decide for itself what it wants. Other churches insist that the child is of an age that it can decide for itself. I got both, heh... and then walked away from it all! (I guess people shouldn't be baptised twice, or they'll turn to the dark side.)

However, of interest here is why you draw the line of moral significance at autonomy and the ability to communicate. This pretty much excludes infants/toddlers who have not yet learned to speak, let alone self-actualize (which takes a couple more years) and express their "decisions." Does this mean you consider non-autonomous people who cannot communicate as being non-significant (regardless of whether or not they are in the womb, since you don't make that distinction)? How about a child who is born premature, even several months premature? Since it would die outside of an incubator (artificial womb), does that make it morally insignificant as well?

(Just testing your logic... I don't really care to get picky about abortion, but this is a gaping hole in your argument and I think you ought to modify your statement, at least for the hawks on this thread.)

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

politicophile

I will grant, for the sake of argument, that you are correct in saying that fetuses can do neither a nor b. The natural response on my part is a reductio argument where I attempt to make you admit that your argument leads to absurd conclusions. To that end, consider which ones of the following can do neither a nor b:

-a newborn infant
-an adult in a persistent vegetative state
-an adult who is sleeping

Which, if any, of these three categories of people lack both a and b?
Which, if any, lack the moral status of a human being?


Would you say that a person hooked up to a respirator has less moral worth than someone who is not? Does a man who lives in an iron lung but continues to work from home have less moral worth than a perfectly healthy and independent deadbeat who contributes nothing to society?

Consider that being dependent on an outside apparatus for life and being an unproductive member of society are not the same thing.

I look forward to your response.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Jinn

I'm sorry for being a bastard and walking away from this thread. I forgot to subscribe to it, and didn't see your reply until now.


You both raise the same (very good) points .. reductio absurdum indeed.

What IS the difference between a human adult who is sleeping and a fetus?

This question inspired a great deal of thought, and while I believed it implicit in the definition, I will explicitly specify a concept of "history."

This provides a structure for the differention between a sleeping human adult and a human fetus or young infant. Until such time as the organism has DONE a and b, I will consider it similarly to an organism who CANNOT do a or b. You'll note that this once again includes cases such as "an adult in a persistent vegetative state" as being a morally significant human.

It also does not include young human infants (those unable to make and articulate the autonomous decision) as being morally significant. At first, this may appear to be brash - it would seem to advocate the killing of human infants without any necessary moral consideration. Alas, it does not.

By refusing to include them as morally significant HUMANS, I only specify that they should not recieve the same moral consideration as a human being under a, b, and c. Any decision regarding the life or death of such an organism would be dependent on your definition of the lower levels of moral significance. My personal belief is that there are lower declarations of moral significance such as those for animals. Human fetuses and young adults belong to a level between those of animals and those of morally significant human beings. A primary example of using these levels for moral judgement is that in a case where a morally significant human being competes with a being from a lower level for life, the morally significant human should be perserved at the cost of the lower level organism. This provides for the case where an abortion is necessary for the survival of the host parent. Similarly, it allows us to believe that killing an animal to persist a human being is moral.

If you do indeed recognize my definition of a morally significant human above as being valid, then we have a construct to work from. Having established that those not explicitly included in the definition are not morally significant, we can specify that all persons above are morally significant. But where does that get us? By my definition, it only specifies what LEVEL of consideration is necessary. We should avoid the death of this organism at all costs, etc. However, within this level there certainly exists a stratification between highly significant and less significant organisms. I'd obviously not claim that a deadbeat contributing nothing to society is equal in significance to one actively contributing. For this, I provided the clause above:

In your hypothetical cases, someone who is hooked to an iron lug but continues to work from home is providing for society in a symbiotic manner. The lung persists his life, and his work persists society. Someone operating exclusively from welfare and not providing any economic or societal benefit would be operating in a much more parasitic manner. Therefore, while both being morally signifant humans in definition, the "deadbeat" belongs to a much lower class of human. He or she still deserves the consideration being a member of humanity, but not nearly the same as a providing member of humanity.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Lady Sage

Personally, what someone does to their body or with their unborn child is none of my concern. I wont lose sleep tonight because of how someone else chooses to live their life. It is their karma and emotional well being that they have to be held accountable for, not mine.

dd3953

I agree, killing "babies" may not be on everyone's Top 10, but people should be able to make that decision for themselves.

However, I do not think it should be just the woman's decision. Yes, it is her body but she did not make that baby by herself. If the father wants to keep and raise the child, he should be able to.

But that's just my two cents.

__________________
[Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ]

politicophile

I don't fully understand why someone with the unexercised capability to do a and b has less worth than someone who has previously done a and b but is not now doing them. It certainly strikes me as counterintuitive to value a permanently vegitative adult more than a healthy infant with the potential to do future good. Why should the past history and non-existent potential of the disabled adult trump the non-existent past and rich future of the newborn? In my mind, this is a similar situation to deciding whether to give treatment to a terminally ill citizen with a distinguished record or a newborn infant: you just seem to get more bang for your buck with the infant.

