'This can't be happening in our country.'

[Onkel Neal]

"I have abortion on the front of this building, because I think abortion isn't a four-letter word. It's a part of life."

What? :o

The abortionist and his No. 1 foe (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/27/abortion.war/index.html)

Discuss!

I have to say, it amazes me that someone can be so cavalier about late term abortions. The two sides will never agree, one side says it's choice, the other side says legalized murder. One thing's for sure, when an abortion occurs, a human life in production ceases to exist.

The legal definition of late-term abortion varies from state to state. Medical professionals generally define it as an abortion performed at 24 weeks or beyond, a time in pregnancy when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

Of the 60,000 abortions he says he's performed, he says about 400 were beyond 24 weeks, so-called late-term abortions. In each case, he says, there was a medical reason for the procedure.

,,,wow.

The latest abortion he's ever performed was at 36 weeks, he says, because the fetus had not developed a brain. His youngest patient was 10, a victim of incest.

In cases like that, I would tend to agree. But 60,000 cases of incest or malformed fetuses? :nope:

[Schroeder]

I think abortion should only be legal if the the child is massively challenged. Or maybe during the first 2 weeks but not later.
Idon't count myself to the conservatives but abortion is something that is way to easy to do nowadays (I know a girl who already had two of them.:down:).

[August]

I wish abortions didn't happen but with nearly 7 billion people on the planet and the number ever climbing I don't think we really have the luxury of standing on principle when it comes to unwanted pregnancies.

[Shearwater]

Reminds me of a conversation I once had with a friend of mine. He was working together with an American woman, and somehow a chat with her turned onto that topic. He was really amazed (like myself and most of my friends) that abortion seems to be one of the major issues in the US (at least that was the impression that woman gave him). Not that I think it's not important - quite to the contrary. But it seems to be much more on the political agenda than over here.

[Skybird]

I cannot define "human life in production" - what should that be, please? Either it is human life, or it is not. Two states of cellular developement, that cannot clearly be separated from each other by a precise point in the timeline, thus we need to find an agreement on the grey zone where that cellular mass that has nothing, really nothing in common with a human being, actually turns into a human being that shows a cellular order with a sufficiently advanced structure to see it as a human being. And not before then - you can eventually talk of "human life in production". Before that, it is just some cellular grease with genetic information to eventually become a human - but who would think of the genetic information in the hairs and skin cells he/she is loosing all day long as a "human life prevented from developement"? Our reactions to threats to our genetic code are instinct driven survival automatisms - where the survival of our species is meant, not necessarily our individual survival.

Knowing that we are free to leave this genetically enforced automatism behind, if we chose to do so, I see no wrong in doing that during the phase where that cellular grease is just that: cellular grease. no human gets killed there. No future gets prevented, for a future of something has as a precondition that this something already exists in the present. Potentials alone - are no future. They are just fate's hear-say about Whats and Ifs and Maybes. Philosophical finger excercises to please the ego and to saend the intellect on doing that one extra round. I could as well think about what my life would be if I would have had a sister or brother. It makes no sense, and means nothing, and I will never know wanything for sure, and if I could nevertheless, that knowledge would be useless for me in my life. Hirngespinste.

So, disucssion I only understand on the issue of until what time abortion is acceptable. And it could be possible that I fix that time much earlier than is usually the case, but I would need to educate myself much better on the timetable of embryonic developement phases. Before that time, I see abortion as morally perfectly legal, and all upstir about it as an instinct-driven venting of emotional overpressure that results from the genetically encoded law to survive - and like all automatisms, it does not work perfectly and in this case even is counterproductive.

for any further discussion of aboprtion I refer you to this most uncompromised realist I know, Dr. House. :D Just try to imagine what he would reply to you!

[Shearwater]

Well, I'll say that from the moment of conception, a human being starts to exist. But to me it's something different than a person, since that lump of cells, despite being human and with all the potential it has within itself, does not yet have what most people would call a personality, or an discernible individual identity. If it were otherwise, most people would probably have a much harder time deciding for abortion.
Personally, I think that it is the parents' responsibilty to decide in such a matter (although late abortions do concern me). I think, however, that it's absolutely mandatory to inform the parents thoroughly enough to ensure that the decision they are about to make is well-considered. After all, it's not only of their concern, and they should be made to consider the consequences.
I guess that position would make me pro-choice.

[VipertheSniper]

He has done around 400 late term abortions for medical reasons.

If the other 59600 abortions were done for personal reasons (of the parents), I don't think that's anyones business but those of the (would be) parents.
I don't think anyone makes this decision light-hearted, because if it's not for medical reasons, you know your baby would live if you didn't abort. Given that, I still think it's better to have the choice of having an abortion done by a professional than having to either do it illegally by someone who probably isn't even a doctor or giving birth and then giving the child away (which is a choice that is available right now too).

I think the reason why the doctor can talk the way he does, is because if he had any doubts about what he is doing he'd probably not be in this business, or have to cope with severe stress.

[Skybird]

What worries me is the showing of lacking education that is behind the high number of teenagers getting pregnant, and i think teenagers modern life and world is far too hyper-sexualised by the media and business.

I also would think to always leave a mother in despair the chance to legally give away her child if she wants, is the best option in such a situation. Growing numbers of couples cannot have children of their own nowadays. And a childhood in a family situation where the support is lacking, can be devastating both for the mother, and the child.

That holds the risk of even more irresponsible sexual behaviour - and there you are again at what I said before: lacking education and sexual over-stimulisation by modern culture and the media.

Just for your reminder, there are 7 billion people on Earth. Which is WAY TOO MUCH. Birth control already is one of the utmost priorities of any politics adressing our future. It's just that many people still do not understand that, and that our cultural heritage confronts headon with that statement.

Man will pay a high price for still not seeing that. We possibly already have lost our future over that.

[Task Force]

I think abortion should only be legal if the the child is massively challenged. Or maybe during the first 2 weeks but not later.
Idon't count myself to the conservatives but abortion is something that is way to easy to do nowadays (I know a girl who already had two of them.:down:).

I agree... I also think that if they choose to have an abortion they should be able to... And the woman also should have to not be able to have anouther child for afiew years afterwords...

In the end, the child may be better off depending on the parents...

[Rilder]

Its the woman's choice nobody else.

[GoldenRivet]

Abortion :nope:

If it can be determined beyond the shadow of doubt that the child will live a life of debilitating mental or physical handicap... meaning that the child will have no quality of life... i support abortion.

if it can be determined beyond the shadow of doubt that failure to terminate the pregnancy will result in the death of the mother, or the child, or both... i support abortion.

if the pregnancy was the result of rape... i support abortion if it is the desire of the mother to abort the pregnancy.

however...

i cannot support abortion just because the mother doesn't want to deal with the responsibility of her own sexual activities.

put the child up for adoption.

there are thousands of childless couples who cannot have children of their own who would love to have a child in their lives... and could raise the child and give it a happy home and a wonderful life.

why abort out of what amounts to pure spite???

disgraceful :nope:

[AVGWarhawk]

Some subjects are best left covered up. However, my take is one life that did not ask to be here suffers the worst. This question is the hardest to answer for anyone. We will never come to common ground in your and my lifetime. Once any holds that new life in their hands it is a whole different ballgame. Specifically if it is your child. I think Neal would agree.

