Abortion laws, is there a real argument? [Archive]

Broken Glass Can

07-11-2005, 07:03 AM

Murder laws, is there a real argument?

The way I see it, the wealthier elements of society will be able to hire professionals to get it done, and the less well off will go to unreliable thugs. The rich can get away with it easier by their ability to do better research and they have the money to conduct the murder act without fingering themselves. And if they get caught, their money can get them off (like OJ). I really can't see an argument in favour of these laws, other than a desire to impose your values on others by legislation.

PartySNGer

07-11-2005, 07:09 AM

Why have drug laws? Why outlaw cocaince and crack? Wealthier people can import it from Colombia, the less wealthy will find it in the back allies.

mackthefork

07-11-2005, 07:45 AM

Come on you two, you must be able to do better than this, I am not a supporter either, I just believe in the freedom of choice for the individual, what right is it of mine to make a decision for someone else, or to impose my views on them.

Mack

Broken Glass Can

07-11-2005, 08:37 AM

The question you asked can be asked about lots of laws (Drunk Driving, Seat Belts, Motorcycle helmets, self mutilation, etc.). In abortion there actually is a third party directly affected - the baby.

One could throw the word "choice" around in relation to assault. "It should be my choice to hit him in the mouth."

mackthefork

07-11-2005, 08:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The question you asked can be asked about lots of laws (Drunk Driving, Seat Belts, Motorcycle helmets, self mutilation, etc.). In abortion there actually is a third party directly affected - the baby.

One could throw the word "choice" around in relation to assault. "It should be my choice to hit him in the mouth."

[/ QUOTE ]

The subjects you mention are different from each other and the one at hand. When do we consider the embryo/fetus has become a human being, I think you are suggesting conception which I would disagree with, but I think the current UK limit of 24 weeks is far too late. This seems to be an emotive subject, and everyone I know has a strong opinion one way or the other, I don't personally see it as black and white.

Mack

07-11-2005, 09:50 AM

lehighguy

07-11-2005, 12:50 PM

"When do we consider the embryo/fetus has become a human being?"

Good question. Who should decide this? The two options currently are courts and the electorate. Currently, courts decide. Others believe the electorate should decide. That is really what is being argued over.

lehighguy

07-11-2005, 12:51 PM

What is life?

jcx

07-11-2005, 02:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question you asked can be asked about lots of laws (Drunk Driving, Seat Belts, Motorcycle helmets, self mutilation, etc.). In abortion there actually is a third party directly affected - the baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no baby. There is an embryo, and then a fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many times the arguement comes down to definitions - it's a baby! No it's a fetus! No it's unfeeling protoplasm! I submit that is all irrelevant. Whether a newly fertilized embryo or a full term fetus, it is alive, and that life is worth defending.

Environmental/animal rights activists will go to war to defend the life of a tree, which cannot feel or think. They will commit acts of vandalism and violence to rescue labratory animals, some of which are considered vermin by the population at large (Please note this - I am not speaking of only endangered species). Their position is they are defending those who have no voice, who cannot defend themselves. Yet these individuals almost unfailingly walk in lockstep idealogically with those who support abortion rights. I'd like to see these individuals explain themselves and how they logically came to the conclusion a helpless potential human being deserves no defense while a chicken does.

As for the OP's point, I cannot argue that it has some validity. However, Roe v. Wade being overturned would simply return the decision on abortion to the states themselves, not declare it illegal. The fact that each state would have its own laws on abortion is the part of the attractiveness of the American system. It is not unique to abortion. Gambling is legal in many states but still almost completely forbidden in Utah, Hawaii and Tennessee. While this may seem illogical as their citizens can easily travel to a state that allows gambling, the citizens of these states have said they do not want casinos and the sometimes seedy elements that come along with them. People are free to move to a state whos laws and customs suit them. If the citizens of Alabama do not wish to sanction an act they consider murder within their borders, they should not have to. Even people of little means can afford a bus ticket to an abortion friendly state.

ptmusic

07-11-2005, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Yet these individuals almost unfailingly walk in lockstep idealogically with those who support abortion rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure about that? That sentence sounds like it was taken right from the Sean Hannity playbook: "these guys are the same guys that ______________". Here's a tip: they are often not the same people!!

