Abortion

[hardeeharhar]

The evangelicals will never stop the pursuit to remove the right of an individual to have whatever medical procedure they choose. Most agree that in cases of rape and less often, when the life of the mother is threatened, abortions may be allowed. The ultimate goal on both sides is to decrease the number of abortions in this country. An outright ban will result in women using coat hangers, or suffocating their children at birth (as so many teenagers did in the late 90's). The only way to prevent abortions from being used (either the currently legal medical procedures or the more grotesque coat hangers) is to support sex ed fully, with a particular focus on controlling STDs and prevention of pregnancy. We need to admit as a nation, that sex happens, that abortions will happen regardless of law, that rape happens, and that mother's lives are sometimes threatened by pregnancy. These are facts. The solution to most of them is education, education, education...

[Common Man]

The admin better add some RAM to the server for this thread.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Common Man
The admin better add some RAM to the server for this thread.

Care to add any thoughts?

[MarcUK]

The solution is........

h....
o....
m....
e....

s....
c....
h....
o....
o....
l....
i....
n....
g....

[Common Man]

To make abortion illegal would be a disaster as you said hardeeharhar. My girlfriend is from a Latin American country where it is illegal because the Catholic Church controls everything . She says that safe abortions are available for rich woman and poor woman bleed to death in secret clinics with horrid conditions. I think that the best approach is to try to limit the need for abortions and I agree with you that education is the best way. There must be access to information and birth control . What bothers me are the people who are knowingly careless and then use abortion as if it were just another form of birth control. Every other option should be exhaused before abortion.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Common Man
What bothers me are the people who are knowingly careless and then use abortion as if it were just another form of birth control. Every other option should be exhaused before abortion.


That bothers everyone, including me, Abortion should not be a form of late contraception.

Installing guilt in people so that they are afraid to discuss sex and its implications is a sure way that people are going to need abortions.

[Harald]

Originally posted by Common Man
To make abortion illegal would be a disaster as you said hardeeharhar. My girlfriend is from a Latin American country where it is illegal because the Catholic Church controls everything . She says that safe abortions are available for rich woman and poor woman bleed to death in secret clinics with horrid conditions. I think that the best approach is to try to limit the need for abortions and I agree with you that education is the best way. There must be access to information and birth control . What bothers me are the people who are knowingly careless and then use abortion as if it were just another form of birth control. Every other option should be exhaused before abortion.

Commmon, if your are going out of your way not to be inflammotary, and are trying not to be a troll then ...

... you're succeeding.

There is nothing in your post that anyone with a heart could find wrong.

I would add that I don't think that there are many people who use abortion as birth control.

[BRussell]

I'm a man and I resent the fact that I can't have an abortion. What about my rights?

[ast3r3x]

Originally posted by BRussell
I'm a man and I resent the fact that I can't have an abortion. What about my rights?

You are allowed to have any organ you want removed ;)

[dmz]

I'd comment on this topic, but it's not nearly controversial enough.

[hardeeharhar]

So then do we all agree that if Congress wants to do anything about abortion, first thing should be to provide incentives (or something) to states that institute a national sex ed curriculum that includes contraceptives, condoms, chlamydia, and child care?

[Frank777]

No. :D

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
I'm a man and I resent the fact that I can't have an abortion. What about my rights?

I'll make ya a promise BRussell. If you manage to get an embryo to implant and begin growing anywhere in your body, and you decide to get rid of it, I'll help ya by scraping and sucking the thing out.

Now you aren't being denied. Happy?:lol:

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Frank777
No. :D

Well then, mr. fundy, what do you want done? Free coathanger clinics?

[bunge]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Well then, mr. fundy, what do you want done? Free coathanger clinics?

He certainly doesn't want them to be free.

[segovius]

Now fundie pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for the pill (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20041109/pl_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill).

"We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America.

"The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing," she said.

And there you have it - birth control was the liberal leitmotif of the sixties.

It all comes down to that. As usual. Not religion, not morals or family values, not (God help us) sanctity of life (as if) but the same old neurotic obsession with liberals.

:no:

[crazychester]

Why don't you all butt out and go do something constructive? Like encouraging condom use by males. Try and do a bit more about the knowing carelessness by your team, hey?

You look after your bodies and let us worry about ours.

[Placebo]

Wow, do they want complete chastity?


Dark Ages, here we come!:rolleyes:

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by segovius
Now fundie pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for the pill (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20041109/pl_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill).
That's insane...

[hardeeharhar]

Complete chastity has never existed.

Care to explain this one away, dmz?

Public servants should never have the option of not serving someone because of their "morals" or "ethics." Again, as a pharmacist, if I find it unethical to give people pain-killers because they are addictive, should I have that right?

