Abortion

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Moonitic

Two things, then I refuse to speak of this ugly topic anymore: In Latin, "fetus" means "offspring." If two (yes, TWO) humans produce an offspring, then that offspring is, indeed, human. In an attempt to reduce a child to "mere clumps of tissue" by using the word fetus, one actually qualifies him or her as a human.

Actually, nobody here is speaking (er, typing) in Latin. Yes, the word has a Latin root. That does not miraculously make the Latin definition into the (modern) English definition.

Personally, I don't see the word "fetus" as trying to distance a fetus from humanity. It's just a description, and one that I've heard parents-to-be and doctors use -- and not when discussing abortion.

Quite frankly, I can't see how a small group of cells is to be considered an entire human being, just because it has human DNA. You can take a sample of my cells, or a woman's egg -- things which can (probably) with today's technology be made into a human being (via cloning). That doesn't make them one, until the process is complete.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Moonitic

I am pro-life. Obviously, the child must be ALIVE if someone decided to call it "pro-LIFE."

Um ... circular logic?

It was called pro-life by people arguing that a fetus was a human life. People in the pro-choice camp did not name the pro-life group. In fact, the label is often derided by members of the pro-choice group: The pro-choice group is not anti-life, but that's what the pro-life group is trying to convey by naming themselves "pro-LIFE." Nor are all pro-lifers actually pro-life (as I, and many others, would see it), as some (albeit an extremely small minority) support the shooting of abortion doctors and bombing of abortion clinics. Above and beyond that, many people in the pro-life camp don't think that the death penalty should be abolished ... why not?

In any case, one should not read too much into the labels that people give themselves.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by achilleus

...but most importantly how they felt it was the right decision for them. They weren't, at the time, ready financially or emotionally to raise a child.

And again, I'll point to all the infertile couples who are ready, and just waiting for the chance. Abortion is not the only way to avoid raising a child.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Moonitic

The aborted fetus in a receptical isn't proof of murder, eh? The crushed skull of an infant half delivered, then his brain sucked out before being pulled from the "egg donor's" body (she's no mother) isn't proof? Interesting. I'd say that's pretty tangible evidence. AND there's a motive, or more. Hmm...

Methinks someone needs to study the subject a little more.

Ah, the "let's get graphic" angle. If things sounding disgusting made them criminal, we'd likely be without any sort of invasive surgery. I can't stand to watch those operation TV shows, but that doesn't make open heart surgery into aggravated assault.

In short: No, it isn't proof. In court, you need to prove that a human being was killed, beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers. They must decide unanimously. And, simply by looking through the posts here, or looking at any poll on the subject, you can be pretty sure that a random selection of a dozen people will result in a hung jury.

"...the law deals in reality not obscurity--the known rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation." (Swomley 1983:1)

Here in Canada, it certainly can't happen: There's a legal definition of a human being -- it has to have "completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother."

(I got these from http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/Kreef...umanBeing.html ... it's obviously a reaction to some sort of similar argument. It's got stuff in regards to law in Australia and the UK as well).

But getting back to your point ... I have friends who study anatomy at the nearby University. There's a leg bin there. That is, a bin full of legs from people who died and donated their body to science. It's not unusual that they have to dig through the leg bin, looking for something -- a leg with a certain torn ligament (or said ligament intact) or something. I find it rather disgusting, myself.

It doesn't make it criminal. If you pulled out a leg and took it to the police, they'd be shocked, appalled, and launch an investigation immediately. Then arrest you a couple of weeks later when they found out what actually happened. The same would occur if you took the remains of an aborted fetus in.

I understand that you're pro-life. I'm not going to say anything here to convince you otherwise (you've probably already realised that). I don't think abortion is a good thing, but remain (and, unless you have a drastically different and more compelling argument than any I've heard before, will continue to remain) of the opinion that it's not a wrong thing, hence pro-choice.

But even if you did convince me, I still wouldn't think abortion amounted to murder. Murder isn't just killing a person, it's doing so unlawfully -- and the fetus clearly falls outside of this definition, regardless of how you view it in terms of what constitutes a person.

