DescentBB

Foil wrote:[ partial-birth abortion ]....It's actually used most often as a "convenience" abortion, not a life-saving measure (I'll post the stats on this when I get the chance)....

I'd like to see those stats because the idea that people would ask for that procedure, and also that doctors would provide that procedure on request, simply for "convenience" sake is unbelievable to me.

DCrazy wrote:Well, he's slightly incorrect. "Current research suggests that fertilised embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time." source

Yes, that's essentially a "fail-to-implant" rate for already-fertilized eggs, not menstruation (as Testiculese was referring to).

TIGERassault wrote:...I think you forgot to make the connection between me being wrong in a previous comment in your post there.

Nope, you must have missed it. I was pointing to your earlier statement, where you made incorrect statements like, "fetuses... don't breathe... are a part of the mother...".

Will Robinson wrote:

Foil wrote:[ partial-birth abortion ]....It's actually used most often as a "convenience" abortion, not a life-saving measure (I'll post the stats on this when I get the chance)....

I'd like to see those stats because the idea that people would ask for that procedure, and also that doctors would provide that procedure on request, simply for "convenience" sake is unbelievable to me.

After doing some research, I'll admit that I was too hasty in saying I could find some definitive statistics. Most of the stats I could find specifically referring to partial-birth abortions were questionable, and there seems to be a consensus that there are still not any good statistics on that procedure.

So, the best information I could find on "reasons for abortion" were 1987 and 2005 studies done by the Alan Guttmacher Institute. They don't specify the type of procedure, but there are some fairly telling statistics there, especially when looking at how common the "I can't afford it" and "it would change my life too much" reasons are.

That said, even some of the material I found that generally support partial-birth abortions (ex.) admit that the procedure is used "because she is not ready to have a baby" into the second trimester.

Oh, and I would hope that women don't ask for that procedure, either. My guess is that most of the time when it's used, it's suggested by the doctors, who use the term "dilate and extract", so the mothers aren't really aware of what actually happens to the child.

I found out somethying rather frightening. Here in Oregon, you don't have to be a medical doctor to perform an abortion. o_0 In fact, the whole industry hardly has any regulation at all.

Since I hate both sides, can someone please tell me:
According to you, when does life begin, and if it began as semen, could you support ending it just for the mother and fathers want to not have a baby.

I don't have any idea, in my philosophy, when life begins, except after six weeks I KNOW it is life, and shouldn't be aborted (partial birth abortions) and conception I KNOW is not life (something that can go away with the morning after pill).

Life began a few billion years ago.

Or 6,000 years ago if you're into fables.

Dakatsu wrote:According to you, when does life begin...

I personally believe life begins at conception (sperm & egg together). Biologically, that's when the child's DNA is established, and chronologically, that's when it begins developing.

Dakatsu wrote:...after six weeks I KNOW it is life, ... and conception I KNOW is not life (something that can go away with the morning after pill).

Various drugs can cause the mother's body to reject the new life, at any point in the pregnancy, so that's not really a good rationale for saying it's "not life".

Some try to use approximate development dates for the beginning of life (i.e. when the heart starts beating at about three/four weeks, etc.). But as was mentioned before, there's really no way to make that a definitive mark for the beginning, simply because it's a process, always dependent on previous development.

In my sense of ethics, the only reasonable point to say "this is the beginning" is conception, when the life is given its uniqueness (e.g. DNA, which is set from the very first moment!) and it begins to grow.

Foil wrote:Some try to use approximate development dates for the beginning of life (i.e. when the heart starts beating at about three/four weeks, etc.). But as was mentioned before, there's really no way to make that a definitive mark for the beginning, simply because it's a process, always dependent on previous development.

As much as I've disagreed with you I have to say that's true. Development is a process, and as such is always self-building.

Foil wrote:In my sense of ethics, the only reasonable point to say "this is the beginning" is conception, when the life is given its uniqueness (e.g. DNA, which is set from the very first moment!) and it begins to grow.

One problem with that argument is that DNA mutation happens all over the human body at any point of life. RNA mutation even more so (yay cancer!). So are cancer cells their own life because the have mutated nuclei?

To me a fetus isn't human until neural impulses are detected. Until then it's a lump of cells like anything else in the body.

Pro-choice.

Beowulf wrote:To me a fetus isn't human until neural impulses are detected. Until then it's a lump of cells like anything else in the body.

Pro-choice.

The brain begins forming after just a few weeks' development. So do you mean "pro-choice until X weeks"?

.

Bet51987 wrote:

Foil wrote:

Beowulf wrote:To me a fetus isn't human until neural impulses are detected. Until then it's a lump of cells like anything else in the body.

Pro-choice.