Here is the fundamental problem your framework seems to present: both fetuses and newborn infants have a total lack of history of a and b and would therefore belong to the same moral level. However, I think we can conclude that killing an infant for reasons other than saving the life of an adult is wrong. But if we are willing to make this claim, how is it possible to continue defending abortion on demand?

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

lindalove

I just found out something interesting that I want to share and I didn't want to start a new thread for it, so I did a search for abortion.....

My friend currently lives in Japan, and has recently learned that the theoric father has to sign an agreement paper at the clinic before any abortion!

In the facts, any man can sign it if the potential father is unknown or unavailable. I guess that if the guy disagree or is unaware, girls just ask a friend to do that.

It is just an administrative formality, they don't run any paternity tests. I guess this is a means to make the guy feel as responsible as the girl so he does not take this lightly: abortion is painful in Japan, the abortive pill is not used, and they don't make the girl sleep. But then again, there is a long way to go concerning women "rights" in Japan.

Apart from that, it is not a country where the culture comes from one of the three religions of the book, and abortion is not seen in the same way at all.
The common belief is that when it happens, what can be seen as the equivalent to the "soul" is sent back in some kind of limbo, waiting for another birth in the same family or another one. There are even some specific ceremonies that you can perform at some shinto shrine to apologize for not being able to welcome it yet. I think it changes a lot the way you can handle this issue.

Infinite_Loser

I'm not really into euphemisms, so let's just call pro-choice what it is-- Murder of the unborn. Something strikes me as odd, though. When a woman has an abortion during her first trimester, no one considers what she just did murder, but if someone kills a pregnant woman who's in their first trimester, then that person can be charged with the murder of an unborn child. Well, I'm not the smartest person in the world, but isn't that a bit contradictory? Murder is murder, no matter who does it.

Anyway, I scoff at the "It's my body, so I'll do what I want!" notion because, unless there's been some sort of biological shift in women which I'm not aware of, they're not asexual and can't make a baby on their own. Since a woman isn't 100% responsible for making a baby, she shouldn't have 100% of the decision regarding abortion. A man should have some sort of say so since he's equally as responsible for making a baby as a woman is.

If a woman wants an abortion and the father doesn't, then the father should be able to prevent the woman from having an abortion but, in doing so, he assumes all responsibilities for the child and absolves the mother of any type of responsibility.

If both a woman and a man want to have an abortion because they're not ready to be parents well... To that I say "Tough luck!". Either use protection or don't have sex.

Only in instances of rape will I agree to abortions. Too bad the majority of abortions in America don't occur because of rape... For the most part abortions are just leading to an increase in irresponsible behaviour.

That's my $.02.

Edit: I was driving to Taco Bell and I saw this billboard on the road. I don't think that any of us here would have wanted to be aborted, so is it too much to assume that-- If a fetus could talk-- That they wouldn't want to be aborted either? Meh... That's a bit of a stretch, but it's just something to think about.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

hannukah harry

the reason someone can be charged with murder of the unborn when they kill a pregnant woman is because "pro-life" politicians pushed that law through in certain states (i'm not sure if there's a federal law about it). i'm curious though... how can you murder something that isn't born? oh yeah, btw, i'm not into euphamisms, so lets call pro-life what it really is... gender based slavery.

i scoff at the "it's a living thing and therefore you shouldn't be able to do what it wants with you, even if you don't want it in you" notion, because, unless there's been some sort of biological shift in women, they still have to house the fetus, feed the fetus, and have complications due to the presence of the fetus. since a man doesn't have to do 99% of the work in the creation of a baby, why should he have the right to have more than 1% of a say in what happens to it?

if a woman wants an abortion and the father doesn't, then the father should have found out her plans to deal with an unexpected pregnancy before unzipping his pants. if he really wants a kid and she doesn't, he can adopt.

if both a woman and a man want to have an abortion because they're not ready to be parents well... to that i say "have an abortion!" just make sure you still use protection to make abortion as a last resort if the other methods fail.

in all instances i agree to abortion. too bad the majority of people who shouldn't be having kids and don't want them don't take advantage of the choices available to them and have the child anyways. for the most part, lack of people having abortions are just leading to an increase in irresponsible people raising children irresponsibly.

[That's my $.02.[/quote]

we're up to $0.04.

i think that if i'd have been aborted, i wouldn't have cared. in fact, i think you could have probably murdered me anytime up to about the age of 3 and i probalby wouldn't have cared too much. sure, i might've been scared if i knew it was going to happen, but i don't think we have the cognitive abilities until sometime around 3 or 4 years to really have any real grasp of life and death and what it is to die or fear death.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Infinite_Loser

I suppose I should be more direct in my question: Are you saying that someone who kills a pregnant woman should not also be charged will killing the unborn fetus? In my experience, I have found very people who agree with abortion who also agree with not giving those people who kill a pregnant woman a sentence for killing her unborn child.