Name me one individual who is a tree hugger and an pro-choice activist. I'm sure they exist, but you're suggesting it's all of them. I call your bluff - name one.

-ptmusic

[censored]

07-11-2005, 03:27 PM

ptmusic

07-11-2005, 03:39 PM

whiskeytown

07-11-2005, 03:49 PM

here's the thing...

I'm actually pro-life - but that extends across the board - that means I don't want the death penalty - which many prolifers have no problem with...LOL - funny how that works.

But I don't believe that life is before conception- (when the DNA decides all the important [censored]) - so I believe in birth control and sex education, which many pro-lifers, by virtue of their religion, don't believe in ...

so they bitch about how people are aborting babies while doing nothing to prevent the number that are being created and ergo aborted...

If you truly want to get into a discussion, it'd be way deeper then a discussion board, but let's start with this - a fetus is a human being - it's not a part of the mother, cause it has it's own DNA, internal organs, and structure - the only thing they share is their intake of air/food/water - so why does it deserve to die?

RB

[censored]

07-11-2005, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yet these individuals almost unfailingly walk in lockstep idealogically with those who support abortion rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure about that? That sentence sounds like it was taken right from the Sean Hannity playbook: "these guys are the same guys that ______________". Here's a tip: they are often not the same people!!

Name me one individual who is a tree hugger and an pro-choice activist. I'm sure they exist, but you're suggesting it's all of them. I call your bluff - name one.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

jason llyod

[/ QUOTE ]

Googled that - nothing. Misspelling? Anyway, if you're correct, that's great, but from what I've seen you are "intellectually honest" as Mr. Hannity would say. I was asking the guy who suggested that all tree huggers were pro-choice, because I'd like to see if he is "intellectually honest".

[/ QUOTE ]

He's just some dude I knew from college who was basically as desribed. only trying to suggest that coming up with a person who fit that bill would do nothing to help either of your cases.

In any event I tend to think that many/most of say peta members are also pro-choice. However I find it silly to say that because someone has x value (animal rights) that they then must have y value (pro life). These things are so complicated. Were dealing with things like when does our definition of being person begin and where is the line between cruelty to life and just using resources start and stop/

thus I don't have much of a problem with say a PETA extremest being pro choice other than completely disagreeing with the.

[censored]

07-11-2005, 03:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
here's the thing...

I'm actually pro-life - but that extends across the board - that means I don't want the death penalty - which many prolifers have no problem with...LOL - funny how that works.

But I don't believe that life is before conception- (when the DNA decides all the important [censored]) - so I believe in birth control and sex education, which many pro-lifers, by virtue of their religion, don't believe in ...

so they bitch about how people are aborting babies while doing nothing to prevent the number that are being created and ergo aborted...

If you truly want to get into a discussion, it'd be way deeper then a discussion board, but let's start with this - a fetus is a human being - it's not a part of the mother, cause it has it's own DNA, internal organs, and structure - the only thing they share is their intake of air/food/water - so why does it deserve to die?

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

good post.

whiskeytown

07-11-2005, 04:15 PM

you want a good argument....

read "The Unaborted Socrates" - by Peter Kreeft - very, very good. - My Senior College Project was trying to do a radio adaption of it - failed the task miserably, but got a B for effort and graduated -

RB

jcx

07-11-2005, 05:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yet these individuals almost unfailingly walk in lockstep idealogically with those who support abortion rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure about that? That sentence sounds like it was taken right from the Sean Hannity playbook: "these guys are the same guys that ______________". Here's a tip: they are often not the same people!!

