Abortion...

[Ilmater]

I don't think there's enough discussion on this, considering this is a Politics & News forum.

First off, I don't want this to turn into a flame war. I want logical reasoning because that's the only way to change anyone's mind.

I used to be pro-choice, mainly because I thought the morality of the whole thing was in question, and if it is then the government would not have the right to step in and say what you could and could not do. However, logically, it is immoral. I also want to be clear that I'm kind of agnostic, but I lean towards atheist, so the "God" arguments are completely out.

For example, if I were to punch my girlfriend in the stomach two months into her pregnancy, I'd be charged for murder (not to mention battery and possibly assault). But this is only if she decided that she was going to keep the baby. Now let's say I'm like Scott Peterson and I murder my pregnant wife (I'll say allegedly here for legal purposes. How many murders am I charged for? 2. Why? You don't even know for sure what my wife wanted. But the important fact to take away from this is that it's universally accepted in America that it's morally and legally wrong to punch my pregnant gf in the stomach or to in any other way kill an unborn child. So how do we justify it just because the woman "doesn't want one right now?"

With all of that being said, I hope this is kept civil so that this thread doesn't get locked. I'll tell you all what I told the person that convinced me to be pro-life: I'd love it if you could change my mind.

 

[Zebo]

Here is a good paper which addresses to hypocrisy you are asking about

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

With all of that being said, I hope this is kept civil so that this thread doesn't get locked. I'll tell you all what I told the person that convinced me to be pro-life: I'd love it if you could change my mind.

Good luck...this won't last for long.

I hate abortion and think that it is a horrible act. However, I respect a woman's right to control what happens to her body.

I don't think life starts anywhere near conception, so the idea of RU-486 or other morning after pills don't bother me in the least.

The only way my wife or I would consider an abortion is if our child were to be metally retarded, or somehow other deformed in a way that would significantly affect his life (such as being born without a brain).

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

I used to be pro-choice, mainly because I thought the morality of the whole thing was in question, and if it is then the government would not have the right to step in and say what you could and could not do. However, logically, it is immoral. I also want to be clear that I'm kind of agnostic, but I lean towards atheist, so the "God" arguments are completely out.

But this does have large ammounts to do with religion. The large % of pro-life people don't want abortions because they believe that life starts at conception.

However, other religions (namely Judaism) believes that life doesn't start anywhere near conception. They believe in a quickening where life starts, and largely do not oppose abortions to a point.

Who's beliefs do you squash and who's do you honor? There is no scientific proof where life beings. The only way to honor all rights is to allow people who believe that life hasn't begun yet to have an abortion, and give the people who believe life begins at conception the right to not have abortions.

 

[konichiwa]

The assertion that life begins at conception is rediculous. Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human fetal development could tell you that at the moment of conception, the "child" is nothing more than a gnat. If you believe that abortion of a "fetus" (although it's not that) at conception is immoral, I sure hope you've never wasted any "seed" either because then you've committed half of a murder (aggravated assault maybe?).

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
The assertion that life begins at conception is rediculous. Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human fetal development could tell you that at the moment of conception, the "child" is nothing more than a gnat. If you believe that abortion of a "fetus" (although it's not that) at conception is immoral, I sure hope you've never wasted any "seed" either because then you've committed half of a murder (aggravated assault maybe?).

Damn those wet dreams...I've been framed, I tell you!

 

[Corn]

The assertion that life begins at conception is rediculous.

The ascertation that ridiculous is spelled "rediculous" is ridiculous.

Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human fetal development could tell you that at the moment of conception, the "child" is nothing more than a gnat.

People will say the most idiotic things to support any position/opinion they may have. The ascertation that a freshly fertalized human egg bears any relationship to a gnat is ridiculous. How many gnats become fully functioning humans?

Following the same idiotic logic: Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human development could tell you that at the moment of birth, the "child" is nothing more than a dog.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
The assertion that life begins at conception is rediculous. Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human fetal development could tell you that at the moment of conception, the "child" is nothing more than a gnat. If you believe that abortion of a "fetus" (although it's not that) at conception is immoral, I sure hope you've never wasted any "seed" either because then you've committed half of a murder (aggravated assault maybe?).

