Topic awaiting preservation: Is abhortion wrong(morally) or not? When used for 'unwanted pregnancy' predicaments.

'medical termination of a pregnancy before the fetus has developed enough to survive outside the uterus'.

Here are some of the articles and other stuff I've found on the matter:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_defn.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm
http://www.prochoice.org/
http://www.prochoicetalk.com/

I know I'm going to regret ever having started this. Please don't take your proletarian anger out on me. It's just a simple question. The answer is tough...
I refrain from expressing my own personal opinion on the matter, for the time being at least.

(Edited by sonyafterdark on 05-19-2005 08:49)

quote:

---

I refrain from expressing my own personal opinion on the matter, for the time being at least.

---

Ok...

Well, the way I see it, it is a personal choice for the woman in question. I don't support laws that force people to be prisoners of their own flesh.

Since a body belongs to the person in question, I feel this is really something that every woman has to answer, personally IRREGARDLESS of my feelings to the contrary or not.

As for the moral question...

As long as the fetus is not able to survive on its own outside of the womb, I see no problem with the abortion.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-19-2005 11:11)

quote:

---

sonyafterdark said:

'medical termination of a pregnancy before the fetus has developed enough to survive outside the uterus'

---

Like say a woman is raped or it's determined a pregnancy would be a health risk or she's like 12 and her mental picture of going through a pregnancy makes her suicidal - I'm understanding about abortion under those sort of circumstances as long as it's done incredibly early on. It shouldn't usually be an issue, but because of the crazy pressures in our society it is.

A while into a pregnancy, though, I find it really screwed up to have an abortion for almost any reason.

That is 100% dependant on how and who defines "moral" and in what context itä's applied.

What's moral or not depends on a multitude of things, from religion to personal or political reasons etc. There is no such thing as a common moral for all humanity.

While most of the humanity agree that it's wrong to take a life (death penalties aside, that's a wholly different can of worms...), the definition of when life starts is quite different from place to place, or human to human.

In one place life starts at conception, in another it starts when the first breath is taken outside the body, other may see it as life is always present since the cells by themselves are alive.

In other words, where it might be perfectly ok to terminate a pregnancy based on some commonly set reasons/limits, that reason/limit will always be wrong or unacceptable to someone else.

There is no yes or no answer to this, and there never will be, just personal views.

I usually tend to lean towards WS point of view with one exception, that's situations where the woman cannot make an informed choice, take for instance a raped 9-10 year old that happens to get pregnant... In that case the desicion has to be made by someone that understands the full situation.
/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

quote:

---

While most of the humanity agree that it's wrong to take a life

---

This depends on the circumstances. Most countries and societies recognize self-defense, and allowed killing of the enemy in times of war.

When circumstances demand it, countries and societies are willing to allow the taking of human life.

So the real question becomes is Abortion a circumstance that requires allowing the taking of a human life?

And I feel it is really up to the woman in question to make this decision - i.e. a personal decision.

I think it is fairly simple:

It should be the choice of the woman involved. I doubt most women take the termination of their pregnancy all that lightly, and probably never really get over the experience.

My own mother had a termination some time after having my younger brother. She discovered she was pregnant only after a series of X-Rays during investigative tests to determine the malignancy of a possible tumour. She was informed that as nobody had been aware of the pregnancy, no precautions had been taken to protect the developing embryo.

My parents made a terribly difficult decision based upon assertions that there was a high-risk of developmental deformity, aware that they had neither the financial nor emotional means to support a badly disabled child.
They sat my brother and I down and explained this to us when they thought we were old enough to understand. The fact that they did this seems to suggest that making the decision influenced them for life.

However - women who return preiodically because they're either too dumb to use a condom, or because they just don't give a flying f***, should be encouraged to seek help. If their lifestyle choices lead to frequent visits to have pregnancies flushed (and this does happen) then they obviously have a serious problem.

We have contraceptives - though you can thank the Catholic Church for the fact that so few women use them (in both the developing and developed worlds). Therefore, blame the Catholics (among others) for unnecessary abortions!

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-19-2005 11:25)

Time to voice my thoughts... Hope my post doesn't get cut out as I've had happen to me before.

The question of when a human life actually begins...
Would anyone have problems with the destruction of 0.5 cc of sperm, for example?

I believe that, in general, people who support the procedure do so because they consider that life begins when the baby is expulsed from the mother's body and takes its first breath or at least not before some advanced development stage deadline (I believe the law sees it the same way, at least in the U. S.). I so hope nobody does simply because they don't give a damn about the 'to be terminated'.

As most other things in life this issue is not black and white either. What is certain, however, is that the... person who's destiny is most affected by the decision to go ahead with the procedure has no say in the matter at all. But is it even a living person to have rights, consciousness, will, opinion in the first place?
Back to the original question. It most (would have) certainly will (been), eventually. A side issue to abortion is if the foetus suffers during its 'termination'. Is it aware that it's being hurt? Does it sense impending doom? Is it in pain? etc. If so, at what stage of 'prenatal' development does this 'awareness' survene. Do any of the people who answer these questions so categorically have the slightest clue?

What about the cause of the issue? Pregnancies don't come about from thin air. And why are there calls for abortion to be performed in the first place, except when the pregnancy is dangerous to the mother or she's 15, etc?

Of the multitude of abortions performed (almost) worldwide each year how many constitute danger to the mother or baby, are carried out to prevent juvenile pregnancy (I do not command the English language exceptionally so please excuse invented or inadequate expressions) or are the consequence of rape? Not all, right? Hmm...

Of those abortions due to other (consensual) causes, how many are the first and last in the woman's lifetime? Hmm again... Hard to tell. Sexual encounters that result in unwanted pregnancies are tantamount to rape. You'd think one abortion is enough to make someone (or a couple) come to their senses and act responsively...

How many of us were planned for? Should 'accidents' be corrected? There are those who say being against abortion is disregarding women's rights and freedoms (of life and death, mind you)... What about the reason for the procedure? What about its rights and freedoms. Oh, yes, it's not alive nor aware... The English language itself refers to the foetus with 'it'. I used to think that this is simply because the gender is unknown until birth. 'It' certainly carries no fault for having been conceived, does it? Tough luck, it interferes with career plans, lifestyle, body weight or the family budget or it's simply an year early. Wham, economics step in.

A thing I find especially disconcerting is the attitude of so many people regarding this issue. It's developed into an industry, of sorts. I mean, there are cliniques especially for this procedure, I think. And many gynecologist offer their services practivally for nothing. Well intentioned, of course... Not to mention all do euphemisms like 'pregnancy termination' or 'birth control' (not the pill) for abortion, etc.

If you were to be conceived today what would your odds of making through to birth be? You need a visa nowadays.

It's like those who are (even quietly) not 'pro-choice' are mad, evil minded, evil doers, retrogade, uneducated, stupid, fanatic, indoctrinated, etc.
Voice against abortion or simply state you're against it then you must be some right wing nut or bloody 'Xian', clearly.

Abortion is a veritable good deed, say pro-choicers. The person the foetus might have been would probably not have wanted to be born or does not deserve to be born to a single mom or family that can barely make ends meat or pay the rent deem practitioners and pro-choicers. As if there'd be nobody to adopt the child, in the whole of the continental U. S. A.! Aaaah, why deal with such hassles when freedom is a clinique away.

I'll just keep on living by my obtuse and outdated system of values and beliefs, thank you. Perhaps it'd have been for the best if I hadn't started this thread or at least not posted...

You just keep on rocking in the free world and start bashing me for the thread. Cheers.

Most women have miscarriages at later stages than the legal limit for abortions from time-to-time without even knowing it.

I can't help thinking that there are greater issues than abortion to waste our energies on.

If life is so sacred, why are children shooting eachother in the school playground? Why are women systematically raped and killed in warzones? Why are people dying from starvation in over-populated, under-developed countries (where it might be better to invest in prophylactics and irrigation than in food parcels)? Why does killing a child with your car go unpunished (or mildly so) while others go to prison for using herbs in a combustible manner?

Is abortion a real issue for some people just because pregnant, emotionally stressed and disadvantaged women are easier targets for righteous indignation than real criminals and murderers?

quote:

---

White Hawk said:

If life is so sacred...

---

That is the heart of the matter. Isn't it?

Every human must decide how they are going to treat life. We have the choice to act in ways consistent with the concept of life being sacred.

I firmly believe that life is sacred and I want my actions to reflect that belief.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Aha! But in the context of enforcing that belief upon other women?

quote:

---

I firmly believe that life is sacred and I want my actions to reflect that belief.

---

And War, Bugs? The Death sentence? What about killing in self-defence?

I understand holding life to be valuable. I agree with that.

But for two of the three (Death sentence not included) reasons above, most societies and countries make exceptions.

The Bible does as well in the case of warfare. And as punishment (Death sentence).

There is another long thread somewhere out there regarding how I felt about abortion. So I do not have anything additional to post. But what I can say is that we live in a time of where there is a "culture of death" from abortion to removing feed tubes to euthenisia. Today, human life equates with the life span of a dog or cat. In fact, people care about their pets more that potential human life. If you try to abort unborn puppies or kitties in the sac, you will hear an outcry of inhuman treatment in the news.

To see almost full term infants in trash cans piled up is the worst heartbreaking sorrow. I pray constantly for the doctors, mothers and those who encourge the act.

I'm inclined to agree with the general picture painted in the previous comments, I'm not 100% sure but doesn't the foetus start to enter advanced stages after only 3 months? I would say that before that time abortion would be an option but after it should really be replaced with adopton as the alternative option to raising the child.

What people haven't mentioned is the Fathers role in all this, some (perhaps most) circumstances this isn't an issue, but a child is the creation of two people and both can have a very important role in it's upbringing. Sure only the Woman in question has to go through the morning sickness, 9 months of pregnancy, etc. But I still believe that even if the Man and the Woman aren't married both should have some kind of say in it's abortion.

Cheers,

quote:

---

quote:While most of the humanity agree that it's wrong to take a life



This depends on the circumstances. Most countries and societies recognize self-defense, and allowed killing of the enemy in times of war.

When circumstances demand it, countries and societies are willing to allow the taking of human life.

---

True, however that society under certain circumstances allow taking a life does not to me mean that it is generally considered morally "right" to take a life.
Again, a personal view.

On the issue, one thing that really bugs me about this whole thing is the fact that it's very often males that decides if a woman should or should not be allowed to terminate a pregnancy.
As males (yes I'm male) we have no idea what so ever what it's really like to be pregnant and to give birth... How can we decide for them?

As for the value of life... It's invaluable really.
However...
Personally I don't think that any person that has not taken another persons life (as in self-defense, accident or in war), or has not held another human beeing in their arms while life slips away can have a true understanding of how big issue taking or losing life really is.

I haven't been in any of those situations, neither do I personally know anyone who has taken a life, but I have the utmost respect for the feelings and experiences of people who has found themselves in those situations.
Anyone saying that they know better simply doesn't know what they are talking about.

The same goes for pregnancy, if you are able to carry and grow life inside your body and are capable to understand what a unique ability that is, it has to be you that decides if you can do it or not. No one else! Not religion or politicians or peer pressure, I can't decide that for you, only you have the right to that desicion.

To be quite frank, neither has a doctor. If you are a grown woman and the doctor says "you should abort this child, you are in danger" you must have the final say if you are willing to risk your own life for the unborn child.

That's what it's about for me. I can't change anyone elses mind on it, nor do I want to.
If a pro life woman at all costs want to carry to term, fine, do so. But please allow the same respect to the woman that decides she can't. You want your opinions to be respected, right... It works both ways.
/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

DmS, your argument there assumes that ones personal feelings determine the morality of a decision to kill. I disagree very much with that idea.

A human being should be capable of making a judgement about whether or not killing human life is morally acceptable, regardless of its stage of development. Please understand that I am in no way trying to minimize the emotional aspect of our decisions. It's just that if we base what is right and wrong on our feelings, I think we are in huge trouble.

WH, this thread began asking whether or not the decision to kill fetuses was moral and left out how a society should choose to legislate it. I prefer to leave that out of my comments and save it for a different thread as well.

WS, I agree that there are times and places for the lawful taking of human life. I prefer to focus on the specific question of this thread; is it moral to abort fetuses for an unwanted pregnancy?

For those who think it should be left up to the woman to decide... what can you say about the morality of a decision to abort?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

We have covered this topic numerous times here so I am sure many of you know my view. I stand firm in my view that abortion is murder, infanticide on a mass scale. I could rant all day about it, but it would do not good, and degrade the thread into a flame war. I don't want that, so I'll give you all a pass on my arguments from that angle. I think it has been made fairly clear the argueing morality has no effect on the majority of this crowd.

I will instead take this from the angle of why. Why do we have abortions? Why do people feel them necessary? Why? I know this strays from the original question...but it is relevent IMO.

First, I believe that governments and officials who push abortion do it for reasons other than the rhetoric which they dissemate to the masses, a woman's right to choose. They do it as both a means of population control and keeping the birth of the poor to a minimum, since poor people statistically reproduce in much larger numbers. Less poor people, less drain on an overly large and overextended government, less drain on the system. Looking at it from this angle is quite bigoted, a little reverse psychology against the largest portion of the population by the few elite. "It is your right, now keep those little black and white trash babies out of the gene pool and out of our society."

Second, as I believe was mentioned above is the big-business of abortion. A relatively small group of business people are making big bucks off of abortion, and I am quite sure a nice portion of those proceeds go toward lobbying, various "pro-choice" interest groups, and many psychological operations, also known as marketing campaigns, to manipulate the public perception.

In the end though, I think the matter of abortions and why they are performed is a reflection more of society and it's advancment into corruption and forsaking of what is important, among other things. Living in excess and overindulgence, on the individual level. Taking for granted the things that are truly special and crucial to who and what we are for the things which mean nothing.

For example, in American society and, I am sure, most western civilizations, it takes two parties to keep a houshold going nowadays (for various reasons) and many abortions are performed for economic reasons, which to me do not even come close to trumping something far more important and meaningful, human life. These are the things which make us human, be it by God's law or natural law, not money, not our job, not our economic well being, but life. As Madonna said, it's a material world. Quite sad but true.

If we all went back to agrarian societies tomorrow, you can be gauranteed abortion would disappear shortly thereafter. Fix society, and the demand and "need" for abortion goes away. This is not to say that we should all go back to farm living, but we have been moving very fast as a species, far too fast for many people to handle, and perhaps we need to find a balance, a center, and these trying times will level off into an era of true prosperity.

What I am undecided about in recent times is the right of the state to legislate, either way, in such matters. If the role of government, first and foremost, is to protect its citizens, should this include the unborn? Initially I say to myself yes, but on second thought, why should government have any say in anything we do personally? Especially, and this is the important part, when government fucks up everything they do. Look at the progress we have made in the war on drugs, the war on crime, and most recently the war on terror. Examples from history should make us want to keep the government out of everything we possibly can, because the results of government legislation more often than not produce exactly the opposite results of that which they intially claim. As Thomas Paine said, paraphrasing here, government is the fruit of our wickedness, a necessary evil. I've been arguing with myself on this one for a while now. If it is society which is messed up, and society is a reflection of government, to an extent, then the problem lies in government, so why should I ask government to legislate more?

There is something new to consider as well. A recent study done at the Hôpital de Bicêtre in Paris show that abortion almost doubles a woman's risk of giving birth dangerously early the next time they are pregnant.

Also, an older study done in the 80s showed that abortion increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy in which the fetus is implanted outside the uterus). There are also a number of other studies released throughout the years linking multiple abortions to future miscarriages and other varius complications.

I have always wondered why these issues are never discussed or considered by the rabid members of the pro-choice crowd, the majority of whom on the front lines are screaming about the possible health reasons for not having abortion. What of the potential health reasons from having abortion? Since it is all about me me me, my rights, my choice, my health, my future, my career, why the silence here?

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 05-19-2005 22:02)

Ramasax, you bring up some interesting points... I don't have much time right now, and I'll try to get back and post more later, but I just wanted to share a few thoughts that popped into my mind as I read your post.

First, abortion has been around for just about as long as women have been having babies. Advances in modern technology in this field have been made to make the process safer because women were having abortions performed and were dying from it.

You would like to examine the reasons why a woman may choose abortion over other options? Here are a couple to start with:

-Fear. Fear of reprisal from family, community, society - Fear of what people may think, what may happen to them when their family or church finds out that they got pregnant out of wedlock... This may seem inconsequential to some - but when a woman's support comes from her family and church and has been taught that it is among the worst of things to do to engage in sexual activity before marriage - who can blame her for hiding the pregnancy from the world and secretly ask forgiveness from God?

