Abortion: not a debate here.

[iampunha]

I am not looking for a debate. I'm looking for answers to points made by a friend/acquaintance of mine regarding abortion.

1. "Men can have opinions on abortion when one gets pregnant."

My response to which is, "Then women can have opinions on any man's choice to do stuff when one acquires a set on functioning testicles." That, needless to say, doesn't work. I've tried to think of things that only affect men . . . the draft, impotence, etc. All seem to relate, somehow, to women. Thing is, I can't see how abortion could solely be a woman's issue. Firstly, she cannot get pregnant (naturally) without a man. Any child she makes (naturally) is half his. So I see this as a man's issue as well.

2. "It is a woman's body." I counter with "No, it's the baby's body." That doesn't seem to work as well as I'd initially hoped. I can see where someone would be defensive about someone trying to tell them what they can and can't do to THEIR OWN body. But in this case we're talking about someone killing a human being.

Also . . . for those who are pro-choice (and anyone in general, really): how do you define a human?

In case it wasn't blatantly obvious, yes I'm prolife.

And on a somewhat unrelated note, how many of y'all are both female and prolife? This girl I was talking to also thinks the notion of a woman being prolife is absurd and thinks that maybe 5 percent of American woman are such (prolife, not absurd).

Lastly: anyone have more compelling arguments for/against abortion? Again, I'm not trying to argue that abortion is or isn't right here, thus why I put this in GQ, not GD. I suspect it will probably get to the point where it becomes a debate. If it does, I'll certainly be able to learn a lot. Anyway. Help is much appreciated with this. Thanks.

[divemaster]

Until this gets moved to GD (tick...tick...tick...), I'll answer one of the questions posted.

Although I am male, the vast majority of females I know more than casually are pro-life. This includes every female member of my family, at least through the cousins. It also includes most of the people I know from church, and several co-workers.

There have been a fair amount of abortion threads in GD within the last three months.

[dragonlady]

I must come from a different word. I am female and prochoice. Everyone I know is prochoice. That's ProCHOICE, not proabortion. The choice issue is frequently covered up by prolife folks assuming that every prochoice person is in favor of abortion. I remain in favor of everyones right to make choices about themselves. I don't like lots things that other people do, but I'm not willing to give up MY rights to make choices in order to control the behaviors of others.

[iampunha]

I can see that, dragonlady. I like having choices myself, I just don't like the idea of having a choice to kill someone. That doesn't strike me as particularly fair to the person in question or the person making the decision.

But I'm a bit biased, as I lost a cousin to someone who (in my opinion) made the wrong choice.

[bibliophage]

iampunha says not a debate here. You must be joking.

[iampunha]

biblio:

As this is in GQ, not GD, and I'm asking questions, not saying "abortion is wrong and here's why" I felt justified in saying that, here, it's not a debate. Other places it has been. It probably will turn into one, which is fine by me. I just didn't intend the OP to turn out a debate.

It's a very difficult topic. I figure there are some intelligent/enlightened/whatever posters here. I figure the stronger an argument I can make (and by argument I don't mean "the louder I can shout" but "the more convincing a point I can make") and the more I can educate myself on this in general, the better off I am.

[Zhen'ka]

You are saying abortion is wrong, you're just not saying why you think it is. By using phrases like, "killing a human being," you are saying that it is wrong without offering any evidence to support your assertion that it is essentially murder. Your OP did more than ask a few questions. If you'd left out the "killing" part perhaps this thread wouldn't seem like GD material.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by iampunha

1. "Men can have opinions on abortion when one gets pregnant."


This really pissed me off. I think if someone tried to say something like this to me, my response would be "Then women can have an opinion about wife-beating when they get some balls." Not really what I believe, just giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Originally posted by iampunha

2. "It is a woman's body." I counter with "No, it's the baby's body." That doesn't seem to work as well as I'd initially hoped. I can see where someone would be defensive about someone trying to tell them what they can and can't do to THEIR OWN body. But in this case we're talking about someone killing a human being.


No shit. If it's the woman's body, why does "it" have "it's" own functioning heart, lungs, brain, muscles, eyes, skin, hair, and a different blood type (more often than not) than the mother?

As for defining human and compelling arguments for/against abortion, it's hard to say. I think both questions are problematic. The best argument for defining human is the point of conception, since a human being is an inevitability only after that has taken place. (I never could understand the Catholic Churche's stand on birth control. What's the harm in using it? To use their logic, we shouldn't use medicine either, we should just let "the will of God" dictate our fate.) Some people say "it's" human if it can survive on it's own outside the womb, but then you get into a semantic minefield. Survive how? With/without machines? Some children can survive at different ages-there is no standard "cut-off" point, although there is a general range.
And some say "it's" only human after birth, but that doesn't make a lot of sense either. There is no material difference between a baby five minutes before it's born and the same child five minutes after it's born.

Now for the compelling arguments for/against abortion...I think the only arguments to be had are moral ones. It depends entirely on which morality you believe in. From a pragmatic, humanistic standpoint, there are no arguments either for or against. On the other hand, if you cleave to the Christian ethic that all human life is sacred, then abortion is an immoral act tantamount to murder. (Note: I didn't say you actually have to be a Christian to believe this, just that its part of that value system, and maybe some others.) It's not surprising then that virtually all groups in the U.S. that are opposed to abortion are religious in nature.
It kind of makes the whole thing sound like another political exercise, doesn't it? Welcome to America.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by one_madJack
You are saying abortion is wrong, you're just not saying why you think it is. By using phrases like, "killing a human being," you are saying that it is wrong without offering any evidence to support your assertion that it is essentially murder. Your OP did more than ask a few questions. If you'd left out the "killing" part perhaps this thread wouldn't seem like GD material.

I'm operating under the assumption that it is wrong, yes. I'm not really opening this up to debate as in "I have a problem with what you think" which I'll admit is selfish of me. However, I'm looking for the thoughts of others here.

So I'll define human for you: someone whose body operates under the organic presence of a human . . . someone whose body is human flesh.

I tried to operate under the premise that a human is someone with a soul (or who once had one), but for those who aren't Christian this is pretty useless.

The biggest reason I didn't post this in GD is that I didn't really open the OP to the possibility that abortion isn't wrong. As is the case with a lot of GQ OPs, I'm operating under the assumption that what I believe is right. If you disagree, feel free to open a GD thread on it, or revive an old one. I'm not promising I'll post to it or that I'll be able to offer a convincing argument as to why abortion is wrong . . . that's one reason for the OP: I want to know how others argue for its being wrong or right.

Damn hard to phrase some of this stuff . . .

