Abortion

[Richo83]

Not really. Leave a baby to fend for itself and it will die pretty fast.

Ahh, I don't know what to say about this, how about we just pretend you didn't say that and we'll just keep walking?

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Agree that stance is the same one. I'm not sure where in a birth period where it becomes more human then cell. If thats 18 weeks, i would agree with you.

There have been cases of 18 week old fetus' living outside the womb - hence, when it gets to the point where the life can sustain itself outside that environment, I consider it a life.

cheers

 

[Sportman1987]

Ahh, I don't know what to say about this, how about we just pretend you didn't say that and we'll just keep walking?

You seem to be fine with abortion since the fetus is a parasite. Well, even when the baby is born it is still totally dependent on the mother. It still feeds directly from her. Just because it is inside the mother, she has complete control over its fate? Why not apply the same theory to a newborn?

It is a poor argument. I think it is better to go on when the fetus/embryo develops the ability to feel pain as the time in which abortion is no longer morally acceptable.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

You seem to be fine with abortion since the fetus is a parasite. Well, even when the baby is born it is still totally dependent on the mother. It still feeds directly from her. Just because it is inside the mother, she has complete control over its fate? Why not apply the same theory to a newborn?

It is a poor argument. I think it is better to go on when the fetus/embryo develops the ability to feel pain as the time in which abortion is no longer morally acceptable.

That's a pretty good point imo.

 

[JW Frogen]

All this talk about attempting to define when a life is a life post conception is arbitrary, this is manifestly proven by the twisting and turning of the different definitions in this thead; When it can live without it’s mother, when it can live outside the womb with medical help (which will itself become more and more early as science progresses), when it can look at the ultrasound and wink back at the mom and dad.

All this is arbitrary semantics to make it easier on the conscience to kill.

The only real time a life starts is when it starts, at conception.

As I said in my original post, I believe abortion as presently practiced may be justifiable killing for the greater good, but it is killing.

Trying to define a life away to a time you won’t kill a life just to appease your own conscience in a time you will kill a life does nothing for the gravity of the decision to justifiably kill in the first place.

 

[fairdinkum]

Nobody has answered my questions, so I will repeat them by quoting myself.

To all of you 'pro-lifers': Why is an unborn human cell (or collection of cells) more important than a fully grown cow? Do you object to cows being slaughtered for food? Are you all vegetarians?

If you answered no to either of the last two questions, would you care to explain to us all why unborn cells are more important than animal life?

EDIT: Saw Rizzo's post above after posting this post. All similarities are coincidental.

There is a point to these questions. Your answers will help this discussion. If you actually try to answer, that is.

 

[SolidTiger]

Nobody has answered my questions, so I will repeat them by quoting myself.



There is a point to these questions. Your answers will help this discussion. If you actually try to answer, that is.

Why do you need answers? If you have a point to make just make it without beating around the bush.

 

[Sportman1987]

Nobody has answered my questions, so I will repeat them by quoting myself.



There is a point to these questions. Your answers will help this discussion. If you actually try to answer, that is.

Uh, because they don't see it as a clump of cells, but a human life?

They deem that once the egg and sperm merge, since both the parts required to make a human are apparent and properly joined, it is at that point a human life and worth protecting. I disagree, but do see where they are coming from.

 

[fairdinkum]

Alright you nuffnuffs, I'll do this myself.

We as humans tend to see human life as more important than animal life. That is why so many people are happy to eat slaughtered cows on a weekly basis, but object to the idea of women terminating pregnancies even when the foetus is millimetres in size.

But why do we place more value on human life?

Is it because humans are intrinsically more important than other animals? How can you argue that? It would be a very hard case to make.

Or, is it because humans are (or are likely to become) 'persons' - that is, conscious beings who are aware of their own existence, their past, their future etc. who can think about philosophy, can write about love, can build and modify and adhere to 'morals'?

If it is due to 'personhood' that we place more value on human life than animal life, then this might be helpful in the debate about abortion. The cells that make up the primitive foetus certainly do not have what we might term 'personhood', but they have the potential for it. The problem is that so do sperm. If we are so against abortion because it is a potential person that is being lost, then so we must surely also be against contraception?

 

[skilts]

As a manufacturer of coat hangers, I'm in favour of a return to rigorously enforcing the now-dormant illegality of abortion. Business has been abysmal since the Menhennitt ruling.