[Oberon]

Damn, tricky subject. Definately the choice of the mother, but whether it qualifies as murder? Yes, it probably does, but then again there's plenty of that to go around, every single day hundreds of animals are murdered, some for food, some for 'fun' and at this stage of development a foetus is not much above an animal. However, as has been pointed out, the problem is not in the prevention of birth, but in the prevention of conception! Take a look at any British council estate, and you will see a teenage girl who is pregnant, at least one I dare say, gotten 'up the duff' due to a late night drunken ramble between the sheets with some bloke she picked up down the pub.
And how the heck do you prevent that?
The reduction of benefits might help, but then again it might just up the crime rate as they resort to different methods to fund the after effect of their unprotected sex.
Society places a lot of emphasis on sex, it always has done, it plays on hormones, but now it's far more prevailent than it has ever been, and thus, quelle surprise, the birth rates are up, and as people realise that they do not have the responsibility to support a child or do not want that responsibility, the rate of abortions will also rise.
It's a tricky one, that's for certain. :hmmm:

[antikristuseke]

Abortion :nope:

If it can be determined beyond the shadow of doubt that the child will live a life of debilitating mental or physical handicap... meaning that the child will have no quality of life... i support abortion.

if it can be determined beyond the shadow of doubt that failure to terminate the pregnancy will result in the death of the mother, or the child, or both... i support abortion.

if the pregnancy was the result of rape... i support abortion if it is the desire of the mother to abort the pregnancy.

however...

i cannot support abortion just because the mother doesn't want to deal with the responsibility of her own sexual activities.

put the child up for adoption.

there are thousands of childless couples who cannot have children of their own who would love to have a child in their lives... and could raise the child and give it a happy home and a wonderful life.

why abort out of what amounts to pure spite???

disgraceful :nope:

I agree with you up to the pint where you say however, because what comes after that amounts to BS in my opinion, and here is why. There are already thousands of children up for adoption, there is no shortage of kids to adopt. Also contraceptives are not failure proof, when contraceptives were used in order to avoid pregnancy and they failed, then what? Have the mother bring a child in to this world that is clearly unwanted just because you find abortion distasteful? Hell, I find it distasteful, that does not mean I have any right to forbid people from having one. Sure, you could just say that the woman should surely have abstained from sex, but be reasonable here, those who abstain until marriage are a very, very small minority, the rest of us enjoy sex. It is quite good. And to say abortion is nothing more than spite, now that really is some grade A bs right there.

[AVGWarhawk]

To be fair Antikris:


I blanked out the emotions after each of my SEVEN abortions


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1035053/I-blanked-emotions-SEVEN-abortions.html

Abortion is some womens contraception.

[August]

To be fair Antikris:




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1035053/I-blanked-emotions-SEVEN-abortions.html

Abortion is some womens contraception.

Now there's a case for mandatory sterilization if I ever saw one.

[antikristuseke]

To be fair Antikris:




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1035053/I-blanked-emotions-SEVEN-abortions.html

Abortion is some womens contraception.

Who are few and far between and complete ****s.

[Aramike]

I agree with you up to the pint where you say however, because what comes after that amounts to BS in my opinion, and here is why. There are already thousands of children up for adoption, there is no shortage of kids to adopt. Also contraceptives are not failure proof, when contraceptives were used in order to avoid pregnancy and they failed, then what? Have the mother bring a child in to this world that is clearly unwanted just because you find abortion distasteful? Hell, I find it distasteful, that does not mean I have any right to forbid people from having one. Sure, you could just say that the woman should surely have abstained from sex, but be reasonable here, those who abstain until marriage are a very, very small minority, the rest of us enjoy sex. It is quite good. And to say abortion is nothing more than spite, now that really is some grade A bs right there.See, I personally harbor no deep revulsion to abortion, as I just can't quite cross the threshold of a 12 week old fetus being a "baby".

However, that being said, I *DO* find the "inconvienience" argument repulsive. If you have sex, even with contraception, are you not accepting the risk that you might get pregnant?

The idea that any baby would be a burden and therefore must not be brought into existance echoes the arguments in the late 1930s regarding the handicapped. That I find downright frightening.

[Aramike]

Who are few and far between and complete ****s.1300 women having their FIFTH abortion in one year, in one country, does not fit my standard of "few and far between".

[CaptainHaplo]

Ahh an interesting debate.

First off, let me squash one item stated to start with.

"Its a woman's choice"

Well - it was the choice of 2 people to concieve a child - or at least partake in the activity that can create one. If the child is born, can the man look at a judge and say "well I aborted my part of the child, so I have no responsibility?" Of course not. Both parties have an equal responsibility in the creation of a child, and thus both should have a say on the outcome. Currently, there is no such thing as "equal rights" when it comes to this subject, which is a travesty of the system.

Now, with that said. I am likely to tick off a number of people, and probably suprise a few.

My view is that life is defined not at conception, but at the point where independant brain and circulatory activity can be detected and verified. My reasoning is this. At a certain stage, a heart develops. At a certain stage, a brain develops. However, for those of us who are "alive" in the legal sense, your considered "dead" when your brain can no longer cause your heart to beat. This is known as being "brain dead". For a fetus, prior to that moment when the brain sends its first electrical pulses to the heart to make it beat, the fetus does not meet the standard required to be "alive" that the rest of us do. Once that happens though, then an seperate (while still dependant) life exists.

For those that say life does not begin until birth, let me share something. I have a picture that I will cherish for my entire life. My youngest daughter was in the womb, and I would put my head on my lady's belly, and sing to my daughter. I would talk with her, got her used to my voice. Whenever I did, she would kick and bounce in recognition. The moment she was born, I reassured my lady, and then moved with the nurses to where my daughter was being cleaned. She was, as all baby's do, screaming. To her, it was bright, she was cold (both new sensations), and she was reacting in the only way she knew how. I had the camera in one hand, I reached down with my finger, and spoke gently to her. My finger touched her tiny little hand, and she grabbed onto it, without even knowing how. She also stopped crying immediately at the sound of my voice. The doctor rushed over, concerned that something was wrong, and the nurse who was cleaning her looked at me and said something to the effect of "I have never seen a baby do that, she knows who you are." That moment she recognized my voice, and it reassured her immensely. The doctor smiled at me and said "you have talked to her alot, haven''t you?" I told her yes, and she started telling my lady all was well and how our new daughter knew everything was ok. She also looked at me and told me I was going to definitely have a "Daddy's girl" on my hands. She was beyond right! But that moment held more than enough proof to me of whether or not an individual, capable of learning - a truly high brain function - existed well before "birth". It also gave me a memory (and a picture) to have forever.

I can see the need for abortions when there are severe health challenges to the child, or the health and life of the mother is in danger, as in the case of an egtopic pregnancy. Issues of incest/rape as well I feel should be valid reasons. *I am assuming that the incest was a part of rape, if its voluntary on both sides, well.. I honestly don't know..... Don't really want to think about that unless I have to.

But what I don't understand, is why some carry a baby while they know they won't have it, allow themselves to develop a deeper emotional bond (which is proven to occur), only to then abort. Its like self torture as well morally reprehesible.

This is why I am perfectly fine with things like the "morning after" pill.

[OneToughHerring]

You anti-abortionists are kind of like the US version of the Taliban.

[antikristuseke]

1300 women having their FIFTH abortion in one year, in one country, does not fit my standard of "few and far between".

that is 0.002% of the population of said country. it is not exactly common.

[antikristuseke]

See, I personally harbor no deep revulsion to abortion, as I just can't quite cross the threshold of a 12 week old fetus being a "baby".

However, that being said, I *DO* find the "inconvienience" argument repulsive. If you have sex, even with contraception, are you not accepting the risk that you might get pregnant?

