Abortion

I don't know if I'm speaking for the person you were addressing or not, Tater, but I think that perhaps what was meant by being a different person is that life experience changes who you are. What you're exposed to in life, the way you're brought up, the people you meet, the books you read... All that goes into shaping you. When you're born, you're basically an empty slate. There are some things about you that cannot be changed and others that can. Psychologists have, in the past, taken sets of identical twins and separated them at birth. They did this to try to determine whether a given characteristic was born in a person or came about through outside influences. Not everything about you is inborn. Take your religion for example. If you had been born to, say, Hindu parents you you would not have the same belief system as you would had you been born to an Islamic family. If I look back on my life, I can see changes in things I believe over the past 10 years and certainly over the past 20. So I don't see how it's illogical to say the fetus is not the person it grows into. Certain things are there from the start, but not everything.

Also, one religion's set of moral codes should not necessarily be the set of legal codes in a country like this where we have freedom of religion. What is immoral in one religion is moral in another. Why should the Judeo-Christian values be legislated while Hindu or Islamic beliefs are not? I don't think many of you would be too pleased if Islamic leaders came into power in the United States and passed laws about their moral beliefs, such as having women be covered from head to toe, and yet some of you would be perfectly willing to impose your moral and religious beliefs on others. Granted, there are some morals that are held universally, but this particular one is in dispute. The righteousness of such behavior is obvious to them but might seem ludicrous to you, just as the immorality of abortion and other things seems obvious to some based on religion. But some people's religion should not really be the guide for laws, given that there are so many religions in this country.

"it was stated that the foetus is not the person that it grows into"
I think that the foetus is not a person, period. It is of course, in my opinion, an unprovable statement, and so is its counterpart. But the burden of the proof is on the accusers (those who would accuse women who get an abortion that they are murderers). Also about the foetus being a person, in a previous post above I did mention about twining an embryo; if after fertilization an embryo can be forced into producing twins, then is the fertilized egg a person, two persons, four...? One soul, two souls, four...?

"It is only logical that life and (wether you believe in it or not) the soul are in the foetus."
If you use "logical" in the proper sense, then give me your arguments; stating something is not enough.
If you use "logical" as in "making sense", then I must say you are somewhat right; as thinking the earth was flat was also making sense a few centuries ago. You see, "making sense" depends much on one's own beliefs, wheter religious beliefs or not. When I say to someone: "Hey, that makes sense!", I usually mean "Right now, what you say seems to be right, but I'll have to think about it further to form a better opinion about it." !!!! Ok, maybe that's not what you mean when you say "it makes sense", but I just wanted to underline the nuance.

"(wether you believe in it or not)) the soul [is] in the foetus."
Again, that is taking the conclusion as the premise. We are in a situation (and in a country, and countries) where people have different beliefs (religious or not); should a belief trample over all the other beliefs by law, or should people live their lives with their beliefs within their communities, not imposing their personnal views on other people's lives?

I mean logical in both senses. What you are saying is the the foetus somehow becomes something else. Think about it, it's completely illogical. The foetus and the person are the same being, simply in different stages of life. There's no way around it. Also, some people obviously think religious belief should stay out of this debate. I dissagree, since this is based on everyone's belief system, whether organized religion or more free thinking. But, since this idea has come about, I'd like to point out that science has proved that a child can be sustained outside of the womb earlier then the time at which they say it is too late to have an abortion. To me this makes it obvious that it is murder. Now, I don't want to be offensive to or take upon myself the duty to damn a woman who has an abortion. This is obviously not my place or right. I believe it is wrong, but everyone sins, it is part of human nature.

If the fetus is not a person, what is it???dog??

atheist, agnostic?what's the difference???

how long have been speaking english?

No, a fetus is a fetus. Do you say a caterpillar is a butterfly? Of course not. It's just on it's way to being a butterfly. In the same, way some people see the fetus as a being on its way to becoming human. Obviously you and Tater do not believe this, but others do.

There is a difference between atheist and agnostic. An atheist believes that there's no such thing as God. An agnostic just doesn't feel there's proof that God exists without denying the possibility God may exist.

