<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Aug 25 2003, 04:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Aug 25 2003, 04:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You are forced to deal with these people no matter who you are. I just don't like the idea of allowing many numbers of unborn children to be aborted because a small percentage pose a risk to the bearer of the child (I'm not sure if I should be calling someone who aborts their child a "mother"), especially if we can develop a system to deal with that small percentage. But the question this topic asks is why a pregnant female who wasn't forced sexually and whose unborn child is healthy and doesn't pose any risk is allowed to have an abortion? Why is she not responsible? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I do not like the idea of irresponsible people destroying life either. If everyone was responsible we probably wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place... sadly, the world we live in is not like this.
I know this is a horrific mental image, but imagine tiny hands struggling for life as some doctor takes it. Admittedly this would (one hopes) be a rare case of a 'late' abortion...but still, I don't think I could look at myself in the mirror and say "well, 'it' wasn't born therefore it's not human/nor alive".
I still remember my son seeming to half-grin as we got his birth certificate ... "look Kai, now you're alive !".
bos: I actually did take the time to read the rest of your replies, and peoples counters to them. You try and find a loophole for most of the things people bring up. And no, I don’t believe a mother should be able to terminate the life of her child at any point before the age of 18. Once a child gains self-awareness the line should be drawn, and no I do not believe a fetus is self aware. As far as adoption is concerned there are quite a large number of children currently suffering in foster care who have not been adopted. So to add to those numbers when you don’t have to is foolish and selfish. Lastly, even people who practice safe sex and use contraception have a chance to get pregnant, condoms break and the pill is never 100% effective.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Correct me if I am wrong but the unborn baby develops the sense of pain after 12 weeks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cows also feel pain, and the people who pick the watermelon you eat get blisters, so where does that leave you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lastly, even people who practice safe sex and use contraception have a chance to get pregnant, condoms break and the pill is never 100% effective. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's a simple solution. Save sex for marriage. I know, this may sound completely new and radical but there are some benefits. 1) No STDs. (assuming the hubby and wife are both virgins) 2) No abortion headache.
Although abortions would effect not only females, but males also, I think females need to chose whether its right or wrong. Honestly, how can men say how it's so wrong when they wouldn't even know one thing about being pregnant. This is all a little far fetched, but we have to look at it from a womens point of view. (Not that I'm saying all women believe in abortions)
<!--QuoteBegin--Crisqo+Aug 25 2003, 03:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Aug 25 2003, 03:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lastly, even people who practice safe sex and use contraception have a chance to get pregnant, condoms break and the pill is never 100% effective. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's a simple solution. Save sex for marriage. I know, this may sound completely new and radical but there are some benefits. 1) No STDs. (assuming the hubby and wife are both virgins) 2) No abortion headache. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, there would be a good chance of them not having AIDS but, you have to realize not everyone believes in abstinance...
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Very unbiased survey, I’m sure the people over at Baptists For Life, care greatly about providing accurate stats to support both sides of the argument.
Everyone should be given a chance to correct their mistakes, adoptions is not the answer to a bad decision. Also, not having sex before marriage would apply very well if we as mammals only had sex for procreation. But just like dolphins we have sex for pleasure (at lest a large majority of society does) and expecting everyone in society to develop relationships and get married without knowing how they were going to feel about each other in a major part of their relationship (sex) will simply lead to massive divorce rates and make the entire issue of sex before marriage irrelevant (because people would get married at 13 to have sex, then divorce to find a better partner).
<!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 25 2003, 05:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 25 2003, 05:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You try and find a loophole for most of the things people bring up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 25 2003, 05:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 25 2003, 05:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Cows also feel pain, and the people who pick the watermelon you eat get blisters, so where does that leave you? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Aug 25 2003, 09:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Aug 25 2003, 09:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 25 2003, 05:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 25 2003, 05:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Cows also feel pain, and the people who pick the watermelon you eat get blisters, so where does that leave you? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are not and will never be human. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So the humans pain means more then the cows? How can you say that?
<!--QuoteBegin--alius42+Aug 25 2003, 05:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (alius42 @ Aug 25 2003, 05:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So the humans pain means more then the cows? How can you say that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I just did. And this topic is not about animal rights.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So the humans pain means more then the cows? How can you say that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Animals are just that animals. They were made for food, hunting, and for petting. That's pretty much it. Besides, it's not like we torture the cow before we process them for meat. I'm fairly sure it's a quick and painless death.
