DescentBB

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Once upon a time everyone knew it was wrong to have an abortion.

oh, really? You might wish to read up on the matter. For centuries, women had been self-inducing abortions in a variety of unsafe manners, not out of a feeling that such was wrong, but that medical practice and religious mores prevented better options. Modern society provided modern medical options.

What happened? What happens? Society tells a woman that it's her choice, and the doctor assures her along the way. The woman constructs what I would call empty reasoning to justify her actions.

how good of you to call the reasoning of others empty. Especially, give that I suspect strongly that you are not a woman.

It's wrong to take the life of an unborn child. I can say that because I have not grown up in an environment where I felt compelled to sacrifice that conviction to success, or to fit in.

...or because you think that God tells you so. At any rate, that is your opinion, without nuance, and others might not share it.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Once upon a time everyone knew it was wrong to have an abortion.

oh, really? You might wish to read up on the matter. For centuries, women had been self-inducing abortions in a variety of unsafe manners, not out of a feeling that such was wrong, but that medical practice and religious mores prevented better options. Modern society provided modern medical options.

I said everyone. Excuse my hyperbole. For all of the willful idiots in the room I'll translate to "the overwhelming majority". You know the difference.

callmeslick wrote:

What happened? What happens? Society tells a woman that it's her choice, and the doctor assures her along the way. The woman constructs what I would call empty reasoning to justify her actions.

how good of you to call the reasoning of others empty. Especially, give that I suspect strongly that you are not a woman.

This from the one who knew a moment ago that the women few-and-far-between throughout history have aborted babies without any check from their conscience? The concept of excuses--"empty reasoning" is universal.

callmeslick wrote:

It's wrong to take the life of an unborn child. I can say that because I have not grown up in an environment where I felt compelled to sacrifice that conviction to success, or to fit in.

...or because you think that God tells you so. At any rate, that is your opinion, without nuance, and others might not share it.

Ok, so you try to bring God into it to invalidate it (kinda works the other way around with some people, while we're concerning ourselves with "others"). Then try to segment it off as my opinion (no ★■◆● it's my opinion). In the final analysis it really doesn't matter to me who agrees. That by itself doesn't make it wrong. Lemme know when you're done taking pot-shots and actually have something to say.

callmeslick wrote:oh, really? You might wish to read up on the matter. For centuries, women had been self-inducing abortions in a variety of unsafe manners, not out of a feeling that such was wrong, but that medical practice and religious mores prevented better options. Modern society provided modern medical options.

What happened? What happens? Society tells a woman that it's her choice, and the doctor assures her along the way. The woman constructs what I would call empty reasoning to justify her actions.

how good of you to call the reasoning of others empty. Especially, give that I suspect strongly that you are not a woman.

It's wrong to take the life of an unborn child. I can say that because I have not grown up in an environment where I felt compelled to sacrifice that conviction to success, or to fit in.

...or because you think that God tells you so. At any rate, that is your opinion, without nuance, and others might not share it.

You know, as much as people make the abortion argument about "religion" vs. "science" I see it as a matter of convenience vs integrity.

The pro-choice camp sacrifices their own integrity for the sake of convenience: They suspend reason and doggedly cling to an archaic concept of human life beginning upon exiting the womb because it's convenient. From a biological development standpoint, there's little difference between the state of the child within the womb just before birth and outside of the womb... yet it's viewed in entirely different perspectives ("tissue" vs. a person) because it avoids difficult situations and difficult decisions.

The pro-life camp considers the beginning of human life with integrity... and recognizes that it's been going for quite a while by the time that the baby exits the womb. That makes of a lot of inconvenient situation, and for a lot of difficult questions (I.E. what about pregnancies due to rape?) - but it starts on the foundation of "life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness" being applied to all human life, not just the convenient human lives.

So, in that frame:

Defending abortions because "women were doing it unsafely anyways" is like saying we should set up clinics for the mob to whack people because they're doing it unsafely anyway.

Just as it's easy for me to say abortions should be legal because I'm not a woman wanting one, it's easy for you to say that she should be allowed to murder her child because you aren't the person whose unalienable right to life is being taken.

You make it about God saying it's wrong... but if you try to claim that murder is situationally acceptable, doesn't that make you morally bankrupt under any (sane) standard? Why should you have the right to kill a child in cold blood, and I not have the same right to do so to whomever I please?