The brain begins forming after just a few weeks' development. So do you mean "pro-choice until X weeks"?

Thats the big problem which is why we cannot agree on the rape victim. It can take as little as 1 hour for the "mating" to take place inside the girl and the primitive form of life to officially begin.

This is not enough time for the rape victim to get away from the grips of pro-life advocates so, in the eyes of theism, to abort would be murder.

Bee

I think many people would support a limited, provisional form of abortion limited to cases such as rape.

Again, it comes down to defining when a human life really begins. If we can come up with a definitive answer to that, the whole abortion question becomes easy.

are we talking biological life or is it this really a discussion as to when a person gets a soul and when a person is comfortable ending that life.

It seems rather obvious that life begins at conception; at least that's what I was taught in biology.

Snoopy wrote:Again, it comes down to defining when a human life really begins. If we can come up with a definitive answer to that, the whole abortion question becomes easy.

Which is impossible as long as one is committed to finding the "real" answer.

Bettina wrote:This is not enough time for the rape victim to get away from the grips of pro-life advocates so, in the eyes of theism, to abort would be murder.

The problem here is the lack of consistency. Note from your first post:

Bettina wrote:if a 13 year old virgin gets raped, her life should not be ruined by being forced to experience childbirth.

So at this point you are saying that the fetus is NOT a human life, its just a "lump of flesh" and so the needs of the mother are paramount.

Bettina wrote:For women who get pregnant then change their minds I am pro-life.

But if the fetus is not a person, then why do you have the right to tell some woman she can't abort it for mere convenience sake?

I ALSO sympathize with the rape victim. But would you approve if killing the new born infant to save it's mother the horrors of seeing it's fathers face in her child?

You've got to have it one way or the other. Either there are two children involved here, in which case you cant kill one to protect the other. OR, the fetus is not a person, in which case you have no right interfering in anyone's choice to remove an unwanted bit of flesh from their own bodies for any reason whatsoever.

Snoopy wrote:Again, it comes down to defining when a human life really begins. If we can come up with a definitive answer to that, the whole abortion question becomes easy.

Jeff250 wrote:Which is impossible as long as one is committed to finding the "real" answer.

Ignore the "real" issue, there must be a LEGAL answer to this question. It's actually the same question that was being debated in the slavery issue. HOW do we define a person, and that question is VITAL because it determines who has full rights under the constitution of the U.S. (or wherever you live) and who does not.

It's a question that is going to move out of the abortion arena as the Bio-Engineers start playing more and more seriously with the human genome. How much do they have to alter human DNA before the result ceases to be a legal human with any rights. Don't laugh, it sounds like science fiction, but its rapidly becoming science fact.

The question of "what is a person" is one that we must face and define, and the consequences of how we define it will be VERY important in the near future.

Are there any religious folks here that are pro-choice? That's really what it comes down to no? If you live by the book or not.

Kilarin wrote:[T]here must be a LEGAL answer to this question.

Or we should at least come up with one.

Kilarin wrote:It's a question that is going to move out of the abortion arena as the Bio-Engineers start playing more and more seriously with the human genome. How much do they have to alter human DNA before the result ceases to be a legal human with any rights.

Agreed. I predict that this is when soul-o-meters will become increasingly useless in practical ethics, even by theists. When we become unable to discern what God has granted an immortal soul and what he hasn't (as if we can actually discern this now), theists will have to appeal to more natural properties to define our ethical theories.

I thick a foetus can be considered living as soon as a working brain can be detected.

Flabby Chick wrote:Are there any religious folks here that are pro-choice? That's really what it comes down to no? If you live by the book or not.

Hmm, you know, I wonder if that's even true. I've been kinda assuming that the Bible actually makes such claims, yet, to the best of my memory, no one has actually brought in any biblical support for condemning abortion in this thread. Ultimately it's a matter of the following:
vs.

Flabby Chick wrote:Are there any religious folks here that are pro-choice? That's really what it comes down to no? If you live by the book or not.

Certainly. linky to article. Christianity is hardly a monolithic organization with a single point of view.

Jeff250 wrote:When we become unable to discern what God has granted an immortal soul and what he hasn't (as if we can actually discern this now), theists will have to appeal to more natural properties to define our ethical theories.

Actually, many Pro-Lifers use no Biblical arguments at all. They stand by the idea that once an egg is fertilized, it is no longer part of the mother, but a separate organism with it's own DNA etc. No "Soul Meter" required.

When we discussed this back in March of 2006 I listed some of the ways people have attempted to define personhood and what I see as the dangers/flaws in each. I still stand by the idea that the safest rule for abortion is to define personhood as having a brain wave. I would be much more comfortable with no abortion whatsoever, but a fetus develops a brain wave at about 40 days, and while setting that limit would NOT eliminate abortions, it would certainly reduce them drastically, AND it is a non-religious argument that makes sense to a very broad base of humanity.