I don't see why it matters who does the killing. Murder is murder.

Anyway, life usually entails growth, metabolic processes and responses to stimuli-- All of which occurs in an unborn fetus. "Life" doesn't begin at birth. The second a zygote forms and begins to split, it's alive.

A fetus is it's own organism, seperate of the woman. Yes, it does depend on the woman, but it is not for the woman to do to it as she pleases.

Biology states that a woman must house the fetus for any given number of months. You have a problem with that? Take it up with nature

Anyway, as I stated in my previous post, in cases where a man wants to keep the child and a woman doesn't, I think that the woman carrying the child for 9 months is a fair trade off for the man spending the next 18+ years of his life in care of the child while the woman gets off free and easy.


I hate to break it to you, but a man does 50% of the work in creating a baby

Semen + Egg = Zygote

No semen? No Zygote. No zygote? No baby.

Isn't it wonderful how that works?

No matter what way you slice it, a woman does NOT create a baby on her own, therefore she shouldn't have 100% of the say in what happens to it. That's a gross inequality; One that I'm sure that you recognize.

Human physiology says that a woman must carry the fetus for 9 months. We all know this, so there's no use in debating that much. However, simply because a woman carries a baby for 9 months, doesn't give her total control over what happens to it, especially when humans can't reproduce asexually.

So a woman can deny a man the right to be a father or even force him into fatherhood, but a man can't deny a woman the right to be a mother or force her into pregnancy? That's an extreme double standard.

If men are expected to "Keep his pants on" and to "Deal with whatever the woman decides", then woman should face the same stipulations.

You know as well as I do that that the majority of abortions are a matter of convenience, rather than necessity. Most people are irresponsible and look for the quickest and easy way out.

There are much better solutions than abortions. Adoption, for one.

The point is that no matter what you say, you wouldn't have chosen to be aborted. In fact, no one here would. Cognitive reasoning or not, everyone has the right-- And the desire-- To live (No matter what their age) and no one should be denied that right; Not even the unborn.

Simply because it "Inconveniences" a woman doesn't give them the right to kill another human being.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

hannukah harry

i'm a bit torn on whether or not someone who kills a pregnant woman should be charged with 2 counts of murder. on the one hand, if the woman was intending on having the child then the murderer has killed a woman and a potential human. i don't know if that potential and the intent to bring teh child to term should be enough to give the child protection under the law.

i do not believe that the unborn are deserving of legal rights and protections. but when a woman intends on bringing it to term... it is because of her intent i'm still up in the air on the issue. but i do believe that giving the unborn legal status as individuals can and likely will open a pandora's box. we start by adding them as victims of the mothers murder. but what if the woman trips and falls accidently and has a miscarriage? is that manslaughter? what if she does it purposefully? is that murder? if a pregnant woman is in a car and has a car accident and the airbag deploys and causes a miscarriage or developmental problems, is the auto company responsible? can she sue whomever caused the accident? what about if she smokes or drinks while pregnant? should she be charged with a crime? what about if she eats fatty foods or goes some place wehre there's lots of second hand smoke? i realize a lot of that sounds like a "slippery slope" argument. but we've had laws enacted before where there is an intent for their creation but authorities use them for reasons other than the intended reasons.

who does teh killing does matter. murder is, if i'm not mistaken, the unlawful killing of another person. so as it stands, to call abortion murder is, at least by definition, incorrect. it is lawful to perform an abortion. the unborn do not have legal standing as a person, and you can't murder some thing that isn't a person (or do you feel that meat is murder too?).

i never claimed that it isn't life from the moment of conception. it is life. but it's not a person. it is cells containing human dna that will, if nature allows, become a human baby. but until it passes through that birthing canal, it is not a person.

i disagree. the fetus is not its own organism. it is not seperate of the woman. if it were, we could easily remove it from the mother and hook it up to a nutrient tube and it'd go on developing just fine. to claim otherwise is to not understand biology or human development. to consider the fetus as anything but part of her is just inaccurate.



i've been trying, but ever since i did a dine and dash after a bad date with nature, she won't return my calls.

you really think that? do you realize the mortality rate of child birth? even if it's only 2%, would you be willing to risk your body for something you don't want but someone else does? add to that morning sickness, possible high blood pressure and diabetes brought on by bearing the child? the weight gain (which might not come off)? having to buy a whole new wardrobe, the changes in hormones that just make you seem crazy, the back pain, the swollen feet? and then the pain of child birth. i wouldn't go through all of that and child birth if you paid me $100k.


look at my paragraph above. what part of that does a man do? a man supplies 50% of the genetic material. he does not do 50% of the work. that's like saying that because i gave you half of your paint supplies, i did half of the work in creating your painting.