-Ability to support the child. In the developed countries, adoption is an option when the means to support an unwanted or unexpected child are not there. However, in countries where the infrastructure does not exist, is not readily available or the population has not been educated that there are adoption choices available, a woman will abort a child that the family cannot support - in some cases, the woman may not even be given the choice.

quote:

---

many abortions are performed for economic reasons,

---

I'm not trying to be combative here, but how do you know this? I've not seen a study yet that breaks down the reasons why women of developed countries are having abortions... I'll have to do some more digging later.

My own personal opinion of the matter is if you want the number of abortions to decrease, remove the stigma of sin from pregnancy out of wedlock. Obviously "the fear of God" is not working to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but neither is it working to reduce the number of abortions. If life is so sacred, why is it such a sin to create one?


(sorry if this is a little scattered, i'm kinda rushed for time... I'll check in again later...)

bugimus, for me moral stems from a common sense of what's right and wrong, according to several definitions I'm not too far off either:
example: http://www.google.com/search?q=define:moral
In order to preserve this common sense, our moral obligations, we have laws, therefore feelings do have quite a lot to do with what's considered moral and not.
/D

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

quote:

---

"The 1967 Abortion Act made abortions legal in Britain. Today, there are 180,000 abortions a year in Britain and 87% take place before 12 weeks. The legal limit of abortion is 24 weeks."
My Foetus, Channel 4 (UK)
<<more>>

---

____________

It is obvious that there are more complex issues at play here, such as the determination of when life officially begins, or whether there are possibly cases that merit a little compromise (the dreaded word). I think a change of focus might be necessary.

I admit I'm a little dubious about the moral consequences of abortion (as I am about many things in this life/world) but without being able to argue the merits of each individual case (obviously impossible) I don't believe this issue can be definitively resolved - especially as the emotional response and staunch division make it difficult to debate objectively.

Perhaps it would be more constructive to step back and discuss a closely related issue:
What leads to these unwanted pregnancies in the first place, and in such alarming numbers? Why are the risks of promiscuity and unprotected sex disregarded by so many?

I can't see the harm in highlighting the issue of sex education. Are we providing children and young adults with a sturdy foundation to make confident and informed decisions about their sex-lives?

It cannot be denied that natural curiosity, individual drives, and (increasingly) blatant media saturation all play influential roles in the development of one's sexual predilection, so education could surely address the moral balance. TV-founded ideals are hardly inducive to responsible sexual attitudes, despite the (negligible) truly informative content.

If humans want sex, a significant portion of them are going to get it whether the rest like it or not. Unwanted pregnancy is not the only potential outcome of unprotected sex. Sexually transmitted disease is a serious issue that most adolescents seem either ignorant of, or absurdly misinformed about.

This isn't surprising when for one reason or another, we're even at odds over contraceptive/prophylactic use! Perhaps the compromise would be to educate our children in a responsible approach to sex, and maybe even finally settle the issue of contraception? ...though I'm loathe to start discussing religion or Vatican politics...

The ambiguity of human nature is such that we're the very cause of our own ailments, and we're never going to solve any prolem without compromise - the very weave of human society. I believe the real moral argument lies in exploring some of these avenues of cause and effect.

Oh, should I have made this a new thread...?

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-20-2005 00:16)

*ADDENDUM*

Actually, I blame the bloody parents.

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

quote:

---

If we all went back to agrarian societies tomorrow, you can be gauranteed abortion would disappear shortly thereafter.

---

History tells us, on every level, that is quite incorrect.

As MD stated, abortions have existed fos as long as women have been having babies.

Abortion is not something that sprung up in modern america. While I can agree with many of your points on some level, you again show this strong delusion about the history of humanity in your persistence that we are so much less moral now than in the past.

I don't know of any culture throughout human history in which abortion was nonexistent, and in most it has been seen as a very viable alternative at various levels, from a "if it needs to be done..." kind of view to a very cavalier or even whimsical approach.

In many societies throughout history, the life of a child even after birth was viewed as fairly worthless, and there are many examples of laws regarding what a parent might do with an unwanted child.

A bit sidetracked, I realize, but needed to be pointed out.

A sudden decline in morality of american society is not to blame for the existence of abortion, and I feel rather certain that very few people make such a decision in any sort of light hearted manner.



(Edited by DL-44 on 05-20-2005 00:32)

DmS, and what do you do when most people "feel" a particular group of human beings don't deserve to live anymore? I'm sure you can think of a few examples from the last century. That is precisely the reason basing our morals on feelings is dangerous because they shift with the tides.

Probably a better word for what I'm describing is ethics. I've always considered morals to be the things that shift as time goes by based on culture and such but ethics are more hard and fast.

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

My own personal opinion of the matter is if you want the number of abortions to
decrease, remove the stigma of sin from pregnancy out of wedlock. Obviously "the
fear of God" is not working to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but neither is it
working to reduce the number of abortions. If life is so sacred, why is it such
a sin to create one?

---

The stigma of out of wedlock births in this country (US) is fading fast and I am not aware of any reduction in the number of abortions. I seriously doubt that would help at all.

Obviously creating life in and of itself is not sinful, what a preposterous notion. The problem is not creating a new life, but creating a life one cannot or does not want to support. For some crazy reason, we have convinced ourselves that sex is simply a recreational activity and should be void of any responsibility or connection with raising up the next generation.

There are reasons why sex outside of marriage has been stigmatized over the years. One of the best reasons is precisely to avoid having children when they cannot be properly nurtured. I would hope that everyone here, atheist, theist and everyone in between, would agree that using abortion as a means of birth control is wrong. A newly formed life in the womb deserves a chance to grow and live just as each of us deserve to live our own lives.

It should come as no surprise that I think human rights trump women's rights on this topic. I see nacent human life as about as innocent as it comes and the thought of snuffing it out for any of the reasons thus far mentioned in this thread as a very wrong choice.

Sorry WH, I'm not addressing your last post although you bring up some very good points.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I've had a chance to do some looking on statistics regarding the reasons cited for abortions:

The most commonly cited reference comes from The Alan Guttmacher Institute The page I have referenced gives a fairly comprehensive rundown on the demographics of abortion in the US.

From the Women's Issues Guide at About.com these were the reasons cited: (These also originated from AGI, however this site lays them out much more nicely...)

quote:

---

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

---

From the Demographics section, I found this interesting:

quote:

---

Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion claimed they were Protestant, while 27% claimed they were Catholic.

---

AGI also stated that abortion rates in the US are on the decline: Continued Here

What does all this mean to me? I'm not entirely sure yet - the 12.2% of women having abortions because their parents or others objected to it actually was higher than I expected.

The point I was trying to get at Bugimus and ran out of time to more clearly articulate is this: Church organizations seem more interested in damning a woman and castigating her for her sin rather than offering forgiveness and options. The message that sex and the consequent pregnancy out of wedlock is such a horrible, awful thing is driven so much and so hard that when it does happen, all she may consider is that she is a horrble, awful person - and doesn't want her church to know. I was raised Christian. In my summers at chruch camp, when the "adults" were not around, we would talk about the "naughty" subject. Some of the girls were sexually active, and when the topic came around to what would happen if they *gasp* got knocked up, the majority of them said they would get abortions - not because they weren't ready to have kids - but because they were afraid of what the people at chruch would say. They were afraid of judgement. In a sense, these girls felt the only option they had was abortion - because they couldn't let the church or their parents know. Rather than being understanding and proactive by sending the message that yes, it is wrong but we can help you and still love you anyways, as a good parent would, the opposite message was being given. Instead of saying that the life you are carrying is beautiful and sacred let us help you give it a chance... I think you get the point. I'm sure that the church I went to was not the only instance of such things happening. This is what I was driving at with my prior statement.

I don't think the morality of abortion will ever be easily determined, because it is so intertwined with when one believes life begins. But I think WH said it best: "I believe the real moral argument lies in exploring some of these avenues of cause and effect."

quote:

---

DL: History tells us, on every level, that is quite incorrect. As MD stated, abortions have existed fos as long as women have been having babies.

---

Sure, it has existed, but when has it ever been a profitable industry? Perhaps abortions would not disappear entirely, but I'll wager it would decrease dramatically if life and society in general were simplified.

One may think the industry aspect adds safety for the women who have abortions, and they may be right, but it also adds ulterior motives.

quote:

---

DL: Abortion is not something that sprung up in modern america. While I can agree with many of your points on some level, you again show this strong delusion about the history of humanity in your persistence that we are so much less moral now than in the past.

---

You just love calling me on this one don't you DL?

I wasn't talking morality though or my delusions though, I was talking more along the lines of a level of corruption and "take it for granted" attitude in a society and/or government, which is more cyclical than linear IMHO.

quote:

---

DL: I don't know of any culture throughout human history in which abortion was nonexistent, and in most it has been seen as a very viable alternative at various levels, from a "if it needs to be done..." kind of view to a very cavalier or even whimsical approach.

---

Interesting. Who had a whimsical approach?

quote:

---

DL: A bit sidetracked, I realize, but needed to be pointed out.

---

Of course. Thank you.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 05-20-2005 07:22)

Bugs: I can see exactly what you are thinking of with this:

quote:

---

DmS, and what do you do when most people "feel" a particular group of human beings don't deserve to live anymore? I'm sure you can think of a few examples from the last century. That is precisely the reason basing our morals on feelings is dangerous because they shift with the tides.

Probably a better word for what I'm describing is ethics. I've always considered morals to be the things that shift as time goes by based on culture and such but ethics are more hard and fast.

---

Basically, that's what laws are for, that's also why laws are hard to change.

I'll turn this around on you, if not commonly decided feelings, what then, is moral based on?

(btw, ehtics is usually defined as "a set of moral principles or values" or "the study of morality")

/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

I stated quite clearly at the beginning of the thread that I was talking about cases when the unborn child is merely unwanted (regardless of the cause: financial, career, etc.) without there being another, objective, reason to the abortion like danger to the mother, for example.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:
As for the moral question...As long as the fetus is not able to survive
on its own outside of the womb, I see no problem with the abortion.

---

No baby, even carried to full term, can survive outside the womb without a lot of care. Babies can't regulate their body temperature. Some don't start breathing on their own (the slap on the but ring a bell?). Most need to stay in an incubator. Not to mention the ones that are premature.

Indeed. I think the human race is no more 'depraved' today that perhaps before the start of the industrial revolution. However, the important point is that today modern industry and technology (including medical) can be used for good as well as evil, both on a massive scale and with great efficiency. Let the definition of 'evil' be as loose or make it as precise as you want, you can't deny that the knowledge humanity has aquired is used for some evil. I'm not talking specifically about abortion but mass killing in general: war, policing, organized crime, etc. Thus comparisosn to the past are irrelevant and a way to avoid the issue.
I also agree with Bmus' liberal view on governments.

Those who put their trust entirely in the government or expect it to solve all of their personal issues and problems are gravely mistaken. The government needs to kave only enough power to fulfill its duties. None more!!!

If you think your government cares for you are gravely mistaken.

If you think your life has anywhere near as much value to strangers as to people outside your family or close friends you are gravely mistaken.
And sometimes not even your family or your closest friends really give a damn about you.

These are some reason why abortions happen. Where is the father? Gone with the wind.
It is said that a people is alive so long as its womanhood endures. They define a nation. They keep a nation alive. Not its army, not its government, not the men who go off and get themselves killed in wars...

Ultimately, the only reason a woman can be said to have any prerogative of choosing whether her unborn child is to live or not is that it's she that is bearing it, carrying it to term, delivering it.
Yes, it's true, we (men) all think we know what an ordeal this can be. We don't. But...

let's just say for a moment that abortion is morally correct beacause of this specific fact. When it happens for the first time. The first time (only) it's just stupid, stupid is what stupid does. The woman as well as her bloke are STUPID. What about the second, the third... It's just bloody cruel and Godless. Are condoms that expensive or unsafe? Aren't they cheaper than an abortion? Okay, let's just say that they can 'soften' the feeling so they won't do for some people. What about a diafragm? What about contraceptive pills? Can cause cancer or hormonal imbalance so they won't do... Or is it that people just don't give a fuck, literally. The only conclusion possible is that a few minutes of pure bliss are worth more to an individual than a human life, the life of their offspring. Time and time and time again. Talk about selfishness.

And if society condems you for having a child outside of wedlock, does this give you the right to have an abortion to save face?

So many people rave and rant about women's right and freedom to choose. Why didn't women who had abortions choose or make their partners choose to use a condom?

Mayhaps they never heard of such advanced technology in yonder hills. Bloody horny peasants.

What about them city dwellers... Can't afford them rubber hats, hmm? Pepsi showers don't work so don't frolick then ya stupid pauper arses!!! Show some f**king responsability and respect for life ya selfish pricks and prickses.

You just keep on rocking in the free world.

(Edited by sonyafterdark on 05-20-2005 09:45)

quote:

---

Bloody horny peasants.

---

yeeeeehaaaw...

And what about all the people that risks family, career, life and whatnot for an orgasm... ?
There's quite a few of those around. Face it, the sex-drive is what controls 90% of all our actions, even in our "evolved, intelligent" state as the "ruling spieces" of this planet.

As long as there is a genetic desire to have sex at any cost our "intellect" is seriously shortstacked in that draw... The church can try to change that, the politicians can try, heck, anyone can try but no one will succed unless they remove the genes and hormones that controls this, and then where would we be...

With this in mind, there will ALWAYS be different opinions on the right/wrong/moral/immoral/ethical/unethical aspects of abortions, like it or not, they will not go away.

Over and out/D

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

The correct spelling is succeed, not succed .

Is it against them hormones to use contraceptives? Please read more carefully.

Can none of the people in the 'western world' that get stuck with unwanted pregnancies afford contraceptives?

quote:

---

I prefer to focus on the specific question of this thread; is it moral to abort fetuses for an unwanted pregnancy?

For those who think it should be left up to the woman to decide... what can you say about the morality of a decision to abort?

---

Who then decides what is "moral"? We need to decide that first, before we can start talking about whether or not something like this is moral.

Since I feel this is a personal decision, to be made by the woman in question, then it really boils down to whether or not she feels it is moral, and can live with the decision to abort or not. For me, that is the bottom line. If the woman in question has decided that she needs to abort the child, then there really is nothing that can be done to stop her - if it is not legal, she will find an illegal way to have it done.

Quite simple my dear mad scientist. If you are a 'Xian' then you take the New Testament as a moral guide to living. If you're not then you find some other source to tell you what you should know yourself, just as you know so may other things by heart.

As for ways of 'terminating': jump down the stairs, perhaps? Totally legal... Yes, there certainly are ways.

Yes, there are three sources, a Higher Power, Man, and Nature.

And how one sees Abortion morally depends on what source one draws from.

I tend to see it as drawing from Man/Nature.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-20-2005 13:00)

Just another quick sidenote -

Ramasax said:

quote:

---

Interesting. Who had a whimsical approach?

---

I'd say the Roman view could be called whimsical (or close to it anyway).
Abortions were very common, and it was just as common to have the child, and then decide whether to keep it or abandon it on the street (at which point it was free for the taking for anyone who might want it...)
At different stages there were different laws regarding the age at which a child was finally considered a person. I know that at some period a father had the legal right to kill his child up until the age of 12 years, no reason required.

quote:

---

You just love calling me on this one don't you DL?

---

As much as you love believing it



Secondary sidenote: is this a discussion or a spelling bee?

sonyafterdark ... since you seem so hung up on the contraceptive question:

From the Alan Guttmacher Institute (from the link previously posted...)

quote:

---

54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.

8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or poorly educated.

49% of the 6.3 million pregnancies that occur each year are unplanned; 47% of these occur among the 7% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy who do not practice contraception.

As much as 43% of the decline in abortion between 1994 and 2000 can be attributed to the use of emergency contraception.

---

What does this say? It says that more than half the women having abortions were taking steps to avoid being put in the position of having to make the choice in the first place.

<edit>Weird linky stuff... crazy gremlins...</edit>

(Edited by Moon Dancer on 05-20-2005 18:24)

quote:

---

DmS said:

I'll turn this around on you, if not commonly decided feelings, what then, is
moral based on?

---

They can be based on anything we want them to be based on. I maintain that true morality is based on God's laws. They can be summed up with the big 2 which are "love God with all your heart mind and soul" and "love every one else as you love yourself". The way I am supposed to behave in every possible situation can be derived from those.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Who then decides what is "moral"? We need to decide that first, before we can
start talking about whether or not something like this is moral.

---

There will be no consensus. I will advocate what I think to be closest to the truth and hope that others do the same and I pray we all make the best decisions we can.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Simple.