"atheist, agnostic?what's the difference???"
Look it up.

"how long have been speaking english?"
More than 20 years, learning everyday (as you are, as we all are, even in our own language).

"If the [foetus] is not a person, what is it???dog??"
The human foetus is a human foetus, at its particular stage of development, no more no less; at what point it becomes human is part of the debate. Look at one of my previous post in this thread and read carefully on my opinion on this.

"some people obviously think religious belief should stay out of this debate"
I don't think it should stay out; I do think it waters down your argument. It is one thing to be inspired by your religion to emit an opinion; it is another thing to use it as the main ingredient to force an opinion by law on those of other beliefs. It's the basis of separation of church(es) and State; you base anti-choice laws on religious dogmas, and you remove that separation.
So if you choose to use your scriptures to sustain your opinion, be prepared to a vigorous defense. You put yourselves in that situation (in this thread, and more generally in the national debate). Don't blame the people that are aiming at your weaker points.

"science has proved that a child can be sustained outside of the womb earlier then the time at which they say it is too late to have an abortion. To me this makes it obvious that it is murder"
(i guess you meant "not too late")
Then, there is fertilization in vitro, and ultimately science may find a way to completely grow the foetus outside a human's womb. I guess that for you and others that will mean that even destroying the first cells of a fertilized egg will be an act of murder, fully punishable under the law. Obviously.
That a late stage foetus can be taken out (mostly always in extreme situations) and maintained in life is a good point, the first in a long time. If you go see my first post in this thread, you will see that the subject on when abortion would be permissible isn't a easy topic even among pro-choicers.
The main difference between the two pro- sides is when. Pro-life says never, whereas pro-choice says, well, as the law says.
I do not think that if science could maintain in life a 1 month foetus (and we're far from that!) that that foetus should have the rights of a person, because I don't believe it is a person at that point (although, as I will always say, this is an unprovable statement, for or against). Then at what month should it have those rights? That I don't know. And this is part of the debate. A debate that may never end.
But to go to the point of calling a murderer a woman who takes, say, the RU-148 pill to abort a few days old embryo, that is going way too far in my opinion.


(I do hope you both like this exchange; otherwise there's no point on going on)

Hmm....this is the first time I have even thought about entering the debate....some of the things that your have brought up juntel, I find interesting...we'll see if it is enough to draw me in.

juntel: "...because I don't believe it is a person at that point (although, as I will always say, this is an unprovable statement, for or against)"

What you say is very true, I doubt science will ever prove it, though for me my religious belief is enough. However, I understand that it is not for many people. So I have to take the logical next step and say if you don't know when it becomes a person, you are obviously taking the risk of killing someone when you abort. Is this really a risk you are willing to take?
As for birth control pills, I know many religions are against them, but I really don't have a position on the matter yet.

Good point. But...
...as I have stated elsewhere, I am uncertain at what point the foetus becomes a human individual with full rigths, although this uncertainty is not there for the fertilized egg for example, it's not there for the embryo stage, etc... Beyond where the "etc..." goes is for debate (within society and within oneself). That the foetus can react, has eyes, etc... is not a sign of personhood, even though a sign of life.
And that is my personnal take on it, my personal doubts: I will not impose them on a woman who wants to abort; she has her own beliefs and decisions to make. As a man, I fortunately do not have to "take the risk", but will not be so arrogant ever to call murderer a woman who goes through a willfull abortion.
Ain't easy being a woman, especially when some men out there are not willing to take responsabilities... And being alone to raise a child is one of the reasons some women have abortion.

As I have stated in a previous post in this thread, we who do not base ourselves on religion and on an "omnipotent" and "omniscient" god(s) or goddess(es) to form our opinions, we will never have a 100% sure and certain position on the whole of the subject. But we shouldn't let our ultimate ignorance and uncertainty and doubt and maybe regrets stop us from making decisions.
Religious people from many religion have clear-cut opinions on tough subjects, but I do not think this is an advantage: I do think religious "certainty" is a prison for the mind (and the body, especially on the subject of abortion).