Bottom line: if you want to make it about "opinion" and neglect a responsible scientific approach to defining the beginning of human life, doesn't that make you just as much of a hypocrite as all of the religious folks you like to complain about?

I'd like to take a different stab at this.

snoopy wrote:From a biological development standpoint, there's little difference between the state of the child within the womb just before birth and outside of the womb... yet it's viewed in entirely different perspectives ("tissue" vs. a person)

I don't think that birth being the metric for human life is nearly as popular as you seem to think, but I also haven't seen you propose an alternative metric. Conception? Conception, for instance, is flawed as a metric for exactly the same reason. Take whatever moment you call conception and the moment immediately preceding it, and there will be no biologically significant difference except you call the one moment conception and the other not. Your argument applies equally well to any 0-or-1 moment for anything.

snoopy wrote:and recognizes that it's been going for quite a while by the time that the baby exits the womb.

I think most pro-choicers would agree with this.

snoopy wrote:Bottom line: if you want to make it about "opinion" and neglect a responsible scientific approach to defining the beginning of human life, doesn't that make you just as much of a hypocrite as all of the religious folks you like to complain about?

Science can give us all of the background facts, but it's ultimately powerless to tell us when something is a human life in the moral sense. For instance, science can tell us when the heart starts beating, when there's appreciable brain activity, etc., but it can't tell us which of these things we should ultimately morally care about and to what extent. You can fill that void with religion if you want. But I think what a lot of people find frustrating about the religious point of view on abortion is that it doesn't seem to take these facts into its moral calculus at all and seems to be based more on this idea of undetectable supernatural souls. Granted, I don't know yet if this applies to your reasoning.

I can’t understand your reasoning Jeff, there definitely is a significant difference between the moment just before conception and conception itself, unless you want to look at life and reproduction as one entire continuum. If that’s the case killing someone at “any” point along this continuum, would make no difference.

The problem I have with your last point is this…

If a blob of flesh becomes a “person” and that is the metric for which it then has the right to live, then you could literally take the life of someone during sleep, because this “person” is just a “blob of flesh” during this period of time.

So what I’m trying to say is…using a persons ability to be aware of its own existence is also a bad metric.

And please don’t bother to explain to me the difference between pre birth and sleep, because I have spent a lot of time working this out, and I can literally see no difference whatsoever, other than having memories to return to, and thus no need to start all over again.

I really don’t understand this whole “personhood” thing…life is life.

And if a soul exists, it’s just as natural as the rest of existence. You seem to be stuck on this idea that a soul must exist outside of the natural world for some reason. Do you believe in dark energy or dark matter, do you believe in the theory that particles “pop” into and out of existence in a vacuum, all parts of the real world right?

Spidey wrote:I can’t understand your reasoning Jeff, there definitely is a significant difference between the moment just before conception and conception itself, unless you want to look at life and reproduction as one entire continuum. If that’s the case killing someone at “any” point along this continuum, would make no difference.

What is the significant difference then? Let's take whatever moment you call conception. What wasn't true about it one microsecond earlier that didn't make that the moment conception instead?

Spidey wrote:And please don’t bother to explain to me the difference between pre birth and sleep, because I have spent a lot of time working this out, and I can literally see no difference whatsoever, other than having memories to return to, and thus no need to start all over again.

The only two scientific examples I gave in my post were heart beat and appreciable brain activity, each of which I would argue easily apply to a sleeping person. I've talked about self-awareness in other threads, which is perhaps why you brought it up? I think you have a compelling argument for why self-awareness is not a good metric for human life, at least on its own.

Spidey wrote:I really don’t understand this whole “personhood” thing…life is life.

Almost everyone thinks that killing a dog is wrong. Most people don't think the person who does that should be charged with murder though, rather with an animal cruelty crime. Maybe you do? But this is one example where a philosophy where all life is the same fails for most people. And the difference becomes only more stark when we talk about cutting grass, etc.

Spidey wrote:And if a soul exists, it’s just as natural as the rest of existence. You seem to be stuck on this idea that a soul must exist outside of the natural world for some reason. Do you believe in dark energy or dark matter, do you believe in the theory that particles “pop” into and out of existence in a vacuum, all parts of the real world right?