--Edit-- Can we please direct this back to why abortion is right/wrong, PLEASE?
Do you believe in killing another human ? Yes or no ?
Killing an embryo is killing a human, unborn or not. The Law of BioGenesis clearly states that (1) living things always come from living things; and (2) living things produce only more living things like themselves.
2 Human's cannot sexually produce anything other than a human at any point. So at conception, you have a human, because it is scientifically impossible to create anything else.
So it breaks down to, do you believe it is right to kill another human ?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Here's a perspective that I haven't seen mentioned here yet. The debate may not really be over whether a fetus is human, (it's obviously genetically human, and that's good enough for me) but over whether the fetus is an autonomous being at all. It is part of the pregnant woman's body, her own flesh and blood. Part of the NOW rationale as I've heard it is that it should be treated like any other part of a woman's body, and the woman should be able to do whatever she wishes with it.
This has extensions into morality we are more familiar with. Parents are allowed to do things to their own children that other adults are not allowed to, spanking for instance. This is the same "flesh and blood" concept, but to a lesser degree.
Here's another perspective. There are different stages in a person's autonomy. You begin without any autonomy whatsoever, with the capabilities of a vegetable or slime mold. You gain more autonomy as you age, until eventually you lose it again. It is permissible to kill someone if they are in the "vegetable" levels of autonomy. Hence, justification for euthanasia and abortion.
Neither of these is really my perspective. I've pretty much decided that it is intensely hypocritical for me to advocate banning abortion since I'm not a woman, and will never be in a situation to have to make that type of decision, but I thought I'd throw these out there for the sake of argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--Crisqo+Aug 25 2003, 09:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Aug 25 2003, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So the humans pain means more then the cows? How can you say that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Animals are just that animals. They were made for food, hunting, and for petting. That's pretty much it. Besides, it's not like we torture the cow before we process them for meat. I'm fairly sure it's a quick and painless death.
--Edit-- Can we please direct this back to why abortion is right/wrong, PLEASE? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The subject at hand is quite rediculous, considering none of you have been faced with the decision in the first place and are just bickering over doctrines you believe in. The choice lies on the couple faced with the decision. No one else.
<!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 25 2003, 01:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 25 2003, 01:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Next you’re assuming that every pregnancy is caused by a voluntary act. You left out Rape, and Molestation. Maybe in your world these things don’t happen, but in the real world they do. Secondly, everyone should have the right to correct a mistake, Its far better to end a pregnancy then to bring a child into the world and abuse him/her because you were too young and immature to understand what having a child was all about.
Furthermore, I didn’t fully understand your reference to sperm/egg . Are you saying that Masturbation is killing babies too?
edit: Also, there are a lot of people in this thread talking about the rights of the fetus, if we are going as far as giving an unborn organism rights then we need to allow babies to smoke/vote/buy guns/drink/drive last time I checked I had to wait 18 years to vote/smoke and play lotto, cause I was "too young" to make certain decisions for myself <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> GreyPaws, you're way off base here.
Rape and incest have already been covered as candidates for exceptions to the rule, along with instances where the mother's health is at risk, or the baby will be born with no brain, so we're no longer discussing them. We're talking about the more common case, where the child is the product of consensual sex, and there are no medical problems indicated.
Adoption is a perfectly valid way to "correct the mistake", but you ignore it in your response. The child's only two options are not death and abuse - adoption into a loving family is a far superior alternative as far as the child is concerned, I'm sure.
The sperm/egg thing - he was in fact saying that it's NOT the same thing, because individual sperm and egg cells (pre-fertilization) do not have innate potential to grow into a new life. This is why he's saying you're not reading his post - you saw the single word "sperm" and then leapt to a random conclusion that was in fact the exact opposite of what was being said.
Your comments about the right to smoke, vote, et cetera are just silly. Are you saying that the right to life should be age-dependent like those rights? If that were so, children under the age of 18 should logically be denied that right as well. One of my posts a while back raised the issue of when the state is obligated to recognize someone a citizen. If you're saying that people under 18 should not be afforded protection by the state, then say it, but don't try to only apply it to unborn children.