It is her body. It is her decision.

Whether it is moral or not is up to her, not up to any of us.

If anyone else finds it immoral, that is their privilege.

That privilige does not extend itself beyond their skin.

We do not have the right to impose narrow religious views on others, whatever the subject matter.

As for;

quote:

---

While most of the humanity agree that it's wrong to take a life

---

Better take a closer look at "humanity". In India and parts of China they still murder girl babies in the remote area. The Indians still immolate or just shoot or hack to death wives, daughters or sisters who are viewed as having brought 'shame' on the family.

Iraqui's have been killing Iraquis for thousands of years for no other reason than pride. Same for the whole region.

Afghans, Pakistanis, Africans, North Americans etc. Life is cheap, so is the talk about how much humanity reveres it.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

There will be no consensus. I will advocate what I think to be closest to the truth and hope that others do the same and I pray we all make the best decisions we can.

---

In the light of this statement, then only a Law can protect the right of an individual to their own body, because we cannot find a consensus on who decides what is moral. Without a moral consensus, some will say one thing is moral (and should be allowed, like polygamy), and others will say it is not moral (like polygamy). So, we need a Law to regulate it.

Currently, the Law says that it is moral and ok in the US. How long this will last, depends on whether or not Mr. Bush wins his Supreme Court nominee battle in the Senate right now (The Fillibuster Dilemna) to tip the Supreme Court in the direction of the far Right. If the nominees do not get elected, then it will stay as it is, until the next battles. If they do get elected, then it will most probably be changed.

Thus, it comes down to this at the moment :

quote:

---

It is her body. It is her decision.

---

If Dumbya gets his proctors on the supreme court, I predict the real-estate market in Canada will enjoy another boost and Immigration Canada will be inundated with applications from free-thinking...or just plain "Thinking" Americans.

Welcome y'all.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

But now we've switched back to discussing the legality of aborting fetuses. Let me ask a more specific question. WS and Ehtheist, do either of you think it is moral to abort a fetus for sex selection? I'm not asking the legality since it is perfectly legal to do so in our enlightened society, I'm asking your personal views of doing that.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

If the alternative is for the child, once born, to be unwanted, unloved and uncared for or even exposed, as some societies around the world still do, then I ask you, which is the more moral action?

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Again, I must ask Moral according to what?

If you are asking me personally, whether or not I consider it moral - as long as the person in question can live with the consequences, yup.

Empathic morality - there's a concept. I agree though. The whole issue of morality is something best considered by those who have to undertake such a grave measure. As I pondered before - I doubt it is a decision often made lightly.

==Why is it when we talk to God, it's called praying
- but when God talks to us, it's called paranoid schizophrenia?!==

I am very simplistic, I must return to my original statement.

It is her body, it is her decision. (is that what I said?).

Again, I believe it bears repeating, it is something no-one else has any right at all to force on a woman.

Case in point, my wife got pregnant (how, I just don't know), after we had stopped having the pill for over a year.

As we were dining on BBQ'd rabbit the day the results came in
I said to her..."What do you want to do?" "I will support whichever decision you make".

I have the nicest 22 year old daughter you might wish to meet.

Had my wife chosen otherwise, we would not have known the difference.

Cold, hard. completly realistic and pragmatic.

If the 'right-to-life' people had any comception of reality what-so-ever, they would al die immediately...and hasten to their 'reward'.

Leaving the rest of us to a peaceful existance.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

I think this might have been covered earlier, but I want to reiterate it.

Abortion does not just effect the woman. There is the father, the families, and the child itself to think about.

I have read letters from men who have been emotionally scarred from the loss of their child. They live the rest of thier lives with the pain of guit for their lost child.

The families also share some pain, because this would have been another bundle of joy, another blessing from God, but he or she is now gone, never to laugh, never to smile, never to make the family proud. Gone.

The child is also robbed of a life. Robbed of a chance to make it in this world. Robbed of love and friendship. Robbed of hope and joy. The child is the ultimate loser in this act, and that is the life that really should be considered.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

I think this might have been covered earlier, but I want to reiterate it.

Abortion does not just effect the woman. There is the father, the families, and the child itself to think about.

I have read letters from men who have been emotionally scarred from the loss of their child. They live the rest of thier lives with the pain of guit for their lost child.

The families also share some pain, because this would have been another bundle of joy, another blessing from God, but he or she is now gone, never to laugh, never to smile,

*sigh*

What you post doesn't touch the main point, Gid. Sure, there are other lives affected. Same thing happens with Divorce, as well (and many other things).

But pregnancy and abortion intimately affects the body of the woman in question.

You can't seriously be proposing that a woman cannot decide what she can do with her own body.

Or are you?

That is it, the most inarguable truth for me - a woman's body is her own and it is up to her what she does with it. Whatever anybody else's moral dilemma or the secondary consequences of abortion/pregnancy, the choice and the consequence are hers.

I cannot rationalise denying her the right to make that decision.

Nor can I question, for even a moment, the morality of providing safe, supportive, and clean facilities for those who take the decision. When no legal option is available, the potential consequences do not bear thinking about.

Therefore, though I cannot speak for anybody else's moral constitution, I cannot deny another human's fundamental freedom. This thread has fortunately helped to polarise me on this issue and strengthen my original convictions.

My conclusion is that the question is redundant and the argument insoluble on anything more than a personal level - but differing on the subject of liberty on this scale does not give anybody the right to deny it.

==Why is it when we talk to God, it's called praying
- but when God talks to us, it's called paranoid schizophrenia?!==

So what WH and others are saying is that it's ok to do whatever you want to a living thing that can't fight for its rights or protest them. We automatically assume it is not sentient, and if it is, too bad...

It seems to me there is a lot more consideration shown to mistreated animals than unborn human beings...

The interesting thing is that no matter what arguments some bring forth against abortion, people who support it will make like it's raining outside and begin their old, tired, familiar little loop 'her body, her choice'.

Can't you at least admit there are other arguments, other issues at stake? She is not the only one affected.
Can't you understand English? Can you not wrap your brain around 2 or more concepts at the same time without suffering a stroke?

She (the 'mother') will most likely survive her abortion (if it is done with competently). Not so for other parties involved... perhaps people should see their unborn child after it's been done away with. I think it should be mandatory. Let everyone see the consequences of their (and other's) actions lying dismembered (sometimes decerebrated) in a trash bin. Would the alien countenance of the foetus dehumanize it somehow and make future abortions just as or more likely or would another abortion seldom be called for in that woman's life? Perhaps this way couples would take care to don a condom or use contraceptive pills next time. And remember that their pleasure is not worth a human life. Maybe people would show some respect and consideration for their offspring, if nothing else, after an 'ordeal' like that. If it's that awful to look at, can it be any better to be the one lying in that bin? Not far off from ancient Carthage. The religious part of the ritual's missing though.

Most likely selfishness would prevail nontheless...

No matter what anyone sais, the leitmotiv is spawned: 'her body, her choice'. It's like we're discussing a damned manicure or something... I'm talking only of the cases when the single most important factor in the decision to abort is some other than medical, rape due pregnancy, etc.? All right? What about 'choice' when conception took place? I might be wrong but I think pregnancies don't come out of the blue or from 'suspiciously wet toilet seats'...

The second main 'pro-choice' argument is that because many abortions are carried out for financial reasons then the life of the abortee would likely not have been worth living. Wasn't that what the National Socialists said yestercentury about 'Non Germanic' people and those with disabilities?

Who are you to make that choice for him or her? There are so many people out there willing to adopt. Luckily most of those people are actually decent enough not to treat adopting as same with buying a pet.

Perhaps whether killing is moral or not should be left to killers to decide?

And once again it starts... I post a conslusion (not an argument, just my own reasoning for the choice I've made) following a series of (finally) rational arguments, and the response (expectedly) from SAD is to fly off on one, throwing thinly-veiled insults and complaining about the 'same old arguments' while quite plainly making the same old argument himself.

SAD, if we hold animal life in greater regard than animal life, considering the treatment the animal kingdom receives from humans, I think we might finally be going the right way about things.

Here's a slightly more extreme point of view for you: I think humans are a plague upon this planet; a parasite that neither fits into, nor happily co-exists with the established eco-systems. Moreover, we are inevitably approaching a level of over-population that, in itself, is the cause of more misery, suffering, poverty and starvation than any contributing factor - in that anything else is secondary to over-breeding.

Considering this fact, and taking into account that we are still no more than animals with a pretence to something more 'holy' - namely sentience - and accepting the fact that the average fickle human doesn't seem capable of responsible sexual conduct, then there has to a be a birth-control solution other than abstinence (as this is simply not a plausible expectation).

Therefore, the options are contraception (preventative and emergency), sterilisation, and abortion. Contraception is denied as an avenue for some religious morons who then complain that too many young women are having abortions, and then these same morons complain that not enough is being done to combat world poverty (as stated, secondary to over-population).

So you can only possibly be advocating sterilisation instead of abortion - or even worse, surgical removal of the offensive anatomical abomination known as genitalia.

As argued earlier, you're never going to stop people having sex and while fanatical religious dictators continue to confuse the issue of contraception, abortion is something that will always be sought by someone, somewhere, however they can get it (with consequences that just don't bear thinking about).

So, again, in conclusion, I find the question redundant. I think that the real debate is in the backward and damaging influence of various faiths (breeding ignorance and self-persecution), irresponsibly marketed or uninformative media, and woefully inadequate education that panders to the need to be 'politically correct' (to save offending the odd bible-basher) instead of teaching our children true moral responsibility, compounded by the fact that some parents are simply incapable of bringing up well-balanced, responsible, and mature young adults.

In fact, some parents are a pro-choice argument in themselves!

SAD -

quote:

---

So what WH and others are saying is that it's ok to do whatever you want to a living thing that can't fight for its rights or protest them.

---

First of all, this living thing is a PART of a woman's body. Obviously you can't seem to wrap your intellect around this fact.

Are you then suggesting, that one doesn't have rights over ones own body? You have not answered this question. Instead, you spew out your verbal diarrhea like a gospel.

The question here is indeed one that boils down to that - does one have rights and control over ones own body and is it moral to deny one this (assuming they are both cognitive and rational)?

I'll answer that one for you WS.

The answer is yes...and no. Everyone has a right to their own bodies, but they also have responsibilites as well. Just because it is your body, doesn't mean you have total jurisdiction over it.

For instance, fathers have a responsibility for their children and their family. That means that as a father, you have to make certain sacrifices to make the lives of your family better. You cannot wrack your body with alcohol, you cannot act on whims, you cannot do life threatening things anymore, because you are not your own. You belong to your family.

That is one instance, there are others. To reiterate, a soon-to-be-mommy's decisions do not effect only her. They effect everyone around her. It is not only the woman who should make the decision, it should be her whole family (father of the child, parents, grandparents...). Even if she could not take care of the child, maybe her family could. Besides, I have been told by both sides that an abortion is one of the most traumatic things a woman can do...

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

You see, the xian right , are all Higher Purpose Persons (HPP's for future refefence.).

They have the self-aggrandizing and totally erroneous belief, they have been put on this earth by their mythological god, for the purpose of spreading their own narrow-minded views far and wide. They believe they are perfectly justified in forcing these views on unbelievers. This is one of the reasons having Dumbya in the office he's in is so worrisome. He and Gid are cut from the same rotten cloth.

These people have been infiltrating the US government for decades if not longer. Remember Roe-vs Wade...they are determined to have this overturned and once again force desperate women into back alley's and rusty coat hangers.

These are not the acts of com-passionate xians.

Fortunately, there are a lot more xians who do not have such a draconian view of their faith and I suspect many of these also look upon the radical fanatics with fear and horror.

Well they should, if these fundamentalist uber-zealots ever gain sufficient sway, their more moderate brothers in xist will be among the first they come after.

Retroactive birth-control anyone?

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

SAD- what I think you are forgetting -or choosing to ignore- is that not everyone believes that the fetus is something that constitutes "life". How is it immoral to kill something that isn't alive? There are varying beliefs on when "life" begins.

Unless you have been there, you cannot know, or pretend to know what goes through the mind of a woman contemplating abortion. The cold statistics of the reasons women choose abortion do little to expand on the mindset, the heart of the reason. Have you ever tried to put a baby up for adoption where adoption services are lacking or questionable? Have you been 45 years old, long after you thought your birthing years were over and found yourself pregnant? Have you lived in a country where you are only allowed to have one child and through some error you found yourself pregnant and the penalties for birthing that child are severe?

Ultimately - what you have to understand is this: Regardless of whether or not abortion is legal - women will have them. Regardless of what your moral view of the issue is, women will continue to have abortions. If you want so much to protect the "life" of an unborn child - stop whining about how horrible women are that have abortions and get out there and honestly educate people on how to properly use birth control since you seem to think that is the root cause of it all.

If a woman does not see a reason to have an abortion, she won't have one. The fact that some of you pro-lifers out there seem to think this is a fun and carefree procedure just baffles me.

sonyafterdark & Gideon:

What I see in you posts basically boils down to "No, the woman does not by herself have the right to terminate her pregnancy", then you state reasons such as it's immoral according to god and similar, it's killing a living human beeing and so on.

Well, if the woman isn't allowed to choose, who should make that choice then?
You? A doctor? A politician? A priest? Someone else?
I'd really like to know...

Next, if we for the arguments sake accept that moral is defined by god, what about those that don't believe in god?
Should they accept morality such as it's defined by someone elses god?

Bhuddists, they don't believe in a christian god, they hold a completely different belief structure, should they conform to moral as defined by god?

With this reasoning we might as well take away voting rights for women as well, heck, if they cannot be trusted to make a choice that affects their body why should they be trusted with voting for presidency, or for that matter, why let them handle money, while we're at it, take a way their right to own things... Let's just say that they once again, belong to men...

We have spent a number of years developing a system where people are granted free will, should that be taken away?
/D

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

quote:

---

WebShaman: First of all, this living thing is a PART of a woman's body. Obviously you can't seem to wrap your intellect around this fact.

---

Not entirely true WebShaman. This living thing depends on a woman's body, and is inside of a woman's body, but it is not part of a woman's body as say a lung or a kidney. At the moment of conception when the sperm and the ovum come together to form a zygote, it becomes a genetically unique entity. Twenty-three chromosomes come from the ovum and twenty-three from the sperm. Hereafter, it has its own DNA structure, different from that of the ovum and the sperm, and is, from a scientific standpoint, biologically alive. Now if, as they say, DNA is the building blocks of life, then at this point in time, technically, this lifeform is human, quite separate and unique from the mother, in all respects.

quote:

---

Moon Dancer: Regardless of whether or not abortion is legal - women will have them. Regardless of what your moral view of the issue is, women will continue to have abortions.

---

Very true, and the same can be said of murder. If murder were legal, would there be more of them? Would people commit murder on a larger scale and with less thought to any personal responsibility or consequences taking another life might entail? Legal or not, abortions will be performed, this is fact, but when something is legal with few limitations, convenience overwhelms and trumps actual necessity and all personal responsibility for ones actions, in this case intercourse, which from a natural standpoint serves only one purpose, are erased. What kind of world would this be without consequences for ones actions?

Anyways, what I am wondering from you pro-choice folks is this: How far into a pregnancy would you be willing to accept abortion before it becomes murder? Is the living being not to be considered human enough to be given basic human rights until it is born? Does partial-birth abortion give you any problems?

I'm just trying to decipher where we, as sentient and supposedly intelligent lifeforms, draw the line.

Ramasax

quote:

---

If murder were legal, would there be more of them? Would people commit murder on a larger scale and with less thought to any personal responsibility or consequences taking another life might entail?

---

I think asking someone who has killed another human being in the course of war would be better able to answer this question, where the act of killing another human is "legal". I would venture to guess that it is not something that is taken lightly - that the consequences and sense of personal responsibility weigh very heavily upon the soldiers.

It is only now because abortion is legal that we have any sense on the numbers that are occuring. We can only speculate how frequently abortions were performed before it became legal. To say that making it illegal would reduce the numbers (or make it feel any less wrong) is pure speculation.

To answer your other question Ramasax: I personally don't agree with "partial birth" abortions except in extraordinarily extreme circumstances. If the fetus is able to survive outside the womb with moderate medical intervention, that's where I would draw the line for myself. In the research I've done however, most abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy - well before that point.

Ram, is it attached to the body? Does it use the same blood supply? Can it survive outside of the body?

It doesn't matter how it got there, it is a PART of a woman's body, that uses the woman's body to grow until it is seperated, either by birth, by medical removal, abortion, natural causes, etc.