[Fangorn]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
So then do we all agree that if Congress wants to do anything about abortion, first thing should be to provide incentives (or something) to states that institute a national sex ed curriculum that includes contraceptives, condoms, chlamydia, and child care?

Why, exactly, is it the responsibility of the _state_ to provide these things? What about the parents to educate the child--both in moral principles and basic biology (one without the other only leads to trouble). Or how about simply the community? Or the church? Why (oh why) do you cry to the federal government to fix moral problems--and then bitch that someone else's "morals" are being "stuffed down" your throat? Can't be both ways.

I do agree that the BEST way to prevent abortion--legal or illegal--is to help women when they find themselves in a "crisis" pregnancy. And I for one put my money where my mouth is and regularly support the local crisis pregancy center. Anyone else? Or does support of women stop at the "pro-choice" bumper sticker?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Fangorn
Why, exactly, is it the responsibility of the _state_ to provide these things? What about the parents to educate the child--both in moral principles and basic biology (one without the other only leads to trouble). Or how about simply the community? Or the church? Why (oh why) do you cry to the federal government to fix moral problems--and then bitch that someone else's "morals" are being "stuffed down" your throat? Can't be both ways. He proposed that as an alternative to making abortion illegal. Isn't that what you want the government to do? Isn't that much, much more intrusive?

[tonton]

Originally posted by BRussell
He proposed that as an alternative to making abortion illegal. Isn't that what you want the government to do? Isn't that much, much more intrusive?

See, that's just it. There is a complete blindness to hypocrisy among some people.

"I want the Federal Government to make all abortion illegal because it's wrong."

"I don't think the Federal Government should interfere with our lives."

Actually, these fundies don't want the gummit to interfere in their lives -- that's true. But they sure as hell want the government to interfere in everybody else's. If you're not a Conservative Christian, you don't have any rights.

Fangorn, you are free to teach your children your values. And I will tech mine mine.

When the time comes, I will teach my daughter that if she's a lesbian, that's okay. I'll still love her, as will anyone who's worthy of her respect. I'll teach her that she should use a condom if she chooses to have sex, and that she should NEVER give in to pressure about that. I'll teach her that the "withdrawal" method doesn't work. I'll teach her that if she is raped she has the right to give up the child. I'll teach her that if the condom breaks she has that same right if she thinks that's the best decision for her, but that it's a very serious decision to make. I'll teach her that If she's seven months pregnant and if her fetus is deformed and unhealthy and carrying it further is a serious risk to her life, she should listen to her doctors about the options available to her, NOT some church or a few politicians. I'll teach her that she can choose her own religion if she wants to, and that there are positives and negatives about every religion in the world that she should consider first. I'll teach her the value of tolerance above all. I'll teach her that poverty and oppression are far greater enemies than Saddam or Osama, because it's poverty and oppression that BREED enemies like Saddam and Osama. I'll teach her that America needs to take the high ground in terms of rights and tolerance and diplomacy, and that America cannot dictate to the rest of the world their values, and that she should always support candidates that hold these values to the highest regard.

I'll teach her much more than that.

So you go right ahead and teach your kids that abortion is murder but firing a rocket at an inhabited apartment building in Fallujah is not.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Fangorn
Why, exactly, is it the responsibility of the _state_ to provide these things? What about the parents to educate the child--both in moral principles and basic biology (one without the other only leads to trouble). Or how about simply the community? Or the church? Why (oh why) do you cry to the federal government to fix moral problems--and then bitch that someone else's "morals" are being "stuffed down" your throat? Can't be both ways.

I do agree that the BEST way to prevent abortion--legal or illegal--is to help women when they find themselves in a "crisis" pregnancy. And I for one put my money where my mouth is and regularly support the local crisis pregancy center. Anyone else? Or does support of women stop at the "pro-choice" bumper sticker?

You are assuming two things about parents:
1) They feel comfortable with talking to their children about sex.
2) They have the knowledge to talk to them about sex.

Neither of these is necessarily the case, and I would argue is almost never the case. Not everyone goes to church (and the church almost always has ulterior motives -- they lie if you will, suggesting that contraceptives are a form of abortion, etc etc). The community is the source of the teachers, and it is represented in the schools. The federal government isn't choosing a morality here. By creating a curriculum, it is (hopefully) stating facts. The discemination of these facts is most readily accomplished through a national entity -- and we should not depend on conventional wisdom to relay the "facts of life." I am the product of a sucessful sex-ed program in South Carolina, one that reduced teen pregnancy and aids in the state. Clearly there are intelligent conservatives who have embraced this idea...

[Not Unlike Myself]

I think sex should be talked about more. Actually, a lot more.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You are assuming two things about parents:
1) They feel comfortable with talking to their children about sex.
2) They have the knowledge to talk to them about sex.