Counting days <i>from</i> birth is more or less arbitrary, especially when you consider that birth can be MONTHS early and still result in a completely healthy kid. Is an eight-month old fetus really deserving of less protection than a child that was born three months early, just because one had the luck to be the product of an early C-section?
This is in fact what the "partial birth abortion" is based on - a legal technicality of the child not being protected by the state until after birth. Given that condition, it's legal to stick a knife in the kid's head as it's being born - as long as the child is not completely born, it doesn't count as a life, and the "doctor" can kill it with legal impunity. What's the moral difference between sticking a knife in a baby's head as it's being born and two seconds after it's done being born? I'm gonna say none. So what's the moral difference between doing it to a newborn and an eight-month fetus, which is potentially developmentally <i>more</i> advanced than many newborns, even if it happens to be in the womb at the time? Again, I have a hard time saying it's much different.
Perhaps you'd then draw the line at whatever point the baby is able to survive outside the mother's body. This bugs me because that line can change as a result of medical technology, and it seems that a "moral truth" of when someone is considered a human being shouldn't be subject to change like that.
Wow, I went off on a rant there. Sorry. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Aug 25 2003, 02:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 25 2003, 02:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Neither of these is really my perspective. I've pretty much decided that it is intensely hypocritical for me to advocate banning abortion since I'm not a woman, and will never be in a situation to have to make that type of decision. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I've heard this before (generally from women) and I don't find it to be satisfactory. Most women have never experienced testosterone-fueled rage. Should they then not be able to speak against crimes of passion committed by men? Most of us have never been given orders by a fascist state to do something we knew to be wrong. Should we not still be able to condemn Nazi war criminals, even if they were "just following orders"? (Please refrain from outraged "how dare you compare abortion to nazis" comments - I'm just trying to think of situations in which something we agree is morally wrong was motivated by something outside our personal realm of experience.)
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 25 2003, 09:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 25 2003, 09:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Aug 25 2003, 02:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 25 2003, 02:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Neither of these is really my perspective. I've pretty much decided that it is intensely hypocritical for me to advocate banning abortion since I'm not a woman, and will never be in a situation to have to make that type of decision. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've heard this before (generally from women) and I don't find it to be satisfactory. Most women have never experienced testosterone-fueled rage. Should they then not be able to speak against crimes of passion committed by men? Most of us have never been given orders by a fascist state to do something we knew to be wrong. Should we not still be able to condemn Nazi war criminals, even if they were "just following orders"? (Please refrain from outraged "how dare you compare abortion to nazis" comments - I'm just trying to think of situations in which something we agree is morally wrong was motivated by something outside our personal realm of experience.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If by crimes of passion you mean rape, how can you say a women cannot speak out against this? When it directly effects them? In the subject of abortion, unless its dealing with your spouse or partner you cannot have the experience or knowledge to make an accurate judgement on it. For it or against it.
There's not a single difference between killing an unborn human child and killing a deer. If there is, kindly enlighten me.
Furthermore, there isn't anything 'magical' or 'special' or 'miraculous' about having offspring. Every damn creature on the surface of the earth is capable of doing it: Why are humans 'special cases'?
The only abortions I'm against are partial-birth abortions, which is when the baby is ~6-8 months old and they abort.
<!--QuoteBegin--alius42+Aug 25 2003, 03:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (alius42 @ Aug 25 2003, 03:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If by crimes of passion you mean rape, how can you say a women cannot speak out against this? When it directly effects them? In the subject of abortion, unless its dealing with your spouse or partner you cannot have the experience or knowledge to make an accurate judgement on it. For it or against it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> More along the lines of one man killing another man out of anger/jealousy. Doesn't affect any women directly, and it's fueled by circumstances that most women don't seem to experience (apart from the brain chemistry issues, just look at the gender statistics on violent crime).
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Aug 25 2003, 05:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 25 2003, 05:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Here's a perspective that I haven't seen mentioned here yet. The debate may not really be over whether a fetus is human, (it's obviously genetically human, and that's good enough for me) but over whether the fetus is an autonomous being at all. It is part of the pregnant woman's body, her own flesh and blood. Part of the NOW rationale as I've heard it is that it should be treated like any other part of a woman's body, and the woman should be able to do whatever she wishes with it.
