GOP: Abortion [Archive] - THE TOLKIEN FORUM

Grond

03-01-2002, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by TheJospeh
I will point out--though I don't think this will change your mind about me being narrow-minded--that I did include the point that some of the best people I have known have been right-wing. I was commenting not so much on individual voters but rather the heart of the ideology that is the right. Now you can argue that Christian fundamentalism, capital punishment, anti-abortion, hands-off government (DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT THAT DID DURING THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION?!) are not big parts of the right-wing...I don't know how you would do it but I'm sure you are capable enough to make a good go of it.

Sincerely,
The Joseph Joe, so you'll know me better.
1) Christian fundamentalism - Out via separation of church and state
2) Capital punishment - in if and when conclusive evidence supports conviction.
3) Anti-abortion - As a means for birth control and federally funded I am totally against it. As a choice of a woman of her own body, I am fully supportive of it. So I am anti-abortion and pro-choice.
4) hands off government - absolutely. Within reason. As our Constitution says, "We the People" will decide how much government we want by the people we elect and the policies we influence them to make.

I have done it because I want to better understand someone who seems bent on alienating someone who simply disagrees with your view. I would prefer to understand you than to discount you. :)

TheJospeh

03-01-2002, 07:50 AM

Yes mayby they are in theory but please explain the ehtical reason stem cell research is immoral if it is not a religious one? Also what does it say on American currency? Religion and politics should be as separated as possible BUT they can't be totally separated.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

Grond

03-01-2002, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by TheJospeh
Yes mayby they are in theory but please explain the ehtical reason stem cell research is immoral if it is not a religious one? Also what does it say on American currency? Religion and politics should be as separated as possible BUT they can't be totally separated.

Sincerely,
The Joseph 1) Stem cell research is a moral issue and not a religious issue. It depends on a person's view of when life and creation of life begins. When it comes to government funding of something I find immoral, that is where the line is drawn. I told you before that I am Pro-choice. That is as long as there is no government involvement in the issue. When we start funding abortions for the sake of birth control or for the sake of stem cell research, that is where I take exception. It should be noted that as I've said before, my sister is Buddhist and I am a Christian. We have the same belief on abortion and on stem cell research.

By the way, TheJoseph, what is your position on abortion and stem cell research?

2) Yes, and a favorite slogan in Canada since it's beginnings has been "God save the King/Queen". Amost every "free" country in the world has at it's core an established belief in a diety. That doesn't mean you have to believe, it simply is the foundation on which the country is based. It means that the country was established based on the principals and morals of a belief in God. Our Declaration of Independence was very specific in stating "...endowed by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights..." It was hypocritical at the time because we also endorsed slavery but the principle upon which it was written was solid. And, yes, you are correct that it is impossible to separate church and state completely... both in my country and in yours. :)

TheJospeh

03-01-2002, 11:05 PM

I am pro-choice. It is the woman's body. However, I do object to it being used as a common means of birth control. SInce abortion can make it impossible for a woman ever to have a chld again I don't think abortion is used in such a way. It is always a huge decision and never taken lightly, unless the dangers are somehow completed unknown or ignored.

It is a ridiculous idea that funding stem cell research means paying people to have abortions. America tacitly approves abortion since it is legal. Therefore these abortions going on entirely morally should be used for gain, yes? Funding is not making more women have abortions but rather is giving money to scientists working on the stem cells.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

Grond

03-01-2002, 11:12 PM

Joe, that was the answer I was looking for. So you endorse the capital punishment of an unborn fetus and yet are adamantly opposed to capital punishment as a means of punishing a capital offender?

Gloer

03-01-2002, 11:47 PM

I have perceived that in the modern western world pregnancy is considered not as a normal state of affair for a woman. It is a special situation that needs special treatment. Women have sex and they use e-pills. Getting pregnant is very unlikely unless you really try or don't mind it. If there is something wrong with the periods the modern woman gets afraid that she is pregnant - as if she has caught a disease!

Usually pregnancy is considered as normal and woman treats herself with caution, if the child is expected or at least the possibility of a child is accepted.

On the other hand if the pregnancy is not desired and child even less so, then pregnancy is comparable to a disease that needs a cure - even if the physiological situation is the same as with the desired pregnancy.

Disease is not something that can be objectively determined as abnormal state of health. The question is where we draw a line between healthy and sick. I presume that people tend to think that doctors are taught to make this determination. Superficially this is the case, but ultimately it is only a subjective opinion wheather certain state of affairs is abnormal or normal, whether it needs treatment or not.

Snaga

03-02-2002, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by Grond
Joe, that was the answer I was looking for. So you endorse the capital punishment of an unborn fetus and yet are adamantly opposed to capital punishment as a means of punishing a capital offender?
Hey, I do too!

(Well, you can't punish a collection of cells in a uterus, since its not a being, let alone one that has taken actions. You might equally say I have sentenced my tonsils to death, because I had them removed.)

I am glad you have said you agree with the right of women to choose Grond, I do too. I don't think anyone thinks abortion is desirable - ie its always better to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. But I'm not in the business of telling other people what they can and can't do with their body.

Originally posted by Gloer
Getting pregnant is very unlikely unless you really try or don't mind it. Come on there are so many circumstances that can happen. Rape for one. Failure of contraception for another. Teenage girls unaware of the consequences of their actions.... Your statement is valid only in a statistical sense (% of all pregnancies that are accident IS low), but the implication that 'you've only got yourself to blame' is one I do not accept.

Grond

03-02-2002, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
...Well, you can't punish a collection of cells in a uterus, since its not a being, let alone one that has taken actions. You might equally say I have sentenced my tonsils to death, because I had them removedAnd you hit upon the very head of the Moral Dilemma. When does a being become sentient? It one believes at inception than you have murder. If it is at birth, then not. The main problem I have is the inconsistency of applied law. In our country it is legal to have an abortion; yet if an expectant mother is attacked and the baby is killed then a charge of murder is filed on behalf of the unborn child. I am vehemently anti-abortion but resigned to the fact that the issue is a moral one of the expectant mother's and I, as a man, have no business dictating my moralities to someone else. So, VoK, I agree with you in principle but not in heart. :(

daisy

03-02-2002, 02:22 AM

I have never heard of a perpetrator being charged with murder in the case of a death of an unborn child unless said child could have reasonably survived outside the womb, this usually being an acceptable certainty as early as 24-28 weeks - although the survival rate before 28 weeks is quite low.
Eventually I assume that babies born even before twenty-four weels will be able to survive - the major stumbling block is of course maturity of lungs and heart - so this will be an interesting
development - when viable birth meets up with legal abortion without extenuating circumstances.
I have to say I am very uncomfortable and downright angered by late term abortions re: four months and over, because what was the woman busy doing instead of getting an abortion earlier? I guess very rarely you can be pregnant and not know it for quite awhile - but that is pushing it - I may even entertain the notion of really restricting abortion after 20 weeks - but this is also around the time that women can get their amnio results back and find out if they are carrying a child with any chromosomal abnormalities....
as a woman who has faced this decision - and chosen instead to have the baby - happily - and who is adopted and therefore could have been aborted myself, I will never be comfortable with the notion of abortion but am more uncomfortable with men who think they have any right to make the choice - if you don't want your 'baby' aborted by the woman you impregnated, don't impregnate anyone until you know more.

I guess we made our way to abortion after all.
I have no problem with any research using any part of humans - what is the big deal?

My brain is swimming from the tax stuff - I just pay it and move on, you know?;)

Grond

03-02-2002, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by daisy
...I have no problem with any research using any part of humans - what is the big deal?...The big deal to me is that if we discover ways to prolong life for the living using stem cell technology, we will be sacrificing potential living and thinking beings for the sake of prolonging the life of people that would naturally (in the selective process) die. I'm all for prolonging life... but at what cost? These are, again, very controversial and emotional moral issues that get muddied even further by government sponsorship. Let private firms do what they want and let those who want to reap those benefits get in line and pay whatever cost is involved... but I hesistate to vote for a politician that will endorse it. So I fight it the only way I can in America... with my vote.

daisy

03-02-2002, 02:51 AM

We do that already with animal research - for things as important as eyeliner - I know it is weird but I feel more comfortable using human material from fetuses than living breathing alreay-born animals.
Unless they pay women, there is no way people will get to the point where they are sacrificing pregnancies for stem cells. - I am more creepd out by cloning than by stem cell research - and I also agree Grond with the unnatural prolonging of life through medical intervention - I am definitely going to be a pull the plug granny!

Snaga

03-02-2002, 03:04 AM

I can't recall what the UK limit is - either 24 or 28 weeks. I think there are some cases of late abortions where its not totally clear-cut. I think the most obvious is when you get a very young teenage girl who doesn't really understand what is happening to her body. Its a horrible situation to get into. Again, I think anyone who wants an abortion would prefer early to late.

These are, again, very controversial and emotional moral issues that get muddied even further by government sponsorship. Let private firms do what they want and let those who want to reap those benefits get in line and pay whatever cost is involved... but I hesistate to vote for a politician that will endorse it. Grond the 'let private firms do what they want' bit of that - was that meant literally? I don't agree if it was: some private companies will trample over most moral considerations to make some money. Like it or not, we have to elect law-makers to set down the rules governing this stuff. I think that's better than a free-for-all, or relying on the right precedents being set in the courts. I think in the whole field of genetics, stem cell research, micro-biology etc technology is moving faster than our legislatures are able to adapt, and possibly the scientists are doing the research first, and explaining it to the rest of us as an afterthought. I do believe in knowledge for knowledge's sake, but the scientific community really need to carry the rest of us with them a bit more. We need the chance to have the moral debates, without being bounced. Even more to the point, there are many private companies who are hell-bent on cashing in, without really understanding all the implications. I'm thinking here of GM crops (whoops! in danger of more digression!):D

Grond

03-02-2002, 03:14 AM

VoK, a point of clarification. I said "no government funding", not "no government regulation". Without proper monitoring from both the governments and scientic community, we may be getting closer and closer to the very place you so capably identified. That is the place of research capacity and capability exceeding the debate on the very issues of morality and common sense that should be decided before these things happen.