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Lizard
[B](I never could understand the Catholic Churche's stand on birth control. What's the harm in using it? To use their logic, we shouldn't use medicine either, we should just let "the will of God" dictate our fate.)
[b]

As I understand it, it depends on how the birth control works. Some work by preventing the zygote from being able to implant itself in the uterus, thereby cutting off its food source, effectively killing it.

As for medicine . . . "appropriate means" or whatever Dom Paschal taught me include some forms of medicine. So trying to give a new heart to someone whose body is ridden with cancer to the point where s/he will die any day and the surgery involved in a new heart might kill the person is not "appropriate means". Giving someone medicine for an ear infection is "appropriate means".

This is part of the argument as I remember it.

[voguevixen]

http://www.malepregnancy.com/how.html

[iampunha]

Originally posted by voguevixen
http://www.malepregnancy.com/how.html

VV:

Thanks so much for the link. Truly interesting site, with the exception of:

"GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Cesarean Section - The surgical incision of the walls of the abdomen (and uterus in normal cases) for the delivery of offspring. Julius Caesar was believed to have been born by this procedure."

Sigh.

[cheezit]

It seems to me that where a person stands on abortion depends almost entirely on their ideas as to when life actually begins. In other words, if you believe that life begins at the moment of conception, you would probably be prolife. But if you believe that life begins at some other point in the pregnancy, you would probably be prochoice.

I am one of those people that believes that abortion is wrong, however I still support the womans right to choose. She is the one that has to live with the decision.

Two main questions come to mind where abortion is concerned. First, What part of the decision to abort did the baby play? Answer: None. Second, If a person is pro abortion, where would they be if their mother had aborted them? Answer: non existent.

[voguevixen]

Originally posted by cheezit
If a person is pro abortion, where would they be if their mother had aborted them? Answer: non existent.

You are incorrectly making the assumption that everyone appreciates being alive.

[Derleth]

Here is the progression of a pregnancy: http://www.familyinternet.com/pregcom/03000000.htm Not all of it is relevant here, but it was written for a different audience. Here's a few quotes:

The first month:

By the end of this month, the "baby" grows to about an inch long. The neural tube, the precursor of the brain, spinal cord and nervous system, is forming. The heart and lungs are beginning to form. The fetus has tiny arm and leg buds. Tiny spots mark the developing eyes, nose, and ears.

So the fetus is nowhere near being viable on its own. It lacks a functioning nervous system and is an inch long. Hardly a human.

The third month (end of first trimester):

By the end of this month the fetus is about 3 inches long and ¼ pound (110 grams). The umbilical cord is functional and circulating blood between the fetus and the placenta.The baby’s sex can be identified by ultrasound. The arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet and toes are completely formed. The baby is moving and kicking, although the mother will not feel the movement because of the fetus’ small size. The baby’s head is significantly larger than the rest of the body. The fetus can move its neck. The vocal cords are formed and taste buds are developing on the tongue. Hair is beginning to cover the baby’s body.

So the fetus is 110 grams and is three inches long. It could in no way survive outside the mother. Again, not a human.

The fifth month (the site does not seperate fifth and sixth months):

By the end of this month the fetus will weigh about 1¼ pounds (630 gm) and be about 8½ inches (210 mm) in length. The skin is red and wrinkled. A white cheesy secretion called vernix caseosa covers the skin to protect it from abrasions and chapping from endless exposure to the amniotic fluid.. Fat is developing beneath the skin. The arms and legs reach their final proportions relative to the trunk. The developing baby is now large enough that the mother will feel some of the movements (called "quickening"). Since the respiratory system is still extremely immature, the fetus is not yet viable outside the womb.

The fetus has developed, but, as the quote says, it is nowhere near viable yet. Not a human.

As you can see, first and second trimester abortions do not entail killing a human. Third trimester abortions engender controversy even within the pro-choice side. I am for them, myself.

[iampunha]

Derleth, care to define the word "human" for us?

[Derleth]

In this discussion, a human must be developed enough to live on its own. Undeveloped mass of cells: Not human. Clear enough?

[Lizard]

Originally posted by iampunha
Derleth, care to define the word "human" for us?

I agree. Derleth, your post completely avoided the issue. You just posted a bunch of medical facts. We're talking about an issue here. Whoever wrote what you posted did not attempt to argue (at least in the parts you posted) that a developing fetus' lack of viability outside the mother made it more or less human

Oop, I just saw your last post. But that definition doesn't work either. A newborn baby can't "survive" on it's own either. Without a parent to take care of it, it would die too. And at what point does a "undeveloped mass of cells" become capable of surviving on its own? Can you say with complete certainty? Is it something you really want to leave to guesswork? I sort of addressed this in my last post.


Some people say "it's" human if it can survive on it's own
outside the womb, but then you get into a semantic minefield. Survive how? With/without machines? Some children can survive at different ages-there is no standard "cut-off"
point, although there is a general range. And some say "it's" only human after birth, but that doesn't make a lot of sense either. There is no material difference between a baby five minutes before it's born and the same child five minutes after it's born.


This is weird. I don't even care that much about abortion.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Derleth
In this discussion, a human must be developed enough to live on its own. Undeveloped mass of cells: Not human. Clear enough?

If this is your definition, then I have a cousin who was born a few years ago and isn't human. Interesting definition.

There are millions of humans (beings possessing human DNA, not for the purpose of making hormones) not developed well enough that they can live on their own.

Lizard, you're working toward the pursuit of knowledge, which is a noble endeavor. Whether or not you care about abortion isn't so important here as the quest for knowledge.

Which, by the way, Derleth, I refuse to define;)

[APB9999]

RE: the fetus.

1) Is it alive?
Yes. There is no reputable biologist in the world who proposes that a fetus is produced through spontaneous generation. Sperm cells are alive, egg cells are alive. They do not die upon fertilization and then mystically spring back to life at some arbitrarily defined later point. So a zygote is, in the biological sense, a living entity.

2) Is it human?
There are various religious and moral definitions of "human" that people always invoke at this point to justify the conclusion they want to reach, so I'm going to avoid all that and stick to the scientific sense of the word. A human zygote belongs to the species Homo sapiens. Any other assertion is ludicrous. We have a genome here that is demonstrably NOT that of a horse, wombat, or chimpanzee. In the modern biological sense, based on the molecular understanding of life, a human zygote is clearly HUMAN in that it belongs to our species and no other.
[A lot of argument surrounds this point, as various parties insist that they have the one, true, definition of humanity. I won't argue with them, since it is invariably unproductive. But there is no reputable biologist in the world who would seriously argue with the notion that if a tissue posesses the genome of a particular species, it belongs to THAT species.]