I was describing the religious idea of a supernatural soul, not my own, and how believing in one might draw one to certain conclusions. I suppose you can view the question of when is something a person as when does something get a "soul," but I prefer person here due to soul's historical baggage. It's like if you ask someone if they believe in God, and they say yes, because they define God as love, and they believe in love. If you redefine the word too much, it's somehow no longer a satisfying answer to the original question.

I think just for the sake of the integrity of science, almost anyone can agree conception is the moment an unfertilized egg, becomes fertilized hence the use of the word conception. All philisophical arguments can come after that moment I guess.

There is a fundamental biological difference that occurs during the process of conception (obviously it takes a bit longer than just a "moment"): the individual male and female gametes (sex cells), which each represent only half of a complete human genome, combine to form a unique and complete human genome. You can obviously make a varied case about what sort of philosophical or legal import that process should or should not have, but there is a pretty clear biological line in the sand that's drawn at that time.

Jeff250 wrote:What is the significant difference then? Let's take whatever moment you call conception. What wasn't true about it one microsecond earlier that didn't make that the moment conception instead?

The start of a new individual, but if you don’t consider that as significant, then the loss of that life at any time also becomes insignificant. (start…middle…end, who cares)

I actually do look at the whole life-reproduction thing a one continuum, that is why I object to the idea that life begins at conception, but I also believe that the beginning of a new individual is significant.

On the “supernatural” thing, I understand that aspect of the usage, but I think you have to understand that you must now make an argument that will work against people who are not religious as well, like me, unless you wish to restrict that aspect to religious people entirely.

Spidey wrote:The start of a new individual, but if you don’t consider that as significant, then the loss of that life at any time also becomes insignificant. (start…middle…end, who cares)

But you're just giving me your definition of "conception." I already know that you define it as "the start of a new individual" (or in flip's case, "the moment the egg becomes fertilized"). But scientifically, how can I measure when that happens, and what about that measurement wouldn't be biologically true a microsecond earlier? If I took an image from whatever moment you consider conception, and then I showed you an image from a microsecond earlier, and I argued that that image was actually the *real* moment of conception, how would you counter my argument? You would have to come up with some seemingly arbitrary rule like this has to be so many micrometers from that (or what have you--my scale may be completely off). But these kinds of rules are what the prolifers accuse the prochoicers of coming up with.

Top Gun wrote:There is a fundamental biological difference that occurs during the process of conception (obviously it takes a bit longer than just a "moment")

If I can get you to agree with me that conception takes longer than a moment, then my hope is to get you to agree with me that so does human life, and perhaps longer than you previously expected.

My point isn't to take away the significance of conception itself by arguing that it's not a 0-or-1 moment, just like I don't want to take away of the significance of human life itself by arguing that it develops over time. What I want to do is resist this urge to have to find some magical moment when life begins, because scientifically, these kinds of moments don't really exist.

Spidey wrote:On the “supernatural” thing, I understand that aspect of the usage, but I think you have to understand that you must now make an argument that will work against people who are not religious as well, like me, unless you wish to restrict that aspect to religious people entirely.

If your concept of a soul arises out of natural properties, then I believe we at least already agree that we should use natural properties in deciding our moral obligations for the unborn. I suppose now we may just disagree on which ones are the important ones?

Jeff250 wrote:My point isn't to take away the significance of conception itself by arguing that it's not a 0-or-1 moment, just like I don't want to take away of the significance of human life itself by arguing that it develops over time. What I want to do is resist this urge to have to find some magical moment when life begins, because scientifically, these kinds of moments don't really exist.

But I already agreed with that premise, life began billions of years ago, and has been reproducing itself ever since. My point is simply the importance of the individual, and where “it” begins or ends.

Jeff250 wrote:If your concept of a soul arises out of natural properties, then I believe we at least already agree that we should use natural properties in deciding our moral obligations for the unborn. I suppose now we may just disagree on which ones are the important ones?

Yes, but we will probably never agree because of political pressure to validate our beliefs.

Jeff250 wrote:My point isn't to take away the significance of conception itself by arguing that it's not a 0-or-1 moment, just like I don't want to take away of the significance of human life itself by arguing that it develops over time. What I want to do is resist this urge to have to find some magical moment when life begins, because scientifically, these kinds of moments don't really exist.

