[Thread Split] Abortion

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:46 pm

I think it should be noted that the morning after pill does not terminate a pregnancy, it stops the process from even starting. No different than any other contraceptive but can be administered pre-emptively to stop the process in the absence of any other precautions.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:57 pm

Foil wrote:
Jeff250 wrote:Can we agree that taking the morning after pill--even if you think it is morally wrong--isn't first degree murder?
Meaning that it's not morally equivalent to first-degree murder, or that it shouldn't ever be legally prosecuted as such?

Jeff250 wrote:I originally meant morally, but I'd also be curious to hear you out if you thought that it was morally first-degree murder but that it should not be legally enforced as such.

Hm. I believe it could be morally equivalent to first-degree murder, if it's an abortion pill (rather than a contraceptive), and the person believes the arbortion will end the life of a legitimate person, and they still choose to do it. Of course, that would be impossible to legislate in any case.

[Edit: I'm also assuming here that "morning-after pill" refers to the products which actually destroy an embryo days or weeks after conception. If you're referring to emergency-contraceptive pills, then I have zero issues with it.]

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:19 am

Foil wrote:Is there anything both sides can agree on here?

I think we can all agree that women considering abortion, along with the people surrounding them need a lot of support. If you know someone who's pregnant and wasn't trying... then your answer is is that you need to love and support that person as much as you possibly can. I also think that we can all agree that the orphans and abused children in the world deserve governments that work hard to protect and provide for them... and deserve as many people as possible who are willing to love them even though it hurts.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:14 pm

well put, Snoopy.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:55 am

Abortion SUCKS. this is a 3d ultra sound picture that my Daughter sent me just the other day.

it's my Grandson. Her first child, he's 24 weeks, and can still be aborted.

tell me that's just a Fetus, a lump of flesh, a Parasite

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:03 am

while I hope you and your family experience great joy from the child once born, CUDA, I hate to disappoint you with this news:
Yes, that is, currently, 'Just' a fetus.
Choosing to abort near the end of the 2nd trimester isn't really all that common, BTW, except for medical exceptions, so I think you are getting overdramatic, one of the real issues when abortion becomes the topic for discussion.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:24 am

"Fetus" is the proper medical term, yes, but what I think Cuda is getting at (overdramatically, but I don't hold that against him as a grandfather

), is the fact it's still legal for his daughter to take the life of that boy.

Personally, what I take issue with here is the use of "[it] isn't really all that common" as a defense for 2nd/3rd trimester abortion. How frequently or infrequently something happens should have zero bearing on its legality, much less its moral standing.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:27 am

what is the legality, in Oregon, of late 2nd trimester abortions? Unrestricted?
As a grandfather myself(soon to be 3 times over), I perfectly understand the emotions involved. I just don't wish to see my choice process or anyone else's imposed on total strangers whose situations, emotions and medical issues I have no way of understanding.

edit: found my answer--'In Oregon, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of December 2012:

•Oregon does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions—such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations on publicly funded abortions—often found in other states"

so yes, CUDA is correct, the fetus could be legally aborted in Oregon.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:29 am

I get back to my post about dehumanizing terminology.

we call it a fetus. I see a human baby in that picture. it's much easier to kill something like that when you cannot put a face to it, when it's a "Fetus" in our mind and not a Baby.

how many abortions do you think would happen if all mothers were required to have and view a 3D ultrasound before they were allowed to get an abortion.

BUT we cannot do that!!! it would cause undo mental stress to the mother.... it's much easier if it's just a lump of flesh with no emotional connection. I'm sorry if I have no sympathy for their "mental Stress" when I see a child crying out in pain as it's killed.

the reality is there is No difference in the result of an abortion, or the recent shooting here in Portland. or the one that you just posted about in Connecticut., some one is DEAD. and yet I see you're willing to call for Gun control.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:35 pm

CUDA wrote:I get back to my post about dehumanizing terminology.

we call it a fetus. I see a human baby in that picture. it's much easier to kill something like that when you cannot put a face to it, when it's a "Fetus" in our mind and not a Baby.

how many abortions do you think would happen if all mothers were required to have and view a 3D ultrasound before they were allowed to get an abortion.

most data indicates about the same. Usually, the mind is made up before that point, CUDA.