3) Is it an extension of the mother, or an individual in it's own right?
The fetus is clearly physiologically dependent on its mother. There is simply no denying this. The fetus is also a new individual, again in the biological sense, because it has it's own unique individual genome. There is no reputable biologist in the world who would assert that two different genomes do not imply two different individuals*. In fact, this is also a well-established legal principle, used to convict and acquit thousands and thousands of people over many years now.

So the biological view leaves no alternative but that a fetus is a new, unique, living, individual, member of the species Homo sapiens who is still physiologically dependent on its mother.

NOW comes the question of whether abortion is okay. Biology has nothing to say about this; it's a moral issue. I won't say anything about it either (after the above, my views may surprise you). But those who want to argue that abortion IS okay are faced with justifying the killing of a living, individual, human, and that's hard to do. So there is a strong tendency to go back and interpret the facts in some acrobatic way to make a fetus into something else. No matter what your views on abortion, this should be objectionable as a kind of muddled thinking.




*The converse may not be true: two different individuals may have the same genome, as in identical twins, but that is not the issue here.

[techchick68]

In this discussion, a human must be developed enough to live on its own.

I think what was meant by this and is along my thinking:

If a fetus is able to sustain life without the means of a womb and an umbilical cord; such as in the first trimester or so a fetus, without the aid of any technology, it is unable to maintain vital growth and development without the environment that is crucial to its existance. Much like a fish out of water, it can not live without these elements.

My question therefore is, when does technology take over for the human womb and the artificial womb becomes reality? What then happens to the children? As I know it, babies develop an extreme bond with their mothers during the months in which they exist within the womb and no form of technology can substitute that. Without this and the use of technology we may end up with a class of children unable to bond and create meaningful relationships.

So, when life begins could possibly mean the time in which a baby is able to survive outside of its mother's womb without the aid of technology. Could a 13 week baby survive outside the womb? No. Could a baby in the third trimester survive? Possibly, but usually aided with the sciences.

My questions stem from my background as an adopted child and research has shown that a good majority of us (not all) have difficulty with maintaining or even having relationships in our lives. We spent time in the womb but after the womb we were ripped from our only emotionally involved ties we ever knew...




I will assume that at some point this will go to GD because of the nature of this topic. I realize that the question may be a GQ but the topic, in its self, is enough to evoke a debate on when life actually begins.

Yes I am pro choice. Unless a person has had a scare or actually been there one should never make a judgement call as to what the outcome should be regardless of your moral stance.

[tygre]

I'm a woman, and I am pro-choice. Would I have an abortion? No. But it's not my place to tell anyone else that they can't have one, either.

Why do women have abortions? Well, contraceptives can and do fail. There's only 2 ways a male can be responsible for birth control (vasectomy or condom) and TBH the vast majority of the guys I've known leave birth control entirely up to the woman. Not all guys do this, but a fair amount do.
Abortion is a bad thing, but an unwanted and unloved child is far worse. Until every child is a wanted child, abortion will continue to exist, and I for one would much rather it be safe and legal than dangerous and illegal.

--tygre

[aseymayo]

Let me tell you why I don't think you should get to decide these things. It's not because you're a man - it's because it's not your responsibility. If I suddenly went insane and decided to have a child, it would be my responsibility - mine and the person who contributed the other half of the zygote - not yours, and not the state's. We - my partner and I - would be the responsible parties, and therefore any life and death decisions should also be our responsibility, and ours alone.

Furthermore, I don't believe that death necessarily equates to murder. Take my cat, for example, (I wish you would, he's shedding something awful). If Pumpkin were hit by a car or contracted a horrible disease, I could decide to end his suffering and have him put to sleep. This is not a decision I would make lightly or without consultation with the vet and Pumpkin's other feeder, Mr. Mayo - but it would still be mine to make because I am responsible for him (Pumpkin, that is - not Mr. Mayo). You could call it murder if you like, perhaps it is - but as long as the welfare and happiness of my cat (and myself) is my concern and not yours, I will make the best decision I can, regardless of how distasteful it is to you.

If you take away the power of women to make these decisions for ourselves, if you make us less responsible for ourselves, you diminish us as human beings. I'm not willing to let that happen, so I am resolutely pro-choice. And I think any woman who isn't is simply a fathead.

BTW, just how many medical procedures that are solely performed on men are legislated?

[Chronos]

I'll try to stay objective here, at least until this gets inevitably moved. I was about to post something very like what APB9999 said, but with one other point: Is it a person? Note that this is not the same question as "Is it human?". An individual sperm cell, for instance, is undeniably human and alive, and it has a different genetic makeup than that of the man who produced it, but it's very hard to say that it's a person. A newborn baby, by contrast, is very difficult to consider as anything other than a person. Where is the dividing point? This one's not so clear-cut.

To those who maintain "it's a moral issue" or "it's none of my business what others choose", how does this view extend to other moral issues? For instance, if someone gets mad at a year-old baby for crying, and slams it's head against a brick wall, is that "just" a moral issue? Ought this action to be legal, since the perpetrator will have to live with the decision himself or herself? Not only is it possible to legislate morality, it's not possible to legislate anything else.

Oh, and aseymayo, could we lay off the ad hominen attacks, please? I don't think that the amount of cranial corpulence has anything to do with this issue.

[BlackKnight]

Figuring out what exactly is "human" is the real trick here, I think.

"someone whose body operates under the organic presence of a human . . . someone whose body is human flesh"

This is obviously recursive and doesn't clarify things at all.

Of course, the idea that a zygote is human simply because it is alive and genetically human strikes me as false because any ordinary cell of the human body is both alive and genetically human.

I truthfully do not know of any really good definitions of "a human".

For the record, I too dislike it when people tell me that I can't decide things about this issue because I'm a man. If people who say this allow women who have never been pregnant to decide such things, why not allow men?

I also dislike the line of argument that goes: "We might not approve of abortion but we don't have the right to tell other people what to do with their bodies." First off, although I don't claim to have a strong opinion one way or another on this, there is quite possibly more than one body involved. Secondly, society has every right to tell people that they can't use their bodies to murder, or embezzle, or run accross the freeway, etc.

Although I am undecided on this matter, I think most people agree that in a perfect world, abortion wouldn't happen.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by aseymayo
Let me tell you why I don't think you should get to decide these things. It's not because you're a man - it's because it's not your responsibility. If I suddenly went insane and decided to have a child, it would be my responsibility - mine and the person who contributed the other half of the zygote - not yours, and not the state's.