The problem is, the legal systems needs such a moment, or at least a set of conditions. As it stands right now: If I kill my neighbor who is an adult, I can be tried for murder. If I kill my neighbor who is a child, I can be tried for murder. If I kill an infant who was just born 5 minutes ago, I can be tried for murder. If I kill an infant 5 minutes prior to birth it's an abortion (maybe... what's the latest on late-term abortions?) and it's perfectly fine. If not, if I kill an infant 6 months into the term, it's an abortion and it's perfectly fine..... So, what defines the difference right now? People's perception of things? Convenience? I think it's fair to say that it certainly isn't science.... because from a scientific standpoint it doesn't make sense.

I get the frustration about the religious part of it... and while I hold a belief in a soul, I don't think it's the point. The point is that people (pretty much) universally recognize the value of human life (whether it's because they have a soul or for whatever other reason) and believe that each individual's right to live shouldn't violated by others. The problem is, people are also lazy about how they define individual human life. People on their death bed? Oh, they're not really individual humans anymore... afterall they're just stuck in a coma. Infants that haven't been born yet? Oh, they're not really individual humans, they don't even breathe. Jews? Oh, they're not really humans, they aren't Aryan. Rohingya? They aren't people.... Christians? Muslims? Africans? Abortion clinic workers? ..... do I need to keep going?

So, let's cut through the crap. Lets stop being lazy because it's convenient and actually take a systematic approach at defining what constitutes an individual human life using the oh-so-vaunted scientific method and logic.

....Problem is that'd be too inconvenient. That would make us have to respect and protect human lives that we hate, human lives that make ours very inconvenient, even human lives that cause serious harm to our own lives and careers....

Man this topic can really get me spooled up.

snoopy wrote:If I kill an infant 5 minutes prior to birth it's an abortion (maybe... what's the latest on late-term abortions?) and it's perfectly fine. If not, if I kill an infant 6 months into the term, it's an abortion and it's perfectly fine...

There are multiple states, apparently the majority actually, where killing a pregnant woman can get you charged with two separate murder counts, or at least carries harsher penalties than a normal murder.

Top Gun wrote:

snoopy wrote:If I kill an infant 5 minutes prior to birth it's an abortion (maybe... what's the latest on late-term abortions?) and it's perfectly fine. If not, if I kill an infant 6 months into the term, it's an abortion and it's perfectly fine...

There are multiple states, apparently the majority actually, where killing a pregnant woman can get you charged with two separate murder counts, or at least carries harsher penalties than a normal murder.

Yeah, that doesn't make sense, either.... (I get it, but it's inconsistent - so why don't we do something about it?... I keep reaching the same conclusions.)

Jeff250 wrote:My point isn't to take away the significance of conception itself by arguing that it's not a 0-or-1 moment, just like I don't want to take away of the significance of human life itself by arguing that it develops over time. What I want to do is resist this urge to have to find some magical moment when life begins, because scientifically, these kinds of moments don't really exist.

Okay, I can appreciate avoiding "magic moment" definitions ("life begins... wait for it... now!"), particularly under Spidey's point about life beginning eons ago.

But can we be practical for a sec? As was said just now:

snoopy wrote:The problem is, the legal systems needs such a moment, or at least a set of conditions.

At some point, we have to have some definition about circumstances, since it's being addressed by law. A number of folks here strongly object to using birth as the delimiter; many are objecting to using conception; other events (e.g. first neuron firing) often get tossed around.

...Perhaps we need to find something non-event-driven? Some metric which doesn't try to pinpoint a time or event? But doesn't that just defer the problem, to figure out which metric or set of metrics are morally/practially better?

[ That's one of the primary reasons for my personal take on the matter: I'll agree that the conception event isn't a "magic moment"... but do we have any better event or metric? Every suggestion I've heard, from evaluations of brain activity, to attempts at measuring life expectancy, is just arbitrary. ]

I am trying to be practical here, as practical as possible, that’s why I am using logic, but I guess I’m a fool trying to use logic in a debate between politics and religion.

But poor logic and science don’t stand a chance in this debate and must stand out in the cold freezing their collective reproductive parts off.

Answering Christian Questions for Pro-Choicers:

http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/an ... o-choicers

Questions for Pro-Lifers:

http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/qu ... pro-lifers

As a Christian I don't have any questions for people who are pro-abortion, except maybe "what if your mother had aborted you?" But I think most people who are okay with abortion wouldn't care to contemplate such things.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:As a Christian I don't have any questions for people who are pro-abortion, except maybe "what if your mother had aborted you?" But I think most people who are okay with abortion wouldn't care to contemplate such things.