a woman does create a baby on her own. she has to to an outside source in order to get some of the material, but she does all the work in building the baby. your donation of half of the genetic blueprint does not give you 50% of the say in anything when you consder she also gave 50% and does all the work. there is no gross inequity. the only problem i see with the whole debate is that some people men feel that they have a right to treat women as property.

if it's in her body, it gives her control over it. because it is HER body.


it may be a double standard, but tough shit. that's life. we are not equal. biology dictates that we will never be equal. to try to make men and women equal legally in things that are not equal biologically is wrong. it does nothing more than turn women into incubators.

again, this isn't an equal situation. to try to force the same stipulations on both sexes goes against our basic biology. i believe that before you fuck someone, both the man and the woman should know what the other would want to do if a pregnancy occurs. if you don't want a baby, use protection, multiple layers if possible. but if you think that 2 minutes of fun should give you control over a womans body for the next 9 months just because she has some genetic material of yours in her, is wrong.



i think arbitrarily claiming that abortions are mainly a matter of convinience is the quick and easy way out. i'm sure there are women out there who have had abortions and don't think anything of it. but i'd bet for most women and girls who have one, it's not an easy decision. i'd bet most put a lot of thought into whether it is the right thing for them right now. there's a book i saw on amazon a couple years ago, i don't remember the name or the author (if i have time, i'll look for it and update if i find it)... anyways, the author talked with numerous women who had abortions about why they did it, what went through their decision making process, etc. i highly doubt for most women it's a "oh, if i'm pregnant i can't drink for 9 months, lets get an abortion" scenario.



eh. in the end there are two solutions. have the baby or don't. if you have the baby, then you also have the option of giving it up for adoption. what's the best one? i couldn't tell you. that's up to the person who has to make the decison to decide.

on a semi-aside, i don't really think adoption is all that great of an option. until we've got more people wanting to adopt than there are kids going into the system, it's not the best option. every kid should be given a chance to succeed, and (correct me if i'm wrong) most kids older than 4 or 5 don't have much of a chance of adoption. if the kid is black, he's got much less of chance of adoption (i heard a while back that canadians were adopting more of our black babies than americans, or at least enough that congress was talking about making a law to stop our kids from being adopted out of country). i'd actually love it if someone started a thread on adoption, we seem to talk about abortion a lot and never have a real discussion about adoption.


nope, i wouldn't have chosen to be aborted. but i doubt that a fetus who was aborted would care, one way or the other. neither would a fetus that is miscarried (aka natural abortion). and i could find lots of people who do not have the desire to be live but do. ask dr. kevorkian, he could point you to a few. or find a suicidal person. nor does everyone have the right to live. or else we would not have capital punishment.

just because you think women do it because it "inconveniences" them doesn't mean that's why they do it.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Infinite_Loser

Muder also means to kill something brtually or inhumanely

(But we won't get into semantics.)

The last time I checked, 28 states have fetal protection laws, so apparently someone considers them "Persons" (Does anyone remember the Laci Peterson case?).

And, as far as meat is concerned, we (People) generally hold human life in higher regards than we do animal life. Therefore, I don't see the point in you trying to relegate a fetus to a piece of meat makes.

So, in your own words, the difference between a person and a non-person is whether or not they're born? Never mind the fact that someone is essentially the same 30 seconds before they're born and 30 seconds after they're born, their birth status is the only thing that matters?

We generally describe a person as a human being, or anything which has the capacity to become a human being.

I have a fairly good understanding of biology and the developmental stages of a fetus.

A fetus is not like, say, an arm or a leg; It's more than just an extension of the female body. In fact, it's completely seperate of the female body. A fetus develops it's own vital systems, internal and external organs and, after a period of time, is fully capable of living without being attached to the female.

Can you say the same with an arm or a leg? No, you can't. A fetus isn't part of a females body.

Oh... And I just wanted to point out to you that there are cases where a fetus has been removed from a mother, hooked up to a nutrient tube and been saved.

*Radical thinking ahead!!!*

Then don't have sex if you don't want to assume the consequences. Men are forced to accept the consequences of their actions one way or another, so a woman should be, as well.

I believe you answered your own question: A man suplies 50% of the genetic material-- Same as a woman.

A woman creates a baby on her own? That's preposterous poppy cock! Last time I checked, humans weren't asexual-- It requires both a man AND a woman to create a baby. The last time I checked, a woman's body doesn't create anything. The only thing it does do is to provide nutrients to the fetus and place where it can develop; Nothing more and nothing less.

If I, as a man, donate 50% of the genetic blueprint to make a baby then I, as a man, should have 50% of the say so in what happens to that baby. I'll tell you what, though. If you can explain to me how any woman outside of the virgin Mary can have a baby in the absence of a man, then I'll concede my argument to you.