Yeah, well I wouldn't know how to spend my Saturday nights if I believed that

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Seriously, I don't believe it begins at conception. However, I think that there should definitely be a point at which we consider life to begin. For instance, you can't tell me that partial-birth abortion (regardless of whether or not you like the name) is okay. Also, I think that there should be some kind of seperate law that covers what happens when, say, a guy punches his girlfriend in the stomach or otherwise forces her to lose the baby when she doesn't want to. However, if it's his child, I also think that, legally, he should have a right to the baby (maybe that's a discussion for later).

After seeing Cider House Rules, I definitely understand that point as well. Which is, namely, that if you don't provide a good alternative, women will use coat hangars and other methods that could injure or even kill them.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: konichiwa
The assertion that life begins at conception is rediculous. Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human fetal development could tell you that at the moment of conception, the "child" is nothing more than a gnat. If you believe that abortion of a "fetus" (although it's not that) at conception is immoral, I sure hope you've never wasted any "seed" either because then you've committed half of a murder (aggravated assault maybe?).

Seriously, I don't believe it begins at conception. However, I think that there should definitely be a point at which we consider life to begin. For instance, you can't tell me that partial-birth abortion (regardless of whether or not you like the name) is okay. Also, I think that there should be some kind of seperate law that covers what happens when, say, a guy punches his girlfriend in the stomach or otherwise forces her to lose the baby when she doesn't want to. However, if it's his child, I also think that, legally, he should have a right to the baby (maybe that's a discussion for later).

The concept of D&X (partial birth abortion does not exist) has absolutely nothing to do with the viability of the fetus. It has to do with providing the best course of medicine for the only patient, the mother.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Corn

Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human fetal development could tell you that at the moment of conception, the "child" is nothing more than a gnat.

People will say the most idiotic things to support any position/opinion they may have. The ascertation that a freshly fertalized human egg bears any relationship to a gnat is ridiculous. How many gnats become fully functioning humans?

Following the same idiotic logic: Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human development could tell you that at the moment of birth, the "child" is nothing more than a dog.

At the momeny of birth, nobody could argue that the child is sentient. Once the child's sentient, I think that is the point where the government could step in. If you're Jewish and you don't think the child has reached the Quickening state yet, then that's too bad. You should have thought about that before now. I don't understand what's so hard for people to get about DECIDE QUICKLY!

 

[no0b]

Abortion...

Nay

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: konichiwa
The assertion that life begins at conception is rediculous. Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human fetal development could tell you that at the moment of conception, the "child" is nothing more than a gnat. If you believe that abortion of a "fetus" (although it's not that) at conception is immoral, I sure hope you've never wasted any "seed" either because then you've committed half of a murder (aggravated assault maybe?).

Seriously, I don't believe it begins at conception. However, I think that there should definitely be a point at which we consider life to begin. For instance, you can't tell me that partial-birth abortion (regardless of whether or not you like the name) is okay. Also, I think that there should be some kind of seperate law that covers what happens when, say, a guy punches his girlfriend in the stomach or otherwise forces her to lose the baby when she doesn't want to. However, if it's his child, I also think that, legally, he should have a right to the baby (maybe that's a discussion for later).

The concept of D&X (partial birth abortion does not exist) has absolutely nothing to do with the viability of the fetus. It has to do with providing the best course of medicine for the only patient, the mother.

Three questions: What do you mean by D&X? What do you mean by medicine for the mother? If it's neccessary for the mother's safety, then why didn't they know beforehand?

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: konichiwa
The assertion that life begins at conception is rediculous. Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human fetal development could tell you that at the moment of conception, the "child" is nothing more than a gnat. If you believe that abortion of a "fetus" (although it's not that) at conception is immoral, I sure hope you've never wasted any "seed" either because then you've committed half of a murder (aggravated assault maybe?).

Seriously, I don't believe it begins at conception. However, I think that there should definitely be a point at which we consider life to begin. For instance, you can't tell me that partial-birth abortion (regardless of whether or not you like the name) is okay. Also, I think that there should be some kind of seperate law that covers what happens when, say, a guy punches his girlfriend in the stomach or otherwise forces her to lose the baby when she doesn't want to. However, if it's his child, I also think that, legally, he should have a right to the baby (maybe that's a discussion for later).

The concept of D&X (partial birth abortion does not exist) has absolutely nothing to do with the viability of the fetus. It has to do with providing the best course of medicine for the only patient, the mother.