We who do not base ourselves on religious certainty to make and brake our opinions think we are free.
A freedom we are condemned to.

Bringing this to the top to purify the the election thread.

Indeed.

Just wanted to give my opinion now.

Ok, I consider myself to be pro-choice. I think that each and every woman has the right to abide by her moral convictions and decide by herself what is right and what is not.

Anyway, I think a foetus is nothing human as long as the brain activity is near zero. Some may argue that as soon as it is conceived, God gives it a soul and bla bla bla. This is merely belief. You have the right to believe this, but if you are still a intelligent being, you can't deny other's the right NOT to believe it. So you can't have everyone abide by your believes and thus can't keep a law that forbid abortion.

Sure there will always be abusers. Some women that don't use any contraception tools and use abortion when they get pregnant. There is abusers with EVERYTHING anyway! You can't just always think of what people will do to abuse, or you'll never progress toward a happier country.

Another point is that I've seen lives destroyed by young pregnancy. What do you do if you can't raise the child because you haven't enough money to feed him? This is hard, as a lone mother can sink well below the poverty line. Most of the times that a 18 years old gets pregnant, the father doesn't stay with her. Pro-life will say: give the baby to adoption! Have you ever thought of what it must be to bear the baby 9 long month, developping a eternal, phenomenal emotionnal link to this baby just to give it away after that? This is incredible emotionnal pain for the mother. Most of the time she'll have a burnout just to give her child away to adoption.

But then, I have a cousin that 19 and is pregnant and one of my friend that is 20 years old and have a 7 months old baby. They are happy, but they made their choice to keep it, even thought the birth was far from planified.

Don't get me wrong. I think that it's every women's choice. So I'm pro-choice. But, would I have to do the choice myself, I would be pro-life. I would keep the child. But then, I'm a man, so i won't happen to me . But if my girlfriend (1 gets pregnant, I'll strongly suggest that she keeps it, for I'm pro-life for this matter. But in the end, it would be her choice and I'd have to live with it.

Pure black or white is really rare in nature. Most things are a shade of gray. Just remember that.

Shan

Impossible!

From my own religious experience...

www.fbnm.org

...I must say that I'm Pro Life. But without my religious experience, a Pro Choice person, particularly one who does not know God, will not quite understand precisely how we feel and think (two different things!) about Abortion.

Here in the USA I hope that the Supreme Court will move in the direction of States Rights, in other words, allowing each State of the People to choose for itself.

You can't please any one with this one. And my King commands that we not use might or power to accomplish our Quest.

I hope to persuade everyone to give the unborn child the benefit of the doubt.

Failing that (and I will never give up!), the question of governance becomes the issue.

The least evil choice is to allow each region to enact its own legislation on matters of this nature. I cannot stop the citizens of New York if they are bent upon this present course. But do they have to drag Alabama with them?

In the end, as with all such things, I perceive a Spirit of malice behind it.

(The little hobbit closes his eyes tightly, whispers fervently, sighs, and pours himself the glass of Beaujolais he promised himself in the THIS IS DISGUSTING thread.)
pub2.ezboard.com/fbenjami...=578.topic

"In the end, as with all such things, I perceive a Spirit of malice behind it."

Here again we can see one of the most used trick of the conservative right wing extreme: the demonization of the ideas contrary to theirs.

That is so in this thread, it was so about ICR's view of Evolution (www.icr.org), and it is also true as seen in the "US Presidency" thread.

Firstly, the question of abortion is not a religious one.

On the first level, it is a biological one.
On the second, it is a logical one.
And on the third, it is a legal one.

Please bear in mind that if you wish to debate any religious or spiritual issue, namely the endpoint for group x, y, or z of people, such arguments will be ignored by myself in this arena.

"Why are you bringing up this subject which is an emotional one and likely only to make people angry?"

It will make people angry. However, it seems to be quite relevant to the current situation in the United States, and thus, Canada.

"it is pointless to discuss it, because most people have their minds made up and are not going to change their minds just by discussing it."

I will agree with you on this about just about any other issue - "gay rights", "gun control", "creation science", etc., etc. - but not this one.