I have grown children who feel cloning is an acceptable alternative. Make a clone and kill the brain chemically during embryonic development and store the body hulk for future use. Excuse me, but that isn't something I want to do. Let's kill a life potential so that I may live another 5 years. Ouch!! But there you have it, that is the direction we're headed and I couldn't agree with you more VoK, it has to be policed both by the scientific community and the governments of the world. :)

TheJospeh

03-02-2002, 03:32 AM

I don't believe life begins at conception. Or I don't believe human life is attained at conception.

Also, do you think the greater danger of corruption is present with the government developing these technologies or with the private industry developing them? I myself would have to say it is the private sector who will go wrong!

Sincerely,
The Joseph

7doubles

03-02-2002, 06:16 AM

uthanasia has been practiced since the begining of time even animals know when their food suply is weaker then the demand and will proportionitly kill it's offspring. man is no different then a blue jay; invaiding other bird nest leaving the care of its basterd children for others to care for. this is the real moral proublem. so we invent wars as the ultamit form of population controll.

Asha'man

03-02-2002, 06:57 AM

I think that many of you are making a key point in your argument out of something that isn't true. You say that you support a woman's right to choose because it is her body. It isn't. The abortion procedure can certainly damage her body, but it definitely affects the baby's body (by tearing it to pieces) and I don't believe the woman has the right to control that. You can't compare it to getting your tonsils removed, because your tonsils don't grow into a human being. :eek:

I, for one, believe that abstinence is the best solution for reducing or eliminating abortions, and plan to follow that myself. Otherwise, I think birth control is an excellent idea. Not condoms - they're only for STDs, and their effectiveness there is debatable.

daisy: You say that you'd rather get tissue from a human than an animal. This seems to put greater value on the animal than on the human being. Care to elaborate?

Asha'man

Snaga

03-02-2002, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Asha'man
You can't compare it to getting your tonsils removed, because your tonsils don't grow into a human being. :Asha'man this is correct, but as you state the embryo cells are only the potential to grow into a human being, and not yet a human being itself. Of course, that's my opinion and other people might take a different view. But that's the whole point really: who can make a determination on that question? The moral (and practical) judgement can only really be made by the woman whose body it is.

Where abortion is outlawed what happens? Do women stop making this decision for themselves? No. In reality they are often prepared to do all sorts of extreme things to end an unwanted pregnancy. I recall a case years ago of a Chicago women who shot herself in the stomach. Others have thrown themselves down stairs to try and induce a miscarriage. These are the extremes: far more will find people prepared to carry out unlicensed back-street abortions for cash. In this case the health risks may be severe. It is much better to provide this service in an open, regulated way, than to drive it underground.

Dengen-Goroth

03-02-2002, 03:12 PM

Stem Cell research is risky topic to pursue friends. Abortion is a topic I deem not fit to pursue. It deals with religion, personal beliefs, and the like. To "deep" of a subject to pursue.

Snaga

03-02-2002, 09:31 PM

OK Dengen, I take your point. We were doing OK I thought in keeping the tone tolerant and open-minded, but I guess that might not last.

Reverting to the taxation stuff for a moment, this thought crossed my mind, so I thought I'd throw it in and see if anyone likes it.

Tolkien wrote LotR in part to fill a gap: the lack of distinctly English mythology. One of the few truly English mythic heroes is Robin Hood: who steals from the rich and gives to the poor. I wondered whether the English celebration of this earlier example of redistribution of wealth is linked in some way to our tolerance of (indeed preference for) tax-and-spend economics?

7doubles

03-02-2002, 10:22 PM

robin hood is much to broad of hiden and double meanings to catigorize. not unlike thomas pains the golden cross. it can even be taken at face value or moral or etical or releigos or even fantacy the is found in the cantaberry tails, the knights tail.

Goro Shimura

03-03-2002, 12:40 AM

Just wanted to say that the "woman's right to do what she wants to her own body" is a red herring. It's an argument that begs the question, as we say in philosophy class, and is therefore bogus.

The real question is whether or not the unborn child is a human being with defendable rights. If we just say that a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her body, then we are assuming that the child is just some sort of tumor with no life/rights. The unborn child may as well be an appendix or tonsil or something and the woman can deal with it as she pleases.

If the unborn child is a bonafide human being with defendable rights, then the question becomes "does a woman have the right to do whatever she wants with someone else's body??"

Big difference.

So... to say "I am for the womans right to do as she pleases with her own body" is philosphically bogus to the same extent that saying "I am against the woman murdering her unborn child." Both arguments beg the question.

To say it either way dodges the addressing of the question that lies at the heart of the issue.

I am neither "pro-life" nor "pro-choice." The issue is bigger than the polarizations allow.

I am personally for laws that recognize the unborn as human beings and that protect their rights as American citizens. Why? Because I believe the unborn have rights at the moment of conception and are not mere extensions of the womans body-- it's somebody elses body at that point!!!!

PS It's not fair to attempt to kill the debate when "the other side" has not had a chance to voice his opinion!!!

PPS I am not offended by the statements made so far even though I might disagree with them. I believe that the longer we investigate the issues, the more likely we will undrestand our own beliefs... and the more we'll all better be able to communicate in the future to people that believe differently than ourselves.

daisy

03-03-2002, 01:35 AM

Ash - I am a mammal just like you are so I don't know what you mean about valuing animal life above human life - if there are to be cures and vaccines for a human immune system we should make full use of any human material we have on hand with which to experiment - I think our assumption that we have the right to use animals and the Earth any damn way we want is why we are where we are today - about one hundred years give or take a few from destruction. So yes I am totally comfortable with using any human tissue for any reason - placentas and cord blood from live births are used all the time - as are organ transplantations from living donors.

Goroshimura - how can you, in any possibly sane way, compare the value of a woman's life with that of a fetus? Sorry, but it is a woman's body and the fetus has no rights because it cannot live independent of a woman's body and has yet to be born. If you have a problem with that then you should back research attempting to allow men to be pregnant and give birth and then don't have abortions! You don't seem to get that it is not your choice to make - you are not a woman and will never be pregnant so like I said before don't get a woman pregnant unless you know she wants a child and you won't have a problem -

Dengen, my only problem with this topic being discussed is that it is being done so by primarily male participants - I wish it was a little more equal - although I know many many women who are anti-abortion too - and don't start with that pro-life **** - the only life that is pro in that situation is a fetus and noone gives a **** about the woman's life at all.

Men who are against abortion and think you have the right to pass laws dictating what I do with my body - just for a moment entertain the idea that a law is passed that makes vascectomies illegal - that makes it legal for women to harvest your sperm against your will and procreate and then force you to pay child support for life.
Or a law that says you do not have the right to get any surgery that may affect your ability to have children - like prostate cancer surgery - because hey, sperm is alive and carries all the potential for life - including the future gender of any baby created from it....

Asha'man

03-03-2002, 06:13 AM

By daisy:
Ash - I am a mammal just like you are so I don't know what you mean about valuing animal life above human life - if there are to be cures and vaccines for a human immune system we should make full use of any human material we have on hand with which to experiment

Yes, you are a mammal just like I am, but are you a mammal just like a monkey or a dog? If you are, then I bet you rate killing a dog right up there with killing a human being. Your first statement doesn't even make sense, but if you can flesh it out better I'd like to hear it. Any human material? Wanna revise that?

I think our assumption that we have the right to use animals and the Earth any damn way we want is why we are where we are today - about one hundred years give or take a few from destruction. So yes I am totally comfortable with using any human tissue for any reason - placentas and cord blood from live births are used all the time - as are organ transplantations from living donors.

What rules or guidelines do you have that would indicate that we don't have that right? And we are not destroying the world - I dare you to give me scientifically conducted studies that conclusively prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we are "destroying" the world.

Sorry, but it is a woman's body and the fetus has no rights because it cannot live independent of a woman's body and has yet to be born.

Oh, so that's what determines whether it has rights or not? What about the fact that it is a living human being that just hasn't been born yet? ***Edited***
If you have a problem with that then you should back research attempting to allow men to be pregnant and give birth and then don't have abortions! You don't seem to get that it is not your choice to make - you are not a woman and will never be pregnant so like I said before don't get a woman pregnant unless you know she wants a child and you won't have a problem -

Okay, so the fact that I'm male means I can't have opinions about abortion, or work to prevent what I believe is murder? That is possibly the most nonsensical thing I've heard out of you yet, daisy.

Men who are against abortion and think you have the right to pass laws dictating what I do with my body - just for a moment entertain the idea that a law is passed that makes vascectomies illegal - that makes it legal for women to harvest your sperm against your will and procreate and then force you to pay child support for life.

I don't see how they can do it against my will, unless you mean forcibly taking it, and that's gotta be illegal. Although I did hear recently about a lesbian who got pregnant from a sperm bank, and now she and her g/f are successfully (!!!!) sueing the donor to pay child support. What this society is coming to....

Or a law that says you do not have the right to get any surgery that may affect your ability to have children - like prostate cancer surgery - because hey, sperm is alive and carries all the potential for life - including the future gender of any baby created from it....

It's not the ability to have children we're debating here; it's whether or not the mother has the right to murder her already-growing baby before it's born.

Asha'man

Grond

03-03-2002, 06:49 AM

It appears that abortion has gotten too hot and discussion should cease now. Pick and new topic and move on please.