.

Bet51987 wrote:I want pro-life to reign supreme but with limits to take in account for the 12-13 year old who was just riding her bike home from school listening to her Ipod and sex not even showing up on her long range radar.
Bettina

Off topic and inmature, but an iPod with a long range radar would be cool!

No Bet, rape victims get no sway. There is always adoption...because it's not like it's a big deal for a woman to carry to term a fetus that was conceived during rape.

Nobody likes the idea of abortion, it's not like people sitting around smoking cigars and wondering what the next fetus is going to look like. People that say that girls do it just because they want to are morons that have never dealt with that situation.

I'm pro-choice but wouldn't mind seeing some loose ends tied up. I'm not a big fan of the partial birth...maybe save that one for when the woman is in danger.

Zuruck wrote: ...maybe save that one for when the woman is in danger.

The problem there is that senario is virtually non-existant in the US. Medicine is far enough along that either the danger is detected very early in the pregnacy or the baby is still born.

My neighbor had a baby boy born still born from the embilical cord wrapped around his neck. That was tough.

Zuruck wrote:...rape victims get no sway. There is always adoption...because it's not like it's a big deal for a woman to carry to term a fetus that was conceived during rape.

[Sarcasm noted.]

No, carrying the child most certainly is a big deal, especially for the victim. I'm sure there's no way anyone who hasn't gone through it can fully empathize. It's a difficult thing, the effect of a truly sick crime. It's not something I would ever take lightly.

Another thing I don't take lightly is the taking of a growing life.

So... what do I do? Two mutually exclusive hard options - either the child's life is taken, or the victim faces a pregnancy and adoption.

For me, the "greater of the two evils" is abortion, because it gives the child no chance at life whatsoever. Carrying the child and giving it up for adoption will be difficult for the victim, but it doesn't require taking a life.

Zuruck wrote:People that say that girls do it just because they want to are morons that have never dealt with that situation.

Check out the statistics I linked to above about the reasons women get abortions. The frequency of the selfish reasons like "It would change my life too much" and "It costs too much" is sobering.

Foil wrote:Check out the statistics I linked to above about the reasons women get abortions. The frequency of the selfish reasons like "It would change my life too much" and "It costs too much" is sobering.

On the other hand, such can be said for human omnivores. Except for very few of them, they don't have to eat animals to survive, they can last on plant productions alone, and don't have to end dozens of lives each month.
But it doesn't work like that. Because those 'selfish reasons' are real excuses, regardless of how pathetic they might be.

TIGERassault wrote:On the other hand, such can be said for human omnivores.

Are you really equating the unnecessary death of animals with the unnecessary death of a human being? Some folks, do, so the question is honest.

As a vegetarian, I don't LIKE seeing animals killed, but I don't think it's WRONG, and I certainly wouldn't call it murder.

.

Since when are people better than animals? You never hear of a chicken hooking another chicken's nuts up to a car battery, do you?

Bet51987 wrote:Since the only way that girl can be protected is by adhering to pro-choice, then thats what I am and thats the way I will vote come next election.

Actually, the only way that girl can be protected is by stopping people from raping her. No amount of abortions can keep her protected.

Bet51987 wrote:The Taliban doesn't tell me what to do.

Err... I think the phrase you want is "'The Man' doesn't tell me what to do." The Taliban has absolutely nothing to do with this, and sounds rather racist.

Bettina wrote:Since the only way that girl can be protected is by adhering to pro-choice, then thats what I am and thats the way I will vote come next election. The Taliban doesn't tell me what to do.

This IS a more consistent point of view.

TIGERassault wrote:I think the phrase you want is "'The Man' doesn't tell me what to do."

No, she meant Taliban. The term is often used to refer to any strict religious organization that attempts to enforce its views in the political arena.

Testiculese wrote:Since when are people better than animals? You never hear of a chicken hooking another chicken's nuts up to a car battery, do you?

I took care of a friends chickens for a week while they were gone on vacation. I will NEVER think of chickens as kind, gentle little birds again. In crowded conditions, pecking each other to death is a full time occupation for chickens. But I suppose they needed SOMETHING to distract themselves from the mad duck rapists.

Oh no, I am NOT kidding. The mallards in the pond thought that chickens (male or female), being unable to escape through flight, made excellent targets for a little rapine. Actually, for a LOT of rapine.

So, first the other chickens gang up on the smallest one and peck great big bloody holes in them. The chicken runs outside to try and escape from the cruelty of their coop mates, only to find a gang of mallards sitting around and waiting. The mallards immediately say to each other "Hey, look, this one is bleeding, it will be SLOW!" and take turns attempting to produce the first chucklings. When the mallards had finally satisfied their lusts, the chicken would run crying back into the coop, only to once again find its fellows attempting to peck it into macnuggets.