The idea that any baby would be a burden and therefore must not be brought into existance echoes the arguments in the late 1930s regarding the handicapped. That I find downright frightening.

Not a burden, I just consider it more humane to abort a fetus than to bring an unwanted child into this world.

Edit: CaptainHaplo's stance most closely resembles my own on this mater.

[Aramike]

that is 0.002% of the population of said country. it is not exactly common.Yeah, but in the context of people having abortions, the number is dramatically higher.

[Aramike]

Not a burden, I just consider it more humane to abort a fetus than to bring an unwanted child into this world.

Edit: CaptainHaplo's stance most closely resembles my own on this mater.Actually its not far off from mine either.

The problem with the point of being "humane", however, is that one could just as easily justify ending the life of a cripple as a humane alternative to them being confined to a chair.

I just don't like that slippery slope, and line of reasoning.

[antikristuseke]

Actually its not far off from mine either.

The problem with the point of being "humane", however, is that one could just as easily justify ending the life of a cripple as a humane alternative to them being confined to a chair.

I just don't like that slippery slope, and line of reasoning.

A line has to be drawn somewhere and that is up to the society to draw them and since societies change, so do the lines that were once drawn.

[Reaves]

Its the woman's choice nobody else.

It takes two to tango.

[August]

It takes two to tango.

Yep, and although one of them has no input into the decision he still bears financial responsibility.

[Wolfehunter]

Ahh an interesting debate.

First off, let me squash one item stated to start with.

"Its a woman's choice"

Well - it was the choice of 2 people to concieve a child - or at least partake in the activity that can create one. If the child is born, can the man look at a judge and say "well I aborted my part of the child, so I have no responsibility?" Of course not. Both parties have an equal responsibility in the creation of a child, and thus both should have a say on the outcome. Currently, there is no such thing as "equal rights" when it comes to this subject, which is a travesty of the system.
I agree.. It takes two to make a child. The two responsible need to make the choice together.

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok thats scary...

Antikristuseke and Aramike both are somewhat close to my view on something. Either the world is about to end in a cataclysmic statistical improbability, or there is hope yet for humanity to actually rationally discuss topics from divergent views and find something close to common ground.

[Onkel Neal]

thus we need to find an agreement on the grey zone where that cellular mass that has nothing, really nothing in common with a human being

I agree. Although I would contend about 80% of the world's population is not much more than cellular masses... :cool:



And not before then - you can eventually talk of "human life in production". Before that, it is just some cellular grease with genetic information to eventually become a human - but who would think of the genetic information in the hairs and skin cells he/she is loosing all day long as a "human life prevented from developement"?


Yeah, that's pretty much making my point, human in production, cells that will eventually become human. Same thing. And no, a hair or a fingernail is not the same as a human embryo. Remember, one contains the other. A hair can never become a person, a person (and embryo) has the tools to make hair.


for any further discussion of aboprtion I refer you to this most uncompromised realist I know, Dr. House. :D Just try to imagine what he would reply to you

Pfft! Dr. House. I'd give him a big ol' ass whippin :shucks: with that cane of his.


He has done around 400 late term abortions for medical reasons.

If the other 59600 abortions were done for personal reasons (of the parents), I don't think that's anyones business but those of the (would be) parents.
I don't think anyone makes this decision light-hearted, because if it's not for medical reasons, you know your baby would live if you didn't abort.

Ok, that's exactly right. It is a baby you are aborting, in the earliest stages. Thank you! So, that's why women don't generally like to talk aboutn their abortions. As you know, a lot of women face internal shame and grieve after an abortion. The reason?

IMO, the main reason why many people can go along with abortion as contraception, is because it's all done without seeing the fetus. It's done behind a curtain. It's like eating a hamburger, as long as most people don't have to see the cow get it in the neck, they're cool.

[Sledgehammer427]

You know, I was always a case-by-case person.
It is mainly the age of the couple, that's where I have to take a closer look.
Hormones.
As far as I can see one of the things they do to a guy is make him want to reproduce fervently as soon as he is able to do so (this is also stated in my blog, Episode 2.)

Of course now, this primitive instinct, since it is no longer needed, has been hidden behind things like "love" and "caring" and "lust." It is still a primitive instinct, mind you, just hidden behind a few coats of intellectual paint, if you will. Therefore, I'm not saying this as a catch-all for these (remember, case by case) It is mainly the woman's responsibility, and choice, whether or not to have the kid. Rape, that's a given, nobody wants a child that is the product of a heinous crime.
But if the mother-to-be is willing to do something that can eventually make a child, she should be willing to accept the responsibility of having one, or not have one. I know a couple teenage mothers who treat their kids like dirt. They should have just had an abortion instead of using their newborn child to suck every dollar out of the father as payback.

Religion has far too much to do with it. I was at a youth group meeting a couple years ago when the youth pastor started reading off a few situations that could have warranted an abortion, and probably would have. After reading all of these situations, we were told that if we agreed with the abortions, that we have killed quite a few prominent members of society. One was Jesus. Beethoven, Stevie wonder I think was there too.
I consider that a "shock tactic" and a truly worthless campaign. I know the Bible says it's wrong. I get it.

Look at our rapidly expanding world population. Is it truly worth bringing another child into this world, with the way it's turning out? Besides, for every one abortion there's bound to be a woman giving birth to sextuplets anyhow. We are getting far too crowded into too many places, in America, in Europe, in Africa. Everywhere. Disease is commonly transferred among children. Get all the shots you want, there's going to be a new epidemic tomorrow. Most abortions are among people who come from low-profit households. You can bet that they are filled with grief over it. The few young women I know who had abortions vowed to be abstinent. All is not lost. But I mentioned low-profit households because the majority of the mothers-to-be will have their entire academic lives ruined because of it. Notice what I'm saying? Human expansion. There's too much of it. And it's not helping our economy.

Yes, there are dead fetuses. The doctors don't like it and the mothers-to-be sure as heck don't. But on a worldwide scale we are merely a speck of dust. Stop touting statistics and look at the big picture. 60,000 abortions don't matter when there's 60,001 kids being born at the exact same time.

Is this making sense to anybody or am I just babbling at this point?

[Aramike]

IMO, the main reason why many people can go along with abortion as contraception, is because it's all done without seeing the fetus. It's done behind a curtain. It's like eating a hamburger, as long as most people don't have to see the cow get it in the neck, they're cool. Agreed.

Personally, I would like to see abortion cease to exist as a form of casual contraception, meaning, that no more "the condom broke" cases. In cases of rape, etc, I can see early term abortion being acceptable.

[Aramike]

Religion has far too much to do with it. I was at a youth group meeting a couple years ago when the youth pastor started reading off a few situations that could have warranted an abortion, and probably would have. After reading all of these situations, we were told that if we agreed with the abortions, that we have killed quite a few prominent members of society. One was Jesus. Beethoven, Stevie wonder I think was there too.
I consider that a "shock tactic" and a truly worthless campaign. I know the Bible says it's wrong. I get it. Those are typical religious scare tactics. However, I think you're mistaken to gloss over the point as a whole based solely about the ad hominem aspect of it. I frankly don't completely agree with the point this youth pastor was making (hell, I bet I could find reasons that some of the most brutal figures throughout history would/could have been aborted), but I do think it's worth examination.Look at our rapidly expanding world population. Is it truly worth bringing another child into this world, with the way it's turning out? Besides, for every one abortion there's bound to be a woman giving birth to sextuplets anyhow. We are getting far too crowded into too many places, in America, in Europe, in Africa. Everywhere. Disease is commonly transferred among children. Get all the shots you want, there's going to be a new epidemic tomorrow. Most abortions are among people who come from low-profit households. You can bet that they are filled with grief over it. The few young women I know who had abortions vowed to be abstinent. All is not lost. But I mentioned low-profit households because the majority of the mothers-to-be will have their entire academic lives ruined because of it. Notice what I'm saying? Human expansion. There's too much of it. And it's not helping our economy.