This has extensions into morality we are more familiar with. Parents are allowed to do things to their own children that other adults are not allowed to, spanking for instance. This is the same "flesh and blood" concept, but to a lesser degree.
Here's another perspective. There are different stages in a person's autonomy. You begin without any autonomy whatsoever, with the capabilities of a vegetable or slime mold. You gain more autonomy as you age, until eventually you lose it again. It is permissible to kill someone if they are in the "vegetable" levels of autonomy. Hence, justification for euthanasia and abortion.
Neither of these is really my perspective. I've pretty much decided that it is intensely hypocritical for me to advocate banning abortion since I'm not a woman, and will never be in a situation to have to make that type of decision, but I thought I'd throw these out there for the sake of argument. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The unborn baby has no autonomy but it eventually will when born. A sleeping adult has litttle or no autonomy either but he/she will when he/she wakes up (lets consider, for the sake of the argument, that they are in deep sleep, NREM sleep). A plant is alive but it has no autonomy and we can logically assume that it never will.
<!--QuoteBegin--Monkeybonk+Aug 25 2003, 03:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Monkeybonk @ Aug 25 2003, 03:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The only abortions I'm against are partial-birth abortions, which is when the baby is ~6-8 months old and they abort. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is the fun part, now. Exactly where should the line be drawn? Exactly at 6 months? It's verboten to kill a 6 month 1 day fetus, but completely all right to kill a 5 month 29 day one? Is it really a sharp line between "all right" and "bad", or is it shades of grey? If it's shades to grey, who's to say exactly what shade is too dark?
<!--QuoteBegin--Crisqo+Aug 25 2003, 04:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Aug 25 2003, 04:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>1% were victims of rape or incest </b> <------ Look here! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You do realize that many MANY rapes go unreported even to police, how many do you think would admit it at an abortion clinic?
<!--QuoteBegin--Monkeybonk+Aug 25 2003, 06:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Monkeybonk @ Aug 25 2003, 06:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You do realize that many MANY rapes go unreported even to police, how many do you think would admit it at an abortion clinic? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You can go the other way and ask how many rapes are lied about so the abortion seems justified. But I see no sensible reason to go in this direction.
There are no laws that say you <b>can't</b> conceive children, then why should there be a law that says you <b>can't</b> terminate the conception.
For all of you who think adoption is the solution to the stated problem <a href='http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm' target='_blank'>clicky</a> the number of children entering foster care is always greater then the number of children leaving foster care, and even though the numbers are slightly better as time goes on, it is no where near being 100%.
Again, if you realized you've made a mistake you should be given an option to correct it, and if the above statistics are to be taken into account, adoption is not a viable way for you to correct that mistake. Since your child will not be guaranteed a placement, and it will cost the people of your state (country) tax money to support the unplaced child.
If abortion was made legal, some of the cost would be absorbed by tax payers (same as the cost of free clinics) but the rest would be out of pocket expense, or expense covered by health insurance.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Aug 25 2003, 10:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Aug 25 2003, 10:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Monkeybonk+Aug 25 2003, 06:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Monkeybonk @ Aug 25 2003, 06:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You do realize that many MANY rapes go unreported even to police, how many do you think would admit it at an abortion clinic? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can go the other way and ask how many rapes are lied about so the abortion seems justified. But I see no sensible reason to go in this direction. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would assume the figure of lied about rapes to justify abortion is extremely low as opposed to the fact that 1 in 6 women experiences rape in their lifetimes. There are thousands of unreported cases. (Not that all those cases result in pregnancy) This could definately be meaningful statistic. Don't just write it off like that.
<!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 25 2003, 06:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 25 2003, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are no laws that say you <b>can't</b> conceive children, then why should there be a law that says you <b>can't</b> terminate the conception.
For all of you who think adoption is the solution to the stated problem <a href='http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm' target='_blank'>clicky</a> the number of children entering foster care is always greater then the number of children leaving foster care, and even though the numbers are slightly better as time goes on, it is no where near being 100%.