BUT we cannot do that!!! it would cause undo mental stress to the mother.... it's much easier if it's just a lump of flesh with no emotional connection. I'm sorry if I have no sympathy for their "mental Stress" when I see a child crying out in pain as it's killed.

I guarantee you that no cries would be heard by you or anyone from a 20 week fetus. Once again, overdramatic BS isn't your friend in this debate.

the reality is there is No difference in the result of an abortion, or the recent shooting here in Portland. or the one that you just posted about in Connecticut., some one is DEAD. and yet I see you're willing to call for Gun control.

because one is a very private, family decision, and one affects countless people who are total strangers. There IS a difference, even if you don't wish to see it.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:15 pm

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:I get back to my post about dehumanizing terminology.

we call it a fetus. I see a human baby in that picture. it's much easier to kill something like that when you cannot put a face to it, when it's a "Fetus" in our mind and not a Baby.

how many abortions do you think would happen if all mothers were required to have and view a 3D ultrasound before they were allowed to get an abortion.
most data indicates about the same. Usually, the mind is made up before that point, CUDA.

link??

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:BUT we cannot do that!!! it would cause undo mental stress to the mother.... it's much easier if it's just a lump of flesh with no emotional connection. I'm sorry if I have no sympathy for their "mental Stress" when I see a child crying out in pain as it's killed.
I guarantee you that no cries would be heard by you or anyone from a 20 week fetus. Once again, overdramatic BS isn't your friend in this debate.

way to dismiss it. so what you're saying if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it. did it actually fall

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:the reality is there is No difference in the result of an abortion, or the recent shooting here in Portland. or the one that you just posted about in Connecticut., some one is DEAD. and yet I see you're willing to call for Gun control.
because one is a very private, family decision, and one affects countless people who are total strangers. There IS a difference, even if you don't wish to see it.

there is no difference. life has ended. the only difference is the your opinion, Slicks opinion, what you deem as valuable life by YOUR standards. you are making the call of who is worthy to grieve over and who is not.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:18 pm

callmeslick wrote:
the reality is there is No difference in the result of an abortion, or the recent shooting here in Portland. or the one that you just posted about in Connecticut., some one is DEAD. and yet I see you're willing to call for Gun control.
because one is a very private, family decision, and one affects countless people who are total strangers. There IS a difference, even if you don't wish to see it.

Let's be accurate here. The difference you're referring to is:

The first [abortion] affects one child in one family.
The second [shooting] affects multiple children and adults in many families.

Where is the moral difference here? Let's say the shooter only killed his mom and siblings. Would you then classify it as a private/family decision, which shouldn't be intruded upon by law? [Obviously not, so why is taking the life of an individual fetus/child not a matter for law?]

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:56 pm

we're just going to circle back to viability and a woman's privacy right, so why bother?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:38 pm

“A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

“To sin by silence, when they should protest, makes cowards of men.”
― Abraham Lincoln

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:42 pm

"Judge Not, lest Ye be judged"
who said that?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:28 pm

callmeslick wrote:"Judge Not, lest Ye be judged"
who said that?

do you really wish to get into a battle of scripture with me?

John 15:13
There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends.

I am prepared to face God's judgement in defense of a life.

Micah 6:8
And what does the LORD require of you? To seek justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

I will seek Justice for the unborn. I will have mercy on those that make tough choices. and I will be humble before God in their defense.

Psalm 82:3
Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

there is no one more weak and fatherless then an unborn child. there is no one more oppressed then a defenseless baby

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:30 pm

quote away, CUDA, but the bottom line is this:
You believe, firmly, that God will judge abortion to be wrong. Why not leave the judgement in God's hands?

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:43 pm

This still doesn't make sense, callmeslick. You claim that abortion is a private matter... while maintaining that other things (e.g. firearms, to borrow from the other thread) are matters for protective law?