Yes, there are dead fetuses. The doctors don't like it and the mothers-to-be sure as heck don't. But on a worldwide scale we are merely a speck of dust. Stop touting statistics and look at the big picture. 60,000 abortions don't matter when there's 60,001 kids being born at the exact same time.

Is this making sense to anybody or am I just babbling at this point? While I understand what you're getting at, I can't buy into any of it. This concept of "human life=so what?" is disturbing to me.

The people who harp repeatedly on overpopulation always gloss over two very important things: First, the Earth can not, by nature, support more human beings that it can support. That's would violate the first fundamental law of logic. Secondly, technology is always increasing the amount of human beings that the earth can support.

We're not going to see disasterous overpopulation because it is impossible. If the earth can't support 10 billion people, for instance, the difference between that number and what the earth CAN support will perish.

But see, my point is simple: ultimately, we fail ourselves as a species (philosophically speaking) when we start attributing a value to any human life due to its perceived burden upon our resources. When we start saying that we don't need these babies, because other babies MAY have to sacrifice something, we open a very nasty door. At one point do we say the same about the handicapped? The unskilled? A culture which we just don't like?

[Dowly]

for any further discussion of aboprtion I refer you to this most uncompromised realist I know, Dr. House. :D Just try to imagine what he would reply to you!

Here you go. :03:

HOUSE: Do you understand? Are you okay? I mean, I know you're not okay, but
are you more or less not okay than you were five minutes ago?

EVE: About the same.

HOUSE: Good. The termination procedure isn't pleasant.

EVE: I don't want to terminate.

HOUSE: You want to keep the baby?

EVE: Abortion is murder.

HOUSE: True. It's a life, and ... You should end it.

EVE: Every life is sacred.

HOUSE: Come on. Talk to me. Don't quote me bumper stickers.

EVE: It's true.

HOUSE: It's meaningless.

EVE: It means every life matters to God.

HOUSE: Not to me, not to you. Judging by the number of natural disasters, not
to God either.

EVE: You're just being argumentative.

HOUSE: Yeah! I do do that. What about Hitler? Was his life sacred to God?
Father of your child, is his life sacred to you?

EVE: My child isn't Hitler.

HOUSE: Either every life is sacred, or it--

EVE: Stop it! I don't wanna chat about philosophy.

HOUSE: You're not killing your rape baby because of a philosophy.

EVE: It's murder. I'm against it. You for it?

HOUSE: Not as a general rule.

EVE: Just for unborn children?

HOUSE: Yes. The problem with exceptions to rules is the line-drawing. It
might make sense for us to kill the ass that did this to you. I mean, where do
we draw the line? Which asses do we get to kill, and which asses get to keep on
being asses? The nice thing about the abortion debate is that we can quibble
over trimesters, but ultimately, there's a nice, clean line: birth. Morally
there isn't a lot of difference. Practically huge.

EVE: You're enjoying this conversation.

HOUSE: This is the type of conversation I do well.

EVE: But the other type ... the personal stuff?

HOUSE: (shrugs) There are no answers. If there are no answers, why talk about
it? You're healthy. You shouldn't be here.

EVE: I don't want to go.

HOUSE: Fine. I won't discharge you.

[Skybird]

It takes two to tango.
I takes only one (and always the same one) to carry out the child for 9 months and give birth to it.

Fathers should have a word in it, but the final decision is that of the mother. Fathers have some rights to be heared, yes, but they are not of equal rights in this decision making process. To think so is exactly that form of patriarchalic control women often react so allergic to. Its the old church policy thing as well to assume that males have any right to decide over the bodies of females, and their status as well.

[SS107.9MHz]

In portugal the limit for the voluntary interruption of pregnancy is 10 weeks, for me it's an acceptable limit, although I think 8 weeks would suffice.

Late Term abotions should only be carried out for medical reasons (malforamtion, danger for mothers life), or in case of criminal (rape) action.

Of course there are always complletely irresponsible persons who either don't care or don't know better and take the gestation long after these 8-10 week limits before even considering what they'll gonna do, but that's what social care services should be for too.

I agree.. It takes two to make a child. The two responsible need to make the choice together.

From a strictly biologcal point of view, it's a hugely disproportunate investment for the female thana is for the male, in time, resources, reproductive cells, life risk, and even in the genes carried to the baby (mitochondrial dna comes from the mother only :know:) so If there's anyone Who as a right to decide, that someone should be undoubtebly the mother.

[SS107.9MHz]

What? :o

The abortionist and his No. 1 foe (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/27/abortion.war/index.html)

Discuss!

I have to say, it amazes me that someone can be so cavalier about late term abortions. The two sides will never agree, one side says it's choice, the other side says legalized murder. One thing's for sure, when an abortion occurs, a human life in production ceases to exist.

,,,wow.

In cases like that, I would tend to agree. But 60,000 cases of incest or malformed fetuses? :nope:


Just to adress the thread by Neal, which wasn't the usual pro/against abortion question...
I think the guy gains nothing in being so open chested about the matter, but I understand his reaction in a "those basterds killed my coleague and they won't get away with it, I won't let myself be pushed around" logic. It's a typical "run to arms" where neither group wants to back down and always try to surpass the other.

But I have to say that to me, placing a huge board promoting an abortion clinic comes really low in my "no-no's" when compared to killing a doctor just because one of his jobs his doing abortions.

[August]

One thing about the abortion debate that has always struck me is how both sides tend to accept abortions, even late term abortions, in the case of rape. We're not taking about a birth defects or health risk to the mother here, this is a perfectly formed child whose only flaw was being conceived in a loveless act. I just don't think that is something deserving of the death penalty.

[Shearwater]

One thing about the abortion debate that has always struck me is how both sides tend to accept abortions, even late term abortions, in the case of rape. We're not taking about a birth defects or health risk to the mother here, this is a perfectly formed child whose only flaw was being conceived in a loveless act. I just don't think that is something deserving of the death penalty.

To call rape 'a loveless act' in my opinion is a blatant understatement (with all due respect).
I really can understand the women who do it. - Imagine: Who would like to be phyiscally reminded of something for 9 entire months that willl probably leave her mentally traumatized for the rest of her life?
Even if the baby is healthy and all, I would rate the mother's well-being higher than the development of a potential person. It's not something like the "death penalty" for the child, it's the mother's attempt to regain at least some control over her life that was destroyed by the act of rape.

[August]

To call rape 'a loveless act' in my opinion is a blatant understatement.
I really can understand the women who do it. - Imagine: would you like to be phyiscally reminded of something for 9 entire months that willl probably leave you mentally traumatized for the rest of your life?
Even if the baby is healthy and all, I would rate the mother's well-being higher than the development of a potential person. It's not something like the "death penalty" for the child, it's the mother's attempt to regain at least some control over her life that was destroyed by the act of rape.

I understand what you are saying but three things should be noted:

First the child is totally blameless in this, yet it's the one that pays with it's life to make someonefeel better, maybe?

