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

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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...

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. Just try to imagine what he would reply to you

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

Here you go.

Originally Posted by Dr. House

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]

Originally Posted by Reaves

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.

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

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 ) so If there's anyone Who as a right to decide, that someone should be undoubtebly the mother.

[SS107.9MHz]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

What?

The abortionist and his No. 1 foe

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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Shearwater

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

Is that a popular view in Massachusetts?