Three questions: What do you mean by D&X? What do you mean by medicine for the mother? If it's neccessary for the mother's safety, then why didn't they know beforehand?

Link to the people who know best, the doctors.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Corn

The assertion that life begins at conception is rediculous.

The ascertation that ridiculous is spelled "rediculous" is ridiculous.

Corn, using his finest forensic skill -- pointing out spelling errors. I applaud your complete lack of substantial argument, and your blatant disregard for your dignity as you reduce yourself to pointing out grammatical errors. Bravo!

People will say the most idiotic things to support any position/opinion they may have. The ascertation that a freshly fertalized human egg bears any relationship to a gnat is ridiculous. How many gnats become fully functioning humans?

Following the same idiotic logic: Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human development could tell you that at the moment of birth, the "child" is nothing more than a dog.

Can't say I follow you there. Take a look at a microscopic zygote at one day past fertilization, IT LOOKS LIKE A GNAT, and for all intents and purposes of the "when life begins" argument, it is. It has no (that's right, none) distinctive human features, and, for the most part, can't be distinguished from zygotes of other animals such as fish and pigs.

Your attempt at an extension of logic fails miserably; sorry.

 

[Corn]

Can't say I follow you there.

Of course you can't.

IT LOOKS LIKE A GNAT

Still missing the point.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Corn

Can't say I follow you there.

Of course you can't.

Listen, I'm on nobody's side, but this argument is obvious to anyone on ANY side of this debate to be ignorant. This is the kind of stuff I didn't want in this thread.

IT LOOKS LIKE A GNAT

Still missing the point.

Her point was obvious. Look in a microscope. Both zygotes look the same.

 

[LunarRay]

At the instant the human female egg is fertilized it, the egg, has yet to become an entity nor has it achieved viability. At what point does definite individuality occur? I suggest when it becomes viable it becomes an entity (in this case a human being). Before this time it is still dependent on the woman for its existence. It is not viable and is not an entity and therefore, not human. It is but a part of a human all be it with potential to become human.
So. Until the point in gestation when viability occurs abortion is not anything more than the removal of a potential human from its enabling source. After the aforementioned point in time abortion is the termination of human life.
The semantics of all this is just that, semantics. We should not create laws that go beyond the semantics that I articulated above because to do so requires a religious definition that not all buy into. The individual makes the choice as to their own body until the legal point when human life is reached in conjunction with their moral and or religious beliefs. To change the law to encompass a period before viability invokes Church/State dogma that is unconstitutional. IMHO

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: Corn

The assertion that life begins at conception is rediculous.

The ascertation that ridiculous is spelled "rediculous" is ridiculous.

Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human fetal development could tell you that at the moment of conception, the "child" is nothing more than a gnat.

People will say the most idiotic things to support any position/opinion they may have. The ascertation that a freshly fertalized human egg bears any relationship to a gnat is ridiculous. How many gnats become fully functioning humans?

Following the same idiotic logic: Anyone who's ever studied Biology and human development could tell you that at the moment of birth, the "child" is nothing more than a dog.

Ok, I've seen what you're arguments consist of. They are all the same. You take a valid argument and try to invalidate it by applying it to nothing even remotely related to the topic at hand. Very conservative of you. I don't consider you to be any sort of logician, and as such your arguments generally make me laugh.

I on the other hand have a question for those who are pro-life. It's obvious YOU will never get an abortion, but WHY shouldn't somebody else be able to have one? It doesn't affect you in any way, shape, or form. It is probably cheaper (abortion), because you don't have to support all of those nasty "Liberal" programs like wic cupons, maternity leave and welfare to the same extent. YOU can pray for the souls of all the sinners who did get an abortion and bring yourself closer to your savior (instead of being such a hypocrite), so there's no problem there either.

At any rate.