 

[skilts]

Alright you nuffnuffs, I'll do this myself.

We as humans tend to see human life as more important than animal life. That is why so many people are happy to eat slaughtered cows on a weekly basis, but object to the idea of women terminating pregnancies even when the foetus is millimetres in size.

But why do we place more value on human life?

Is it because humans are intrinsically more important than other animals? How can you argue that? It would be a very hard case to make.

Or, is it because humans are (or are likely to become) 'persons' - that is, conscious beings who are aware of their own existence, their past, their future etc. who can think about philosophy, can write about love, can build and modify and adhere to 'morals'?

If it is due to 'personhood' that we place more value on human life than animal life, then this might be helpful in the debate about abortion. The cells that make up the primitive foetus certainly do not have what we might term 'personhood', but they have the potential for it. The problem is that so do sperm. If we are so against abortion because it is a potential person that is being lost, then so we must surely also be against contraception?

At the risk of appearing facetious, how does masturbation sit in all of this?

 

[Richo83]

You seem to be fine with abortion since the fetus is a parasite. Well, even when the baby is born it is still totally dependent on the mother. It still feeds directly from her. Just because it is inside the mother, she has complete control over its fate? Why not apply the same theory to a newborn?

It is a poor argument. I think it is better to go on when the fetus/embryo develops the ability to feel pain as the time in which abortion is no longer morally acceptable.

A fetus isn't a parasite, please don't tell me what I think.

A baby lives because it is an organism that is capable of living within and of itself it doesn't need the womb to breathe and think as a separate unique organism.

A fetus can't. A fetus is completely reliant on it's mother, it is there of it's mother's choice and acceptance, however once the mother decides it has no right to be there, the mother uses the right to abort.

Effectively once a mother has a child, she has accepted and supported the baby's existence, she must now carry out that acceptance by caring for the baby, it is now a life.

A fetus isn't a life, it is subordinant to a mother's wishes. The mother decides if the fetus continues.

It is idiocy to state that a fetus and a baby are the same, one is completely reliant on it's mother and is part of the mother, the other is a separate living being, which now has rights of life as a life, it is capable of living outside the womb, capable of breathing etc. as a separate being.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

A fetus isn't a parasite, please don't tell me what I think.

A baby lives because it is an organism that is capable of living within and of itself it doesn't need the womb to breathe and think as a separate unique organism.

A fetus can't. A fetus is completely reliant on it's mother, it is there of it's mother's choice and acceptance, however once the mother decides it has no right to be there, the mother uses the right to abort.

Effectively once a mother has a child, she has accepted and supported the baby's existence, she must now carry out that acceptance by caring for the baby, it is now a life.

A fetus isn't a life, it is subordinant to a mother's wishes. The mother decides if the fetus continues.

It is idiocy to state that a fetus and a baby are the same, one is completely reliant on it's mother and is part of the mother, the other is a separate living being, which now has rights of life as a life, it is capable of living outside the womb, capable of breathing etc. as a separate being.

Well actually for the majority of the term, the fetus can live outside the womb independently of its mother. It's only really the first 17-18 weeks that the fetus literally couldn't survive outside the womb.

 

[Richo83]

Well actually for the majority of the term, the fetus can live outside the womb independently of its mother. It's only really the first 17-18 weeks that the fetus literally couldn't survive outside the womb.

Very good, which is why we should try and make abortions as early as possible. FWIW 87% of all US abortions happen within the first 13 weeks when the child has no chance of surviving outside the womb.

BTW it's usually a bit later than 17-8 weeks but anyway.

 

[rizzo]

1. If it genuinley helps...then yes. I haven't brought my faith into it yet but it would be wrong otherwise not to. The question is will it be abused. If one is an atheist I would imagine it would be harder to think of other people, so I can understand why some here are opposed. If it ends up saving some future lives, then yeah.

2. No, of course not. Mate your comparing cows to human life which is wrong. You are basically saying i'm applying humanity to a bunch of "cells" but you are applying human characteristics to cows. Are you a vegan?

3. How is advocating they keep their legs closed wrong? It's fool proof. No STI's, no having to even deal with an abortion in the first place. Now you will probably say girls will be girls etc but that would be the same level as the "boys will be boys" logic for the rapists that the Islamic Sheik was describing last year.