Name me one individual who is a tree hugger and an pro-choice activist. I'm sure they exist, but you're suggesting it's all of them. I call your bluff - name one.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

Alec Baldwin. Martin Sheen. Lots of Hollywood types. I'm not going to google them all. The ones I have a real beef with, the ones that resort to vandalism and violence, I of course don't have their names. The radicals tend to operate in secret, with good reason.

With that said, I perhaps used too wide a brushstroke. I have actually researched this issue a fair amount today and read several essays (long and boring) on animal rights websites that explore this issue. There is actually considerable conflict in the animal rights community over this, and the end result is the issue is generally swept under the rug to stave off dissention in the ranks. The consensus among animal rights groups seems to be that the animal and abortion rights issues are completely separate. I actually agree, but for very different reasons. I consider human life to be far more valuable than the life of a hedgehog. But that's another thread entirely.

ptmusic

07-11-2005, 05:48 PM

Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen qualify as far left liberals, but not as the tree huggers you were talking about.

But you acknowledged your broad brush strokes, so it's cool. If only Hannity would do the same.... ah, one can dream.

He and his callers just parrot the same broad brush strokes back and forth ("Sean you are so right. All these liberals _____________"), so Sean probably thinks it isn't even sweeping generalizations anymore.

-ptmusic

[censored]

07-11-2005, 05:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I consider human life to be far more valuable than the life of a hedgehog.

[/ QUOTE ]

hedgehogs are pretty cool dude. ever heard of Sonic? He'd [censored] you up for something like that.

BadgerAle

07-11-2005, 07:52 PM

"Environmental/animal rights activists will go to war to defend the life of a tree, which cannot feel or think. They will commit acts of vandalism and violence to rescue labratory animals, some of which are considered vermin by the population at large (Please note this - I am not speaking of only endangered species). Their position is they are defending those who have no voice, who cannot defend themselves. Yet these individuals almost unfailingly walk in lockstep idealogically with those who support abortion rights. I'd like to see these individuals explain themselves and how they logically came to the conclusion a helpless potential human being deserves no defense while a chicken does."

This is a lot less straightforward than if it is turned around. A Pro-life supporter who eats meat is responsible for the death of a creature far more aware than a foetus of any stage of development. It is more capable of thought and self-awarness (I suppose this is arguable but if you don't aplly it to a cow then i don't see how you can to a foetus).

Hypocrisy aplenty.

Dead

07-12-2005, 12:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yet these individuals almost unfailingly walk in lockstep idealogically with those who support abortion rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure about that? That sentence sounds like it was taken right from the Sean Hannity playbook: "these guys are the same guys that ______________". Here's a tip: they are often not the same people!!

Name me one individual who is a tree hugger and an pro-choice activist. I'm sure they exist, but you're suggesting it's all of them. I call your bluff - name one.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

Alec Baldwin. Martin Sheen. Lots of Hollywood types. I'm not going to google them all. The ones I have a real beef with, the ones that resort to vandalism and violence, I of course don't have their names. The radicals tend to operate in secret, with good reason.

With that said, I perhaps used too wide a brushstroke. I have actually researched this issue a fair amount today and read several essays (long and boring) on animal rights websites that explore this issue. There is actually considerable conflict in the animal rights community over this, and the end result is the issue is generally swept under the rug to stave off dissention in the ranks. The consensus among animal rights groups seems to be that the animal and abortion rights issues are completely separate. I actually agree, but for very different reasons. I consider human life to be far more valuable than the life of a hedgehog. But that's another thread entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Martin Sheen is pro-life, dumba**. Google it.

vulturesrow

07-12-2005, 03:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is a lot less straightforward than if it is turned around. A Pro-life supporter who eats meat is responsible for the death of a creature far more aware than a foetus of any stage of development. It is more capable of thought and self-awarness (I suppose this is arguable but if you don't aplly it to a cow then i don't see how you can to a foetus).