And unlike the father, the woman KNOWS that part of it is her own DNA.

quote:

---

The answer is yes...and no. Everyone has a right to their own bodies, but they also have responsibilites as well. Just because it is your body, doesn't mean you have total jurisdiction over it.

---

I never asked about responsibilities. And what you might consider responsibilities, another might not. Responsibilities are not cut in stone, you know.

One doesn't have "total jurisdiction" over their own body? Really?

Explain.

Look at it from this point of view, if removed from the body, how long will your kidney, for example, survive?

Extrapolate.

You can rationalize and justify your xian view all you like, but in the final analysis you cannot force those views on another person who does not share them.

Remember, xians are a diminishing number on the face of the earth if only due to the fact that you are being outbread.

Or is that the real reason you fear abortion?

One must repeat, it is her body, her decision.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

To see in the mind of a Christian:

A Christian's point of view is that our bodies are made by the creator to house our souls. Our viewpoint is that our bodies belong to God just as our heart, mind and souls should all belong to God. So, why should one think that believers should feel the body belongs to them and they can do with it as they choose? This is contrary to our teachings. As a human individual, we believe we are all created capable and culpable to determine our destination with all its complete facilities. But:

In Christian scripture it states:

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'

Here, Christ is speaking in hyperbole. He?s overstating and exaggerating to make a point. He does not intend to be understood literally. We believe God gave us our bodies and souls, eyes, ears, and all our members, our reason, and all our senses, and still takes care of them and to take care of what he has given us and that includes our bodies also. Our scriptures say, "you have been bought with a price, therefore glorify God with your body, 1 Corinthians 6.20 says. " How can I glorify God with my body if I use that body for evil purposes rather than as a vessel dedicated to the service of God" Romans 12.1-2 tells us this , I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. For believers the body is made for worship, not used to destroy life. We feel we must not be conformed to the trends and ideologies of this world that are contrary to our beliefs, but must be transformed by the renewal of the holy spirit, and in this we can discern what is good, acceptable and perfect towards the will of God.

So in the Christian moral conscienencess to support abortion is and should be considered a crime against humanity. We believe potential life in the womb is related to us in the spirit of God. How could we accept destroying what is part of us. Since we believe God fathers all creation, especially human life, the new spirit in the womb is our spiritual brethren. And to terminate this life affect us all in the spiritual. The act of abortion is indeed a personal act of a woman's choice. And she alone will suffer the consequences of her action. And along with the persons who assist, they will be accountable to the creator, but for us Christians to stand idle, look the other way and not say or do anything to prevent the act, we will also be accountable. Love for our fellow man dictates we walk the way of Christ. If Christ in his time, knew beforehand that a woman was going to terminate her pregnancy, would he try to prevent her from doing so? Yes. Christ would lovingly tell her not do the horrible act. So how can we not try to do the same thing.

(Edited by jade on 05-25-2005 21:43)

quote:

---

Moon Dancer: I personally don't agree with "partial birth" abortions except in extraordinarily extreme circumstances. If the fetus is able to survive outside the womb with moderate medical intervention, that's where I would draw the line for myself.

---

It is good to know there are some lines even for some of you pro-choicers.

quote:

---

Ram, is it attached to the body? Does it use the same blood supply? Can it survive outside of the body?

---

Yes, yes, and yes after 20 weeks and medical support, although scientific advance is lowering this number more and more.

Does this make it part of the woman's body? No. A part is defined as a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole. It is not a kidney, not a lung, not a liver, not a heart or something that makes up the whole of the woman. It's a separate, distinct entity in a symbiotic relationship with the mother, dependent, but not a part. With that relationship, as in any relationship, comes a responsibility.

Now I am not prepared to use force to make women not have abortions or be responsible, but I will never dissent from my observation that abortion is wrong, in a scientific, natural, and moral sense. I tolerate it only because, unfortunately, there is no other viable alternative short of coercion, and through the use of such tactics I would become much like the demon I despise.

Ehtheist: Still wrapped up in your pissing contest I see.

quote:

---

Jade: Christ would lovingly tell her not do the horrible act. So how can we not try to do the same thing.

---

And that is about all we can do.

Another disturbing thought that occurs to me about the abortion industry is that with the stem cell research beginning to take off, at what point do aborted fetuses become a commodity? To me this is extremely troubling and gives rise to a whole new, and quite disgusting, job market.

Ramasax

quote:

---

One must repeat, it is her body, her decision.

---

I fail to see how its her body.

As Ramasax has said the child is a seperate entity in a symbiotic relationship with the mother. The child is no more a part of her body then a 2 week old child who relies on a mother for sustenance.

Furthermore, if I was to place my hand on your head, point a gun at it and pull the trigger, would I be correct in assuming its my body, its my decision? I'm not sure if I completely understand the logic of that decision.

All these words of love echo the ministry of love; a veil for hatred.

Having your esoteric thoughts does not make you better than anyone else.

There is no right, there is no wrong, just as there is no up and no down.

Stop tyring to supplant your self onto the self of others. Your can not do that. It is impossible.

Your efforts only work to push your dirty thoughts into back alleys, where when their rear their ugly heads it comes in the form of decisive and even more abhorent realities. Ten year old girls pregnant. Babies in garbage cans. Addicts slashing your throat. Priests raping boys.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

the child is a seperate entity in a symbiotic relationship with the mother

---

Actually, for the record, the relationship would technically be referred to as parasitic, not symbioitc.

(please note the complete lack of opinion expressed in this post)

Yah Ram, lots of skunks here.

There is a lot more at issue here than mere abortion...if the foetus cannot live outside the body with the normal care and feeding a mother would normally provide, then why should it live? Why should heroic efforts be made to succor that which nature clearly did not intend to survive?

Think of the malformed or even those born without brains but which can be kept alive through modern medical science. What compassion is there for those? What sort of life can they look forward to?

Perhaps your god was pissed off by them in the womb and so he decided to make them suffer and so gave mankind science in order to enable this punishment?

Or perhaps they are re-incarnated sinners who must suffer for past offenses?

Jestah you only fail to see the obvious by dint of great effort and ideological blindness.

As well, your attempt at analogy is a total failure.

Look at it this way, supposing a religious group gained the sort of power the xian right is striving for in the US.

Now, one of the tenets of this faith is that men are inherently inferior to women.

So, most me are ritualistically and forcibly castrated, only a few are kept whole for breeding purposes.

You are a person who does not adhere to this faith, however, it becomes the law and suddenly you are a soprano...against your will.

Do you begin to see a: what an analogy is and b: what you would be forcing upon a woman who does not believe as you do?

Oh say, anyone got any stats or studies on the number of xian women have abortions every year in the states?

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Think of the malformed or even those born without brains but which can be kept alive through modern medical science. What compassion is there for those

---

Who determines that for a malformed human or retarted person in the womb ?

You? The courts? How can the courts & you play God on who gets to enter this world?
Should compassion dictate when a baby should be better off not entering into the world & better off dead? I would never presume to take it upon myself to determine this for anyone.

quote:

---

What sort of life can they look forward to?

---

What kind of life do you think a person should have in order for them to come into this world?

(Edited by jade on 05-25-2005 23:38)

Ehtheist, there's a whole lot of anti-religious rhetoric in your post but you've answered nothing. Should I take that as a sign that you're incapable of answering for yourself and you're just a blind sheep who follows what others tell him?

At what point do you consider something a separate entity? If you swallow a carrot for dinner tonight and it sits inside of your stomach, is that carrot now part of your body? If the child is removed from the womb and its DNA tested, will mother & child have identical DNA indicating that they are indeed the same entity?

Well gee Jestah, I have not exactly been shy about saying I was anti-religion.

At least, I am against all of those religious folks who would and are trying to force others to believe and act as they do.

I might come as a surprise to know I have xian friends, but they have a more broad-minded view of faith than what I see brandished about these pages.

You really don't have a grasp of analogy do you? If one took feces from one's body I beleieve dna of that person would be found there-in. So yours is a shitty comparison.

BTW, the comparison to sheep is far more often and more appropriately applied to the xian faith. "The flock", the "Good Shepherd", etc.

Most apropos too, considering how you all get fleeced.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Y'know, I don't recall any pro-choice folks being jailed for killing people who disagree with their point of view.

Some other reading:

http://my.execpc.com/~awallace/

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

*yawn*


Ramasax

And yet more anti-religious rhetoric but no answers to questions. Just for future reference my anti-abortion beliefs have little to do with religion as I'm not all that religious ...

"Yawn"? What Ram, re-reading your own empty rhetoric?

Look at the lovlies you are in bed with, that site has a plethora of them.

Perhaps your abortion views are not based on your religious views, but it sure sounds like the same rhetoric we here from all them 'right to lifers' who have no qualms about murdering people who disagree with them.

That pretty much puts you in the same camp.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

The embryo. It seems that we have a problem defining exactly what it is, and at what point it is what.

In the last thread on this subject, I explained my position on this pretty clearly.

I see the embryo as being a part of the Mother's body (it contains the Mother's DNA, is dependent on the Mother's body, and is attached to the Mother's body).

When it (the Embryo) advances to a point that Medical Technology can keep it alive and developing seperate from the Mother's body, then it should no longer be considered an Embryo (a part of the Mother's body) but instead a seperate human being, with all that that entails.

So, until Technology has advanced to a point where the egg can be fertilized and grown outside of the human body (independent of the womb), we need to respect the right of a Mother over her own body.

Irregardless of how one views the Embryo (part of, not part of, the Mother's body) the point still remains (and is largely being ignored by those against abortion) that until technology advances to a point where a Mother's body is not necessary for procreation, that a womb is a necessary part of procreation. And the womb is definitely a part of a woman's body. If the woman in question does not want an egg to attach to her womb (or one that is attached - an Embryo), then she should be able to decide that.

Ultmately you are going to be forced to keep you tapeworm as well.

Dan @ Code Town

WM, a tapeworm does not share your DNA. The Tapeworm was not produced by your own body, either.

And the Tapeworm can survive outside of a human body.

The two are not even comparable.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-26-2005 17:09)

Geez, the desperate analogies.

Seems to me WS, we have been fertilizing eggs ex-utero for some time, but I don't recall any evidence of an arrticificial placenta and womb, though I don't doubt they exist somewhere, in some secret facility. Doubtless churning out countless soul-less children to be-devil the xian right.

Of course, the religious will be against such a thing as well, as they oppose cloning and stem cells.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Of course, the religious will be against such a thing as well, as they oppose cloning and stem cells.

---

Ohhhh...good point!!!

Do any of the religious members of this Forum actually agree with this statement?

If they don't I am sure I can find plenty of evidence other xians do.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Ehtheist: Look at the lovlies you are in bed with, that site has a plethora of them.

---

Indeed, lots of misled people out there, but you know what, it might surprise you to know that there is violence on the other side as well. Or is that ok for those folks since they may not believe in a god? Hypocrisy comes in all shapes and sizes. Just because some idiots are out there giving my beliefs a bad name by going against the very thing they supposedly stand for does not put me in the same category as them.

Are all North Koreans bad because they have a loony in charge? Perhaps it is easier for you that way just to group people into classes and types, and if so, more power to you, but you could not be more wrong and that is how they, as in the social engineers and politicians who get rich off our sacrafices, like you to think. It helps cause division among the populace and gives them purpose and a job.

quote:

---

Ehtheist: Perhaps your abortion views are not based on your religious views, but it sure sounds like the same rhetoric we here from all them 'right to lifers' who have no qualms about murdering people who disagree with them.

---

I will fill you in. I was agnostic for many years and developed my opposition to abortion during that time. My faith has not changed my stance on this issue at all except to make me perhaps both less fervant and less prone to doing anything that would countermand my ideals and morality, not to mention, credibility, over.

quote:

---

WebShaman: I see the embryo as being a part of the Mother's body (it contains the Mother's DNA, is dependent on the Mother's body, and is attached to the Mother's body).

---

See it however you want, it does not make it so.

The embryo does not contain the mother's DNA, but it's own distinct DNA, derived from a combination of both the mother and father. It is a separate entity, again, dependent, but not a part.

quote:

---

WebShaman: And the womb is definitely a part of a woman's body. If the woman in question does not want an egg to attach to her womb (or one that is attached - an Embryo), then she should be able to decide that.

---

Sure, she should be able to decide that. Here is how: Don't get pregnant. Don't want to get pregnant, don't take the risk of becoming pregnant. Can't handle life without promiscuous sex, get on birth control pills and use alternative protection. There are a plethora of ways to be safe, and nobody says you only have to use one. Life is about risk, in almost everything important we do. Take the risk, deal with the consequences that the risk entails. I am sure that most people who have heterosexual relations are fully aware of the possible outcome in doing so.

Rape, incest, and other extraneous circumstances out of the control of the woman excluded of course, but if you make a decision which carries a risk, again, deal with it, don't expect someone else to come in and clean up your mess. Life without consequences teaches people nothing. If we don't learn from our mistakes, we don't grow, and if we don't grow, we are doomed as both individuals and as a species.

quote:

---

Do any of the religious members of this Forum actually agree with this statement?

---

To be honest, I have not researched such topics enough to be able to take sides. When I was rooting for the Republicans I was against stem cell research, but only based on their rhetoric, and I have since purged myself of that. Since then I have not gotten around to actual research.

I do have negative feelings regarding cloning and meddling with God's creation, which you might refer to as the natural order of things, but my biggest fear is the possibility of giving rise to super-strains of diseases and fun stuff like that. I equate it to a child with matches in a field of dry grass, unaware of the possible side-effects of his or her actions.

As far as whether clones have souls, of course they do.


Ramasax

quote:

---

Sure, she should be able to decide that. Here is how: Don't get pregnant. Don't want to get pregnant, don't take the risk of becoming pregnant.

---

Oh, yeah, that is a solution

Problem is, IT DOES NOT WORK!

That is the WORST form of Birth Control there is and that has been proven, time and time again. The urge to procreate is much more powerful than any logical restraint.

And if only those women who are being raped, etc are then allowed to have a legal abortion, then I can see the rape accusation rate exploding. I think those MEN who are suggesting various "fixes" for abortion need to understand that the choice is sometimes a very, very desperate one - and they will even risk their own lives, and the ability of their body to reproduce, to have an abortion.

As usual, the symptom, and not the cause, is being addressed here.

Why do women become pregnant? Becasue procreation a Primal Drive is. Nature WILL find a way.
Why do women then abort? One needs to look at the social and economic pressures that the woman in question is in, to understand this better. I won't even start with the religious implications.

Ram, I look forward to your evidence of violence from the so-called "pro-choice" side.

Nice to see how you have rationalized everything, but as WES has observed, not very realistically, merely conveniently.

The 'abstain' argument was worn out before you were born, but the faithful were never ones to learn from history.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

There is no need for the pro-choice side to resort to violence because they have the law on their side. I have no doubt that if the law were reversed tomorrow you would see violence coming from your side of this debate as well. It is also important to note that only an extreme minority of individuals who are pro-life have resorted to such measures and they have been thouroughly denounced by the pro-life movement.

Here we have science being slighted by the rational among us, Eh? Is it not a scientific fact that fetuses are distinct human life with their own individual DNA? Regardless of how you think society should legislate, we are talking about killing that life once it has begun. Can we all agree on that? This is not a question of belief as Moon Dancer suggested above, but a question of accepting scientific truth.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

we are talking about killing that life once it has begun. Can we all agree on that?

---

Errr.... probably not since we can't seem to agree on when life actually begins...

And Ramasax, right back at ya

quote:

---

See it however you want, it does not make it so.

---

/D

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

Been away from computers for a few days and it looks like things have been in full swing. Just glanced back across a couple of things:

Partial-birth abortion? I think that's taking things a little too far, and you know it too. The line we're looking for is a lot more grey, and this is where the argument springs - where does life begin? I don't think anybody can argue that your example wasn't beyond the line. It doesn't actually achieve anything to make that point.

Baby part of the mother? This is something that I see as being arguable either way. A foetus does not share the blood supply of it's mother (look up placenta) but, up to a point, is entirely reliant on sustenance from the mother to support life and growth, and its development (not to offend) is something more like that of a parasitic infestation than an internal organ. Somewhere here, I think this argument relies on the previous argument for validation. At some point, this foetus is no longer entirely dependent upon its mother's sustenance and can no longer really be considered so much 'a part of her', but until then, the argument is valid and the analogy true enough (IMO).

And, Bugimus, I think that until there is a definitive line drawn to determine the point at which life begins, then I cannot agree, generally, that it is murder. Perhaps it is at much later stages in the pregnancy (as above) but where do we all agree on that? I certainly don't consider something any more alive than a vegetable if it has no higher brain function.