Neither of these is necessarily the case, and I would argue is almost never the case. Not everyone goes to church (and the church almost always has ulterior motives -- they lie if you will, suggesting that contraceptives are a form of abortion, etc etc). The community is the source of the teachers, and it is represented in the schools. The federal government isn't choosing a morality here. By creating a curriculum, it is (hopefully) stating facts. The discemination of these facts is most readily accomplished through a national entity -- and we should not depend on conventional wisdom to relay the "facts of life." I am the product of a sucessful sex-ed program in South Carolina, one that reduced teen pregnancy and aids in the state. Clearly there are intelligent conservatives who have embraced this idea...

Point #1: Your anti-religious bias is showing here. All churches do not forbid contraception. Birth control as a sin is a Catholic concept, not a universally Christian or religious one. The 'universal' Christian teaching on this subject is that sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Point #2: Your main point is that parents are ill-informed and ill-equipped to talk to their children about sex. Therefore, the Government must act in the defence of the children, to right this situation.

Therein lies the problem. How liberals make such leaps in logic, I'll never understand.

The simplest and most effective course of action, would be for the Government to produce resources and courses to better equip parents to handle the job themselves. This handles the problem the left is trying to solve, while sidestepping the concerns of the right about government indoctrination of children and the primacy of the family.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Frank777
Point #1: Your anti-religious bias is showing here. All churches do not forbid contraception. Birth control as a sin is a Catholic concept, not a universally Christian or religious one. The 'universal' Christian teaching on this subject is that sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Point #2: Your main point is that parents are ill-informed and ill-equipped to talk to their children about sex. Therefore, the Government must act in the defence of the children, to right this situation.

Therein lies the problem. How liberals make such leaps in logic, I'll never understand.

The simplest and most effective course of action, would be for the Government to produce resources and courses to better equip parents to handle the job themselves. This handles the problem the left is trying to solve, while sidestepping the concerns of the right about government indoctrination of children and the primacy of the family.


Point #1: I was giving an example -- not claiming that all churches consider contraceptives abortions.

Point #2: Providing resources/courses for students is precisely the same thing as providing resources/courses for parents (think about twenty years from now when these children can and will talk to their kids about these issues).

My father is a physician fully versed in everything anyone would ever need to know about sex etc, and I have not had one conversation with him about it -- because he is embarassed to talk; that is the fundamental problem with depending on parents. Not only are they not trained to teach their children about sex, they often will not...

[segovius]

Originally posted by Frank777
The 'universal' Christian teaching on this subject is that sex outside of marriage is wrong.

What constitutes 'marriage' though - is it the laws of a given State ? Any State or does God have a list of approved ones ? I suppose this is why the gay marriage thing is so incendiary - a certificate could get you a pass on all that everlasting torment.

But will God even ask to see the certificate before doling out hideous punishments ? And what happens to people like Abraham and the OT patriarchs ? Did they have certificates ? Joseph and Mary ?

What about Adam and Eve - I bet they weren't married but God was cool with that until that fruit business. I guess there wasn't a County Hall then though so it wasn't really their fault.

Hey - what about polygamy ? That's marriage. Is that ok if you have a certificate ? Or are you only allowed one go at it ? That spells trouble for a lot of those Old Testament dudes too.

Complex stuff all this sin and everlasting torment. I suppose God has varying departments and delegates a lot.

[mattjohndrow]

Originally posted by segovius
Now fundie pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for the pill (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20041109/pl_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill).




holy shit, that's just insane

[Whisper]

I think it's kinda funny that few people, if any*, bother to try to refute the pro-life argument that abortion is murder. They just keep on about a woman's right to control her own body. Well I think that a woman has a right to control her body too; I just think her kid's right to live is more important. That's the whole issue for me.

If someone were to come up with an artificial uterus so that the baby could continue to grow and live outside of his/her mother, I'd be all for it.

Convince me that an unborn child isn't human, and I'll promptly become pro-choice.

* At least amongst the people that I've heard talk about it.

[Ra]

An embryo isn't a child. A fetus isn't a child. Your 'unborn child' is not a child.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Whisper
I think it's kinda funny that few people, if any*, bother to try to refute the pro-life argument that abortion is murder. They just keep on about a woman's right to control her own body. That's because that is the basic argument. I think you could make an argument that an unborn baby, particularly one early in development, doesn't have any rights, and people often do make that argument. But to me, the more basic argument is about the rights of the pregnant woman.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question, relating to your "artificial uterus" example:

What if the government went up to you and said that they had found this other person who needed a blood transfusion from you or he would die. You're the only person with the right type of blood in the whole world. Let's say this transfusion takes many months and would have a major impact on your life. Let's even say that you are required to care for that person for many years after the blood transfusion is completed. If you refuse, you are killing that person.

Should the government have the power to force you to do this, even if you don't want to? Sure, maybe you'd want to, and everybody's happy. But we're talking about the government making you do it. Would that be right?