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try, but most people assign the life of a human being much more value than that of any other species. You can question the reasoning behind that if you like, but in that case it is probably more appropriately discussed in the philosophy forum. But we as a society value the life of human being much more than any other form of life and for that reason your attempt to turn it around is flawed.

vulturesrow

07-12-2005, 03:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no baby. There is an embryo, and then a fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the words embryo and fetus are an attempt to divorce people from the realization that these are just different stages of human development. At the moment of conception, a genetically complete human being is formed and will from that point on continue to develop along the normal continuum of life. Once you acknowledge this scientific fact, it becomes clear that this is no different than killing of a human being at some other point in their development. If you think this is just some conservative or religious propaganda, read some of Peter Singer's work, who fully acknowledges the fact that if you allow abortion, then infanticide becomes viable as well and so forth. I find it amusing that people here (and this isnt directed at niss, just happened to be responding his post) who pride themselves on their clear and logical, scientific thinking immediately try to bring up fuzzy questions about the nature of life and when it all actually begins. It begins at conception. Any other line is an arbitrary one that we draw and say "ending a human life is ok before this point".

[censored]

07-12-2005, 03:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no baby. There is an embryo, and then a fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the words embryo and fetus are an attempt to divorce people from the realization that these are just different stages of human development. At the moment of conception, a genetically complete human being is formed and will from that point on continue to develop along the normal continuum of life. Once you acknowledge this scientific fact, it becomes clear that this is no different than killing of a human being at some other point in their development. If you think this is just some conservative or religious propaganda, read some of Peter Singer's work, who fully acknowledges the fact that if you allow abortion, then infanticide becomes viable as well and so forth. I find it amusing that people here (and this isnt directed at niss, just happened to be responding his post) who pride themselves on their clear and logical, scientific thinking immediately try to bring up fuzzy questions about the nature of life and when it all actually begins. It begins at conception. Any other line is an arbitrary one that we draw and say "ending a human life is ok before this point".

[/ QUOTE ]

this is why I believe it is only a matter of time before the prolife movement ultimately wins out. This is also why I believe those that support the right to abortion are so clearly oppossed to allowing the people to decide.

fimbulwinter

07-12-2005, 04:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, the wealthier elements of society will be able to travel overseas to get it done, and the less well off will go to backstreet chop shops. I really can't see an argument in favour of these laws, other than a desire to impose your values on others by legislation.

Opinions pro and against appreciated.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

your exact same case can be made WRT "for hire" hitmen.

fim

mackthefork

07-12-2005, 04:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I find it amusing that people here (and this isnt directed at niss, just happened to be responding his post) who pride themselves on their clear and logical, scientific thinking immediately try to bring up fuzzy questions about the nature of life and when it all actually begins. It begins at conception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like it might be directed at me, I said this....

[ QUOTE ]
The subjects you mention are different from each other and the one at hand. When do we consider the embryo/fetus has become a human being, I think you are suggesting conception which I would disagree with, but I think the current UK limit of 24 weeks is far too late. This seems to be an emotive subject, and everyone I know has a strong opinion one way or the other, I don't personally see it as black and white.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks but I don't see that as fuzzy at all, and I'm certainly not daft enough to think that the opinion of people who are anti abortion is not worth listening to.

Also for what its worth no one as far as I can tell suggested that it was....

[ QUOTE ]
If you think this is just some conservative or religious propaganda

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to add these extras to reinforce the validity of your argument, completely unnecessary in my opinion.

I think many pro choice people are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion and not really certain what the best course of action is, in my opinion they sensibly suggest that the decision is left in the hands of the person best qualified to decide and the one who is unlikely to make the choice lightly.

Regards Mack

fimbulwinter

07-12-2005, 04:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Environmental/animal rights activists will go to war to defend the life of a tree, which cannot feel or think. They will commit acts of vandalism and violence to rescue labratory animals, some of which are considered vermin by the population at large (Please note this - I am not speaking of only endangered species). Their position is they are defending those who have no voice, who cannot defend themselves. Yet these individuals almost unfailingly walk in lockstep idealogically with those who support abortion rights. I'd like to see these individuals explain themselves and how they logically came to the conclusion a helpless potential human being deserves no defense while a chicken does."