Also, your view of divine judgement seems arbitrarily selective. Let's say we were talking about theft. Would you ask Cuda the same thing, i.e., "You believe, firmly, that God will judge theft to be wrong. Why not leave the judgement in God's hands?"

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:22 pm

Foil wrote:This still doesn't make sense, callmeslick. You claim that abortion is a private matter... while maintaining that other things (e.g. firearms, to borrow from the other thread) are matters for protective law?

yes, you read me correctly. Where does the differentiation not make sense?

Also, your view of divine judgement seems arbitrarily selective. Let's say we were talking about theft. Would you ask Cuda the same thing, i.e., "You believe, firmly, that God will judge theft to be wrong. Why not leave the judgement in God's hands?"

well, you see the arguments of a skeptic, from me. I am concerned about societal disruption, both on the subject of gun control or other lawmaking.
I don't see abortion as a matter which would in any way disrupt or harm day-to-day societal function, sorry.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:21 pm

callmeslick wrote:quote away, CUDA, but the bottom line is this:
You believe, firmly, that God will judge abortion to be wrong. Why not leave the judgement in God's hands?

I DONT GET IT!!!
you're calling for Gun control in regards to the Connecticut shooting. I am asking for nothing different. we are trying to prevent the same thing. Death. you're just choosing not to give the same status to the victim that I see

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:27 pm

that is correct, CUDA, and we are not going to resolve that impasse. Hopefully, we can both agree that the victims in CT were functional, on-the-ground
human beings, whose families in no way planned today's outcome.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:25 pm

Spidey’s random moment of absurd irony…

Many years ago, animals developed a technique to help insure the survival of their offspring…it’s called internal gestation.

Come forward to the present…these exact conditions are now being used as a justification, to terminate offspring.

Oh the irony…

You may now return to the stupid argument between politics and religion.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:17 pm

CUDA wrote:how many abortions do you think would happen if all mothers were required to have and view a 3D ultrasound before they were allowed to get an abortion.

BUT we cannot do that!!! it would cause undo mental stress to the mother.... it's much easier if it's just a lump of flesh with no emotional connection. I'm sorry if I have no sympathy for their "mental Stress" when I see a child crying out in pain as it's killed.

I probably agree with your stance on second trimester abortions more than I disagree with it, but I'm strongly opposed to using emotions as a moral compass on this issue.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:55 pm

If this issue isn't an emotional one, then one doesn't exist. The whole choice to have an abortion is based on emotion, shouldn't a person have both sides of an issue before they make a decision?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:02 pm

Spidey wrote:Spidey’s random moment of absurd irony…

Many years ago, animals developed a technique to help insure the survival of their offspring…it’s called internal gestation.

Come forward to the present…these exact conditions are now being used as a justification, to terminate offspring.

Oh the irony…

You may now return to the stupid argument between politics and religion.

I disagree with "developed", but that's a good one!

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:23 pm

CUDA wrote:If this issue isn't an emotional one, then one doesn't exist. The whole choice to have an abortion is based on emotion, shouldn't a person have both sides of an issue before they make a decision?

So you're saying that as long as people are appealing to emotions to guide their actions and not some better source of judgment, then you might as well make them feel the emotions that will coerce them into doing what you want? I think that there are already too many emotions in play, and I would rather people instead take the time to try to come to a decision that they will be content with for the rest of their lives and not the result of a temporary feeling.

On a political level, I don't believe that legislating these kinds of laws is really the role of government either.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:13 am

Jeff250 wrote:
CUDA wrote:If this issue isn't an emotional one, then one doesn't exist. The whole choice to have an abortion is based on emotion, shouldn't a person have both sides of an issue before they make a decision?
So you're saying that as long as people are appealing to emotions to guide their actions and not some better source of judgment, then you might as well make them feel the emotions that will coerce them into doing what you want? I think that there are already too many emotions in play, and I would rather people instead take the time to try to come to a decision that they will be content with for the rest of their lives and not the result of a temporary feeling.