"In her body" and "Her body" are two totally different concepts. When a woman decides to have an abortion, she's not dealing with "Her body", but rather the fetus' body.

I'm just going to keep repeating this, but a woman isn't 100% responsible for making a baby, so she shouldn't get 100% of the decision.

~ Situation #1 ~

A woman tells a man that she doesn't want to have children. They end up having sex, the woman gets pregnant and later decides to keep the baby. What happens to the man? He gets fucked, as he has no say in the matter. He's becoming a father, simply because the woman says he is.

~ Situation #2 ~

A man and a woman both decide that they want children. They end up having sex, the woman gets pregnant but later decides that she wants to have an abortion. What happens to the man? He gets fucked yet again, as he has no say in the matter. He loses out on the chance to become a father, simply because the woman doesn't want to have a baby.

Why is it that a woman is never expected to bear any responsibility from her sexuality? If she doesn't want children then-- And I know this is a VERY hard concept for some people do understand-- She should keep her pants on. It's as simple as that. By dropping her pants and bouncing up and down on some guy's dick, then she assumes the risk that she's going to get pregnant. If she didn't want to get pregnant in the first place, then she shouldn't be having sex.

A man can't have sex, get a woman pregnant and then decide that he doesn't want to be a father, so neither should woman. Women should be held to the same standards as men.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html

It's a nice little survey done around October of 2005 on abortions and the reasons given by women who've had them. I'm sure you'll notice that the most common answer among woman for having an abortion is/was "I don't want to have children right now".

If that's not a matter of convenience, then I don't know what is.

There is something interesting, however. If a man were ever to say that he shouldn't be forced into being a father because "He's not ready" or because he "Doesn't want children" or that he's not "Emotionally stable" to raise a child, he would be laughed at, told to keep his pants on and told to be a man and raise the child. Yet when a woman does it, no one even thinks twice about reprimanding them or telling them to accept the consequences of their actions.

Why is that?

For the most part, that simply isn't the case.

Here's something to think about. Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15 – 44 have an abortion (5%); 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion. That means that approximately 2.5 women out of 100 aged 15 - 44 who had an abortion last year had a previous one.

When I said "Everyone" I was speaking in general. There are always exceptions to the rule, but organism generally have the desire to live. Anyway, everyone has the right to live until you do something to forfeit it. In the case of those given the death penalty, they have usually done something to warrant it. A fetus has done nothing to forfeit that right.

In the United States, less than 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest and less than 1% of abortions are done due to medical complication. The majority of abortions are done simply because the woman doesn't want to have a baby. Tell me, if it's not inconvenience which makes them have an abortion, then what is it?

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

abaya

There was a perfectly good reason for this thread to get resurrected. Someone had something new and interesting to add to it (lindalove on #168).

Of course, a few posts later and it's worthless again. This is precisely one reason why I do not like the "search before posting" rule at times... because the "new posts" get completely bulldozed by 2 or 3 people fighting about the same old issue. What's the point? Where are the mods?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Infinite_Loser

...Because some people weren't here 3 years ago when this thread started.

I'll admit, I didn't read the entire thing. I just added in my (Then) $.02.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

lindalove

Thanks. I think you're the only one who noticed.

abaya

No problem, lindalove. I do what I can.

But seriously, I do think it's fascinating to see the effect of different cultures' cosmologies on their perception of abortion, etc. I don't see anything wrong with the Japanese view, though I wonder at what point in pregnancy they believe the child gains a "soul" and should not be killed?

Comparing American views on abortion, gay marriage, and other controversial topics to other cultures' views can be very enlightening. Some people might take the chance to be judgemental, but most of those individuals are middle-class, modern-living Americans who could never dream of a situation where they had very limited options and resources.

Of course, I speak this as a cultural anthropologist... But seriously. Next to breast feeding, voluntary abortion was most likely humanity's most common form of population control for most of our evolutionary history. Medicine men/women were very educated on how to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy LONG before birth control was ever available, and especially when a woman simply could not provide for any more children (in other words, rape or obligatory sex was the order of the day for many women, and a secret visit to the medicine man/woman was often their only form of control over their lives... sometimes to prevent their own deaths, which happened often during the birth of a child).

Anyway, cross-cultural stuff is cool. Thanks for bringing it in!

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Plaid13

OK heres my Way of thinking here.... I am pro choice. But in the perfect world i would be prolife. However the world is far from perfect. Condoms break the pill isnt 100% rape happens and people are stupid. With health problems that can come from pregnancy or be passed on to the kid from genetic problems. Say you find out theres a good chance some real bad genetic defects will be passed on to the kid and most likely that kids life will be a living hell... is it fair to force that kid to live?