Second, since we're talking about late term abortions the mother has already survived being reminded of it for many months already. I'd say the damage is already done.

Lastly abortion is certainly no cure all. As we have read in the links posted earlier the guilt lasts far after the stitches are healed.

[AVGWarhawk]

IMO, the main reason why many people can go along with abortion as contraception, is because it's all done without seeing the fetus. It's done behind a curtain. It's like eating a hamburger, as long as most people don't have to see the cow get it in the neck, they're cool.

Interesting analogy. From the article link I posted on page one, women lose any type of feeling for the decision. It becomes as easy as doing the grocery shopping for some.

[AVGWarhawk]

Agreed.

Personally, I would like to see abortion cease to exist as a form of casual contraception, meaning, that no more "the condom broke" cases. In cases of rape, etc, I can see early term abortion being acceptable.

I agree there are special cases and circumstances that make abortion acceptable. However, early stage of conception the procedure should be done.

[AVGWarhawk]

One thing about the abortion debate that has always struck me is how both sides tend to accept abortions, even late term abortions, in the case of rape. We're not taking about a birth defects or health risk to the mother here, this is a perfectly formed child whose only flaw was being conceived in a loveless act. I just don't think that is something deserving of the death penalty.


I think what we are talking about is a child that is a constant reminder to the woman who was raped and conceived the child as a result. Rape is more than a loveless act, it is violent and brutal to the woman. This to me is considered a special case but the abortion needs to happen in the early stages. I do agree with you that the child is blameless. But, what is a woman to do that was involved in gang rape or rape at all?

[OneToughHerring]

One thing about the abortion debate that has always struck me is how both sides tend to accept abortions, even late term abortions, in the case of rape. We're not taking about a birth defects or health risk to the mother here, this is a perfectly formed child whose only flaw was being conceived in a loveless act. I just don't think that is something deserving of the death penalty.

Is that a popular view in Massachusetts? :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

This is an instance were abortion (if this young lady conceives) that I would agree 100% with the decision to abort.


Five suspects were in custody early Wednesday in northern California in the gang rape, robbery and beating of a 15-year-old girl outside her high school homecoming dance,


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570009,00.html?test=latestnews

I hope the bastards involved fry for this.

[Skybird]

I have read the story this morning on CNN. One of the very rare instances when I do not know what to say anymore - although I should know it better and shouldn'T be surprised anymore.

Rat Opera.

[Sailor Steve]

I think what we are talking about is a child that is a constant reminder to the woman who was raped and conceived the child as a result. Rape is more than a loveless act, it is violent and brutal to the woman. This to me is considered a special case but the abortion needs to happen in the early stages. I do agree with you that the child is blameless. But, what is a woman to do that was involved in gang rape or rape at all?
But that goes directly against the stated concept that all life is sacred. If someone is truly against abortion the circumstances should not matter.

But this is a purely theoretical argument. It is my belief that there is only one opinion that matters - the mother's. She has to carry the child, and no one else. Yes, it would be nice if it were discussed with the father, and there is always the reverse argument that if she chooses to have the child he will be forced to help pay for it's upbringing. But that is a separate subject, and actually has little to do with the topic at hand.

I am very much against abortion, but the only option is to make it illegal again, and the only justifiable grounds for that is that it's murder. Is it? By what legal grounds? Who decides? Certainly not me, or any other man. I can only see the mother making that choice.

[AVGWarhawk]

But that goes directly against the stated concept that all life is sacred. If someone is truly against abortion the circumstances should not matter.

But this is a purely theoretical argument. It is my belief that there is only one opinion that matters - the mother's. She has to carry the child, and no one else. Yes, it would be nice if it were discussed with the father, and there is always the reverse argument that if she chooses to have the child he will be forced to help pay for it's upbringing. But that is a separate subject, and actually has little to do with the topic at hand.

I am very much against abortion, but the only option is to make it illegal again, and the only justifiable grounds for that is that it's murder. Is it? By what legal grounds? Who decides? Certainly not me, or any other man. I can only see the mother making that choice.


Ultimately what you have said here Steve is what has baffled everyone for decades. The arguments will continue long after you an I are pushing up daisies. There will never be a full answer to the abortion question sir. :hmmm:

[NeonSamurai]

Well I support the woman's right to choose, though I do not generally support third trimester abortions (unless there are special reasons to justify it).

Furthermore fetuses, and even young infants do not really have higher brain functions. Reflexive actions and recognition are not evidence of such. Heck my goldfish when they were still alive would recognize me when I entered the room the tank was in by displaying specific behavior. They also displayed their own separate personalities too. Potential is also not a good argument as that can be spun out in all kinds of absurd directions. Actuality (the then and now) is all that matters. Btw with cloning, a cell with complete genetic material is all you need to start a new life.

As for men having a say, well I am sorry but no you have no rights to the woman's body. If the technology ever comes where the child could be transferred to you (or an artificial womb), then and only then would you have an equal say in the matter. This applies to the woman wanting to abort the baby only though. The opposite way is far more dicey as both parties should have a say on keeping the baby (or the financial results of keeping it). If a woman absolutely insists on having the child and the male does not want it from the start, should the male have to pay child support? Hard to say IMHO.

The people who harp repeatedly on overpopulation always gloss over two very important things: First, the Earth can not, by nature, support more human beings that it can support. That's would violate the first fundamental law of logic. Secondly, technology is always increasing the amount of human beings that the earth can support.

We're not going to see disasterous overpopulation because it is impossible. If the earth can't support 10 billion people, for instance, the difference between that number and what the earth CAN support will perish.

I'm sorry but I have to totally disagree with that statement.

The problem is you are not looking at the big picture, its not a question solely of how many humans the earth can sustain, but how many the earth can sustain with out trashing the ecosystem (which is essential to our own survival; destroy the ecosystem and you destroy ourselves with it). Right now with the current population we are straining the ecosystem to the limit. The problem is not as much apparent in the west (though we are a major contributor to the problem globally), where birth rates are about equal with death rates. It exists in the 2nd and 3rd world countries where birth rates are at astronomical levels, and the resources don't exist to support them. These populations survive by plundering the local ecosystem (and by world aid) trying to survive in the short term by destroying any long term future. They are the ones hacking down the forests, and causing mass extinction.

It also takes time to hit the population wall where the effects hit home. You can observe this when ever a certain animal population gets out of control. Lets take deer for example:

Deer have been known to have massive population explosions, where they have a really good year, or the predator population which keeps them in check has a really bad year (or gets wiped out). The next year there are far more deer then the ecosystem can take, but there are still enough resources for the deer to continue to grow, at the expense of their ecosystem (they start stripping the bark off trees and other stuff which damages their food supply). The year after that they start to run into the wall, but have not yet damaged their ecosystem sufficiently to halt the problem. At this point the ecosystem is taking major damage, and the plants the deer rely on are being destroyed by all the hungry deer. By the next year they have caused massive damage to their ecosystem, not only is there not enough food to support the current population, but the ecosystem is so badly damaged by their feeding that there isn't even enough left to support 1/8th of their normal population. This results in mass starvation and further damage to the ecosystem by the survivors. Not only does this affect the deer, but it affects all the other creatures in the chain both plant and animal. The populations all drop to very low levels, and after many decades the ecosystem will slowly recover (assuming it wasn't damaged beyond the point of repair).

