Happy Atheist Forum

One of the many stereotypes held by theists is that all atheists are in favor of abortion -- and while it's absurd to say that we all are, from my experience, it is true that lots of atheists are pro-choice. So I just want to know: are any atheists here pro-life/anti-abortion? If so, why?


EDIT: Most recent thread on abortion merged here http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=6594.msg154882#msg154882 - Tank

I am because women should not have any rights! /sarcasm

I'm really not sure how any rational person could be against the right to choose.

I don't particularly like the idea of elective abortion but it's an unfortunate necessity since the alternative is rape babies and kids with babies.  If the religious right would let us teach proper sex ed there would be much less of a need for elective abortions.

My dad is an atheist and is very, very, very anti-abortion.  He's also anti-feminist and anti-gay.

I'm anti-abortion on a personal level, but I don't see that my views should be pressed upon women by writ of law, particularly considering that that is a set of circumstances I will never in my life face, as a man.

I'm pro-choice.

I do not necessarily like abortion but I respect it as a choice.

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm really not sure how any rational person could be against the right to choose.

Well, I certainly think some rational people could be opposed to abortion.  If they see the fetus as a human being, they might well consider it murder to abort.  Personally I don't feel that way but it's arrogant to say that it's a ridiculous point of view.  For many people it comes down to whether or not they empathize with the fetus and to some extent that's emotional rather than logical.  For me, until the fetus has the ability to think, it's lacking in human qualities and is no more human - by my definition - than a dog or cat fetus, except by DNA - so the mother's rights and wishes take precedence.  Late term abortion, can't stomach that because of the yuck factor, so I draw the line at six months gestation.

Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"I do not necessarily like abortion but I respect it as a choice.

Agreed.

No objections.

Abortion is the result of a mistake, bad choices or rape. It should always be the alternative of last resort. But it is a resort that should be available. I am against any system that makes abortion necessary, but I would wholeheartedly support a woman's right to have control over her body. Contraception should be freely available to any person who requires it.  

However I would also, if it were my choice, create an environment that if a girl/woman finds herself pregnant and does not want to keep the child that 'at birth' adoption should always be an alternative to abortion.

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm really not sure how any rational person could be against the right to choose.

Well, I certainly think some rational people could be opposed to abortion.  If they see the fetus as a human being, they might well consider it murder to abort.  Personally I don't feel that way but it's arrogant to say that it's a ridiculous point of view.  For many people it comes down to whether or not they empathize with the fetus and to some extent that's emotional rather than logical.  For me, until the fetus has the ability to think, it's lacking in human qualities and is no more human - by my definition - than a dog or cat fetus, except by DNA - so the mother's rights and wishes take precedence.  Late term abortion, can't stomach that because of the yuck factor, so I draw the line at six months gestation.

Because there is no rational reason to apply personhood to a fetus is exactly why I qualified my statement with "rational" rather than "smart."

There is nothing arrogant about my view and I don't think it's appropriate for you to make that kind of accusation simply because you disagree (yet went on to provide only emotional reasons for disagreeing)....however, it's possible I could be mistaken and there is a rational way to argue that a fetus should be extended person hood which overrides the mother's freedom of choice; but I have never come across such an argument nor can I think of one.

Quote from: "Tank"Abortion is the result of a mistake, bad choices or rape. It should always be the alternative of last resort. But it is a resort that should be available. I am against any system that makes abortion necessary, but I would wholeheartedly support a woman's right to have control over her body. Contraception should be freely available to any person who requires it.  

However I would also, if it were my choice, create an environment that if a girl/woman finds herself pregnant and does not want to keep the child that 'at birth' adoption should always be an alternative to abortion.

I agree.

Quote from: "Whitney"Because there is no rational reason to apply personhood to a fetus is exactly why I qualified my statement with "rational" rather than "smart."

There is nothing arrogant about my view and I don't think it's appropriate for you to make that kind of accusation simply because you disagree (yet went on to provide only emotional reasons for disagreeing)....however, it's possible I could be mistaken and there is a rational way to argue that a fetus should be extended person hood which overrides the mother's freedom of choice; but I have never come across such an argument nor can I think of one.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend.  There's a very good reason to extend personhood to a fetus - that it is literally a living human being with the potential for developing into a fully formed person, and there's no logical way to draw the line between personhood and non-personhood.  I assume that you would be opposed to killing a newborn baby, for the convenience of the mother, right?  Yet it isn't a full sentient person yet.  Me, I couldn't stomach aborting an eight-month fetus.  Presumably there are people who think of three month fetuses as real people, with rights.  So where do you draw the line?  A five-year-old isn't a fully developed person yet - physically, mentally, or emotionally.  A one-year-old hasn't had a thought of any complexity.  A fetus can feel pain.  So there's no easy dividing line, inconvenient as that truth is.  And so it really does come down to a matter of emotion - of where our empathy lies.  It's fine to say that we shouldn't have empathy for a four-month fetus, but if you do, it's hard to accept that abortion is all right.  

Some of those who oppose abortion do so on the basis of empathy, but most are driven by church teachings, and many of those people don't appear to have much empathy for other people, much less for fetuses.  I have no respect for someone who opposes abortion on the basis of the bible, but for someone who sees a fetus as a baby, I find it hard to disregard his or her opinion.

This, by the way, is written by a person who has been in favor of abortion rights for 40 years.

Against it..? I am known to actively encourage it on occasion.  

I'm not fundamentally opposed to it because I'm both well aware that there's a causal relationship between a woman's right to choose and lower abortion rates/safer abortions and also that forcing a woman to carry a child to term is a fundamental violation of her individual rights. I don't like abortions, I think they're very sad and I'd like for there to be less of them, but I'm certainly not opposed to them.

I WAS against abortions as an atheist for a time because I found the 'err on the side of life' argument compelling, but I know women who have had abortions now and I'm comfortable in understanding that, while it's important to value human life, a real threat to individual rights for the sake of hypothetical human life means that you have to err on the side of what violation exists vs. might exist.

Quote from: "Tank"Abortion is the result of a mistake, bad choices or rape. It should always be the alternative of last resort. But it is a resort that should be available. I am against any system that makes abortion necessary, but I would wholeheartedly support a woman's right to have control over her body. Contraception should be freely available to any person who requires it.  

However I would also, if it were my choice, create an environment that if a girl/woman finds herself pregnant and does not want to keep the child that 'at birth' adoption should always be an alternative to abortion.

I stand with Tank...I would simply add that I would do as the character of Lt. Cdr. JoAnne Galloway (Demi Moore) in the movie, A Few Good Men

Quote from: "Lt. Cdr. JoAnne Galloway "We strenuously object...

...simply because I do find it so horrible.

What about the repeat "offender"?  I have pondered this myself and while I support Pro-Choice, I don't know I could support a "habit"...define habit...?

This is a complicated legal matter.  Example: a man can be charged with homicide if he commits the premeditated murder of an unborn child against the wishes of the mother.  If he has permission however, he is not charged.  This is a murky topic due to the fact that our society does not agree on the source and definition of individual human rights.  Therefore some find the unborn void of such rights while others find the opposite.  Until the source and definition of individual human rights is clearly defined, this will be an endless debate.

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"This is a complicated legal matter.  Example: a man can be charged with homicide if he commits the premeditated murder of an unborn child against the wishes of the mother.  If he has permission however, he is not charged.  This is a murky topic due to the fact that our society does not agree on the source and definition of individual human rights.  Therefore some find the unborn void of such rights while others find the opposite.  Until the source and definition of individual human rights is clearly defined, this will be an endless debate.

-a-train

Even with a definition you will find people who will not agree with that definition so the debate won't stop.

Primarily the issue is that there is not just one person involved. One exists and the other starts out as a potential person. It's a knife edge balancing act if one intends to take any of the choice to give birth away from the woman. To do so is, at some point, to declare her a piece of meat and fit only to be a womb on legs. However, at some point in the gestation period the off spring becomes capable of independent survival, abortion after this point is to me, repugnant. To my way of thinking once this point has been reached the issue of which life should be considered 'a piece of meat' is highly debatable. Once past 26 weeks I would be very uncomfortable about aborting a healthy foetus growing in a healthy woman. But as a male I will never face that choice. For me this is an academic debate. I find my feelings highly conflicted on this matter, but ultimately I must come down on the side of the extant life in favour of the potential life and as such support the woman's right to choose.

In Saudi Arabia girls with non-congenital physical or mental handicaps often become the third or forth wife of a man simply to produce children. This to me is one of the most degrading things done anywhere on Earth.

Quote from: "Tank"In Saudi Arabia girls with non-congenital physical or mental handicaps often become the third or forth wife of a man simply to produce children. This to me is one of the most degrading things done anywhere on Earth.

But what if this woman, suffering her condition, is happy in this scenario?  Would we banish her to loneliness?  Prevent her from enjoying the pleasure she desires?  Perhaps this is the only man in her society that will offer her these opportunities, will we prevent him?

-a-train

Quote from: "Wilson"There's a very good reason to extend personhood to a fetus - that it is literally a living human being with the potential for developing into a fully formed person, and there's no logical way to draw the line between personhood and non-personhood.  

I draw the line at the development of thought.  Even our very species-name regards thought as the quintessence of humanity: we are, after all, Homo Sapiens, "man, the wise."

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I draw the line at the development of thought.  Even our very species-name regards thought as the quintessence of humanity: we are, after all, Homo Sapiens, "man, the wise."

How do you define thought?  There may some sort of thought going on inside the uterus at who knows what stage.  And the thoughts of a newborn baby are so rudimentary that it's a long way from wisdom.

Others would say at the moment of birth.  Others, able to live outside the womb.  Others, self-awareness.  Others, the moment of conception.

I sort of draw the line at when it looks too much like a baby to think it isn't.  The truth is that there is no absolute line between personhood and non-personhood, only individual emotions and prejudices.

I draw the line at birth. Then again, I don't think I would have that much of a problem if a parent had to kill a newborn for good reasons.

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I draw the line at the development of thought.  Even our very species-name regards thought as the quintessence of humanity: we are, after all, Homo Sapiens, "man, the wise."

How do you define thought?  There may some sort of thought going on inside the uterus at who knows what stage.  And the thoughts of a newborn baby are so rudimentary that it's a long way from wisdom.

Others would say at the moment of birth.  Others, able to live outside the womb.  Others, self-awareness.  Others, the moment of conception.

I sort of draw the line at when it looks too much like a baby to think it isn't.  The truth is that there is no absolute line between personhood and non-personhood, only individual emotions and prejudices.

Intrauterine brainwaves seems as good a criterion as any for determining when thought begins, don't you think?  After all, there is a very strong correlation between an active EEG readout and and active thought process.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Intrauterine brainwaves seems as good a criterion as any for determining when thought begins, don't you think?  After all, there is a very strong correlation between an active EEG readout and and active thought process.

What I'm saying is that that's pretty arbitrary as a dividing line.  A matter of individual opinion.

Why would it be a sin to abort? Apparently the GOD in Genesis felt abortion was ok. I wonder how many fetuses died then, should you believe the bible. If you view a fetus as a human child, you would be technically correct.  However, abortions are usually considered when someone decides they can not handle the barring of a child, or if it's dangerous for them to do so. However, if you want to force someone to bare a child, you better be prepared to be the one to pay for all the mothers medical bills, and the care of the child. So if such a law is enacted, anyone who voted for the law should be forced to pay via taxes to support the targets of their law. And if the mother dies giving birth, they should all be forced to pay the family grievance money, and pay for the funeral. It is a tough moral dilemma though isn't it? Especially since such laws wouldn't stop back alley abortions or dumpster babies.

The other problem is world over population. You can't force people to not have sex or to abide by your rules in this case. If man's very existence depended on population reduction, how would you accomplish it?

Quote from: "TheJackel"If man's very existence depended on population reduction, how would you accomplish it?

Ensuring gender equality and education is a start. Among nations with better education and gender equality, birth rates are much lower. If that isn't enough, we can start exploring more severe options, but it doesn't make sense to go there just yet. Once the entire planet is in wonderful education systems and women have equal rights everywhere, then we'll talk.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "TheJackel"If man's very existence depended on population reduction, how would you accomplish it?

Ensuring gender equality and education is a start. Among nations with better education and gender equality, birth rates are much lower. If that isn't enough, we can start exploring more severe options, but it doesn't make sense to go there just yet. Once the entire planet is in wonderful education systems and women have equal rights everywhere, then we'll talk.

It was to show that at some point, hypocrisy would be required. Yes I agree that we aren't quite there yet, but human nature has been known to do nothing until it must do something, or until it's on that dividing line of being to late to do anything about it becomes absolute. So when I ask that what would you do if man's very survival depended on it, what would you do?

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "TheJackel"If man's very existence depended on population reduction, how would you accomplish it?

Ensuring gender equality and education is a start. Among nations with better education and gender equality, birth rates are much lower. If that isn't enough, we can start exploring more severe options, but it doesn't make sense to go there just yet. Once the entire planet is in wonderful education systems and women have equal rights everywhere, then we'll talk.

It was to show that at some point, hypocrisy would be required. Yes I agree that we aren't quite there yet, but human nature has been known to do nothing until it must do something, or until it's on that dividing line of being to late to do anything about it. So when I ask that what would you do if man's very survival depended on it, what would you do?