Unless you've got a scientifically-produced zygote there - one made without sperm, you've got at least one man/guy/whatever whose responsibility it is, according to your argument, along with you. So let me pose this question to you:

Are you willing to be held accountable for your own actions? You could, in my opinion, and if I'm understanding your argument, use the same reasoning behind killing or maiming your own child, inside or outside the womb. In the legal sense, yes, the child is the responsibility of those who care for him or her. If that means that child is the responsibility of an older sibling who cares for the child in lieu of a dying or otherwise incapacitated parent or other relative, so be it. At the same time, I reserve my right to believing that killing a person - no matter their stage in development of any sort - is not right.

Originally posted by aseymayo
We - my partner and I - would be the responsible parties, and therefore any life and death decisions should also be our responsibility, and ours alone.


Except that you can be - and are - accountable for your actions legally. In this country, that means that if your child is born and you decide to kill him or her, you can be - and are, in many cases - held accountable for that death.

Originally posted by aseymayo
If Pumpkin were hit by a car or contracted a horrible disease, I could decide to end his suffering and have him put to sleep.


I think we need Michi's help here . . . is there a way to decrease Pumpkin's suffering so he can die as painlessly as possible? Morphine comes to mind, though I don't know as to the applicability of it to animals other than humans and similar primates.

Originally posted by aseymayo
If you take away the power of women to make these decisions for ourselves, if you make us less responsible for ourselves, you diminish us as human beings. I'm not willing to let that happen, so I am resolutely pro-choice. And I think any woman who isn't is simply a fathead.


1. I'll let my mother know you think that about her based solely on her opinion of abortion, not based on anything else.

2. And it is my opinion that by telling a woman that if she is responsibly for the life of another person living inside her, she isn't allowed to kill it . . . that's giving her a hell of a lot of responsibility. Maybe it makes her more careful when she's having sex, or maybe it causes her to decide not to have sex. I have never seen not allowing someone else the power to kill another human being as diminishing in any way.

3. Are you sure you want the power to be able to kill people?

Originally posted by aseymayo
BTW, just how many medical procedures that are solely performed on men are legislated?


How many of them involve killing an organism some believe to be human?

Tygre: "But it's not my place to tell anyone else that they can't have one, either."

Do you consider it your place to tell someone "You're not allowed to kill your best friend?" If not, who is allowed to tell you you're not allowed to kill anyone and everyone?

Techchick, as for your point about being there of having a scare, I'm minus one possible living cousin because of an abortion. My aunt called my mother almost literally the night following her abortion asking for moral support. This while my parents were trying to conceive. Does that count as me being there? Yes and no. From what I know of the situation, it would have been quite possible for my aunt to carry this baby for seven months or so and give him or her up for adoption. Maybe it would have given her incentive to stop cheating with a married man.

[manhattan]

Nice try, iampunha, but as you can see, this subject very quickly moves beyond the Question and into the debate, especially on the "opinion"-style questions which you have posed.

Off to GD.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by BlackKnight
This is obviously recursive and doesn't clarify things at all.


Well, there are scientists who have injected viruses and bacteria with human DNA to make, among other things, insulin (I think) and to try to make preventative measures to counter against various pathogens. So I'm trying to distinguish between those viruses and, for example, me.

BK: "Of course, the idea that a zygote is human simply because it is alive and genetically human strikes me as false because any ordinary cell of the human body is both alive and genetically human.

What is your problem with human cells being human cells? I'm not seeing anything wrong there.

BK: Although I am undecided on this matter, I think most people agree that in a perfect world, abortion wouldn't happen.

In order to validate that premise, would you also agree that unplanned pregnancy wouldn't happen either? I think that's what it would take for a lot of people to agree with you on the perfect world idea.

Manhattan: figured as much, but you can't blame me for hoping, can you?

[techchick68]

Yes and no. From what I know of the situation, it would have been quite possible for my aunt to carry this baby for seven months or so and give him or her up for adoption. Maybe it would have given her incentive to stop cheating with a married man.

But iampunha, you are getting into a debatable and moral issue here thereby making this a debate with this: "Maybe it would have given her incentive to stop cheating with a married man."

My main point was the idea of a fetus or zygote (sp) being able to survive otuside the womb without the aid of technology, does this make the "baby" a human or not? -- even if I threw in this:


Yes I am pro choice. Unless a person has had a scare or actually been there one should never make a judgement call as to what the outcome should be regardless of your moral stance.

I believe that unless a person has actually been there or been close to experiencing such a thing that people should not make a judgement call on whether or not something is warranted or not. No, most men have no idea what emotions or feelings a woman goes through when this issue confronts you; even the man who is involved directly when the subject is brought up, men don't give birth, men don't deal with the changes to their bodies, men have a stake in the matter but it's far less involved than what a woman deals with.

I also explained that as an adopted person, I am not exactly pro life. I personally lost a lot of self when I was taken from the only person in my life that meant the most to me, the woman who carried me for 9 months and I created a bond with.

As it is I could give you a zillion reasons as to why it may be better for a child to be aborted than to go to term but your OP was about a GQ, a few of us are trying to give you some insight but it's turning into a GD.

[Triskadecamus]

Pro this, anti that.

I think the real moral decision which affect human lives should be made by human beings, not institutions. I don’t think lawyers and judges are equipped to make their judgments with compassion, and commitment to the life long individual consequences. The state cannot be compassionate. The state can only follow statutory instructions. So mark me down on the pro-human side of this debate.

The willingness of the conservative spectrum to surrender their rights whenever they perceive a majority concurrence to their view is frightening to me. I don’t trust government nearly as much as the religious right does. I don’t want my every preference made a matter of statute. I want the Government to keep its hands off my body, and out of my faith. I expect others to make their own moral choices, and I know I will find those choices at variance to my own.

Tris

[Dr. Lao]

Bravo Tris!
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I've never felt comfortable with the overreaching certitude on the abortion issue that both sides of the debate have. Mark me down as Pro-Human as well :).

[Drain Bead]

Oop, I just saw your last post. But that definition doesn't work either. A newborn baby can't "survive" on it's own either.

You are, of course, using a different definition of the word "survive" than Derleth was. If you're going to argue with someone, don't put words in their mouth.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by Drain Bead
Oop, I just saw your last post. But that definition doesn't work either. A newborn baby can't "survive" on it's own either.

You are, of course, using a different definition of the word "survive" than Derleth was. If you're going to argue with someone, don't put words in their mouth.

Oh? This is news to me. How many definitions of "survive" are there? I was under the impression it meant "to live," but you say there is some other definition. Pray tell, what is it?