TheJospeh

03-03-2002, 09:02 AM

How can you say a topic is too deep to discuss? It makes no sense! Also, how come as soon as any of these discussions--and I'm not involved in this one very much so it's not me this time--get passionate the plug is immediately pulled on them? A vigourous exchange of ideas is what debating and learning is all about. I would say that is impossible without a little bit of passion. I'm sure everyone here could live on if they were somehow insulted on these boards. So while we should always try and be polite if a little rudeness is the price to pay for an honest exchange of ideas than I say so be it. Tolerance that is only skin deep is not really tolerance. We need to get to the "deep" issues for any of these conversations to be worthwhile. Incidentally abortion is not even a "deep" subject. It's a controversial one but it is not "deep."

Sincerely,
The Joseph

Snaga

03-03-2002, 04:05 PM

Yes, well I know what you're saying Joe, but I think Ash is getting... how can I put it?... a bit pugnacious.

Its funny how all the conservatives are suddenly in favour of some big government on this issue! With the honourable exception of Grond, who bludgeons his way through these debates with consistency we would expect from the mighty mace of Morgoth.

Anyway, having got in a sneaky side swipe (:D :D LOL everyone!), if we are moving on can we do so with some graceful continuity...

Originally posted by Daisy:
I think our assumption that we have the right to use animals and the Earth any damn way we want is why we are where we are today - about one hundred years give or take a few from destruction. vs.Originally posted by Asha'man:
What rules or guidelines do you have that would indicate that we don't have that right? And we are not destroying the world - I dare you to give me scientifically conducted studies that conclusively prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we are "destroying" the world.

This looks like the Climate change debate surfacing; which I'd like to cover too.

It does strike me that 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' is way too strong a burden of proof to require, before we mend our ways. If I am driving my car and I think I'm about to crash into a tree, I don't try to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt before I steer in a different direction! Even so, the evidence that polluting our atmosphere will affect the climate seems overwhelming. It appears to me that the international will to act is insufficient: because countries are trying to gain competitive advantage in who cuts emissions the most. This is an appalling situation to my mind; and future generations will rue our short-sightedness.

Grond

03-03-2002, 05:37 PM

I said nothing about a debate becoming too deep. My concern was one of the debate getting nasty, which is unacceptable on the forum. That is why Abortion is a valid issue until it appears to get personal.

If I may, I would like to pick up on VoK's topic but take it one step further. If we are altering the climate of our world, what can we do to stop it. Here in the States, everyone is totally against Nuclear Energy, but you in Europe seem to have embraced it and a significant portion of your energy is produced in that way. Let's here some debate and discussion on alternative energy sources or which conservation will probably be first and foremost.

HLGStrider

08-06-2002, 04:59 PM

It is evil.

I believe abortion in any form kills a life.

That over population thing is a big lie. First brought up in the 17th century the theory that earth's population would eventually overwhelm its food supply has been disproven again and again and again. It just hasn't happened. Everytime the population increases our ability to produce foods increases.

China should get into an economic system that makes sense rather than restrict the amount of children one should have under it.

The government pretends to know what is best for the people. It never does.

China is now having a female shortage and is getting inbred children because of its policy.

It is wrong.

HLGStrider

08-07-2002, 01:42 AM

Mind if I add to my point? No? Good.

The problems in Africa are not due to overpopulation but ignorance, disease, and a succession of Communist, facist... name an unstable government form and they've had it.

There is a great lie going around that people are somehow something for the government to take care of. Let's say a family has six kids. These kids are not going to live off the government. They are going to make money, provide services, and live off themselves... if the government gets involved it will probably mess them up. In fact, sometimes we don't have enough people.

I bet we could cut the unemployment rate down a whole lot if we stopped paying people not to work. I know there are some people who really cannot work or get a job, and welfare programs probably help these people, but so many more could get a job if they really wanted to...

Do you want me to get into the minimum wage problem while I'm at it?

Legolam

08-07-2002, 02:22 PM

OK, I'm not quite sure what this thread's about, but I'm going to chip in anyway.

1. I think China is wrong to enforce the one kid rule. Because inheritance of the family fortune (or otherwise) is patrilinear (father to son only), Chinese couples only want sons. If a girl is born, more often than not she is killed or disowned so they can try for another child.

2. I believe in abortion. I believe that a woman has a right to choose her own future. A foetus is not a human until it can live outside the womb, and certainly in Britain, abortions are not performed after this cut off mark anyway. Before that, the foetus is just a group of foreign cells in the mother's body.

3. Overpopulation is the single biggest problem in developing countries. Sure, bad governments don't help, but ignorance about birth control has sky-rocketed the population of the world to over 6 billion. I can't even imagine 6 billion people. HLG says that the food shortage has never materialised. Wrong. There is a major famine in Africa at the moment, in turn causing migration of populations and spread of disease. There literally isn't enough food to feed everyone in this world.

4. Please go into the minimum wage thing!

Gloer

08-07-2002, 09:27 PM

1. I agree with ReadWryt that it is always more efficient to use a market system than authoritan norms. Persuasion through taxation is more efficient than forcing through prohibition. I think and hope Chinese, even if they a ruling as "communists", are starting to use market economics to govern.

2. Legolam: It sounds like the problem is not the one child rule but the laws on inheritance that should be changed so that they have neutral effect on gender of the presious One.

3. What is a minimum wage? Should I be getting it? Do I need to work to get it? Is it tax free?

HLGStrider

08-07-2002, 11:09 PM

Well, the courts say that a fetus is not a baby but they are wrong. A child is conceived and automatically has all the chromozomes it will need.

QUOTE] Before that, the foetus is just a group of foreign cells in the mother's body. [/QUOTE]

Foriegn cells with the potential to be a full grown adult. Foreign cells with a heart. Foreign cells with a soul. Foreign cells...

The famines are a problem, and I don't mind the sort of birth control that doesn't kill children.

I don't really want to get into the minimum wage thing because it is basically boring economics.. Let's just say it's a tad bit too high and causes unemployment.

I don't know enough about Africa to lecture on it, but abortion is in no way the answer to it's problems.

The government has no right to force children to be killed before or after birth. It has no right to do a lot of things it does, even in America.

ReadWryt

08-08-2002, 11:35 AM

In the U.S. we have this wonderfull document we all know and love called The Constitution. The begining of it is called the "Preamble" and it's a description of the intent of the people who ratified it in the Constitutional Convention, all of whom were elected representatives of their neighbors. It states the following,

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

...this, as I say, was to define the intent behind the laws later drafted, added or changed that are lain out in the Constitution. If the Preamble had said, say, "Insure racial purity" then any laws against killing would be handled differently if the person killed were for instance a Black person, but thank goodness it says no such thing! I hope you follow me here because there really is a point.

So the intentions laid out in this Preamble mean that the contents of the rest of the document should be measured against these criteria...if something in the Constitution is missinterpreted and so does not promote the general welfare then the interpretation needs to be changed to be in line with the intent of the framers of the document.

Somewhere along the line a group of Supreme Court Justices voted on a case here called Roe vs. Wade. The problem was that many states had laws against abortion, and many did not. For those individuals attempting to get abortion legalized in all 50 states this was a highly important case because if it passed in their favor they would have a Federal Law which stated that it was legal and States could no longer uphold their laws against it. In a 4 to 3 split decision the court ruled that Abortion was indeed legal. (Just a side note, a 4 to 3 split decision was ruled in the penalty phase of the Florida Election case and some folks claimed that it was not right, most of them feel though that Roe vs. Wade was a good decision...I wish these people could make up their minds!)

Justice Stewart, in his concurring statement stated, "Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.", and in many ways this amendment was scrutinized as a major component of the test as to whether the Texas State abortion law was legal. The Fourteenth Amendment deals with "Due Process under the law" and was also the foundation of the afore side commented Florida State election case in the presidential election.

Now if the Fourteenth Amendment is to be interpreted via the description of intent contained in the Preamble, I ask you...how in the world (Or in (g)God's/Gods/Allah's/Bhudda's/Kali's name) are we Securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity if our own highest court rules that it is legal for a woman to kill off her posterity before it has left the womb? It seems to me that either the law or the Constitution needs to be changed...*Shrug* But then I'm not really all that smart and could be wrong.

Legolam

08-08-2002, 11:39 AM

Foriegn cells with the potential to be a full grown adult

If you believe that, then both sperm and eggs have that potential as well. Are you against the pill? Condoms? Vasectomy? All these prevent thousands of "potential" children being brought into the world.

1 in 5 pregancies end in miscarriage anyway, because of chromosomal abnormalities, or just because the conditions aren't right. The foetus can't survive before about 28 weeks on its own, so I wouldn't count it as a potential child.

however, I certainly don't condone forced abortions. I agree with Scottish law on this subject, which for once is pretty fair:

[(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family

(b) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or

(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped

Most of the time its section (a) that is used as a reason for abortion - "risk .. to the mental health of the pregnant woman". I agree that it's sometimes quite liberally interpreted but, if I was a doctor, and I saw someone like me in my abortion clinic (financially stable, intelligent medical student), I wouldn't give them an abortion just because it was inconvenient.

Basically what I'm trying to say that abortion is right if it is for the 4 reasons outlined above in the law. It should not be forced and it should not be because having a child would be inconvenient. The choice should not be taken away from mothers.

Rangerdave

08-08-2002, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Legolam

If you believe that, then both sperm and eggs have that potential as well. Are you against the pill? Condoms? Vasectomy? All these prevent thousands of "potential" children being brought into the world.

Does that mean that masterbation is murder?
That would make every teenage boy in the world a serial killer. Were gonna hafta build more jails people.

RD

ReadWryt

08-08-2002, 06:54 PM

I'll refrain from posting the song from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" that I was at first tempted to... It being a family board and all.

Parrot

08-08-2002, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Legolam
I believe in abortion. I believe that a woman has a right to choose her own future.
No offense Legolam, but you “believe in abortion”? What does this statement even mean? I’m no rampaging pro-lifer but I would hope that even the most ardent pro-choice supporter would recognize abortion as a necessary evil at best and not something to be believed in.