This is a lot less straightforward than if it is turned around. A Pro-life supporter who eats meat is responsible for the death of a creature far more aware than a foetus of any stage of development. It is more capable of thought and self-awarness (I suppose this is arguable but if you don't aplly it to a cow then i don't see how you can to a foetus).

Hypocrisy aplenty.

[/ QUOTE ]

this assumes that you value the lives of human beings equally to lives of animals. this illogical viewpoint is generally only held by far left leaning americans and most of europe.

fim

vulturesrow

07-12-2005, 04:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like it might be directed at me, I said this....

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasnt thinking of your post at all when I wrote that. I was thinking of all the previous threads on this subject.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks but I don't see that as fuzzy at all, and I'm certainly not daft enough to think that the opinion of people who are anti abortion is not worth listening to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refer to it as fuzzy thinking because the bottom line scientific fact, is that life begins at conception. In fact medical textbooks consider it such. Any other point you pick is arbitrary (in the big picture view, obviously it may not seem arbitrary if it is your opinion) and hence, fuzzy. And for what its worth, I am daft, because I cant see a sensible way to justify killing a child who is at its earliest stage of development. The only caveat that I consider worthwhile is to preserve the life of the mother, which is a very small percentage of why people have abortions.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to add these extras to reinforce the validity of your argument, completely unnecessary in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the propaganda comment was certainly a pre-emptive strike /images/graemlins/smile.gif And as for adding things to reinforce the validity of my opinion, why wouldnt I do that? The fact is that the pro-death crowd tries very hard to not think the through the ramifications of allowing abortion on demand. Peter Singer makes very clear what the ramifications are. And since he is most certainly in the pro-death camp, and is well known figure in academia, I am certainly going to point him out.

[censored]

07-12-2005, 05:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
in my opinion they sensibly suggest that the decision is left in the hands of the person best qualified to decide and the one who is unlikely to make the choice lightly.

Regards Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

if this is the mother than this is extremely faulty thinking.

refer to vulture's post concering the scientific definition of life and infacide.

mackthefork

07-12-2005, 05:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The only caveat that I consider worthwhile is to preserve the life of the mother, which is a very small percentage of why people have abortions.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about women from certain cultures who live in the west that would be cast out of their families.

What if they would be stoned or subjected to an honour killing.

What if the fetus had a condition which meant it was very unlikely to live past the first 12 months and would be in constant pain throughtout its life.

What if the child was conceived in rape, and would be a constant reminder to the victim of the violation, is a child conceived without consent less valuable?

What if the child was severly mentally handicapped and would depend on its parents for the duration of their lives or its life for everything, is this child as valuable? If so should testing for such conditions be banned.

What if the condom slipped or split, does our second year law student have to give up a possible promising career to look after an unwanted child, a child that might grow up hated or resented by its own mother, selfish reasons but these are responsibilities men can never understand. We have no comparison to this.

Regards Mack

[censored]

07-12-2005, 05:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only caveat that I consider worthwhile is to preserve the life of the mother, which is a very small percentage of why people have abortions.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about women from certain cultures who live in the west that would be cast out of their families.

What if they would be stoned or subjected to an honour killing.

What if the fetus had a condition which meant it was very unlikely to live past the first 12 months and would be in constant pain throughtout its life.

What if the child was conceived in rape, and would be a constant reminder to the victim of the violation, is a child conceived without consent less valuable?

What if the child was severly mentally handicapped and would depend on its parents for the duration of their lives or its life for everything, is this child as valuable? If so should testing for such conditions be banned.

What if the condom slipped or split, does our second year law student have to give up a possible promising career to look after an unwanted child, a child that might grow up hated or resented by its own mother, selfish reasons but these are responsibilities men can never understand. We have no comparison to this.