The "mass of cells" Derleth referred to would die if removed from the womb. A newborn baby left somewhere for a few days would die too, it might just take a little longer. (Or it might be quicker. Noboby can say for sure) Either way, they don't "survive." And neither does your point.

[Lizard]

Okay Drain Bead, sorry for the sarcasm. It's late, I'm tired, and still at work.

[AHunter3]

If a person is pro abortion, where
would they be if their mother had
aborted them?


Well, I would die to defend MY mom's right to an abortion.

[Omar Little]

Why is it legal for a mother to have her unborn child chopped up into little bits and sucked out of her, but a pregnant woman addicted to crack cocaine that delivers her baby stillborn due to the addiction can be charged with murder? If anything the former is more premeditated than the latter.

As far as the argument that no one should make the decision for someone else is just flat wrong. I agree the decision to end a pregnancy is not an easy one. Most moral decisions are not easy ones. But we do and should in certain cases legislate morality. Especially in instances dealing with the sanctity of life.

Otherwise don't call the police the next time your neighbor comes over with his shotgun to settle that neighborly dispute, he's just exercising his ability to make a moral decision of whether to blow you away or not. And by the way, I'm sure it's a real tough decision for him too!

[TroubleAgain]

But do all of you who are pro-choice believe that the father of the baby (fetus, whatever) should have any input on whether there is an abortion or not? Assuming he is willing to take full responsibility for this child once it is born, do you believe he has the right to ask the mother to go through the 6 or 7 months remaining of the pregnance so that he will not be deprived of the child he wants? Of course, on the other side of the coin, if he is not going to take full responsibility, that is another story, I would suppose....

I'm just asking. I've never had a pro-choice person discuss that aspect with me before. Only pro-life people who insist that OF COURSE he has a right....

[TroubleAgain]

Whoops, I meant "pregnancy" of course....

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Has anybody else notice that the "roght-to-lifers" are not relly "anti-abortion"? They are really anti-sex (for recreational purposes). Why do i say that? Well, mostly, they are also against birth control. They are also agianst the "morning after pill", and if any thing can be said to NOT be a "human" it certainly is a "pre-fetus" mass of a fertilized egg, which has not even differentiated yet. So, why are they against abortion? Because, without abortion, they think folks would have less sex, outside of marriage.

Now, I am not happy with abortions, especially with late term ones. But I am very against the government legislating one religous groups morality on the rest of us, which is what "anti-arbotion" laws do. On the other hand, "iam" I am also against any woman being forced to have one. Note that any government that has the authority to make abortions illegal, also has the authority to require them.

[SPOOFE]

Personally, I don't like abortions... I don't think anyone does, I don't think there's a (mentally healthy) woman alive who thinks, "I'll go get knocked up and have an abortion! Goddamn, that'll be a hoot!" I wish the NEED for an abortion didn't exist, but realistically, I know it's going to happen anyway.

I agree that things like abortion shouldn't be banned by the state. However, I do believe that there should be better regulations on the act... not so much on part of the mother, but on the "doctor" performing the abortion. However, that's more an issue of "following proper guidelines" than anything else...

Should the father have some say as to what happens to his unborn child? Well, ideally, yeah... but ultimately, the decision rests with the mother, who SHOULD take her partners' (I'm not referring to instances of rape, here) advice and give heed, but again, she doesn't HAVE to (it'd just be nicer of her to do so). But, of course, after all is said and done, the mother (ideally) has the final say in whatever happens.

[SPOOFE]

Danielinthewolvesden...

Has anybody else notice that the "roght-to-lifers" are not relly "anti-abortion"? They are really anti-sex (for recreational purposes).

I disagree. Based on what I've seen of of Pro-life propaganda, they seem to be more "Pro-consequence". That is, they believe, "If you screw up, tough shit for you, pal." Which, of course, would certainly demand abstinence to ensure that someone wouldn't screw up in the first place...

[Annie-Xmas]

What the anti-abortion group is really
afraid of is female sexuality. Men have
wanted to control that since forever.

Notice how they use the terms "pro-life"
and "pro-abortion." I am "pro-choice" and
"anti-abortion." I don't see that as a
contradiction.

Even if the fetus is a human being, does
that give them the right to use your
body against your will?

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Annie-Xmas
Notice how they use the terms "pro-life"
and "pro-abortion." I am "pro-choice" and
"anti-abortion." I don't see that as a
contradiction.


In my opinion, pro-choice people are pro-the choice/right to have an abortion. Anti-abortion people are against abortion. I see that as a bit of a contradiction. Can you explain it to me better? Or am I seeing into this the wrong way?

And as a pro-life person (and hence anti-abortion) I'm not afraid of human sexuality as much as you'd think . . . most of my fear there comes from a completely different thing.

SPOOFE: "I disagree. Based on what I've seen of of Pro-life propaganda, they seem to be more "Pro-consequence". That is, they believe, "If you screw up, tough shit for you, pal." Which, of course, would certainly demand abstinence to ensure that someone wouldn't screw up in the first place..."

To a certain extent, yes, but not so harshly as you've depicted it. I think that (rape cases excepted here) if you knew you'd have to have to carry your baby to term if you get pregnant, it would perhaps make you more cautious having sex or possibly not have sex at all. In a strange way it's a bit like Russian Roulette . . .

I don't like abortion at all. I dislike the notion that one human can kill another (I see unborn babies as humans). I know it's probably going to happen, and I don't think it should be banned by states so much as I don't think the option should exist. Rather naive of me, I know, but that's me.

AHunter3: You would die to allow your mother the chance to kill your sister/brother? Why is that? What did said brother/sister ever do to you?

Techchick68: "My main point was the idea of a fetus or zygote (sp) being able to survive otuside the womb without the aid of technology, does this make the "baby" a human or not?"

I don't think that (not) being able to survive outside the womb or otherwise makes someone human. For instance: I have a cousin who was born without a brain. I think he might have had part of his brain stem, but beyond that nothing. His skull wasn't developed much past his eyebrows. He was very much human, but he was unable to survive outside my aunt's uterus, as he died 15 minutes after being born.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by Annie-Xmas
What the anti-abortion group is really
afraid of is female sexuality. Men have
wanted to control that since forever.

I've heard "afraid of female sexuality" before. What the hell is that supposed to mean? I know a lot of conservative guys, and they're horny as hell. Never in a million years would I say they were afraid of female sexuality. They want all they can get!
And given the fact that I have heard plenty of stories (from friends and even on the SDMB) about women refusing to have sex unless they get their way, but have never heard of a man doing this, I would say it's women who are doing the controlling.