1 in 5 pregancies end in miscarriage anyway, because of chromosomal abnormalities, or just because the conditions aren't right. The foetus can't survive before about 28 weeks on its own, so I wouldn't count it as a potential child.
I’m not really sure what your point about miscarriages is here. If you haven’t been there, don’t be too sure what you would count as a potential child. You might be surprised how quickly and intensely you can form an emotional bond with that little “group of foreign cells” and how traumatic a miscarriage can be. Further, a “fetus” or as some call them, a “baby”, is really no more self-sufficient after being born and still requires constant care for several years, just lacks the convenience of a handy umbilical hookup; so I don’t really see where autonomous survival ability has anything to do with the question of intrinsic right and wrong. Many preemies, just a few weeks early, are put in oxygen tents or under other treatments to help them along. Following your line of reasoning, it seems we should just let nature take its course, since they aren’t ready to go it on their own. Survival of the fittest and natural selection and all that good stuff; old Darwin would be proud.

It should not be forced and it should not be because having a child would be inconvenient*emph added*. The choice should not be taken away from mothers.
To me, these two statements seem blatantly contradictory. Are you saying that abortions should be restricted to primarily medical reasons or should be at the whim and convenience of the mother? When you say it should be up to the mother to “choose her own future”, then convenience over necessity seems to be precisely what you are advocating, regardless of any “mental or physical health” equivocation.

if I was a doctor, and I saw someone like me in my abortion clinic (financially stable, intelligent medical student), I wouldn't give them an abortion just because it was inconvenient.
Whoa… so doctors first get to choose who is of sufficiently low income, intelligence, and social strata to warrant getting to “choose her own future”? Weed out the “desirables”, as it were? Wow, talk about your God Complexes! I don’t know if this is getting confusing or scary …probably both.

Now, like H.I. McDunnough says “there ain’t no pancake so thin it ain’t got two sides”, but I just don’t get the whole knee-jerk, liberal, mindset that can so easily shed seemingly, genuine tears over whales or trees or the endangered Peruvian three-eyed nocturnal pond-scum mollusk and yet have such a cavalier attitude towards human life (death-row convicted murderers notwithstanding of course). It just seems so inconsistent, it boggles me, it really does.

HLGStrider

08-09-2002, 12:14 AM

The first time I typed this up something bad happened and it got wiped away,and I'll never do it as well.

Thanks, Parrot I was begining to feel alone.

If you believe that, then both sperm and eggs have that potential as well. Are you against the pill? Condoms? Vasectomy? All these prevent thousands of "potential" children being brought into the world.

I believe life starts at conception. A woman's body releases at least one egg a month which in turn "dies". It is only when it unites with a sperm that it becomes a life to me. That is when things start to happen, when cells split and mulitply. After that is life.

Some religions have a problem with all sorts of birth control, and I can see their point... you get the enjoyment without the consequences. However, I don't personally see enough of a point to have a big problem with it.

As to Legolam's point... I agree totally with Parrot. A misscarriage is a tramatic thing. A woman I know would never try to have a baby again after her first miscarried at only two or three months. It hurt her that much. Also we have developed an insensitivity to women in this condition. It is a horrible loss.

Also 100% of all humans will eventually die. Does that justify murder? Is it better to murder old people than young people? I also don't believe in Dr. Assisted Suicide... but that's a whole other point, while on the same plane.

ReadWryt, I believe the courts were out ofline. In the first place I don't believe the constitution provides them the abiltiy to legislate at all, let alone so broadly. They are not infallible. Remember Dred Scott? Now that seems just awful to us, but I'd say RvW is almost as bad... perhaps worse. I doubt we will have a war to reverse it, however.

d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped

This I reject totally. I can't imagine how any one could agree that a child having a disability makes him unfit to live... Why then would it make him unfit to be born??? This leads to disrespect for disabled.

Did you hear about that woman who sued her Doctor, I think in Italy. The child had failed to diagnos that her unborn child had down syndrome. She sued saying that if she had known she would've aborted the child. This is a child that had already been born when she found out! Can you imagine a woman saying that about her baby no matter what was wrong with it? Wishing it had never been born? I can't. What's even worse was that she won. The child is now the financial responsibilty of that doctor. To me that is crass, cold, and just wrong.

Truthfully, I don't understand the pro-death stance (Pro-choice doesn't make any sense. The fetus has no choice). In fact it sickens me. I don't understand how anyone could support it.

I have pity for a woman who does this. She is frightened, confused, and lied to by the system. For those who rally for it, yell for it, blocking any legislation that would in anyway hamper it, I feel nothing but shocked. Shock that society has deteriated this far. Shocked that they can want this. Shocked and hurt and scared. Scared that someday I will be living in an America where life is of so little value that children who are "inconvenient" or disabled will be actually killed after birth. As Parrot pointed out,at this point they are still very helpless creatures.

(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or

This I have a hard time arguing with other. I don't believe it makes it right, and I believe any woman who would risk her own life rather than destroy her baby's is a hero. However, I would never know what to say if I was confronting a woman in this condition... nor if I was in this condition myself...

Really, however, how often does this happen?

I had more points in my origenal copy... dang computer...

Also, there is an increased risk of Breast cancer for any woman who does have an abortion. It isn't proven, but it is very backed by statistics.

I just hope that we can pull out of this mess. I don't think we will in my life time and I pray that it doesn't get worse.

Legolam

08-09-2002, 11:46 PM

OK, I can't answer all the ponts here just now (I'm tired and would probably say something stupid) but I just want to clarify a few things.

When I say that I believe in abortion, I mean to say that it should be kept as a legal choice to a woman in certain situations. I believe if there is a lawful reason for an abortion (as in Scottish law, which I outlined), then it should be done if the mother wants it.

Parrot - when I said that I wouldn't give someone like me an abortion just because that person thought pregnancy was "inconvenient", I meant it to mean that it would be breaking the law in my country as there would be no lawful reason to do it. I'm not playing God in any way, whether by giving or refusing abortion on any grounds other than the law.

My point about miscarriages is that life doesn't begin at conception. 1 in 5 conceptions end in death, mainly without the mother even knowing she was pregnant. I didn't mean to belittle miscarriages at all. Our Prime Minister's wife had one this week and I can't imagine what she must be feeling.

And on a completely different point, I also believe doctor assisted suicide is OK in certain sutations

HLGStrider

08-13-2002, 07:43 AM

This is the most pieced together thread I have ever read....

My point about miscarriages is that life doesn't begin at conception.

So because a human has a better chance of dying at a point in life... a what did you say one out of five chance... makes it not alive. No hardly. For goodness sakes, that makes no sense... It is alive, very alive, just very weak, very vulnerable, and very much in need of our protection.

I am a woman, just to clear that up.. have I said it on this thread before?

Earlier Gloer claimed that pregnancy was not a natural thing when unwanted. There is nothing more natural. God made this process so that we could reproduce. I think it was very nice of Him to make conception pleasurable (I'm assuming it is.... I have no first hand experience, though I guess that is something kind of weird to go into...). To say that pregnancy is unnatural is to say that sex is unnatural... or to say that the birthcontrol methods we've invented are more natural... What sense does this make?

Life is precious. We've undervalued it... Personally I see this undervaluing as the start of something very bad...

If we're going into stem cell research, I personally believe that adult stem cells should be used. They aren't much less efficient, and there are no moral issues involved. I am not a biotechnician, however.

Legolam

08-13-2002, 02:42 PM

I'm not arguing that pregnancy is unnatural. It is one of the most natural things in the world.

However, I think it is unfair to bring a child in the world when it will be

1. unloved and uncared for
2. seriously handicapped
3. threatening the life of the mother

In these circumstances, abortion has a place in our society. Like I said before, I do not condone forced abortions, or those that take place to remove an "inconvenience".

PS I'm female too, and I respect your views, HLG. I just happen to disagree with them and I like debating (although I've never been very good at it!)

Parrot

08-13-2002, 04:14 PM

Thanks for the even-handed reply Legolam. I also respect your views but just wanted some clarification of exactly what you were saying. I think you guys should be commended for discussing this without the usual angry rhetoric. I will be dropping out now.

Legolam

08-13-2002, 05:12 PM

No! Don't drop out!! We need more people's views on this discussion, not less

HLGStrider

08-14-2002, 02:23 AM

I always thought you were female, Lego... I don't know why, but I just sort of had a feeling you were from the time were were monopolizing the Vulcan elf thread together... boy that one was a doozy...

1. unloved and uncared for

I personally think that adouption is a very good answer to this problem... also what mother does not love her baby, though I will give you that some cannot care for well....

2. seriously handicapped

No... I've stated reasons already against this...

I've also dealt with your third point with all I can think to say.

please stay, Parrot.

It is hard for me not to get angry sometimes when dealing with something this important to me... I don't know why it is, except that I believe it is a vital moral issue... Something about the whole idea of abortion just sort of strikes me in the chest and makes me feel awful.

Legolam

08-14-2002, 02:17 PM

1. unloved and uncared for

I know many teenage mothers (25% of my original class had at least one child by the time I left school at 17 1/2) and I know that many of them, if they had their time again, would have opted for an abortion. Resentment of the baby for ruining the mother's life is common, and some just don't have the resources to care for the baby like they should.

2. seriously handicapped

This one's a difficult one to argue. You start to sound like evil right wing scum if you say anything about disabled people. I'm not advocating abortion if the baby has only a small chance of being handicapped (mentally or physically) but there are some really terrible genetic defects around, especially as the mother ages. Spina bifida is one (the spinal cord doesn't form properly at the bottom), anencephaly is another (the spinal cord doesn't form properly at the top, often leaving the child with virtually no head). In these cases, the child may not live long anyway, and it is soul destroying for the parents.

3. threatening the life of the mother

This happens more than you would imagine. Eclampsia is a severe form of high blood pressure which is caused by pregnancy for some reason, and will kill the mother if the baby is not removed from the womb. That is the only cure. Sometimes, if the baby is old enough, it will survive. Other times, it will not and the procedure is one of abortion.