Me, personally? I don't know. Probably encourage abortions, I guess.

QuoteMe, personally? I don't know. Probably encourage abortions, I guess.

Exactly, because man must balance it's own existence with nature or face extinction itself. It's a matter of what price will it cost us to realize that we are not above the limits of our natural world. So unless Faster than light speed becomes realized, there is literally nothing man can do to survive other than balance it's own existence with nature. It's said that human nature will not allow us to survive another 10,000 years at the rate it's going. And that is a pretty short time period IMO, even though that prediction is an assumption.

Anyways, the real reason Christians view abortion as a sin is not just because they view it as murder, they also view it as a loss of a potential follower of their ideology. And the more they are involved in that process the more they have power and say in the child's possible future with them. We (being me and the churches I worked with) used to target pregnant teens and make them feel like only the lord can save their child, and that for them to avoid their damnation that they must join and conform to our ideology. The easiest way was to target the mortal well being of their unborn child while offering the carrot of salvation through Jesus Christ. That was some serious manipulation, and it was intentionally done. So there is more to the abortion argument than just the killing of the fetus. Hence, it's GODS Christian children you are killing.  

Anyways, here is the worlds estimated population growth by year:

Quotehttp://geography.about.com/od/obtainpop ... lation.htm (http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm)

Year    Population
1    200 million
1000    275 million
1500    450 million
1650    500 million
1750    700 million
1804    1 billion
1850    1.2 billion
1900    1.6 billion
1927    2 billion
1950    2.55 billion
1955    2.8 billion
1960    3 billion
1965    3.3 billion
1970    3.7 billion
1975    4 billion
1980    4.5 billion
1985    4.85 billion
1990    5.3 billion
1995    5.7 billion
1999    6 billion
2006    6.5 billion
2009    6.8 billion
2012    7 billion
2027    8 billion
2044    9 billion
2050    9.2 billion

What would it be estimated at in the year 3500?

Maybe we should start a population control thread so we don't move too far off the question of whether all atheists are opposed to abortion.

I don't think we should ever enforce abortion, or any other form of population control (unless someone can convince me otherwise). I just think it should be encouraged in overpopulated areas.

Quote from: "Will"Maybe we should start a population control thread so we don't move too far off the question of whether all atheists are opposed to abortion.

Well, I think this is inherently apart of the discussion. But to answer whether or not population control in regards to abortion should be enforced, that really depends on how severe the problem becomes. Remember, I am only arguing from that position of do or become extinct.. So to clarify my position here, I would just say that hypocrisy would become a choice of survival. I personally believe abortion is allowable in some cases while holding the stance that it would be unreasonable in other cases. It does a child no good to be brought up in an abusive home, or by parents that never wanted their children. There will be unfair and unwanted cause and effects on either side of the coin here, and I just think people should consider those before really debating such legislation, or position. And I say that because my position isn't exactly set in concrete on this issue because of the various reasons that are fore and against it.

I'm pro-choice.  My personal choice would probably be not to have an abortion myself, but I would never dream of making that choice for anyone else.  I've also personally chosen to use BC to minimize the likelihood that I'll ever have to make that decision either way.

I agree with Whitney that I wish there was better, more accessible sex education.  Ideally, women would not have to be in a position to have to choose to get an abortion in the first place because they'd have taken precautions against pregnancy.  Of course that doesn't rule out the unfortunate reality of incest or rape, but certainly education would minimize it to a point.

Quote from: "TheJackel"What would it (world population) be estimated at in the year 3500?

My guess - 0.

In fact, I've put $100 on it with my bookie.

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "Tank"In Saudi Arabia girls with non-congenital physical or mental handicaps often become the third or forth wife of a man simply to produce children. This to me is one of the most degrading things done anywhere on Earth.

But what if this woman, suffering her condition, is happy in this scenario?  Would we banish her to loneliness?  Prevent her from enjoying the pleasure she desires?  Perhaps this is the only man in her society that will offer her these opportunities, will we prevent him?

-a-train

The womb has no choice in the matter as that is all that is considered in these exchanges, unless of course we are discussing a particularly beautiful mentally retarded 14 year old girl in which case she might be considered quite a catch. If the girl gets some benefit out of the arrangement then great, but that would be a side effect in some/many/most cases? The treatment of women in Saudi is a disgrace. The treatment of the handicapped even more so. Their families generally consider them a punishment from Allah.

However if you are making the point that physically and mentally handicapped people have the right to self determination I would agree with you completely. The point I'm making is that the individual should have choice in the matter and if they are incapable of choice then they are in need of protection from those that would exploit them.

EDIT

Have a read of this thread at the Richard Dawkins forum archive http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... b48dd7c1d9 (http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=25015&sid=90eee606feb0a3e63399beb48dd7c1d9)

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Intrauterine brainwaves seems as good a criterion as any for determining when thought begins, don't you think?  After all, there is a very strong correlation between an active EEG readout and and active thought process.

What I'm saying is that that's pretty arbitrary as a dividing line.  A matter of individual opinion.

No it's not an arbitrary dividing line, that would be like saying 14 weeks and no more for no other reason than one felt it was a good idea, that would be arbitrary. The appearance of brain activity in the foetus is not arbitrary as it can be measured and qualified. Whether one feels that reaching this developmental milestone is a valid reason to prohibit abortion under some circumstances is a different and more detailed question.

Hack makes a good point as up until brain activity is identified the foetus could neither comprehend nor react to the abortion.

Quote from: "Will"Maybe we should start a population control thread so we don't move too far off the question of whether all atheists are opposed to abortion.

Would you do the honours and split off the derail posts into their own thread please.

I am politically in the middle on abortion. Yes it's an important issue that's obvious. But unlike many other political things, there's actual good logical reasons that can be spoken from both sides when it comes to abortion. If someone became pregnant against their will I'd be for it, but otherwise I just can't really make up my mind really. Really I consider myself neutral on abortion, and tend to feel stronger about subjects where I can't see good reasons on both sides. It's an important thing yes, but just too complicated for me to feel like strongly judging on it.

Quote from: "Wilson"There's a very good reason to extend personhood to a fetus - that it is literally a living human being with the potential for developing into a fully formed person, and there's no logical way to draw the line between personhood and non-personhood.  I assume that you would be opposed to killing a newborn baby, for the convenience of the mother, right?  Yet it isn't a full sentient person yet.

Person is a legal concept which extends rights to a living being.  In order to grant personhood to a fetus we would also have to take away the mother's personhood as she would lose the right to make decisions about her own body.  After the baby is born the mother can choose to give it away if she is unable to care for it.  So, there is a very clear legal line of where it would make rational sense to define personhood.

Since the legal definition of person is what we should use for law and deciding if abortion ought to be a choice then that gives a good rational basis for making the decision.

Philosophically and as a matter of ethics it would make more sense to look at when we think the fetus develops higher brain function and is viable..third trimester.  The reason this line makes sense is because it is now able to survive by itself if removed from the mother.  But viable babies that need to be removed from the mother before full term aren't aborted, they are birthed by c-section so it's a moot issue.

So, I still don't see why one would have to make an emotional decision about choice as there are a couple rational lines to look at; obviously we can tell when a baby is born but when it is viable is harder to pin point and I don't think ethics should be legislated unless the issue also causes a societal issue.

I am personally opposed to abortion only in the third trimester for non-medical reasons.  And the medical reason does need to be severe enough.  Genetic testing may become sensitive enough to detect less severe and chronic illnesses, such as asthma or diabetes, and it currently would be possible for a parent to abort on the basis of the sex of the child. I personally don't feel these types of illness or personal choices warrant an abortion at this stage of fetal development.

As far as instituting this into law, however, I am pro-choice as I would never want to force someone to bring a child into the world if they can't love it and provide a decent home for it, unless there are real adoption alternatives.  Some leeway in the law towards more freedom of choice for the mother is necessary.  All cases are unique and the American legal system is notoriously inconsistent.

Also, true to the pro-choice stance, I am against any type of coerced or forced abortions for any reason since it is a medical procedure and all medical procedures must be the choice of the individual undergoing them.  The only instance in which I think this may be of concern in the U.S. is when an individual has been declared incompetent by the state for mental health reasons, but I'm not really sure what the laws are in this case, so it may not be an issue.

I think that abortion should be legal until birth.  And, parents should be allowed to sell their children.

-a-train

How much should infants cost? Will there be coupons?

Quote from: "Will"How much should infants cost? Will there be coupons?

I've heard the going rate for US adoptions is 30 or 40 grand after all is said and done.

(No wonder people go overseas to buy their babies)

EBAY  BABIES! Bid NOW, or BUY IT NOW! Rating: 100% in the last 9 months!

Item Location:   Los Angeles, California, United States
Time left:   4d 01h (Jan 16, 201116:00:00 PST)
Bid history: 35 bids
Current bid:US $910.00   
Your maximum bid:_______ . US $ (Enter US $920.00 or more)   
Place bidPlace bid
   
 


OR
[spoiler:1514hgtv]You can now get your ghetto babies on CRAIGSLIST[/color][/b]. :blink: [/i][/size][/spoiler:1514hgtv]

Quote from: "Will"How much should infants cost? Will there be coupons?

Whatever price the market will support.  I think some parents would lower their ask for potential buyers who they believe will provide a better home for the child.  Some third party organization might certify households with high ratings, parents may limit sales to holders of those ratings, or sell to them at a discount.  Thus, there would be something similar to a coupon.

-a-train

Quote from: "TheJackel"EBAY BABIES! Bid NOW, or BUY IT NOW! Rating: 100% in the last 9 months!  


OR
[spoiler:1yzam26q]You can now get your ghetto babies on CRAIGSLIST[/color][/b]. :blink: [/i][/size][/spoiler:1yzam26q]

This may dramatically reduce the rate of abortion and child abuse.  Neglected and unwanted children could be sold into homes that actually want them.

-a-train

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Intrauterine brainwaves seems as good a criterion as any for determining when thought begins, don't you think?  After all, there is a very strong correlation between an active EEG readout and and active thought process.

What I'm saying is that that's pretty arbitrary as a dividing line.  A matter of individual opinion.

No more arbitrary than any other, and much less than many.  What do you regard as the essence of humanity, if not our capacity for reasoned thought?

eta: And of course it's only my opinion.  I'm pretty sure that is what the OP requested.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Intrauterine brainwaves seems as good a criterion as any for determining when thought begins, don't you think?  After all, there is a very strong correlation between an active EEG readout and and active thought process.

What I'm saying is that that's pretty arbitrary as a dividing line.  A matter of individual opinion.

No more arbitrary than any other, and much less than many.  What do you regard as the essence of humanity, if not our capacity for reasoned thought?

Me, I'm not too sure. I think it's a combination of things -- our biology, our ability for reasoned thought, our capacity for pain and suffering but also for joy and happiness, our emotions, our past memories and experiences, etc. Of course, one wouldn't have to have all of the things I outlined above for me to consider it human; just most.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Intrauterine brainwaves seems as good a criterion as any for determining when thought begins, don't you think?  After all, there is a very strong correlation between an active EEG readout and and active thought process.

What I'm saying is that that's pretty arbitrary as a dividing line.  A matter of individual opinion.

No more arbitrary than any other, and much less than many.  What do you regard as the essence of humanity, if not our capacity for reasoned thought?

eta: And of course it's only my opinion.  I'm pretty sure that is what the OP requested.

You think as soon as a fetus has EEG brain activity it is capable of reasoned thought?  

By the way, I didn't say that the dividing line between activity and no activity was arbitrary, only that using that as a criterion for allowing abortion was arbitrary.  Or using it as a criterion to determine personhood vs non-personhood.  Reasoned thought is another possibility.  How do you define that?  Is a newborn baby capable of reasoned thought?

Sorry, folks.  There's no logical second in a fetus or baby's life where a switch is turned on for personhood.  It's a gradual process.  Everybody has an opinion as to where that dividing line should be, but there's no logical point on which all people of good will can agree.  In China, where infanticide is common, it apparently is on the other side of birth.  I still say it's mostly a matter of how the concept of abortion at certain stages affects us emotionally - where empathy kicks in.  Think about a baby a week away from being born - would you be okay with aborting it?  Would you punish the mother for doing so?  Or the doctor?  There are no easy answers.

Quote from: "Wilson"Sorry, folks.  There's no logical second in a fetus or baby's life where a switch is turned on for personhood.

If I may interject, there is a logical biological reason rooted directly in the concept of a woman's right to choose which is a clear and distinct moment where a fetus becomes an infant and thus gains personhood: the biological disconnection from the mother. Between fertilization and the moment of birth, a zygote and then embryo and then fetus is entirely biologically dependent on the mother for nourishment, oxygen, and waste disposal. The child functions as a part of the woman's actual body. The second the baby is born and the cord broken, the biological status of the life-form changes fundamentally. I've always seen that as the significant distinction.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"No more arbitrary than any other, and much less than many.  What do you regard as the essence of humanity, if not our capacity for reasoned thought?

Me, I'm not too sure. I think it's a combination of things -- our biology, our ability for reasoned thought, our capacity for pain and suffering but also for joy and happiness, our emotions, our past memories and experiences, etc. Of course, one wouldn't have to have all of the things I outlined above for me to consider it human; just most.