Regards Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

can't most of these things be equally as true after the child is born? is it ok for the mother to decide to end that life (the newborn infant) as well? If not what exactly are using to base the above belief on?

oreogod

07-12-2005, 05:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"When do we consider the embryo/fetus has become a human being?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say when it can eat/breathe/live-on-its-own without the need of the mothers body is probably a good time frame.

[censored]

07-12-2005, 05:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"When do we consider the embryo/fetus has become a human being?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say when it can eat/breathe/live-on-its-own without the need of the mothers body is probably a good time frame.

[/ QUOTE ]

so when it can survive outside the womb?

oreogod

07-12-2005, 05:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yet these individuals almost unfailingly walk in lockstep idealogically with those who support abortion rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure about that? That sentence sounds like it was taken right from the Sean Hannity playbook: "these guys are the same guys that ______________". Here's a tip: they are often not the same people!!

Name me one individual who is a tree hugger and an pro-choice activist. I'm sure they exist, but you're suggesting it's all of them. I call your bluff - name one.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

Alec Baldwin. Martin Sheen. Lots of Hollywood types. I'm not going to google them all. The ones I have a real beef with, the ones that resort to vandalism and violence, I of course don't have their names. The radicals tend to operate in secret, with good reason.

With that said, I perhaps used too wide a brushstroke. I have actually researched this issue a fair amount today and read several essays (long and boring) on animal rights websites that explore this issue. There is actually considerable conflict in the animal rights community over this, and the end result is the issue is generally swept under the rug to stave off dissention in the ranks. The consensus among animal rights groups seems to be that the animal and abortion rights issues are completely separate. I actually agree, but for very different reasons. I consider human life to be far more valuable than the life of a hedgehog. But that's another thread entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Martin Sheen is pro-life, dumba**. Google it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about Charlie Sheen?

oreogod

07-12-2005, 05:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"When do we consider the embryo/fetus has become a human being?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say when it can eat/breathe/live-on-its-own without the need of the mothers body is probably a good time frame.

[/ QUOTE ]

so when it can survive outside the womb?

[/ QUOTE ]

Either that or can be C-sectioned out. Say u can insta take the baby out of the mothers womb, even if u have to hook it up to a machine (like some newborns have to be) to keep it alive until it gets healthier -- that I would pretty much consider a human being. But if there is no way for it to live beyond the means of a mothers body, then yeah.

Of course, I think ppl that are getting abortions way late in the pregnancy is f-ed up. If u are going to get an abortion I belive it should be done as early as possible. The longer into the pregnancy the more clouded it becomes on this issue. At least the way I see it.

Dont know, its late, but thats kind of how I view the whole thing. Also, if someone is having sex, using all forms of BC and gets pregnant, I dont belive she should be forced to have the baby.

[censored]

07-12-2005, 05:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"When do we consider the embryo/fetus has become a human being?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say when it can eat/breathe/live-on-its-own without the need of the mothers body is probably a good time frame.

[/ QUOTE ]

so when it can survive outside the womb?

[/ QUOTE ]

Either that or can be C-sectioned out. Say u can insta take the baby out of the mothers womb, even if u have to hook it up to a machine (like some newborns have to be) to keep it alive until it gets healthier -- that I would pretty much consider a human being. But if there is no way for it to live beyond the means of a mothers body, then yeah.

[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much agree with you. Does this mean that we should be continually alter the laws on abortion as advancements in medical technology move back the period at which we are able sustain a developing human life? I would think based on your beliefs above belief, it would be yes. But maybe not.

mackthefork

07-12-2005, 05:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
if this is the mother than this is extremely faulty thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matter of opinion, you think the state should do our family planning, every president of the USA is religious, the catholics would have contraception banned too, where would that leave us. Abstinence? not a real option.

[ QUOTE ]
refer to vulture's post concering the scientific definition of life and infacide.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did, not sure about it though.

Mack

mackthefork

07-12-2005, 06:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
can't most of these things be equally as true after the child is born? is it ok for the mother to decide to end that life (the newborn infant) as well? If not what exactly are using to base the above belief on?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not exactly sure which point you refer to, some were related to protecting the child from an unpleasant life, and some related to the needs of the mother.