HLGStrider

08-14-2002, 08:35 PM

I don't think any of those things are justification enough... except perhaps to save the mother's life... IF the baby will die anyway. If the baby will live I think it is wrong.

HLGStrider

08-14-2002, 08:38 PM

In these cases, the child may not live long anyway, and it is soul destroying for the parents.

I fail to believe that the child dying naturally would be harder for the parents than killing it themselves. At least they don't have to give the order and they get to see their baby for awhile.

Legolam

08-15-2002, 02:25 PM

In the cases that I mentioned, the baby can be terribly deformed, possibly in pain and certain not to live more than minutes. I don't want to get hugely emotive about this topic, but surely it would be better for all concerned if they didn't see their baby like this?

As for your other point, are you saying that you would sacrifice the mother's life to give a baby a small chance of survival? In this country, the doctors have a duty to care for all living humans, and that includes the mother but not necessarily the baby (if the mother's life is in danger). The mother's life is the first priority.

HLGStrider

08-16-2002, 09:43 PM

I think it would be easier than actually telling someone to get rid of them. Do you know what an abortion is like? The two methods I know of are to chop the child to pieces and then suck it out with a vaccuum or to inject it with saline solution so that it burns to death from within. I think it would be much easier on the child to let it die naturally. It is an inhumane process... all done to something that won't understand a thing you are doing to it.

I think that the mother is a huge priority, but equal with that of the child, not above it.

Legolam

08-17-2002, 06:16 PM

OK, that's not entirely true about the nature of abortion. In the first trimester, two pills are given, and the woman just experiences a heavy period as if she had an early miscarriage. In the second trimester, a pill is given to loosen the wall of the uterus and deprive the foetus of its blood supply, then the lining of the uterus and the foetus are scraped out. As I said before, abortion in the thrid trimester is illegal unless there are serious medical reasons and there is no other way. In this instance, the mother is given something to induce birth and the baby is stillborn. This must be incredibly distressing, but like I said, it's only in very rare and life threatening consequences.

all done to something that won't understand a thing you are doing to it
It doesn't understand, it doesn't feel, it cannot survive without the support of the mother's body. In fact, to all intents and purposes, it is not a live human being. That's my view anyway

ReadWryt

08-17-2002, 06:20 PM

...if I ever get into a car accident and end up on life support, don't let Legolam near the machines!

HLGStrider

08-17-2002, 09:42 PM

Don't worry, RW, I will protect you... plus the fact that you are in California and she is in England won't hurt.

I think Abortion ignores the fact that the baby has a soul. If it doesn't when does it get it? Does a soul suddenly appear in the body after a certain trimester making the baby human?

If you don't believe in a soul it isn't a problem, but I think most people like to believe they are more than an animal.

ReadWryt

08-18-2002, 08:17 PM

Aaaaah, but when would a Clone get a soul...or does it even HAVE one? Could we produce Souless armies of people who we be sure to act without fear of eternal damnation??

HLGStrider

08-18-2002, 10:35 PM

Interesting perspective, Con. I don't agree with you on a lot of points, but I find it highly intriguing.

Personally, RW, I think there is no reason why a clone wouldn't have a soul. I don't know much about the process, however.

I actually thought up a science fiction/drama/political point story about a place in history where clones are developed and grown for their organs and not believed to be humans (or have a soul or capability for a normal life... etc) and one who escapes and proves them wrong... I couldn't decide whether to end it happily or sadly however, so I didn't write it.

Legolam

08-19-2002, 02:33 PM

I resent the fact that you guys seem to think that I'm intent on murdering unborn babies and have to respect for life, even though I will one day (very soon) be a doctor. Nothing is further from the truth. I care for humans and I hate to see suffering.

I just think that people should have a choice in this matter. Each case is different and needs to be judged on its merits, not by giving out a blanket ban on abortion and other related things. That's what happens in Ireland, and women simply come over to Britain in their droves for abortions, without the necessary support and care that they should receive in their homeland. That's not the way it should be.

I'm not a great believer in souls or religion, so I guess that makes my opinions easier to justify. I understand how you feel, and I respect that, so I would never force abortion on someone who feels as you do. I just think it's a matter of personal choice.

Nothing any of you have said have changed my opinion a tiny bit about abortion. I just see that many people are misinformed about the reasons and techniques of abortion so I'm trying to enlighten them to the fact that the medical profession are not evil child killers. ;)

However, if you do belive in souls, then I see no reason why clones don't have them (I see a possiblity for an interesting side thread here!).

PS I also resent the fact that Elgee thinks I'm in England. Britain or Scotland, nowhere else :rolleyes: :D

HLGStrider

08-19-2002, 11:47 PM

so I would never force abortion on someone who feels as you do.

I certainly hope you'd never force abortion on anyone no matter what they believe in... It's bad enough giving it to people who want it... I'm assuming you meant pressure them into it or something like that.

I resent the fact that you guys seem to think that I'm intent on murdering unborn babies and have to respect for life

No, I find that this philosophy does lead towards a disrespect for life, but it's doesn't necessarily mean you have it... I never said that. We said that abortion was murder. If you support it you support murder, however, since you do not think of it as murder you are not supporting murder... it's one of those things.

Each case is different and needs to be judged on its merits, not by giving out a blanket ban on abortion and other related things.

While I am for a blanket ban, I wouldn't call such a thing, if done by vote, forcing it on people. If Americans voted to outlaw abortion (I don't think they will) it would be law... and I would vote for such a law. It would say that almost all of us agree on the subject.
That's the way the government works. If it voted for something I don't like I would try to change it and if that failed I'd leave the country... assuming it was something important like if we decided to vote in China's policy or something awful like that.

I'm trying to enlighten them to the fact that the medical profession are not evil child killers

Misguided more than evil, I'd say... I will never agree with any sort of abortion. People have come to see it as a good thing, and that in itself is evil. It is an evil system, and I have great pity for those inside the system.

Legolam

08-20-2002, 02:29 PM

True, but I seem to be the only one in this discussion!

Doctors in this country have a moral choice about abortion. If they believe it is murder, they are perfectly within their rights to refuse to do an abortion to anyone. However, that person seeking the abortion is also perfectly within their rights to go to as many doctors as she can until one of them agrees.

Here's an interesting moral question for you all. It's a true story and I want to hear your thoughts on it, because it brings up another aspect of this subject:

A young couple have unprotected sex one night, and the woman falls pregnant. The couple split up not long after and the woman goes for an abortion, for various reasons (doesn't want it and wouldn't be able to cope being the main two). However, the father of the unborn child doesn't want this and takes out an injunction to stop the abortion. There is a legal battle about who has the final right to decide on the future of this unborn child - the father, or the mother. What do you think?

Just to complete the story, it ended up that the law says that it is the woman's body, and she could do whatever she like, so she had an abortion.

ReadWryt

08-20-2002, 06:24 PM

I swear by Apollo the physician, by Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that according to my ability and my judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation--to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this Art, if they wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others.

I will follow that system or regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.

With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons labouring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further, from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves

Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the Art, respected by all men, in all times. But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot.

Hippocratic Oath

HLGStrider

08-21-2002, 04:16 AM

Glad you brought that up, RW... You know some doctors were writing a new oath to replace that one because it wasn't PC anymore...

I think its sad that a man has no choice before a woman gives birth cause afterwards he can be sued for child support... That is a paradox to me.

Is paradox the correct word? I don't use it often...

Legolam

08-21-2002, 02:40 PM

Yes, so the Hippocratic oath doesn't allow abortion. I know this. It was rewritten several years ago to take into account the fact that it is hundreds of years old and therefore out of date. For example:

1. I will only teach Medicine to my own sons and those of my tutor
2. I will not perform surgery
3. I will treat my teachers like my own parents

I've signed the new updated oath, which rather fortunately, allows abortion.

PS I know this is a cheap dig, but at least we know when to rewrite laws that are outdated ...

HLGStrider

08-21-2002, 11:40 PM

At the time surgery was probably a death sentence and highly inhumane.
Teaching to their sons is sort of like businesses outlawing people to hire relatives... it is still in company policies even if it isn't in the medicial business...
Treating teachers like parents makes sense if you treat your parents with respect and love.

I see where the first being changed is worthwhile. Medicine has changed.
The second is a small point.
The third shouldn't have been undone I think. It makes sense.

Abortion hasn't changed. If it was taking a life then it is still taking a life now.

Legolam

08-22-2002, 02:05 PM

But what if it's not a life? That's the way I see it.

ReadWryt

08-22-2002, 06:17 PM

...it's nice to see that the medical profession is hip and updates their oath to take into account that swearing to protect life is out of date...

HLGStrider

08-22-2002, 10:11 PM

If it was then why wasn't it now???

Legolam

08-23-2002, 12:14 PM

Because this is no longer a religious country and the "medical profession" no longer sees a foetus as a human life. That's the point here. I care about life and I would do my utmost to protect it, but you've got to have a point where the unborn child is not a life. For me, that's before it is born. For HLG, it's before conception. For many catholics, even eggs and sperm are considered potential lives, hence the banning of contraception.

It's just a matter of interpretation. I'm not advocating murder, because I don't believe that the foetus has a soul, or is capable of life.

HLGStrider

08-24-2002, 05:14 AM

For HLG, it's before conception

When did I say this? I said it started when the sperm joins with the egg, which I believe is conception.

I believe that it is life no matter what doctors say. There isn't any clear cut line where life suddenly enters the body. What is life?

I'm asking that seriously. I don't know the medical definition of it.

Legolam

08-24-2002, 05:52 PM

Sorry, I mis-wrote that. I meant that you think that life starts at conception. I think it starts at birth. I think the medical definition of it is the same as mine, but it's probably different in every country, according to religious practices and other things.