[mrbiggs]

I'm not going to try to argue anything because it's very clear to me that there is no clear right or wrong in abortion. Life should be protected, but a pair of cells isn't life any more than a blade of grass is. There should be a line, but where that should be is not easy to discover.

My personal opinion for abortions is: 1. None in third trimester, unless it is dangerous to the woman's health. 2. Maximum 2 abortions in a lifetime. (Exceptions made for cases like rape, possibly). 3. More money spent on research into better methods of abortion. (Just go on to a pro-life site and it's easy to see why people oppose it so vehemently. If we make the methods better, it will be easier to justify.)

[jeff]

And mrbiggs last sentence brings us to the question of RU486.... If a blastocyst (is that what it is at that point?) never fastens to the uterine wall, then it never gets past the 'collection of cells' stage. Of course, the anti-abortion side is completely against RU486 because it makes the issue become something the woman can manage in privacy.

All in all, a complicated issue one that will never make everyone happy.

I recently saw an Op-Ed in the NYT by the Dean of Notre Dame, who pointed out that abortion rates were dramatically lower under Clinton than under Reagan: nominally pro-choice administrations can have lower abortion rates if the social safety net is more robust. Think about that...

[Moonitic]

Originally Posted by kalivor

Here in Canada, it certainly can't happen: There's a legal definition of a human being -- it has to have "completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother."

Thankfully, I'm not in Canada.

Here's the definition of fetus, from the New American Webster Handy College Dictionary New Third Edition, copyright 1995 (is that modern enough for you? Surely we can find a newer edition.) Fetus:noun "The unborn young of an animal." (pregnancy, in that same book, is stated as "carrying unborn young"...abortion is stated as "expulsion or removal of the human fetus"). If the unborn of a dog is a dog, & the unborn of a monkey is a monkey...what's an unborn human? According to the dictionary, an unborn human is a human! Did you know that a child can be born as early as 26 weeks gestation & survive outside the womb, yet there are some who say it's okay to abort then? (As an added note of interest...or disinterest for some...I knew my daughter was a girl at 18 weeks gestation, thanks to an amnio done when there was a concern about the pregnancy. Not only was she human, with the eyes, nose, ears, mouth, etc. of a human...not a dog or monkey...she was a girl).

What concerns me is that if the same girl/woman WANTED the baby, & something happened for that baby to die, she'd cry, scream, etc. that her baby died. Which does bring in another point: how can something not alive die? Stop & seriously consider that. I'm not talking about a mere clump of cells. I'm talking about a "clump of cells" (which we all are!) that can smile, cry, hiccup, etc.

Getting off that particular part of the subject, what about responsibility? When does it start? "They just weren't ready to be parents"..."it was hard on them." Shouldn't these things be considered much earlier than after the pregnancy test comes back positive? Or is the mindset, "Oh, I'll be fine. If not, I'll just worry about that later." Here's the stitch: What if unprotected sex didn't result in a baby, but a STD (yes, I know, it does. apparently, some don't think of that)? Someone who didn't think ahead could end up dead, or with a terrible disease that they would have for the rest of their lives. Shouldn't all of this be considered prior to one (or more) nights of "fun"? Do people not value their lives?

We protect ourselves when we fence, right? Football players wear protection. So do hockey players. If sex is recreational like so many sports, shouldn't people be protecting themselves & planning ahead? How about taking part in a sport when you shouldn't? Say...when you have had mind altering substances before a tournament, or you hurt yourself & could make the injury worse if you took part. But you reeeeaaaallly want to. Yet you know it would be a bad idea, so you don't do it. We humans have the ability to show control like that. Sex feels great, but we don't HAVE to do it if it means that we could be hurt.

One last thing before this dead horse is beaten anymore: I never said that abortion is a form of birth control. I said that some girls & women use it as such. THEY seem to think it's birth control. I know better. They need to be educated, & they need to be counselled.