Again, if you realized you've made a mistake you should be given an option to correct it, and if the above statistics are to be taken into account, adoption is not a viable way for you to correct that mistake. Since your child will not be guaranteed a placement, and it will cost the people of your state (country) tax money to support the unplaced child.
If abortion was made legal, some of the cost would be absorbed by tax payers (same as the cost of free clinics) but the rest would be out of pocket expense, or expense covered by health insurance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I find foster care a better alternative than death.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Aug 25 2003, 06:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Aug 25 2003, 06:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 25 2003, 06:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 25 2003, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are no laws that say you <b>can't</b> conceive children, then why should there be a law that says you <b>can't</b> terminate the conception.
For all of you who think adoption is the solution to the stated problem <a href='http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm' target='_blank'>clicky</a> the number of children entering foster care is always greater then the number of children leaving foster care, and even though the numbers are slightly better as time goes on, it is no where near being 100%.
Again, if you realized you've made a mistake you should be given an option to correct it, and if the above statistics are to be taken into account, adoption is not a viable way for you to correct that mistake. Since your child will not be guaranteed a placement, and it will cost the people of your state (country) tax money to support the unplaced child.
If abortion was made legal, some of the cost would be absorbed by tax payers (same as the cost of free clinics) but the rest would be out of pocket expense, or expense covered by health insurance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I find foster care a better alternative than death. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Even though they're as sentient as an ant?
<!--QuoteBegin--Crisqo+Aug 25 2003, 02:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Aug 25 2003, 02:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Here's a simple solution. Save sex for marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not to sound perverted or anything, but finding the right person you feel you can spend the rest of your life with can be a very long and drawn out process.
<!--QuoteBegin--Monkeybonk+Aug 25 2003, 07:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Monkeybonk @ Aug 25 2003, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Even though they're as sentient as an ant? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think I already went over this. I wrote this a few posts back:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The unborn baby has no autonomy but it eventually will when born. A sleeping adult has litttle or no autonomy either but he/she will when he/she wakes up (lets consider, for the sake of the argument, that they are in deep sleep, NREM sleep). A plant is alive but it has no autonomy and we can logically assume that it never will.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Aug 25 2003, 06:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Aug 25 2003, 06:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 25 2003, 06:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 25 2003, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are no laws that say you <b>can't</b> conceive children, then why should there be a law that says you <b>can't</b> terminate the conception.
For all of you who think adoption is the solution to the stated problem <a href='http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm' target='_blank'>clicky</a> the number of children entering foster care is always greater then the number of children leaving foster care, and even though the numbers are slightly better as time goes on, it is no where near being 100%.
Again, if you realized you've made a mistake you should be given an option to correct it, and if the above statistics are to be taken into account, adoption is not a viable way for you to correct that mistake. Since your child will not be guaranteed a placement, and it will cost the people of your state (country) tax money to support the unplaced child.
If abortion was made legal, some of the cost would be absorbed by tax payers (same as the cost of free clinics) but the rest would be out of pocket expense, or expense covered by health insurance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I find foster care a better alternative than death. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How can you say putting a child through foster care, having the child feel unwanted, and not knowing what kind of parents the child will end up with is better than terminating the evolution of dividing cells?
Comments
I do not like the idea of irresponsible people destroying life either. If everyone was responsible we probably wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place... sadly, the world we live in is not like this.
I know this is a horrific mental image, but imagine tiny hands struggling for life as some doctor takes it. Admittedly this would (one hopes) be a rare case of a 'late' abortion...but still, I don't think I could look at myself in the mirror and say "well, 'it' wasn't born therefore it's not human/nor alive".
I still remember my son seeming to half-grin as we got his birth certificate ... "look Kai, now you're alive !".
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Correct me if I am wrong but the unborn baby develops the sense of pain after 12 weeks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cows also feel pain, and the people who pick the watermelon you eat get blisters, so where does that leave you?
Here's a simple solution. Save sex for marriage. I know, this may sound completely new and radical but there are some benefits. 1) No STDs. (assuming the hubby and wife are both virgins) 2) No abortion headache.
Here's a simple solution. Save sex for marriage. I know, this may sound completely new and radical but there are some benefits. 1) No STDs. (assuming the hubby and wife are both virgins) 2) No abortion headache. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, there would be a good chance of them not having AIDS but, you have to realize not everyone believes in abstinance...