Originally posted by Annie-Xmas

Even if the fetus is a human being, does
that give them the right to use your
body against your will?

Hmm. I would say that if having a baby was against the mothers will, she should of thought of that before spreading her legs.(And the guy should've, too.) Obviously, rape and incest are a little different. But in every pregnancy, the unborn child did nothing to bring about its own presence. To say they are "using" the mother's body is to reduce them to a level of a parasite. What a way to talk about a human being.

[missbunny]

Originally posted by iampunha
[QUOTE]In my opinion, pro-choice people are pro-the choice/right to have an abortion. Anti-abortion people are against abortion. I see that as a bit of a contradiction. Can you explain it to me better? Or am I seeing into this the wrong way?

Someone can be both pro-choice and anti-abortion. It means that the person supports the right of a woman to get an abortion and does not think the state should be able to forbid or prevent her from getting that abortion, while at the same time not believing in or approving of actually having an abortion.

[IzzyR]

Triskadecamus:I think the real moral decision which affect human lives should be made by human beings, not institutions. I don’t think lawyers and judges are equipped to make their judgments with compassion, and commitment to the life long individual consequences. The state cannot be compassionate. The state can only follow statutory instructions. So mark me down on the pro-human side of this debate.Do you apply this reasoning to all areas of "morality"? Murder? Robbery? Gay-bashing?

Annie-Xmas:Notice how they use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-abortion." I am "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion." I don't see that as a contradiction.Not necessarily a contradiction. But, in most cases, simply untrue. In the vast majority of cases, people who use this line (and that of Triskadecamus) are simply trying to avoid having to defend their pro-abortion opinions.

[missbunny]

Originally posted by IzzyR
Not necessarily a contradiction. But, in most cases, simply untrue. In the vast majority of cases, people who use this line (and that of Triskadecamus) are simply trying to avoid having to defend their pro-abortion opinions.

Isn't this like saying that a person cannot both support the First Amendment right of Larry Flynt to publish Hustler while at the same time being anti-pornography?

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by iampunha
. Thing is, I can't see how abortion could solely be a woman's issue. Firstly, she cannot get pregnant (naturally) without a man. Any child she makes (naturally) is half his. So I see this as a man's issue as well.

.

I have a little trouble seeing this as a man's issue. The woman is the defacto responsible party. Her life will be disrupted during pregnacy. Her morals will be questioned if she is not married. And she will be harshly judged by a large portion of society if she aborts. And for all intents and purposes, she will be the one saddled with the legal burden of the childs care.

I'm not saying there are no responsible guys out there. But our present system makes it very easy for males to duck their responsibilty and very difficult for females. When society puts the same judgements and responsibilties on the men, I think this issue will go away on it's own.

[Typo Negative]

Preview, then post, dammit.

I don't like abortions either. I certainly don't think it should be used as birth control. But, at present, I think it should remain an option.

[Myrr21]

1) Is it alive? Yes. There is no reputable biologist in the world who proposes that a fetus is produced through
spontaneous generation. Sperm cells are alive, egg cells are alive. They do not die upon fertilization and then mystically spring back to life at some arbitrarily defined later point. So a zygote is, in the biological sense, a living entity.
This is a bit trickier than you are presenting it as. While it is generally agreed by cell biologisits that they are alive...in a fashion anyway, this definition is mostly because they exist in a cell. Sperm and eggs do not show two of the most basic characteristics of life: the ability to reproduce themselves, and the ability to grow. In fact, the egg shows even less characteristics than the sperm. Just a thought...

On another note, there is the issue over when it becomes human life. Most of us would see no problem ending the life of a few insects that are annoying us, for example. NOw, the main argument I've heard so far is that it's alive, in some sense, and that it has human DNA and such. So here's my question: what about the mouse that has human DNA in it?
I have, sitting right by my foot, a biologist's paper on methods of introducing human DNA into mice for various purposes (which I won't bore you with the details of). Now, I hate killing things (I always find a way to let the mouse live...somewhere else), but it is generally considered acceptable to kill the mouse if I need to/want it out of my home. It is very much alive, and it has human DNA in it. It's not a human life, though, is it?

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by missbunny
Isn't this like saying that a person cannot both support the First Amendment right of Larry Flynt to publish Hustler while at the same time being anti-pornography? I could have sworn I said that it is not necessarily a contradiction. A person can support the "First Amendment" rights of Larry Flynt and be at the same time anti-pornography. But a person can also be pro-pornography, and obscure that fact (and avoid the need to defend the position) by claiming falsely that they are basing their position solely on First Amendment grounds.

The way to tell two such groups apart, is to discern their attitude towards pornography when it is brought up in a context not related to First Amendment issues.

I have never seen any genuine oposition to abortion of any sort from anyone spouting the "pro-choice-but-anti-abortion" line. I am therefore convinced that it is, in most cases, a fraud. (I am not accusing anyone in particular, obviously. I mean most cases.)

[missbunny]

IzzyR, you did say it is not necessarily a contradiction. But you also said, "But, in most cases, [it is] simply untrue. In the vast majority of cases, people who use this line (and that of Triskadecamus) are simply trying to avoid having to defend their pro-abortion opinions"; and "I am therefore convinced that it [being both pro-choice and anti-abortion] is, in most cases, a fraud. (I am not accusing anyone in particular, obviously. I mean most cases.)"

I took your statements to mean that in your opinion, although it is not necessarily impossible to be both pro-choice and anti-abortion, most of the people who lay claim to that way of thinking are probably not being completely honest with themselves or with anyone they debate the topic with. I don't happen to agree with you, but if that has been your experience, then that has been your experience and I understand why you would think the way you do.

[divemaster]

I also agree that in many cases "pro-choice but anti-abortion" is a fraud, or at least a misrepresentation. In saying this, I am referring to the pro-abortion rights political force in this country, not necessarily to individuals.

Ever see an interview after protesters target an abortion clinic? Clinic personnel or NOW/NARAL spokespeople always point out right up front the "not one fewer abortion was performed today" or "no woman was denied her right to an abortion because of this protest."

If they were truly "anti-abortion" they would celebrate a woman who changed her mind or otherwise chose to keep her child. I guess pro-choice is okay as long as the choice ends up in an abortion.

They would be loathe to admit that maybe a woman had her conscience pricked and decided against the abortion. This would be anathema to the pro-choicers. It would compromise their position politically to have women changing their mind about abortion in favor of life, especially on the evening news.

[Triskadecamus]

Originally posted by IzzyR
Do you apply this reasoning to all areas of "morality"? Murder? Robbery? Gay-bashing?