Obviously, no one will change another's opinion here, but I STRONGLY urge people to research & educate themselves in the subject. Talk to people. Go online & look up the process. Seriously consider both sides of the issue. They have websites where you type in a due date, & it will show you week by week, month by month, what the baby looks like in the womb. If you don't want to, fine, but there's no harm in education.

And that's the end of my even attempting to explain my thoughts on the subject. Do whatever the heck you want.

[noodle]

are birth control pills immoral?

in taking them, the hormones trick the body into thinking it is pregnant, thus preventing a fertilized egg from sticking to the uteran wall.

if someone were to have sex and concieve, the egg would simply fall through/not attach/"die", though it was fertilized and growing.

thoughts?

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Moonitic

Thankfully, I'm not in Canada.

Here's the definition of fetus, from the New American Webster Handy College Dictionary New Third Edition, copyright 1995 (is that modern enough for you? Surely we can find a newer edition.) Fetus:noun "The unborn young of an animal." (pregnancy, in that same book, is stated as "carrying unborn young"...abortion is stated as "expulsion or removal of the human fetus"). If the unborn of a dog is a dog, & the unborn of a monkey is a monkey...what's an unborn human? According to the dictionary, an unborn human is a human! Did you know that a child can be born as early as 26 weeks gestation & survive outside the womb, yet there are some who say it's okay to abort then? (As an added note of interest...or disinterest for some...I knew my daughter was a girl at 18 weeks gestation, thanks to an amnio done when there was a concern about the pregnancy. Not only was she human, with the eyes, nose, ears, mouth, etc. of a human...not a dog or monkey...she was a girl).

What concerns me is that if the same girl/woman WANTED the baby, & something happened for that baby to die, she'd cry, scream, etc. that her baby died. Which does bring in another point: how can something not alive die? Stop & seriously consider that. I'm not talking about a mere clump of cells. I'm talking about a "clump of cells" (which we all are!) that can smile, cry, hiccup, etc.

Getting off that particular part of the subject, what about responsibility? When does it start? "They just weren't ready to be parents"..."it was hard on them." Shouldn't these things be considered much earlier than after the pregnancy test comes back positive? Or is the mindset, "Oh, I'll be fine. If not, I'll just worry about that later." Here's the stitch: What if unprotected sex didn't result in a baby, but a STD (yes, I know, it does. apparently, some don't think of that)? Someone who didn't think ahead could end up dead, or with a terrible disease that they would have for the rest of their lives. Shouldn't all of this be considered prior to one (or more) nights of "fun"? Do people not value their lives?

We protect ourselves when we fence, right? Football players wear protection. So do hockey players. If sex is recreational like so many sports, shouldn't people be protecting themselves & planning ahead? How about taking part in a sport when you shouldn't? Say...when you have had mind altering substances before a tournament, or you hurt yourself & could make the injury worse if you took part. But you reeeeaaaallly want to. Yet you know it would be a bad idea, so you don't do it. We humans have the ability to show control like that. Sex feels great, but we don't HAVE to do it if it means that we could be hurt.

One last thing before this dead horse is beaten anymore: I never said that abortion is a form of birth control. I said that some girls & women use it as such. THEY seem to think it's birth control. I know better. They need to be educated, & they need to be counselled.

Obviously, no one will change another's opinion here, but I STRONGLY urge people to research & educate themselves in the subject. Talk to people. Go online & look up the process. Seriously consider both sides of the issue. They have websites where you type in a due date, & it will show you week by week, month by month, what the baby looks like in the womb. If you don't want to, fine, but there's no harm in education.

And that's the end of my even attempting to explain my thoughts on the subject. Do whatever the heck you want.

A couple of points:

No one, I don't believe, quoted you as saying that abortion = birth control. I, and I think others, mentioned it in agreement with you. I felt it was important to restate that point.

You talk about protection, however, such protection is not 100% guaranteed protection. In these rare cases, one has to decide on one's future. People often talk of accepting the consequences and taking responsibility, however in this day and age, deciding to abort the prenancy is just that. Taking responsibility for one's actions. For many girls and young women, it's not easy, nor is it without lasting emotional effects.