I've heard that question before and I think it's silly. If my mother aborted me, I wouldn't have any opinion on the matter because I wouldn't be alive. What is there to contemplate? (How would you feel about Obama being president if you died in 1998?) And believe it or not, there are people out there with very rough lives who indeed wish they were aborted, like some people who suffer from severe depression, people with clinical, chronic mental illness who occasionally commit suicide. There are worse things than being dead, This is hard for some people to imagine, but I've seen the effects of mental illness on loved ones and it's not pretty.

I get the feeling some pro-lifers think people have abortion parties or something. No one I know that has had an abortion feels good about it. Some friends I know have been traumatized by the experience even though they can still say confidently it was the right decision. In almost every case, those same friends went on to have children later when the time was right. It wasn't about sexual convenience. Also, I would think the right-leaning pro-life people would see how unexpected pregnancies increase the need for public safety-nets. If they are so against government spending, then they should be all about stopping unwanted pregnancy. Contraception and abortion is way, way cheaper than a lifetime of welfare.

That would be great if it weren’t for the fact that most abortions are gotten by middle class white women, in fact I doubt there would even be an issue here if it was the “needy” getting all of the abortions.

Taking us back to my original point:

Almost everyone thinks that individual human life is something to be respected and protected. Regardless of the difficulty of the situation or the quality of the person's life, most would say. At least that's what I have to say.

So, lets start there with the abortion discussion. I really don't care how great or poor someone's life is going to be (as if you knew for a fact...)... if it's a human life that should be respected and protected, then it isn't our right to decide to end it. Don't ever pretend that quality of life can be a basis by which to take another person's life lest someone decide yours isn't high enough.

Now that we got past that... Vision, I think that caring for the poor and weak is of paramount importance. I also happen to think that it shouldn't be the federal government's job... but I'm also realistic to know that if no government does any of it (I'd vote for local, or maybe state government) there will be a lot of neglected people in suffering. (Ideally, it'd be each individual that would prioritize doing what they could.) I'm all about making people's lives better.

Also note that I didn't say explicitly sexual convenience... maybe that's part of it, but more so I'm referring to the case of "okay, we have a little human life here... now what?" My take of sex & unplanned pregnancies: I see it like playing a lottery where you win most of the time. If you do nothing, you've got more odds of nothing happening than not. If you use contraception, you greatly increase your odds of avoiding "losing." The only way to guarantee that you won't lose is to not play. While I don't believe that people should be having per-marital sex, I think the only people that I'd really enforce it upon would be people that claim to agree with me. What I do think needs to be enforced is the consequences when you bring another person into the equation. I'm not really interested in stopping you from playing the pregnancy lottery, but when you lose you shouldn't get to kill someone to make the problem go away, mob-style. If you don't want to lose, stack the odds on your side. If you want to guarantee that you won't lose, don't play. If you're forced into playing against your will prosecute the people that wronged you... don't kill the innocent person that got dragged in.

See how all of that hinges around the definition of an individual human life? Now, I don't think any definition other than conception to death will really sit all that well with me... but a consistent legal definition that I don't like is better than the convenient fence-hopping that we have right now....

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:As a Christian I don't have any questions for people who are pro-abortion, except maybe "what if your mother had aborted you?" But I think most people who are okay with abortion wouldn't care to contemplate such things.

I've heard that question before and I think it's silly. If my mother aborted me, I wouldn't have any opinion on the matter because I wouldn't be alive. What is there to contemplate? (How would you feel about Obama being president if you died in 1998?)

You're reading into the question something that's not there. The only correct answer is "I wouldn't be here". No one asked what your opinion would be if your mother had an abortion... That kinda doesn't work, logically (so go figure you assume that meaning).

vision wrote:And believe it or not, there are people out there with very rough lives who indeed wish they were aborted, like some people who suffer from severe depression, people with clinical, chronic mental illness who occasionally commit suicide. There are worse things than being dead, This is hard for some people to imagine, but I've seen the effects of mental illness on loved ones and it's not pretty.