Personaly i have a cousin thats a dumb crackhead with three kids living in a state with a joke for child wellfair survaces so they dont take her kids away. These kids are abused by there father that should be in prison but... he has parents in high places that get him out of trouble no matter what. They live off food stamps and hand outs and mom sells the stamps to get money for drugs so the kids go to sleep hungry and wear the same clothes every day of the week and dont bathe. These kids are like 4 8 and 13 i think and none of them can read thanks to the worthless parents they have. the 13 year old boy has already been arrested a few times. He will be in prison shortly after he hits 18 if not before. The middle child a daughter i really doubt if she will be any diffrent. If she is she will end up in a trailor with 5 kids and a bad drug habit. And im still hoping the youngest has a chance if the state gets off there ass and takes the kids away from those people. But even then they need to count on adoption and thats like a 50/50 chance only.
There are far too many unwanted kids in the world as it is no reason to force people to drag more into the world even if its there own fault they got pregnant. I dont think a child is alive untill its mentaly developed enough to think for itself. Somehow i doubt the kid is pondering the meaning of life or what its going to do tomorrow when mom is only in the first couple months of pregnancy. the kid isnt alive untill it can live on its own. Kids born even a month or two early can have some real problems just breathing. However they do breath. Anything much more premature just isnt alive. It dosnt have any more life in it then a amputated limb.

Most prolife people seem to look at abortion like its wrong for the child. But not even stop to think maybe abortion is the best thing for it. Just maybe its not the best idea to have crack babies running around all over the place with sever birth defects or mental/physical problems throughout life. Or forcing a kid into life as a unwanted child with years of mental and physical abuse to look forward to.

FoolThemAll

Eh, I'm not a big fan of involuntary euthanasia. Too murder-ish for my tastes.

You wouldn't make this argument for someone already born, would you? Which says to me that this argument of yours is just a useless distraction from the two issues that really matter: (1)Is it a human being? (2)How far should the government's power extend in preventing its destruction?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Ustwo

The Roe Effect
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006913

Abortion is good for America.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Infinite_Loser

That's an interesting article, but I had already come to a similiar conclusion (Though not as detailed).

I know that my mom-- Who is typically a staunch Democrate-- Voted for Bush over Kerry in the previous election due to their stances on abortion.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

SirLance

I wonder how many here have taken a life outside the womb? Doesn't someone who takes a life inside the womb feel the same remorse, necessary or not as the act may have been?

Abortion is murder, and murder is wrong. Should abortion be illegal? I don't know, but I think that the debate has us all so focused on the act we forget about what precipitates it. I'm a believer in preventative medicine. If you don't want pregnancy, wear a condom or keep your pants up.

As to the issue of rape or incest, would you execute the baby for the father's sins? Or would you provide counseling to the mother and help her understand that she can accept the baby because the baby is NOT the father?

I guess I don't have any answers. Mostly I just have questions.

__________________
DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.

MySexyAssJ

I am pro-choice, but I also feel that some people out there have an abortion everytime they get pregnant, and in that case, i think that the law should draw the line. I also think that a person should learn their lesson and take the proper precautions when having sex thereafter.

__________________
Once bitten, Twice shy.

debaser

I think abortion should be legal, especially retro-active abortion.

__________________

MySexyAssJ

Wow really?! Retroactive abortion? Why is that?

__________________
Once bitten, Twice shy.

debaser

After some people have been around for a while, it becomes apparent that perhaps the best thing would be if they hadn't. I'm still working on the procedure...

__________________

MySexyAssJ

i see...

__________________
Once bitten, Twice shy.

debaser

Just a bit of humor to lighten the thread. I mean, if you can't laugh at abortion, what can you laugh at.

__________________

tenniels

Choice choice choice. Abortion is not a means of birth control though. I'm pro-choice, but it doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion either. It's none of my business what some other lady is going to do with her fetus. And that is all I consider it, a dot. I am really not one that is overly sensitive to things like children, especially when they are not developed. I mean I like kids and all, but I think I like puppies more. I am kidding, well for the most part. As for the religion aspect of it, that is also a choice. If it's against your personal religion, don't have an abortion. But just because it's against your personal religion does not mean you can dictate to another woman that she can't because it's against your beliefs. I dunno, I know the OP is old, but I had seen this has been bumped up so I thought I'd add my two cents, though I'm sure what I've said has been covered. Except maybe the puppy thing... haha! Hey, what do you have if you don't have humour?

__________________

Janie

I know this thread has been bumped more often than is really necessary, but seeing as the mods choose to keep it open (or have received no complaints over it) I see no reason to refrain from posting.

It seems to me like the real problem is that some people feel abortions are wrong, and are appalled that others get away with it, so to speak. That is, they receive no punishment for their actions. The emotional response of "don't force your opinion on me" that come from pro-choicers is fair, yes, but tends to bog the argument down. Yes, it sucks that someone is saying you can't do thing X. There are loads of things you can't do: steal, rape, hack into government websites. And I'm sure the pro-lifers realize making it illegal isn't going to prevent people from having abortions, just as we still have theft, rape, etc despite the laws set in place. [I'm not trying to argue anything here, just some observations.]