My point is that even if the unborn baby is a human life with all the rights of an adult, should the government force you to carry the baby in pregnancy and then give birth to it, even if you don't want to?

[New]

Originally posted by BRussell
That's because that is the basic argument. I think you could make an argument that an unborn baby, particularly one early in development, doesn't have any rights, and people often do make that argument. But to me, the more basic argument is about the rights of the pregnant woman.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question, relating to your "artificial uterus" example:

What if the government went up to you and said that they had found this other person who needed a blood transfusion from you or he would die. You're the only person with the right type of blood in the whole world. Let's say this transfusion takes many months and would have a major impact on your life. Let's even say that you are required to care for that person for many years after the blood transfusion is completed. If you refuse, you are killing that person.

Should the government have the power to force you to do this, even if you don't want to? Sure, maybe you'd want to, and everybody's happy. But we're talking about the government making you do it. Would that be right?

My point is that even if the unborn baby is a human life with all the rights of an adult, should the government force you to carry the baby in pregnancy and then give birth to it, even if you don't want to?

You're a pretty smart guy, BRussell.

Just wanted to let you know... :)

[shetline]

Originally posted by Whisper
Convince me that an unborn child isn't human, and I'll promptly become pro-choice.
I won't try to convince you of that. What I'll try to do is convince you that the question is much more complicated than that.

People on both sides of the abortion debate drive me crazy because neither side usually shows any signs of being vaguely aware of the hidden assumptions behind what they're saying, most notably concerning the word "life".

If anyone bothers to think about, it's clear that on one hand you have life with a small 'l', and on the other hand you have Life with a capital "L". Which is which, and how you define the distinction, is the real debate.

Clearly an embryo or a fetus is alive in some sense of that word, even before it's capable, with or without the assistance of modern medicine, of survival outside the womb. But jellyfish and lichen are alive too, and obviously don't illicit nearly as much interest for their protection.

So, we've got lower-case life, which is merely biological activity of any sort, and upper-case Life, which warrants consideration under the law as having full human rights. We also recognize gray areas in between by having laws such as those regarding cruelty to animals.

I think when you examine how people distinguish between life and Life, it's not hard to find some common basic criteria, but these criteria can become troubling and difficult under close examination.

Here are the criteria that come to mind for me:

Possession of a soul: This one is probably one of the strongest reasons to protect an unborn child for many people, but it's also a matter of religious dogma, and almost certainly beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. To complicate matters further, there are many people who believe that animals have souls too, that maybe even believe plants have souls, and people who may or may not make any value distinctions between human souls and nonhuman souls.

In any case, I don't think that religious dogma about the presence or absence of a soul has any place in formulating laws in a society that values separation of Church and State. Regardless of that fact, I think that other criteria that people use to distinguish life from Life factor largely into how they feel about souls (for those who believe in them at all).

Intelligence: The intelligence of human life is clearly one of the things that is widely valued about human life. By intelligence, I don't just mean language and math and music and such, but the subtle emotional intelligence of humans, our awareness of our own lives, our ability to have plans and hopes and dreams. It feels sad and wrong to snuff out this deep awareness, to end any chance that an intelligent mind might have to fulfill its dreams. An intelligent human mind can comprehend its own death, and it's considered cruel to make a human mind aware and fearful of its own impending demise in most circumstances.

But if intelligence is our guideline, what of the human value of the severely retarded or brain damaged? What of the value of intelligent animals that may be more intelligent that some badly damaged humans?

Potential: A jellyfish or a patch of lichen might be alive, but they have no human potential. A human embryo does have human potential. But as science advances, a flake of dandruff may soon have all the potential to grow into an independent human being that a freshly fertilized human egg has. Every time a man and woman pass in the street, there's a potential for human life to be created. Do we bemoan every such opportunity that is not pursued?

Is there something especially magical about the potential that exists only after a specific egg and a specific sperm have combined? If the answer is, yes, yes because the joining is unique, doesn't this beg the question of human Life being more valuable than other life if we don't also value the uniqueness of fresh and original plant and animal genomes?

Nature doesn't always show enormous regard for the potential of the fertilized egg. Many embryos never survive past gastrulation, the point in embryonic development where the embryo goes from a solid ball of cells to a tube of cells, forming the primitive basis for the digestive track. If a fertilized egg never makes it out of the embryonic stage, its mother may never even be aware that its life (or Life) existed.

The feelings of the living: A big part of what we think about when we think of the sadness of death, and what rouses anger when we consider the crime of murder, is not the loss of life for the one who has died, but the loss of that person's presence in the lives of others.

Yet again, just like intelligence, this is an uncomfortable standard for the value of human life, because we might not want to say that a well-loved person is more deserving of legal protection than someone who is friendless, or even widely disliked. There are certainly some animals who are more loved, and whose deaths would cause greater sadness among the living, than some humans.