This one is a pressing legal issue, not abstract.

And debate is very important.

bmilder

"keep a civil tone"

Can-do.

"I personally believe that a woman should have a right to choose what she wants and that it's not the government's place to tell her that she can't control her own body."

I will address this later.

"But what if (uhhhg... " what if"'s can be such pain in the arse!) medical technology allows in the future abortions up until, say, the 8th month? Or 8 and half?"

The technology which you are referring to already exists, as far as I know. Perhaps it is not quite developed enough for this, or perhaps the doctor's scissors simply aren't sharp enough.

You know it as Dilation and Extraction.
I know it as Partial-Birth Abortion.

www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf10.html for more details - and yes, I have verified these facts independently.

They have some useful diagrams there. No real photos, though.

The One Ring:

"I think you'll find in this poll, though, that the younger half of Entmoot is liable to be more liberal than the older half, at least in general."

I very much doubt that statement will prove accurate, however, it is more or less irrelevant.

Back to juntel...

"Firstly, let me point out you misuse of the word "baby"."

www.dictionary.com/cgi-bi...?term=baby

which is reliant upon...

www.dictionary.com/cgi-bi...erm=infant

As far as this effort at splitting hairs goes, it seems that you are in the right, technically speaking. Some of the definitions of infant (which is what the term "baby" is derived from) depend on the term birth. Some do not.

"But of course it is convenient to call a fetus a baby, since it gives abortion a more cruel face than it should."

I have a request for you. Please leave the spin-doctoring at the door. You've made use of this several times, and I cordially request you to cease.

"The pregnant woman bears an embryo, then a fetus."

And then, after gestation, a neonate, then a juvenile, then an adult. Words.

"My being alive cannot be an argument against the right of abortion by choice."

Not quite, but it can be used in such arguments. Perhaps I will make an example of one later in this post or this thread.

"Please remember that murder implies two things: malicious intent and illegal killing."

Not necessarily.

It generally implies premeditation, not malice... the two words are similar, but not identical. The distinction between manslaughter and murder is not based on the emotions or rationale behind the act, but whether the intent was the death of the victim. For example, if a member of a cult poisons their spouse in the genuine belief that they will be sent to some sort of heaven, they are not intending to do harm to the victim, but they did premeditate the murder.

Another example would be that of Mr. Latimer, here in Canada. He put his daughter to death. Did he bear any malice towards her? It would seem not. He simply felt that her death was preferable for her to prolonged suffering.

Yet he knew his actions would kill her, and thus it was still murder.

(Note that I do not condone his actions in any way)

Yes, this is splitting hairs. I'll stop when you do.

"The hands are made primarily for..."

This is quite an absurd argument coming from an agnostic.
Since you explicitly used the word "made", you have said that hands were made for certain purposes.

Rather than completing a lengthy and tedious chain of proof here, I will ask you these questions.

Who made these hands?
Who decided their purpose?

Be careful how you answer...

Now, for the greater issue provoked by your argument.

"The hands are made primarily for grappling, holding, thouching and feeling; so one shouldn't play the piano?"

"shouldn't" has nothing, repeat, NOTHING, to do with this.

I shall repeat myself.

"On the first level, it is a biological one.
On the second, it is a logical one.
And on the third, it is a legal one."

It is not a question of morality, nor, by extention, religion.

As far as your argument goes, it bears very limited relevance to the point at hand, but I'll try to address it in any case.

(Let's assume that for future reference, we're talking about vaginal, heterosexual sex here - any other type really bears no relevancy to this discussion.)

Ah, screw it... I really can't make a connection between the choice between abstinence and pregnancy being invalidated and playing the piano.

Action and consequence, my boy.

"I am quite saddened that the choice to abortion is viewed as a practical luxury."

Luxury? Perhaps not in some cases.

Necessity?

"Are these two cells a human being?"

Some, speaking logically, would say they are, including me.

Others, speaking biologically, would say that they are a member of Homo sapiens sapiens when they exhibit all the necessary physical traits.