The other day I drove past some pro-life picketers who brought along their children. I found this rather disturbing, and not because I don't like being reminded of what abortions are killing. My concern is why are they using their children to advance a political stance? I am sure those children would rather be playing on swings, or a hundred other things. If your concern is the welfare of children or potential children, go play with your kids. They deserve your attention, seeing as you are so keen on making sure they get a chance to live.

Which sort of brings me to why I am posting here to being with. Why is everyone arguing about it? Some people think it's wrong, others think it isn't. Neither camp is going to convince any significant number of people to switch sides, so is in essence preaching to the choir. It would have been nice for this thread to be a non-argumentative display of why members did/did not/will/will not choose to have an abortions. And for those who don't wish to share why they made their own choice, maybe we should get off this thread and enjoy our children or lack thereof.

__________________
cheers to the motherland

paulinapolk

There is a guy, a lawyer, who is sued by a a women he had a one-night stand or something parental recognition. He is suing back because he says he had been tricked into paternity by a malicious women who had her own agenda. They say there is a growing number of cases like this, but it is the first time there is a lawsuit? I guess it would be interesting to wait for the result.

They said the mother only sued so that her kid can put a name on the father, but the court ruled more than that, and ordered child support which the father was not very happy with.

The kid seems ok according to the newspapers.

Here lies the difference, it is not really a soul. There is no self-conscience I think, for instance, more like a vital principal? Thus, it is not associate to any killing. And anyway, it is just back waiting.

parable

Abortion is legal because fetuses, although recognized as being human in nature and living, are not recognized as persons and hence do not possess rights that must be protected. This leads to questions of personhood, and, more importantly, humanity.

Unprecedented advances in biotechnology demand that we re-examine not just what it means to be a person, but what it means to be human. For example, its not clear why a human clone, successfully delivered, would or would not be a person; is it simply by virtue of having a full complement of human DNA or is something else involved? Or, what if all the DNA is not human, as in a chimera, i.e. a genetic blend between species? What fraction of human DNA is necessary to legally qualify for personhood? Is DNA the issue? The answers will be determined by what we choose, as will the fate of many yet-to-be-created organisms, or persons, as the case may be.

In like manner, any point in fetal development selected to define personhood is, at best, arbitrary. Some hold that personhood begins at conception, while the law holds it is established at birth, whatever that means. With the advent of the modern c-section, our notions of what constitutes "birth" had to be revised. Note that in so called "partial birth" abortions, most of the fetus is actually outside the mother at the time the fetus is destroyed, although at 5 or 6 months, the fetus is not viable. But what if modern medicine learns how to keep a 3-month preemie alive until it is viable, what then?

Abortion is controversial because notions of personhood are either relative or absolute, and these are almost always mutually exclusive and deeply held moral convictions. Yet, history repeatedly shows that relativism regarding personhood can lead to dehumanization, which by definition, distinguishes an "us" from a "them". This distinction has always preceded killing on grand scales. (Hence, the argument that abortion is genocide.) Ironically, it is the perpetrators of genocide who are dehumanized, not their victims, by the self-induced alienation from humanity needed to perpetuate the psychological distinction between themselves and their victims. In the case of abortion, the fetus, person or not, has been distinguished from humanity to the extent that each year there are 1.25 million abortions in the US and 50 million worldwide.

The question here is not what a fetus is or is not, but rather, what "we" have become in order to kill so many of "them". The decision about personhood goes beyond abortion or choice. Our understanding of personhood determines not only who we are, but also what we will become. I hope that given a choice about what it means to be a person, those who currently qualify will choose wisely.

In the context of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, someone once asked “If killing an unborn baby by accident is manslaughter, what is killing it on purpose?" Clearly, intent is thought to be relevant.

But, this act is predicated on the notion that the mother alone has the right to determine the fate of the fetus. Under the law, a fetus has no rights because a fetus is not recognized as a person. To underscore the rights of the mother, specific provisions of the Act prevent prosecution of the mother in any case, even if the mother survives a suicide attempt, but the fetus does not.

What one person may call "hypocrisy" with respect to intent in the case of abortion, is more properly called "arbitrary" with respect to personhood. In order to resolve the controversy surrounding abortion, it will be necessary for us to reach consensus about what it means to be a person.

__________________
"If you aren't confused, you haven't been paying attention."

Midnight

oooh boy... i couldnt resist this one

I am pro life. you made it, wanted or not, its living. I think you should deal with it. weather its soul comes now or later, or it can live outside its mother or not I dont care. weather you were all over your boyfriend/husband and fucked him silly or some guy dragged you into an alley and forced himself on you. its there. keep it, give it up, it's choice of the parent/parents. but its a baby in there as far as I'm concerned.