On a political level, I don't believe that legislating these kinds of laws is really the role of government either.

NO. What I'm saying is that the act of abortion is an emotional one by nature and often a traumatic one. Shouldn't one have all the facts, before they go through with one?
Don't you think it could be even more of a trauma when they find out AFTER the fact that what they did is something that they might not have done if they had more information?
The problem is many groups don't want knowledge on the matter. They only want what they want. An informed populace will make an informed decision, and that it contrary to their agenda.

vision · Post by **vision** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:32 am

CUDA wrote:The problem is many groups don't want knowledge on the matter. They only want what they want. An informed populace will make an informed decision, and that it contrary to their agenda.

Oh good, conspiracy time. That happens when you run out of good arguments and start calling in the bogey man. Thread over.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:04 am

Take everything at face value, vision. If there were any secret agendas they would have told you (or it would be dead obvious).

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:39 am

Jeff250 wrote:
CUDA wrote:If this issue isn't an emotional one, then one doesn't exist. The whole choice to have an abortion is based on emotion, shouldn't a person have both sides of an issue before they make a decision?
So you're saying that as long as people are appealing to emotions to guide their actions and not some better source of judgment, then you might as well make them feel the emotions that will coerce them into doing what you want? I think that there are already too many emotions in play, and I would rather people instead take the time to try to come to a decision that they will be content with for the rest of their lives and not the result of a temporary feeling.

On a political level, I don't believe that legislating these kinds of laws is really the role of government either.

I certainly agree with you on the former. When discussing where law "draws the line", it shouldn't be emotionally-based. That was part of the problem in the Roe vs. Wade decision, and I think it's part of the problem the pro-life movement has with its ads. It's the reason these threads go so long, and it's the reason I had at least three professors who assigned work on "any topic you want... except abortion." If the dialogue centered around the focal point (personhood and protection of law), I don't think we'd have such polarization.

On the latter, legislation, I have to disagree. We legislate protection for all kinds of people (and often even animals) and statuses; I see no reason not to extend this to the unborn.

vision · Post by **vision** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:01 pm

Foil wrote:I see no reason not to extend this to the unborn.

And since every cell in your body can be programed to become any other type of cell, and we can clone living creatures, every time you shave you are killing millions of little unborn Foils. Maybe we can extend rights to all groups of arbitrary cells?

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:09 pm

Of course not. Perhaps you missed the discussion regarding the distinction (separate DNA, separate organs, separate musculoskeletal, separate nervous/brain system, etc.) between "cells/organs of one's body" and an embryo/fetus?

Are you somehow claiming that one of my skin cells can grow into an individual human by itself? ...Or are you claiming that if someone took the effort to artifically clone me from one of my skin cells, that the clone should be considered no different than a cell which came off while I shaved?

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:20 pm

Jeff250 wrote:On a political level, I don't believe that legislating these kinds of laws is really the role of government either.

Yeah... the personhood question really is the center of the argument.

If the unborn are people, then it's one of the most central roles of the government to legislate to protect them from being killed.

If the unborn aren't, then what people do with "their bodies" or "inviable tissue" or "tumors" or whatever you want to call it isn't any of the government's business.

That's why I constantly come back to asking for a legal definition to individual human life that isn't arbitrary & is robust.... because it really does a whole ton to clarify what is and what isn't the government's role on a number of issues.

callmeslick: I hear you saying that you're just not going to see fetuses as people and that's that. I have the same challenge to you as above: tell me your definition of a human life that should be protected by the government, justify it scientifically, and allow us to challenge it... if it's a decent definition it'll stand up to the test...

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:06 am

Foil wrote:Of course not...Are you somehow claiming that one of my skin cells can grow into an individual human by itself?

An embryo can't grow into a individual human without some help, namely the mother. Why would you say your skin cells don't have rights but an embryo does? I smell some prejudice.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:51 am

Well the difference is that no such process has started, as it has in conception, so if you were to actually start the cloning process, then I would imagine you would have all the same issues.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:00 am

vision wrote:Why would you say your skin cells don't have rights but an embryo does? I smell some prejudice.