This has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. I've been in dark places myself, and I'm aware of this kind of suffering... totally different issue. They're not suffering because there were born, they're suffering because of the choices they've made since then. It's dishonest and disingenuous to blame one's birth. You may say that they're "that upset", but a person can't throw reason to the wind just because they're upset and then be used as some standard in a discussion.

Gotta go, more later.

Spidey wrote:That would be great if it weren’t for the fact that most abortions are gotten by middle class white women....

I am relatively sure that is not the case. AFAIK, the typical abortion patient is young, coloured, and poor.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

snoopy wrote:Almost everyone thinks that individual human life is something to be respected and protected. Regardless of the difficulty of the situation or the quality of the person's life, most would say. At least that's what I have to say.

So, lets start there with the abortion discussion. I really don't care how great or poor someone's life is going to be (as if you knew for a fact...)... if it's a human life that should be respected and protected, then it isn't our right to decide to end it. Don't ever pretend that quality of life can be a basis by which to take another person's life lest someone decide yours isn't high enough.

I very much agree with you here. Individual human life should be respected and protected. However, I also believe that this principle should be tempered by other principles, in this case, the right of the woman to decide about her body. After all, it is her that supports the fetus for 9 months and goes through the pain of birth. So for me, personally, I can accept abortion if it happens early enough, where I am reasonably sure no consciousness/sensation of pain/etc. has developed.

Of course, if you are religious and believe that even the few days old cell cluster already has a fully formed soul, you won't be able to agree with me.

vision wrote:I get the feeling some pro-lifers think people have abortion parties or something. No one I know that has had an abortion feels good about it. Some friends I know have been traumatized by the experience even though they can still say confidently it was the right decision. In almost every case, those same friends went on to have children later when the time was right. It wasn't about sexual convenience.

Yup. Same experience here.

Pandora wrote:

vision wrote:I get the feeling some pro-lifers think people have abortion parties or something. No one I know that has had an abortion feels good about it. Some friends I know have been traumatized by the experience even though they can still say confidently it was the right decision. In almost every case, those same friends went on to have children later when the time was right. It wasn't about sexual convenience.

Yup. Same experience here.

likewise, and I can think of several such examples.

Thanks for those stats Pandora, I can’t remember where I had heard the info I posted, it was very long ago, probably during my Rush listening days. People talked a lot of ★■◆● back then trying to explain why the population growth of the middle class was waning, while the poor were still producing large families.

Pandora wrote:Individual human life should be respected and protected. However, I also believe that this principle should be tempered by other principles, in this case, the right of the woman to decide about her body. After all, it is her that supports the fetus for 9 months and goes through the pain of birth.

....And beyond, in most cases.

I have serious problems with this notion of a woman's "right to decide about her own body."

What does that even mean from a legal standpoint? Do I have the right to decide about my own body pulling the trigger on a gun pointed at someone else's head? Do I have the right to decide about my own body by running around naked in the streets? Do I have the right to decide about my own body killing my two year old who's dependent upon me? I'm fine with you saying that any person has a right to decide to or not to play the pregnancy lottery.... but when you do the deed and it creates another human life (presuming that we're to the stage of it being defined as another human life) then that life has rights, too. Considering the fact that in one case these supposed "rights" are being infringed upon by a party that has no other choice, and only for a limit term; compared to permanently and finally infringing upon the other's right to life... I'd say that the woman's rights are going to have to suffer.

Furthermore, if you set aside the cases where there wasn't consensual intercourse, the woman entered into the situation willfully, knowing the possible consequences that could occur and the effect that said consequences would have on her body. In short, if consensual intercourse happened, she put herself into the situation that you're trying to use to justify permanently ending a human life.

In the cases where it wasn't consensual, yes the woman's rights were violated.... so prosecute the violator and protect the collateral damage.

The bottom line is this: The whole argument about a woman "choosing about her body" pits one person's temporary comfort and convenience against another's life... and when stated in those terms the verdict is clear. I'll give you civil lawsuits against rapists and the like pain and suffering of violating the woman's right to choose for nine months... I won't give you killing a human life over someone's comfort.

snoopy wrote:Furthermore, if you set aside the cases where there wasn't consensual intercourse, the woman entered into the situation willfully, knowing the possible consequences that could occur and the effect that said consequences would have on her body. In short, if consensual intercourse happened, she put herself into the situation that you're trying to use to justify permanently ending a human life.