HLGStrider

08-24-2002, 09:45 PM

I need to rephrase my question. I meant their definition of alive. Personally, I don't see how one can deny that the baby is alive. One can deny that it is human, but what else is it then? A group of cells? A very complex group of cells.

I've seen the pictures (I have a one year old sister, and mom had this thing that showed the baby's growth at each month during the pregnancy. She actually got it from her pediatrician, I believe.), and it sure looks very human at these early stages.

Legolam

08-26-2002, 03:56 PM

Sure, the cells are alive. They consume resources and give out waste products, but this group of cells can't live without support from the mother. Scientifically speaking (note: this is not what I think), they're sort of a parasite. I don't think this group of cells is human until it can survive like a human baby (around 28 weeks). You say that the cells look like a human - they also look like a chick (they've proved that the development of humans, frogs and birds are virtually the same until quite late in the pregnancy). So looks aren't everything.

And on the subject of "the cells", you've got to draw a line somewhere. Will you not eat meat because it was once alive? Will you not swat flies because they're alive? Will you not use antibacterial wipes, because you're killing cells? I know this is a stupid argument, but I'm just illustrating that you have to draw a line.

HLGStrider

08-27-2002, 03:38 AM

Sure, the cells are alive. They consume resources and give out waste products, but this group of cells can't live without support from the mother

Neither can it do so when it has been born. In fact I would say if you left a kid out on his own, even in a home, he wouldn't be able to survive until he's at least two. In some ways he or she will still be a parasite, dependant on its mother. These cells will one day be more than a parasite, however. I'd like to see you wait for a tapeworm or cancer to grow into something self sufficient and beneficial to the world around it (which I personally believe people are).

If you can't understand the difference between a human and an animal, I am going to give up on you.

Legolam

08-27-2002, 02:29 PM

Don't give up on me!

Here's another way of looking at abortion. I'm going to give you three hypothetical situations, and I want you to do two things. First of all, put yourself in the shoes of the woman and tell me what you would do. Secondly, pretend you are her gynaecologist and apply the law (as I wrote it before) to the case (not your own feelings!). I'll add more information and my own views when a couple of people have replied.

1. You are 17 (or 19 in my case) and in a stable relationship of two years. You are in college, studying a for a good degree and have ambitions to be a doctor. However, one day you take a pregnancy test and find out that you are 6 weeks pregnant. Your boyfriend vows to stand by you whatever happens, but you know that this will probably mean dropping out of college, perhaps ruining your life. What do you do? What does your doctor advise?

2. You are 22 and unemployed. You are living at a hostel and have very little to your name. One day, after a one night stand, you find out that you are pregnant. You know you don't have the resources to look after a baby. What do you do? What does your doctor advise?

3. One day, walking home from a night out with friends, someone attacks you and rapes you. You are devasted and report it to the police. Two weeks later, you find you are pregnant with the rapist's child. What do you do? What does your doctor advise?

We've had to do tons of these case studies in ethics lectures. I'll add more information as we go.

Gloer

08-27-2002, 07:43 PM

In each situation I would choose to abort the pregnancy since I do not perse like uncontrolled accidents dictate the course of my life. It is the basic back bone of a moral person to fight chaotic way of life.

But I could always choose to keep the baby. It could be the exact thing that I need in that situation - whatever it looks like objectively. Objectivity is usually bias of a sort.

I don't understand why there should be ANY CASE study what so ever.

There is basically a question: Can I choose or not?

I am in favour of choice. No one should have to rent their body or subordinate their life to other beings unwillingly.

HLGStrider

08-28-2002, 01:08 AM

Answer to all of the above: Adouption.

Legolam

08-28-2002, 02:16 PM

So you're advocating bringing a baby into the world that is the child of a rapist? That you will hate for every second that it is in this world? Here are my answers:

1. I would keep the baby for myself in this scenario. I don't think I could bring myself to have an abortion here and I think I would be duty bound to support it. As a doctor, I would not allow abortion in any case, as the woman would be able to support the baby.

2. I would have an adoption here. If I can't support a child, I think it would be better off with someone who cares. As a doctor, I think I could allow an abortion but I would reason with the mother to consider adoption.

3. No way would I have this baby and I think any doctor would agree with this.

I agree with Gloer that the freedom of choice is the issue here.

Legolam

08-28-2002, 02:21 PM

OK, just to show you how things can change when you don't know the whole story, here's a little more information to the cases above.

1. You go for your 12 weeks scan and blood test having decided to keep the baby and bring it up with your boyfriend. However, the tests show that your unborn child has a genetic defect called anencephaly. It basically means that the top end of the nervous system hasn't formed and therefore the baby will be stillborn, and will almost certainly be missing most of its head (This isn't just a gruesome story, it happens). What do you do now?

2. The reason you are homeless and living in a hostel is that your partner threw you out of his house when he found you had cheated on him. He's a violent man, having previously beaten you and threatened to kill you during an argument. When he threw you out, he vowed that if you kept the baby, he would seek you out and kill you both. You know he'll do it, because he's got a gun that he keeps under his pillow and previously killed a burglar in his brother's house (he was not charged as this is the US and he pleaded it was self defence). What are you going to do?

HLGStrider

08-28-2002, 11:14 PM

the baby will be stillborn

If the baby will be stillborn I would wait for it to die in my womb and then it wouldn't be abortion... Or did you mean that it might be stillborn? Then I would still wait rather than kill it myself.

On the second I would obviously not give into that jerks threats. I would run from him and hide from him, but come on, if the guy is this bad if keeping the baby doesn't set him off something else will, and I am not going to kill my baby just because of that... In this case I would REALLY go for adouption because that baby deserves to be as far away from this lifestyle as possible.

Off topic, personally I don't have any problem with a guy killing a burgler because that would be self defense... The beating I have a problem with...

Anyway, I think it is sad that there is more red tape around adouption than abortion. Also I don't think convenience (and before you brought up the birth defects the first example was one of inconvenience) is a good reason to destroy a baby.

Did these cases actually happen or are you just doing worst case scenerios? If so let's add a hurricane and a flood on the way to the adouption agency and she happens get a flat right next to an abortion clinic... how convenient.

Legolam

09-01-2002, 02:40 PM

We do this sort of thing in ethics lectures. Usually, given more information about a case, people change their minds about their original decision and it lets them see that each case should be treated individually, not with restrictive laws. However, you seem to be sticking to your guns and I admire you for that, even though I don't agree. I don't think I can convince you so unless someone else has a good argument, I'm going to leave this thread alone for a while.

HLGStrider

09-02-2002, 05:11 AM

I don't think anyone could convince me and I never expected to convince you... I just got into this because Gloer's statement made me angry.

Gloer

09-02-2002, 07:31 AM

I checked my statement. It should not be provocative. I only thought that case-by-cases analysis made the issue foggy and simplifies the question back to basics: can I choose or not?
It sounds like Pro Choice - Anti Abortion vocabulary - but it is english.
I could of course ask: Can I abort or not.
(abortionist -pro life vocabulary)

In the first case (choise) we assume that once I am contientious of the fact, pregnancy, only then I can make a legitimate clear desision. Should one have that choise?
In the latter case (abortion) the decision has been done earlier when one chose to be exposed to a possibilety of pregnancy.

Now the big issue is not about the extremes: It is about the rule and exception. Is abortion an exceptional measure? Or should one as a rule have a right to decide over ones body. One can make a pro life stand as a principle but agree to a vast number of exceptions. I actually think most of the pro choice people actually think of abortion as an exceptional measure but they think liberally of what is an exceptional situation ie. " I don't want the baby because his father and I don't get a long after all " is a good enough grounds.

(I sometimes tend to make provocative statements. You know, just to exaggerate the opposing arguments and complitely ignore the more favourable ones. Sorry.)

HLGStrider

09-02-2002, 10:41 PM

The statement that made me mad was the origenal one in defense of China's policy. I can't see how anyone can think the government has a right to do that to anyone, no matter what the circumstances.
The second one was something I'm used to hearing in the media.
Personally, I don't see it as an exceptional measure anymore than I see murder as one. I see it as just that, murder. It is harder to define, I suppose, but the baby is still a baby to me..

Gloer

09-02-2002, 11:15 PM

yes i remember that China thing. I did defend the Chinese policy of allowing only one child per family, didn't I? That is not choice is it now? No it isn't since the government decides weather you can have the baby or is the pregnancy aborted.
But then it is community force wheather you force the abortion against ones own will or weather you force one to keep the baby against ones own will.

HLGStrider

09-02-2002, 11:20 PM

She wasn't forced to get pregnant.
She can put it up for adouption. She could give it to a family member.
She has made her choice (except in the case of rape) and I believe she should live by it.
In rape I would go for adouption since it would be easier on both. Adouption is far less mentally scarring for the mother than abortion.

Winged Elf

09-02-2002, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by HLGStrider
In rape I would go for adouption since it would be easier on both. Adouption is far less mentally scarring for the mother than abortion.

You think it's less mentally scarring for a woman to have to carry around the physical reminder of what her rapist did to her for nine months, with it getting more and more obvious, painful and awkward with each passing week, and then to have to go through childbirth through no fault or choice of her own, than to have an operation at the beginning to remove such a reminder? Sorry, but I think you and I have a different definition of "mentally scarring".

HLGStrider

09-03-2002, 12:50 AM

I think that there is a certain amount of guilt that goes along with having an abortion.
Also when one sees that baby it becomes something more than a reminder of how it was conceived. It becomes a child, a living creature, and I think that would be healing. Also seeing that child go to a better life... it would be a form of closure.
An abortion brings no good out of the bad, where as bringing a child into the world and into a good home is one of the best things in the world and most rewarding.

Legolam

09-03-2002, 12:07 PM

it would be a form of closure

I don't think so. Somewhere in the world, she would always know that there is a part of the man who took away her life, living in happiness. That has got to be one of the hardest things to deal with. One simple pill nine months earlier, and none of that would have to happen.

In each of those cases, the woman didn't get pregnant by choice, so you can't use that excuse.