**********************************************************
***************************B U T **************************
**********************************************************

What I think and I believe and how I act is no one's business unless it hurts or affects them. What someone else believes or does with their body and its issue or potential issue is NONE OF MY BUSINESS. I don't have to like it, I don't have to approve. Pro Lifers - get out your bibles or what have you and READ - Right or wrong - we have one thing NO ONE should be able to take away from us. FREE WILL. You do not and should not control me, Nor should I you when it concerns the one thing in life that is our own to control. our own body.

haywoodu

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
Voltaire

My daughter got pregnant at age 15, by the time she told me, she was 8 months pregnant, and I wondered if she had told me sooner would I have suggested an abortion. Luckily I never had to make that choice, for if I had encouraged an abortion I would have never met my beautiful grandson. That said, I know that not all situations are the same for every unexpected and unwanted pregnancy. I do believe that abortion is evil, but I would never accuse a person seeking one as evil themselves. The act of abortion is a necessary evil in our society and should not be criminalized. There is no "right or wrong" in this debate, both sides have legitamate opinions and proofs and as the previous poster noted... we were given Free Will by our creator. It's up to the individual to decide what's best for themselves.

__________________
I hide my tears when I say your name, for the pain in my heart is still the same.

Hyacinthe

So far I think one of the best comments made in this thread was made by Midnight

When I was 15 I was a victim of sexual abuse - in blunt terms I was raped. There is no way in the world I could have carried any child that could have resulted from that to term, I had not been on birth control prior to the incident as I was not sexually active and those of you that work in medicine or look at the facts know that the morning after pill which is what I was given in the emergency room is not 100% effective. Until my next period after the attack I was terrified that I might have been pregnant, I cried pretty much every day, every time I looked at myself I felt ill thinking that I might have been infested with some parasite that was fathered by that man / boy. That's honestly how I felt about it, to me it wasn't a child it was a parasite, it was the ends of all my hopes for life, if I had been pregnant I would most likely have been kicked out of school (I went to a religiously based school) and I would have major problems going back and doing anything that I had planned for my life with a young child in tow.

If I had been pregnant from that attack every day would be like living the act over again. Would I have gotten an abortion - without a second thought. You can tell me that child has every right to live and that it is just as important as I am and I will admit a big part of me agrees with you but I would have still gone and done it anyway and I still would today.

After having made that decision and facing a part of me that I don't like very much I find I can't judge anyone else on making a similar decision for their own individual reasons.

__________________
"I want to be remembered as the girl who always smiles even when her heart is broken... and the one that could brighten up your day even if she couldnt brighten her own"

"Her emotions were clear waters. You could see the scarring and pockmarks at the bottom of the pool, but it was just a part of her landscape – the consequences of others’ actions in which she claimed no part."

abaya

Doesn't that big "BUT" make you essentially pro-choice, then? I mean, I feel the same way that you do about conception... and I myself could never imagine getting an abortion. But I fully support an individual's right to choose what's best for her in a situation like that (including Hyacinthe's very sensitive situation... I most likely would have done the same thing, and nearly did, in a related situation of my own), which is what makes me pro-choice, at least politically. Nothing about the idea of abortion is pleasant to me... the entire thing makes me rather nauseous when I think about it too much. But that doesn't mean that it's morally "wrong," just that it's a real tough decision that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

FoolThemAll

Nah, it's not a very good comment. It completely avoids the most basic assumption of the pro-life viewpoint: abortion affects two bodies and is never harmless. The comment's a good sermon for the choir, but pretty irrelevant to any two-sided debate of the issue.

Few things are black and white, but I have trouble imagining a worldview in which abortion is nauseating, yet not immoral. (Unless you mean that it's nauseating like an appendectomy.)

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Plan9

My take:

Somehow we assign value to a life that hasn't even started yet (a fetus) more so than one in progress (our own).



I'm all about the desire to spread my genetics, but only when the $$$ is more stable.

THIS MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE SILENT BROTHERS FOR BABIES ON SPIKES PARTY.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

FoolThemAll

Just one more boring rehash of a response, but... of course most pro-lifers, myself included, would challenge the idea that a fetus isn't a life in progress.

And there's really little to no basis for suggesting that pro-lifers ascribe more value to the unborn than to the born. You might have a case with the pro-lifers who would criminalize even life-saving abortions, but otherwise the claim is just not true.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Plan9

Well, hey... here is an even MORE boring rehash:

I define life as someone who has to pay bills and put food on the table.

That's a life in progress. A fetus, a newborn, a toddler? Mindless human luggage.

Cute but useless.

If we took better care of ourselves, we could take better of our diaper-filling baggage.

YOUR life is in progress. What is more valuable? You or some translucent Cheeto-shaped fetus that hasn't done anything yet?


...

I know it isn't necessarily related, but what the hell is with the divine human superiority complex? We spay/neuter/castrate/butcher every other species on a whim without thought. We club baby seals, eat veal, etc.

How are humans worth more than any other creature?

We're all bits of skin.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."