Mack

oreogod

07-12-2005, 06:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"When do we consider the embryo/fetus has become a human being?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say when it can eat/breathe/live-on-its-own without the need of the mothers body is probably a good time frame.

[/ QUOTE ]

so when it can survive outside the womb?

[/ QUOTE ]

Either that or can be C-sectioned out. Say u can insta take the baby out of the mothers womb, even if u have to hook it up to a machine (like some newborns have to be) to keep it alive until it gets healthier -- that I would pretty much consider a human being. But if there is no way for it to live beyond the means of a mothers body, then yeah.

[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much agree with you. Does this mean that we should be continually alter the laws on abortion as advancements in medical technology move back the period at which we are able sustain a developing human life? I would think based on your beliefs above belief, it would be yes. But maybe not.

[/ QUOTE ]

My answer to that would probably be yes. Example, a woman doesnt want her baby and has either the option to abort it, or somehow have it taken out and there is a medical facility that can keep the baby/fetus alive/growing, I dont see a need for abortion at that point in her pregnancy.

Of course, the medical advancement issue, to me, ties in with the issue of over population. Ive always been curious what the ideas on abortion would be if we were over populated.

The issue, regardless is a delicate one and one that I find without a right answer. Morals, beliefs/God, etc...so many ppl see this as different things. My belief comes down to the womans right to choose, can it live outside the body, if she has the baby does she have the means to bring it up in a healthy way (and if she doesnt want it, this is not possible), etc. Giving birth and putting the baby up for adoption is another option as well. But if a girl is 6 weeks pregnant, I belive she should have the right to choose what she wishes.

[censored]

07-12-2005, 06:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can't most of these things be equally as true after the child is born? is it ok for the mother to decide to end that life (the newborn infant) as well? If not what exactly are using to base the above belief on?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not exactly sure which point you refer to, some were related to protecting the child from an unpleasant life, and some related to the needs of the mother.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

in everyone of those examples you gave I could just as easily use that as a reason to allow a mother to terminate the life of a newborn infant. ie a mother of a baby could suffer all of those hardships after the baby was born, and could shed herself of those by terminating the life of the baby.

so my question is what you based your belief, that it would permitable to terminate the life before birth, if you believe that the mother should have that same right post birth, on?

mackthefork

07-12-2005, 07:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
in everyone of those examples you gave I could just as easily use that as a reason to allow a mother to terminate the life of a newborn infant. ie a mother of a baby could suffer all of those hardships after the baby was born, and could shed herself of those by terminating the life of the baby.

so my question is what you based your belief, that it would permitable to terminate the life before birth, if you believe that the mother should have that same right post birth, on?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I was asking questions, not stating a belief, those were just examples in addition to the medical one vulture stated, I never expressed an opinion on them, I wouldn't want my own child terminated if it was ill, as long as it had a million to one chance of pulling through.

My belief is basically in the womans right to choose, although I feel uncomfortable about abortions in the 16-24 week range, especially for non medical reasons.

This is a 16 week old fetus

http://www.mainerighttolife.com/images/fetaldevelopment/fig01baby4mos.jpg

This is a 24 week old fetus

http://www.mainerighttolife.com/images/fetaldevelopment/fig07face6mos.jpg

Both too late in my opinion, neither can survive outside the womb, so I don't think thats it.

Regards Mack

lehighguy

07-12-2005, 12:17 PM

Ok. You believe live begins at X. Others believe if begins at Y.

Who should be able to make policy based on thier belief.

[censored]

07-12-2005, 12:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. You believe live begins at X. Others believe if begins at Y.

Who should be able to make policy based on thier belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much exactly my thoughts. A belief is going to be imposed on some people. The only real question as you stated before is what mechanism we are going to use to determine which belief is imposed. I can't really see a good arguement for any thing other than a machanism which the largest number of people will be satisfied with.