HLGStrider

09-04-2002, 04:01 AM

Only in one of those cases did she not get pregnant by choice. It's like making a choice to do anything risky. You are excepting the risk. Sex is a risk, especially (And I'm assuming this was because she ended up pregnant) unprotected sex. She chose to take the risk. I think she should deal with the baby.

Somewhere in the world, she would always know that there is a part of the man who took away her life

The baby is as much a part of her as it is of that man so why would it be easier to kill a part of herself than to let a part of that man live? You have been arguing that the baby is just a part of her body so in that logic, I don't think it belongs to the man at all.

Anyway, if somehow she was deprived of an abortion she wouldn't be able to kill the baby after its birth. I think its silly to use emotional reasons to justify an act. If the baby isn't human its all right to do it anytime. If it is it is never right to do it. The crux of the matter is whether it is or not, not why it is all right to kill it.

I know you have the medical profession on your side, but I think I have morality on mine...

Legolam

09-04-2002, 10:25 AM

If the baby isn't human its all right to do it anytime
I never said the baby wasn't human. I believe that the foetus has no human rights until it is able to survive outside the womb. That is also not saying that it isn't human (sorry about the doube negative!), because it blatantly is. I just believe that it is not murder if the baby wouldn't survive anyway at that point in time.

On another topic, if you ban abortions altogether, people are still going to want them and will turn to illegal abortions. This used to involve injecting soap into the womb, causing expulsion of the foetus. It also causes immense bleeding in many cases, often fatal to the woman, and life threatening blood clots. Another argument for a choice to be in place.

HLGStrider

09-05-2002, 04:41 AM

Because drugs are illegal teenagers "mix" their own, causing more dangerous drugs which kill them more often then the other kind (Few people die from marijuana). Should we make drugs legal?

As Parrot pointed out, if the baby was left in the street it would not be able to survive even after birth and yet we do not kill it. A lot of people can not survive on their own. Some people are forced to spend part of their life attached to a dialisis machine or in an oxygen tent. While they are in these things do they not have rights?

Courtney

09-05-2002, 05:00 AM

Ummm... I have a few things to say. First of all I understand that not everyone is going to agree with what I say and that is fine. (the world would be terribly boring if everyone agreed all the time...), but please try not to be too harsh with me. It is a pretty sensitive topic.
Well here we go:
I am pro-life. not because of religion, it is really what I think. I think the main reason pro-choice people oppose making aportions illegal is because we should be able to make our own decisions. (obviously) Yes, in an ideal society, we should be able to decide whether or not to have an abortion. We should also be responsible enough to decide whether or not to steal, murder, etc... In a perfect society, we wouldn't need laws at all. We would be able to trust people's judgement to do what is right. Unfortunatley there will never be a perfect society, and so we have to have laws to govern our actions.
I am not making much sense... I am sorry. I have trouble putting it into words. I hope you kind of understand what I tried to say...

HLGStrider

09-05-2002, 05:10 AM

Good points... Personally, as Sean Hannity puts it, I'm pro-choice on everything besides murder (aka abortion), meaning that I believe people should be trusted to make their own decisions about where they send their kids to school, what they believe in, how they live their life... as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else... I personally think that the baby is someone else, not some sort of fluke within the mother, and so abortion kills it...

Courtney

09-06-2002, 04:45 AM

I think it is extremely sad that for millions of babies, their only memory of this world is their very own mothers abandoning them... It gives me chills. We had to watch a movie about abortion and it showed pictures of the aborted babies. There is no one who watched that movie who could say that those babies weren't human yet. They had little hands and feet, and they were just laying there... in a pile... with the trash...
I think that a lot can be said about a society by taking a look at how the people treat their young and their elderly. What will be said of us?

HLGStrider

09-06-2002, 07:08 AM

One of the main problems with society is that their are very few outside of it to judge...

where'd the video come from, by the way?

Courtney

09-07-2002, 04:36 AM

I am not sure where they got the movie from or where it was filmed or anything. It is just one of those movies schools show every year...

Legolam

01-22-2003, 01:48 PM

Thought I'd revive this topic since I saw this on the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2663071.stm

HLGStrider

01-22-2003, 08:57 PM

Gosh... I didn't know this thread still existed.

Well, it is Right to Life week, I believe.
The Christian radio station I listen to has had Norma McCorvy on their closer looks discussing how she regrets her decision and didn't really know what abortion was at the time.

The Supreme court did over step its bounds. What it did was basically legislate, which was not what it was created to do.

Legolam

01-23-2003, 01:13 PM

I don't think I've heard that story - what happened?

PS all the old GOP topics are around if you click "view from beginning"

faila

01-23-2003, 03:34 PM

I dont understand the arguement that it is part of the mother, so she can do as she wills. We all knw that ever part of the mother has the same dna code,the baby from conception doesnt. Its true that it could not survive outsie of its mother, but thatoes not make it a part of the mother. Life begans at conception, and it is not part of the mother.

And also if you cant prove that its murder, the it shouldnt be in a feeral court at all, they over stepped their bounds.

HLGStrider

01-23-2003, 08:22 PM

The right for a Federal court to put down state law is shakey (There was for a long time soveriegnty of states which prevented this, but it fell out of favor when it was used for a bad purpose, to defend slavery. We threw the baby out with the bath water, however, getting rid of a good system to get rid of some inner decay)...

It's complicated, and I'm not sure if I could explain correctly, however.

faila

01-24-2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by HLGStrider
The right for a Federal court to put down state law is shakey (There was for a long time soveriegnty of states which prevented this, but it fell out of favor when it was used for a bad purpose, to defend slavery. We threw the baby out with the bath water, however, getting rid of a good system to get rid of some inner decay)...

It's complicated, and I'm not sure if I could explain correctly, however. well in the end the constitution had to be ammended to make slavery be illegal.

But its murder, and their are laws for murder, so it all depends on where life begins, which is at conception.

HLGStrider

01-24-2003, 06:09 AM

I just realized that Leggy probably meant the Jane Roe story, not the polical thing... I thought I'd give her some links... But I'm lousy at linking, even in Myst, so don't blame me if they don't work.

I got the link from a Christian radio station's news section....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C76209%2C00.html

It doesn't give as much personal background on the woman as I wanted, but I couldnt' find that link.

Anyway, she was talking about how she immediately felt she'd done something wrong (On the radio) and how later in life she became depressed and tried to comit suicide. She is now working to overturn the ruling.

Legolam

01-24-2003, 03:58 PM

"Leggy" - that's an interesting one :D

Anyway, back to the topic. I didn't know the case details of this Roe vs Wade thing, but I think I get the gist of it now, thanks Elgee.

I wonder what would have happened to Ms Roe if she had her child that she aborted. Would she have been in a different position today? Just a rhetorical question.

It seems stupid to me to have 9 people on a jury in 2003 decide the fate and choice of millions of women. It seems from all the statistics on that link that the American public is split right down the middle on the topic of abortion. No matter the moral issues of abortion, I don't think it should be banned because half the country will be losing its right to choose. Surely the half that don't want abortions can just choose not to have them?

Eliot

01-24-2003, 06:44 PM

I can't believe that somebody could think abortion is right. I've met so many people that have had miscarraiges (sp?), and couldn't figure out why somebody could kill such a beautiful creature as a baby.

It's a living creature. IT'S MURDER!!!

I read an article in the Chicago Tribune about Roe vs. Wade. I'm not going to post the whole article, just part of it.

"As tens of thousands converged Wednesday to jeer or cheer the 30th anniversary of the Rowe vs. Wade decision on abortion, what may be a divisive political issue to most has been painfully personal for Diana Dye.
"I'm here because I had an abortion when I was 19," said the 45-year-old nurse from Mt. Vernon, Iowa. "When I went to the clinic they said all my problems would be over." Instead, Dye said she did not soon recover from the emotional scars of her abortion. She still speaks of a daughter who would have been 25, but said she has found redempton by protesting the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide and by leading a Bible study group for women who have had an abortion. Questions about personal beliefs, public policy and private lives were revisited anew on this cold winter day as anti-abortion demonstrators paraded tiny white coffins, tolled solemn bells, wielded graphic photos of fetuses, cited the will of God and renewed calls to outlaw abortion."

I don't care if somebody doesn't want to have a baby, put it up for adoption, it will be put into good care. You're not ever going to be relieved knowing you could have had a beautiful baby girl or boy. It's going to haunt you for the rest of your life. It's going to stick in your memory till you die. Abortion is just stupid.

Legolam

01-24-2003, 07:12 PM

Here's a post I wrote a while ago. Maybe you could answer some of the questions in it, Eliot, and see if your opinions change

Here's another way of looking at abortion. I'm going to give you three hypothetical situations, and I want you to do two things. First of all, put yourself in the shoes of the woman and tell me what you would do. Secondly, pretend you are her gynaecologist and apply the law (as I wrote it before) to the case (not your own feelings!). I'll add more information and my own views when a couple of people have replied.

1. You are 17 (or 19 in my case) and in a stable relationship of two years. You are in college, studying a for a good degree and have ambitions to be a doctor. However, one day you take a pregnancy test and find out that you are 6 weeks pregnant. Your boyfriend vows to stand by you whatever happens, but you know that this will probably mean dropping out of college, perhaps ruining your life. What do you do? What does your doctor advise?

2. You are 22 and unemployed. You are living at a hostel and have very little to your name. One day, after a one night stand, you find out that you are pregnant. You know you don't have the resources to look after a baby. What do you do? What does your doctor advise?

3. One day, walking home from a night out with friends, someone attacks you and rapes you. You are devasted and report it to the police. Two weeks later, you find you are pregnant with the rapist's child. What do you do? What does your doctor advise?

We've had to do tons of these case studies in ethics lectures. I'll add more information as we go.