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very unbiased survey, I’m sure the people over at Baptists For Life, care greatly about providing accurate stats to support both sides of the argument.
Everyone should be given a chance to correct their mistakes, adoptions is not the answer to a bad decision. Also, not having sex before marriage would apply very well if we as mammals only had sex for procreation. But just like dolphins we have sex for pleasure (at lest a large majority of society does) and expecting everyone in society to develop relationships and get married without knowing how they were going to feel about each other in a major part of their relationship (sex) will simply lead to massive divorce rates and make the entire issue of sex before marriage irrelevant (because people would get married at 13 to have sex, then divorce to find a better partner).
<!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 25 2003, 05:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 25 2003, 05:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You try and find a loophole for most of the things people bring up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 25 2003, 05:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 25 2003, 05:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Cows also feel pain, and the people who pick the watermelon you eat get blisters, so where does that leave you? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hypocrisy is a beautiful thing.
<a href='http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm#Why%20Abortions%20Are%20Performed' target='_blank'>http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatisti...Are%20Performed</a>
Here's another source.
Are not and will never be human. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the humans pain means more then the cows? How can you say that?
I just did. And this topic is not about animal rights.
Animals are just that animals. They were made for food, hunting, and for petting. That's pretty much it. Besides, it's not like we torture the cow before we process them for meat. I'm fairly sure it's a quick and painless death.
--Edit--
Can we please direct this back to why abortion is right/wrong, PLEASE?
Killing an embryo is killing a human, unborn or not. The Law of BioGenesis clearly states that (1) living things always come from living things; and (2) living things produce only more living things like themselves.
2 Human's cannot sexually produce anything other than a human at any point. So at conception, you have a human, because it is scientifically impossible to create anything else.
So it breaks down to, do you believe it is right to kill another human ?
This has extensions into morality we are more familiar with. Parents are allowed to do things to their own children that other adults are not allowed to, spanking for instance. This is the same "flesh and blood" concept, but to a lesser degree.
Here's another perspective. There are different stages in a person's autonomy. You begin without any autonomy whatsoever, with the capabilities of a vegetable or slime mold. You gain more autonomy as you age, until eventually you lose it again. It is permissible to kill someone if they are in the "vegetable" levels of autonomy. Hence, justification for euthanasia and abortion.
Neither of these is really my perspective. I've pretty much decided that it is intensely hypocritical for me to advocate banning abortion since I'm not a woman, and will never be in a situation to have to make that type of decision, but I thought I'd throw these out there for the sake of argument.
Animals are just that animals. They were made for food, hunting, and for petting. That's pretty much it. Besides, it's not like we torture the cow before we process them for meat. I'm fairly sure it's a quick and painless death.
--Edit--
Can we please direct this back to why abortion is right/wrong, PLEASE? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The subject at hand is quite rediculous, considering none of you have been faced with the decision in the first place and are just bickering over doctrines you believe in. The choice lies on the couple faced with the decision. No one else.
Furthermore, I didn’t fully understand your reference to sperm/egg . Are you saying that Masturbation is killing babies too?
edit: Also, there are a lot of people in this thread talking about the rights of the fetus, if we are going as far as giving an unborn organism rights then we need to allow babies to smoke/vote/buy guns/drink/drive last time I checked I had to wait 18 years to vote/smoke and play lotto, cause I was "too young" to make certain decisions for myself <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
GreyPaws, you're way off base here.
Rape and incest have already been covered as candidates for exceptions to the rule, along with instances where the mother's health is at risk, or the baby will be born with no brain, so we're no longer discussing them. We're talking about the more common case, where the child is the product of consensual sex, and there are no medical problems indicated.
Adoption is a perfectly valid way to "correct the mistake", but you ignore it in your response. The child's only two options are not death and abuse - adoption into a loving family is a far superior alternative as far as the child is concerned, I'm sure.
The sperm/egg thing - he was in fact saying that it's NOT the same thing, because individual sperm and egg cells (pre-fertilization) do not have innate potential to grow into a new life. This is why he's saying you're not reading his post - you saw the single word "sperm" and then leapt to a random conclusion that was in fact the exact opposite of what was being said.