Well yeah, but our biology is inherent (either actually or potentially) in a fetus, as is our capacity for reasoned thought.  The other qualities you mention are a result of the thought that I mentioned as the sine qua non of humanity above, so far as I can tell.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Wilson"Sorry, folks.  There's no logical second in a fetus or baby's life where a switch is turned on for personhood.

If I may interject, there is a logical biological reason rooted directly in the concept of a woman's right to choose which is a clear and distinct moment where a fetus becomes an infant and thus gains personhood: the biological disconnection from the mother. Between fertilization and the moment of birth, a zygote and then embryo and then fetus is entirely biologically dependent on the mother for nourishment, oxygen, and waste disposal. The child functions as a part of the woman's actual body. The second the baby is born and the cord broken, the biological status of the life-form changes fundamentally. I've always seen that as the significant distinction.

Which is what I was trying to point out when I was defining person as a legal entity separate from that of the mother.

When discussing pro-choice vs anti-choice as it pertains to law all that maters is if a rational line can be drawn...and birth makes a lot of sense.

Brain function, how one feels about a fetus etc relate to the ethics of abortion...that shouldn't affect the law since abortion can't be argued to harm society (at least not while we live in an overpopulated world).

Being a small-government centrist, I don't see that it is any of the government's business to regulate abortion anyway.  There is no pressing societal need calling for such an intrusive violation of privacy, no matter one's feelings on abortion.

I've always found it odd that those most often on record as favoring anti-choice legislation are usually those who claim to espouse the Jeffersonian dictum that "that government is best which governs least."  I mean how much more intrusive can a government get than this -- except to perhaps force abortions?  

Because believe me, if the government can tell the woman she must bear the child, the government can also tell her she must abort it.  The two orders are identical, in the logical sense.

Pro-Choice.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Wilson"Sorry, folks.  There's no logical second in a fetus or baby's life where a switch is turned on for personhood.

If I may interject, there is a logical biological reason rooted directly in the concept of a woman's right to choose which is a clear and distinct moment where a fetus becomes an infant and thus gains personhood: the biological disconnection from the mother. Between fertilization and the moment of birth, a zygote and then embryo and then fetus is entirely biologically dependent on the mother for nourishment, oxygen, and waste disposal. The child functions as a part of the woman's actual body. The second the baby is born and the cord broken, the biological status of the life-form changes fundamentally. I've always seen that as the significant distinction.

So you are okay with third-trimester abortion - say, for example, a baby about a week away from being delivered naturally.  A baby or fetus that would survive if delivered at that time instead of aborted - that would cry spontaneously and move its arms and breathe normally.  You'd be okay with killing that little creature.

I guess you're tougher than I am.

Of course there are several clearcut dividing lines - the moment of birth, the first detectable brain activity, the time when the fetus can survive unaided outside the womb, the time when the fetus can survive with medical assistance outside the womb, and so on.  The cutting of the cord is the most clearcut of all.  But the brain of that baby a moment before birth and the moment after are essentially the same.  There are profound changes in the circulatory system that occur at birth.  But personhood is more brain-related than anything else, in my opinion.

Quote from: "Wilson"So you are okay with third-trimester abortion - say, for example, a baby about a week away from being delivered naturally.

I'm not 'okay' with any abortion. I think they're truly horrible last resorts. I'm of the opinion that abortions should be incredibly rare. Here's the thing: I don't know why abortion a third-trimester fetus is somehow so much worse than a second-trimester fetus. They're both really sad situations. I don't know why you would put some arbitrary line between them. Wouldn't a first trimester abortion make you sad?

Me being made sad, though, doesn't change the law or the reality behind the law. Roe v. Wade exists as an affirmation of individual liberty, the liberty of a woman to choose whether or not to be pregnant; pregnant from very start to very finish. Reproduction is perhaps the most fundamental right of womanhood. Stripping away that right, even when done because abortions are incredibly tragic, is a violation none the less.

Quote from: "Wilson"A baby or fetus that would survive if delivered at that time instead of aborted - that would cry spontaneously and move its arms and breathe normally.  You'd be okay with killing that little creature.

I'd not  be okay with killing a child delivered and no longer connected with the mother. If, however, the fetus is still connected, the woman is still pregnant and the fetus is still a part of her body. It's that connection that makes all the difference.

Quote from: "Wilson"Of course there are several clearcut dividing lines - the moment of birth, the first detectable brain activity, the time when the fetus can survive unaided outside the womb, the time when the fetus can survive with medical assistance outside the womb, and so on.  The cutting of the cord is the most clearcut of all.  But the brain of that baby a moment before birth and the moment after are essentially the same.  There are profound changes in the circulatory system that occur at birth.  But personhood is more brain-related than anything else, in my opinion.

Why would personhood be brain related? Dolphins and apes are much, much more intelligent than infants. Should they be given constitutional rights? My beagle has a functional understanding of dozens of commands, which far outdoes infants. And what about people with mental deficiencies? Should they be denied their legal rights? No, I'm afraid I don't agree that intellect or brain activity should determine whether or not rights are bestowed by the state and society.

Quote from: "Will"Why would personhood be brain related? Dolphins and apes are much, much more intelligent than infants. Should they be given constitutional rights? My beagle has a functional understanding of dozens of commands, which far outdoes infants. And what about people with mental deficiencies? Should they be denied their legal rights? No, I'm afraid I don't agree that intellect or brain activity should determine whether or not rights are bestowed by the state and society.

My point is that it's all arbitrary.  You'll never get general agreement, even among people who aren't bible-directed.  The law doesn't get its dividing line from logic, it just kind of seeks a level where women are given a certain degree of abortion choice and the public's outrage isn't excessive.  Who knows how those decisions are made?  Rights bestowed by the state and society are whatever the politicians and the courts decide they are.  Those rights aren't set by God, they are set by the government, largely according to public opinion.  Luckily, we live in a fairly enlightened age.

But I've also thought about the fact that many animals are smarter than babies.  I've often thought that I see more humanity in my dogs than in newborn babies (and more humanity in my dogs than in some adult humans, for that matter).  Until a fetus reaches a stage where it is just too close to a baby in appearance and size, I feel that it's no more wrong morally to abort a human fetus than to abort a dog or cat fetus of the same stage.  Cruelty to an animal says almost the same thing about the character of the perpetrator as cruelty to humans - children or otherwise.  

By the way, I don't believe that you would have the same emotions from watching a late term abortion as from watching an early abortion.  Maybe philosophically they're the same to you, but one would look like a minor surgical procedure and the other would look a little like an execution.

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Will"Why would personhood be brain related? Dolphins and apes are much, much more intelligent than infants. Should they be given constitutional rights? My beagle has a functional understanding of dozens of commands, which far outdoes infants. And what about people with mental deficiencies? Should they be denied their legal rights? No, I'm afraid I don't agree that intellect or brain activity should determine whether or not rights are bestowed by the state and society.

My point is that it's all arbitrary.  You'll never get general agreement, even among people who aren't bible-directed.  The law doesn't get its dividing line from logic, it just kind of seeks a level where women are given a certain degree of abortion choice and the public's outrage isn't excessive.  Who knows how those decisions are made?  Rights bestowed by the state and society are whatever the politicians and the courts decide they are.  Those rights aren't set by God, they are set by the government, largely according to public opinion.  Luckily, we live in a fairly enlightened age.

But I've also thought about the fact that many animals are smarter than babies.  I've often thought that I see more humanity in my dogs than in newborn babies (and more humanity in my dogs than in some adult humans, for that matter).  Until a fetus reaches a stage where it is just too close to a baby in appearance and size, I feel that it's no more wrong morally to abort a human fetus than to abort a dog or cat fetus of the same stage.  Cruelty to an animal says almost the same thing about the character of the perpetrator as cruelty to humans - children or otherwise.  

By the way, I don't believe that you would have the same emotions from watching a late term abortion as from watching an early abortion.  Maybe philosophically they're the same to you, but one would look like a minor surgical procedure and the other would look a little like an execution.

All good points. Would you answer me a couple of hypothetical questions please to allow my to clarify my understanding of your position?

Assuming a healthy female and healthy prognosis for the foetus.

1) If you were a female would

you want the right to have an abortion?
2) If you answered 'Yes' to 1 where, if at all, during the pregnancy would you accept it as reasonable that you would no longer have the right to an abortion?[/list]

Quote from: "Wilson"So you are okay with third-trimester abortion - say, for example, a baby about a week away from being delivered naturally.

I, for one, certainly am.

QuoteA baby or fetus that would survive if delivered at that time instead of aborted - that would cry spontaneously and move its arms and breathe normally.  You'd be okay with killing that little creature.

I'm ok with killing whatever it is my boots are made of. I'm ok with killing chickens. I'm ok with killing a whole host of useful animals... So why would I be opposed to killing a third trimester human fetus which would likely contribute with little besides overpopulating the planet and stretching the already stretched resources one human further..?

QuoteI guess you're tougher than I am.

In my case, it's not toughness. Some of it is heartlessness, but even that is a minor factor. Fewer babies means the highways will move that much faster in a few years. (Also metaphorically)

QuoteWhitney wrote: that shouldn't affect the law since abortion can't be argued to harm society (at least not while we live in an overpopulated world).

Good point.  For example, as much as the abortions required by one child policy in China turn my stomach, the economic benefits to the country of the population control policy have become apparent in greater modernization, better health for women with smaller families, more work and education opportunities.  It is getting the country's population problem under control.  But it's a nasty reality that there are some murky ethics and human rights problems with the policies. We aren't in that situation in the U.S. currently, so it's easy to sit on a moral high ground when viewing another countries practices...but I still wonder if they could do it without requiring abortions.

So, I'm curious, what if we lived in a world that had just suffered a human population collapse from a devastating virus?  Would abortion be viewed differently then?

Quote from: "Tank"All good points. Would you answer me a couple of hypothetical questions please to allow my to clarify my understanding of your position?

Assuming a healthy female and healthy prognosis for the foetus.

1) If you were a female would

you want the right to have an abortion?
2) If you answered 'Yes' to 1 where, if at all, during the pregnancy would you accept it as reasonable that you would no longer have the right to an abortion?[/list]

If I were a female I'd certainly want the right to an abortion and ideally I'd have enough sense to realize it early enough to have it in the first six months of gestation.  If I was dumb enough or so afraid that I put it off until the eighth month of pregnancy I might well still want to have an abortion, but we don't always get what we want.  Society and government set the rules.

Believe me, I've favored abortion rights for longer than some of you have been alive.  What I'm arguing for is an understanding that at some point it all gets damn complicated from a moral standpoint and from an empathy standpoint.  I think an argument could be made under the right to choose that up to five years of age a mother should be allowed to choose to kill her child because the child isn't fully developed and is still almost entirely dependent on her.

Quote from: "LARA"So, I'm curious, what if we lived in a world that had just suffered a human population collapse from a devastating virus?  Would abortion be viewed differently then?

By some, almost certainly yes. Others, however, are not all that hellbent on saving the human race. I, for instance, would probably not change my stance by much.

There are just too many do-gooders for any good to get done.  Government should be completely uninvolved in abortion, in "protecting" children, etc.

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"There are just too many do-gooders for any good to get done.  Government should be completely uninvolved in abortion, in "protecting" children, etc.

-a-train

You mean that there should be no laws against child abuse?

No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train

I think there's an obvious question that needs to be asked here: what will stop children from being abused? I mean, I know that current laws don't stop it completely, but I'd think that it would get worse without laws.

Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

Quote from: "a-train"No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train

It sounds like you might include pedophilia, rape, incest... here too...?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "a-train"No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train

I think there's an obvious question that needs to be asked here: what will stop children from being abused? I mean, I know that current laws don't stop it completely, but I'd think that it would get worse without laws.

Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

First, do we have any real reason to assume that children will be more abused if abuse laws are gone?

I would say that the answer would be yes if that is all that we changed.  But if parents were allowed to sell their children, and children are allowed (whenever capable, regardless of age) to leave their parents and obtain their subsistence however they can, then I think abuse would be systemically lowered.

Still, this is not my reason for advocating freedom.  It is the individual that I am concerned with.  Each individual should be free to pursue happiness as he/she sees fit.  I do not believe that some benevolent ruler or bureau has ever done any good by trampling individual rights.

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "a-train"No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train

I think there's an obvious question that needs to be asked here: what will stop children from being abused? I mean, I know that current laws don't stop it completely, but I'd think that it would get worse without laws.

Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

First, do we have any real reason to assume that children will be more abused if abuse laws are gone?

I would say that the answer would be yes if that is all that we changed.  But if parents were allowed to sell their children, and children are allowed (whenever capable, regardless of age) to leave their parents and obtain their subsistence however they can, then I think abuse would be systemically lowered.

Still, this is not my reason for advocating freedom.  It is the individual that I am concerned with.  Each individual should be free to pursue happiness as he/she sees fit.  I do not believe that some benevolent ruler or bureau has ever done any good by trampling individual rights.

-a-train

I think I agree with you here, although I would need to seem some more data.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "a-train"No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train

It sounds like you might include pedophilia, rape, incest... here too...?