And some, speaking philosophically, would say that they are humans only upon gaining sentience. In that case, it would be necessary to define that word more clearly... does it require sensory perception or self-knowledge?

However, the philosophical definition is utterly useless in matters of law.

"For "killing" those two cells"

Why is "killing" in quotation marks? It is killing - that is undebatable. There was life. There was cellular structure. There was the potential for reproduction. Really, now... what are you trying to suggest?

"This issue is what my American Heritage class last year called a "Culture War"."

Indeed.

It can be resolved through war or separation, or through proselytizing.

"What bmilder (i think) put forward is that that respect should be mutual, thus implying that we should respect the pregnant woman's choice, a choice based on her beliefs, a choice protected by a law of mutual respect."

Do you know what makes this different from practically any other issue facing the U.S. (and by extention, Canada) currently?

It is not one of morals, or ethics.

You see, if these fetii are human, then their death is murder (note the conditional statement). It is murder for profit, and it is occuring on a huge scale. They cannot defend themselves, and thus must be defended.

And if the fetii are human, then there is a third party. Then Roe v. Wade would guarantee the mother's right not simply over whether or not to give birth, but whether or not to kill her child.

It is not some abstract concept which the pro-lifers are fighting for... it is the third party.

And now, for a brief intermission, Anduin.

"You can't pass a law that includes one and excludes another."

Yes, you can.

There are multiple ways.

Firstly, as far as life-threatening, you can have a doctor certify this under oath, or if that's not enough for you, two doctors and a notary, with enclosed evidence. It's certainly not impossible, or even implausible.

As far as incest goes, a simple DNA test would do the trick. Whether we would WANT to make these kinds of abortions legal or not is another question altogether, and one which I don't plan to address.

Rape is slightly more complex. Under the most strict conditions, a conviction of a rapist would be required. In a more liberal system, perhaps charges would need to be pressed, or a complaint made. Perhaps simply an affirmation under oath would be trusted. Polygraphy and forensics, anyone?

"Furthermore, once a persons rights are taken away, there is no turning back."

Were this true, and the fetii were proven to be people with their right-to-life withdrawn, then my cause is hopeless.

I refuse to accept this.

IronParrot:

If you dig around enough, you should be able to find actual ultrasound pictures of the process. I believe that there was one ultrasound movie made of a D&C abortion, which was entitled "The Silent Scream" due to the fetus's facial expression during death.

And if you have access to medical journals, you might want to look around for some "septic shock" as cause of death... you never know where you'll end up.

Eruve:

"I don't feel the government has the right to make the choice for anyone."

Legally speaking, the government prevents you from killing your children, or your spouse, or your parents. This is the basis of the pro-life argument in legal terms.

bmilder, again:

"No matter what laws are passed, women are still going to have abortions."

Some will, undoubtedly.

But some will avoid high-risk behavior because they don't have the money to pay for one, and don't have the prowess wielding a coathanger.

And for many, the guilt of the decision (well-documented, might I add) might not be appeased by the government's implicit approval any more.

"But it makes much more sense for them to legally get them in a clean doctor's office than on the street illegally."

Would you have advocated giving street gangs factory-made firearms as opposed to zipguns to reduce the possibility of them backfiring and harming the user? It makes more sense for only the victim to die rather than both, doesn't it?

"Well, there lies all the question, isn't it?"

I WILL answer this question.

"The pro-lifers' certainty is backed (in most cases it seems) by scriptures, traditions, and of course good will (mostly i hope)."

You should know better than this.

Fat middle:

"but for the psychic effects"

I'm assuming you mean psychological effects, namely PAS and the increased suicide rate...

"now i don´t expect anybody will be able to read all that attentively"

*looks at the length of his post*

Uh-oh...

Eruve (again?):

"Do you say a caterpillar is a butterfly? Of course not."

There's a difference of semantics, one of appearances... not of biology.

Might I also point out that there is no larval, metamorphal, or transitionary stage in the human life cycle.

Juntel (yet again):

"The human foetus"

Fetus. The o is not the conventional spelling any more.