Your comments about the right to smoke, vote, et cetera are just silly. Are you saying that the right to life should be age-dependent like those rights? If that were so, children under the age of 18 should logically be denied that right as well. One of my posts a while back raised the issue of when the state is obligated to recognize someone a citizen. If you're saying that people under 18 should not be afforded protection by the state, then say it, but don't try to only apply it to unborn children.
Counting days <i>from</i> birth is more or less arbitrary, especially when you consider that birth can be MONTHS early and still result in a completely healthy kid. Is an eight-month old fetus really deserving of less protection than a child that was born three months early, just because one had the luck to be the product of an early C-section?
This is in fact what the "partial birth abortion" is based on - a legal technicality of the child not being protected by the state until after birth. Given that condition, it's legal to stick a knife in the kid's head as it's being born - as long as the child is not completely born, it doesn't count as a life, and the "doctor" can kill it with legal impunity. What's the moral difference between sticking a knife in a baby's head as it's being born and two seconds after it's done being born? I'm gonna say none. So what's the moral difference between doing it to a newborn and an eight-month fetus, which is potentially developmentally <i>more</i> advanced than many newborns, even if it happens to be in the womb at the time? Again, I have a hard time saying it's much different.
Perhaps you'd then draw the line at whatever point the baby is able to survive outside the mother's body. This bugs me because that line can change as a result of medical technology, and it seems that a "moral truth" of when someone is considered a human being shouldn't be subject to change like that.
Wow, I went off on a rant there. Sorry. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I've heard this before (generally from women) and I don't find it to be satisfactory. Most women have never experienced testosterone-fueled rage. Should they then not be able to speak against crimes of passion committed by men? Most of us have never been given orders by a fascist state to do something we knew to be wrong. Should we not still be able to condemn Nazi war criminals, even if they were "just following orders"? (Please refrain from outraged "how dare you compare abortion to nazis" comments - I'm just trying to think of situations in which something we agree is morally wrong was motivated by something outside our personal realm of experience.)
I've heard this before (generally from women) and I don't find it to be satisfactory. Most women have never experienced testosterone-fueled rage. Should they then not be able to speak against crimes of passion committed by men? Most of us have never been given orders by a fascist state to do something we knew to be wrong. Should we not still be able to condemn Nazi war criminals, even if they were "just following orders"? (Please refrain from outraged "how dare you compare abortion to nazis" comments - I'm just trying to think of situations in which something we agree is morally wrong was motivated by something outside our personal realm of experience.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If by crimes of passion you mean rape, how can you say a women cannot speak out against this? When it directly effects them? In the subject of abortion, unless its dealing with your spouse or partner you cannot have the experience or knowledge to make an accurate judgement on it. For it or against it.
Furthermore, there isn't anything 'magical' or 'special' or 'miraculous' about having offspring. Every damn creature on the surface of the earth is capable of doing it: Why are humans 'special cases'?
The only abortions I'm against are partial-birth abortions, which is when the baby is ~6-8 months old and they abort.
Keep in mind I'm a die-hard Athiest.
More along the lines of one man killing another man out of anger/jealousy. Doesn't affect any women directly, and it's fueled by circumstances that most women don't seem to experience (apart from the brain chemistry issues, just look at the gender statistics on violent crime).
This has extensions into morality we are more familiar with. Parents are allowed to do things to their own children that other adults are not allowed to, spanking for instance. This is the same "flesh and blood" concept, but to a lesser degree.
Here's another perspective. There are different stages in a person's autonomy. You begin without any autonomy whatsoever, with the capabilities of a vegetable or slime mold. You gain more autonomy as you age, until eventually you lose it again. It is permissible to kill someone if they are in the "vegetable" levels of autonomy. Hence, justification for euthanasia and abortion.
Neither of these is really my perspective. I've pretty much decided that it is intensely hypocritical for me to advocate banning abortion since I'm not a woman, and will never be in a situation to have to make that type of decision, but I thought I'd throw these out there for the sake of argument. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The unborn baby has no autonomy but it eventually will when born. A sleeping adult has litttle or no autonomy either but he/she will when he/she wakes up (lets consider, for the sake of the argument, that they are in deep sleep, NREM sleep). A plant is alive but it has no autonomy and we can logically assume that it never will.