1. Fair enough. I wouldn't be happy to though.

2. Well aren't we all equal? Just because we can walk and talk doesn't make us more important then a cow and a chicken.. Can't you see how hypocritical you are sounding? Your happy for cows to be treated like crap then murdered for you to eat, but you jump up and down about something that hasn't even been born getting terminated.

3. Your making assumptions on people you don't know and never will know. It may be fool proof, but it is unpractical. If you think that it is a real solution you have your head firmly planted in the sand.

 

[mr_cellotape]

Equating a potential life as life? Which side of the debate are you on!? Scooby Doo is less confused than you.

Judging by that response, the only one confused here is you.

 

[FIGJAM]

Alright you nuffnuffs, I'll do this myself.

We as humans tend to see human life as more important than animal life. That is why so many people are happy to eat slaughtered cows on a weekly basis, but object to the idea of women terminating pregnancies even when the foetus is millimetres in size.

But why do we place more value on human life?

Is it because humans are intrinsically more important than other animals? How can you argue that? It would be a very hard case to make.

Or, is it because humans are (or are likely to become) 'persons' - that is, conscious beings who are aware of their own existence, their past, their future etc. who can think about philosophy, can write about love, can build and modify and adhere to 'morals'?

If it is due to 'personhood' that we place more value on human life than animal life, then this might be helpful in the debate about abortion. The cells that make up the primitive foetus certainly do not have what we might term 'personhood', but they have the potential for it. The problem is that so do sperm. If we are so against abortion because it is a potential person that is being lost, then so we must surely also be against contraception?

Your questions were the worst ones in this thread, so I figure that is why they were left well alone.

From my perspective, it is important to disinguish between the unnecessary cessation of the life force and the necessity of life needing life to survive.

I am against hunting for sport for example, but am an omnivore. The killing of life unnecessarily is (IMO) barbaric, but the utilisation of meat for food is necessary.

Your reductionist world view that anything can be compared to lower forms of energy and is thus of equal worth is just an opinion. Not everyone shares it. Therefore it is important to find the compromise.

 

[Papa G]

Almost all of you are seem to think that women treat an abortion like going to the hair dresser. I would suggest that for most women who go through with the procedure, it is one of the most painful (emotionally) experiences they ever have. I would also suggest that most do not treat the decision anywhere near as lightly as many of you seem to think and would almost always have a very good reason for having an abortion. It's a decision that most of the posters here who I presume are predominantly male, will luckily never have to make. I am a father myself and know the value and joy children bring to your life, so I am not coming from the point of view of some snot nosed 17 year old spouting his narrow sense of morality on here.

My sister in law has been trying for children and has had 3 misscarriages when the baby has been in the 7-13 week bracket each time. Her body has basically told her that the feotus wasn't quite right and thus "rejected" it. Now this is an involuntary action that happens all the time and nobody bats an eyelid. I see abortion as just the voluntary form of this because it is the woman's brain not body saying, for what ever reason, that she is not ready to have a baby.

For me, it is a woman's right to chose. It is never an easy decision to make, something that most will live for the rest of their lives, but it's a decision that they alone have the right to make.

 

[Vaders_1st]

Against. Satan rejoices everytime an abortion happens.

We may have to force women to have babies but I think it's a risk worth taking.

 

[FIGJAM]

Almost all of you are seem to think that women treat an abortion like going to the hair dresser. I would suggest that for most women who go through with the procedure, it is one of the most painful (emotionally) experiences they ever have. I would also suggest that most do not treat the decision anywhere near as lightly as many of you seem to think and would almost always have a very good reason for having an abortion. It's a decision that most of the posters here who I presume are predominantly male, will luckily never have to make. I am a father myself and know the value and joy children bring to your life, so I am not coming from the point of view of some snot nosed 17 year old spouting his narrow sense of morality on here.

My sister in law has been trying for children and has had 3 misscarriages when the baby has been in the 7-13 week bracket each time. Her body has basically told her that the feotus wasn't quite right and thus "rejected" it. Now this is an involuntary action that happens all the time and nobody bats an eyelid. I see abortion as just the voluntary form of this because it is the woman's brain not body saying, for what ever reason, that she is not ready to have a baby.

For me, it is a woman's right to chose. It is never an easy decision to make, something that most will live for the rest of their lives, but it's a decision that they alone have the right to make.