Also, you make several great arguments as to when life begins, however, it's a point that scientists argue over. We certainly won't come to a consensus here, so at this point in time, it comes down to what an individual believes. I, for one, accept that.

As for Soldier's point about adoption, it's kinda funny, there are plenty of orphans who need loving parents. Many are left by the wayside because people refuse to take older kids. Before we talk about adding more kids requiring love and care, how about we take care of the ones that are already around and need families?

It's a complex issue, very much governed by how an individual believes (is a fetus a human life?). That's why I think each individual should be able to make the choice for themselves.

[telkanuru]

Ditto on the individual choice point, but frankly I read the argument about abortions and unprotected sex as "the baby is your punishment for having unprotected sex, now live with it". I should also point out that most people who are anti-abortion are also against all birth control methods besidse not having sex at all, which has been proven not to do anyone any good.

Last, if you're pro-life, you are against killing anything, ever. If you are anti-abortion, you are against a specific instance of what you define as killing.

"I am pro-life. Obviously, the child must be ALIVE if someone decided to call it "pro-LIFE.""
Do I really have to point out the logical flaw in this argument. No? I didn't think so.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Ditto on the individual choice point, but frankly I read the argument about abortions and unprotected sex as "the baby is your punishment for having unprotected sex, now live with it".

I agree. I think that's their argument. I think it's a ridiculous sentiment.

A baby is not punishment, nor does nature work like that.

[damion18d]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Also, on a different note, I dont believe that any male, myself included, should have any opinion on this. Its between a woman and her baby, and they are the only ones that should have any say so whatsoever. Opinions from guys on the subject of abortion is are just pointless.

Here! Here! for once I am in complete agreement with you. The only caviot being if the father wants the child there should be some consideration. Final say so obviously coming to the woman.

[damion18d]

Just a few quick thoughts on the subject.

1. This debate is always muttled with tons of semantics. Like mentioned earlier scientist argue the merits of what, how, and when. I would not think that a partisin website will clear it all up for you.

2. I agree that abortion is a waste. At the same time nobody ranting on either side can clear up the thousands of children in the cattlecall institutions of our nation. I would like to see the pro-lifers work to give those kids a chance at a real life. Because if they won the arguement and didn't fix that problem first the backlash of no place for unwanted children, back alley abortions, welfare increase would be crippling. If they are really pro-life does that extend to everyone or just babies. Once it's out of the womb it's someone elses problem? I can't see clearly through the plan.

3. A lot of the arguments mentioned are moral issues. Girls with multiple abortions, premisquouse(sp) sex. We don't live in a moral vaccum. I agree with you these things are wrong you should think of the consequeces of your actions before hand. But alas we are human if it was as simple as saying it there would be no problem. If you hate the problem I understand your convictions, but come up with a viable solution. Something that really will work. Not the same old reteric. Simplely pointing and stomping your foot won't fix the situation. Until you can come up[ with a way to cure the human condition that infects so many of us, there will always be so many actions that are aporable.

[Moonitic]

Originally Posted by achilleus

A couple of points:

No one, I don't believe, quoted you as saying that abortion = birth control. I, and I think others, mentioned it in agreement with you. I felt it was important to restate that point.

You talk about protection, however, such protection is not 100% guaranteed protection. In these rare cases, one has to decide on one's future. People often talk of accepting the consequences and taking responsibility, however in this day and age, deciding to abort the prenancy is just that. Taking responsibility for one's actions. For many girls and young women, it's not easy, nor is it without lasting emotional effects.

Also, you make several great arguments as to when life begins, however, it's a point that scientists argue over. We certainly won't come to a consensus here, so at this point in time, it comes down to what an individual believes. I, for one, accept that.

As for Soldier's point about adoption, it's kinda funny, there are plenty of orphans who need loving parents. Many are left by the wayside because people refuse to take older kids. Before we talk about adding more kids requiring love and care, how about we take care of the ones that are already around and need families?

It's a complex issue, very much governed by how an individual believes (is a fetus a human life?). That's why I think each individual should be able to make the choice for themselves.