Right now we are the deer, and we are pushing the ecosystem of the entire world to the breaking point. Our capacity for destroying the ecosystem of the globe far exceeds that of any other creature. From my perspective from all the information I have gathered, we have already hit the wall, and the global ecosystem is rapidly reaching the breaking point. The big problem with us though is the wall is not as hard as it is for the deer in a forest. Our world is much bigger then theirs, and it takes far longer before the effects are completely clear for everyone.

The problem is there is no magic number. We just expand and take over all that is around us. But when we do that we take the risk of destroying ourselves, as we are forever linked to the ecosystem of the planet. We destroy the wrong thing in our foolishness and we get taken down with it.

[August]

I think what we are talking about is a child that is a constant reminder to the woman who was raped and conceived the child as a result. Rape is more than a loveless act, it is violent and brutal to the woman. This to me is considered a special case but the abortion needs to happen in the early stages. I do agree with you that the child is blameless. But, what is a woman to do that was involved in gang rape or rape at all?

Rape might be more than a loveless act but then again so is abortion.

[August]

If a woman absolutely insists on having the child and the male does not want it from the start, should the male have to pay child support? Hard to say IMHO.

That seems to be how this question is always addressed. Pure avoidance.

[NeonSamurai]

Its a tough one to answer and highly circumstantial too. There is the question of responsibility from both sides, the use of contraceptives or lack of, etc. Also does the male have the right to force the female to abort? It's her body as far as choosing not to have a child, but it is his genetic material along with hers. Then there is the possibility of manipulation, that the female intentionally got pregnant to take advantage of the male.

If you want a harder answer from me, it depends on circumstance. Ultimately I say that the mother has the right to conceive the child, that she cannot be forced to go through a medical procedure to abort the child. As for child support, well that depends on circumstance. If they both got drunk, had unprotected sex, well I think they are both on the hook. If they were careful and still had an accident, then it gets more tricky (there is some responsibility for the possibility of having a child even with protection) and would have to be judged case by case on merrit. If the woman purposely got pregnant with out the consent or knowledge of the male then she deserves nothing, though proving it would be most difficult.

[AVGWarhawk]

Rape might be more than a loveless act but then again so is abortion.

True! I agree with you August but it is such a fine line on most of the questions and answers. There is always the innocent one and that is the child. I have stated throughout the thread we will never get the final answer to the question in your or my lifetime. This question has had politicians dance and sing for 4 to 8 years. Obama is dancing and singing around the question right now.

[August]

Yep to both of you. "And the beat goes on"

[NeonSamurai]

True! I agree with you August but it is such a fine line on most of the questions and answers. There is always the innocent one and that is the child. I have stated throughout the thread we will never get the final answer to the question in your or my lifetime. This question has had politicians dance and sing for 4 to 8 years. Obama is dancing and singing around the question right now.

See to me the innocent one is the rape victim. The fetus is just a clump of cells for a large part of its development. But late term abortions for rape victims is another question entirely, and again circumstantial. If there is good reason for the abortion happening so late then I support it (such as she being unable to have or consent to have an abortion until that point). Babies don't become higher functioning entities until a good period after birth. But then we get into legal issues as virtually everyone considers killing a baby that is healthy and already born murder.

Ultimately I never see the question on abortion resolved just as I never see the question of God or collections of higher powers ever being proven or disproven. Part of it being the subjects are so emotionally charged and heavily interlaced with religious thought and values. Also there is no hard objective line in the sand.

[AVGWarhawk]

Babies don't become higher functioning entities until a good period after birth. But then we get into legal issues as virtually everyone considers killing a baby that is healthy and already born murder.



You lost me here. A higher entity?

[NeonSamurai]

I mean higher brain functions. Its not till about 2-3 if I recall (it might be older) that children begin to really distance themselves from mammals as far as brain function/ability and even older when compared to primates. At least according to current research.

At birth human infants are actually behind in the developmental curve compared to most other mammals. This is partially due to the necessity of birthing the child 'early' while the brain has not fully formed and reached its full size (which would make birth impossible given our physiology). Newborn infants are little more then a collection of senses, and reflexes, with almost non existent cognitive abilities.

[AVGWarhawk]

I mean higher brain functions. Its not till about 2-3 if I recall (it might be older) that children begin to really distance themselves from mammals as far as brain function/ability and even older when compared to primates. At least according to current research.

At birth human infants are actually behind in the developmental curve compared to most other mammals. This is partially due to the necessity of birthing the child 'early' while the brain has not fully formed and reached its full size (which would make birth impossible given our physiology). Newborn infants are little more then a collection of senses, and reflexes, with almost non existent cognitive abilities.


This therefore makes it ok to drop the hook in the back of the skull and making soup of the brain that is only capable of senses and reflexes? So if by shear luck a baby makes it past three years of age then it is considered murder? Anything before three years is fair game for disposal? You mean to tell me under this thinking anyone can snuff a kid out up to three years of age if well, it just does not suit their lifestyle or need? This train of thought is very odd in my book.

[VipertheSniper]

This therefore makes it ok to drop the hook in the back of the skull and making soup of the brain that is only capable of senses and reflexes? So if by shear luck a baby makes it past three years of age then it is considered murder? Anything before three years is fair game for disposal? You mean to tell me under this thinking anyone can snuff a kid out up to three years of age if well, it just does not suit their lifestyle or need? This train of thought is very odd in my book.

How did you come from "virtually everyone considers killing a baby that is healthy and already born murder." to that? It's not like he's condoning killing newborn babies that are healthy, he merely presented scientific research results. What society does with that is another question. I guess some might use it as justification to drown or otherwise kill newborns, because they're of the wrong gender, but I don't think that happens anywhere in "the west".

[AVGWarhawk]

How did you come from "virtually everyone considers killing a baby that is healthy and already born murder." to that? It's not like he's condoning killing newborn babies that are healthy, he merely presented scientific research results. What society does with that is another question. I guess some might use it as justification to drown or otherwise kill newborns, because they're of the wrong gender, but I don't think that happens anywhere in "the west".

I did not say Neon was condoning it. Science seems to be proving that a baby is not a real entity until around 3 years old. Start your reading at the start of the our conversation. The argument of when a person becomes a person has gone on for decades also. Some say as soon as the cell splits and grows. Some say the alien being is a human in the last three months in the womb. Now science say 3 years after being born? Higher brain function? A baby will start to laugh and smile as early as 3 months.

[August]

Sometimes I wish they could put a sterilizing agent in the water supply to prevent accidental and unwanted pregnancies. When one wants to have a child they take a counteracting agent to get pregnant.

That might be the only thing that will solve this issue but of course it would raise a whole lot more.

[NeonSamurai]

I did not say Neon was condoning it. Science seems to be proving that a baby is not a real entity until around 3 years old. Start your reading at the start of the our conversation. The argument of when a person becomes a person has gone on for decades also. Some say as soon as the cell splits and grows. Some say the alien being is a human in the last three months in the womb. Now science say 3 years after being born? Higher brain function? A baby will start to laugh and smile as early as 3 months.

That's not entirely true, it is a living breathing creature (that alone does not make it a non entity), its just that it does not have any of the mental capabilities yet that make a human a human. This is why there is also such a huge grey area when it comes to abortion, as development is continuous, and not based on steps or stages. Where exactly do you draw the line. Many animal infants will do similar as a baby laughing and smiling, and much earlier depending on the species.

Sometimes I wish they could put a sterilizing agent in the water supply to prevent accidental and unwanted pregnancies. When one wants to have a child they take a counteracting agent to get pregnant.

That might be the only thing that will solve this issue but of course it would raise a whole lot more.

I wouldn't argue about that idea provided it worked and didn't bring about other health issues.