Murder, Robbery, and Gay-bashing are acts against the public peace, and against the freedoms of the entire society. While it would be far better if the control of such things were maintained on a personal basis, the State is far more justified in intruding into personal freedoms when they involve breech of peace. Abortion is not such an act. Neither are pornography, kinky sex, drugs, praying, and making sanctimonious judgments on other people.


Not necessarily a contradiction. But, in most cases, simply untrue. In the vast majority of cases, people who use this line (and that of Triskadecamus) are simply trying to avoid having to defend their pro-abortion opinions.


So, I am a cowardly liar?

You have no information on my actions in any instance where the matter of abortion became my business. You certainly never will, unless you come to me and ask for my council on your own pregnancy, and how to deal with it. If you do, part of what you will get from me is an absolute assurance that pissant moralists on public bulletin boards won’t hear your story.

But who would take the word of a liar and coward?

Tris

[IzzyR]

Triskadecamus:Murder, Robbery, and Gay-bashing are acts against the public peace, and against the freedoms of the entire society. While it would be far better if the control of such things were maintained on a personal basis, the State is far more justified in intruding into personal freedoms when they involve breech of peace. Abortion is not such an act. Neither are pornography, kinky sex, drugs, praying, and making sanctimonious judgments on other people.Do I see an emphasis here on "freedoms of the entire society". Is this to be a new Triskadecamus policy - only freedoms of the entire society cannot be jeopardized?

Actually the common thread in all that society outlaws is things that threaten others. You may do what you please, as long as others are not harmed. In the case of abortion, clearly the fetus is being harmed. Therefore society may outlaw it, without leaving its morality to the judgement of every individual who wishes to have an abortion. Of course, one may say that the fetus is an object, not a human life, and does not qualify for protection. This is a position described as pro-abortion. Someone who claims to have not made this judgement, but still would refuse to allow society to intervene, is holding an untenable, and suspect, position. Most of those who claim to hold this opinion are indeed copping out.So, I am a cowardly liar?

You have no information on my actions in any instance where the matter of abortion became my business. You certainly never will, unless you come to me and ask for my council on your own pregnancy, and how to deal with it. If you do, part of what you will get from me is an absolute assurance that pissant moralists on public bulletin boards won’t hear your story.

But who would take the word of a liar and coward?Calm down there a bit. I did not say all people. I said most. You may be one of the few who came up with this contorted logic honestly.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Myrr21
Sperm and eggs do not show two of the most basic characteristics of life: the ability to reproduce themselves, and the ability to grow. In fact, the egg shows even less characteristics than the sperm. Just a thought...


Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but in high school biology we learned that sperm reproduce by essentially making copies of themselves. How they do this? No clue.

As for eggs, I dunno as much. I have heard that eggs "eat" on their way down the fallopian tubes, as when they leave the ovaries they're carried down in a sort of "pad" of what are called nurse cells, which from what I understood act to feed/protect the egg.

Originally posted by Myrr21
So here's my question: what about the mouse that has human DNA in it?


This is why I struggle with my definition . . . how to differentiate between, for example, between the mouse who's growing a human ear on his or her back and a human being?

Other than my spiritual beliefs I have trouble defining a human scientifically except for this: some being with 46 or 47 chromosomes is human. I don't know of another collection of beings with 46-7 chromosomes each (per being). So for now I use that to tell what is human and what is not, among other things.

Originally posted by Myrr21
I have, sitting right by my foot, a biologist's paper on methods of introducing human DNA into mice for various purposes (which I won't bore you with the details of).


Damn! I used to enjoy reading those kind of articles . . . various purposes, btw, such as the one I suggested above?

Originally posted by Myrr21
It is very much alive, and it has human DNA in it. It's not a human life, though, is it?


It has human DNA in it. Its primary natural function is that for which mouse DNA was designed (or whatever you believe in this case). its primary design is not to have an ear grow on its back. That scientists have injected it with human DNA does not mean that its nature is human, IMO.

FWIW, I don't like killing in general - of anything. I'm not a vegetarian because, basically, I have the willpower of a child. Bad excuse, I know, but that's me.

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by iampunha
Well, there are scientists who have injected viruses and bacteria with human DNA to make, among other things, insulin (I think) and to try to make preventative measures to counter against various pathogens. So I'm trying to distinguish between those viruses and, for example, me.

The definition given wasn't very usefull because it used the word it was trying to define! It was "someone whose body operates under the organic presence of a human . . . someone whose body is human flesh". In order to know what human flesh is, one would have to know what a human is, which is what the definition is supposed to be about.

This is like defining "animal" as "something whose body is animal flesh".

What is your problem with human cells being human cells? I'm not seeing anything wrong there.

I'm saying that human cells do not have human rights, even though they are alive and genetically human. Therefore, not everything that is a live and genetically human has human rights.

In order to validate that premise, would you also agree that unplanned pregnancy wouldn't happen either? I think that's what it would take for a lot of people to agree with you on the perfect world idea.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Perhaps I am wrong, but nearly everyone I talk to agrees that abortion is not something people enjoy doing; it is, at best, a neccessary evil. That's why I said that, in a perfect world, abortion wouldn't happen.

[AHunter3]

But do all of you who are pro-choice believe that the
father of the baby (fetus, whatever) should have any
input on whether there is an abortion or not?

We don't have good traditions or social institutions for establishing/respecting his rights (because historically his wife had none against which his would be measured in this area). I would say that if ANYONE (male or female) intends on entering into a co-parenting relationship, they should bang out some kind of contract instead of assuming that certain rights should inherently apply; otherwise, they each get stuck with the default set, which isn't necessarily what they want. For instance, I as a male would not consider fathering without some clauses establishing the equality of my parental relationship to the kids and specifying joint and equal custody until the kids reach adulthood or one or the other parent dies, unless direct physical endangerment can be proven; otherwise, I would consider it likely that I could be separated from my own kids and yet held responsible for them financially.

On to the case at hand: if the prospect of your wife or girlfriend aborting that which you fertilized fills you will dread and shivers, get a contract stipulating that she agrees to waive her rights to abort except that doing so becomes necessary for the preservation of her physical health. In the absence of that, you know how the system works and you have no room in which to cry and gnash your teeth if she decides you are a bad idea and she wants no kid of yours to grow in her bod. In particular, if you haven't specifically discussed the matter before inserting your protruberance, she has every right to claim that the entire matter doesn't concern you.

[pldennison]

Just out of curiousity, how many men in this thread make a habit of having sex with women who you would not expect to seek your counsel/input/advice if an unplanned pregnancy resulted? And for those who do, why would you want to have sex with someone you don't trust and who doesn't trust you? That would be some really lousy sex, IMHO.