Uniqueness: I touched on this in discussing potential, but the loss of an individual's uniqueness is often cited specifically as a regrettable aspect of death. Yet we do not value twins or triplets less, regardless of the fact that they lack genetic uniqueness and typically have less breadth of experiential difference than most people have when compared to any other individual.

Also, uniqueness is not unique to humans. Other forms of life can be unique as well, although perhaps nonhuman uniqueness does not seem to us to have the same richness as human uniqueness.

Humanity: This isn't a clearly distinct criteria, but some of us value other human lives simply because they are like ourselves in many ways, genetically and historically members of the same extended family.

Considering all of this, I'd say that how an individual makes the distinction between life and Life is likely to remain very much in the domain of personal values, with lots of gray areas, and isn't anywhere nearly as simple or as cut-and-dried as your challenge "Convince me that an unborn child isn't human" would suggest.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by segovius
What constitutes 'marriage' though - is it the laws of a given State ? Any State or does God have a list of approved ones ? I suppose this is why the gay marriage thing is so incendiary - a certificate could get you a pass on all that everlasting torment.

But will God even ask to see the certificate before doling out hideous punishments ? And what happens to people like Abraham and the OT patriarchs ? Did they have certificates ? Joseph and Mary ?

What about Adam and Eve - I bet they weren't married but God was cool with that until that fruit business. I guess there wasn't a County Hall then though so it wasn't really their fault.

Hey - what about polygamy ? That's marriage. Is that ok if you have a certificate ? Or are you only allowed one go at it ? That spells trouble for a lot of those Old Testament dudes too.

Complex stuff all this sin and everlasting torment. I suppose God has varying departments and delegates a lot.

I gotta admit Sego, that I probably enjoy your questions about faith the most on this board. :) Not sure why, but you seem to ask the right questions and I get the feeling you're genuinely interested in getting an answer - as opposed to others on this board. (You know who you are.)

I don't want to turn an abortion thread into a gay marriage one, so I'll be brief:

The Bible records a lot of human history (particularly Jewish history). However, recording something isn't the same as approving of it.

Look through those Old Testament passages and try to find anything that resembles approval of polygamy. It isn't there. God works through people even with their flaws, which isn't surprising since none of us are perfect.

Some of the patriarchs adopted cultural practices that were hip in their time, and suffered the consequences of their actions.

Jacob had one of his sons sold into slavery because of it, and let's not forget that had Abraham kept his hands of Hagar, the Middle East probably wouldn't be the bloody mess it is today.

People are justified by their faith in the Messiah and that alone, and I have no doubt that there will be people who struggle with sexual sins and lust who inherit eternal life.

Now, taking the evil in your life and calling it righteousness is what gets most people in trouble. And that's getting quite common these days.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by New
You're a pretty smart guy, BRussell.

Just wanted to let you know... :) Oh believe me, I know. ;)

Actually I got that blood transfusion analogy from a Sherry Colb (lawyer who writes about abortion and that sort of thing) article, but I can't find it right now.

[Whisper]

Originally posted by BRussell
That's because that is the basic argument. I think you could make an argument that an unborn baby, particularly one early in development, doesn't have any rights, and people often do make that argument. But to me, the more basic argument is about the rights of the pregnant woman.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question, relating to your "artificial uterus" example:

What if the government went up to you and said that they had found this other person who needed a blood transfusion from you or he would die. You're the only person with the right type of blood in the whole world. Let's say this transfusion takes many months and would have a major impact on your life. Let's even say that you are required to care for that person for many years after the blood transfusion is completed. If you refuse, you are killing that person.

Should the government have the power to force you to do this, even if you don't want to? Sure, maybe you'd want to, and everybody's happy. But we're talking about the government making you do it. Would that be right?

My point is that even if the unborn baby is a human life with all the rights of an adult, should the government force you to carry the baby in pregnancy and then give birth to it, even if you don't want to? In that example you would be killing someone through inaction. In abortion, it's through a rather deliberate action.

Edit: Further more, you aren't required to care for your child after it's born. See, there's this thing called "adoption", and it lets you give your kid to somebody else, thus absolving you of the responsibility of raising said kid.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Whisper
In that example you would be killing someone through inaction. In abortion, it's through a rather deliberate action.

Edit: Further more, you aren't required to care for your child after it's born. See, there's this thing called "adoption", and it lets you give your kid to somebody else, thus absolving you of the responsibility of raising said kid.

