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

[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,...est=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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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".