I don't think people are suggesting it is an easy decision. My ex-girlfriend had one (previous to our relationship) and I seriously think it has stuffed her mentally, possibly for life, although I hope not.

I don't think natural processes are an argument for or against abortion. If it is, then stillbirth would be an argument in favour of third trimester abortions, which even the most staunch pro-choicer would think is an insanity!

I don't think it is unreasonable to be against the process, but as with all points of view, it is necessary to find a fair solution that respects all opinions. I think our current system works well in that regard.

 

[Vaders_1st]

Almost all of you are seem to think that women treat an abortion like going to the hair dresser. I would suggest that for most women who go through with the procedure, it is one of the most painful (emotionally) experiences they ever have. I would also suggest that most do not treat the decision anywhere near as lightly as many of you seem to think and would almost always have a very good reason for having an abortion. It's a decision that most of the posters here who I presume are predominantly male, will luckily never have to make. I am a father myself and know the value and joy children bring to your life, so I am not coming from the point of view of some snot nosed 17 year old spouting his narrow sense of morality on here.

My sister in law has been trying for children and has had 3 misscarriages when the baby has been in the 7-13 week bracket each time. Her body has basically told her that the feotus wasn't quite right and thus "rejected" it. Now this is an involuntary action that happens all the time and nobody bats an eyelid. I see abortion as just the voluntary form of this because it is the woman's brain not body saying, for what ever reason, that she is not ready to have a baby.

For me, it is a woman's right to chose. It is never an easy decision to make, something that most will live for the rest of their lives, but it's a decision that they alone have the right to make.

The husband should have just as much as say. Afterall, it is his seed going down the drain.

 

[Qsaint]

Against. Satan rejoices everytime an abortion happens.

We may have to force women to have babies but I think it's a risk worth taking.

Ghandi I think had you in mind

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

 

[Papa G]

The husband should have just as much as say. Afterall, it is his seed going down the drain.

I have no idea of the figures, but I would expect that abortions inside wedlock would be in the minority.

 

[Papa G]

I don't think people are suggesting it is an easy decision. My ex-girlfriend had one (previous to our relationship) and I seriously think it has stuffed her mentally, possibly for life, although I hope not.

I don't think natural processes are an argument for or against abortion. If it is, then stillbirth would be an argument in favour of third trimester abortions, which even the most staunch pro-choicer would think is an insanity!

I don't think it is unreasonable to be against the process, but as with all points of view, it is necessary to find a fair solution that respects all opinions. I think our current system works well in that regard.

As with your previous girl friend, she atleast had the right to make the decision. Whether it was the right one, I guess you'll never know because who's to say if she had the child at the particular age/ stage of life, who's to say she wouldn't have had a mental break down or abused neglected the child? This is all hypothetical of course, but who's to say that having the child would have been a better outcome for her than not? At the time she did what she thought was best (assuming there was no pressure from elsewhere, which of course can work either way).

I agree that our present system works reasonably well, but then again I'm not a pro lifer. I guess the amount of people we know that have had misscarriages also sways my thinking in that an abortion in the first tri mester is not as abhorent as many seem to make it out to be because it happens on it's own so often without outside interference.

 

[fairdinkum]

Your questions were the worst ones in this thread, so I figure that is why they were left well alone.

'Worst' or hardest to answer?

From my perspective, it is important to disinguish between the unnecessary cessation of the life force and the necessity of life needing life to survive.

I am against hunting for sport for example, but am an omnivore. The killing of life unnecessarily is (IMO) barbaric, but the utilisation of meat for food is necessary.

It is most definitely not necessary for you to eat cow meat or any other meat for that matter. We have plenty of other options nowadays for you to meet all of your dietary requirements without having to eat the processed carcasses of slaughtered animals.

It is certainly not 'necessarily' for us to farm and kill livestock and foul for consumption. But you do it anyway.

Your reductionist world view that anything can be compared to lower forms of energy and is thus of equal worth is just an opinion. Not everyone shares it. Therefore it is important to find the compromise.

What?

Here is what I am saying Figgy:

Those who are against abortion should either be against the killing of animals for food (since both are unnecessary) or they are simply hypocritical.

If human potential life is worth more than animal actual life, there has to be a valid argument that this is the case. Do you have one? I'm willing to bet that you don't.

But here is the problem even if you can conjure up such an argument - sperm is potential personhood as well. If you are against abortion, are you against contraception?