Please go back and read what I've already stated about the fundamental differences between an embryo and a paternal skin cell. [Hint: It's on this page.] If you don't understand it, go talk to a professional biologist, who can explain the differences further.

[Edit: If you're still asking, "What if they used the skin cell to clone you (e.g. create a new embryo with your DNA)?", then as Spidey said, it's now an embryo, bringing us right back to the above.]

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:19 am

Now, I think snoopy's post gets us back to the root of the topic:

snoopy wrote:... the personhood question really is the center of the argument.

If the unborn are people, then it's one of the most central roles of the government to legislate to protect them from being killed.

If the unborn aren't, then what people do with "their bodies" or "inviable tissue" or "tumors" or whatever you want to call it isn't any of the government's business.

That's why I constantly come back to asking for a legal definition to individual human life that isn't arbitrary & is robust.... because it really does a whole ton to clarify what is and what isn't the government's role on a number of issues.

...tell me your definition of a human life that should be protected by the government, justify it scientifically, and allow us to challenge it... if it's a decent definition it'll stand up to the test...

This cuts right to the heart of the matter - what definition do we use for determining which individual human life is protected?

Do we pick a fuzzy demarcation like "conception" or "week X" or "developmental stage Y" or "birth" or something even fuzzier like "viable"? Or do we create a firm rigorous legal definition?

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:53 pm

So, if we extend person-hood rights to the unborn, should we then start to give rights to other UN's? Should we give marriage benefits to the unmarried? After all, they have to potential to be married one day. If the unborn are persons in the eyes of the government, are we going to start issuing pre-birth certificates? Will parents be able to claim the unborn as dependents on their taxes? If a woman's body spontaneously aborts, will she have to go through a long legal process to prove she wasn't negligent for the death of her unborn?

There has been a lot of talk about the gradient of development and the inability to draw a defining line on person-hood. Drawing the line a birth is the least complicated. One day you are unborn, the next day you are born. We draw all sorts of other lines in our legal system based on birth: driving age, drinking age, retirement age. No one seems to have a problem with that. I can't collect social security a few months before my 65th birthday because I'm "almost retired."

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:16 pm

vision wrote:So, if we extend person-hood rights to the unborn, should we then start to give rights to other UN's? Should we give marriage benefits to the unmarried? After all, they have to potential to be married one day. If the unborn are persons in the eyes of the government, are we going to start issuing pre-birth certificates? Will parents be able to claim the unborn as dependents on their taxes? If a woman's body spontaneously aborts, will she have to go through a long legal process to prove she wasn't negligent for the death of her unborn?

There has been a lot of talk about the gradient of development and the inability to draw a defining line on person-hood. Drawing the line a birth is the least complicated. One day you are unborn, the next day you are born. We draw all sorts of other lines in our legal system based on birth: driving age, drinking age, retirement age. No one seems to have a problem with that. I can't collect social security a few months before my 65th birthday because I'm "almost retired."

ya well the difference is the day before you get your drivers license or the day before you turn legal drinking age or the day before retirement they cannot legally kill you. I know it's just a Minor detail but a detail none the less.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:34 pm

vision wrote:So, if we extend person-hood rights to the unborn, should we then start to give rights to other UN's?

Ah, the "slippery slope" argument. Usually reserved for arguments about gateway drugs or moral decline... no, doesn't work here, either.

Personhood rights should be granted where they are appropriate. Whether it's appropriate to grant them to the unborn/preborn/embryos/fetuses is the only question being addressed here.

vision wrote:Drawing the line [at] birth is the least complicated.

Are you claiming that the ethical basis for drawing the line at birth is "because that's the easiest"? -- That's a poor moral argument (unless you're a moral nihilist?)

Or are you saying it's the most rigorous / well-defined? -- It's certainly not, as partial-birth procedures, questions of umbilical connection, etc. clearly demonstrate.