You still have to go through the process of bearing the child. That said abortion is not, nor should it ever be, a form of birth control. A child is not given the rights of an adult for very good reasons, they aren't developed enough to make choices that would be in their best interest. Human babies are some of the most prematurely born infants in the animal world -- it takes a long time for us to develop to the ability to bear children and beyond that we continue to grow for another 10 or so years. There is obviously a social ethic that states that a child is not responsible for their actions (this is best portrayed in light of the fact that a parent is responsible if a child steals something or say vandalizes something). There is a point at which this social ethic turns the responsibility over to the child, and this is where juvenial detention comes in (and this is a social standard enforced by the government). Prior to the child being able to feed themselves, they need a caretaker and indeed are uniquely dependent on that caretaker -- meaning that there exist laws which do in fact require a parent to sustain their child's life (indeed, this fact continues even after the child is capable of feeding themselves). Legally, the parent and child are one unit that is only separable when the state steps in (generally in defense of the child).

What I mean by all this, is that the state accepts as fact, that the parent can make the best descisions for the child and assumes that this is the case unless proven otherwise. A parent making the descision to terminate a pregnancy, under these guidlines should be assumed to be making the right descision for their 'child' unless it can be proven otherwise.

As far as a fetus being "human," you need to define your terms. Human isn't a scientific term.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Whisper
In that example you would be killing someone through inaction. In abortion, it's through a rather deliberate action. True, and the law does usually distinguish between action and inaction, though less so these days with good samaritan laws and such. But action vs. inaction is kind of a nicety that really doesn't change the fact that you want the government to force people to use their own bodies for the lives of others. I can't think of another situation where that's the case, whether we're talking about fetuses or adults.
Edit: Further more, you aren't required to care for your child after it's born. See, there's this thing called "adoption", and it lets you give your kid to somebody else, thus absolving you of the responsibility of raising said kid. OK, leave that out. Does that change the hypothetical for you really? It's still months of blood transfusion that the government is forcing you to undergo and interfere with your life. Would that be right?

[dmz]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Complete chastity has never existed.

Care to explain this one away, dmz?



Not controversial enough.

[Ra]

Originally posted by BRussell
Let me ask you a hypothetical question, relating to your "artificial uterus" example:

What if the government went up to you and said that they had found this other person who needed a blood transfusion from you or he would die. You're the only person with the right type of blood in the whole world. Let's say this transfusion takes many months and would have a major impact on your life. Let's even say that you are required to care for that person for many years after the blood transfusion is completed. If you refuse, you are killing that person.

Should the government have the power to force you to do this, even if you don't want to? Sure, maybe you'd want to, and everybody's happy. But we're talking about the government making you do it. Would that be right?

My point is that even if the unborn baby is a human life with all the rights of an adult, should the government force you to carry the baby in pregnancy and then give birth to it, even if you don't want to? The flaw with this analogy is that you in no way caused the person to need a blood transfusion.

[Towel]

Originally posted by shetline
I won't try to convince of that. What I'll try to do is convince you that the question is much more complicated than that.
...
Considering all of this, I'd say that how an individual makes the distinction between life and Life is likely to remain very much in the domain of personal values, with lots of gray areas, and isn't anywhere nearly as simple or as cut-and-dried as your challenge "Convince me that an unborn child isn't human" would suggest. Very well said, Shetline. You described my own views better than I possibly could have.

I might tack onto your discussion about "potential for life" (the critical one, I think, for a pro-lifer) the fact that *most* fertilized eggs don't make it into viable fetuses. Something like 3/4 either fail to gastrulate, fail to implant, or miscarry. The vast majority of these occur before the woman is aware she is pregnant. If every human conceptus is worthy of the same considerations as an adult...well, I just can't imagine what it would be like to be a woman in that world. ("Let nature take its course" is horribly immoral for adults; how can it be less so for conceptuses?)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Ra
The flaw with this analogy is that you in no way caused the person to need a blood transfusion. Sure, no analogy is perfect. But it's designed to address the specific issue raised by Whisper about whether the fetus is human. My argument is that even if it is a full person, that doesn't conclusively resolve the issue.

I think shetline's answer to Whisper, about life vs. Life, or human vs. person, is part of it. I personally don't believe that a fertilized egg (for example) should have the same rights as a fully-grown adult. Hell, even 17-year-olds don't have the same rights as adults.

But I think that's only part of the issue, as the analogy illustrates. You still have to deal at some point with the idea that, if abortion were illegal, the government would be forcing you to use your body to bring another person to life.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by BRussell
Sure, no analogy is perfect. But it's designed to address the specific issue raised by Whisper about whether the fetus is human. My argument is that even if it is a full person, that doesn't conclusively resolve the issue.

I think shetline's answer to Whisper, about life vs. Life, or human vs. person, is part of it. I personally don't believe that a fertilized egg (for example) should have the same rights as a fully-grown adult. Hell, even 17-year-olds don't have the same rights as adults.

But I think that's only part of the issue, as the analogy illustrates. You still have to deal at some point with the idea that, if abortion were illegal, the government would be forcing you to use your body to bring another person to life.