I'll just stick with what WebShaman has had to re-iterate once again, seeing as it has to be constantly re-covered. There will always be abortions, and the argument isn't that abortions would still occur, but that they would be sought in unsafe, unsanitary conditions, and with no real professional help in the event that something should go wrong.

Also, what sort of moron still thinks it is possible for everybody to just stop having sex? If that seems like a viable solution to anybody, then they houldn't be trying to argue with grown-ups.

What can be changed is the popular attitude towards sex, and advocation of the use of contraceptives - but those who argue that people shouldn't have sex are usually the ones ensuring greater risks by arguing against the use of protection and decent education (yet they haven't been able to do anything about inappropriate material in every other way, eh).

Somebody, somewhere, is always going to want sex - and the day that person is the last on the planet then all humanity is doomed. There are more practical arguments - most actually reflecting a realistic acceptance of human impulse and compulsion.

And blimey - I had so much more I wanted to type, but I do so get put-off by Bible recitals. I thought we'd already been through all this?
Perhaps the rest of the world (the free-thinking, self-aware, and personally responsible, perhaps) should just give-in and become religious too so that we don't have these stupid arguments any more - no need to worry about personal culpability any more, because it's not your choice. but God's, according to God-knows-who, who lived thousands of years ago(and that's final)! Won't life be so much easier?

Now, just which cult should I join, eh? Dammit - decisions, decisions... gah!

==Why is it when we talk to God, it's called praying
- but when God talks to us, it's called paranoid schizophrenia?!==

quote:

---

DmS said:

Errr.... probably not since we can't seem to agree on when life actually
begins...

---

Don't you mean to say that we don't agree on when human life should be protected by law? I am speaking about what science has already proven, not about opinion. Saying we don't know when life begins is like saying we don't know whether the earth is flat or spherical.

WH, I think it is very important to distinguish between the biological and psychological realities involved with this issue from how we as a society will write laws regulating them. It is so often equated, especially in this thread that I think it detracts from a good understanding of what we're dealing with.

There are plenty of people who fully acknowledge that abortion is killing but support it anyway. I can respect the honesty of a position like that but what really gets under my skin are people who have bought in to all the propoganda (either side) and haven't done the math, so to speak. Cliches like "a woman should be able to do what she wants with her own body" and "abortion is murder" are usually (I said usually!) uttered by those who haven't thought through the issue, IMO.

[edit]
[aside]
I recently bought a whole bunch of Dr. Seuss books to read to my little girl and we read "Horton Hears A Who!" last night. The whole story was about an elephant who hears the voices of these little people living on a speck of dust that no one else can hear. The rest of the jungle wants to destroy the little speck of dust and all the little "who"s that live there because they can't hear them and don't believe the elephant. And all through the story, Horton the elephant defends them from harm as he maintains, "a person's a person, no matter how small"! It was hard not thinking about this thread as I read that
[/aside]
[/edit]

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-28-2005 01:41)

We weep for the bird's cry, but not for the blood of a fish. Blessed are those who have voice.

ehh if only plants could say "ouch, that freaking hurt" , buggimus would surely starve to death

quote:

---

There is no need for the pro-choice side to resort to violence because they have the law on their side. I have no doubt that if the law were reversed tomorrow you would see violence coming from your side of this debate as well.

---

Uhhh...I don't see it. In fact, this is blatantly wrong, Bugs. The US USED to be against abortion - I didn't see violence being used by "pro-choicers" back then...how would one then change things with violence? And violence against whom? No, that just doesn't make sense. You can't commit violence against an idea (Law). There are no human targets to target!!

Pro-lifers usually resort to violence because they have human targets (those Doctors and clinics doing abortions).

quote:

---

Don't you mean to say that we don't agree on when human life should be protected by law? I am speaking about what science has already proven, not about opinion. Saying we don't know when life begins is like saying we don't know whether the earth is flat or spherical.

---

Well, the line should be drawn at what point the fetus can survive outside of the woman's body safely. This line will become narrower and narrower as Science makes advances in the medical area(s).

Eventually, it will become a mute point. A woman that does not wish to bear a child, will be able to give the embryo up, and it will be concieved in an artificial womb.

Maybe you pro-lifers should concentrate your energies on acheiving this, instead of killing doctors and clinic personel, donating huge sums of money to parties that "promise" to change things, and stygmatizing women who feel a NEED to abort.

Or is that also against your beliefs?

Probably.

I might be wrong about that, sure. We'll just have to see. I seriously doubt abortion will ever be banned outright, but we certainly may see it become far more restricted in the future. And was there a "pro-choice" movement before Roe v Wade? I'm not sure the lines had been drawn quite that distinctly at the time.

Giving up the embryo removing the need for abortion? We have heard opinions stated by members of this forum that they would rather have abortions than to offer their children up for adoption, so I don't think that will change with the advent of new technology. Nope, new technology will simply present new moral challenges as new ways to harm ourselves become available to us.

This is, and has always been, a fight to educate people on how to not harm one another. That is why I don't like focusing on where the legal line is drawn nearly as much as whether the act in question will hurt or build up healthy human relationship. Abortion is inherently harmful, not just to the fetus, and I think it should be reserved for dire situations. I find the fact that it has become a method of birth control to be barbaric and savage, yet we think so highly of our society compared to those two adjectives.

Over 90% of abortions are done for convenience...

quote:

---

Moon Dancer cited:

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

---

[edit]
...and I agree pro life efforts could be far better focused on supporting pregnancy care clinics and advocating adoptions and loving those faced with very difficult life decisions. That is why part of my giving supports a local pregnancy care clinic and I would hope more would do the same. Supporting life takes far more than protesting abortuaries and I know that many pro lifers are not willing to acknowledge that with their own resources.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-28-2005 17:35)

quote:

---

And was there a "pro-choice" movement before Roe v Wade? I'm not sure the lines had been drawn quite that distinctly at the time.

---

I honestly do not know.

Nor does it really matter if there was, or not.

Fact is, women throughout history have found and tried ways of aborting children. Obviously there must be very strong drives for doing so, because of the various penalties and risks for doing such at various times, periods, etc.

I imagine that the "Pro-Choice" movement, if Abortion gets repealed, will protest alot. But how in the hell could they even attempt to use violence to accomplish their goals? How does one change a Law with violence? Who are the human targets?

Makes absolutely no sense to me to even CONSIDER attempting to use violence in such a case. Ridiculous. It would accomplish nothing.

Surely, Bugs, you must realize this.

As a Pro-Lifer, killing a Doctor (or someone at an Abortion clinic) sends a message - practice this, and you may be killed. It establishes fear.

Sounds just like terrorism, doesn't it?

Pro-Choicers wouldn't have women and doctors to attack. I'm quite puzzled by the dichotomy of Pro-Lifers taking lives. Now that the word terrorism has been brought into, it does seem to ring true.

quote:

---

I imagine that the "Pro-Choice" movement, if Abortion gets repealed, will protest alot. But how in the hell could they even attempt to use violence to accomplish their goals? How does one change a Law with violence? Who are the human targets?

---

The women and girls getting back room abortions.

quote:

---

Don't you mean to say that we don't agree on when human life should be protected by law? I am speaking about what science has already proven, not about opinion. Saying we don't know when life begins is like saying we don't know whether the earth is flat or spherical.

---

That's not entirely true. We know when conception occurs but the question of "what is life" is a philosophical one. Microorganisms and indivdual cells are in essence "alive" but whether their existance is a "life "is a philosophical issues at the core of this debate.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

quote:

---

The women and girls getting back room abortions.

---

Could you maybe expand on this? Why would this be Pro-Choicers doing violence to further their cause?

In the second trimestre, when the brain starts developing, the heart rate goes down, gradually, as the cerebral cortex begins taking over control of body functions. This is, thus, a good indication of when a brain has developed enough for us to be able to call the foetus a human being. At least in my opinion it is.

Later in the second trimestre motor functions begin developing. The foetus starts kicking and grasping motions. Later the eyelids begin opening and shutting even though it is blind.

Many more indications of brain function and, eventually, sentience follow in later stages of development.

I believe sentient life is what pro-choicers take for actual live. Dying from Malaria or E.coli is like dying from a solar flare to them, mayhaps.

Anyway, at some stage of development or another, you just have to call it like it is: infanticide. It is merely a barbaric and savage manifestation of selfishness, criminal indifference and the harsh economics of family planning. Convenience through and through.

(Edited by sonyafterdark on 05-30-2005 08:54)

You still have not provided a valid argument as to why a woman should NOT have choice over her own body.

quote:

---

Dying from Malaria or E.coli is like dying from a solar flare to them, mayhaps.

---

Not a very smart way to argue a point, really. That is just an ignorant statement.

From the tone in your post, it would seem as though you are attempting to occupy the "high" ground, by "reducing" pro-choicers to unfeeling, savage barbarians. That is an ancient propaganda that many peoples and lands used to justify killing others.

It is also an emotional appeal, that is an attempt to diverge the discussion in an emotional direction, away from the actual point - and that is one of choice.

Terribly nihilistic, WS. I am just making the mistake of putting heart and soul into expressing my beliefs and opinions. Not unlike others, of either side.

And what do you mean by ignorant? Malaria and E.coli are not viruses, as far as I know. And they're not sentient either, also as far as I know. Perhaps you have a master's degree in microbiology, or something, and know better.

About the pro-choice side resorting to voilence to further their cause should a ban be legislated upon abortion...

Their very cause is violence. Against some of the most defenceless and unrepresented people of all.

And about religion being the main cause the pro-life side advocates a ban...

Regardless of religion or personal beliefs, this is a heinous crime and an infringement of fundamental human rights and liberties. The right to life. These have nothing to do with your or my believing in God or not, has it?

But, for the people being obsessed with 'the heinous evils of religion perpetrated upon humanity throughout human existance as a species', everything is to be blamed on religion and whatever 'religion infected' people do or say one should do and say the opposite, for no real or other reason at all. Merely for the sake of elightened, intelligent and free-thinking argument, of course. As if the Bible fires Howitzers or the New Testament says: 'kill jews, arabs and pagans and ye shall have eternal life'. Quite the opposite.

How can anyone have the nerve to advocate taking the lives of others (children, mind you) as someone's personal right and freedom to do while feeling and knowing theirself perfectly safe is a measure of the character (or lack of it) of such people. People who don't give a damn that they're killing their children or others' (like 'doctors' and staff at your friendly local human abattoir).

'Perhaps people should see their unborn child after it's been done away with. I think it should be mandatory. Let everyone see the consequences of their (and other's) actions lying dismembered (sometimes decerebrated) in a trash bin.'

Homo homini lupus. Some people make me sick.

'Leave not but the shadow you cast on the earth as memory of the righteousness of your life in this world!'

La vie humaine manque ainsi en valeur dans cet age moderne...

(Edited by sonyafterdark on 05-30-2005 09:43)

e.coli is a bacteria

malaria is a disease caused by parasites destroying red blood cells.

What's your point?

^Exactly.

That is why I posted

quote:

---

quoteying from Malaria or E.coli is like dying from a solar flare to them, mayhaps.



Not a very smart way to argue a point, really. That is just an ignorant statement.

---

It is just an ignorant statement (especially when one considers the rest of the post, and the context in which it was written).

What is the point?

Test

Hi, it is me Etheist...had some problems logging on so had to re-register. Just didn't want any mis-understanding.

Let us also recall that the operative word in "pro-choice" is "Choice".

We who support that view agree the woman has a "choice''.

Either have the baby or abort it.

The seriously mis-named "Pro-lifers", would remove that opportunity from the individual, a violation of human rights. They don't want her to have a 'choice'.

Terrorist is a perfectly apt description of the 'pro-life' movement. Snipers, bombs are exactly the tools terrorists use.

It is her body, her choice.

It seems that protection of the human rights of the foetus is the issue for pro-lifers, and not the human rights of the would-be mother. Perhaps the argument could be made that the potential complication of the woman's future is worth less than the life (and human rights) of the foetus, which would be fair to argue... if it wasn't for the fact that the moment the 'life' becomes 'human' is in contention.

I sadly note that SAD has degenerated into exhibiting a millitant pro-life attitude and has begun imparting his disgust at an imagined crime. So be it - the thread was started with a SAD question and SAD has answered it, at least from a SAD point of view.

Funny how like a raving terrorist the millitant pro-lifer seems. I'm more convinced than ever now.

Totally pointless and odd question, I know, but would SAD support the abortion of a foetus if it was destined to become an abortionist in later life itself? Not sure if that is even relevant, but it might shed light on the relationship between the value of life itself, and the actions of the owner of that life - seeing as it appears tolerable to under-value the lives of those who are pro-choice. Perhaps, if it were possible to know, a pro-lifer might advocate abortion of any foetus that might grow into an abortionist (or an aborting 'mother')? Or (again assuming prescience) should abortion be perpetuated by allowing these vile people to live?

As I stated before, this debate has helped to polarise me on this issue. Having read more from SAD, I'm getting farther and farther from any doubts I might have had.

I second that, emphatically: Her Body. Her Choice.

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-31-2005 21:35)

of course it is. you're killing a large cluster of cells when you abort. that is like, a living being.
And women, ah women. I'll be diverging, but they are definitely on the top ten of the mammals most directed for reproduction. One must be careful when analysing the status of these walking sperm retrievers, naturally stupid on a level that cant be explained to them. One may be cold, but if you follow these two simple rules you girls may avoid abortion.

1 Don't fuck.

2 If you can't avoid it and get pregnant:
- kill yourself;
- if you were raped try to kill the bastards and then kill yourself;
- if the baby is naturally deformed, it means one of your ancestors raped his sister, you have bad genes, kill yourself.

(Edited by Arthemis on 06-01-2005 02:32)

Well, the xian right has weighed in again.

Any other troglodytes out there?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I am a little confused as to how you read that as being from the christian right?

i could of course throw at you my references in the study of science, namely in the fields of statistics, neo-darwinism and pro-creacionism.
i could then switch to the parallel between the view taken in religions and society. then from a historic perspective i would extrapolate a vectorial conclusion and integrate it in the scientific arguments.
i could then go specific and show you why human females are weird beings, using crossed inductions and deductions, mainly from an evolutionary point of view.
i could then point it out as a transitional stage, resorting again to the vectorial conclusion. finally i would point out where the fault of all these arguments is.
would explain you about the dicotomy within the entropy definition, this time using a historical evolutionary argument. Then would relate it to the life definition.
This would then leave, after a conflict with your current synapse conformation, a very thin road of thought. Followed, it will lead to only a handful of acceptable ideas on the word abortion. but you would most certainly then not trust anyone's judgement ever again.


but of course, this wont happen. to explain you these things, requires too much, specially if one has only a keyboard to use. the internet is not for educating.


edit: and you're all probably stupid females anyway, mwahaha

(Edited by Arthemis on 06-01-2005 03:07)

Why would I think it a xian view?

"Deuteronomy 2:34 We... utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.
Numbers 31:17 Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
Hosea 13:16 They've rebelled against God... their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women
ripped open".

Seems to be precedence...if you believe that book of myths.

Though I really think Arthemis is a Logorrheaic Troll having a bit of fun with us, the language he uses in his first post is very red-neck, anti-female and reflecticve of the view many xian cults hold of women as being there strictly for the pleasure of men, the bearing of sons and keeping he kitchen well.

Perhaps not you personally Bug, but you certainly have to admit this reflects the history of xianity quite accurately.

That there are other religions with equal disdain for women is admitted, but we are pretty much discussing NA xianity here.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Subject: A Great Reminder

A man was being tailgated by a stressed-out woman on a busy boulevard. Suddenly, the light turned yellow, just in front of him. He did the right thing, stopping at the crosswalk, even though he could have beaten the red light by accelerating through the intersection.
The tailgating woman hit the roof, and the horn, screaming in frustration as she missed her chance to get through the intersection with him.
As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and looked up into the face of a very serious police officer. The officer ordered her to exit her car with her hands up. He took her to the police station where she was searched, fingerprinted, photographed, and placed in a cell.
After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened the door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the arresting officer was waiting with her personal belongings.
He said, "I'm very sorry for this mistake. You see, I pulled up behind your car while you were blowing your horn, flipping the guy off in front of you, and cussing a blue streak at him. I noticed the 'Choose Life' license plate holder, the 'What Would Jesus Do' bumper sticker, the 'Follow Me to Sunday School' bumper sticker, and the chrome-plated Christian fish emblem on the trunk. Naturally, I assumed you had stolen the car."