LOCK THIS THREAD

 

[0roo0roo]

logic? logic would seem to show that a fetus is NOT a fully developed human being capable of sentient thought and survival in the world. do we afford the "right to life" to other creatures of the same neuro complexity as a fetus? hardly. does a creature who sustains itself off your organs/body have the unquestionable right to do so? are you required to be a good samaritan? say a persons kidney fails and the only thing that will keep him alive is being surgically attached to you. are you obligated to do this? or is it just "nice" and a choice that you can make? you can't decide? this is a fully grown human being!

do you have the right to use another persons body against their will?

logic, or convoluted logic, twisted logic. you didn't go very far with your logic.

your basing your opinion of abortion on legal semantics? like when a child can be charged as an adult, when children are considered too old for statatory rape, legal age of marriage, being able to drive at 16, yet not being able to drink alcohol until 21, yet being able to serve in the military at 18. legal semantics are nothing to base anything on.

 

[SuperTool]

I don't think viable fetuses should be killed. I think the mother has a right to "evict" the baby from her body. And then if the baby makes it, it should live, and if not, it dies.

 

[0roo0roo]

For example, if I were to punch my girlfriend in the stomach two months into her pregnancy, I'd be charged for murder (not to mention battery and possibly assault). But this is only if she decided that she was going to keep the baby. Now let's say I'm like Scott Peterson and I murder my pregnant wife (I'll say allegedly here for legal purposes. How many murders am I charged for? 2. Why? You don't even know for sure what my wife wanted.

think about it. we have different level of murder charges. why? some crimes are more horrendous then others, on the other hand you could "logically" say murder is murder is murder! a person who accidentally runs over another person should get the same death penalty a serial killer gets, no? they have in fact deprived another person of life. intent shouldn't matter, or should it? consistency in murder punishment, how logical.

we don't do that, we have different levels of murder. we don't have a homocide + fetus slaying charge so prosecutors who always go for the max possible add a second murder charge because they can. is anyone really going to argue that a murderer should get less charges against him? not likely.

But the important fact to take away from this is that it's universally accepted in America that it's morally and legally wrong to punch my pregnant gf in the stomach or to in any other way kill an unborn child. So how do we justify it just because the woman "doesn't want one right now?"

you compare a surgical procedure to a punch that needlessly threatens the life of the mother?

its also morally and legally wrong to perform dentistry on other people if your not a dentist. esp if you like knocking peoples teeth out with hammers to heighten the grotesque factor. like that logic?

it is morally and legally wrong for me to shoot a criminal in cold blood who is already in custody because i want revenge. yet it is ok when the state executes criminals.

it is morally and legally wrong to drop an atomic bomb on a city to kill a gang of terrorists, yet it is ok to use a surgical strike to take them out.

it is morally and legally wrong for a doctor to steal organs from people to implant into others. yet it is ok if it is donated.


it is morally and legally wrong to use painful and cruel gasses/biochemical weapons in warfare yet it is ok if we use conventional weapons.

i'm sure others can think of better examples.

just because there is a wrong way to carry out something, doesn't mean all methods are wrong and that it is in itself wrong.


you really have to break down your arguements into premises and conclusions to see if they work.

btw i think ethics are more based on logic then morals

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: Corn

Can't say I follow you there.

Of course you can't.

Listen, I'm on nobody's side, but this argument is obvious to anyone on ANY side of this debate to be ignorant. This is the kind of stuff I didn't want in this thread.

IT LOOKS LIKE A GNAT

Still missing the point.

Her point was obvious. Look in a microscope. Both zygotes look the same.

"He", thank you.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Corn

Of course you can't.

You amaze me with your consistent ability to make yourself look like an idiot by, as threads expand, making your arguments less and less:

a) relevant and germane to the topic
b) convincing
c) logical
d) lucid

while making them more and more:

a) convoluted
b) reduced to insults
c) laden with terse, defamatory remarks

You may as well stop now, you've proven your ineptitude quite sufficiently, and many times over.

IT LOOKS LIKE A GNAT

Still missing the point.

Care to be a little more explicit? You seem to think yourself on a higher plane than the rest of us, as your arguments assume that we can read your mind, and lack any kind of explaination and/or argument for your cause; only a statement such as the above.

Please leave this thread; your stupidity never fails to astound, and, unfortunately, you're runing this (otherwise clear and civil) thread into a crapslinging contest. Thanks.

 

[Red Dawn]

The day a Man gets pregnant is the day his opinion on abortion is valid.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The day a Man gets pregnant is the day his opinion on abortion is valid.

The day man gets pregnant is the day abortions will be part of health insurance plans and government funding would help make up the shortfalls.