[August]

I wouldn't argue about that idea provided it worked and didn't bring about other health issues.

Therein lies the rub. Even if they could invent such a drug and there were no unintended side effects it'd be impossible to constantly distribute it over the entire world.

Anything less than world wide distribution would cause one ethnic group to quickly outbreed the others resulting in collapse of the entire system.

[CaptainHaplo]

To define when human life begins - you can take two approaches. One is to try and define what human life "IS", which has beewn the way society has attempted to deal with this question. The other option is to define it by its opposite - death. After all, you can't "understand" what light is if you don't understand or can define what darkness is. I choose the latter path as it provides a logical, reasonable and, personally speaking, morally acceptable end point.

Human death is the state in which a human being, having been at some point "alive" meets the following criteria:

The mind and body of a person cease to function together at any level for the continued survival of both.

As examples - if you have your brain stem severed, your dead. Your heart will cease, your lungs won't move, etc. If you snap your neck, you may be paralized, but the brain still maintains the ability to direct critical functions like pulminary and respitory. See the difference? If you have a heart attack and your ticker explodes, the body ceases to provide the brain with what it needs to survive. If you have a mild stroke, your mental capacity may be diminished, but your brain and body still work together, though perhaps not as well.

Its important to note the "together" part, because the mind and body share a symbiotic relationship.

Now, for the sake of simplicity, I would point out that until the moment of birth, a baby in the womb is still semi-parasitic in nature. Thus it is true that a child does not, for the majority of a pregnancy, have a body that could continue functioning on its own. But in the unborn child, there exists at a certain point - and that point is different with every baby, where it slowly changes from being parasitic, living entirely off the host, to being semi-parasitic. It is at this point where the brain is sufficiently formed to begin "self-regulation" - or as I put it in an earlier post - when the brain tells the heart to beat, and the heart does so in response to electrical impulses from the brain. At this first, incredible moment, the "clump of cells" has grown beyond that stage, and become a living entity. At that moment, the criteria for a human to be "ALIVE" - the body and mind working together in symbiosis - is met.

Another point to confirm this argument - is the definition of a miscarriage. A pregnancy is considered "lost" or "miscarried" at the point it either SHOULD have definitively established that symbiosis of brain and body (meaning it won't), or at the time that the brain and body, for reasons unknown, cease to function.

I have always found it odd we could tell when a pregnancy was "dead", but we never could define life as the opposite of that same death.

This is why I can see early term abortions as morally acceptable, though they also should represent a source of sadness for society itself. While I understand how some can view abortion as a murder from the outset, those views are based off a religious view that is often held to without a clear understanding of its reasoning.

Anyone have a different view on the "where life begins" thought that they want to share the reasoning on so that we can all consider it?

[VipertheSniper]

To define when human life begins - you can take two approaches. One is to try and define what human life "IS", which has beewn the way society has attempted to deal with this question. The other option is to define it by its opposite - death. After all, you can't "understand" what light is if you don't understand or can define what darkness is. I choose the latter path as it provides a logical, reasonable and, personally speaking, morally acceptable end point.

Human death is the state in which a human being, having been at some point "alive" meets the following criteria:

The mind and body of a person cease to function together at any level for the continued survival of both.

As examples - if you have your brain stem severed, your dead. Your heart will cease, your lungs won't move, etc. If you snap your neck, you may be paralized, but the brain still maintains the ability to direct critical functions like pulminary and respitory. See the difference? If you have a heart attack and your ticker explodes, the body ceases to provide the brain with what it needs to survive. If you have a mild stroke, your mental capacity may be diminished, but your brain and body still work together, though perhaps not as well.

Its important to note the "together" part, because the mind and body share a symbiotic relationship.

Now, for the sake of simplicity, I would point out that until the moment of birth, a baby in the womb is still semi-parasitic in nature. Thus it is true that a child does not, for the majority of a pregnancy, have a body that could continue functioning on its own. But in the unborn child, there exists at a certain point - and that point is different with every baby, where it slowly changes from being parasitic, living entirely off the host, to being semi-parasitic. It is at this point where the brain is sufficiently formed to begin "self-regulation" - or as I put it in an earlier post - when the brain tells the heart to beat, and the heart does so in response to electrical impulses from the brain. At this first, incredible moment, the "clump of cells" has grown beyond that stage, and become a living entity. At that moment, the criteria for a human to be "ALIVE" - the body and mind working together in symbiosis - is met.

Another point to confirm this argument - is the definition of a miscarriage. A pregnancy is considered "lost" or "miscarried" at the point it either SHOULD have definitively established that symbiosis of brain and body (meaning it won't), or at the time that the brain and body, for reasons unknown, cease to function.

I have always found it odd we could tell when a pregnancy was "dead", but we never could define life as the opposite of that same death.

This is why I can see early term abortions as morally acceptable, though they also should represent a source of sadness for society itself. While I understand how some can view abortion as a murder from the outset, those views are based off a religious view that is often held to without a clear understanding of its reasoning.

Anyone have a different view on the "where life begins" thought that they want to share the reasoning on so that we can all consider it?

BRAVO :yeah:

[Platapus]

If killing a fetus is murder, when should a woman who miscarries be charged with involuntary manslaughter? (There is no malice of forethought in Involuntary Manslaughter)

Suppose the mother was a drug user (an illegal act) and miscarries, could they be charged with Constructive Manslaughter? (Constructive Manslaughter occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act.)

Suppose the mother was a heavy smoker/drinker (a legal act) and miscarries, could they be charged with Negligent Manslaughter.

If killing a fetus is murder, then it has to be murder across the board right?

[Skybird]

All I can say on judging when a greasy collection of cells becomes a human being, is this: they once showed a video on TV, which was I think ultrasonic material, although I may remember that detail wrong (it is many years ago). It was a film taken during the process of aborting, and you saw a very tiny little figur resting in the womb, when the instruments were inserted, it started to move before it even was touched, and it seemed to try to get in the opposite direction. That was a shocking observation, that's why I have never forgotten it. The immediate reaction by me was that this thing was beign alarmed that somethign was coming it's way. The next part was to see this very vaguely human silhouetted figure getting ripped into pieces and the pieces being sucked or pushed to the lower left corner of the picture.

It is absurd wanting to draw the line beyond which abortion should be avoided on cognitive processes when you know that these very cognitive processes are extremely unfunctional and uncompete even in the first months after birth.
l
As unsentimental I am about a featureless mass of cells, a clump of grease that has neither form nor function nor any characteristic of a human, as aware I am that the criterion for setting a timeline must be defined far more subtle, and that what happend in that film was wrong and should not have happened. There is no laser-thin line in the continuum of time that says: before this it is non-human, and beyond this line it is human. The forming of the quality of life that we call "human" may be seen as a continuum in itself that is in constant change that is not so much a linear flow of time and developement, but a holographic effect. And since we are dealing not only with obective science but also with subjective ethics here (subjective in that only homo sapiens gives a damn about this ethic'S statements and beyond him not one atom in the universe seems to care, no lower life form and not higher super intelliegence travelling the galaxy), we maybe should accept that this problem cannot be solved ultimately and in form of a generally valid blueprint that is true for every single case - we even already define right now very many exceptions from the so far valid rules, basing our assessment on crimes, health risks, social status etc.

