When a woman bears a child, she usually assumes a long commitment to care for the child. It is a life altering experience that may not always have a pleasent outcome. Sometimes morality comes down to making choises from options that are all less than optimum. I do not consider abortion murder as some do and I do not "push" abortion, there may be times when I would recommend a woman considering it.
A junkie who will ccontinue to use drugs through a pregnancy is quite likely to produce a child with poor prospects at a happy and productive life. Might not an abortion be preferable to creating a human being who is never likely to emerge from the shadow of the 8 ball it was born behind?
Suppose a young woman in the middle of a college education has a couple too many at a party and gets pregnent. Her options are to drop out of school, have the kid and resent it all her life at some level (with a negetive effect on her and the kid) or abort, continue her education so as to provide a better life for future children.
I doubt that I personally have the necessary skills and abilities to care for and raise a severely defective child. My inability to cope would have a very negative effect on my wife, any other children, and the inegrety of the family as a whole. At a minimum, quality of life for all family members would be diminished, and at a maximum? Who knows?
Rape and incest are obvious senarios.
While adoption may be an option, it may not be a good choice in some cases. Some women may feel that is not an option due to pressures from family members who might ostracise her, or worse, offer to make the rest of her life miserable. Some children may fall into a catagory of being esentially "unadoptable" by a large majority of prospective adoptive parents. This can be from such things as defect or ethnic appearence. A women may feel maternal responsibility that precludes "giving the child away" even if she is aware that she may abuse or damage the child while it is in her care.
While, as bystanders, we may offer predictions about the outcome of carring to term, ultimately, it should fall to the woman to do the final evaluation of how to proceed with her life.
Sorry if I rambled, but it is much harder to speak of the subject in generalizations than it is to consider each individual case with its own unique circumstances.
A junkie who will ccontinue to use drugs through a pregnancy is quite likely to produce a child with poor prospects at a happy and productive life. Might not an abortion be preferable to creating a human being who is never likely to emerge from the shadow of the 8 ball it was born behind?
Suppose a young woman in the middle of a college education has a couple too many at a party and gets pregnent. Her options are to drop out of school, have the kid and resent it all her life at some level (with a negetive effect on her and the kid) or abort, continue her education so as to provide a better life for future children.
I doubt that I personally have the necessary skills and abilities to care for and raise a severely defective child. My inability to cope would have a very negative effect on my wife, any other children, and the inegrety of the family as a whole. At a minimum, quality of life for all family members would be diminished, and at a maximum? Who knows?
Rape and incest are obvious senarios.
While adoption may be an option, it may not be a good choice in some cases. Some women may feel that is not an option due to pressures from family members who might ostracise her, or worse, offer to make the rest of her life miserable. Some children may fall into a catagory of being esentially "unadoptable" by a large majority of prospective adoptive parents. This can be from such things as defect or ethnic appearence. A women may feel maternal responsibility that precludes "giving the child away" even if she is aware that she may abuse or damage the child while it is in her care.
While, as bystanders, we may offer predictions about the outcome of carring to term, ultimately, it should fall to the woman to do the final evaluation of how to proceed with her life.
Sorry if I rambled, but it is much harder to speak of the subject in generalizations than it is to consider each individual case with its own unique circumstances.
watch cider house rules... there is a scene in it that basically explains my views on abortion perfectly...
better yet why dont you go back in time to when you couldnt get abortions legally and watch some quack out to make money jam a coat hanger into a women and do the same exact thing, except completely wrong, with no sanitation, and with an incredible chance of the women dieing... its called abortions would occur regardless... do we want trained professionals or people who have no idea what they are doing...
now tell me ... how easy it is to be voting against the right wing... pretty fuken easy
I'm not going to quote everything:
So basically, motivations aside, DT4K and TastesLikeChicken:
You agree that somewhere between conception and birth, a fetus attains human status. Once becoming human, terminating(I don't want to say kill) it is wrong. Neither of you are sure where that line can be drawn.
correct?
So basically, motivations aside, DT4K and TastesLikeChicken:
You agree that somewhere between conception and birth, a fetus attains human status. Once becoming human, terminating(I don't want to say kill) it is wrong. Neither of you are sure where that line can be drawn.
correct?
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
I won't speak for him, but yeah, you pretty much got my view right. Except clearly, it's human almost immediately. The debate is at what point that human has a right to not be intentionally killed. I am just being honest when I say that I don't know when that point is. Like I said, I'm not calling the use of ru-486 wrong. Why don't you want to say kill? I'll admit that I "killed" a bunch of weeds the other day. Killing is not always wrong.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
My personal opinion is that a fetus has become "human" when there are typical human brainwaves detectable; not just simply nervous system activity, but actual brain waves. If someone is considered dead when brainwave activity ceases, why shouldn't we use that same benchmark to consider a fetus alive?
It's not always wrong, but it's a loaded word. I'll explain further in a bit.
I would say that as soon as you define a fetus as human, you must logically apply all the rights accorded a human, among them not being killed.