This is the fun part, now. Exactly where should the line be drawn? Exactly at 6 months? It's verboten to kill a 6 month 1 day fetus, but completely all right to kill a 5 month 29 day one? Is it really a sharp line between "all right" and "bad", or is it shades of grey? If it's shades to grey, who's to say exactly what shade is too dark?
You do realize that many MANY rapes go unreported even to police, how many do you think would admit it at an abortion clinic?
You can go the other way and ask how many rapes are lied about so the abortion seems justified. But I see no sensible reason to go in this direction.
For all of you who think adoption is the solution to the stated problem <a href='http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm' target='_blank'>clicky</a> the number of children entering foster care is always greater then the number of children leaving foster care, and even though the numbers are slightly better as time goes on, it is no where near being 100%.
Again, if you realized you've made a mistake you should be given an option to correct it, and if the above statistics are to be taken into account, adoption is not a viable way for you to correct that mistake. Since your child will not be guaranteed a placement, and it will cost the people of your state (country) tax money to support the unplaced child.
If abortion was made legal, some of the cost would be absorbed by tax payers (same as the cost of free clinics) but the rest would be out of pocket expense, or expense covered by health insurance.
You can go the other way and ask how many rapes are lied about so the abortion seems justified. But I see no sensible reason to go in this direction. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would assume the figure of lied about rapes to justify abortion is extremely low as opposed to the fact that 1 in 6 women experiences rape in their lifetimes. There are thousands of unreported cases. (Not that all those cases result in pregnancy) This could definately be meaningful statistic. Don't just write it off like that.
For all of you who think adoption is the solution to the stated problem <a href='http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm' target='_blank'>clicky</a> the number of children entering foster care is always greater then the number of children leaving foster care, and even though the numbers are slightly better as time goes on, it is no where near being 100%.
Again, if you realized you've made a mistake you should be given an option to correct it, and if the above statistics are to be taken into account, adoption is not a viable way for you to correct that mistake. Since your child will not be guaranteed a placement, and it will cost the people of your state (country) tax money to support the unplaced child.
If abortion was made legal, some of the cost would be absorbed by tax payers (same as the cost of free clinics) but the rest would be out of pocket expense, or expense covered by health insurance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find foster care a better alternative than death.
For all of you who think adoption is the solution to the stated problem <a href='http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm' target='_blank'>clicky</a> the number of children entering foster care is always greater then the number of children leaving foster care, and even though the numbers are slightly better as time goes on, it is no where near being 100%.
Again, if you realized you've made a mistake you should be given an option to correct it, and if the above statistics are to be taken into account, adoption is not a viable way for you to correct that mistake. Since your child will not be guaranteed a placement, and it will cost the people of your state (country) tax money to support the unplaced child.
If abortion was made legal, some of the cost would be absorbed by tax payers (same as the cost of free clinics) but the rest would be out of pocket expense, or expense covered by health insurance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find foster care a better alternative than death. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even though they're as sentient as an ant?
Not to sound perverted or anything, but finding the right person you feel you can spend the rest of your life with can be a very long and drawn out process.
I think I already went over this. I wrote this a few posts back:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The unborn baby has no autonomy but it eventually will when born. A sleeping adult has litttle or no autonomy either but he/she will when he/she wakes up (lets consider, for the sake of the argument, that they are in deep sleep, NREM sleep). A plant is alive but it has no autonomy and we can logically assume that it never will.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For all of you who think adoption is the solution to the stated problem <a href='http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm' target='_blank'>clicky</a> the number of children entering foster care is always greater then the number of children leaving foster care, and even though the numbers are slightly better as time goes on, it is no where near being 100%.
Again, if you realized you've made a mistake you should be given an option to correct it, and if the above statistics are to be taken into account, adoption is not a viable way for you to correct that mistake. Since your child will not be guaranteed a placement, and it will cost the people of your state (country) tax money to support the unplaced child.
If abortion was made legal, some of the cost would be absorbed by tax payers (same as the cost of free clinics) but the rest would be out of pocket expense, or expense covered by health insurance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find foster care a better alternative than death. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can you say putting a child through foster care, having the child feel unwanted, and not knowing what kind of parents the child will end up with is better than terminating the evolution of dividing cells?
I've said my peace on this topic.