Shanamir Duntak (for the first time?):

"Anyway, I think a foetus is nothing human as long as the brain activity is near zero."

If I were to kill you, your brain waves would stop. You would still be human after your death. A dead human, but a human nonetheless.

Besides, brain waves from the fetus are detectable on an EEG (I think that's the proper abbreviation) at six weeks, whereas abortions are legal until the instant of birth - this seems to be defined by the head exiting the vagina, making D&X abortions "legal".

Obviously, the difference between when you believe abortions should be legal until and when the law defines them as legal until is large.

"Most of the time she'll have a burnout just to give her child away to adoption."

Read about the psychological complications of induced abortions. They're far more serious than those of natural abortions (read: miscarriages), and make those of adoption look like a picnic.

juntel (for probably the last time):

"as seen in the "US Presidency" thread."

Really, now... I must check that out.

I'll finish this off tonight or tomorrow morning.

I'll do this one by an informal reverse-proof... more or less freestylin' my way through, though.

Stage One

Let's back the clock up to about nine months or so after I was born.

I could read and repeat. I believe the first thing I read and recited was "Post office".

This act displayed clear mental capabilities - I was able to sense the light patterns, change them into letters, process the letters into syllables, and then pronounce them through breathing patterns, vocal chord contractions, and tongue, jaw, and lip positioning.

Was I sentient? In any sense of the word, yes.

Was I self-sufficient (as in, my mother's death would not by default result in mine)? Essentially. If I was not harmed in her death, and someone else took care of my feeding, shelter, and clothing, I could have survived.

Am I entitled to all the legal rights of an adult?

You'd better believe it.

Stage Two

The clock is at a day or so after my birth.

"Happy birthday to me, happy birthday to me"... ah, forget it.

At this point, I'm a fairly big kid. A shade under 23 inches and 10 pounds, I've got photographic evidence that I had two fully-functional eyes and ears, hands that could grasp (my dad's chest hair being the first victim of my iron grip), a heart, two lungs, two kidneys, a bladder... essentially, I was more or less fully equipped for the next ten or so years. All systems were go.

Was I sentient? Probably. I'd wager that my first thoughts were something to the effect of, "This food is pretty good stuff. Sure beats that crud they pump through my hose." - although it wouldn't have been in English, of course, and since my brain was a quarter of the whopping size it is now (by weight and volume), I might have taken a little while to figure it out. And, of course, having those scalpels so close to my head must have been a bit traumatic... anyways, back on topic.

Was I self-sufficient? Yeah. I wasn't at the point where I could go and order some chicken and a Shirley Temple from Swiss Chalet, but I was no longer physically reliant on my mother. The cord was cut.

(edit)

And the law protected my life...

Stage Three

The clock is at about forty-five seconds to a minute after I was born.

I'm more or less in the same state that I was at Stage Two, with a few changes - I've probably got a royal headache from the fluorescent lights in the hospital - my eyes had to adjust to that, after all. However, the cord was just cut, and I am by all definitions a separate person. And I'm alive.

Do I enjoy the protection of the law?

Tell you what. If you can look me in the eyes and say with sincerity that anyone had the right to take my life at this point, you don't deserve to live.

(edited to fix the ezcodes)

Stage Four

The clock is at about ten seconds after my body (including my head) exited my mother's abdomen, and I've probably got the world's biggest hangover.

I'm still connected to her through the umbilical cord, so you could make a very weak argument that I'm part of her body. However, I have a different genetic makeup than her (I'm male, after all), and my organs are the ones that are keeping me alive.

All she's doing at this point is providing nutrients for me - my heart's pumping my blood, my lungs are breathing the air, and my kidneys and intestines have probably just emptied themselves in shock.

Four out of five senses are most likely functioning (my eyes are killing me), and I'm probably suffering from a bad case of sensory overload. Am I sentient? By the basic definition, most definitely. Am I self-aware? Well, let's put it this way - I'm probably in a lot of pain, and although I don't know what's going on, I probably have a pretty good idea of where in my body the pain's coming from.

And I am protected by law.

I'll hit the other main stages tomorrow.

Good night.