As far as adoption goes, the government makes it VERY difficult to adopt in the U.S. The red tape & hoops a couple have to jump through makes it nearly impossible. So what do people do? They go to other countries to adopt, even the older kids (people will take older kids more often than one would think). That needs to change. The pool is there. It needs to be easier to jump in.

In this day & age, a person should think of the consequences of an action BEFORE such an action. Fine, abortion is a choice, but let's be honest with ourselves. Maybe the choice should be made far before, so that someone doesn't have to deal with the heartache that would follow. This goes for any decision. Jobs, marriage, whether or not to buy a house (or where that house should be). We all make rash decisions, but sometimes we fail to realize what a rash decision could do to us down the road.

And no, babies are NOT punishment...but why should they be punished for someone else's moment of pleasure? We all make mistakes, & they are forgiveable, but please...we have brains. They need to be used. Decisions that could make or break our future need to be seriously considered. In most cases, this is not what happens with sex. Notice I said "most" cases, not all? Yeah, there are people who are able to stop & consider it, which, again, is why I favor more education. The more people know, the better.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by damion18d

Just a few quick thoughts on the subject.

1. This debate is always muttled with tons of semantics. Like mentioned earlier scientist argue the merits of what, how, and when. I would not think that a partisin website will clear it all up for you.

It wasn't meant to "clear it all up." In fact, it's an issue which, I think, may be impossible to ever clear up. It was, instead, a link to a website that had (as far as I'm aware) accurate information on the legal status of a fetus in comparison to a post-birth baby. Given the legal status of abortion in first-world English speaking countries (which, given what I see of the make-up of the board, I assumed was the correct context in which to put this debate), that a collection of definitions and case laws is to be found on a pro-choice site should not surprise anybody.

I was asked how an aborted fetus could not be considered clear, undoubtable evidence for murder, and think that my reply was reasonable in that context.

Quite frankly, I think that once we start arguing about the definition of words, the debate is no longer a debate. We no longer care about the point the other person is making, but would rather redefine what they're trying to say in some sort of attempt to make their argument refute itself. It does not change the ideas or the intent of the original argument.

Though quite frankly, I think we should all stop posting on this, before Gav feels the need to close the thread and shoot us all in the reputation. Not that we will, of course. Who doesn't feel that the debate should end just after they've had the last word?

[latenight]

This is all reminding me why I don't let this issue come in to play at all when I consider who I vote for. There are bigger fish to fry and this is always a stumbling block.

I tend toward pro choice, because I don't believe in pushing my views on others. I think this is a case where it is best to let each individual make there own moral decisions.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by achilleus

As for Soldier's point about adoption, it's kinda funny, there are plenty of orphans who need loving parents. Many are left by the wayside because people refuse to take older kids. Before we talk about adding more kids requiring love and care, how about we take care of the ones that are already around and need families?

Yes, there are a lot of kids already in great need of being adopted. This is why I specifically pointed out the parents who wait in long lines for that healthy American baby of their preferred race. They are the ones I am talking about - the ones not interested in the orphanage and/or foreign children.

[darius]

I tend toward pro choice, because I don't believe in pushing my views on others. I think this is a case where it is best to let each individual make there own moral decisions.

Amen!

I'm a little conflicted here. On one side, I dislike the idea of killing an unborn child.

On the other end -- well, I've never carried a child to term. But a child is a parasite which is multiple pounds and requires significant resources to carry, not to mention the trauma involved in birthing it. "Give it up for adoption" is easy to say, but that's still a pretty significant process to go through, which can impact one's life pretty heavily.

When it comes down to it, everybody makes mistakes, and even educated people have unprotected sex. Sometimes it's dumb (too drunk!) and sometimes it's forced (rape/incest) -- either way, I don't believe that I, or any geezer in DC, should be able to legislate a woman's ability to control what goes in/comes out of their body. Children are a gift, not a punishment.

Late term abortions are pretty heinous, though. I don't understand why partial-birth could ever be an issue -- did it really take until the 3rd trimester to realize you didn't want the kid? Is there any particular reason why one would *want* to do that?

darius