---

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I was always of the opinion that Arthemis was a woman, D.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Second, I think that Arthemis' first post was just a tad sarcastic - but that may come from years of posts here at the Asylum.

In any event, I cannot imagine that Arthemis is part of the Xian right.

Again, I could be wrong.

*shrugs*

My bent brain....

The 'radical element' within the pro-lifer movement - those who injure, wound and kill people within the pro-choice movement via - bomings of abortion clinics - shooting Doctors and so on... this radical element practices, when they kill someone.. a 'Post' Full term abortion.

The merely injured and wounded have undergone a 'Post Partial Full term abortion.'

The children of women - who have carried to term being 'aborted' by the children of yet other women who also carried to term. How bloody wonderful is that?!

Of course 'Goverments' of all stripes and particularly those professing to having a god of some description on their side - run the biggest 'Post' full term abortion clinics in history. It's called war.

So I would urge all pro-lifers, from radical to merely fervent to, garner support from all the Mothers who've had their children aborted in war and make {B]that[/B] the issue.

When you stop that abortion clinic we'll talk about what's going on in the womb.

The point is that the pro-choice definition of live is conveniently superficial and ignorant.

And no White Hawk, I would not endorse such a thing.

Nor do I condone violence against abortion clinics' staff and at no time during this post have I ever 'incited' to this.

This blunt attack is but a shallow way of painting me some crazed terrorist because of my supposedly hateful, when in fact pathetic, rhetoric. Quite SAD, really... Perhaps labelling me (and those who feel the same on this matter) as such eases the strain on conscience. All pro-lifers are religion driven freaks, right?... Quite...

I've just completed downloading SciLab 3.0; after already having got FreeMat 1.10.

I believe the right to free speach (within common sense and decency boundaries) is inherent to all democratic societies, isn't it?

About tackling wars before we go anywhere near banning abortion. There people that condemnd war, murder, and violence in general. This is by no means the only thing anyone has their panties in a knot about.

quote:

---

The point is that the pro-choice definition of live is conveniently superficial and ignorant.

---

Blocks are mine

Could you maybe expand on that? Ignorant implies that we (Pro Choice) do not know about the definition of "live". Is this what you are implying?

Convieniently superficial?

Hardly.

quote:

---

This blunt attack is but a shallow way of painting me some crazed terrorist because of my supposedly hateful, when in fact pathetic, rhetoric.

---

Well SAD, glad to see you admit it with those last 4 words.

What you fundamentalist zealots love to, do is claim your right to free speech is infringed when anyone opposes youtr narrow-minded point of view.

This is an attempt at diverting the discussion from the point, which is; while you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to force that opinion upon others.

It is this last statement which you all adamantly refuse to accept.

It is her body, her choice.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Well put Diogenes (a.k.a Etheist?) - the point, ultimately, is not whether it is widely accepted as moral or immoral, but whether anyone's opinion on this actually means anything in the grand scheme of things...

...coming back to the earlier argument that whether moral or not, it has to be legal. If it were not, it would still be sought/performed (as it has always been) and with consequences far worse than the flushing of a cluster of cells that may (or may not) be considered "life".

So the initial question, again, is redundant.

Moral or not:

Her body. Her Choice i.e.- "nobody else's"!

...and I think Arthemis was simply having a laugh. From the appalling type and meaningless babble of her? second post, I'd guess, possibly, bored pre-teen without a dictionary or spell-checker... teehee

Yup, Etheist...I posted the fact on another thread, had sign-in problems-refused to recognize my password, so had to re-register.

You are absolutley right.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

What sense of morals, Etheist? I don't think you have one.

Wow! Compelling argument SAD...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz....

Yah, I am crushed.

She clearly has no understanding of what Asimov said.

This comment from a 'woman?' who's idea of morality is to force others to live by somone elses narrow-minded beliefs based upon mythological beings and a collection of discredited old shepherd's tales.

Typical hypocrisy by those infected with religion.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Etheist, must be so cool quoting people all the time in sigs... How original!
Have you even read any of Asimiv's stuff?

And how am I even remotely hypocritical? Please expand.

Also, I'd wish you'd stop with the 'those infected with religion' cr*p. Lest I be forced to label you integrally brain dead, in return.

The day when we stop committing the most violent act against a defenseless human person in the womb, is when we as a society will begin to become a more peaceful loving society. When we show and teach young children (the future earthly decedents) that murdering life in the womb is OK, this gives them an ideology that persons are not as important in their individual make up to society.
On the course we are at now, in terms of the quality of life, we determine decisions on who's life is worth living in regard to the human embryo, the living sick and the elderly. Human potential in the womb are treated as mere expendables. And I think when present & future generations are taught that life in the womb is a worthless piece of human tissue, herein lies the problems in degeneration of society, and the moralities. The dignity of man is demoralized. So to me that's why we have so many crimes committed by young children, teens and young adults. Our schools are filled with crime. Look at Columbine. We have and will have more acts committed against humans when these persons enter society as adults. They believe, why treat persons with respect and dignity? Only when we teach our young that life in its very beginnings is priceless, sacred and matters to the living, then they will understand the meaning of life in its protection in the womb.

If your a believer in God who is the designer and sustainer of life, we know he sends us for a reason. I believe the one chosen to find the cure for cancer could of been long ago aborted or will be aborted. We must teach our children who use to be embryos themselves that they must be embryo friendly at all cost.

Jade, your last paragraph shocks me, I didn't think we had such similar beliefs, it really caught me off guard. I too believe that abortion is the reason we do not have a cure for cancer. My idea has a slight difference, I think that the person who would have found/will find the cure was/will be shot to death by a person who should have been aborted. Shocking the similarities in our thinking.

Dan @ Code Town

WM. That means you believe the innocent life is already found guilty in the womb before he arrives, therefore it should be terminated?

I found this artilce interesting regarding fetal protection. She wanted to have an aboriton. She can't be prosecuted, but he can. Does this make sense??

June 7, 2005, 6:13AM

Life sentence given for fetuses' deaths
Boyfriend found guilty under new fetal protection law
Associated Press

LUFKIN - An East Texas man accused of causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry twins by stepping on her belly was convicted Monday of two counts of capital murder.

ADVERTISEMENT

Gerardo Flores, 19, who was prosecuted under the state's new fetal protection law, received an automatic life sentence.

Erica Basoria acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy, but the 17-year-old can't be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion.

The defense contended that Basoria punched herself while Flores was stepping on her, making it impossible to tell who killed the twins.

The jury reached a verdict after deliberating four hours. Since prosecutors declined to seek the death penalty in the case, Flores received the automatic life sentence, Assistant District Attorney Art Bauereiss said. The facts were unusual, but the evidence supported a guilty finding, Bauereiss told The Lufkin Daily News.

He said Basoria's family was pleased with the jury's decision, but Basoria, who sobbed as she left the Angelina County Courthouse, had stood by Flores. "It's just tragedy all around," Flores' attorney Ryan Deaton told The Associated Press. "It's a tragedy my client's convicted, I've got nothing good to say about it."

Basoria told authorities that, after about four months of pregnancy, she regretted not getting an abortion and started jogging, skipping prenatal vitamins and hitting her own belly to induce a miscarriage. When her efforts failed, she said she asked her boyfriend to help.

Flores admitted in a taped statement to police that he stepped on Basoria's belly several times the week before she miscarried two boys. He said he punched her during a fight hours before the delivery.

(Edited by jade on 06-07-2005 20:40)

SAD I have read pretty much everything of Asimov's, except his hi-brow scientific stuff which is way beyond my simple mind.

He had an extremely high intellect and was an aetheist.

If you are incapable of seeing your hypocrisy, then you will be incapable of understanding my expplanation of it.

Label me as you wish, it will make no impression upon me.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Conveniently superficial or or just plain ignorant. My mistake.

Your arrogance is unfathomable, Etheist. And you seem to have trouble differenciating between individual people and large collectives or society as a whole.

Anyway, we each owe a death and it will most certainly show who was right, no? About God, I mean. Though, if you are right, nobody will exist to give a damn.

Let's prosecute our unborn for crimes they might never commit, find them guilty (by/of inconvenience) and sentence them to death, right?

Quite a point of view, White Hawk, I must say. All democratic and fair like. And experimenting ob human embryos is not THE ONLY WAY TO CURE CANCER.

Because of people like you and Etheist there will, some day, be organ factories that breed human lifestock (clones) for spare parts. You know, things that can't be grown individually or need the oversight of a functioning brain to develop properly. Things like hearts, lungs, etc. It is one thing to grow a bloody year to paste on the back of a mouse and quite another to grow these...

(Edited by sonyafterdark on 06-08-2005 10:15)

quote:

---

Conveniently superficial or or just plain ignorant. My mistake.

---

I accept your apology and applaud your self analysis.

No, you will not know when you die, nor will I for there is no knowing oblivion.

quote:

---

Let's prosecute our unborn for crimes they might never commit, find them guilty (by/of inconvenience) and sentence them to death, right?

---

Boy, what typical contentious clap-trap. But have it your way, be you superficial or just plain ignorant. I vote for the latter my-self.

I sincerely hope you are right in that we will soon have organ banks growing needed replacements.

It will slow or end the current heinous practice of harvesting same from living donors, be they willing or not, popular in some of the more populous and less caring parts of this earth.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Seems, WS, we ain't getting answers to that question. Yours is, of course, correct.

Another case of the individual's choice.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

(Edited by Diogenes on 06-09-2005 19:32)

quote:

---

Quite a point of view, White Hawk, I must say. All democratic and fair like. And experimenting ob human embryos is not THE ONLY WAY TO CURE CANCER.

---

Eh?!? *looks back over his previous posts*
I think you should try reading t-h-e w-o-r-d-s I write, rather than the ones you obviously see. As for curing cancer, I think, currently, that there IS NO WAY TO CURE CANCER yet, so that was a pointless statement.

quote:

---

Because of people like you and Etheist there will, some day, be organ factories that breed human lifestock (clones) for spare parts. You know, things that can't be grown individually or need the oversight of a functioning brain to develop properly. Things like hearts, lungs, etc. It is one thing to grow a bloody year to paste on the back of a mouse and quite another to grow these...

---

Exciting times!

I was deliberately taking a back seat for the last week or so - but I've realised that without considerable and significant input, my previous arguments and statements are simply being twisted out of any resemblance to my meaning.

I'll be back...

Unfortunately and very sadly, the smellfungi and mumpisimi of the religious world are far more dedicated to not seeing their cherished myths defenestrated than they are to seeing peoples lives saved or extended by medical advances.

One thinks immediately of organ's being able to be grown and of course stem cells, which hold such promise for people paralyzed due to nerve damage.

The latter being a more immediate possibility than the formers of course.

Fundamenatlist zealotism is a very sorry aspect of human existance.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Rats with broken spines have regained use of legs after stem cell implants. Something like 90% use of limbs or something.

Almost a decade ago, a scientist managed to grow tadpoles without heads.

As far as I know, frozen cell, embryonic or otherwise, are not viable. That is, too much damage to be alive again. Once cells are frozen, they are dead due to ice crystals. They get freezer burn or whatever you want to call it.

Sony:

quote:

---

Let's prosecute our unborn for crimes they might never commit, find them guilty (by/of inconvenience) and sentence them to death, right?

---

Sony, I don't know if you are Christian or not. If you are, I find it odd that you would say something like that considering Original Sin and other similiar things in the Holy Bible. The whole idea of 'the sins of the father being visited apon the child' is rather odd in general. But I don't know if you are Christian or not.

I think that was actually his answer to a question I posed earlier; taking into consideration the dichotomy of 'pro-life' supporters taking life in protest (terrorism) - by bombing abortion clinics and generally (often violently) persecuting women and doctors, and women, and young women, and pregnant women, and doctors... and did I metion violence against women?

I was thinking that they could rid themselves of these evil, awful, godless heathens (who don't deserve to live) by aborting them in the first place. If it were actually possible to know before the fact that a cluster of cells might develop into a being that aborts clusters of cells that might grow to become people who don't abort clusters of cells that might grow to become people... (deep breath) ...then perhaps they could simply abort that cluster of cells, so saving a hell of a lot of clusters of cells that deserve to live... or something.

But I digress. The point is that SAD was responding with (I think) sarcasm - while also completely misreading my meaning (which was none-too-clear, TBH) and throwing in something against something else that I have no recollection of expressing, but which does bring to the table a whole new area of debate - which nonetheless has little to do with (though possibly tenuously related) the subject of the thread.

So, stem cells.....

quote:

---

think that was actually his answer to a question I posed earlier; taking into consideration the dichotomy of 'pro-life' supporters taking life in protest (terrorism) - by bombing abortion clinics and generally (often violently) persecuting women and doctors, and women, and young women, and pregnant women, and doctors... and did I metion violence against women

---

I think that when you really think about this, its the person in the womb who cannot defend itself, speak or cry out to stop its persecution. At least the mothers, doctors, etc have a chance to run and hide. Where can the infant go? Its trapped in the mother's womb.

A plea from the unborn:

I have been condemned to death because there is a law tht helps my parents. On the basis of that law my parents and their doctors believe they are allowed to kill me. They wash their hands in innocence as if they could wash off guilt with water and disregard a divine law. They sentence me to physical death. My only guilt is that I am unwanted, as if I chose to force myself on my parents. The truth is that they are the ones who gave me life. The do not want to take on my burden on themselves. I am much weaker than my parents. I can't even stand up yet. I cannot defend myself either. Hitting me isn't enough. They have to destroy me. Only then can they be satisfied. I'd rather be hit, or beaten than destroyed. But only when they have totally destroyed me are they satisfied. I have no mother who cries over me or protects me. Can a mother forget her child? Such a thing would go against human feeling. In reality, I am destroyed, but can I be forgotten? I still am blind and cannot see yet in my mother's womb. I cannot gaze upon my mother with my eyes to give her a pleading look so that she can help me. There are so many good selfless women who want children and can take care of me if mine doesn't want me. No tears will be shed for me. To be sure, when my mother first knew of me, she cried out of rage, because she didn't want me. My death will cause her no pain at all. They will give her an anesthetic so she doesn't feel pain when I will be put to death. But I will feel great physical pain and hurt. They don't have to hit me with clubs. They will consider me as worthless. Their only concern is to get me out of the way, because otherwise I could give my parents concern and worry. Shame played no role when I began to exist. But now that I want to be born, they are ashamed of me. For my death they need no cross or no nails. A conscienceless person will be my executioner. I will be cut into little pieces and their only concern is that I cause my mother an infection. I want a chance to make something of my life. Please let me live. I promise not to ask much. I will be a good child. Praying is the only action I can perform, so therefore I do it not stop. I ask the Lord God to forgive my mother and father and the doctor who want my death. I ask to forgive them, for they know not what they do. My only regret is that I will never experience a mother's love. After my death, I will not be buried with dignity because my final resting place will be a trash can. Will I be forgotten forever? No. After judgement day, my soul will live on and on and will be united with my body for all eternity. I and the many millions of innocent unborn children of God who had to undergo a terrible death on earth love our mother and father. Even though they didn't want to love us. I pray for them and that God shows them mercy for destroying me.

The unborn, being such, can make no pleas. This is simply a desperate attempt by the narrow-minded to justify their ignorance.


White Hawk: Huh? You write speeches for Dumbya?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

The religion seem to like jumping to use fiction to defend their view points. They started by using the fiction of their holy book, and now they are creating their own fiction to defend their positions.

Fiction has no place in real world debates.

Dan @ Code Town

(Edited by WarMage on 06-12-2005 16:45)

quote:

---

A plea from the unborn:

---

And that's the kind of horseshit that gets you nowhere Jade. I'm sure it is nice to imagine that you can speak for a fetus in such a way. Unfortunately reality gets in the way...

And I'd like to know what chance you think it is that a doctor at a clinic has to run and hide from a sniper or a bomber?

The issue of abortion aside, the fact that you find a way to justify such behavior is appalling.

You are a hypocrite of the highest order jade. You constantly feign to hold the high moral ground, and yet constantly excuse immoral behavior.

quote:

---

At least the mothers, doctors, etc have a chance to run and hide.

---

...and by saying exactly that, you have proved the point I was making. I'm glad that making pregnant women and medical staff run and hide is considered a laudable goal in pursuit of your agenda. Really, I am.

I stopped paying attention to Jade ages ago with a post about full-term baby corpses. I'd urge you, Jade, if you ever see this for real, to go to the authorities. In my country the limit is 24 weeks (a majority are performed within 20) and regardless of arguments about how appropriate this limit, it cannot possibly be argued that this period be called 'full-term'.

Everything you've posted so far, Jade, has been emotionally-motivated nonsense with no real foundation in rationality or fact. It makes no substantial contribution to the argument and serves simply to annoy me.

I still hold that where there is nothing more than a rudimentary brain stem, there is no 'life' to spare. I say, therefore, that the whole debate hinges on determination of the point at which sentience begins, and of self-perpetuating life.

If you don't draw that line, you might as well be calling male masturbation murder for all the potential lives lost, or women murderesses for the lives monthly unfertilised.

I don't feel obligated by emotionally blackmailing theoretical fiction/fantasy like that - it looks like you should have used the phrase 'fluffy-wuffy' somewhere in the story.

I don't think I will bother going on. You win. Whatever you want. I'm going to go find a debate on hyperspace physics. At least with that, you expect fictional references.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz....

Whoa, where ya been? Masturbation is also against the religious rules...for both genders.

Remember...bad eyesight and hair on the palms?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

*Shaves palms, puts on glasses*

What?!

hehe

Pass the Nair and hand me my white cane.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

ROFL

(Edited by White Hawk on 06-13-2005 14:54)

I think callouses are a real issue - there should be a wanker's hand cream or something. :P

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

quote:

---

Everything you've posted so far, Jade, has been emotionally-motivated nonsense with no real foundation in rationality or fact. It makes no substantial contribution to the argument and serves simply to annoy me.

---

At least I get some kind of emotion out of you. Yes. Abortion stirs up my emotions. How can it not. Its a reality and not fiction that babies are murdered in the womb in the thousands yearly and put in trash cans. Its easier for most to turn the other way and not look at whats true. Lifeless babies in trash cans is a reality. Is it too much for you to bear to look at? I wonder why. I am surprised you think that my view has no foundation. Look again.

http://www.abortedfet.us/cards/cards/fetus5.jpg

(Edited by jade on 06-13-2005 15:04)

quote:

---

Its a reality and not fiction that babies are murdered in the womb in the thousands yearly...

---

As I have stated, I don't consider a cluster of cells life - or I'd be sparing my dandruff from genocide by avoiding medicated shampoo. Therefore, it isn't a fact unless you've decided where that line (you rremember the one I mentioned earlier) is.

quote:

---

...and put in trash cans.

---

Yeah, I'm sure they just dump the remains in the nearest bin in order to stimulate your righteous horror.

quote:

---

Its easier for most to turn the other way and not look at whats true.

---

...by, perhaps, ignoring any arguments previously posted and perpetuating a fictional view of the reality of this debate, you mean?

quote:

---

Lifeless babies in trash cans is a reality.

---

Not in my country it isn't.

quote:

---

Is it too much for you to bear to look at? I wonder why. I am surprised you think that my view has no foundation. Look again.

---

What an intriguing picture! Circa 1960-70s US propoganda shot, I'd be willing to bet?

I don't know why I should pay attention to your arguments now, when you've completely missed everything that has been said on both sides of this debate...

Amazing picture. One could hardly believe they had the ability to manipulate images so well way back then.

That is so patently contrived.

Give up WH, there is no arguing with a zealot and and a fundamentalist zealot is even less open to reality.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Propaganda? Well, next time your near or around an abortion clinic, ask to see were they put the babies remains or just ask. Maybe you will believe them. And if you do see for your own eyes, I hope it can spur or spark some kind of sympathy for the unborn babies.

Despite myself, I'm really starting to like you, Jade. I'm starting to worry about upsetting you.

Doesn't mean that I can agree with you.

Once again - in my country, legally performed abortions do not produce anything quite so substantial (though the 24-week period is debated constantly). You might be likely to see the first vestiges of limbs, spine, organs (just like when you crack an egg to find it has begun to develop). Revolting perhaps, but still a hell of a long way from what you are suggesting.

I don't know what the laws are like in your country, but if what you have suggested (and posted a picture of) happens somewhere near you, then even a pro-choicer would share your disgust.

Perhaps you would be better served to campaign about the existing time constraints in legal abortion. It might seem a compromise, but at least you might be happier to see nothing more than a penny-sized lump being aborted?

Perhaps you might suggest an alternative to abortion - like preventative measures - but as pointed out previously, as well as masturbation, contraception is frowned upon by, for instance, the Catholic faith. Could well be part of the reason why some deeply impoverished countries are so badly overpopulated.

What do you suggest?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

(Edited by White Hawk on 06-13-2005 21:59)

white hawk, yes, i am a female. The only true thought i have on this subject is that the chances you have of finding one of the truly wise, one with answers, are as slim as each line of your hair, or is it your head? =)

quote:

---

babies are murdered in the womb in the thousands yearly

---

Millions not thousands.

While the picture you posted may be real, it is not the norm and fairly old. Advocates here claim that most abortions are performed before 20 weeks. That would be majority first and second trimaster. Not that I think these are any better, but are a more accurate depiction of the majority of slaughter. These are not fake.

1st trimester photos
22 weeks

Ramasax

Upset? Why?

quote:

---

I don't know what the laws are like in your country, but if what you have suggested (and posted a picture of) happens somewhere near you, then even a pro-choicer would share your disgust.

---

These are true pictures and doctors still perform abortions today with the human babies looking just like these on the picture. If you believe that they don't kill beyond the required semester, then you are living in darkness. Just click on any websites regarding abortion pictures and you will see they indeed have eyes, ears, 10 fingers and toes, lips and most of all formed hearts. They are already sucking their thumbs. Abortion does stop a beating heart. The aborted fetuses on pictures are not doctored be gruesome. They are gruesome acts perfomed on innocent helpless victims.

So, you ask, whats the alternative? Well even if there was no alternative, it would not justify killing a human person in the womb in the most violent way to satisfy.. This society we live in is kinder to cats and dogs and their welfare than it is to a tiny human in the making.

So campaign for a change in the time limit.

What about spontaneous abortions? Did your god judge this mass of multiplying cells to be unworthy and thus end it's quest for life?

Or, perhaps the mother blasphemed and po'd your god so he decided to punish her by killing her unborn and denying her the joys of motherhood?

If this latter could be counted upon, third world women would be wise to take up cussing as a form of contraception.

The lovely pictures may be of human foetuses and may not be as many mamallian young look similiar in the early stages. In any event, so what? They were not yet viable.

As for the 22 week old, what is not revealed is the purpose of it being out of the womb. Was the foetus in difficulty and they tried an early c-section? Was it needed to save the mother's life? Were there other valid reasons for removing it?

Did the procedure take place in North America?

The picture tell us nothing and offers no support for the religious side.

I have a feeling though, they get a kick out of posting such things.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

The foetus of a kangaroo is born at only two weeks after conception, and yet makes a several inch crawl into the mother's pouch where it continues to live and grow for the next two years. That small foetus is not viable, but is born nevertheless. So, at what point would you say that kangaroo foetus is alive? And if that is true of an animal, could it also be true of a human? Could it be that we actually owe something to a creature that we have given life to, viable or not? At what point should that human foetus be the concern of us all??

Certainly foetuses are capable of physical sensation, such as pain. Any woman who was ever pregnant knows how readily it moves when in discomfort, especially if you do something such as tap that little foot that is jabbing you in the ribs. So . . . how can abortion possibly be humane, especially when considering such things as d & cs, or partial-birth abortions? Not only are these inhumane, they are barbaric. If you did these to an animal, you'd be arrested.

I am a bleeding-heart liberal, and not a Christian. But violence seems to me to be inexcusable against any form of life, unless a person is in immediate danger of being seriously injured or killed. And, I must admit, if a person is stupid enough to put him or herself in immediate danger of such by actively initiating the confrontation, I guess I'd probably root for the creature.

So .. . at what point do we begin to insist that people begin taking responsibility for their actions, instead of just making it go away, with all the respect that we'd give a couple of pounds of rotted hamburger?

Dragonlady

Good point DL...if our females were kangaroo.

There are any number of plants which also react quickly and sometimes violently, if tapped. Do they feel pain or is it just a nerveless reaction? I don't recall reading anything on the nervous system of plants.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/958574920.Ev.r.html

Live your life as you will DL, just don't believe you have the right to impose your views on those who differ.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

So campaign for a change in the time limit.

---

I think that would do about as much good as protesting abortion. No, the change would need to be a cultural change, a society in which people would have less reason to abort. A large portion of abortions are done for financial and/or career purposes, at least in the western world, in which case means you start the fight higher up at the level in which these financial reasons ultimately stem.

For instance, I am inclined to believe that here in the states the creation of a central bank with the FRA of 1913 was a pivotal point in US history that has led to nearly ten decades of constant inflation and ever-increasing debt due to fractional reserve banking system they employ and has influenced everything that has come since, in both foreign and domestic policy. How would it be different if we had kept the a standard, I really can't say, we may not have encountered such explosive growth, but we would be a lot more comfortable down here in the world of middle to lower class citizens because our money would be backed by actual wealth and would not lose value every time we spent it.

This would not cause an entire eradication of what I would call needless abortions, because we all know it will happen regardless, but you know, fry the big fish.

The 'need' to abort is created higher up in the geopolitical food chain and that should be the target.


Ramasax

Perhaps, sometimes I can see humans as being little more than cats and dogs with pretentions to something more holy; prizing their sentience so proudly while driven and swayed by their basic mammalian tendancies.

They really do revel in how special they are, and value their own worth over anything else in all existence. They reward themselves for every little deed, yet live not one moment as fiercely and as meaningfully as even the lowest form of life.

As amazing as humans are, and as incredible their achievements might be, for smart animals they're more destructive and chaotic than a series of random globally-cataclysmic events.

While their populations spurt and explode and they stumble through their insignificant little lives, they're heading inevitably to a dead-end; no food, no resources, no thing but their smoggy, grey, artificial wastelands.

They seem completely aware of this, and yet they plow on regardless. Somehow, they even see fit to fight for the societies that hasten this end - and all the while count hope and mutual compassion as their redemption.

In a certain light, the human race is a parasite of planetary proportions.

...and yet I cannot condemn them. I care more for their lives than I do any creature, despite their flaws and improprieties. I very much doubt that anybody believes this now, but it's true.

Really.

Talk about twisting words...

I meant embryo research is not the only way to find a cure for cancer!!!

How very interesting that a species that developed and practices agriculture and breeds other species for food can be called a 'parasite of planetary proportions'.

Etheist, you protest your cause louder than some women... It really seems like it's your cause to guarantee the freedom of choice.

Do you carry or own a gun? I just want to know whether I've misjudged you or not, even partially.

How convenient to call the entire race parasytic. To be fair, perhaps you'd better think of the IMF as such. Or the United States or the EU, etc. Certainly not all the citizens of the EU or USA, etc. Cartainly not the entire race. Certainly not every individual in part.

quote:

---

Maybe you will believe them. And if you do see for your own eyes, I hope it can spur or spark some kind of sympathy for the unborn babies.

---

I already mentioned this, Jade. Contraception as well. Talk about people not reading (like Etheist, WH) posts. Mine, for example. There is just no reasoning with some people:

quote:

---

What about spontaneous abortions? Did your god judge this mass of multiplying cells to be unworthy and thus end it's quest for life?

Or, perhaps the mother blasphemed and po'd your god so he decided to punish her by killing her unborn and denying her the joys of motherhood?

---

Totally uncalled for. Your reasoning is infantile, I might say. Though I suspect I, myself, am much younger than you.

You have such a deep hatred. For whom and what? For Christians, Christianity, pro-lifers, anyone arguing the sanctity of life, some minister you have unpleasant memories about and associate with God or your bible thumping father and mother?

I think you are seriously disturbed. You certainly merit to be in a real asylum.

If your education (lack of it) renders you unable to see the difference between ovules, sperm and a fertilized egg than, really, your opinion (which is founded in ignorance) is tantamount to nothing.

(Edited by sonyafterdark on 06-16-2005 09:21)

OFF TOPIC:

I still hold that the human race is parasitic, and it shows no sign of evolving into something more harmonious with the planet it resides on. I don't distinguish between nations or races to make that determination - every single human being on this planet exerts their own force. We don't fit this planet, and are anathema to its systems and balances.

You have noted agriculture as an argument against this? I find this laughable. If a tape worm was able to farm growths in your gut, would it no longer be considered a parasite? Agriculture alone is responsible for massive damage to the ecology and environment of this little rock!

I don't see anything convenient in the assumption that this destructive and disharmonious breed is a parasite upon this planet. I was simply suggesting that though I see little reason to regard human life (as a whole) over animal life, I still do - and it actually has little to do with my stance on the morality of abortion at all.

If human life is so sacred and you think that something should be done to protect the innocent, then why not devote more of that angry energy to defending those that are alive and growing in the world? How about the hundreds (thousands?) of children that die every year through neglect, abuse, and poverty? How about the countless children in care or foster homes?

Or does life not have value once it is begun in the outside world?

As for breeding other animals - those that are only sustained by farming would have been more than capable of breeding on their own without the advent of agriculture, and most are hybridised shadows of the original beasts that existed. Selective- and cross-breeding have produced such aberrations of nature that if they had been developed by faster genetic manipulation methods, millions would be protesting in horror!

As for my alleged failure to read your posts or 'see reason', I believe that I have had quite enough - having taken into account the more reasonable fragments of your posts and discarded the gratuitous or insulting content, I am left with little to argue against. I can't possibly answer a question that makes no sense.

As for Embryonic Research, what has that got to do with this debate at all? I don't recall bringing the subject up, nor citing this as an argument for the morality of abortion. I have twisted no words, and I stand by my assertion that the statement was pointless, especially as you have ignored the fact (again) that there is no cure for cancer! The treatments that exist are mostly surgical (even if this involves destuction radiation or chemicals).

In fact, I thought the major advances promised by stem-cell research (presumably extracted from aborted embryos, drawing a tenuous connection to your reference) were in the field of replacement organs and tissues that won't require a lifetime of medication to avoid rejection, or in the regeneration of nervous and neural tissues?

Regardless of the topic of this debate, I would suggest that you avoid throwing petty insults about another's intellect or powers of reason without first thinking through your retort.

I can thank Arthemis for making me realise that I should be spending my time doing something more productive than bandying words here, but I just couldn't let that agricultural reference lie. What do you think was around before we raized it all to the ground for farmland?

Anyway, I have realised that I am not quite so polarised in my view as I previously claimed - but the debate has reached a point where I can't see my contributions doing anything more than muddying the issue further, especially as you have once again abandoned your arguments in favour of insulting those who do not share your view.

I wish you all the best, and do hope that one unshared view will not necessarily discount the possibility of more productive discussions in the future. I also offer my sincere apologies - not for my opinion, but for any percieved impropriety or thoughtlessness on my part.


I'm out of here. *tips fedora*


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

(Edited by White Hawk on 06-16-2005 13:38)

No apologies needed WH, if there was any impropriety or thoughtlessness it was percieved by others not delivered by yourself.

Jade, you are a deluded fool and that is the kindest assessment I can provide of you.

quote:

---

It really seems like it's your cause to guarantee the freedom of choice.

---

This is the only thing you have got right and I can think of no finer goal.

No, don't carry a gun. I live in Canada and so I don't need to.

quote:

---

Totally uncalled for. Your reasoning is infantile, I might say. Though I suspect I, myself, am much younger than you.

---

There is not doubt you are younger and the reasoning is exactly the same sort of approach the mis-named "Pro-lifer's" use in their arguments. IE: posting doctored photo's of alleged aborted foeti. I didn't think you would like having it thrown in your face and I was right.

Though, I am not suprised you failed to recognize the technique.

If you had, in fact read anything I have posted, instead of reacting to the first thing you come across which challenges your reality, you would have seen me post many times that I have no dislike of xianity, merely the fundamentalist zealots like yourself who feel they have the right to impose their ignorant and unimformed views upon others.

My parents I am happy to report were happy, open-minded people so very unlike yourself.

I was not raised to find people of different colour to be inferior or objectionable. I was not raised to find women inherantly inferior as many xian (and other) cults would have us believe.

There is not doubt abject ignorance is displayed on these pages Poor Jade...but not by me.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

There is not doubt abject ignorance is displayed on these pages Poor Jade...but not by me

---

I never mean to imply anyone person who post is ignorant. I only view on this thread in regard to abortions as some not being aware of all the facts. The clinics, in general are concealing and not giving full disclosure on the whole process in regard to information, procedures and care. We must face that each person wanting an abortion is a dollar figure. Its like Clinics are trying to sell a service, sort of like a pedicure. As I have posted before, the abortion industry is a money making industry. In the millions. Did you know the hospitals, HMOS sell discarded placentas for research? Now, the aborted remains will be used for research as well, which is very profitable for the abortion clinics. We, the mothers never get asked to donate our placentas and make no profit from the sell, but the hospital does. Indeed the pro-abortion lobbyist make sure to have a strong voice and do having willing ears since it gets help from the insurance industry which wields as much power as the oil industry does here in the US of A. So who is really in charge. For sure, don't think its in the interest of "for the people, by the people" mentality. In the past year though the pro-life voice is getting stronger and now more laws are being implemented for protection of the unborn. I feel I am starting to see pro-life progress. And I can only hope our society will become more kinder to other mankind in the womb as well. The courts ruled 32 years ago that a person is human only when it can breathe on its own outside the womb, at birth. But this ruling has never set well with many in our society, even non-religious. We are living in a time of human genocide comparable to the jewish genocide of long ago.

quote:

---

We are living in a time of human genocide comparable to the jewish genocide of long ago.

---

Preposterous. No, I'll go further - absurd.

That comparison is so off-base, it is no laughing matter.

It is one thing to express opinion. It is quite another, to make wild comparisons that are totally outside the bounds of logic and reason.

quote:

---

Its like Clinics are trying to sell a service,

---

Yes, it is. It's exactly like that.

Becauae that's what they are there for!

quote:

---

Did you know the hospitals, HMOS sell discarded placentas for research?

---

And how is that in any way a problem?

quote:

---

So who is really in charge. For sure, don't think its in the interest of "for the people, by the people" mentality.

---

That I'll agree with. But it applies across the board, and has very little actual bearing on the issue at hand.

quote:

---

We are living in a time of human genocide comparable to the jewish genocide of long ago.

---

It is appalling to make such a comparison.

You need to get a grasp on this fact: ABORTION IS NOTHING NEW.

It has existed for as long as civilization itself.

As has been said several times now, the overall view of abortion in modern america (by all sides) is far more ethical and moral than it has been throughout the history of the world.

Regardless how cavalier you might think so many of these abortions are, there is nowhere that I know where there is not a negative stigma attached to abortion.

I've never known anyone whoe *wanted* to have an abortion, or who did so without deep and serious thought, or who did not spend a great deal of time dealing with the decision.

Bottom line is, the choice must be there.

quote:

---

I've never known anyone whoe *wanted* to have an abortion, or who did so without deep and serious thought, or who did not spend a great deal of time dealing with the decision

---

.

Oh.... then you are little handicapped in this area as far as first hand knowledge. I know of persons who have aborted and would do it again and again. Then there those who have had one and regretted it. So I know first hand the trauma of abortions. I know of some who have left their faith, because they feel that God would not accept what they did, so they no longer have a relationship with the God they percieved was. They now have developed an new ideology about God. A God who would accept be loving and compassionate of the abortion they chose to have. Deep serious thought?? About who? Themselves or their baby. I can assure you its always about them. THis "I couldn't care for it or we can't afford it" is escapism. Lets see it for what it really is. We live in a very selfish, " I want, & me" attitude today.
For sure, lets not push our ideolgoies & rights on others. Lets start with the unborn. They have rights too.

(Edited by jade on 06-16-2005 18:44)

Is this an admission:

quote:

---

So I know first hand the trauma of abortions.

---

?

The only way one could know 'first-hand' is to have undergone the experience.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

You can't know. You were carried to term.

The thread was and is about 'unwanted pregnancy' scenarios.

Cases when there is no medical reason why the pregnancy should not proceed. Cases when abortion is brought about solely by the will of the mother who has the legal right to do so.

MY QUESTION, basically, was whether or not she also has a moral right to do so. Whether or not it is morally right. I am by no means endorsing acts of 'terrorism' against clinics and staff as Etheist and others like to claim. I, personally, do not approve these. I think I've said this before, but no matter.

Nor am I a Bible thumping religious freak, altough I do believe in God, as Etheist likes to label me so that he can more readily and easily dismiss my sound views as mere 'religious clap-trap'. You are an atheist, fine. Does this mean that you have no morals, compassion, no mercy at all?

By declaring that, in your opinion, there is no God are you escused from any and all decency merely because it's what 'Xians' endorse?

Are mercy and compassion obsolete or retrograde? The primitve attributes of 'religious freaks'? Whatever subject is at hand you Etheist always revert to your narrow, stubborn outlook on life.

Everything, to you, somehow means and proves the inexistance of God and the stupidity of 'Xians'. To you everything narrows down to that.

If you were asked what is the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter you would probably answer '2*pi*Radius_there_is_no_God_and_I_am_gay,_not_that_there_is_anything_wrong_with_that'.

Yes, there are(were) many stupid and 'evil' people that call(ed) themselves Christians but it is hardly the same thing.

You believe with your heart, not your brain. You brain may do as it pleases.

It really seems like killing a human being is no more important than having a manicure done...

(Edited by sonyafterdark on 06-17-2005 11:25)

You seem to have a large misconception of Ehtheist.

Let me help you out. He has stated repeatedly that he does not have anything against those who believe in god. What he does have is a bias against those who would push thier beliefs and force their ways on others by claiming moral superiority which is suported by their god. Islamic extremists give islam a bad name, just as Christian extremists give christianity a bad name. That is just the way the cookie crumbles. It is your christian family, if you want your faith to be looked on in a good light stop the problems in your own back yard, and stop excusing them with the excues "but it is not all of us." It just makes you look like weak crybabies. The better response is we have some pretty sick and twisted people in our organization, but we are working on fixing that (and actually work on fixing it).

I believe you also missed the thread where us Atheists spent a lot of time explaining how our moral compasses worked, and it ended with, "The same way your does." Ehtheist took part in this discussion, if you go there you can read about it there. He might not have the same sence of morals and decencies as you do, just as your wife,husband,sister,brother,mother,father has a different sence of morals and decencies. What he is excused from is basing his morals and decencies on something else, he gets to be more honest about where his morals come from.

Ehthiest does show a propensity to talk down upon your choices, rather vociferously, which, given my upbringing and beliefs I would not do. But it is not wrong, it is merely the oposite of what I and I believe others with my views have had to go threw. Those with religion often talk down on those who do not as being wrong. They like to equate us with Satan, they like to call us evil, and they like to tell us our ownly way to be saved is threw their views on god and religion. I think that doing that to someone is pretty fucked up. That is why I wouldn't do what Ehthiest is doing, but I don't think fighting fire with fire, or in his words, being a bigger pisser, is wrong. I have to admit a certain joy in reading his combative words, but still something I would not personally do.

For those topics you seem to be a bit off. You ask most of this in the form of a question but it still seems like a flame born of frustration, no need to be completely frustrated with an individual here, when you look at the internet it is not really people that are floating in cyber space, it is ideas, get angry at ideas.

Away form Ehthiest we now go.

A human being has vast importance. The people I know, and who are in my world view are the most important things that could exist. They are what all of my actions positive and negitive are based on.

Humans as a group carry little import. There are probably 6 billion people in this world that I will never come into contact with, and will never play any direct part of my life. They are not really important. And you can see this view every single day. A person decides to steal form someones else, 28,000 jobs are cut at a company. Genocide is committed. We go to war with another country. We allow people to stave to death, or to helplessly die of aids.

We really do not care about people as a whole. We might care about family and friends, and the world as lip service, but ultimately we say, fuck them, and do our own selfish things, and try to affect as must as we can in our little spheres.

When I say it is someone elses choice to make. I say this because I really don't care about those people, and in that I don't know enough about them to make any kind of decision for them. It is everyones job to make their own decisions, we don't need anyone outside our spheres making them for us.

When we stop causing and letting millions and billions of people die, and everyone who is here now is happy and the world is just, then maybe we can/should look at abortion. But there are too many other moral issues which we gloss over to make this anything worth getting upset over.

I would much rather you put your efforts of protests towards more important endevors like a person on every street corner so that we can make sure that our children can walk to and from school without fearing, kidnap, rape, theft or murder. I see that as the big crime. You spend so much time worrying about those who are not here, that you forget about protecting those who are.

Dan @ Code Town

I see you ignored my question in favour of another rant Jade.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

SAD: You get this part right...

quote:

---

Cases when abortion is brought about solely by the will of the mother who has the legal right to do so.

---

But you fall off the rails on this part.

quote:

---

MY QUESTION, basically, was whether or not she also has a moral right to do so.

---

Whose morals are we talking about here??

I am not at all certain that people who would ban abortion via overturning row v.wade...understand they are talking about 'legislated morals.'

Just say 'legislated morals' 6 or 7 times. Now remove 'abortion' from the debate and think about other areas where we might be able to or have, in the past, tried to 'legislate morals' of others on 'others.'
Women not so very long ago were 'chatal.'

Judging from her posts, Jade may very well be one of the women who both are and consider themselves chattels.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I tend to rant passionately. I am not sorry though. Mr. Diogenes. But forgive me if I resort to name calling. I regret that. What was the question?

I just feel so passionate about human life issues. I feel we are focusing so over zealously on individual rights issues, that we do greater harm to the future of the unique individual humans rights in our society. The right to live, prosper in life and multiply. The future of the inhabitants of this great blessed planet earth lies in compassion, in treating the human species as sacred unique individual entities who's energies will radiate this earth in their own special way. I have a special care and great interest in wanting to protect and prolong our humankind even in the making. For me, because, herein lies the essence of what we are & why we are here. To care for each other. Man is a social creation. He is what he is in how he relates to other humans. And how he relates to where he comes from. If he is to destroy other creative humans in their most defenseless position, what can be said of humanity as a whole. That it destroys its own. How sad that man disregards or regrets where he is made. Does the human womb have any dignity? Wasn't it created for creation? The womb deserves our TLC because that is the gateway & passage chosen to bring human life into existence. How very special womanhood is. When we see those cars with the sign, "Baby on board" don't we try to take caution to take care to watch out for that vehicle. Pregnant women look so radiant and are so very special. Who doesn't come across a woman who is to give birth and not have a certain warm feeling. Here at work when we have pregnant women, we are so excited, its like we are pregnant too. We relate because we have been there done that and felt what they feel. I, for the most part always spark up a conversation near a pregnant woman. When in the grocery store waiting in line I ask with "when are you due" and converse on and on.
Are at least some of you in agreement that those who believe in abortion have given into the system. Greed, financial gain and worth over human life. We as a society already determined who should live or die because of money. In the end its all about money, which has become a necessary evil to many in this century.

I was reading some science article on how the human heart is more of a complicated structure as comparable to the human brain. And how the heart is primary in its regulating and controlling of the human brain to operate complicated sensory energies to get the physical body to start and sustain itself. So the physical body is dependent on the heart, not the brain. We all know this. But science has not fully discovered the full capabilities in how the human heart controls the mechanics of the human brain in all its chemistry. It still is a growing science. We know it can only be fully studied in its tangibles and intangibles. Because we do know how emotions effect the human heart and trigger all kinds of brain mechanisms in regard to word, action and overall health. In my belief, the heart in its infancy is like a closed tomb or coffin. And only thru its growing experiencing relationship with other human hearts will it understand and start to open. The greater the compassion for other human hearts, the more the tomb will become fully open till the heart finally is no longer a tomb but alive in its fullness. Herein the brain will understand the fullness in which it was meant. to operate. As a human compassionate and loving, which completes him as a person he was designed to come into. And this can only be achieved by the cooperation of other individual human hearts co-existing relating to it. To me this determines the whole essence of a human person. You hear all the time your emotions cloud you brain and you will not make good judgments. Calm down. Think rationally. Where does the rationale come from. Yes. It it comes from the brain, but where was the brain told to think with the rational. Its from the heart who told it to do so. So what I am trying to say and not saying it very well, is always think with the heart first, then the brain and you will make the right decision.

quote:

---

always think with the heart first, then the brain and you will make the right decision.

---

We'd still be sailing around on a flat earth with that thinking.

OK. NoJive how has the important discovery of the earth being round as opposed to being flat made a difference in your life as of today? Has it determined your personallity? How has that knowledge affected you as a person?

I have a great respect for science, because I personally feel science is God and scientist help religion. There are many scientist who are religious christians. Its a shame that there are some who believe since they have tapped into understanding the sciences feel they have tapped into the unknown in their process of experimentation and discoveries and believe they attribute it to themselves only. In their study they are immersed in the creation of God's work but don't see God in it at all. I feel they are studying God. So its good. In their scientific achievements they feel elated and they should. All scientific breakthroughs that are good for humanity are good things because the creator is good.

(Edited by jade on 06-17-2005 19:59)

Jade, I agree with your sentiments in the first paragraph for the most part and understand what you are saying.

The whole part about the heart though. I just don't buy it. The heart is nothing more than a big complex muscle, a pump. The brain is responsible for all thought and feeling and has scientifically been shown to produce different protiens for different types of emotions. These protiens then flow through our bodies and connect with receptors in all our individual cells, hence the feeling of sadness, remorse, happiness, etc. The power of thought is indeed very strong in that with our thoughts alone we can effect our entire body chemistry. The heart is responsible for pumping these specific chemistries throughout our bodies, but it all emanates from the brain.

There is a third element which you left out and I believe to be very important. It crosses over into the realm of the metaphysical and I am sure many in this crowd consider it hogwash, but is known as the spirit or soul and I believe this is where our most vital ingredient comes from, consciousness.

If you think with the metaphorical heart it will oftentimes lead you into trouble. Use your brain first.


Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 06-17-2005 20:27)

Thank you. Ramasax. Your correct. I was thinking in the spiritual regarding the heart. I feel the heart organ in its spiritual capabilites unifies us to realize the greater physical capabilities our bodies were meant for. We may never understand fully the human heart in its sciences. To me to want to understand this science is doing the creators work. Its religious. Its finding God. So in essence, some scientist may not realized to look and find solutions and cures, is looking at the Creator too.

Ram, perhaps you can lend Poor Jade some of your titanium?

Jade, read the prior posts and you shall find the question.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

OK. NoJive how has the important discovery of the earth being round as opposed to being flat made a difference in your life as of today? Has it determined your personallity? How has that knowledge affected you as a person?

---

I was going to start with... 'Well where would you like me to start.' but then I realized you were joking...you know, pulling my leg and all that... having me on.

You were joking right?

I think what jade means is that wisdom is more than intelligence in that as an intelligent man(or woman) is one that, through the way genes/nature/God equiped him(or her), is capable of reaching many goals, even difficult or seemingly impossible ones to achieve. A wise man(or woman), however, is, in addition to intelligent, capable of choosing the right goals and the right means to achieve these and knows when to quit or admit fault.

I am not entirely sure of my wisdom...

However, the heart is just a heart. Indispensible as it is to life it has nothing to do with reasoning.

In response to Njive's opinion that we should worry about other things first...

If we want to make the world a better we've got to start somewhere, haven't we?
And abortion is among mankinmd's more heinous atrocities.
Through the defenceless nature of the victims it's perpetrated upon as well as the means.
Not least considering how easy it is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy instead of slaughtering a human being in the making and the fact that in many a women's life it is not singular event. If there is no compassion or pitty for many of the unborn children of mankind, what hope is there at all?

Then again it is so easy to rant, rave and argue about all these problems with society but as long as nobody takes and significant constructive actions it really doesn't matter what anyones says or thinks.

Isn't it "immoral" and "selfish" to force a woman to have an unwanted child, which she is not capable/doesn't want to taking care of?

More emotional claptrap.

Rationalize for me how getting rid of a few hundred cells which are in no way cognizant of existance than stone, is a heinous crime.

Heinous crimes include; the practice of many religious cults which indulge in and condone the trading and treating of young girls as property and marryng them as yong as 10 to men as old as 60 or more who already have several child brides and that is just in North America http://www.polygamyinfo.com/world_news.htm; heinous is churches which hide and protect pedophile clergy; heinous is religious cults which sacrifice or murder children because they are convinced they are possessed (happened in Texas recently)-another xian cult BTW. Heinous includes ritual mutilation of female genitalia in order to make certain they do not enjoy sexual congress-supposed to keep them faithful and yes, it take place in North America.

All of these victims are cognizant of existance and the pain people like you and Jade appear willing to see inflicted upon them .

You don't know heinous from heimlich.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

An interesting article in the June 17 edition of the Vancouver Sun, page 3. This article is about a girl who's life has been saved by stem cell injections.

Now let me see, is there a contradiction here?

The right-wing xian ignorami hold life precious and dear, why one shouldn't even have spontaneous nocturnal emissions becase it is wasting opportunities for life. Women should be ashamed they have a period because another egg is wasted.

But they would have cheerfully denied this child her life because their closed minds cannot see the benefits of such research.

Might just as well have shot her like they do the Doctors who provide choices for women who don't feel the same as the poor benighted xians.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)