Physical violence (sexual or otherwise), should be a crime regardless of the identities and relations of the perpetrators and victims.

As long as they don't become beggars on the streets. They are a sore on the face of my harmony and therefor deserve to be forcebly removed with a HUGE lawn mower.  

Quote from: "a-train"First, do we have any real reason to assume that children will be more abused if abuse laws are gone?

I would say that the answer would be yes if that is all that we changed.  But if parents were allowed to sell their children, and children are allowed (whenever capable, regardless of age) to leave their parents and obtain their subsistence however they can, then I think abuse would be systemically lowered.

Still, this is not my reason for advocating freedom.  It is the individual that I am concerned with.  Each individual should be free to pursue happiness as he/she sees fit.  I do not believe that some benevolent ruler or bureau has ever done any good by trampling individual rights.

-a-train

Don't mean to be offensive, but I think you've gone off the tracks.  You sound like an anarchist, a zealot, a true believer not so different from fundamentalist religious nuts, except for the dogma.  Most of us don't have a lot of respect for politicians and government, but government, imperfect as it is, is a civilizing force, without which we would indeed have more freedoms, including the freedom to murder, steal, rape, and abuse children.  A life without govenment would not be pleasant.

If I've misrepresented your philosophy, please correct me, and I apologize.

Quote from: "Wilson"Don't mean to be offensive, but I think you've gone off the tracks.  You sound like an anarchist, a zealot, a true believer not so different from fundamentalist religious nuts, except for the dogma.  Most of us don't have a lot of respect for politicians and government, but government, imperfect as it is, is a civilizing force, without which we would indeed have more freedoms, including the freedom to murder, steal, rape, and abuse children.  A life without govenment would not be pleasant.

If I've misrepresented your philosophy, please correct me, and I apologize.

I felt/feel the same in reading this and the prior posts.  I refrained from saying so assuming it was just me as a Christian and would be seen as some kind of legalism freak.  I too, hope it is a knee-jerk reaction and I am wrong.

It seems, though, that a-train means to say that less law translates to less crime.  That society would heal itself, removing civil restrictions.  Is this correct, a-train?  To some lesser degree I can agree, but you seem to be broad-stroking the whole en-cha-lada.

Quote from: "Wilson"I think an argument could be made under the right to choose that up to five years of age a mother should be allowed to choose to kill her child because the child isn't fully developed and is still almost entirely dependent on her.

I've been barking up this tree for years. I feel that up to 30th trimester abortions should be legal, because there are some d-bag kids out there.

Obviously, this is in jest...

I believe in pro-choice up to the point of labor.

Quote from: "a-train"First, do we have any real reason to assume that children will be more abused if abuse laws are gone?

Yes for two reasons:
Laws allow us to protect children from abusive parents by taking them away
Laws prevent child labor, another form of abuse

QuoteI would say that the answer would be yes if that is all that we changed.  But if parents were allowed to sell their children, and children are allowed (whenever capable, regardless of age) to leave their parents and obtain their subsistence however they can, then I think abuse would be systemically lowered.

You underestimate the ability of parents to manipulate their children into staying even if they are legally free to leave.  Abused children already are free to run away as long as they go straight to the police (or other protective service) to report their abuse.
While I was joking about adoption being buying a child before (and no one get on me for hurting the feelings of adopted kids, I'm one of them)...we do have real cases of kids being sold; straight into the sex slave trade.

QuoteEach individual should be free to pursue happiness as he/she sees fit.  I do not believe that some benevolent ruler or bureau has ever done any good by trampling individual rights.

Can you name one society that allowed their youngsters to run around as they pleased which is not a third world country?  Children lack the basic mental function necessary to go out on their own...a society of self raised adults would be a real life mediocracy (and we are already close enough to that as it is).

Quote from: "Whitney"Can you name one society that allowed their youngsters to run around as they pleased which is not a third world country?  Children lack the basic mental function necessary to go out on their own...a society of self raised adults would be a real life mediocracy (and we are already close enough to that as it is).

Lord of the Flies... anyone?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Whitney"Can you name one society that allowed their youngsters to run around as they pleased which is not a third world country?  Children lack the basic mental function necessary to go out on their own...a society of self raised adults would be a real life mediocracy (and we are already close enough to that as it is).

Lord of the Flies... anyone?

Yes, that's exactly what we want in a society  

(I actually still need to read that one some time...I, erm, cliff noted it in school)

Quote from: "Wilson"Don't mean to be offensive, but I think you've gone off the tracks.  You sound like an anarchist, a zealot, a true believer not so different from fundamentalist religious nuts, except for the dogma.

I can't speak for a-train or a-train's positions in this discussion, but as an anarchist, I resent being lumped in with religious zealots. IMO, true-believing, dogmatic capitalists and statists are, at best, no less different from fundamentalist religious nuts in that regard.

Quote from: "Whitney"Can you name one society that allowed their youngsters to run around as they pleased which is not a third world country?  Children lack the basic mental function necessary to go out on their own...a society of self raised adults would be a real life mediocracy (and we are already close enough to that as it is).

The United States rose to the highest standard of living on earth before child labor and abuse laws were enacted.  It was not the emergence of child labor laws that brought children out of the workforce but the emergence of wealth.  Still, the United States did not protect the freedom of those children either before nor now after those laws have come into being.

It is certainly a tragedy that a child would be compelled against his/her will to work.  More evil still is the event of the product of that labor being withheld from him/her.  This, of course, is slavery.  This, of course, is wrong.  And who was it that caught those that ran from those farms and factories and brought them back?  The Police.  No different from those black slaves that ran.  Government and society enforced this tyranny.

Today children are prevented from working, prevented from entering into legal contracts (getting a bank account, renting a place to live), prevented from going to other households, their ability to leave the abuse is drastically hampered.  Certainly the very young are unable to do anything on all accounts.  Anything less than constant supervision would not enable society to prevent the abuse of children of that age, regardless of our laws.

It should not be necessary that a state law be enacted specifically on the behalf of persons under a given age to offer legal protection against physical or sexual violence, kidnapping, and/or slavery.  Any victim of such aggression should be able to get legal redress without any stipulation of his/her age.

Also, much of the reason for the existence of the black market for sex is the prohibition of the legal one.  The clientele necessary for the profitability of the illegal sex market would largely evaporate in the presence of legal competition.  Like the illicit drug market, legalization would end much of the violence involved in these industries.


-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "a-train"No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.

-a-train

I think there's an obvious question that needs to be asked here: what will stop children from being abused? I mean, I know that current laws don't stop it completely, but I'd think that it would get worse without laws.

Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

First, do we have any real reason to assume that children will be more abused if abuse laws are gone?

Yes we do have evidence. We do know that there are serial child abusers behind bars because the laws we accept allow us to put them there. I would guess that there are paedophiles that do not become child abusers because they don't want to go to prison. If the threat of prison were not there then they could turn their fantasies into reality with impunity and as often as they could. Now what is good for the goose id good for the gander so if you take away one set of laws then you might as well take them all away. At which point child abusers will only need to get caught once as in the average community they would be castrated and/or lynched.

QuoteI would say that the answer would be yes if that is all that we changed.  But if parents were allowed to sell their children, and children are allowed (whenever capable, regardless of age) to leave their parents and obtain their subsistence however they can, then I think abuse would be systemically lowered.

Still, this is not my reason for advocating freedom.  It is the individual that I am concerned with.  Each individual should be free to pursue happiness as he/she sees fit.  I do not believe that some benevolent ruler or bureau has ever done any good by trampling individual rights.

-a-train

What if I wanted to kill people with ideas like yours because it made me feel happy? I think your ideas are very naive and ill considered.

Quote from: "a-train"No.  And there should be no law preventing children from leaving home, forcing children to go to school, preventing parents from selling children, and so forth.
-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"Physical violence (sexual or otherwise), should be a crime regardless of the identities and relations of the perpetrators and victims.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"First, do we have any real reason to assume that children will be more abused if abuse laws are gone?

I would say that the answer would be yes if that is all that we changed. But if parents were allowed to sell their children, and children are allowed (whenever capable, regardless of age) to leave their parents and obtain their subsistence however they can, then I think abuse would be systemically lowered.

Still, this is not my reason for advocating freedom. It is the individual that I am concerned with. Each individual should be free to pursue happiness as he/she sees fit. I do not believe that some benevolent ruler or bureau has ever done any good by trampling individual rights.

-a-train

No I don't think children would be better off with the friendly raincoat man offering his bag of candy.
A child may well realise they are in a bad environment but be made to feel it is their only choice.
A child could easily be tricked by an abuser to enter into an abusive relationship.
I'm pretty shore paedophiles exchange ideas on the best techniques.
Who are the parents going to sell their children to? The friendly raincoat man?

Quoteobtain their subsistence however they can

It's hard to believe this is serious, I suppose some carbon emissions may be saved by the airlines on the Bangkok route.

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "Whitney"Can you name one society that allowed their youngsters to run around as they pleased which is not a third world country?  Children lack the basic mental function necessary to go out on their own...a society of self raised adults would be a real life mediocracy (and we are already close enough to that as it is).

The United States rose to the highest standard of living on earth before child labor and abuse laws were enacted.  It was not the emergence of child labor laws that brought children out of the workforce but the emergence of wealth.  Still, the United States did not protect the freedom of those children either before nor now after those laws have come into being.

It is certainly a tragedy that a child would be compelled against his/her will to work.  More evil still is the event of the product of that labor being withheld from him/her.  This, of course, is slavery.  This, of course, is wrong.  And who was it that caught those that ran from those farms and factories and brought them back?  The Police.  No different from those black slaves that ran.  Government and society enforced this tyranny.

Today children are prevented from working, prevented from entering into legal contracts (getting a bank account, renting a place to live), prevented from going to other households, their ability to leave the abuse is drastically hampered.  Certainly the very young are unable to do anything on all accounts.  Anything less than constant supervision would not enable society to prevent the abuse of children of that age, regardless of our laws.

It should not be necessary that a state law be enacted specifically on the behalf of persons under a given age to offer legal protection against physical or sexual violence, kidnapping, and/or slavery.  Any victim of such aggression should be able to get legal redress without any stipulation of his/her age.

Also, much of the reason for the existence of the black market for sex is the prohibition of the legal one.  The clientele necessary for the profitability of the illegal sex market would largely evaporate in the presence of legal competition.  Like the illicit drug market, legalization would end much of the violence involved in these industries.


-a-train

You didn't answer my question.

Quote from: "Tank"What if I wanted to kill people with ideas like yours because it made me feel happy? I think your ideas are very naive and ill considered.

What if you read my post and got a clue about what my position is before you make another non sequitur?

Quote from: "Whitney"You didn't answer my question.

If your question is whether or not a country with a liberal policy for all its inhabitants regardless of age has risen above the economic development of the third world, the answer is that no state has ever endorsed such a policy whether in the first, second or third world.  Much of the third world does not offer the protection of the law for adolescents.

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "Whitney"You didn't answer my question.

If your question is whether or not a country with a liberal policy for all its inhabitants regardless of age has risen above the economic development of the third world, the answer is that no state has ever endorsed such a policy whether in the first, second or third world.  Much of the third world does not offer the protection of the law for adolescents.

Hmm...that couldn't be a reason the third world is third world...  [/sarcasm]

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "Whitney"You didn't answer my question.

If your question is whether or not a country with a liberal policy for all its inhabitants regardless of age has risen above the economic development of the third world, the answer is that no state has ever endorsed such a policy whether in the first, second or third world.  Much of the third world does not offer the protection of the law for adolescents.

Hmm...that couldn't be a reason the third world is third world...  [/sarcasm]

Duh

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Hmm...that couldn't be a reason the third world is third world...  [/sarcasm]

Duh

...and so you support the abolishing of protection under the law for adolescents, therefore prefer third world living conditions and rule?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Hmm...that couldn't be a reason the third world is third world...  [/sarcasm]

Duh

...and so you support the abolishing of protection under the law for adolescents, therefore prefer third world living conditions and rule?

He said that adolescents should have the same protections as everyone else, not that all protections should be removed from them.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"...and so you support the abolishing of protection under the law for adolescents, therefore prefer third world living conditions and rule?

He said that adolescents should have the same protections as everyone else, not that all protections should be removed from them.

Thanks, LegendarySandwich, for trying to understand my position before saying something that makes no sense.  AnimatedDirt, I believe the law should apply to everyone, regardless of age or relationship.  Whether I physically assault my 35 year old neighbor, my 75 year old aunt, or my two year old son, the same law against physical assault should apply.  This application of the law should begin at birth.  It is the negating of the rights of children and parents that I am against, and much of our current law does just that.

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"AnimatedDirt, I believe the law should apply to everyone, regardless of age or relationship.  Whether I physically assault my 35 year old neighbor, my 75 year old aunt, or my two year old son, the same law against physical assault should apply.  This application of the law should begin at birth.  It is the negating of the rights of children and parents that I am against, and much of our current law does just that.

-a-train

Doesn't a child suffer more emotionally from being raped than a mature person?
Both may be damaged, but the youg may not develop ideally.
I could just say you're 75 year old aunt could be expected to suffer ten more years of fear, whilst a ten year old has 70 years of fear to look forward to.
I can see an economic argument stemming from this, the young person never goes to university, perhaps continues the abuse cycle.
This is an interesting documentary, it put forward the idea that a persons "age of attraction" can get stuck at the age they were abused, a person abused at ten continues to find ten year olds attractive.  
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/ ... 2_1405.mp3 (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/10/tsy_20101002_1405.mp3)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/360/stories/2010/3012196.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/360/stories/2010/3012196.htm)
Anyway I think we owe children a greater duty of care because they are more vulnerable, so I would support the greatest punishment a society could afford whilst preventing further harm.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Anyway I think we owe children a greater duty of care because they are more vulnerable, so I would support the greatest punishment a society could afford whilst preventing further harm.

Punishment? Wouldn't rehabilitation be better?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Anyway I think we owe children a greater duty of care because they are more vulnerable, so I would support the greatest punishment a society could afford whilst preventing further harm.

Punishment? Wouldn't rehabilitation be better?

Most people in prison will be released so yes rehab if possible benefits society.
Punishment deters offenders, though far from perfectly.
I think punishment is part of justice, people who follow the rules need to see rule breakers held to account.
Denial of liberty is a punishment, normally anyway.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Anyway I think we owe children a greater duty of care because they are more vulnerable, so I would support the greatest punishment a society could afford whilst preventing further harm.

Punishment? Wouldn't rehabilitation be better?

Most people in prison will be released so yes rehab if possible benefits society.
Punishment deters offenders, though far from perfectly.
I think punishment is part of justice, people who follow the rules need to see rule breakers held to account.
Denial of liberty is a punishment.

Do you have any evidence that punishment deters offenders?

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "a-train"AnimatedDirt, I believe the law should apply to everyone, regardless of age or relationship.  Whether I physically assault my 35 year old neighbor, my 75 year old aunt, or my two year old son, the same law against physical assault should apply.  This application of the law should begin at birth.  It is the negating of the rights of children and parents that I am against, and much of our current law does just that.

-a-train

Doesn't a child suffer more emotionally from being raped than a mature person?
Both may be damaged, but the youg may not develop ideally.
I could just say you're 75 year old aunt could be expected to suffer ten more years of fear, whilst a ten year old has 70 years of fear to look forward to.
I can see an economic argument stemming from this, the young person never goes to university, perhaps continues the abuse cycle.
This is an interesting documentary, it put forward the idea that a persons "age of attraction" can get stuck at the age they were abused, a person abused at ten continues to find ten year olds attractive.  
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/ ... 2_1405.mp3 (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/10/tsy_20101002_1405.mp3)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/360/stories/2010/3012196.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/360/stories/2010/3012196.htm)
Anyway I think we owe children a greater duty of care because they are more vulnerable, so I would support the greatest punishment a society could afford whilst preventing further harm.

Your line of thinking is good.  The current system would not remunerate the victim at all.  The perpetrator goes to prison or into some state funded rehab or watch program while the victim goes completely without recompense.  The courts should actually cause the perpetrator to pay reparations to the victim.  Younger victims should get more in reparations than older victims.

-a-train

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Do you have any evidence that punishment deters offenders?

Drink driving used to be very common.
Random breath testing was introduced in the 1980s.
If you drank and drove you could expect to be caught and punished by loss of licence maybe jail.
I KNOW punishment works in this case.
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articl ... esting.htm (http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articles%20and%20topics/drunk%20driving/artcl--drunk-driving-0010--random_breath_testing.htm)

So far as deterring sex offenders, they are a strange bunch and not particularly rational, but prison isn't a pleasant place for them, I do recommend the link I placed in the previous post.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Do you have any evidence that punishment deters offenders?

Drink driving used to be very common.
Random breath testing was introduced in the 1980s.
If you drank and drove you could expect to be caught and punished by loss of licence maybe jail.
I KNOW punishment works in this case.
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articl ... esting.htm (http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articles%20and%20topics/drunk%20driving/artcl--drunk-driving-0010--random_breath_testing.htm)

So far as deterring sex offenders, they are a strange bunch and not particularly rational, but prison isn't a pleasant place for them, I do recommend the link I placed in the previous post.

Hm.

Well, I do think we should punish them, but not too harshly, and try to rehabilitate them in the process. I remember seeing somewhere that in one area, they made special housing for sex offenders that had finished out their sentence in jail but weren't ready to be released back into public. It was really comfortable and nice -- hell, they could even view legal pornography in there.

That's the sort of thing I want to see.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Well, I do think we should punish them, but not too harshly, and try to rehabilitate them in the process. I remember seeing somewhere that in one area, they made special housing for sex offenders that had finished out their sentence in jail but weren't ready to be released back into public. It was really comfortable and nice -- hell, they could even view legal pornography in there.

That's the sort of thing I want to see.

Legal pornography?

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Well, I do think we should punish them, but not too harshly, and try to rehabilitate them in the process. I remember seeing somewhere that in one area, they made special housing for sex offenders that had finished out their sentence in jail but weren't ready to be released back into public. It was really comfortable and nice -- hell, they could even view legal pornography in there.

That's the sort of thing I want to see.

Legal pornography?

As opposed to child pornography or the like, which obviously wouldn't be a very good thing to give to a pedophile (which a lot of sex offenders are).

QuoteAny Atheists Here Opposed to Abortion?

I am not against abortion. I am not for abortion. Each case is different and each ase should be treated differently. If an abortion is a must, I will not say no to it.
"must" includes: pregnancy due to rape, a misshapen embryo, danger of mother's health/death etc

Quote from: "MariaEvri"

QuoteAny Atheists Here Opposed to Abortion?

I am not against abortion. I am not for abortion. Each case is different and each ase should be treated differently. If an abortion is a must, I will not say no to it.
"must" includes: pregnancy due to rape, a misshapen embryo, danger of mother's health/death etc

Do you think it should be illegal for a mother to have an abortion if everything was perfectly fine but she didn't want to take care of it?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "MariaEvri"

QuoteAny Atheists Here Opposed to Abortion?

I am not against abortion. I am not for abortion. Each case is different and each ase should be treated differently. If an abortion is a must, I will not say no to it.
"must" includes: pregnancy due to rape, a misshapen embryo, danger of mother's health/death etc

Do you think it should be illegal for a mother to have an abortion if everything was perfectly fine but she didn't want to take care of it?

I think governments should butt out. Having an abortion is a difficult decision for most and these people should be given support rather than be driven towards underground clinics. For whatever the reason, the decision should be in the parents hands, in particular, the mother.
I can see the potential for abuse, e.g. selective gender, alternative for contraception etc. But really, education is the answer, not legislation.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "MariaEvri"

QuoteAny Atheists Here Opposed to Abortion?

I am not against abortion. I am not for abortion. Each case is different and each ase should be treated differently. If an abortion is a must, I will not say no to it.
"must" includes: pregnancy due to rape, a misshapen embryo, danger of mother's health/death etc

Do you think it should be illegal for a mother to have an abortion if everything was perfectly fine but she didn't want to take care of it?

I'm not sure about the illegal part yet... definitely Im not 100% okay if the mother is healthy and not in any danger. BUT as a woman myself, I can see how an unwanted pregnancy can be a problem.. having something growing inside me and changing my life. I haven't decided about that.

Quote from: "MariaEvri"I'm not sure about the illegal part yet... definitely Im not 100% okay if the mother is healthy and not in any danger. BUT as a woman myself, I can see how an unwanted pregnancy can be a problem.. having something growing inside me and changing my life. I haven't decided about that.

If you do end up feeling that unnecessary abortions should become illegal, then you'll be the first atheist on this thread who has voiced that opinion.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "MariaEvri"I'm not sure about the illegal part yet... definitely Im not 100% okay if the mother is healthy and not in any danger. BUT as a woman myself, I can see how an unwanted pregnancy can be a problem.. having something growing inside me and changing my life. I haven't decided about that.

If you do end up feeling that unnecessary abortions should become illegal, then you'll be the first atheist on this thread who has voiced that opinion.

I'll go out on a limb here.
If past 24 weeks pregnancy I think it should be illegal to have an abortion with intent to kill the baby. My reason is that at 24 weeks, babies can survive outside the womb, it would then be necessary for hospitals to provide medical care to give the baby the best chance of survival. Obviously there would be exceptions to the rule e.g. medical issues etc.

I believe I won;t end up there. I don;t like laws telling me what to do with my body.
But like I said... (did I? it's midnight) I didn't think about this much.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Well, I do think we should punish them, but not too harshly, and try to rehabilitate them in the process. I remember seeing somewhere that in one area, they made special housing for sex offenders that had finished out their sentence in jail but weren't ready to be released back into public. It was really comfortable and nice -- hell, they could even view legal pornography in there.

That's the sort of thing I want to see.

Legal pornography?

As opposed to child pornography or the like, which obviously wouldn't be a very good thing to give to a pedophile (which a lot of sex offenders are).

My little joke was in asking whether the sort of thing you wanted to see was legal pornography.  Sorry for not making that clear.

Lame, I know.

Quote from: "Wilson"My little joke was in asking whether the sort of thing you wanted to see was legal pornography.  Sorry for not making that clear.

Lame, I know.

...

I GET IT NOW.

I hope I'm okay putting this here, it's been all over the news lately so it's got my cogs turning again.

Are there any pro-life athiests? I ask because I've never met a pro-life person who didn't say something about religion. Being pro-life means never even entertaining the possibility of abortion at any stage, so I'm curious if there are pro-life Athiests; why?

Quote from: "Being_Brave"I hope I'm okay putting this here, it's been all over the news lately so it's got my cogs turning again.

Are there any pro-life athiests? I ask because I've never met a pro-life person who didn't say something about religion. Being pro-life means never even entertaining the possibility of abortion at any stage, so I'm curious if there are pro-life Athiests; why?

Atheist is spelled "atheist". You have to flip around the e and i.

I know there are some pro-life atheists, although I don't know how many are at this forum. I'm for legalization of abortion at all stages, so I don't have much to say in regards to your question.

.

Quote from: "Tank"I think you need to explain your definition of pro-life for this to be a meaningful discussion.

Quote from: "BeingBrave"Being pro-life means never even entertaining the possibility of abortion at any stage, so I'm curious if there are pro-life Athiests; why?

Oh, yeah. I knew that there was another thread like this...I just forgot it was mine.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Oh, yeah. I knew that there was another thread like this...I just forgot it was mine.

Sorry, I wouldn't have started a new one if I'd found yours    It didn't come up when I searched "abortion".

Quote from: "Being_Brave"Sorry, I wouldn't have started a new one if I'd found yours    It didn't come up when I searched "abortion".

Yeah, forum searches usually suck.

Quote from: "Wilson"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Intrauterine brainwaves seems as good a criterion as any for determining when thought begins, don't you think?  After all, there is a very strong correlation between an active EEG readout and and active thought process.

What I'm saying is that that's pretty arbitrary as a dividing line.  A matter of individual opinion.

Quote from: "Wilson"But personhood is more brain-related than anything else, in my opinion.

Make up your mind, eh?

 ;)

I'm not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice.  I doubt anyone is truly pro-abortion, even those that have it done in the end.  Not many pro-lifers realize what a difficult decision it is to make.  But why the distinction between atheists and "religious people"?  There are those with both opinions on both sides of that line.

Quote from: "Lythande"I'm not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice.  I doubt anyone is truly pro-abortion, even those that have it done in the end.  Not many pro-lifers realize what a difficult decision it is to make.  But why the distinction between atheists and "religious people"?  There are those with both opinions on both sides of that line.

Because the perception is that all Christians are pro-life.  Which, as you point out, is really not the case at all.

True. But it's no secret that most religious folk are anti-abortion, and most atheists are pro-choice. I guess I could have also asked if there were any pro-choice theists here, but we only have like, a couple that come here on a regular basis.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"True. But it's no secret that most religious folk are anti-abortion, and most atheists are pro-choice. I guess I could have also asked if there were any pro-choice theists here, but we only have like, a couple that come here on a regular basis.

If there are only a couple that come HERE...what does that say about numbers on the whole?  Much more than one might assume.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"True. But it's no secret that most religious folk are anti-abortion, and most atheists are pro-choice. I guess I could have also asked if there were any pro-choice theists here, but we only have like, a couple that come here on a regular basis.

If there are only a couple that come HERE...what does that say about numbers on the whole?  Much more than one might assume.

I meant we only have a few theists that come here, not pro-choice theists. Are you pro-choice, AnimatedDirt?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I meant we only have a few theists that come here, not pro-choice theists. Are you pro-choice, AnimatedDirt?

This has already been established in the other thread.  If you want to know my position, seek it there.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I meant we only have a few theists that come here, not pro-choice theists. Are you pro-choice, AnimatedDirt?

This has already been established in the other thread.  If you want to know my position, seek it there.

What other thread?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"What other thread?

Good question.  The moment I posted that, I went to find the other Abortion thread...and I can't find it.  Hmm. [looking]...

AD... look at page 2 of this thread...

Quote from: "KDbeads"AD... look at page 2 of this thread...

No wonder I couldn't find the "other" thread.  I was thinking this was a second thread similar to the other.  Oh well.
Thx, KDbeads!  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"What about the repeat "offender"? I have pondered this myself and while I support Pro-Choice, I don't know I could support a "habit"...define habit...?

I see.

I wonder if Achronos is pro-choice. Does he still come around here?

 it is true

Just because someone is Pro Choice doesn't mean they support abortion.  I support a woman's right to decide what happens to her body.  I think abortion is a terribly sad choice but it is a choice that should continue to be available.

I'm atheist and am sort of anti abortion. I couldn't bring myself to kill my unborn child, even if I knew it was going to be severely disabled and have a poor quality of life. If me and my wife made a "mistake" and had an unplanned pregnancy, we both know that abortion would not be an option for either of us.

Having said that I uphold freedom of choice and although I would not agree with most cases of abortion, especially abortions where the baby is murdered because it is inconvenient (mother and father should have thought of the consequences before conception - abortion is a way of escaping consequences of our actions) - convenience abortions upset me greatly, dunno why they just do - you have other cases where, like others have said, the pregnancy is a result of rape, and I can live with a mother choosing to abort that pregnancy.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"abortion is a way of escaping consequences of our actions

As long as you succeed, where exactly does the problem with escaping consequences lie..?

Oh, I'm all for paying the price for mistakes and bad decisions, but one CAN try to haggle it down, you know.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"I can live with a mother choosing to abort that pregnancy.

I'm sure you can live with most decisions and actions that people perform that do not involve you, whether you agree with those actions or not.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AverageJoe"I can live with a mother choosing to abort that pregnancy.

I'm sure you can live with most decisions and actions that people perform that do not involve you, whether you agree with those actions or not.

What I meant to say was "I can understand a mother choosing to abort that pregancy" - for obvious reasons.

Is this how it goes on these type of forums, you use a slightly innapropriate turn of phrase to explain what you mean and you get jumped on by the local pedantry police?

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "AverageJoe"abortion is a way of escaping consequences of our actions

As long as you succeed, where exactly does the problem with escaping consequences lie..?

You've got me on that one!

Quote from: "AverageJoe"You've got me on that one!

It's not a thing many people would deem honourable, but then again... Neither is Asmodean   Nor the majority of those who DO try to escape the consequences of their actions. Actually escaping them is, in The Book of Many, a personal success.

 i don't have an opinion

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"uhm...yes it is

i think ill lump abortion into that same category as evolution, being another thing i don't/shouldn't have an opinion on

All the available evidence we have (it's a ton) supports the theory of evolution. One's position on abortion, however, can only be opinion.

One's position can only be opinion.

[youtube:3mu6pqv4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkjx-Z0WPs0[/youtube:3mu6pqv4]

"You're not a human 'till you're in my phone book."

 

Help support Planned Parenthood from being defunded by signing their pledge and donating:
https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageS ... i2.app214a (https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=pp_ppol_ws_I_Stand_with_PP&s_src=standwithppfeb2011_taf&JServSessionIdr004=ln509zyoi2.app214a)

"One of the many stereotypes held by theists is that all atheists are in favor of abortion -- and while it's absurd to say that we all are..."

Do you ask this because there's also the stereotype that all atheists eat babies too?  

Quote from: "magdalena""One of the many stereotypes held by theists is that all atheists are in favor of abortion -- and while it's absurd to say that we all are..."

Do you ask this because there's also the stereotype that all atheists eat babies too?  

Read the rest of the quote.

"Read the rest of the quote."

ok, I did....now what?  

QuoteI'd not be okay with killing a child delivered and no longer connected with the mother. If, however, the fetus is still connected, the woman is still pregnant and the fetus is still a part of her body. It's that connection that makes all the difference.

So... if someone is 3 hrs away from delivering a baby full-term then according to your test "that makes all the difference" it's perfectly acceptable to kill that baby inside of the mother's womb just so long as the process goes:

ACCORDING TO YOUR TEST THIS IS OK: A) Kill baby B) Sever connection with mother C) Pull baby out of womb

ACCORDING TO YOUR TEST THIS IS NOT OK: A) Pull baby out of womb B) Sever connection with mother C) Kill baby

Wow. It's unbelievable how far you and many others on this thread will go to attempt to deny what is human life and therefore murder.

Quote from: "Joel25"

QuoteI'd not be okay with killing a child delivered and no longer connected with the mother. If, however, the fetus is still connected, the woman is still pregnant and the fetus is still a part of her body. It's that connection that makes all the difference.

So... if someone is 3 hrs away from delivering a baby full-term then according to your test "that makes all the difference" it's perfectly acceptable to kill that baby inside of the mother's womb just so long as the process goes:

ACCORDING TO YOUR TEST THIS IS OK: A) Kill baby B) Sever connection with mother C) Pull baby out of womb

ACCORDING TO YOUR TEST THIS IS NOT OK: A) Pull baby out of womb B) Sever connection with mother C) Kill baby

Wow. It's unbelievable how far you and many others on this thread will go to attempt to deny what is human life and therefore murder.

I definitely think this is a waste, especially since my wife and I are having fertility issues, and would gladly take that baby.  However, in my limited intellect I cannot think of a way where any abortion law short of banning all abortions would be without exploitable loopholes.  If you leave the door open for rape, incest, and life of the mother, some doctors will claim life of the mother.  Some girls may claim rape, and then an innocent kid would be on a sex offender list for the rest of his life for not using the condoms he wasn't taught about because abstinence activists were able to block proper sex ed.  Most of America would not support an abortion law without exceptions for life of the mother, rape, and incest.

I could be way off base on all this.  I'm a weather nerd, so social issues are a little out of my league.

Quote from: "Joel25"Wow. It's unbelievable how far you and many others on this thread will go to attempt to deny what is human life and therefore murder.

It's not a matter of what is human life (because it obviously is), it's a matter of what is a person, the rights of the mother, and the practical effects of legalizing or criminalizing abortion.

I'm not really sure where I personally stand on third trimester abortions, but I still think they should be legal.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"It's not a matter of what is human life (because it obviously is), it's a matter of what is a person

Precisely.

Another way of looking at it is: not your pregnancy - not your problem. Some random woman legally aborting a kid in the third trimester is not likely to increase oil prices or spread a deadly disease throughout the population. So as long as it does not affect your life and safety and as long as the kid is a part of her body, what right do you have to tell her what to do with it?

*the comment is full of impersonal yous.

I wouldn't doubt it if this has already been discussed on this forum, but i'm not going to try to look through pages and necropost. So here it goes.
It seems to me that the majority of religious folk are pro-life. I would like to know what the atheist community seems to feel about this issue. I myself am pro-choice, pretty much no matter what the issue is. I do believe that there should be a limit as to how long someone waits to get an abortion, but I feel that if it is done within proper timing, it is fine. Generally, I have this debate with christian, which i usually win, but I would love to know what you all think.


EDIT: New thread merged from here. - Tank

I'm pro-choice, and my opinion is that abortion should be available as early as possible, but as late as necessary.  I don't see why there should be laws restricting abortion, when it is only available from the medical practice anyway.

I'm in the position of being one of the few British women who might be refused an abortion.  I'm 35 and married with two small children.  I don't want any more children, but if I was pregnant it would be highly inconvenient, but because there is not really a health need, I might be refused.  It might be different if I was 10 years older, because pregnancy is more risky or if I wasn't in a stable family.

There will always be a case where a prescriptive rule doesn't help.  I think we need to be able to trust a decision made between a woman and a physician to be better than drawing an arbitrary line in the sand.

Willow.

Abortion is a tough one for me.  I do believe that abortion kills a human being even in the very early stages of pregnancy.  I believe that life begins at conception - not because god says so, but because I can't figure out another cut off point that doesn't seem arbitrary to me.  When I look at my son and try to figure out when did he go from being just a ball of cells to himseld, I don't know where to draw that line, so for me, the line is that he was always him.   Because of that, I think that abortion is something that I personally could only choose under the most dire of circumstances (like, if I'm going to die if I continue the pregnancy.)  But I also recognize that this is my own personal philosophy on the matter.  It's funny, because when I was a teenager, I thought that science was going to "discover" when life begins and that would solve the problem.  Silly, right?  I didn't realize that science already probably knows pretty much everything there is to know about prenatal development, and they won't ever be able to answer that question because it's not a science question, it's a philosophy question.  So my own personal philosophy is, abortion is wrong.  Having said that, it's not a hard line answer.  I wouldn't choose to enact my personal philosophy on other women's bodies, nor do I condemn other women for their choices.  One of my very good friends from highschool had an abortion when we were in our early 20's, and the only thing I have ever felt for her is an aching empathy for having been in a bad situation and having to make hard choices.  I don't look to legislate my feelings on the matter, or hold other women to my own "standards."  My feelings only apply to me.

Quote from: Willow on February 20, 2012, 09:07:43 PM
I'm pro-choice, and my opinion is that abortion should be available as early as possible, but as late as necessary.  I don't see why there should be laws restricting abortion, when it is only available from the medical practice anyway.

I'm in the position of being one of the few British women who might be refused an abortion.  I'm 35 and married with two small children.  I don't want any more children, but if I was pregnant it would be highly inconvenient, but because there is not really a health need, I might be refused.  It might be different if I was 10 years older, because pregnancy is more risky or if I wasn't in a stable family.

There will always be a case where a prescriptive rule doesn't help.  I think we need to be able to trust a decision made between a woman and a physician to be better than drawing an arbitrary line in the sand.

Willow.

I don't understand - why would you be refused?  Can British women only have abortions under very specific conditions? 

"two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy" http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx
And there would be a strong argument that a third child would not be harmful to me.  My reason for not wanting more children is that there are enough people on earth already and that I'm busy and want to get on with my career now.

Ali:  Would you not use contraception other than barrier methods?  Would you consider contraception which intervenes after fertilisation to be having abortion after abortion?
just curious,
Willow.

I think the decision should be left to the woman who is pregnant under the guidance of her doctor.  Whomever is involved past that should also be her decision.  

I don't think that statistically there would be enough women seeking late term abortions for non-medical reasons, much less enough doctors willing to perform them for non-medical reasons due to their hypocratic oath, to worry about it.   The line should be drawn at viability since at that point the baby could just be removed alive instead of aborted.

Quote from: Willow on February 20, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
"two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy" http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx
And there would be a strong argument that a third child would not be harmful to me.  My reason for not wanting more children is that there are enough people on earth already and that I'm busy and want to get on with my career now.

Wow, I didn't know that! That's kind of scary since, if I lived in the UK, I would likely be refused too (and I, also, don't want any more children).
As far as I know, Canada has no restrictions, which I'm glad for (though I'll hopefully never have to experience first hand)

Quote from: Willow on February 20, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
"two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy" http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx
And there would be a strong argument that a third child would not be harmful to me.  My reason for not wanting more children is that there are enough people on earth already and that I'm busy and want to get on with my career now.

Ali:  Would you not use contraception other than barrier methods?  Would you consider contraception which intervenes after fertilisation to be having abortion after abortion?
just curious,
Willow.

Never really thought about it to be honest.  We don't use contraception other than barrier methods because I don't react well to bc, but I'm not ethically against it.  Good point.

TA:  Meant to add, that I had no idea that two doctors had to decide that in the UK.  I don't agree with that at all.

Pro-choice myself. Don't feel it's right to interfere with an intensely personal choice like that. The whole controversy over late-term abortion does make me a bit uneasy, but it's so rare and usually for a valid medical reason, so I don't believe in drawing a line either. Frankly, chipping away at abortion rights is just an attempt by the pro-lifers to do an end-around current laws.

Quote from: Willow on February 20, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
"two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy" http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Unless you go private for around £500 at Marie Stopes.

Don't ask... but I guess you know my position...

We have so many forms of bc now. And of course i'm pro-choice. I don't think anyone but the woman going through these events can ever fully understand how emotionally  hard it is.
I could never be a fucking dick to make her feel like she's doing the wrong thing.
I can't believe this is sucha big issue right now in the U.S.

Quote from: Ali on February 20, 2012, 09:17:00 PM
Abortion is a tough one for me.  I do believe that abortion kills a human being even in the very early stages of pregnancy.  I believe that life begins at conception - not because god says so, but because I can't figure out another cut off point that doesn't seem arbitrary to me.  

I agree with this and I've never had any kids or wanted them.  I also agree that abortion is, and should remain, a completely personal decision since I don't see anyone but the mother understanding her circumstances well enough to be entitled to a say.  The only exception I'd make is for minors -- since their parents are responsible for what they do in every other way I think they should be in on this as well (with obvious exceptions allowed like the girl's father is also the baby's father, the parents might harm the girl if they knew, that sort of thing).

One compromise I'm against is time limits, since those are usually aimed at preventing or delaying late term abortions and from what I've read those are the ones that are either necessary or strongly advised by the doctor and undertaken by parents who very much wanted the baby.  No point in making their loss any harder than it already is.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 21, 2012, 12:04:39 AM

Quote from: Ali on February 20, 2012, 09:17:00 PM
Abortion is a tough one for me.  I do believe that abortion kills a human being even in the very early stages of pregnancy.  I believe that life begins at conception - not because god says so, but because I can't figure out another cut off point that doesn't seem arbitrary to me.  

I agree with this and I've never had any kids or wanted them.  I also agree that abortion is, and should remain, a completely personal decision since I don't see anyone but the mother understanding her circumstances well enough to be entitled to a say.  The only exception I'd make is for minors -- since their parents are responsible for what they do in every other way I think they should be in on this as well (with obvious exceptions allowed like the girl's father is also the baby's father, the parents might harm the girl if they knew, that sort of thing).

One compromise I'm against is time limits, since those are usually aimed at preventing or delaying late term abortions and from what I've read those are the ones that are either necessary or strongly advised by the doctor and undertaken by parents who very much wanted the baby.  No point in making their loss any harder than it already is.

I agree with this.  I highly doubt that many women are going to carry a baby for 7 months and then just up and decide one day that they don't want it any more and they want an abortion- typically there is a medical reason behind it, and it is a heart wrenching tragedy for the parents most of all.  No need to make that any harder.

Quote from: Xiilent on February 20, 2012, 08:35:11 PM
Generally, I have this debate with christian, which i usually win.

I don't think you can win this debate. How do you qualify the win? Does your opponent agree that you are the winner?

Abortion is not an exact science.

Quote from: Whitney on February 20, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
I think the decision should be left to the woman who is pregnant under the guidance of her doctor.  Whomever is involved past that should also be her decision.

What about the father, does his opinion matter?

It is a difficult topic. Being a member of a Catholic forum, I can see what their issues are against abortion, they have a fair enough point. It is an act of killing babies, albeit unborn babies.

Taking on my newly discovered amoralist perspective, I am still trying to find my philosophically consistent stance on this topic.
I have made claims that the government ought not make law based on morality or ethics, that this is a dangerous and oppressive route.
I have also stated that laws ought to be focused on the minimum control required to have a functionally stable society.

So how does this impact the act of killing unborn babies?
Many societies lack a law against abortions, well, within some rules. So, abortions are occurring in many societies. These abortions are not resulting in unstable societies. There are pockets of violence, generally by extreme religious people whom take it upon themselves to be violent despite other religious laws against violence. But this is not the norm, society is overwhelmingly tolerant of abortions. A normal person is not inspired to take up arms against abortions or to even snub people whom have opted for abortion. So society either doesn't care about the unborn or feel that it is the parents decision, most likely the former because a great deal of people would risk their lives to protect a pregnant woman from an attacker.

Some dangers to society of abortion is people choosing the gender of their offspring, within some cultures there is an extremely high preference for male children. But with a huge proportion of males in society, no doubt, at some point females will become desirable. Is the problem the abortion or is the problem the cultural preference for a particular gender?

At what point do we start to say parents killing their own babies ought to be against the law?
How many weeks before birth? How many weeks after birth?
Certainly after birth, other people start to become attached to the babies e.g. grandparents, uncles, aunties, siblings, family friends etc. At some point, society will get upset and violent towards parents whom choose to kill their own babies.

Quote from: Stevil on February 21, 2012, 07:12:02 AM

Quote from: Whitney on February 20, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
I think the decision should be left to the woman who is pregnant under the guidance of her doctor.  Whomever is involved past that should also be her decision.

What about the father, does his opinion matter?

This is harsh because I understand why a father would absolutely have a vested interest in the decision, but I don't think the father's opinion ultimately matters - it's not his body.  He shouldn't be able to force a woman to go through a pregnancy against her will, and he shouldn't be able to force her to undergo a surgical procedure (abortion) against her will either.  Hopefully most couples can come to a consensus together, but in situations where they disagree and cannot come to a meeting of the minds, the woman wins because it's her body. 

"Keep your laws off my body" sums it up for me. Abortion is and should be a medical decision between a woman and whomever she chooses to consult. As to when the fetus becomes a person? Legally, at birth. For me, personally, its mostly about viability. If it can live without me, and without massive medical intervention, then I'd incubate it until a safe birth time. But if I found out I was pregnant at a few weeks, or a month or two, or even three, and didn't want it, then it's gone.***

Now, speaking emotionally, for me, a fetus becomes a baby the moment the woman decides to keep it. That might be at the moment of conception or before. That might be a few weeks in. That might be when she feels it kicking in her womb. That's not a rational cut off point, but I feel its realistic from an emotional standpoint.

Every baby should be a wanted baby. And if the woman is willing to carry to birth and give it up for adoption, then that is a gift she's given to the new parents, and should be appreciated as such. A gift. Not a requirement. Never, never, never a requirement. Nine months of servitude to an unwanted fetus? That's slavery. I know that sounds harsh, but that's how I feel about it.

*** Note that I'm past childbearing age, have never been pregnant, and never wanted children. I consider myself very fortunate that our birth control never failed.

Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 02:29:38 PM
Hopefully most couples can come to a consensus together, but in situations where they disagree and cannot come to a meeting of the minds, the woman wins because it's her body. 

Agree with that too.

Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 02:29:38 PM
This is harsh because I understand why a father would absolutely have a vested interest in the decision, but I don't think the father's opinion ultimately matters - it's not his body.

Would a father be justified in acting violently towards a mother whom is attempting to kill his baby?
I'm sure once the baby is born, most people would say yes.

What about when the baby is in the womb?
If the father believes abortion is murder then is he justified in violently protecting the life of his unborn child?

Legally, he probably is justified if the pregnancy is at 38 weeks and the mother is attempting an unlawful abortion.

But what about human nature wise even when it is legal to have abortion? Surely there must be some fathers that have tried to save the lives of their unborn babies. If they have, could you judge them as being a bad person for this act?

Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 02:29:38 PM

Quote from: Stevil on February 21, 2012, 07:12:02 AM

Quote from: Whitney on February 20, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
I think the decision should be left to the woman who is pregnant under the guidance of her doctor.  Whomever is involved past that should also be her decision.

What about the father, does his opinion matter?

This is harsh because I understand why a father would absolutely have a vested interest in the decision, but I don't think the father's opinion ultimately matters - it's not his body.  He shouldn't be able to force a woman to go through a pregnancy against her will, and he shouldn't be able to force her to undergo a surgical procedure (abortion) against her will either.  Hopefully most couples can come to a consensus together, but in situations where they disagree and cannot come to a meeting of the minds, the woman wins because it's her body. 

^yup

Ideally the mother and father would be on the same page but, in a society where personal freedom is important, since he's not the one who is pregnant the decision can't ultimately be his until such a time that it is possible to remove the fetus from the mother (in a way that is no more invasive than the abortion alternative) and place it in a pod for continued development.  And even at that point it would then potentially be an issue for the courts, much like custody battles over children...because perhaps the woman wants to abort to prevent suffering of the fetus as it will be born with something bad yet the father disagrees because he could pray the disease out of it or something stupid like that.

Quote from: Stevil on February 21, 2012, 06:15:59 PM
Surely there must be some fathers that have tried to save the lives of their unborn babies. If they have, could you judge them as being a bad person for this act?

Yes, being violent towards a pregnant woman is the same as being violent towards the developing baby; everything that happens to her gets relayed to the fetus via hormones.  So if the father actually did believe that the developing cells were the same as a full baby then he shouldn't be violent towards the mother either physically or verbally.  It would also make him a bad person since the only way to make the woman have the baby would be to lock her away for the remainder of the pregnancy...kidnapping is bad. 

Men who know they'd feel that way if a woman became pregnant on accident need to either abstain from sex, make sure multiple forms of protection are being used, or find a partner who feels the same way so that abortion wouldn't be up for consideration if accidental pregnancy did occur.  The same goes for women since it's also not a good idea to end up pregnant with a man who wants the baby when you don't.

Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 06:41:39 PM
Yes, being violent towards a pregnant woman is the same as being violent towards the developing baby; everything that happens to her gets relayed to the fetus via hormones.  So if the father actually did believe that the developing cells were the same as a full baby then he shouldn't be violent towards the mother either physically or verbally.  It would also make him a bad person since the only way to make the woman have the baby would be to lock her away for the remainder of the pregnancy...kidnapping is bad. 

But, by law, I think people are allowed to apply degrees of violence towards a person committing a crime.
In the case that a woman is 38 weeks pregnant and is going to have an illegal abortion, I would guess that a person could attempt to physically stop her, e.g. hold her against her will, then call the police for further assistance.
Kidnapping is less severe than murder and could possibly be seen as justified given the situation.

Ultimately the decision is up to the woman. I'm sorry. :\

I'm pro-life. It's an issue that I have looked into and seen many arguments for, but I have never been persuaded to the pro-choice side. It's just not that clear-cut of an issue to me. I do make exceptions for those who have been raped or are at great risk of losing their life if they delivered the baby, however I just can't get over the fact that I consider that fetus a life and I am against killing of all kinds.

Quote from: Stevil on February 21, 2012, 07:16:38 PM

Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 06:41:39 PM
Yes, being violent towards a pregnant woman is the same as being violent towards the developing baby; everything that happens to her gets relayed to the fetus via hormones.  So if the father actually did believe that the developing cells were the same as a full baby then he shouldn't be violent towards the mother either physically or verbally.  It would also make him a bad person since the only way to make the woman have the baby would be to lock her away for the remainder of the pregnancy...kidnapping is bad. 

But, by law, I think people are allowed to apply degrees of violence towards a person committing a crime.
In the case that a woman is 38 weeks pregnant and is going to have an illegal abortion, I would guess that a person could attempt to physically stop her, e.g. hold her against her will, then call the police for further assistance.
Kidnapping is less severe than murder and could possibly be seen as justified given the situation.

last I checked, thought crimes aren't illegal so he'd have no basis to restrain her just for her indicating she wanted a late term abortion.  And if she planned to go have it done somewhere that does allow late term then it wouldn't be a crime at all anyway.  Citizens are only allowed to take physical action when doing so can prevent immediate harm (like if you don't' act that second someone will be harmed or dead in moments) and even then such action can be illegal in some cases and areas (it's not legal everywhere to, for example, shoot to kill an intruder in your home).

The only thing he could do is inform the police and follow her so he could provide the location of the illegal clinic.

Anyway, my previous comment wasn't directed at late term abortions because I didn't catch that is what you were referring to...

Quote from: Radiant on February 21, 2012, 07:25:57 PM
I'm pro-life. It's an issue that I have looked into and seen many arguments for, but I have never been persuaded to the pro-choice side. It's just not that clear-cut of an issue to me. I do make exceptions for those who have been raped or are at great risk of losing their life if they delivered the baby, however I just can't get over the fact that I consider that fetus a life and I am against killing of all kinds.

So are you also against birth control? Or pre marital sex?

Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 07:28:07 PM
Anyway, my previous comment wasn't directed at late term abortions because I didn't catch that is what you were referring to...

It is always murky, especially when we try to arbitrarily apply a cut off point, 20 weeks, 22 weeks, 30 weeks, after birth...
The law is one thing, but law isn't always justified. If we try to think outside of law, as if we were the potential law makers, then I think we can start to see some of the dilemmas that law makers have. Law is imposing your will on other people, on grown-ups, telling them that their government knows best and is making decisions for them rather than letting them make their own decisions.

Personally, I am for people making their own decisions especially when society will not become unstable, therefore it is not of the government's concern.
So I am thinking about what conflict can arise. The mother/father conflict is an issue, I understand why ultimately the mother has most of the say, but I can also understand a father becoming emotional and violent in this situation.
Yes, I think he would have time to notify police as abortions don't happen quickly, but I don't know if police would get there in time and if not whether the father would be justified (legally or human nature wise) in acting to save the life of his unborn baby.

Quote from: Radiant on February 21, 2012, 07:25:57 PM
I consider that fetus a life and I am against killing of all kinds.

A vegan, are you..? 50 years of beef is better than 100 years of carrots, if you ask me.

Quote from: Asmodean on February 21, 2012, 07:42:50 PM

Quote from: Radiant on February 21, 2012, 07:25:57 PM
I consider that fetus a life and I am against killing of all kinds.

A vegan, are you..? 50 years of beef is better than 100 years of carrots, if you ask me.

I was also going to ask if she's ever swatted a bug dead. I've killed plenty of insects to  protect my home/bedroom.
I am eatng chicken right now.


Saying you have never killed before is not possible.

Quote from: Asmodean on February 21, 2012, 07:42:50 PM

Quote from: Radiant on February 21, 2012, 07:25:57 PM
I consider that fetus a life and I am against killing of all kinds.

A vegan, are you..? 50 years of beef is better than 100 years of carrots, if you ask me.

LOL,

Carrots are alive, they get killed so that people may feed. Nobody cares about the poor carrots.
Oh well, moving on.

Quote from: Whitney on February 20, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
The line should be drawn at viability since at that point the baby could just be removed alive instead of aborted.

So you are against late-term abortions, assuming the fetus is viable?  

Generally, the decision should be the woman's. She is a more competent moral agent than the government or anyone else, since she alone truly knows the circumstances of that particular pregnancy.  I still struggle with this concept, however, in the context of late-term abortions, when the fetus is ready to live on its own. It's like it has finished its school work and all that is left is to walk across the stage and get the diploma. To deny it the diploma seems unjust and cruel in those circumstances, whatever the reason the school (alma mater) can come up with. Abortion at that point seems, well, horrible.  But the woman's autonomy as a moral agent is crucial, so I'm still torn. I'm interested in hearing other peoples' views and think conversations like this one are valuable.

Quote from: Stevil on February 21, 2012, 07:16:38 PM

Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 06:41:39 PM
Yes, being violent towards a pregnant woman is the same as being violent towards the developing baby; everything that happens to her gets relayed to the fetus via hormones.  So if the father actually did believe that the developing cells were the same as a full baby then he shouldn't be violent towards the mother either physically or verbally.  It would also make him a bad person since the only way to make the woman have the baby would be to lock her away for the remainder of the pregnancy...kidnapping is bad. 

But, by law, I think people are allowed to apply degrees of violence towards a person committing a crime.
In the case that a woman is 38 weeks pregnant and is going to have an illegal abortion, I would guess that a person could attempt to physically stop her, e.g. hold her against her will, then call the police for further assistance.
Kidnapping is less severe than murder and could possibly be seen as justified given the situation.

Where does it end, though? Does the husband have a right to lock her in a room if she smokes because that might endanger the baby? What if she drinks caffiene/alcohol/eats junk food? I hate to be pragmatic about it, but as some point you have to acknowledge that a mother is almost always "more" of a person than an un-born baby and should, proportionally, have more rights.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 21, 2012, 08:00:16 PM

Quote from: Stevil on February 21, 2012, 07:16:38 PM

Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 06:41:39 PM
Yes, being violent towards a pregnant woman is the same as being violent towards the developing baby; everything that happens to her gets relayed to the fetus via hormones.  So if the father actually did believe that the developing cells were the same as a full baby then he shouldn't be violent towards the mother either physically or verbally.  It would also make him a bad person since the only way to make the woman have the baby would be to lock her away for the remainder of the pregnancy...kidnapping is bad. 

But, by law, I think people are allowed to apply degrees of violence towards a person committing a crime.
In the case that a woman is 38 weeks pregnant and is going to have an illegal abortion, I would guess that a person could attempt to physically stop her, e.g. hold her against her will, then call the police for further assistance.
Kidnapping is less severe than murder and could possibly be seen as justified given the situation.

Where does it end, though? Does the husband have a right to lock her in a room if she smokes because that might endanger the baby? What if she drinks caffiene/alcohol/eats junk food? I hate to be pragmatic about it, but as some point you have to acknowledge that a mother is almost always "more" of a person than an un-born baby and should, proportionally, have more rights.

Thank you, DJ. :)
Seriously, to me  an  adult woman is more important than any unborn fetus.

I'm pro choice, because I don't see that pro choice means pro death. It simply means having the ability to choose, and one of those choices is 'have the baby and keep it', whereas another is 'have the baby and give him or her up for adoption'. The abortion debate isn't so black and white. Every situation and pregnancy is different, and people have different reasons for choosing to keep children, for aborting them, or for giving them up for adoption. There may be layers of difficulty involving families, health, life situations etc that I can't know about, fully understand, or judge. If someone has consulted with their family, their doctor, their partner, and they've chosen to end a pregnancy -- then nothing should prevent them from it, so long as they HAVE been given all the options, and are not co-erced into it. The last thing I'd want is for someone going through a lot of pain already to be dragged through even more.

I do know myself very well. I do know that I chose to have my daughter deliberately, that I wanted a child, and that nobody on earth could have persuaded me to abort her. For me, the only way I'd consider an abortion is if I or the baby had a terrible disease, or the pregnancy was incompatible with life (ie, ectopic), or in a situation of rape -- but in that last case, it probably wouldn't get as far as an actual pregnancy, as I'd get myself medical treatment immediately and take anything needed to prevent pregnancy from occurring. I also realize as I say that, that I'm fortunate to a) live in a society with ready access to medical care and b) pregnancy prevention is legal here for people who find themselves in that situation.

More than anything, when someone does get pregnant, I think it's necessary as well as a good idea to go over ALL the options with them. Sometimes, girls and women abort not because they WANT to, but because they think they'll be alone, outcast, and without support. We need to set up situations where if they do want to give birth, they're able to do so in a safe, welcoming community whether they decide to keep their child or go with adoption. I might also add that open adoptions are becoming more and more available -- birth mothers are able to keep track of their kids, even if they're unable to raise them. On the flip side, we need to have support programs and similar communities for women who have chosen/had to go through an abortion. It's a terribly emotionally draining experience, and a lot of times, women can also feel ostracized for making the choice. While societal stigma won't go away anytime soon, there still needs to be safe places, help and counseling for these women too.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 21, 2012, 08:00:16 PM
Where does it end, though? Does the husband have a right to lock her in a room if she smokes because that might endanger the baby? What if she drinks caffiene/alcohol/eats junk food? I hate to be pragmatic about it, but as some point you have to acknowledge that a mother is almost always "more" of a person than an un-born baby and should, proportionally, have more rights.

Very good question.
If the woman is drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, which we know is dangerous for the baby? What justification do we have to stop her?

Quote from: Stevil on February 21, 2012, 09:01:18 PM
What justification do we have to stop her?

Unless she started drinking excessively after getting pregnant, I would say none.

Quote from: Stevil on February 21, 2012, 09:01:18 PM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 21, 2012, 08:00:16 PM
Where does it end, though? Does the husband have a right to lock her in a room if she smokes because that might endanger the baby? What if she drinks caffiene/alcohol/eats junk food? I hate to be pragmatic about it, but as some point you have to acknowledge that a mother is almost always "more" of a person than an un-born baby and should, proportionally, have more rights.

Very good question.
If the woman is drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, which we know is dangerous for the baby? What justification do we have to stop her?

The justification to stop her is that alcohol is harmful to the fetus.  However the intervention required to forcefully prevent a person from drinking alcohol would be harmful to mother and child in itself due the to physical harm in the restraint, the stress of the extreme nature of the control and if she is an alcoholic, the dangerous effects of going cold turkey.

It is not in the child's interest to make the authority the enemy of the mother in this way.  It would damage the long term relationship between the mother and the state and mean that engaging with health and other state services would be difficult for the family.  It could be a brutalising experience that seriously damages the mother's mental health.

Foetal alcohol syndrome is a serious life long disability, but it still does not justify physically preventing a woman from drinking.

I don't think this is very well thought through, ah well.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 21, 2012, 07:50:42 PM

Quote from: Whitney on February 20, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
The line should be drawn at viability since at that point the baby could just be removed alive instead of aborted.

So you are against late-term abortions, assuming the fetus is viable?  

Yes, but I don't' think it's a big deal as far as laws are concerned.  If the fetus is viable it can just be taken out alive; rather than killed then taken out....at that point, it's no more invasive to give live birth than to abort a baby.  But, I'm not even sure if there is a statistic for women who want an abortion when the fetus is viable as it has to be so rare that it's not worth legislating against.  Even if there was a medical reason they'd just induce labor at that point (or c-section) rather than aborting.  Late term abortion is practically always for medical reasons. 

Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 09:43:17 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 21, 2012, 07:50:42 PM

Quote from: Whitney on February 20, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
The line should be drawn at viability since at that point the baby could just be removed alive instead of aborted.

So you are against late-term abortions, assuming the fetus is viable?  

Yes, but I don't' think it's a big deal as far as laws are concerned.  If the fetus is viable it can just be taken out alive; rather than killed then taken out....at that point, it's no more invasive to give live birth than to abort a baby.  But, I'm not even sure if there is a statistic for women who want an abortion when the fetus is viable as it has to be so rare that it's not worth legislating against.  Even if there was a medical reason they'd just induce labor at that point (or c-section) rather than aborting.  Late term abortion is practically always for medical reasons. 

Yeah, late term abortions are usually  "we have no choice"  matters.

Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 09:43:17 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 21, 2012, 07:50:42 PM

Quote from: Whitney on February 20, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
The line should be drawn at viability since at that point the baby could just be removed alive instead of aborted.

So you are against late-term abortions, assuming the fetus is viable?  

Yes, but I don't' think it's a big deal as far as laws are concerned.  If the fetus is viable it can just be taken out alive; rather than killed then taken out....at that point, it's no more invasive to give live birth than to abort a baby.  But, I'm not even sure if there is a statistic for women who want an abortion when the fetus is viable as it has to be so rare that it's not worth legislating against.  Even if there was a medical reason they'd just induce labor at that point (or c-section) rather than aborting.  Late term abortion is practically always for medical reasons. 

Yeah, perhaps there's really not even an issue here. I'm obviously not a woman, but it would be hard to imagine someone carrying a healthy child for 8-9 months and then electing to abort it without any serious medical issue.

Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 09:43:17 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 21, 2012, 07:50:42 PM

Quote from: Whitney on February 20, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
The line should be drawn at viability since at that point the baby could just be removed alive instead of aborted.

So you are against late-term abortions, assuming the fetus is viable?  

Yes, but I don't' think it's a big deal as far as laws are concerned.  If the fetus is viable it can just be taken out alive; rather than killed then taken out....at that point, it's no more invasive to give live birth than to abort a baby.  But, I'm not even sure if there is a statistic for women who want an abortion when the fetus is viable as it has to be so rare that it's not worth legislating against.  Even if there was a medical reason they'd just induce labor at that point (or c-section) rather than aborting.  Late term abortion is practically always for medical reasons. 

This. Late term abortion is usually so heartbreaking because the parents so often want the baby very badly. It's almost always done to save the mother's life, or because the baby has such a severe condition that if the baby were born, he or she would suffer horribly. It happened years back in my own extended family -- the mother-to-be wanted the baby very much, but came down with an aggressive form of cancer and already had 2 kids at home to look after. At the same time, tests showed the baby had spina bifida, and several other physical anomalies as well that would have guaranteed a childhood of extreme pain followed by an early death. The decision was made to end the pregnancy at 6 and a half or 7 months into it. The mother lived, following 3 rounds of cancer treatment... but the emotional impact of losing that baby stayed with her a long, long time. It was made even worse when people in her CHURCH, of all places, accused her of cold-blooded murder. Understandably, she stopped going there. It was sad because she reached out to them for support when she needed it most, and was rejected. Luckily, a non-profit social group for people who have lost babies stepped in and she joined them instead and got the help she needed. It was devastating though. She really resented the fact that she'd wanted her son so badly, but couldn't have him, while being treated so poorly too.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 21, 2012, 10:47:26 PM
but it would be hard to imagine someone carrying a healthy child for 8-9 months and then electing to abort it without any serious medical issue.

Ya, I wouldn't even want to meet a woman who would do that...something would be quite wrong with her.  

I really can't imagine a woman not knowing if she's going to keep it within a week of finding out she was pregnant; of course, that's also why first trimester abortions are the most common as most women who want an abortion find out then go take a pill that forces miscarriage.  I've always known what I would do at various times in my life if I became pregnant because that's pretty important to know if you are a female and it is easier to plan when you are not under stress.....of course, I guess maybe it's not normal to plan ahead like that; but I think I knew too many people that got pregnant on accident to not think about having a personal plan of what I'd want to do or who I'd ask for help.  Now it's not so much of an issue since we'd just keep it.

This is an interesting issue for me. I'm quite pro-choice, but I cannot say that killing a viable fetus is ethical. The youngest viable fetus was documented at 23 weeks. To 'abort' a fetus at 7 months because for some reason you changed your mind (and it is not a health-related issue) is unconscionable in my mind. At that point, you could elect to schedule a c-section or force labour, and adopt out. Killing the fetus at that point is just killing for its own sake . . . which I could never advocate.

Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 09:43:17 PM
But, I'm not even sure if there is a statistic for women who want an abortion when the fetus is viable as it has to be so rare that it's not worth legislating against.

Somewhere, at some time, I read it was less than 1% of those seeking late term abortions.  I'd go looking for something more precise but Google and I just don't get along.

Just remembered about this: Dad confronts abortion protesters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYS9HUIRUVo).  And if you scroll down, you'll see a comment from someone accusing this man of killing his baby.  Some people just don't see fit to use their brains, I don't understand it but they don't.

So what conclusion are HAF members coming to?
Are you saying that optional late term pregnancies should be against the law?
Is this based on an ethical stance?

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 05:31:22 AM
So what conclusion are HAF members coming to?
Are you saying that optional late term pregnancies should be against the law?
Is this based on an ethical stance?

Tentative yes, and yes. But I doubt any consensus will be made in a thread.

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 05:31:22 AM
So what conclusion are HAF members coming to?
Are you saying that optional late term pregnancies should be against the law?
Is this based on an ethical stance?

I, most certainly, am not. As long as it's a part of someone's body we are talking about, I leave it up to them.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 22, 2012, 02:20:40 AM
Just remembered about this: Dad confronts abortion protesters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYS9HUIRUVo).  And if you scroll down, you'll see a comment from someone accusing this man of killing his baby.  Some people just don't see fit to use their brains, I don't understand it but they don't.

That made me cry a little.  He's absolutely right, those dicks are shouting at people on the worst day of their life, not knowing anything about how they got there.   :'(

Quote from: Stevil on February 22, 2012, 05:31:22 AM
So what conclusion are HAF members coming to?
Are you saying that optional late term pregnancies should be against the law?
Is this based on an ethical stance?

I'm saying that it's ethically weak but that there is no reason for the law to involve themselves because it is very uncommon and having elective late term illegal makes women seeking it for medical need have to deal with more legal nonsense to prove their right to the procedure.