It was an... unpleasant week. I couldn't eat eggs for years after that.

So no, I'm not going to quite buy this bit about how animals are never cruel like humans.

Kilarin wrote:I took care of a friends chickens for a week while they were gone on vacation. I will NEVER think of chickens as kind, gentle little birds again. In crowded conditions, pecking each other to death is a full time occupation for chickens. But I suppose they needed SOMETHING to distract themselves from the mad duck rapists.

Oh no, I am NOT kidding. The mallards in the pond thought that chickens (male or female), being unable to escape through flight, made excellent targets for a little rapine. Actually, for a LOT of rapine.

So, first the other chickens gang up on the smallest one and peck great big bloody holes in them. The chicken runs outside to try and escape from the cruelty of their coop mates, only to find a gang of mallards sitting around and waiting. The mallards immediately say to each other "Hey, look, this one is bleeding, it will be SLOW!" and take turns attempting to produce the first chucklings. When the mallards had finally satisfied their lusts, the chicken would run crying back into the coop, only to once again find its fellows attempting to peck it into macnuggets.

It was an... unpleasant week. I couldn't eat eggs for years after that.

So no, I'm not going to quite buy this bit about how animals are never cruel like humans.

I can see that you're not good at looking after pets...

Difference is they are acting on instinct, not premeditation.

A couple of points I'd like to make, Bet: (Please don't take them as harsh, I just want to make sure you understand where I'm coming from)

Bet51987 wrote:Then, for the few of us that survive the rape, the pro-life extremists won't permit us to stop the fertilization process which continues to ruin our lives by forcing us to have the child of the rapist.

Preventing fertilization & conception is okay for most pro-lifers; by all means, if that situation can be averted before it begins, those measures can be taken.

However, what is being objected to is ending an already-conceived life.

Bet51987 wrote:... since the pro-life advocates aren't willing to set some standards to protect a truly innocent girl...

From my perspective, it's the pro-choice advocates who aren't willing to set some standards to protect a truly innocent human life.

That's where our views diverge, I think. Your priority is focused on protecting the victim, but I want to protect the child, as well.

Bet51987 wrote:Since the only way that girl can be protected is by adhering to pro-choice, then thats what I am and thats the way I will vote...

...and for me:

Since the only way that child can be protected is by adhering to pro-life, then that's what I am, and that's the way I will vote.

-------------

Bet... honestly, our goals aren't so different, I think. We both want to protect an innocent life from something horrible. We just seem to differ on which life we want to protect.

Maybe that's just our differing backgrounds or personal experiences, I don't know. While I disagree with your conclusions, I definitely respect the fact that you are standing up for someone else's life. That's something not often seen these days.

Foil wrote:Your priority is focused on protecting the victim, but I want to protect the child, as well.

EXACTLY.
Imagine this scenario. The innocent young victim of rape goes ahead and has the baby. After it's born, she realizes that every time she sees the kids face it reminds her of her rapist. The fact that the kid EXISTS reminds her of the terrible thing she went through.

The poor girl has VERY good and legitimate reasons to be upset, but would we approve of her killing the child now that it is already born? Should the innocent young baby be protected just as much as the innocent young mother?

If the fetus is actually a child, then it deserves every bit as much protection as the mother does. It is just as much of a victim.

The young girl in the picture that Bettina provided. What if she wasn't the mother? What if she were the result?

TIGERassult wrote:I can see that you're not good at looking after pets...

In this case, VERY true.

Kilarin wrote:Imagine this scenario. The innocent young victim of rape goes ahead and has the baby. After it's born, she realizes that every time she sees the kids face it reminds her of her rapist. The fact that the kid EXISTS reminds her of the terrible thing she went through.

Just a reminder: even in this scenario, the girl isn't "stuck with the baby". See:Adoption.

Foil wrote:the girl isn't "stuck with the baby". See:Adoption.

Yes, but that's why I specified that The fact that the kid EXISTS reminds her of the terrible thing she went through.

For some trauma victims, even knowing that the child was still alive somewhere else would disturb them.

How about the pain and agony of labor? We guys don't have to worry about experiencing that, so it seems to be conveniently forgotten among what seems to be a male-dominated movement.

DCrazy wrote:How about the pain and agony of labor?

Surely you're not saying that labor pains are enough reason to take a life...

I'm late to this party. Please excuse the tardiness.

My take is this: They should remain legal, but shouldn't be used as birth control.

Dedman wrote:My take is this: They should remain legal, but shouldn't be used as birth control.

Wait...
Abortions are birth control methods!