Prior to this, it's simply a collection of human tissue. There's no moral prohibition against removal of parts of a human body; no one is upset about tonsils being removed. (I didn't use killed because you wouldn't say your tonsils we're killed. It implies independent life)
The question is, how and when does a fetus transition from being a collection of human cells to a human being.
I'm not sure that question is possible to answer.
I would say that as soon as you define a fetus as human, you must logically apply all the rights accorded a human, among them not being killed.
Prior to this, it's simply a collection of human tissue. There's no moral prohibition against removal of parts of a human body; no one is upset about tonsils being removed. (I didn't use killed because you wouldn't say your tonsils we're killed. It implies independent life)
The question is, how and when does a fetus transition from being a collection of human cells to a human being.
I'm not sure that question is possible to answer.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
As to the "when" I've already provided an opinion on that in my previous reply.
As to the "how" of your question, if I could answer that I'd probably be up for a Nobel prize.
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
And thus, you've pointed out exactly why this issue is so controversial and why it will continue to be so for a very long time. The problem with both the pro-life and pro-choice sides is that neither one can answer this question by saying that at some point in gestation, the fetus now is deserving of rights. There is simply far too much subjectiveness in making such a determination. There are only two clearly definable points in the development of a baby. Conception and birth. The pro-choice movement has chosen birth as the point at which a human being should have the right to live and the pro-life movement has chosen conception. I would guess that the vast majority of people think both of these viewpoints are incorrect and would actually fall somewhere in between in their views. But it is very difficult to play an active role in this issue without picking one side or the other so most people are forced to make that choice whether they agree with it 100% or not.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I's consider a law against having an abortion if it exceded the benchmark I outlined. I doubt I'd support an absolute ban though. There could be cases where a ban past the benchmark might be permitted.
The right to life has nothing to do with consciousness. The Right to Life is inalienable and exists before life begins to all life that is living. The question is, when is the right of the woman to chose trumped by the right of the child. The legal decision must of necessity be somewhat arbitrary.
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
Yeah, I guess that two posts in one day that actually content rather than mystical ramblings is too much to ask for.
Care to give an actual answer to some actual answers?
Should it be illegal for a woman to choose to kill her 5 year old child?
Should it be illegal for a woman to choose to kill her 1 day old child?
Should it be illegal for a woman to choose to kill her 9 month gestation fetus?
I'm just looking for some clarification since the impression I got from your first post was that it's ok to kill a life as long as it doesn't have a real sense of self and consciousness.
Partial Birth abortion was banned. So there you go, no more argument.
Now if you would like to talk about the most common type of abortion in this country, the first term abortion, I am all ears. Here is my useless opinion on the topic:
I believe abortion will go away on its own as soon as we have a culture that supports the following:
1. It takes two to make a baby, and two should be responsible for it.
2. Sex is not for recreation, selling clothes, cars, jewelry, or boats, but for the express purpose of creating babies.
3. The bond between a man and a woman is sacred, and should be consecrated only after marriage.
I am absolutely in favor of closing the doors on all abortion clinics just as soon as the day comes that there is not one young woman standing outside waiting for her turn in the clinic.
The people that are so totally against abortion in this country aren't stepping up and saying "I will pay for your unwanted child from birth through the age of 21". They are simply saying that they don't like the idea (insert squeamishness and blood here) of abortion. They are not worried about the immorality that leads to abortions, the young men who cause the need for the abortions, they simply want to scare the young women into having babies they can't care for (they couldn't even keep themselves from getting pregnant, how will they care for a baby???), can't afford, and don't want.
A little known fact, exactly 20 years after Roe v. Wade, the rate of mass murders and violent crime in this country took an unexplainable drop. The politicians of course took the credit (must be their incredible policies, right?), however, I believe that the real reason was that the women who would be hurting and abusing and ignoring their accidental children, were now being allowed to not have them at all. So fine, so be it. Let them have their sin, and their abortion, and whatever else it is that they have, leave me, my politics, and my government out of it, and let me count my lucky stars that I am less likely to be the victim of a horrendous crime as an unintended but welcome result.
That was my two cents..... Comments, Concerns??
Now if you would like to talk about the most common type of abortion in this country, the first term abortion, I am all ears. Here is my useless opinion on the topic:
I believe abortion will go away on its own as soon as we have a culture that supports the following:
1. It takes two to make a baby, and two should be responsible for it.
2. Sex is not for recreation, selling clothes, cars, jewelry, or boats, but for the express purpose of creating babies.
3. The bond between a man and a woman is sacred, and should be consecrated only after marriage.
I am absolutely in favor of closing the doors on all abortion clinics just as soon as the day comes that there is not one young woman standing outside waiting for her turn in the clinic.
The people that are so totally against abortion in this country aren't stepping up and saying "I will pay for your unwanted child from birth through the age of 21". They are simply saying that they don't like the idea (insert squeamishness and blood here) of abortion. They are not worried about the immorality that leads to abortions, the young men who cause the need for the abortions, they simply want to scare the young women into having babies they can't care for (they couldn't even keep themselves from getting pregnant, how will they care for a baby???), can't afford, and don't want.