True, 17 years olds do not have the same entitlements as adults.
But with abortion, the quarrel is essentially over one single basic right: existence.

I think the core argument over abortion is that pro-lifers are trying to draw a line in the sand at which society must take responsibility for life. To preserve it, cherish it, defend it.

When the religious community argued in the seventies that the legalization of abortion would lead to a debate on euthanasia within a generation, they were laughed off the public stage. No compassionate society like our would allow something like that, abortion-rights activists said.

Yet they were right. Every Christian leader from the Pope to the most ardent fundamentalist protestant, talks these days about defending "a culture of life." I think most liberals dismiss this as spin and sloganeering, but the religious community has never been much good at spin and sloganeering to begin with.

If people can absolve themselves of such a basic responsibility as raising their own child, how do you instill environmental responsibility, the care of the poor and homeless, workplace ethics etc.?

Our society has a lot of talk about helping the less fortunate and being "good people".
But that's all it is - talk.

We have record numbers of poor and homeless, and we evade the responsibility, We have a complete breakdown of workplace ethics, from Enron to tax evasion, to everybody stealing office supplies - and we evade responsibility. We have record environmental pollution with deadly chemicals and no-one, from the executive suites to the low paid truck driver - will risk his job to tell about it.

Time doesn't permit me to launch into how nobody wants to take responsibility for what violence in media and video games is doing to young people, or any of the dozens of other examples of how our Western society is decaying because everyone wants rights but no-one wants to take responsibility for anything they do.

The pro-lifers have tracked this to what they believe is the single most basic evasion of responsibility in our society - the abortion of human life.

And they've drawn a line in the sand and decided to fight for it. Good for them.

[hardeeharhar]

What people fail to realize is that a generation before roe v wade, euthenasia was accepted as a reasonable way to rid the world of unwanted 'sub-humans.' The debate over euthenasia is not one that came about because of abortion.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Frank777
:thumbsup:

[crazychester]

Originally posted by Frank777
Time doesn't permit me to launch into how nobody wants to take responsibility for what violence in media and video games is doing to young people, or any of the dozens of other examples of how our Western society is decaying because everyone wants rights but no-one wants to take responsibility for anything they do.

The pro-lifers have tracked this to what they believe is the single most basic evasion of responsibility in our society - the abortion of human life.
Um, it's not a new thing you know.

Selected highlights from The History of Abortion (aka Stand Over There You Sluts While We Decide What's Best For You)

2600 BC – First recorded recipe for an abortion producing drug.
>Gosh that's a long time ago.

1850 BC – Egyptians record recipe for contraceptive pessaries, one made from crocodile dung.
>Better than a poke in the c**t with a blunt stick. Note my consideration for those with delicate sensibilities.

4th Century AD – St. Augustine lays down Catholic dogma sanctioning abortion up to 80 days for female fetus and up to 40 days for male fetus.
>How very liberal of you Augustine in a somewhat sexist kind of way.

13th Century AD - St. Thomas Aquinas states Catholic dogma justifying sexual intercourse only for procreation.
>OK Tom, if you think it'll work.

1564 AD - Italian anatomist, Fallopius, discoverer of Fallopian tubes, publicizes condoms as anti-venereal disease devices.
>I reckon if we had a time machine and could transport a whole bunch of groovy dudes like Fallopius from the Renaissance to now and transport a whole lot of uptight people from now to back then, they'd all be a lot happier.

1588 – Pope Sixtus forbids all abortions
>The 4,000 year Good Thing™ is over gals.

1591 - Pope Gregory XIV rescinds Pope Sixtus’ edict against abortion
>Oh make up your minds!

1803 - Great Britain makes abortion a misdemeanor
>But you guys are C of E!

1821 – Connecticut outlaws abortion after quickening, early abortions are legal
>I still have a bad feeling about the way things are going.

1860’s – All states pass comprehensive, criminal abortion laws. Most remain until 1973.
>Hello cruel world.

1869 – Pope Pius IX forbids all abortions in exchange for France’s Napoleon III acknowledging papal infallibility.
>Quite the deal maker weren't you Pius.

1924 – First scientific confirmation of women’s ovulatory and fertility cycle.
>NEWS FLASH! Women have an ovulatory and fertility cycle! (Women smile smugly and snicker from the sidelines.)

1930 – Pope Pius XI affirms Catholic dogma that every act of sexual intercourse is a sin unless performed with a reproductive intent.
>Another party-pooper Pius! You guys are no fun at all.

1956 – Dr. John Rock (a Catholic) and others developed the birth control pill. Their research was funded by two women.
>You rock Dr Rock! And so do the two women with NO NAMES who made it happen.

1967 – Then-Governor Ronald Reagan of California (who became a very anti-choice president) signs the most liberal abortion law of the times allowing freedom of choice during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.
>So why did you change your mind Ronnie? Or did you just lose it?

1970 – Hawaii, Alaska, and New York repeal criminal abortion laws allowing abortion in the first trimester.
>Things are starting to look up.

Monday Morning, January 22nd, 1973 – The U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision, hands down Roe v Wade making a 1st trimester abortion a private decision between a woman & her physician. In the 2nd trimester states can put limitations on abortion with regard to the health of the pregnant woman. In the 3rd trimester states can make abortion illegal except to save the life of the woman.
>Hooray! Thank god that's over.

1973 – Indiana passes first call for a Constitutional Convention to ban abortion.
>But, but, but.....

1989 – Webster v Reproductive Health Services is handed down by Supreme Court allowing states to place increased restrictions on women’s access to abortion.
>And things were going so well.....

1993 – Newly inaugurated President Clinton reverses several anti-choice policies of Reagan & Bush administrations including gag rule.
>Thanks Bill. Gag rule? Is that somebody's idea of a sick joke?

1993 – Dr. David Gunn is murdered by anti-choice fanatic in Florida. He is the first of a series of abortion providers shot in the following years.
>Couldn't think of a better way to get your point across huh? Let me see if I've got this right. Abortion is wrong and euthanasia is wrong but cold-blooded murder is just fine and dandy. Righto Jeeves!

1994 – President Clinton signs Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) making it a federal crime to interfere with the provision of reproductive health care.
>We need laws for this?

1995 – U.S. clinical trials of Mifepristone (RU486 - the French abortion pill).
>Damn fishy those French.

1998 – January 22nd is the 25th anniversary of legal abortion in America. January 29th: A police officer is killed and a nurse is severely injured in a bomb blast outside a Birmingham clinic.
>Happy anniversary legal abor....*BOOOOOOOOOM*

2000 – FDA approves Mifeprex (RU 486 - the French abortion pill) for use in U.S.
>See those bloody French are to blame for everything. They obviously never got over Pius IX pulling the wool over Nap III's eyes.

And now it's now.

[crazychester]

Oh and BTW, do you honestly believe it would have panned out this way if men bore children?

Yes, sadly, I'm sure some of you do. Belief is easy. It's living it that's hard.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by crazychester
Oh and BTW, do you honestly believe it would have panned out this way if men bore children?

Yes, sadly, I'm sure some of you do. Belief is easy. It's living it that's hard.

In the contrary there is many examples of men of principles and high moral values, that where hurried to get rid of some newcoming babies.


And here come my simplistic opinions about abortion.

As Shetline emhasized greatly in his thread, there is different levels of life, from the vegetative to the conscious one: Fetus are basically vegative life, but have the potential of an adult human one

Woman are the owners of their corpse. Imagine in the future that we can let man bore the child. If the woman refuse to bore it, should we oblige the father to do it ?

The future of a child is important. Being a non desired child is not a cakewalk. Unlike animals, who do not choose to procreate, and are always good parents granted to their instinct, human are weird being who need proper motivation to compensate their small instincts. I don't think that you can force a parent to grant the necessary love and attention to a non desired child, nor that you can say that the best thing for a child is to be placed in an institution.

Now, it's not because the future is not good, that you have the right to stop this future.

So my own conclusion is :
Abortion is the lesser of the two evils*, at the condition it's practiced before conscience appear.
Abortion is always a failure (women are never appear to go throught this procedure), and should be prevented (read contraception)

* the two evils are :
- a doomed life for both the parents and especially the mother and the child
- the end of a full potential life.

[Stoo]

Abortion is the lesser of the two evils*, at the condition it's practiced before conscience appear.

But what if conscience only appears after birth?

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Stoo
But what if conscience only appears after birth?

Well at 6 month a fetus is able to live outside her mother. Even if he has not a conscience like the one of an adult, he has an embryonic one.

But you are true that there is no absolute limit. I am not able to tell you at what age the concience start. I will have also problems to tell you what is conscience. I can't even tell you if dolphins have conscience, I guess they have one, even if it's more limited than the human one.

It's more simple to say that if you want to respect life at all cost, you respect all life. Now in real life, it's not that simple : 30, % of embryo die early due to huge deficiencies. There is no absolute.

Abortion has existed for ages. You have no better chances to stop abortion than to stop sex between people. If a law passe, prohibiting abortion in some states of US, women will go in the neighboor states where this practice is alloweded. The only difference is that it will cost too much for poor people. Perhaps these poor people will be aborted in very poor conditions leading to an huge morbidity and mortality due to the malpractice.
When I was a resident in surgery , one of my teacher said that in the old days he was witnessing many gynecologic complications due to " tricoteuses" (read people who where practicing clandestine abortion).
Granted to the law allowing abortion, this kind of complications slowed down, and the estimated number of abortion in France slowed down (because the contraception was promoted).