I believe that women should be able to choose whether or not to have an abortion. If you're opposed to it, fine, that's your choice. I totally respect your views. However, I don't hold those views and I don't think it's fair to stop half the country's population (in the US, it'll be more in Britain) from having that choice.

I don't believe that a fertilised egg is a human, and that's how I justify my opinions. I don't think that abortion should be carried out just because it's "inconvenient" to have a baby. There are laws here that spell the circumstances out.

Eriol

01-24-2003, 07:55 PM

I believe that women should be able to choose whether or not to have an abortion. If you're opposed to it, fine, that's your choice. I totally respect your views. However, I don't hold those views and I don't think it's fair to stop half the country's population (in the US, it'll be more in Britain) from having that choice.

I hope you realize, my friend Legolam, that the 'choice card', as attractive as it is, can be overplayed. This quote of yours becomes horrid if the word 'abortion' is replaced by 'murder', or even 'a punch in the nose', but the structure of the argument would remain the same. Obviously, something is wrong. The problem is that if you think abortion is something a woman does to herself, it has one meaning, but it has a completely different meaning if she is doing it to another person. So, choice can not trump the greater issue involved -- is the foetus a person?

You don't believe a fertilized egg is a human being. That's a reasonable opinion. Some people think it is a human being, and that's a reasonable opinion too. (That's what makes this subject so difficult). Here are the 'battle lines' -- the definition of the status of the fertilized egg. 'Choice' is quite irrelevant before this is agreed upon.

faila

01-24-2003, 09:12 PM

I would haveto say the featus is a human from conception. It has the genetics of a human, and its genetics are not identical to the mother, which shows that it is not part of the mother.THerefore the choice card doesnt work. I look for to anyones response

Eliot

01-25-2003, 12:52 AM

You know Legolam, maybe the women (teenage girl, whatever) wouldn't be scared if she had a good God to rely on for help and comfort. I know you probably think I'm pretty stupid for being a Christian, but if you believed what I believe (religiously), then maybe you could see the wrongs of abortion. All you have to do is have faith in him, and he'll get you through the problem.

I respect your opinions about this matter, so that means I don't have anything against you. It's just a debate that probably won't change anybodys mind.

HLGStrider

01-25-2003, 02:20 AM

I don't think circumstances make a difference.

A lot of people in this life cause us hurt, inconvenience, and annoyance, purposely or accidentally. That doesn't give us a right to kill them.

So the question that should be debated here isn't whether or not having a baby out of wedlock is inconveninet or terrible or whatever.. most of us know it is. The question is whether or not the baby has a right to live.

The only thing that truly justifies murder is self defense, and most abortions are not a matter of self-defense.

Legolam

01-25-2003, 05:55 PM

The whole topic of abortion comes down to 2 questions now:

1. When is the foetus a human?
2. Should the woman be able to choose?

I guess that the legal matters come down to when you think a foetus is a human. Personally, I think it's at 28 weeks, when it could survive if it was born then (which is also what the law states). I've already stated my opinion on the choice issue

Eliot - I don't think you're stupid for relying on your religion. In fact, I respect you for that because it's something I've never had. But the point I was trying to make with those questions was to put yourself into that position and think what you'd do in each of those situations. Sometimes unlooked-for solutions come out of debates like that. Be honest, would you choose abortion in those situations?

HLGStrider

01-25-2003, 10:32 PM

Most of those I think I would never get into due to my stand on chastity before marriage, so it is hard to put myself in those places... the rape one being the exception, which would be something I'd have no control over.

However, I would keep the baby.

In fact, I made a promise to myself if any friend of mine or acquaintance ever told me she was expecting out of wedlock and considering abortion that I would offer to adoupt the baby myself, and I meant that promise very sincerely.

A baby cannot survive on its own after birth. It needs care. The only difference is that the person who takes care of it after birth can be just about anyone where as it has to be one person before... and is it so much to ask for a woman to keep a child for those nine months which are actually (with the exception of labor) the easiest portions of caring for a baby. She will have to deal with morning sickness and back aches, but she will not have to deal with midnight feedings.

Of course, there was my idea for an invention that would probably not be possible, but the idea intrigued me... the artificial womb. If that was invented a feotus could be taken from its mother and given to the artificial mother and the mom could leave it behind... terribly irrealistic, however.

Eriol

01-26-2003, 04:05 AM

This is a short summary on the reasons why I am against abortion. It is very truncated and I can elaborate on any portion you wish, Legolam:

Philosophical: This reason revolves around the meaning of the word “is”. For in the question “Is the foetus a human being”, people who are pro-abortion answer no, but it can’t be a complete negation, for obviously the foetus becomes a human being if no active measures are taken against it. The answer really is “not yet”. I could elaborate on why the unqualified “no” is not an acceptable answer, but I think most pro-abortion people would accept that their answer is “not yet”.

Then it becomes a matter of deciding whether “not yet” is a negative answer for the question “Is the foetus an human being?”. We must take into account the Aristotelian distinction between act and potency, and how something can be potentially a human being and yet not actually one. But potential outcomes are not unreal or false just because they have not become actual outcomes yet. The word “is” is related to reality, to existence. The foetus is, it exists, and it is a potential human being (at least! I could make a case for treating it as an actual human being). Since the potentiality can not be denied, the quiddity (the essence) can’t be denied either.

Psychological: Elgee has touched on this point a few posts back. The psychological scars on a woman who has had an abortion are very serious, and by many accounts worse than if they had carried the pregnancy to its end. I think this is a “weak” reason, of sorts, because (1) I am a male, so I can’t judge between the two evils, and (2) it relies on a very unknown and undefinable quality, the psychological health of the woman. If a woman said to me that she had no doubts that in her case the abortion would be the lesser evil, I couldn’t disagree with her. But it is something that must be taken into account, especially as the psychological results of an abortion are not publicized enough.

Sociological: Women have had abortions for the entire history of mankind. But when we make the process of getting an abortion easy and accessible, we make it easier for women to get accidentally pregnant. This is hard to express, maybe I am not doing it correctly. Three centuries ago, any woman of 13 years up was very conscious that she could not have sex without running the risk of a pregnancy. Abortions were risky and expensive. The result: women had less premarital sex. Today, we have better preconceptive measures, and abortions (I should say you have abortions, and not we – Brazil does not allow abortions unless to save the mother’s life. But we have illegal abortions, of course), with the result that premarital sex is prevalent. This has clear results in society, with a higher divorce rate (yes, I believe the two are linked), torn families, etc. Maybe I sound like a very reactionary guy here, so don’t get mad at me and wait for my next reason.

Personal: Forgive me if I am emphatic here, but a man is born for only one woman, and a woman is born for only one man. This, for me, is a truism. I look at people trying to break this simple rule of love between the sexes, and all I see is failures. And this is a rule that everyone knows instinctively, one of the clearest examples of natural law. The difference, nowadays, is that people think sex is dissociated from love, that you can have fun with a stranger and never think of it afterwards. But casual sex is not only risky (between unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and the greatest risk of all – breaking someone else’s heart), it is bad for our souls. I don’t say this with any religious overtones, you can substitute any word you want for “souls” – personalities, egos, whatever. It makes you bitter and disillusioned. This is not really an argument against abortion, only against casual sex. But it explains better the last reason: I am against abortions because they promote casual sex, and I think casual sex is bad.

The first reason, for me, is the strongest – the hardest to refute. But my heart lies in the last, the “warmer” reason (philosophy is too cold compared with the heart). I deliberately omitted the religious reason, because I was very much against abortion before becoming a Christian, for the reasons outlined. I think the religious reason is very strong – but only if the other person already agrees with you to some extent. I would love to explain them further if you wish me to.

Legolam

02-11-2003, 05:13 PM

Sorry I haven't replied to this post. I did start a reply a while back, but for some reason I never actually finished it. I'll go through your points one by one if I can:

Philisophical: That's a good point. I've said all along that the topic of abortion is really the topic of when a foetus becomes human. "Not yet" is a good answer. In my opinion, this does translate into "no". It cannot survive outside the mother's body. In fact, 20% of foetuses (foeti?) are spontaneously aborted anyway for various reasons. So Nature distinguishes between "not yet" and "no". Does that make any sense? I'm sure I could put it better.

Psychological: I'm not saying that abortion is an easy thing. However, I suspect that the psychological scars aren't as big a thing as people make out. I'm kind of in the same position as you, Eriol, as I've never had either a child or an abortion so I can't tell you how it feels. But I do know people who have done both and they've all felt that they made the right decision, no matter what it was. I think a lot depends on the quality of counselling and support that the individual has. I don't know where you're from, but I think that we have quite a good support system over here and no-one enters into abortion without thinking it through properly first.

Sociological: I don't agree that pre-marital sex has anything to do with divorce. We live in a changed society from the time that divorce, pre-marital sex and abortions were frowned on. I personally believe that the number of teenage pregnancies is directly due to the lack of proper sex education in schools. Schools are stuck in that legendary time where they didn't need to teach that sort of stuff until after the age of consent. I know form personal experience that by the time we got taught any meaningful sex education (I was 17), 25% of my original class had at least one child. That's just disgraceful. I think we need to get over the fear of teaching about sex, as Holland has done. Holland has a much lower teenage pregancy and abortion rate than Britain, and I think this is down to sensible education.

On the point of illegal abortions, Ireland has this problem. They are a catholic country where abortion is illegal except under extreme circumstances. Every year, hundreds of women come over to Britain and pay for abortions, or even have illegal ones with the same techniques as was used in Victorian Britain. This is just not on.

Personal: I'd love to believe in one true love too, but I am also scared that it's true. Like I said before, I don't think having abortion around promotes casual sex. Casual sex has become more prevalent because society as a whole is changing to allow more freedom. And, to be honest, what's so wrong about having fun? It all comes down to the point of education so that you can do it safely. Ignorance is the biggest factor in unwanted pregancies.

On the religious note: I fully appreciate that many people in the world are religious (whatever their religion is) and I respect that. However,