Just today I saw someone use the argument, "Just because I consented to have sexual intercourse doesn't mean I consented to the pregnancy," and all I could think was...what? If you are engaging in vaginal intercourse, and especially if you're doing so unprotected, you're essentially accepting the very real possibility that you may become pregnant. Even putting the rest of the debate aside, I think that particular argument is just absurd.

My thoughts on abortion are as simple as this. Use contraception and in cases of rape or unbridled passion, morning after pill. Stop the process before it even gets started or before you even know if your pregnant or not. Otherwise, own up to your decision, lack of self-control and complacency.

snoopy wrote:I have serious problems with this notion of a woman's "right to decide about her own body."

As much as I don't like the idea of late term abortion, I would totally support a woman's decision to do it. The first reason is, regardless of how you define a human, that baby is part of a woman's body. It's her's to do what she wants with it until that umbilical cord is cut. The second reason is, I have no right to tell a woman what do do with her pregnancy, even if I was the father. It's her body. I think a bunch of men having discussions about what a woman can and cannot do with her body is kind of sick actually. Laws regarding women and their reproductive right should be debated and legislated by women only. I don't have any business holding any judgement over them.

This is a general statement to all anti-abortioners:

Is it your body? no.

Is it your decision? no

Are you their medical doctor? no

then stay the hell out of their affairs. your rationalizations, filibusters and pontifications are irrelevant. you wouldn't want someone telling you what to do, so what right do you have to tell them what to do?

See the thing is though, if you happen to go by the ethical standard that the fetus should be afforded the same rights as any other person, then none of those points hold any water. It's an ineffective argument for someone who's against abortion...it's essentially the equivalent of telling them that, because they're not involved in the commission of a murder, then it has nothing to do with them and they should just shut the hell up about it.

It’s a scientific fact that the fetus is considered a foreign object by the host body, and would be quickly attacked and killed if it were not for some very clever evolutionary tricks.

Also what is missing in the “it’s her body” argument is the fact that it takes 2 to reproduce and half of that blob of flesh has the fathers DNA.

In a proper reproductive environment the male would be providing food and shelter to the mother, and therefore the fetus.

The idea that all reproductive rights belong to the female is ludicrous, sort of like 2 people putting up the money to build a house, then the one who owns the land decides to tear the half built house down, because they changed their mind.

Now of course if there are pre arrangements made before intercourse, that relinquish the males right to the child, then that would be a different story.

Just because something is under your charge, doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want with it. (Assuming you understand my “part of the body” argument).

And here’s the question that never gets answered…

If the female has all of the reproductive rights, then why do males have to provide child support?

But I bet, as per usual, no one will answer the question.

Top Gun wrote:See the thing is though, if you happen to go by the ethical standard that the fetus should be afforded the same rights as any other person, then none of those points hold any water. It's an ineffective argument for someone who's against abortion...it's essentially the equivalent of telling them that, because they're not involved in the commission of a murder, then it has nothing to do with them and they should just shut the hell up about it.

ethical standards, moral standards, whatever. it doesn't matter.

fact is, it's not your decision. you have no say in the matter.

That's not what the courts say when they make men pay for it

Can't have it both ways

CUDA wrote:That's not what the courts say when they make men pay for it

Can't have it both ways

so, if the man agrees to the woman getting the fetus aborted, all is right, correct? This would change the whole debate, and the proposed restrictive legislation. Once again, limiting myself to personal experience within my circle of friends and acquaintences, ALL the abortions I am aware of were the product of joint consent(albeit reluctant or regretful in many cases).

Spidey wrote:It’s a scientific fact that the fetus is considered a foreign object by the host body, and would be quickly attacked and killed if it were not for some very clever evolutionary tricks.

This sounds like an even great argument FOR abortion. The fetus is a parasite!

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Once upon a time everyone knew it was wrong to have an abortion.

oh, really? You might wish to read up on the matter. For centuries, women had been self-inducing abortions...

...but not because they thought it was right. For some reason there are people who think genocide is a good idea.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:It’s a scientific fact that the fetus is considered a foreign object by the host body, and would be quickly attacked and killed if it were not for some very clever evolutionary tricks.

This sounds like an even great argument FOR abortion. The fetus is a parasite!

Yes, and that’s a fact that continues on for another 18+ years or so after birth.