In my earlier posting I called it a grey zone what separates the undefined featureless cellular mass from a biologic entitity that already can be understood as a human being in an early state. Potential alone - is not the same like it'S realisation. One needs to be aware of this fundamental difference. It wouldn't be a grey zone if we could exactly and precisely locate it in space and time, would it. Nevertheless acting as if this is possible, is more of relevance for the legal implications and the formulation of laws, than that it says anything about the reality of things. The law creates it's own reality, always, and by that just presents copies or images - never the original. One should not forget that.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - I THINK I understand what your saying - that some "mental capacity" does not imply humanity itself. I concur to a point - but there is a difference between "humanity" and life.

After all - a dog has mental capacity, but its a dog, not a human.
I can not disagree with this logic. However, there is a big difference between when does a mass of cells become "alive" as a multi system organism, vs when does a life become "human".

If you accept that the video you saw represented SOMETHING alive as a multisystem, fairly large organism - then that is sufficient in my eyes to say we shouldn't just be ok with "killing it" for convience sake. After all, going back to the earlier statement - a dog is still a dog - but we protect lesser LIFE FORMS. Kill a dog just "because" - and you have committed the crime of cruelty to animals. As a "higher" species (though that could be debated in some ways) - we have a moral and ethical duty to preserve and protect the life of lesser creatures.

Do we have a ethical duty to preserve the existence of a bunch of cells that have "potential'? If so, then every cell of every living thing should be protected. No more taking antibiotics for an infection if thats the case... Cancer treatments just went out the window too. But that isn't reasonable - so we have to draw a line. We destroy, just in the act of existence, billions of microscopic organisms every day. It is when those cells merge, become multifaceted in distinct ways - and quite literally - become more than the mere sum of their parts, but instead develop that symbiotic relationship within themselves that we recognize them as more than merely "cells".

Want to say a fetus isn't a human? Want to define it as something less than that? Ok. But it still demonstrates the criteria required to be classified as some type of animal life. Consider it like a catepillar - its one distinct form of recognized life. After its transformation - its recognized as another, totally different, form of life. Still - it is LIFE at that point. A zygote goes from being that "lump of cells" to which individual are doing their own thing, into a clearly defined set of systems that WORK together. This is the difference.

Once something becomes more than just cells, but a complex, growing, developing, self repairing and WORKING symbiotic system controlled autonomously by its own internal bioligical brain, what definition would you give it besides LIFE?

Once you define it as Life, the question of termination from that point forward is much easier answered.

The problem here with this definition or line of arguement, is there are those that want to avoid ANY limitation on abortion, just as there are those that want to avoid any abortion. Both are extremes. You won't ever get a rational view out of an extreme position.

[NeonSamurai]

This will be a quicky as I don't have the time right now to really address stuff.

One issue I have is the use of the term parasite. Technically speaking a late term fetus is more akin to being a true parasite then an early term one. Parasites are independent and functional entities that gain sustenance from a host organism. They are generally able to survive being outside a host for short periods of time before running out of resources (food, water, etc) necessary to survive. So as pregnancy continues the fetus shifts from being a collection of cells totally dependent on the mother, to a more truly parasitic form. This continues after birth though in a less direct way.

There is some other stuff but I'll get to it later.

[nikimcbee]

Sometimes I wish they could put a sterilizing agent in the water supply to prevent accidental and unwanted pregnancies. When one wants to have a child they take a counteracting agent to get pregnant.

That might be the only thing that will solve this issue but of course it would raise a whole lot more.

That sounds like something from an Ayn Rand Novel. The one where noone had a name, just a number.

[Skybird]

CaptainHaplo, I eat meat rarely, also fish, nevertheless I am confessing to be an omnivore - I know that for the fish or meat on my table, a lifeform was kiilled.

Vegetables also are "life". So is yoghurt. The difference may be in to what degree these lifes are aware of themselves, and to what degree they notice the event of their own dying.

The more aware of itself and of it'S death a lifeform is, the more hesitent we should be to take it'S life, i would say.

I am not sure you correctly got what I tried to say. I know I did it vaguely only, in an indirect, maybe even metaphporic approach, but even in German I would struggle to express precisely what I am after. but part of my point is that this strict criterion deciding what is human life and what not maybe cannot be had with this wanted precision. Grey zone, you remember.

I do not believe in gods, as you now. I also do not believe in individual souls, but i believe to have realsied that there is mind as a quality, in varying quantities, and that matter has the ability to organise itself, and the higher the compexity this organisation reaches, the more chance there is for self-awareness, for mind. the higher the complexity, the greater the quantity of mind (as a function), maybe. I do not rule out that mind not only should be defined as the result of cognitive processes in brains as we know then (it can even be argued that the existence of brains is a result of mind at work - buddhism would see it that way), but that maybe stellar structures and galactic systems form some kind of meta-organisms that in their way also form a kind of self-awareness, or mind, or life. the german title of a book that I rate very high over here, was given as "Eros, Kosmos, Logos" (the original title was "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality", it means the same, but the German title I find even better), and I tend to see live/cosmos very much like this: eros forms cosmos, cosmos forms logos. a hierarchical structuring, a process that has no beginning and no end, but just takes place and carries on. Evolution is a human conception, an attempt to apprach the questions of excistence in one possible systematic manner that promises best pragmatic benefit. While I see pragmatic value in Darwin'S theory, I am by far not as limited to this theory only as some people knowing I am atheist may assume. But if I stick to that for the moment, and would try to see one meaning and sense in life, and a reason for evolution, then it is that "what is" tries to become aware of itself to growing degrees, thus matter's tendency to form more and more complex hierarchial structures, superstructures, suprastructures, and so forth. Cosmos/creation tries to learn itself better and better, so to speak. This for me is the metaphysical dimension of what we call evolution. In other words, the purpose of life itself may be - self-realisation.

Again, this is only another approach to what I am after, maybe you find it helpful, or just confusing. But you see, what I want to say maybe cannot be said in words precisely, and words can only say what "it" is not.

[Sailor Steve]

If killing a fetus is murder, when should a woman who miscarries be charged with involuntary manslaughter? (There is no malice of forethought in Involuntary Manslaughter)

Suppose the mother was a drug user (an illegal act) and miscarries, could they be charged with Constructive Manslaughter? (Constructive Manslaughter occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act.)

Suppose the mother was a heavy smoker/drinker (a legal act) and miscarries, could they be charged with Negligent Manslaughter.

If killing a fetus is murder, then it has to be murder across the board right?


And that's one of the tricky questions which must be answered before abortion can simply be called murder. If abortion were to be outlawed again, you know that those cases would start appearing in the courts. It would be easy to dismiss that argument as mere semantics, but it is also a very real posibility.

[Dowly]

It's the woman's choice if you ask me.

[Task Force]

hmm... seems alot of people look at abortion and think of religion... If the mother dosent want the kid, or is it could kill her to keep it, why dont let her have one...

[CaptainHaplo]

Task Force - lets say your with a woman for a while, make plans, etc, she gets pregnant, you rejoice - a task force jr to enter the world, till she decides, nope - I'm gonna kill it, sorry for you.

See, its always a little more complicated that "let the woman decide"......

[Skybird]

There is no compromise possible when the choice is between two absolutes, and cannot be different than these two absolutes: do it or don't. I mean you hardly can offer a holiday trip, a new car or a golden ring as a compensation for the decision finally made.

I agree with that in the end it has to be the decision of the woman. It's her body. Attempts to influence her decision are legitimite up to a certain level, but necessarily must come to an end beyond a certain stage. If it goes the hard way and up to the bitter end of debate, the decison of the mother overrules the wishing of the man. She is not his property and does not owe him absolute obedience.