A little known fact, exactly 20 years after Roe v. Wade, the rate of mass murders and violent crime in this country took an unexplainable drop. The politicians of course took the credit (must be their incredible policies, right?), however, I believe that the real reason was that the women who would be hurting and abusing and ignoring their accidental children, were now being allowed to not have them at all. So fine, so be it. Let them have their sin, and their abortion, and whatever else it is that they have, leave me, my politics, and my government out of it, and let me count my lucky stars that I am less likely to be the victim of a horrendous crime as an unintended but welcome result.
That was my two cents..... Comments, Concerns??
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
So crime reduction is a valid incentive for first-term abortion? What about juveniles that have had multiple run-ins with the law by age 12? They probably have a statistically-verified link to higher crime rates. Should we kill them too?
And where do you get this idea that people against abortion just "simply want to scare the young women into having babies they can't care for" and aren't concerned with human rights and morality? Have you talked with anyone who opposes abortions? What about all of them?
You made quite a few sweeping statements here (and in your other posts) that make me want to consider you a troll, but won't for now, just for the sake of debate.
The woman does not have an absolute legal right to her own body. She cannot have her organs removed at her command, nor can she legally inflict harm on herself. Suicide is illegal. The sale of organs is illegal. Using certain drugs is illegal. All of these things clearly indicate that society has seen fit, in various ways, to control what an individual can or cannot do with his/her body.
This comes down to why people do or do not believe in abortion. I believe that abortion is wrong because man is in no position to terminate a human life except to save another life. As I've mentioned in other threads (and, no doubt will be disputed here), there can be no scientific argument that an embryo/fetus is not a human life. Rather, you may argue that it is not a person, where a person is an entity to which we grant rights. I cannot ascertain a non-arbitrary method for differentiating between a human and a person, thus I must assume that the condition of humanity is sufficient for being a person. If, then, all humans are persons, they have inalienable rights that must be protected. Chief among these rights is the right to life - the chief right that government EXISTS to protect. Thus, I cannot condone granting someone the 'right to choose' to violate an inviolable right that exists and is the very foundation of society.
I have had heated debates with many pro-life supporters, most noteably on the old Fox News Channel forums (how I miss them). I am admittedly, quite rusty in my debate and articulation skills, however, I am doing my best to jump back into the fray. If my statements are too sweeping, I do apologize.
I at no point said that anyone should be killed to lower crime statistics, merely that it was an unintended and positive silver lining in an otherwise dark cloud.
I stand by my original statement, I am fully in support of closing all abortion clinics as soon as there is no one else waiting to have one. Like anything else, we need to address the demand before we go removing the supply.
I at no point said that anyone should be killed to lower crime statistics, merely that it was an unintended and positive silver lining in an otherwise dark cloud.
I stand by my original statement, I am fully in support of closing all abortion clinics as soon as there is no one else waiting to have one. Like anything else, we need to address the demand before we go removing the supply.
fetus as a human life? possibly. embryo as a human life? definitely not. yes you will disputed on this statement because you cannot argue that an embryo falls into the same category most people would place under "human being. "
Any reason or no reason at all. That's why it's the most common surgery performed in the US today.
Are you serious? Hitler would make posters of you saying this. "Give me your tired, your poor, your non-Aryan, and I'll kill their babies." That's ridiculous.
Yet we still outlaw crack. We still outlaw murder. We outlaw things despite the fact that we know the laws will be broken. You can't not legislate something because people will inevitably break that law - you legislate based on what is the right thing to do.
This is, of course, every woman's right. You can choose to have sex or not. If you choose to have sex, you do so knowing full well that a child may be the product of that action.
Your whole argument voids any responsibility of a woman for her actions. Personal responsibility is a staple of society. By removing it, you must then allow any action, as one cannot be held responsible for his/her actions. A woman's life would be inconvenienced by having a child? Don't have sex. This IS a viable option, whether it's convenient or not. It's hardly convenient for the child who is killed as a result of your actions to die, yet this isn't even a consideration in your statements.
:roll: Once again, the fact that you disagree with fact does not invalidate fact. Fact: an embryo has human parents and human DNA. These are the necessary and suficient conditions for being human.
Since this issue keeps coming up, I threw together an index page of all the articles and chapters from books that I've had a chance to type up to this point. The information is presented as-is without my interjection of opinion in hopes that people will educate themselves on this issue. I believe that once a reasonable extent of education has been provided, people can draw their own conclusions based not on misinformation, but on the truth. Most of the information is taken from court documents and a renowned textbook on the subject. Anyway, here it is.
Stating something as fact also does not make it so.
Assume that human parents are necessary for being human. Take your pick of creationism or evolution.
Creationism: Adam and Eve have no parents, and are thus not human. Their children are therefore not hum. Repeat for a while...you and I are not human. I think we can agree this is not the case, and so the assumption must be false.
Evolution, the assumption implies all ancestors of humans are human. apes, lemurs...some reptile thing...amoebae. I would say we can probably both argue this also is not the case.
In either case, at some point, there must be a human that does not have human parents.
Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny; similarly, at some point between zygote and birth, the fetus transitions from a non-human to a human.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter