Happy Atheist Forum

I don't know if I want to debate this fully or not, I kind of just want to get your opinions on it.

My simple question is this: Why do atheists and Christians disagree so much on this issue? If both believe that the right to life > the right to choice shouldn't we simply see a greater correlation between our definitions of when life starts. Shouldn't we see some atheists who believe life starts at conception and some Christians who believe life starts at birth?

Edit: I said when the mother's life is in danger only. I feel that the idea of life beginning at conception has the fewest logical problems when extended to a definition of life.

I must say, I like how you constructed this poll.

I guess I'm a Utilitarian, to a point.  :lol:

Well thought out and may I just say that I love that you provide links within your post...it makes it so much easier.

Like I said, I don't want to argue so I won't. But let me just say that if I did want to argue, I don't know if I would be able to against your point, that was very convincing.

I'm an ex-Catholic and I suspect that has something to do with the way I feel about abortion ... broadly speaking I am anti-abortion, that said I do not, would never, take away the right of a woman to choose. My position on abortion seems to be quite unusual for an atheist and I am curious how Dennis K feels about it as he's ex-Catholic too.

Obviously (?) I believe an abortion is OK if the mother's life is in danger and in cases of rape ... the first is self-evident in that it's a simple choice, mother or baby and given that the mother is alive now, almost certainly has a higher survival potential that the baby and for various other reasons the mother gets priority. The second is fairly much so; it's not the poor baby's fault but neither is it the mother's so again it is a simple choice ... the mother could well end up hating the baby. Still any mother who elects (through free choice not religious, cultural, financial or societal pressure) to carry a rape baby to term has my respect. Birth defect babies are a problem for me as it reveals what I consider to be a character defect in me ... if the child is likely to have an unacceptable birth defect, I would want that child aborted. I genuinely believe I would have problems bringing up a badly disabled baby but there are some disabilities I would care less about. I think that stems from the fact that what a parent strives for is an independent self-supporting child (it's kinda the job description of parenthood, my job is to equip my child with all the tools and skills necessary to survive & thrive in what is often a hostile society) so a child that is so disabled that it will never achieve that independence scares the hell out of me. I can't rationally explain that, it just does ... as it happens my children are both relatively normal but, being a teenager at Uni and one at Grammar, it's hard to say for sure but parents that are willing to do what I can't also get my respect. Personally I don't believe the inability to support a child is a good enough reason to abort (there are childless couples crying out for babies for one) and the whole idea of partial-birth abortion is absolutely repugnant to me.

In essence I have philosophical problems with abortion ... we live in a society that decrees that murder is wrong, one where the dividing line between who is human and who is not appears to be largely arbitrary I am forced to ask what right we have to terminate a potential human being? I genuinely believe that the human foetus is human from the point of conception and I would defy anyone to define a point at which a foetus "becomes" human that is not arbitrary (even mine, at conception, is problematic). I have problems with the way abortion seems to be used by some as a means of post-coital contraception and consider that an utterly barbarous concept falling well into what seems to be the general view these days i.e. that of rights without responsibility. I would support a legal requirement to ensure women considering it are aware of exactly what will happen to them and to the foetus because of it but I would not be happy if that became an excuse to bully women out of the decision to abort. That said, although I view the issue from a moral perspective, I do not hold there is fixed morality so would consider it absolutely wrong to legislate morality.

Finally I strongly believe, despite all the above, that the woman has the right to decide (within the law) whether she should or should not abort (for whatever reason, my views on this issue are mine and mine alone) and as such I voted "During the first two trimesters" since that roughly equates to the current state of UK law.

Kyu

That was well put Kyuuketsuki, I respect an opinion as well thought out as that one.

I have no right to tell someone what to do with their bodies. Thus, as long as the kid is a part of that woman's body, I'm ok with her aborting it for whatever reason. I would suggest giving it up for adoption after full term if the mother was 6-7 months pregnant before deciding to abort but ultimately, I would not try to make that decision for her.

I chose "when the mother can't support the child (and above)." A more fitting answer for me is that I don't think it is my place to make that decision for other women.

Btw, my mom is a Christian and she doesn't think the fetus should be valued as a person till it reaches the third trimester.  She thinks very young and/or unwed (non-committed relationship) mothers would be doing nothing wrong if they had an abortion and that they should have an abortion if they won't be able to take care of the kid.  She also thinks that special needs babies shouldn't be carried to term.  She does realize that each person is different and in some cases it may be emotionally better for the woman to not abort due to personal beliefs.

I agree with my mom's view on the issue...which is interesting because we never really discussed abortion till after I had already came to my own conclusions.  While I do understand that adoption is an option (I was adopted), I also understand that minority women or women carrying special needs babies may have a hard time finding someone who is willing to adopt their baby and there are too many unwanted kids already in the system that need loving homes.

I don't like abortion, but I like forcing a woman to come to term even less. I support Roe v. Wade. I support a woman's right to choose. Are fetuses alive? I have no idea. Are pregnant women alive? Absolutely.

It bugs me when pro-life folks call pro-choice people "pro-abortion" in an effort to obfuscate the issue.

NO ONE is pro-abortion... no one is grabbing pregnant women off the street and forcing them to abort their fetuses.  NO ONE wants a woman to have an abortion.

As for what I believe... I believe that a collection of cells has fewer or no rights compared to those rights of the mother.  She's an adult, someone with life on this planet.  Why does a group of cells and up to a small fetus have more rights than the adult woman?  Makes no sense to me to force a woman to be a human incubator, especially if the child is the result of a violent act.  I will not make that choice for an woman.

It is NOT birth control... if you can't be responsible enough to use birth control, then you should bear the child, if only to give it up.  I hate serial abortions because of laziness.

It's a gray area and it is impossible to make it black and white.

QuoteAs for what I believe... I believe that a collection of cells has fewer or no rights compared to those rights of the mother. She's an adult, someone with life on this planet. Why does a group of cells and up to a small fetus have more rights than the adult woman? Makes no sense to me to force a woman to be a human incubator, especially if the child is the result of a violent act. I will not make that choice for an woman.

I think in most people's ideology the right to life trumps the right to choice. Therefore, this entire discussion comes down to what do you describe as life?

What I believe is really irrelevant to the topic at large.  Would it be when the fetus can survive outside the womb?  Or when the brain can function?  When it can feel pain?  When its heart begins to beat?  Conception?

I believe it is at the very least when the brain can function, if not when it can survive outside the womb.  Before that, it is little more than a tumor feeding off of the host.  Sometimes that feeding is by choice... other times, it is the choice of the host to rid itself of the tumor.

Don't get me wrong... I'd give a limb to have another child myself... I was an only child of an only child.  I never wanted to have just one.  But it wasn't in the cards.  My body sustained one life in addition to mine ONCE and that was it.  

I do not now, nor have I EVER believed that the mere existence of a fetus trumps a woman's right to choose to have the child.  Never, as far back as I can remember.

And from my own discussions with people I know (by no means scientific), that is the dominant philosophy.  So if you have statistics that state your POV, I'd love to see them.

Obviously no one can actually ask the foetus (at least at our present technological level) but I would imagine the foetus can feel pain quite early ... my understanding is that natural pain relief hormones (?) go massively up in response to trauma as early as 20 weeks into pregnancy therefore it is reasonable to assume that the foetus reacts to its surroundings at that point and likely feels some degree of pain. I believe UK law for abortion species 24 weeks or less so to my mind those two are out of kilter and it emphasises, as mentioned earlier, the fact that any distinction between human and non-human is arbitrary at best.

Kyu

QuoteI do not now, nor have I EVER believed that the mere existence of a fetus trumps a woman's right to choose to have the child. Never, as far back as I can remember.

And from my own discussions with people I know (by no means scientific), that is the dominant philosophy. So if you have statistics that state your POV, I'd love to see them.

I don't think we can come to a rational conclusion about the truth of the matter by looking at opinion polls, but I nonetheless think that many, if not most people, agree with you in some quantity or another.

It is just that replace the word "fetus" in your sentence with "child" and you will see the other side of this. If you define a fetus as a future child and someone who is alive then the whole perspective changes.


Quick attempt at an injection of humor here...have you guys seen this http://www.photobasement.com/the-7th-trimester/

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI do not now, nor have I EVER believed that the mere existence of a fetus trumps a woman's right to choose to have the child. Never, as far back as I can remember.

And from my own discussions with people I know (by no means scientific), that is the dominant philosophy. So if you have statistics that state your POV, I'd love to see them.

I don't think we can come to a rational conclusion about the truth of the matter by looking at opinion polls, but I nonetheless think that many, if not most people, agree with you in some quantity or another.

It is just that replace the word "fetus" in your sentence with "child" and you will see the other side of this. If you define a fetus as a future child and someone who is alive then the whole perspective changes.

Yes, both sides of the argument use the semantis game to bolster their argument.  Pro-choice use "fetus"  so it's not as personal and pro-life use "baby" or "child" so it IS personal.  I can divorce myself from the semantics game and look at it rationally.  Use "fetus" or "baby" or "child" and I'll feel the same regardless.  The woman's existing rights trump those of the unborn, especially in cases of rape, incest or when the child has significant defects and it would be a massive hardship for the family to care for the child.  

Please understand that I'd give a limb to have another child and I grieve for the lives wasted from abortion.  HOWEVER, I will always continue to support a woman's right to choose.

The only roadblock I have is when the father doesn't want to abort but the mother, who will carry the child, does.  What then?  I don't know.

I don't like abortion, and we need to do everything we can to avoid it.  But I voted the same way as Laetusatheos for similar reasons.

It's a pretty well-made survey, Titan.

QuoteThe woman's existing rights trump those of the unborn, especially in cases of rape, incest or when the child has significant defects and it would be a massive hardship for the family to care for the child.

Why is choice superior to life in this case? And I can't accept the last point as valid since there is a HUGE waiting line for adopting new born babies.
If the child is the result of rape why should the mother be allowed to abort the baby?

Well the problem with how the anti-legal-safe-medical abortion crowd (im really freakin nitpicky about how its described, its not a dig at the anti abortion crowd) is that until implantation, the fertilized egg can be flushed out of a woman's body at any time.  

Now if "abortion" (meaning the ending of a pregnancy by any means) in general is a bad thing, then women are being condemned (or potentially) condemned for something outside of their control.  

Quote from: "Horror Story"Man marries woman, has sex with wife who doesn't get pregnant.  Gets bored with wife (not a requirement) and then accuses her of aborting "his" child.  There is no evidence of this other than the act of unprotected sex didn't result in a child.  The woman has no way to defend herself in court and the decision is left to the biases of a judge or jury....

The situations that would lead a woman to have to consider seeking legal-safe-medical abortion procedures are never (its safe to say) good.  I'm all for giving as much information and support as humanly possible to that woman, whatever her situation, but in the end the decision is up to her.  

If she wants to carry the child to term and then put it up for adoption, then go her.  Its up to society to make sure that 1) she has top notch pre/post natal care with the expenses are taken care of, 2) whatever control local government have over child welfare and adoption agencies needs to be exercised both liberally and with the utmost importance.

*on a side note: I personally find artificial insemination to be repugnant in a country were so many are expected to give their children up for adoption because its a "sin" to abort a pregnancy (and in some opinions, attempt to remove the possibility of needing an abortion through the use of contraceptives.)
** This also means that making silly laws that restrict the number of potential homes and foster homes due to some arbitrary issue are just as reprehensible.

There shouldn't be any pressure to avoid seeking a legal-safe-medical abortion and endangering her life due to medical complications or potential catastrophic birth defects.  This also requires that society ensure that there is an added emphasis on accurate and timely testing/reporting when an expectant mother wants to have her child screened in utero.
[
I'd imagine it gets harder and harder to make the decision to end a pregnancy the closer it comes to the nine month mark, regardless of whether the person is pro-choice or anti-legal-safe-medical abortion procedures.

This got really long so I'll wrap this up.

I don't think that outlawing legal-safe-medical abortion procedures is the way to reduce the rate at which these services are sought out.  (It's like treating the symptoms without attacking the disease.)

The few articles I've read in the last few years regarding survey's in countries where legal-safe-medical abortion procedures are outlawed showed no significant drop in the number of women who were seeking these procedures. (sorry, I didn't think to save any links)

There are ways of ending a pregnancy before term without the aid of legal-safe-medical abortion procedures, namely finding some local variety of plant (or household cleaner) that is highly toxic and taking just below the lethal dose (throws the body into shock and can cause a miscarriage), traveling to an area/country where it is legal (discriminating against those who aren't able to afford the trip), and the age old back alley doc (which increases the likelihood of complications leading to sterility or death).  So outlawing safe-medical abortion procedures probably won't be worth the effort that has been put into making the procedures illegal.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThe woman's existing rights trump those of the unborn, especially in cases of rape, incest or when the child has significant defects and it would be a massive hardship for the family to care for the child.

Why is choice superior to life in this case? And I can't accept the last point as valid since there is a HUGE waiting line for adopting new born babies.
If the child is the result of rape why should the mother be allowed to abort the baby?

Really? Where?  In Arkansas, where the ban on unwed couples from adoption/fostering just passed, there are about 1000 more kids than there are people willing to adopt/foster (this is pre ban).  

I've heard of groups, told to me by my Catholic sister-in-law, who have meetings every month about adopting babies from China.  I wonder if there are any groups working the domestic side of things?

QuoteReally? Where? In Arkansas, where the ban on unwed couples from adoption/fostering just passed, there are about 1000 more kids than there are people willing to adopt/foster (this is pre ban).

I said "adoption of NEW BORN babies." Not adoption in general.

QuoteI've heard of groups, told to me by my Catholic sister-in-law, who have meetings every month about adopting babies from China. I wonder if there are any groups working the domestic side of things?

There are, but the waiting line is SOOOOO much longer here, trust me, my family has been on it.

Quote from: "Titan"Why is choice superior to life in this case? And I can't accept the last point as valid since there is a HUGE waiting line for adopting new born babies.

Why SHOULDN'T choce be superior to life in this case?  Why does the woman have no control over what happens with and inside of her own body?  I tell you what, if men could get pregnant, this would NOT be such a hotly debated topic.

Quote from: "Titan"If the child is the result of rape why should the mother be allowed to abort the baby?

First, I will assume you are not a man and second, I will assume you've never been a victim of rape.  I'm both.

I'm a responsible person who was told at age 20 that I could not conceive a child due to a few medical conditions.  I was, by all accounts, a broken baby machine and I grieved for a few years, then I got on with my child-free existence.  The hubby and I never used contraception... why should we?  Had I known the doctors were wrong, we would have used contraception.  I got pregnant and I wanted that child more than I wanted anything else in the world.

But before I was married, I was viciously attacked and raped by a man who said he cared about me.  I won't go into any details here but in the end, I was left in a motel room, incapable of leaving until a maid finally opened the door the following day and set me free.  Had I been pregnant with the seed from that horrible man and as a result of that cowardly and savage act, I would have aborted in a heartbeat, despite my established inability to conceive.  I would NOT carry that child for 10 months, regardless how innocent it would have been.  I would have relived that brutality every second of every day and that is a punishment no woman should have to endure.  

THAT is why a raped woman should be allowed to abort.  If it still makes no sense to you, then I will assume you possess no empathy whatsoever.

Quote from: "rlrose328"THAT is why a raped woman should be allowed to abort.  If it still makes no sense to you, then I will assume you possess no empathy whatsoever.

I can be pretty cold at times, but even I would never try to argue against that. *hug*

QuoteWhy SHOULDN'T choce be superior to life in this case? Why does the woman have no control over what happens with and inside of her own body? I tell you what, if men could get pregnant, this would NOT be such a hotly debated topic.

Because of the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If you believe the child is living then the child has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which such a choice would flatly deny in favor of personal preference. Besides, when a woman becomes pregnant it is no longer just her body, it is hers and the childs. When a man who owns a van is driving his kids and the neighbor's kids around is he allowed to crash it at no worry for the safety of the neighbor's kids? If anything he could try to kill them because they were a burden. You are riding a very slippery slope here.

"If men could get pregnant" is such a horrible logical fallacy. Explain how you could know something like that?

QuoteBut before I was married, I was viciously attacked and raped by a man who said he cared about me. I won't go into any details here but in the end, I was left in a motel room, incapable of leaving until a maid finally opened the door the following day and set me free.

I've very sorry. If I'm making you relive memories then please tell me so and I will stop.

QuoteHad I been pregnant with the seed from that horrible man and as a result of that cowardly and savage act, I would have aborted in a heartbeat, despite my established inability to conceive. I would NOT carry that child for 10 months, regardless how innocent it would have been.

But many women disagree with you and wouldn't abort the child. Why punish the child for another person's crime? Why deny the child the right to live because it upsets your personal happiness for 9 months?

QuoteTHAT is why a raped woman should be allowed to abort. If it still makes no sense to you, then I will assume you possess no empathy whatsoever.

No, I empathize, I believe it is horrible and it makes me sick just thinking about it but I also empathize with the child and believe that that child should not be punished for someone else's crime and that that child should be granted the same rights as another human. Yes, something horrible and despicable happened, but you can turn that into something amazing and wonderful.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteReally? Where? In Arkansas, where the ban on unwed couples from adoption/fostering just passed, there are about 1000 more kids than there are people willing to adopt/foster (this is pre ban).

I said "adoption of NEW BORN babies." Not adoption in general.

QuoteI've heard of groups, told to me by my Catholic sister-in-law, who have meetings every month about adopting babies from China. I wonder if there are any groups working the domestic side of things?

There are, but the waiting line is SOOOOO much longer here, trust me, my family has been on it.

Titan, most people who are trying to adopt want healthy white babies (and are usually picky about gender too).  It's sad to have to say people are that way, but it's true.  What happens when a black or hispanic woman has a baby that she needs to give up for adoption but no one is willing to take the kid?  Is she left with taking on the burden of a child she can't support...or even worse, left knowing she had to abandon a child in foster care until someone is willing to adot him or her?  I think our country is taking some big strides towards getting rid of prejudices against races...but for now it is a problem we have to consider.

What about crack babies...babies with aids...downs syndrone....not all babies are easy to adopt out.  That's why the wait list is so long...it's not that there aren't babies to be adopted it's that there aren't many babies of a certain type waiting to be adopted.  

Not long after taking me home my parents found out I had a hole in my heart.  Now, I'm not going to put them in the position of having to answer the following question, but what do you think most people would do if they were on the adoption waiting list and found out the next available kid required a very expensive operation with unexpected outcome?  I think we all know most people would choose to wait a bit longer for a completely healthy baby.

I'm not sure what the ideal solution is to fixing the adoption process would be.  Lessening the requirement to qualifiy to adopt would be one leap forward...I've heard the average adoption costs around $30,000 dollars.  I think this is a place where the governement should step in and offer to pay for the pre-birth medical costs and whatever else adopting parents are having to pay for so more couples (or individuals) can qualify to adopt a child.

Maybe it would work even better if we guilt tripped people like some pounds do with puppies.  

Quote from: "Titan"Because of the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If you believe the child is living then the child has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which such a choice would flatly deny in favor of personal preference. Besides, when a woman becomes pregnant it is no longer just her body, it is hers and the childs. When a man who owns a van is driving his kids and the neighbor's kids around is he allowed to crash it at no worry for the safety of the neighbor's kids? If anything he could try to kill them because they were a burden. You are riding a very slippery slope here.

Yes, all men are created equal and deserve right guaranteed by our constitution (I'll let the "by their Creator" thing go).   But when the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution in Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Blackmun stated that the constitution applies to post-natal persons only and has no application to those pre-natal.  He left it that the scientific and medical communities need to come to a concensus as to when "personhood" starts before the constitution could be applied.  The scientific and medical communities are too torn to come to that concensus.

Were I an ancient Greek or a Jew, I'd say personhood doesn't start until the baby is delivered (or half delivered as the Jews consider it).  Through the middle ages, it was believed that a soul doesn't occupy the body until 40 days for a male and 90 days for a female, so CHRISTIANS set abortion limits at 90 days from conception.  Since then, most non-Catholic denominations believed that it is a up to the person to decide while Catholics have always believe in the at-conception ideal.

A fetus (yes, I'm sticking with fetus in my argument) is not a PERSON who deserves the same rights as an adult female who has memories, loved ones, a life, history, etc.  For me, I'd say I support abortion for pregnancies between 6 weeks, when the embryo develops brain waves, and 8 weeks, when the last vestiges of gills and a tail disappear.  A woman should definitely know in that timeframe what she wants to do.  For instances of rape or incest, I'd support abortion in the form of the morning after pill before she even has a chance to know she's pregnant.

And I'm not going to compare a woman getting an abortion with a man crashing his van to kill some kids, and you won't find ANYONE who would take up that argument.  That is a straw man argument if ever I saw one.

Quote from: "Titan""If men could get pregnant" is such a horrible logical fallacy. Explain how you could know something like that?

You are correct... I can't possibly know that.  It's just my opinion as a woman in a male-centric world.  It is an illogical opinion.  

Quote from: "Titan"I've very sorry. If I'm making you relive memories then please tell me so and I will stop.

No worries... I've comes to terms with it and getting upset won't erase it.  It's merely something that happened to an irresponsible child who, at 19, thought she knew what life was all about... and found out in one shiningly awful instant that she was SOOOO wrong.  But this is why I'm so passionate about this argument.

Quote from: "Titan"But many women disagree with you and wouldn't abort the child. Why punish the child for another person's crime? Why deny the child the right to live because it upsets your personal happiness for 9 months?

I'm sure there are woman who disagree with me as I am disagreeing with them.  Neither group proves the other is wrong.   The "child" is not yet a child, IMHO.  And it's not a matter of personal happiness when we're talking about the victim of a violent act.  We're talking psychological devastation and the reliving of that devastation for 10 months (approximately 40 weeks gestation).  

You seem to be implying that I'd rush all rape victims to the abortion clinic and hold them down under the knife.  Nothing is further from the truth.  All women are different and there is a significant percentage of women who DO bear the fruit of their violence.  More power to them.  But there are those who would choose not to... and they deserve the right to terminate if they so choose.

Quote from: "Titan"No, I empathize, I believe it is horrible and it makes me sick just thinking about it but I also empathize with the child and believe that that child should not be punished for someone else's crime and that that child should be granted the same rights as another human. Yes, something horrible and despicable happened, but you can turn that into something amazing and wonderful.

You are correct... the child shouldn't be punished for someone else's crime.  But neither should the woman.  And she should have the right to choose, as the living, breathing, memory-bearing human incubator that she is.  The answer is that BOTH scenarios are correct... if one decides to bear the child, so be it.  If one decides to NOT, she should have that right.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "rlrose328"THAT is why a raped woman should be allowed to abort.  If it still makes no sense to you, then I will assume you possess no empathy whatsoever.

I can be pretty cold at times, but even I would never try to argue against that. *hug*

Thanks, curio... ya cold-hearted b@st@rd.  

No woman should be forced to bear a child of rape. Why would you put the fetus's right to life above that of the woman to live her life. It is not just a matter of "nine month's inconvenience." It is risk and pain and it takes over your life. There are so many women and girls who should not have to make room in their bodies and their lives for an unwanted child. I know I am not stating this well, but pregnancy and childbirth are so much more than "nine months' inconvenience" that I cannot even put it into words. That statement is what proves you are a man and cannot understand. What about women who must work and care for an existing family? What about drugs she should take to prevent aids and STD's from her rape? What about a child rape? What about an alcoholic or mentally ill woman? What about a woman who is seriously depressed or has a body that just wasn't meant to bear? You don't know all the situations a woman can be in that make pregnancy an enormous burden, or all the illegal and addictive things women do that they would not admit, but they know they should not allow a pregnancy to continue. You cannot see into their brains and bodies and lives and say, "Every thing will be fine if you give birth to this child." You have no right to inflict your religious views on the beginnings of life. Legally, life begins at birth. The end.

Quote from: "Titan"But many women disagree with you and wouldn't abort the child. Why punish the child for another person's crime?

Why is it considered "punishment"?  Is the "child" going to go to hell?  Would not an innocent be spirited straight to the pearly gates?  

QuoteWhy deny the child the right to live because it upsets your personal happiness for 9 months?

Huh?

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteWhy deny the child the right to live because it upsets your personal happiness for 9 months?

oookay
usually I stay out of arguments of any kind, but, being pregnant, especially after a rape, isnt just "upsettng my happyness for 9 months!"
It is physical: Headaches, nausea, vomiting, backpains, not being able to do the things you could before, medicins, doctors, new clothes, "fake" labour pains, not to mention the birth, that if a man ever felt the pains of birthm he would go curl in his bed and never want to eave from there again.
Theres also the psychological: This costs a life time not just "9 months". You were violated, you body is no longer yours, you are an incubator for an evil man's seed, a deed that you hated and loathed, you watch yourself get huger and huger, and you relieve the momment everyday. Please bear in mind that my native tongue is not english, so I can not really express the pain and suffering taht goes through a pregnant woman's mind.
I dont think women go to abortion without thinking twice, thrice or even four times. They arenot happy about killing a future life, but considering all of the above, and considering "killing" a bunch of cells,thenno, thanks. I want only the pchychological pain, not the physical as well. It s abortion for me
Mind you all of the above was about rape victims.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"I genuinely believe I would have problems bringing up a badly disabled baby but there are some disabilities I would care less about. I think that stems from the fact that what a parent strives for is an independent self-supporting child (it's kinda the job description of parenthood, my job is to equip my child with all the tools and skills necessary to survive & thrive in what is often a hostile society) so a child that is so disabled that it will never achieve that independence scares the hell out of me. I can't rationally explain that, it just does ...

That's exactly how I would feel.  I could not raise a mentally handicapped child, and I've always wondered if that makes me a bad person. ;P

Otherwise, my mom had an abortion when she was 19, and I don't think I would be alive if she had not.  I think it was because she wasn't careful enough in relationships, but I've never actually asked her.  Still, though.  She was young and the kid might have had a horrible life.
My friend, similarly, was born when his mom was 18.  The father ended up dying, and the mom is bi-polar and schizophrenic, so he's had a really tough life.  Though I guess besides being broke and not having any real family to help support him through school and such, he's turned out alright.

I don't really want people having kids if they are going to resent and hate the kids.  In a way, abortion is a way to curb this, but if there were some _sure_ alternative that would be a better way to go.  Adoption seems so iffy to me these days, you're always hearing about messed up kids, and my mom works at an alternative school where the kids were kicked out of normal public schools, lots of them live with foster parents and such. :/

I agree with Asmodean - if the baby is dependent completely on the mother then she should be able to make the choice to end the pregnancy for any reason. The government getting involved in your personal reproductive activity is really scary.

Also - If someone is going to have a baby and they are even considering abortion, there's a strong indication they're not ready to be parents. I would rather the baby die before further development than be raised in a home that will cause it and society severe damage.

It could be argued that adoption is an option - and I certainly don't disagree. I would like to see unwanted babies go to good families. But I grew up in church associating with thousands of pro-life Christians. And only TWO couples I knew ever adopted. And that's because they were not able to have any children of their own!! So Christians all lament the MILLIONS of babies being aborted, but where are the MILLIONS of adoptive parents??!! They just DON'T EXIST! Sure, there are good Christian people out there who adopt, and some of them even adopt upwards of 20 children - but really - there aren't that many people who are willing to do that. Plus - what kind of home is that to be raised in? I can't see it being very beneficial.

Like Curio I'm utilitarian to a point. Abortion will help stave off overpopulation. Earth simply cannot support billions of humans. If somebody doesn't want their own baby - I'll trust they're not yet fit to be parents. I'm okay with that.

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "Titan"Why is choice superior to life in this case? And I can't accept the last point as valid since there is a HUGE waiting line for adopting new born babies.

Why SHOULDN'T choce be superior to life in this case?  Why does the woman have no control over what happens with and inside of her own body?  I tell you what, if men could get pregnant, this would NOT be such a hotly debated topic.

I get bored with life - I play chicken with a freight train - Choice trumps life. Or here is another one: I sign a DNR - doctors stand there biting their fingernails - Choice trumps life.

OR a woman can choose to surgically remove a part of her body - Choice trumps internal organs.

Another thing: Titan, you said earlier in this thread that if you replace the word fetus with the word child, the whole "dilemma" will come into a different light. I was refering to the fetus as "kid" throughout this and other threads like it (unless more scientific language was expected) and it doesn't change a thing. As long as it's a part of that woman's body, abortion should be her option should she wish it.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"...I am curious how Dennis K feels about it as he's ex-Catholic too.

While I was raised Catholic, I wasn't fully orthodox.  Since I was anti-church through my teens, I didn't get my full indoctrination.  Abortion was never mentioned to me by my family or priest.  I am pro choice and like others on this forum, I feel it is totally up to the woman who has the unborn baby soul from jesus in her belly.  It's really not for me or certainly not for any bible thumper to say what anyone should do with their bodies.

Quote from: "Titan"I don't know if I want to debate this fully or not, I kind of just want to get your opinions on it.

I have a feeling you knew from the start you wanted to debate this issue.  Hence, the post.

Wow. I was the only one to say never. Thought Titan would agree with me there. Althoug I'm sure there's a more complicated scenario that could be presented to me and I would agree that it would be acceptable for an abortion (Ex: Mother will surely die and the child will too most likely).

MariaEvri

QuoteTheres also the psychological: This costs a life time not just "9 months". You were violated, you body is no longer yours, you are an incubator for an evil man's seed, a deed that you hated and loathed, you watch yourself get huger and huger, and you relieve the moment everyday.

Again I say, yes you were violated and that is something despicable and evil but you can create something great out of that.

QuoteI dont think women go to abortion without thinking twice, thrice or even four times. They arenot happy about killing a future life, but considering all of the above, and considering "killing" a bunch of cells,thenno, thanks. I want only the pchychological pain, not the physical as well. It s abortion for me

But when you create the option of understanding that something else may be living and that your choice > their life you create problems that will run throughout more of society then you realize.

Jolly Sapper

QuoteWhy is it considered "punishment"? Is the "child" going to go to hell? Would not an innocent be spirited straight to the pearly gates?

A point that is brought up quite often but which misses two important elements.
1. The child the will to choose to follow God or not. You deny the child free will.
2. You have no right to take life since you are not the author of life and you do not place value on it.

Wraitchel

QuoteWhy would you put the fetus's right to life above that of the woman to live her life.

If you consider the fetus a living human then this question is hardly debatable...it would be clear that your right to comfort does not trump someone else's right to life.

QuoteIt is risk and pain and it takes over your life.

Many studies have argued that abortion presents just as much of a problem. How many women who have had the child from rape have regretted that child completely? I realize that you don't have statistics on that and I don't expect you to scrounge around for them but that is just food for thought.

QuoteI know I am not stating this well, but pregnancy and childbirth are so much more than "nine months' inconvenience" that I cannot even put it into words. That statement is what proves you are a man and cannot understand.

You act like it is only men against abortion for these reasons. Many many many women who have had children still disagree with the right to abortions in the cases of rape.

QuoteWhat about women who must work and care for an existing family?

Give the child up to adoption, there are so many people who want to adopt new born children.

QuoteWhat about drugs she should take to prevent aids and STD's from her rape?

Do you have some specific drugs you are talking about here that create such problems?

QuoteWhat about an alcoholic or mentally ill woman?

Please explain the problems here.

QuoteWhat about a woman who is seriously depressed or has a body that just wasn't meant to bear?

If the woman's life is in danger I believe that abortions should be allowed.

QuoteLegally, life begins at birth.

What about partial birth abortions?

rlrose328

QuoteYes, all men are created equal and deserve right guaranteed by our constitution (I'll let the "by their Creator" thing go).

You better, I didn't add it to the Declaration.

QuoteBut when the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution in Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Blackmun stated that the constitution applies to post-natal persons only and has no application to those pre-natal.

Which constitutional law did they interpret in this instance?

QuoteWere I an ancient Greek or a Jew, I'd say personhood doesn't start until the baby is delivered (or half delivered as the Jews consider it). Through the middle ages, it was believed that a soul doesn't occupy the body until 40 days for a male and 90 days for a female, so CHRISTIANS set abortion limits at 90 days from conception. Since then, most non-Catholic denominations believed that it is a up to the person to decide while Catholics have always believe in the at-conception ideal.

I believe that these ideas have fundamental flaws in their definitions of life since they are rather arbitrary limits.

QuoteFor me, I'd say I support abortion for pregnancies between 6 weeks, when the embryo develops brain waves, and 8 weeks, when the last vestiges of gills and a tail disappear.

Why at these points? And if you use the brain one: can we kill people who have made it previously clear that they want to be kept alive if the go into a coma?

QuoteYou are correct... I can't possibly know that. It's just my opinion as a woman in a male-centric world. It is an illogical opinion.

You realize that this is the same logic used by Christians who say that atheists are just in denial of God even though they really know He exists...They say it is a logical opinion too because people who come to the faith attest to such a position.

Laetusatheos

QuoteTitan, most people who are trying to adopt want healthy white babies (and are usually picky about gender too).

My family was on the waiting list, we didn't specify and we still never got the chance. If what you are saying is true then why are people adopting children from Asia?

QuoteWhat about crack babies...babies with aids...downs syndrone....not all babies are easy to adopt out. That's why the wait list is so long...it's not that there aren't babies to be adopted it's that there aren't many babies of a certain type waiting to be adopted.

Wouldn't aborting such babies be discrimination based on a disease?

Quote from: "Titan"Jolly Sapper

    Why is it considered "punishment"? Is the "child" going to go to hell? Would not an innocent be spirited straight to the pearly gates?


A point that is brought up quite often but which misses two important elements.
1. The child the will to choose to follow God or not. You deny the child free will.
2. You have no right to take life since you are not the author of life and you do not place value on it.

This depends on just what exactly is defined as life and when exactly this occurs.  A mass of undifferentiated cells in a petri dish is considered life, but it isn't protected by the same moral standard.  

In response to your point #1:  In either way somebody is denied their free will.  Either a person who is able to think and learn from the experience, or a mass of cells that may or may not become a person.  

In response to #2:  Huh?  This doesn't make sense.  Either you are meaning that God created all life and is responsible for life, therefor its only up to God whether or not an abortion occurs (in which case, how do you tell if a woman choosing to have an abortion is not being lead by God to do so?)  Or you are trying to tell me that since its not my sperm that fertilized an egg, I don't have any say in the matter (which would mean that if the sperm that fertilized the egg was mine then I or the woman who the egg belonged to, would have a say in whether or not an abortion would be sought.)

I place a lot of value on life, but I also think that reality trumps how I'd like the world to function.  Hence, my believe that safe-medical-abortions should not be made illegal.

QuoteThis depends on just what exactly is defined as life and when exactly this occurs. A mass of undifferentiated cells in a petri dish is considered life, but it isn't protected by the same moral standard.

Exactly, that's the point I was considering at the very beginning of this thread where I asked why there isn't more of a divergence among Christians...as in why don't more Christians believe that life begins at birth rather than conception or somewhere in between.

QuoteIn response to your point #1: In either way somebody is denied their free will. Either a person who is able to think and learn from the experience, or a mass of cells that may or may not become a person.

This leads dangerously close to justifing the slaughter of less intelligent people. Someone's right to choose should never trump another HUMAN BEINGS (again, you have to define what a human being is) right to life.

QuoteIn response to #2: Huh? This doesn't make sense. Either you are meaning that God created all life and is responsible for life, therefor its only up to God whether or not an abortion occurs (in which case, how do you tell if a woman choosing to have an abortion is not being lead by God to do so?)

That would be like a murderer arguing that God lead him to murder the innocent children...the response is "I'm sorry but that doesn't match up."

QuoteOr you are trying to tell me that since its not my sperm that fertilized an egg, I don't have any say in the matter (which would mean that if the sperm that fertilized the egg was mine then I or the woman who the egg belonged to, would have a say in whether or not an abortion would be sought.)

No because what stops you from killing the child at another given point far far later in life? For the same reason?

QuoteI place a lot of value on life, but I also think that reality trumps how I'd like the world to function. Hence, my believe that safe-medical-abortions should not be made illegal.

Should safe effective murders be legal to? Since reality trumps how we want the world to function, they are going to happen anyway, might as well make it quick and clean.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "rlrose328"Yes, all men are created equal and deserve right guaranteed by our constitution (I'll let the "by their Creator" thing go).

You better, I didn't add it to the Declaration.

Yes, I know... the deists that wrote the Constitution did believe in a creator.  But I don't and having that in the Constitution violates the church/state separation issue that Thomas Jefferson himself proposed.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "rlrose328"But when the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution in Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Blackmun stated that the constitution applies to post-natal persons only and has no application to those pre-natal.

Which constitutional law did they interpret in this instance?.

They used mainly the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process).  Here is the summation from the Roe v. Wade decision (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html):

[spoiler:3njnnj9l]To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life  may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together.  

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important [p166] state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.[/spoiler:3njnnj9l]

If you want more info on exactly what some of that means, see Section IX of that same document.  Here is a paragraph from Section X that I find important:

QuoteWith respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "rlrose328"Were I an ancient Greek or a Jew, I'd say personhood doesn't start until the baby is delivered (or half delivered as the Jews consider it). Through the middle ages, it was believed that a soul doesn't occupy the body until 40 days for a male and 90 days for a female, so CHRISTIANS set abortion limits at 90 days from conception. Since then, most non-Catholic denominations believed that it is a up to the person to decide while Catholics have always believe in the at-conception ideal.

I believe that these ideas have fundamental flaws in their definitions of life since they are rather arbitrary limits..

At the risk of being snide... of COURSE you do.  I'd expect nothing less.  Those with avid pro-life stances choose to ignore any measurements but the ones they set themselves; most often, it's the "at conception" timeframe.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "rlrose328"For me, I'd say I support abortion for pregnancies between 6 weeks, when the embryo develops brain waves, and 8 weeks, when the last vestiges of gills and a tail disappear.

Why at these points? And if you use the brain one: can we kill people who have made it previously clear that they want to be kept alive if the go into a coma? .

Please refrain from using my words against me by exagerating a statement.  Of course I wouldn't kill someone who has made it clear they wish to be kept alive.  What an utterly stupid thing to say.  I'm talking about a being who, until that 6 weeks, is merely a group of cells that is feeding off of the host (mother).  (For the record, I support euthanasia as well.)

I gave you a timeframe I'd be comfortable supporting in ALL instances, but I do support a woman's right to have an abortion at any time in the pregnancy that she chooses, though I'd like stringent restrictions on late-term abortions (those you refer to by the misnomer "live birth" abortions).

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "rlrose328"You are correct... I can't possibly know that. It's just my opinion as a woman in a male-centric world. It is an illogical opinion.

You realize that this is the same logic used by Christians who say that atheists are just in denial of God even though they really know He exists...They say it is a logical opinion too because people who come to the faith attest to such a position.

Yes, I realize that... I said you are correct, can we just leave it at that?  Besides, I said it's an ILLOGICAL opinion.  Men would probably want the freedom to choose what to do with their bodies just as much as women.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteIn response to your point #1: In either way somebody is denied their free will. Either a person who is able to think and learn from the experience, or a mass of cells that may or may not become a person.

This leads dangerously close to justifing the slaughter of less intelligent people. <-- I smell a straw man argument -JS Someone's right to choose should never trump another HUMAN BEINGS (again, you have to define what a human being is) right to life.

But it isn't a human being is it?  Its little more than a mass of cells, that can spontaneously abort at any moment.

QuoteThat would be like a murderer arguing that God lead him to murder the innocent children...the response is "I'm sorry but that doesn't match up."

Your description was that the "author" of life gets to choose what happens to that life, maybe I misunderstood, but technically any non-virgin birth that I'm involved in would make me an author no?  If God has the power or intention to stop an abortion, then they wouldn't happen correct?  If an abortion is allowed, then how am I to know if it happened against or because of God's will?

QuoteNo because what stops you from killing the child at another given point far far later in life? For the same reason?

Common decency mostly, unless self defense or some other situation where ending somebody's misery might be their wish (free will, right?).

QuoteShould safe effective murders be legal to? Since reality trumps how we want the world to function, they are going to happen anyway, might as well make it quick and clean.

I think this may be another straw man argument.  A "safe effective murder" depends on the ability of somebody being able to quickly kill another without their permission, and get away without being harmed in the process, not to mention that the whole point (as I understand it) is that a murder is illegal.  If a murder wasn't illegal, then it wouldn't be a murder right?

When I mentioned ill women and women who are depressed or too young or whatever, I was not using them as cases in which there would be a higher likelihood of bad outcomes for the offspring. I meant that it would harm the woman to bear an unwanted child. Titan, you don't seem to care at all about the women. I guarantee that if abortion is made illegal AGAIN, desperate women will risk their lives to procure illegal ones just as they did prior to Roe v Wade. Do they just get what they deserve, no matter how desperate they are? Why is it your business to dictate this matter? What gives you the right to say that if some asshole sticks his thing where it has no business being, I have to bear an unwanted child despite the risk to my health. Over 4,000 women in the US died of complications of childbirth in the nineties. Black women were four times more likely to die than white women (that's from a CDC surveillance report.) The vast majority of those were normal pregnancies. Can you really expect me to give up my illegal drugs, eat right, and get good prenatal care? Or do you care that I may not be able to give the baby a healthy start? Do you care that I may be 13 years old and pregnant by my own father, brother, or priest?

I agree that abortion is a bad thing, but in this imperfect world, it is not right to force all women, no matter their circumstances to bear unwanted babies. And lacking omniscience, you are not qualified to judge the circumstances in which it should be allowed.

rlrose328

QuoteYes, I know... the deists that wrote the Constitution did believe in a creator. But I don't and having that in the Constitution violates the church/state separation issue that Thomas Jefferson himself proposed.

Which is why they left God out of the Constitution but you should go read a line in the Jefferson Memorial in Washington...this quote in particular: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

QuoteWith respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

There is no definition of life here. Only that the mortality rate is lower during a first trimester abortion than during normal childbirth, and that is just a "maybe."

QuoteAt the risk of being snide... of COURSE you do. I'd expect nothing less. Those with avid pro-life stances choose to ignore any measurements but the ones they set themselves; most often, it's the "at conception" timeframe.

What is your measurement? Brainwaves? Why? How do you account for coma patients? Do people lose value as they lose mental capacity? You need to be consistent with the definition of life here.

QuotePlease refrain from using my words against me by exagerating a statement. Of course I wouldn't kill someone who has made it clear they wish to be kept alive. What an utterly stupid thing to say. I'm talking about a being who, until that 6 weeks, is merely a group of cells that is feeding off of the host (mother). (For the record, I support euthanasia as well.)

Please don't insult the statement, just show how it is wrong...which you didn't do. I extended your definition to the logical end point which you haven't adequately fought against. The person in the coma is just a group of cells (a larger group of cells) feeding off the well-being of society and/or the family member in particular. Why can't you deny their will to live for the benefit of everybody else as a whole?

Jolly Sapper

Quote

QuoteThis leads dangerously close to justifing the slaughter of less intelligent people. <-- I smell a straw man argument -JS Someone's right to choose should never trump another HUMAN BEINGS (again, you have to define what a human being is) right to life.

But it isn't a human being is it? Its little more than a mass of cells, that can spontaneously abort at any moment.

1. It isn't a straw man argument because I'm not trying to represent your belief. I'm trying to say that the logical outwork appears to come close to justifying some pretty heinous stuff.
2. Human being: Fully set of chromosomes, begins at conception. Simple as that.
3. Human beings are little more than a mass of cells that can spontaneously die at any point...

QuoteYour description was that the "author" of life gets to choose what happens to that life, maybe I misunderstood, but technically any non-virgin birth that I'm involved in would make me an author no? If God has the power or intention to stop an abortion, then they wouldn't happen correct? If an abortion is allowed, then how am I to know if it happened against or because of God's will?

Incorrect, because you don't assign value to life. You propogate life, you keep life going but you don't design life and give it meaning. That is why you can't take life (from a Christian perspecitve). People murdering innocent people is always against God's will. But he still works and makes good things come out of the evil people do, this is the concept of "complex good."

QuoteCommon decency mostly, unless self defense or some other situation where ending somebody's misery might be their wish (free will, right?).

Common decency? What does that mean and what is your basis for it?

QuoteI think this may be another straw man argument. A "safe effective murder" depends on the ability of somebody being able to quickly kill another without their permission, and get away without being harmed in the process, not to mention that the whole point (as I understand it) is that a murder is illegal. If a murder wasn't illegal, then it wouldn't be a murder right?

It isn't a straw man argument, I'm not setting up my own version of your definition, I'm working within your logic. I'm not saying "You believe this" I'm saying "You said what you believe...therefore this should be your opinion on this subject...given the same logic process." So if abortion was illegal it would be wrong? Furthermore, some hitmen are pretty talented and with a long ranged, high power rifle you can pretty much ensure that you get away clean. So again, how does your argument avoid this conclusion?

Quote from: "Titan"Please don't insult the statement, just show how it is wrong...which you didn't do. I extended your definition to the logical end point which you haven't adequately fought against. The person in the coma is just a group of cells (a larger group of cells) feeding off the well-being of society and/or the family member in particular. Why can't you deny their will to live for the benefit of everybody else as a whole?

I don't consider an embryo a person who deserves life at the expense of the mother's wishes/needs.  There is no need to extend any definition past the specific instance I defined.  

If you can't see the difference... are incapable of seeing the difference... then I have nothing more to say.  

I'm done on this topic.  I will not be re-interpreted and forced to defend my views here any more.  You know where I stand.

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "Titan"Please don't insult the statement, just show how it is wrong...which you didn't do. I extended your definition to the logical end point which you haven't adequately fought against. The person in the coma is just a group of cells (a larger group of cells) feeding off the well-being of society and/or the family member in particular. Why can't you deny their will to live for the benefit of everybody else as a whole?

I don't consider an embryo a person who deserves life at the expense of the mother's wishes/needs.  There is no need to extend any definition past the specific instance I defined.  

If you can't see the difference... are incapable of seeing the difference... then I have nothing more to say.  

I'm done on this topic.  I will not be re-interpreted and forced to defend my views here any more.  You know where I stand.

Essentially what you are saying is that your definition is not worth applying elsewhere. You have defined life only for this specific case which isn't a rational method of creating order.

Have to say, Titan, your arguments are really beginning to fail to connect with what the opponent is even saying. What could be used as a defense for rlrose is already in his previous statement. This is why we tend to go in circles so often. In all honesty of trying to help you, pay closer attention to what is being said.

Quote from: "Sophus"Have to say, Titan, your arguments are really beginning to fail to connect with what the opponent is even saying. What could be used as a defense for rlrose is already in his previous statement. This is why we tend to go in circles so often. In all honesty of trying to help you, pay closer attention to what is being said.

Ahem... HER, Soph... I'm a HER.   :beer:

Quote from: "rlrose328"Ahem... HER, Soph... I'm a HER.   :beer:

Oh dear.    Ha ha. That's one thing I loath about the internet. My apologies. Will try better not to make gender assumptions.

Quote from: "Sophus"Have to say, Titan, your arguments are really beginning to fail to connect with what the opponent is even saying. What could be used as a defense for rlrose is already in his previous statement. This is why we tend to go in circles so often. In all honesty of trying to help you, pay closer attention to what is being said.

I disagree because when defining life we are forced to give certain human attributes merits (in this case brain function). By defining life by attributes we must extend our definition to other things to see if our definition is valid and whether or not it holds. We must see what a human being consists of. If a brain is what makes a person: must it be a fully functioning brain or just a brain in general? If it is just a brain in general then is it a brain that is fully formed or is a partially formed brain okay? If it is a partially formed brain then how many braincells are needed to make that fetus a human? Is the number arbitrary or does it have a scientific value? These are the questions I'm trying to draw out and these are the questions that are not being answered.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Sophus"Have to say, Titan, your arguments are really beginning to fail to connect with what the opponent is even saying. What could be used as a defense for rlrose is already in his previous statement. This is why we tend to go in circles so often. In all honesty of trying to help you, pay closer attention to what is being said.

I disagree because when defining life we are forced to give certain human attributes merits (in this case brain function). By defining life by attributes we must extend our definition to other things to see if our definition is valid and whether or not it holds. We must see what a human being consists of. If a brain is what makes a person: must it be a fully functioning brain or just a brain in general? If it is just a brain in general then is it a brain that is fully formed or is a partially formed brain okay? If it is a partially formed brain then how many braincells are needed to make that fetus a human? Is the number arbitrary or does it have a scientific value? These are the questions I'm trying to draw out and these are the questions that are not being answered.

Shall I break out the crayolas?

Let's reverse the order of this conversation and see if it still works:

Quote from: "Titan"Essentially what you are saying is that your definition is not worth applying elsewhere.You have defined life only for this specific case...

Quote from: "rlrose328"I don't consider an embryo a person who deserves life at the expense of the mother's wishes/needs. There is no need to extend any definition past the specific instance I defined. ...

...I'm done on this topic. I will not be re-interpreted and forced to defend my views here any more. You know where I stand.

All you did was essentially restate what she said only present it in a negative fashion. Have you ever considered a career in politics? Her intuition told her she would only be reinterpreting it for you again and clearly she was right. We all formulate questions based on the answers we want to hear. But you must learn to accept a valid answer even when it is not what you're looking for or expecting to see.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"Essentially what you are saying is that your definition is not worth applying elsewhere.You have defined life only for this specific case...

Quote from: "rlrose328"I don't consider an embryo a person who deserves life at the expense of the mother's wishes/needs. There is no need to extend any definition past the specific instance I defined. ...

...I'm done on this topic. I will not be re-interpreted and forced to defend my views here any more. You know where I stand.

All you did was essentially restate what she said only present it in a negative fashion. Have you ever considered a career in politics? Her intuition told her she would only be reinterpreting it for you again and clearly she was right. We all formulate questions based on the answers we want to hear. But you must learn to accept a valid answer even when it is not what you're looking for or expecting to see.

I know she said that, the problem is that it isn't a rational conclusion. It would be like someone saying that that a human being is a human being as soon as it has 46 chromosomes. Well, okay, that makes life start at conception but that excludes people with down syndrome as being human. You see? There are implications to our definition of life and I want her to reach hers. I believe that when one logically works through it the only rational conclusion is that life begins at conception, it is the one with the fewest unanswered problems or the 1000 extra pinpoint case by case definitions that must follow. I want her to see where her definition of life applies and ask her why she believes it begins at that time? Is her choice of life beginning where it does arbitrary or does it have a logical basis. That is what I'm trying to get at and that is what she is refusing to get at. If you would like to argue her case I would love to continue this discussion.

I'm no lawyer, I'll tell you what I think. Not everyone will ever see eye to eye in regards to when life begins; at conception or what. But I think we can all agree that life will inevitably be birthed from a healthy pregnant woman. Therefore we have no business in preventing it since we are all given the right live.

"Life" doesn't begin until birth because a fetus is a parasite. It cannot live without its host until the third trimester (in most cases).

Many of my beliefs don't follow the "norm" for atheists. They truly are mine too, that is to say not biased by earlier religion, I was raised by my mother who was vaguely Buddist 20 years ago and is an atheist now , her father is an atheist , and mother a Unitarian. So a pretty free thinking chain. I totaly agree with abortion if the mother will die or the child is sick or deformed. Rape I'm less sure on, while being a male I don't have the deeper understanding of pregnancy that women do, but the thought being pregnant with a child, born of hate and violence seem abhorrent to me. Yet I also believe that life starts at conception (again not the "norm"). To me life starts similar to a fire, I don't think the fire is really going only when all the logs are burning but when the match is first lit. That being said I don't think it's fair to the child, who all can agree is innocent, to be killed because it's conception was not. So I really can decide on abortions for rape (I include incest with rape). I don't think any other reason is justified. There is contraception available, and I believe most christians would agree contraception is a lesser "evil" to abortion (contraception preventing my provebial match from being lt is NOT an issue for me) . So ending a life because of your own irresponsabiliy seems almost stupid to me. I have also seen footage of partial birth abortion and it, to me, can't becalled anything but murder through a legal loop hole.

In the poll I chose abortion is okay during the first two trimesters; however, I believe it's okay only during the first trimester, but that wasn't listed as an option.  Just wanted to make that clear.

A woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body.  Period.  Anyone not that woman, regardless of religious affiliation or belief, needs to stay the fuck out of her business.  That includes the law, holier-than-thou Christians, Titan, and anyone else trying to dictate to other people what to do with their lives.

My entire life I've watched Christians up on their high horses deciding what's wrong with people and the world, and crying out that if only everyone would open their hearts to Jaysus the world would be a better place, lions would lie down with lambs, and we'd all sit down on Easter Sunday to eat pork with the ex-Muslims.

On the day when all the bleeding heart Christians so desperate to control other people's reproductive rights stand up in church and swear on that musty old book they're so enamored of to financially and physically provide for all the unwanted babies that would otherwise be aborted, AND put their money where their loud mouths are, I will rejoice with them that there is less of a need for abortion.  And knowing what I know about the vast majority of Christians, I will continue to support women's right to choose and legal abortions.

Quote from: "Wraitchel""Life" doesn't begin until birth because a fetus is a parasite. It cannot live without its host until the third trimester (in most cases).

I hate to be the one to break this to you but....

[spoiler:mz8w29rm]parasites can be living things.[/spoiler:mz8w29rm]

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Wraitchel""Life" doesn't begin until birth because a fetus is a parasite. It cannot live without its host until the third trimester (in most cases).

I hate to be the one to break this to you but....

[spoiler:27rsfkq7]parasites can be living things.[/spoiler:27rsfkq7]

Aren't small children according to that same logic not parasites either? A baby or small child can also not survive without its parents.

Wraitchel, I understand what you're saying even if other want to play the semantics game.  

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Wraitchel""Life" doesn't begin until birth because a fetus is a parasite. It cannot live without its host until the third trimester (in most cases).

I hate to be the one to break this to you but....

[spoiler:2gq0r6ot]parasites can be living things.[/spoiler:2gq0r6ot]

Aren't small children according to that same logic not parasites either? A baby or small child can also not survive without its parents.

They are not parasites but it's for a different reason. A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species.

Quote from: "rlrose328"Wraitchel, I understand what you're saying even if other want to play the semantics game.  

What else does she mean by claiming a fetus a parasite other than trying to make her crux that they are not as valuable as adults?

Rightio. I fell into your rhetoric trap. I shouldn't have wandered along the path of where life begins. Argue with this, oh contentious one: I believe a woman has the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy at any point until the fetus is viable (as determined by her doctor). Furthermore, I believe that anyone who seeks to reduce the number of abortions in the world would do much better to get their butts away from the computer and go out and adopt some poor, unwanted crack baby.

The ironic thing is, I am with you most of the way. I think abortion is usually wrong, but I was raped at age 15, and although I did not get pregnant, if I had, I believe very strongly that I should have had the right to terminate without having to go through the process of proving I was raped. There are a million individual stories in which a woman is put in an impossible place by a pregnancy. Nobody wins whether she carries the fetus to term or not. It must remain her choice. If you really want to reduce the number of abortions, go out and make some ill or victimized woman's life better. Go out and adopt an unloved crack baby or a pregnant teen. Don't sit here and pretend you're doing something useful. As John Mayer says,
"Oh everyone believes
In how they think it oughta be
Oh everyone believes
And they’re not going easy"

You're not going to change any minds here.

Quote from: "Wraitchel"You're not going to change any minds here.

Yeah. Unfortunately that applies to you as well. As Frank Zappa says:
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds."

I believe once something is alive it has the right to live. There are very few excuses for taking, or even preventing, a life.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Wraitchel"I believe once something is alive it has the right to live. There are very few excuses for taking, or even preventing, a life.

 So don't kill. That's how I follow my belief in that respect. I don't mean to sound glib or disrespectful. I respect you for honoring life. I just have very strong feelings about the need for abortion to remain legal even though it is sometimes abused. We tried making it illegal in the twenties. It didn't work.

Quote from: "Wraitchel"So don't kill.

Aww, shucks!  

QuoteThat's how I follow my belief in that respect. I don't mean to sound glib or disrespectful. I respect you for honoring life. I just have very strong feelings about the need for abortion to remain legal even though it is sometimes abused. We tried making it illegal in the twenties. It didn't work.

I don't think abortion should be completely illegal. I just don't think anyone should be able to have one willy nilly. But, yes I agree, we both have good intentions. It's crazy how in issues like these, one side usually finds the opposing group as evil or warped.

I don't think you're warped  

Oddly enough, we would probably find ourselves on the same side of the table in a different context. I would love to limit the number of abortions. I do think they are performed far too frequently, and they are undoubtedly tragic. I just don't trust the narrow minded deists who want to do the controlling. A victimized or endangered woman should not have to be further victimized by an intrusive and predictably imperfect and unfair bureaucratic process in order to obtain a shameful and traumatic procedure. It piles horror on top of horror. As a victim of child rape, having felt the shame of bringing that event upon myself, I understand better than most how horrific sexual victimization can be.

On the other hand, I withstood a great deal of abuse when I told my husband we were having an unexpected and unwelcome third child. I also had to overcome my own fears. There were many reasons why it was a bad idea for us to have a third, but none of them were enough to make me act against my own belief that an abortion in that case would have been wrong. Naturally, we adore our third as much as the other two, and the disasters we feared would result have not. However, I still fight for the right of women to choose. If just a few of our risk factors had been worse, I might have decided that abortion was the best way to protect the family I have.

As I see it, my job on this issue is to educate and support the women in my life so that they never have to make that choice.

I'm a little different from the main view in that I actually think choice > life. I don't seem to think life is all that sacred, and I've realized that the prime function of life may be just to make choices. It doesn't make sense to deny that primary function, at least to me.

Wraitchel that is an admirably brave thing you did.  

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"I'm a little different from the main view in that I actually think choice > life. I don't seem to think life is all that sacred, and I've realized that the prime function of life may be just to make choices. It doesn't make sense to deny that primary function, at least to me.

So be it, but in that same case there are many women (young ones especially) who choose to have unprotected sex and end up with an unplanned pregnancy. They made their choice so they can live with it. Other situations (such as a woman being raped) are more gray.

Quote from: "Sophus"So be it, but in that same case there are many women (young ones especially) who choose to have unprotected sex and end up with an unplanned pregnancy. They made their choice so they can live with it. Other situations (such as a woman being raped) are more gray.

I don't think that many women choose to have unprotected sex. They may either be ignorant (due to a lack of proper sex education)  or they accidentally forget to protect themselves. BTW it takes two to tango, the guys who make those women pregnant are also to blame.

Quote from: "Tom62"I don't think that many women choose to have unprotected sex.

I was under the impression that this constitutes the majority of abortion cases. Certainly ignorance can play a part, as can incest and rape, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of abortions are due to simple negligence. It was certainly that way when I was in college. I can't tell you how often a night of drunken debauchery lead to an unwanted pregnancy at SCU. And I can't imagine things have changed much in 5 years.

A great many people are simply irresponsible when it comes to sex. It's such a primal, id drive that it's tough not to shut out the superego completely.

QuoteAmong industrialized countries, the United States has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancy. According to the latest figures, nearly half of the 6 million pregnancies that occur each year among American women are unintended. Of those, 1.4 million result in births, and 1.3 million result in abortion. Between 1981 and 1994, the latest year for which data are available, the rate of unintended pregnancy in the US declined, from 54.2 per thousand women of child-bearing age to 44.7.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0301/p02s02-ussc.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0301/p02s02-ussc.html)

The odd thing is that the most recent data on unintended pregnancy is 14 years old. Neither the census nor any private organization has done any real study since then. I guess we won't know for sure until we have a socially responsible government again.

I just discussed abortion with my Christian father two days ago.  He refused to accept the fact that killing a fly caused more damage biologically speaking than killing a blastocyst.  He even rejected the fact that every cell in his body is a potential human due to advances in science  Why?  Because humans have a soul.  Oh yes.  The soul.  That thing that sets humanity just above the animals regardless of the ridiculously obvious similarities.  I eventually stopped arguing with him.  I was arguing biology and he was arguing theology.  Needless to say, we got nowhere.  I hold the same view of human rights that I do of animal rights.  "And it harm none, do what you will"  I was wiccan for a few months and I found that even when the superstition of religion is abandoned, the ethics carry over quite nicely...except in the case of Christianity, Islam, and other such religions where killing is pretty much part of the politics.

Quote from: "NearBr0ken"I just discussed abortion with my Christian father two days ago.  He refused to accept the fact that killing a fly caused more damage biologically speaking than killing a blastocyst.  He even rejected the fact that every cell in his body is a potential human due to advances in science  Why?  Because humans have a soul.  Oh yes.  The soul.  That thing that sets humanity just above the animals regardless of the ridiculously obvious similarities.  I eventually stopped arguing with him.  I was arguing biology and he was arguing theology.  Needless to say, we got nowhere.  I hold the same view of human rights that I do of animal rights.  "And it harm none, do what you will"  I was wiccan for a few months and I found that even when the superstition of religion is abandoned, the ethics carry over quite nicely...except in the case of Christianity, Islam, and other such religions where killing is pretty much part of the politics.

The best argument against the soul is an appeal to sympathy, particularly an appeal to sympathy for domesticated animals.

"Ah, humans have a soul, I see, but what about your beloved dog? What about your eternally loyal companion, who would gladly sacrifice his life for yours? He adores you, he worships you. Do you really think god would reward such beautiful devotion with nothingness after he dies?"
"Well, I'm sure dogs have a soul."
"Why stop at dogs? Cats are loyal and loving, capable of many noble behaviors just like dogs. So are most higher mammals. And where's the cutoff? Many people love their birds just as much as you love your dog. Many even love their fish. And what about all of the dogs, cats, birds, and fish that didn't happen to have owners?"
"Well, I... um..."
"Can you definitively determine what does or doesn't have a soul?"
"No."
"What is a soul?"
*blah, blah, blah, jesus, blah, heaven, blah, eternity*
"That's what a soul does. What is a soul?"
*drooling...*

I've had that conversation more times than I care to admit, and each time it basically goes the same. They start out certain what a soul is and by the end it's another one of "god's mysteries". Fortunately, them admitting that they don't know what a soul is means that they can't logically make any rules concerning souls.

Thanks Will, but my parents are a special kind of fundamentalist.  Example:

"You do more damage when you kill a fly than when you kill a blastocyst"

"I don't care about killing flies."

"Why?  The biology is essentially the same...water, chemicals, etc."

"Flies don't have souls"

"How do you know?"

"Because only humans have souls"

"How do you know that"

"The Bible says so"

I wish I was kidding, but I spoke those very words only a few nights ago.  I try not to argue with them anymore.  I highly doubt I could convert them.  My mother accused me of "bowing down to stupidity"     If it didn't cause so much strife, it would be funny.

That's just it, though. I'm certainly no expert on the Bible, but I'm very familiar with it. Nowhere in the Bible does it specifically say that animals do not have souls. Even the best Biblical arguments for only humans having souls are really quite subjective:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448)

I can easily take apart each of these arguments. Man's authority over animals does not assume souls in only those of authority. Killing and eating animals does not speak to having a soul or not. Not being made in god's image does not preclude the presence of a soul.

The Bible does not say that animals do not have souls. It's silent on the issue (just like it's silent on a thousand other things that Christians claim it teaches, like abortion).

I just had this conversation of souls with a theist earlier today. I'll do what I always love to do and point to psychology for an answer. Man tends to give souls to those living things he deems valuable. The whole concept is based on a feeling toward the worth of some thing's life. So insects tend to be left out since nobody really cares about them. Yet, naturally, theists struggle to replace feelings with logic that refutes them.

Quote from: "rlrose328"Yes, both sides of the argument use the semantis game to bolster their argument.  Pro-choice use "fetus"  so it's not as personal and pro-life use "baby" or "child" so it IS personal.  I can divorce myself from the semantics game and look at it rationally.  Use "fetus" or "baby" or "child" and I'll feel the same regardless.  The woman's existing rights trump those of the unborn, especially in cases of rape, incest or when the child has significant defects and it would be a massive hardship for the family to care for the child.

I agree, it should be left up to the individual's right to choose.

The question becomes, what is the determining influence that strengths the beliefs between pro-choice and anti-abortion. If you disagree to pro-choice, what determined your decision? God, parents, community, etc? Are you satisfied with your decision or are you blindly following someone else's?

Quote from: "rlrose328"The only roadblock I have is when the father doesn't want to abort but the mother, who will carry the child, does.  What then?  I don't know.

That is a good point, but the decision, no matter what is decided should be between the mother and the father, who are we to tell them what to decide?  

This is where I find I have the most problem, it has nothing to do with pro-choice or anti-abortion, but everything to do with government or religion taking away my choice to decide between pro-choice or anti-abortion. I can't really say what I would do unless I were in that situation and I will have to decide then. In any case, as with any decision, it should be an informed one.

I just wanted to interject that my father is an atheist and is vehemently "pro-life" in his views even though the soul concept means absolutely nothing to him.

Quote from: "Sophus"I just had this conversation of souls with a theist earlier today. I'll do what I always love to do and point to psychology for an answer. Man tends to give souls to those living things he deems valuable.

Does this mean there's a doggy heaven? I hope so.  

Quote from: "McQ"Does this mean there's a doggy heaven? I hope so.  

Well, duh. Every kid knows that All Dogs Go To Heaven. I mean, ol' Walt wouldn't lie to us, would he?

you could have added ` should the father have a choice in the matter?`

if a man gets a woman pregnant then he is legally responsible to pay for the upkeep of that child and yet if the woman wants to have an abortion then he has no choice in the matter. to a large degree i`m playing devils advocate on this.my view is that a womans body is her own but in some cases the man certainly gets a raw deal

Quote from: "spartacus"my view is that a womans body is her own but in some cases the man certainly gets a raw deal

Ii is unfair for a man to have to pay for a kid he never wanted. I think there should be some sort of law stating that he does not have to pay for the kid if he, for example, asks the mother (in writing, for the bureocracy's sake) to have an abortion and offers to pay for it during the first two trimesters or the like. Just to get rid of an obvious loophole at once, he would then not have to pay for the kid if he learned about the pregnancy too late. (Like when the mother showed up on his doorstep with the kid)

It would probably amount to a lot of work and money spent, but it would be fairer as I see it.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "spartacus"my view is that a womans body is her own but in some cases the man certainly gets a raw deal

Ii is unfair for a man to have to pay for a kid he never wanted. I think there should be some sort of law stating that he does not have to pay for the kid if he, for example, asks the mother (in writing, for the bureocracy's sake) to have an abortion and offers to pay for it during the first two trimesters or the like. Just to get rid of an obvious loophole at once, he would then not have to pay for the kid if he learned about the pregnancy too late. (Like when the mother showed up on his doorstep with the kid)

It would probably amount to a lot of work and money spent, but it would be fairer as I see it.

That's ridiculous. That's like saying you aren't going to pay tuition for a class that turned out to be different from what you wanted. "I took an African American literature class and we read Frankenstein. I'm not paying for this." Huh-uh. Nope.

He shoulda wrapped it up if he didn't want a kid. It's simple as that. If, like in your last example, the woman purposely uses him to get pregnant, drops off the planet and shows up later wanting support, then I agree with you. She is manipulating him. However, like I said, if it's a relationship or even just a casual sex partner and a child results, they should have been more responsible. It takes two to make a baby; the fault is on both.

I used to be 100% anti-abortion. But then again, I used to be catholic also. Both due to the fact that that was what I was raised to be.

In the last few years, as I've educated myself and expanded my views, I've changed my stance. And the first time I ever read anything that made me start to change my mind regarding abortion, I felt sick for even thinking it may be justified. The book in question is Freakonomics by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt. They have a chapter in the book which speaks of the correlation between RoevWade and the staggering drop in crime rates across america almost exactly 18 years later.

Now, to clarify, the thought of abortion still makes me sick. Use condoms, pills, surgery, etc.. as birth control. Not abortion!

That being said, whether the thought of it makes ME sick or not is irrelevant to my stance on the issue. I believe overpopulation is the #1 threat facing the future of humanity these days. I also believe that the majority of women who would have their babies, if not for abortion, are not the type who are suitable to raise a decent human being. Or they don't have the means to do so, regardless of their good intentions. Having worked at a home for troubled youth in the past, I can say society may have beneffited from the abortion of these children. Hell, sometimes I think the CHILDREN may have beneffited from being aborted. Does it feel wrong for me to be saying this? Absolutely. But it makes sense to me. Some of these children live in their own personal hell every day due to the choices that their parents made. Unwanted children who have been abused, sexually assaulted, beaten, starved, and so forth all of their lives may even agree that it would've been better for it to end before it began.

I believe that a child who is wanted and loved by the parent(s) will ultimately be happier, and much more importantly, better people. However, I would definately much prefer to see a child adopted than aborted, overpopulation or not.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "spartacus"my view is that a womans body is her own but in some cases the man certainly gets a raw deal

Ii is unfair for a man to have to pay for a kid he never wanted. I think there should be some sort of law stating that he does not have to pay for the kid if he, for example, asks the mother (in writing, for the bureocracy's sake) to have an abortion and offers to pay for it during the first two trimesters or the like. Just to get rid of an obvious loophole at once, he would then not have to pay for the kid if he learned about the pregnancy too late. (Like when the mother showed up on his doorstep with the kid)

It would probably amount to a lot of work and money spent, but it would be fairer as I see it.

That's ridiculous. That's like saying you aren't going to pay tuition for a class that turned out to be different from what you wanted. "I took an African American literature class and we read Frankenstein. I'm not paying for this." Huh-uh. Nope.

He shoulda wrapped it up if he didn't want a kid. It's simple as that. If, like in your last example, the woman purposely uses him to get pregnant, drops off the planet and shows up later wanting support, then I agree with you. She is manipulating him. However, like I said, if it's a relationship or even just a casual sex partner and a child results, they should have been more responsible. It takes two to make a baby; the fault is on both.

The difference is the woman can terminate the pregnancy or give the baby up for adoption, absolving herself of responsability for it. Once the man has blown his load, he is commited to whatever the woman decides to do, he has no say in the fate of his loin fruit.  

What Asmodeon is talking about is a "male abortion", an idea suggested in 1999, that allows a man, after being informed, to make a choice about hsi involvement or not with a pregnancy, relying his choice to the mother, and then allowing her to make her own choice based on this evidence. While he has the option to not pay child support under this system ( he loses parental rights at that point ), she has the ability to kill his baby if she so wishes, despite his protestations.

her control is the only acceptable answer in my view, and to make this fair, the man must be a given at least some degree of control over his involvment as well.

i'm an independent but i agree with democrats that abortion is the preganant womens choice. its their baby they should be able to decide what they want to do with it.

Wow, it sounds as if many of you guys are under the impression that fathers have rights..... :hide:

Maybe if the mothers knew they could not live off the child support of the father, they would be less willing to have babies in the first place?

I also agree though that parallel measures are needed on the part of the state to stop exploitation of the welfare system.

I say first 2 trimesters is a decent line to draw.

I also think 'only in the case of rape' is the most ridiculous argument. A 'baby' conceived of rape is just as 'innocent' and just as 'human'. Basically the pro-life rape exception says, if you have an abortion because you didn't want your boyfriend to wear a condom, that's murder. But if you're raped, you can murder the rapist's child. Now obviously it's not murder and they aren't children. Which is basically why I don't like the pro-life movement, they're either hypocrites or they're insane and think women should carry pregnancies conceived by rape.

An astute argument, it also brings the thread nicley back on topic.

Quote from: "liveyoungdiefast"I also think 'only in the case of rape' is the most ridiculous argument. A 'baby' conceived of rape is just as 'innocent' and just as 'human'. Basically the pro-life rape exception says, if you have an abortion because you didn't want your boyfriend to wear a condom, that's murder. But if you're raped, you can murder the rapist's child. Now obviously it's not murder and they aren't children. Which is basically why I don't like the pro-life movement, they're either hypocrites or they're insane and think women should carry pregnancies conceived by rape.

You're so close! Take it to the logical conclusion: It's *drumroll* punishment. The attempt to outlaw abortion by a lion's share of pro-lifers is an attempt to punish women for sexual promiscuity. It has exactly nothing to do with the life of the child and everything to do with forcing puritanical standards on people that don't believe what they believe (something religions are quite good at). If a woman doesn't wear a condom, the baby can't be aborted and she has to raise it. If the pregnancy is from rape, the baby can be aborted. It's oh so simple and oh so sick.

That said, I don't pretend to know when life begins. It's probably not until after gestation and likely before birth, but because I don't know I'm agnostic on the issue.

It takes too much faith and/or arrogance to claim to know when human life begins. I sure don't know.But since I don't know,I don't want to be mistaken and be in anyway responsible for the deaths of millions of humans. When conception occurs what do you call that life that's in that blastula? I think it would have to be considered human life(it's not a giraffe life or a turtle life)and therfore not to be killed.I've never quite understood the claim of many women,including my wife,that says,"it's my body and I can do what I want with it". This is simply untrue. You legally can't put heroin in it, or perform sex acts for money with it.This is obviously a tricky topic. It's just interesting to see that there are actually pro-life atheists.(The worst a humanist can do is kill another human.)

Only as a last resort to save the mother's life.

Quote from: "Nulono"Only as a last resort to save the mother's life.

So, you'd have made that little 9 year old Brazilian girl carry her twin rape babies to term?  It might not have killed her but it sure would have messed her up.

Yup. A child conceived of rape is no less human.

So even if it warped her pelvis (a likely outcome), caused de-calcification of her bones and teeth(another highly probable event) and permanently emotionally damaged her (an even more likely outcome) - too bad, so sad?  The fetuses are more important than destroying a thinking, feeling child's life?  I think that the thinking feeling child who would be physically and emotionally damaged forever is more important than two fetuses with less ability to think and feel than a house pet.  You'd probably kill puppies all day if it saved a little girl from trauma and life-long physical damage - so why is a mentally unaware fetus any different?

The right to life of one person outweighs the health of another person.

Quote from: "Nulono"The right to life of one person outweighs the health of another person.

Agreed. Only a fetus isn't a person.

All humans are perople.

Quote from: "Nulono"All humans are perople.

Certainly not in the philosophical sense of a self-aware, or rational being they are not -- but perhaps in the colloquial obfuscatory sense of using the word as a synonym for a member of our species.

So infanticide is okay?

QuoteSo infanticide is okay?

No. But a fetus is is not an infant.

Quote from: "Nulono"So infanticide is okay?

One can't have a reasonable exchange about the issue if all you plan to do is use emotive language, and define the subject to fit under contexts that are largely already considered wrong, without appreciation of the relevant variables that went into determining if those things are wrong.

If you just define "person" to mean anything with a homo sapien genome, and "baby" or "infant" to mean anything with a homo sapien genome pre-childhood development stage, then you can go ahead a start calling abortion baby murdering, and other things, but you have done nothing except align your language to allow it. You have not offered any substantive information, or ideas to intellectually, or morally consider. You're just using words, irrespective of their intelligible meanings, and in your own personal way.

I am going to define the spanking of children as a form of molestation. Do you think that spanking children in any situation is okay? And by extension endorse child molestation?

I'm a perople, please don't kill me.  

Quote from: "Sophus"

QuoteSo infanticide is okay?

No. But a fetus is is not an infant.

But an infant is not sapient.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "Nulono"So infanticide is okay?

One can't have a reasonable exchange about the issue if all you plan to do is use emotive language, and define the subject to fit under contexts that are largely already considered wrong, without appreciation of the relevant variables that went into determining if those things are wrong.

If you just define "person" to mean anything with a homo sapien genome, and "baby" or "infant" to mean anything with a homo sapien genome pre-childhood development stage, then you can go ahead a start calling abortion baby murdering, and other things, but you have done nothing except align your language to allow it. You have not offered any substantive information, or ideas to intellectually, or morally consider. You're just using words, irrespective of their intelligible meanings, and in your own personal way.

I think you misunderstood me. I was responding to the claim that a person must be self-aware and rational, which newborns are not.

QuoteI am going to define the spanking of children as a form of molestation. Do you think that spanking children in any situation is okay? And by extension endorse child molestation?

OOOooohhh... Bad, bad, BAD analogy to make. The answer is no. Spanking a child is never okay, though I'd just classify it as simple child abuse (or just assault), not molestation.

Quote from: "Nulono"OOOooohhh... Bad, bad, BAD analogy to make. The answer is no. Spanking a child is never okay, though I'd just classify it as simple child abuse (or just assault), not molestation.

Spanking a child is not child abuse or assault just as an abortion is not killing a infant.  I think you are trying to live in a world of black and white, it simply is not.

 We have run into the main difference in our world views. I am an egalitarian; I see all human beings as equal. You do not.

Quote from: "Nulono"I think you misunderstood me. I was responding to the claim that a person must be self-aware and rational, which newborns are not.

It isn't a claim, look it up in the dictionary, and look for the philosophical definition, or look it up in a philosophical encyclopedia. You're using a colloquial definition of the word, and then obfuscating it -- ignoring all of its other, and more formal meanings.  

QuoteOOOooohhh... Bad, bad, BAD analogy to make. The answer is no. Spanking a child is never okay, though I'd just classify it as simple child abuse (or just assault), not molestation.

It wasn't an analogy, it was a reductio ad absurdum -- but I mistakenly assumed that you were probably quite conservative, and thus probably supported spanking. The specific example is not important, and since you still dissented to the idea that it constituted child molestation, then my point should be made.

You need to make your case, and just redefining the terms being used is not making a case.

Quote from: "Nulono":idea:  We have run into the main difference in our world views. I am an egalitarian; I see all human beings as equal. You do not.

You're merely redefining "person" to fit under the umbrella. Since egalitarianism is a social philosophy, I'm going to have to bet that it uses the philosophical definition of "person".

Um, no. Since egalitarianism is a social philosophy, "person" refers to whatever one considers a person to be. Egalitarians can disagree on what constitutes a person.

Human rights apply to all humans.

You've still yet to answer my question as to whether infanticide is ethical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Albert_David_Singer).

Quote from: "Nulono"Um, no. Since egalitarianism is a social philosophy, "person" refers to whatever one considers a person to be. Egalitarians can disagree on what constitutes a person.

Precisely, which makes rubbish of all of your previous assertions, and demonstrates why your presupposition of your own pet opinions of what constitutes a person cannot be used honestly to ask loaded questions.

QuoteYou've still yet to answer my question as to whether infanticide is ethical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Albert_David_Singer).

Looks like you forgot what you just wrote. I did answer it, with a reductio ad absurdum. I do not think that infanticide it ethical in most situations, but that is irrelevant, as we are taking about abortion, as infants are homo sapiens in the first stages of life after birth.

As I have repeatedly told you. You are merely redefining terms so that you can make outlandish connections like this one.

Just to save you further semantic gymnastics, and the formulation of more loaded questions, I'll just accept your terms and answer.

Under your definition of a person I think that it is not ethically significant to terminate if certain conditions obtain. In the case of a birthed individual, when their cognitive faculties are destroyed to the extent that they no longer possess intellect, nor emotional awareness -- and have no possibility of recovery. In the case of pre-birth persons, to the extent that they have yet to develop a nervous system -- and with regards to fully formed mentally healthy individuals, when they are under enough physical and emotional pain to warrant the consent of their doctor.

Now you can tell me what a terrible nasty bitch you think I am for endorsing homicide and infanticide. If that it what you have been fishing for.

It's entirely relevant because you claimed that in order to be a person one must be self-aware. Infants are not self-aware. I myself was using a reductio ad absurdum. You have proved by point. QED

Quote from: "Nulono"You've still yet to answer my question as to whether infanticide is ethical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Albert_David_Singer).

No one on this board has mentioned anything about being for infanticide which is a separate issue entirely.  This thread was regarding abortion which is not the same thing.

Quote from: "Nulono"Infants are not self-aware.

Not true.

Quote from: "Nulono"It's entirely relevant because you claimed that in order to be a person one must be self-aware. Infants are not self-aware. I myself was using a reductio ad absurdum. You have proved by point. QED

Unless you thought that I held the position that all living things that did not constitute a full person have zero ethical value, then I don't see what it is you think that you demonstrated.

If you look at the stem cell thread you will see that I already outlined that infants do not constitute persons under a definition that requires self-awareness. Though as you can see by my last post where I outlined my views on the issue, my cut off point was when they develop a nervous system, not when they become self-aware.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Nulono"Infants are not self-aware.

Not true.

It's quite true, a child is not fully self-aware until roughly the age of five. Before the age of three they are not even aware that they are a separate and distinct thing from other things, and do not retain personalized experiential memories until some time around the age of three. That is why being able to recall events before the age of three is rare, and fractal.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77026868 (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77026868)

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Nulono"Infants are not self-aware.

Not true.

It's quite true, a child is not fully self-aware until roughly the age of five. Before the age of three they are not even aware that they are a separate and distinct thing from other things, and do not retain personalized experiential memories until some time around the age of three. That is why being able to recall events before the age of three is rare, and fractal.

Being fully self-aware and self-aware are not the same.  Sure they think the world revolves around them and don't see/understand individuals and their needs separate from their own, but they are aware of being.

Quote from: "VanReal"Being fully self-aware and self-aware are not the same.  Sure they think the world revolves around them and don't see/understand individuals and their needs separate from their own, but they are aware of being.

No, they simply aren't. Children begin developing self-awareness at about the age of two, and have a fully-developed self-awareness by about the age of five.

Here (http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/Five%20levels%20.pdf) is a psychology paper that outlines the development of self-awareness in children. We are by no means fully mentally developed when born, especially our species, being that one of the ways evolution has solved birthing trouble on account of our species' massive heads is to give birth pre-maturely.

When it comes to infantal development, humans are one of the slower species.