[APB9999]

Myrr: A mouse harboring human tissue is not, of course, human. But the human tissue (or DNA) it contains is human. But so what? It is not illegal or morally questionable to kill human tissue or cells. Every time you scratch your arm you do that. The whole picture includes more, though. The fetus is not just human tissue, it is a unique individual as well, in the earliest stages of development, and because it consists of a very small amount of tissue it is very delicate. Scratching a fetus to death is not the same as scratching your arm or killing a mouse carrying human DNA, IMO.

iamphuna: Sperm cells don't reproduce; they are produced by cells in the testes that are not themselves sperm cells.

BK: Therefore, not everything that is a live and genetically human has human rights.
Would you say that every individual member of the species Homo sapiens is human? Do all humans so defined have human rights? If not, why not?


I think techchick has raised an interesting point a couple of times now. Consider the following thought experiment:

At present, in vitro fertilization can be done, and the resulting zygotes kept alive briefly before implantation in a uterus. On the other end of gestation, premature babies can be placed in artificial incubators and brought to term. These incubators are getting better, and it is not outrageous to imagine at some point the existence of a completely artificial womb. By this I mean a technology whereby a child could be transplanted at ANY point in a pregnancy and brought to term.

So if such an artificial womb existed, do you think there would be instances in which abortion would be preferable to transplantation? Why, exactly? If you would oppose killing a fetus under such circumstances, i.e. when the mother's life/quality of life can be divorced from the fetus' death, does that not imply a recognition of some value to a fetal life?

[absoul]

I dont really care. I am male. I dont have to worry about it. HA.



HaHAAAAA I just killed 620,000 sperm!!! take that.

[Lemur866]

Even though I know it's flame-bait.... can't.... resist.... commenting....

OK. A human cell is not a human being. A skin cell is not a human, even though it has human DNA. An egg cell is not a human being, a sperm cell is not a human being.

But perhaps this is missing the point. We are not trying to define "human", we are trying to define, "person". Meaning, someone who is entitled to our legal protection. If we define "person" as "human" then we'd be entitled to shoot aliens, or superintelligent dolphins, or sentient computers.

Now, everyone agrees that a newborn baby is a person, even though it cannot speak, it cannot care for itself, it will die without human care. Everyone also agrees that an egg cell is not a person, neither is a sperm cell. But beyond that...let me say that I can't get behind the idea that a fertillized egg is a person. It just wouldn't make sense.

You know how doctors have tissue cultures? You take a cell sample, and keep it alive with nutrients. Well, I've read about one cell line, taken from pancreatic tumor cells, that has become a pest in laboratories. It will infect cultures of other cells. Here we have cells that were once human that are now effectively protozoans. Each cell is completely human, with all the chromosomes, yet these cells are clearly not people.

So, I've got to say that a single totipotent cell cannot be a person. Sorry, fertilized egg. Everyone except the catholic church agrees that contraceptives that prevent the sperm and egg from meeting are moral, and I think contraceptives that go a step further and prevent a fertilized egg from implanting are also moral.

But later? What then? Going at it from the other end, I can't imagine anyone would argue that a 9 month old fetus is not a person. After all, all you have to do is remove the person from the mother, no other adjustments needed, and you clearly have a person. Same with an 8 month fetus, and a 7 month fetus. Six months...we're getting murky here, but everyone can agree that a third trimester fetus is a person. If you don't agree, I claim that you aren't being reasonable. Does anyone really think this?

OK, you might have a few objections. What if the mother is in danger? If the 7 month fetus is a person, then we can't allow abortion which might save the mother's life, so therefore the fetus cannot be a person. But that need not be so. We can decide a 7 month fetus is a person and still allow her to be killed if the mother's life is in danger.

Suppose a person were trapped in a fire. Well, if there is no danger then you are obligated to help. But if there *is* danger, you are not required by the law to put yourself at risk to save another person. If the fetus is endangering the mother, she has the right to self-defense. If there is a medical procedure that would save her life but kill the fetus (say, chemotherapy), that is also moral.

But what if the 7 month fetus/baby is deformed or severly handicapped? Well, you could argue that abortion should be possible in those cases, but we should be clear that what we are talking about is euthanasia. If it would be moral to terminate the life of a newborn infant with the same condition, then it would be moral to abort the same fetus. If it is not moral, then it would also not be moral to abor the fetus.

So, we've disposed of several problem areas. But now we are reaching territory where science and logic are more difficult. Zygotes are not people, third trimester fetuses are people. But there's a very large grey area.

As a practical matter, I don't see how we can outlaw early abortion. If no one knows you are pregnant there are several medications you can take to stop being pregnant. As a privacy issue, I don't see what we can do as a society. How can we stop this without unnacceptable invasions of privacy? And it will get worse in the future. There will be a whole shelf of drugs that will terminate pregnancy safely, quietly, privately. We could make this a crime, but how will we prosecute it? When you kill a baby, you've got a dead baby to dispose of. When you terminate a four-week pregnancy, you've got a clump of cells smaller than a grain of rice. It strikes me as a practical impossibility to stop, whether you agree that the embryo is a person or not. Maybe we have a person who deserves protection by the state, but the state does not even realize that such a person exists.

But we've got another problem. Most abortions are not that early, since usually even the mother doesn't know about the pregnancy that soon. I don't know what to do about abortions in the middle, even if we outlaw late abortions and permit very early ones.

But it is not just the mother's body. We've got another body involved. It is not between a woman and her doctor, there is a baby here, and arguably the father as well. Well, what if someone moved into your house against your will? Couldn't you have them evicted, no matter what might happen to them?

Well, yes. But this tenant didn't barge in against your will, it was invited in. Every time sperm cells are deposited into the female reproductive tract, there is implied consent for the consequences. Even if you are using birth control, you must realize that it can sometimes fail. Even if you didn't want to be a father, or mother, you are still responsible. If you didn't want this to happen, then you could have prevented the genetic material from getting together. Of course, this depends on consent. If you did not give consent...implied or not...then you are not liable. If a woman sneaks into your bedroom at night and steals some left-over genetic material while you are sleeping, you are not responsible for that child. If a male implants genetic material into your body without your consent, then you cannot be held responsible for carrying that child, no matter how much we might wish you would.

I would hold that the implied consent given by engaging in heterosexual intercourse obligates a person to carry a child for these "gray areas". Because you have given consent, even if you didn't want a child, you are still obligated to carry it during the problematic 3rd-6th months. And of course, you are prohibited from terminating a pregnancy during the last trimester because we have clear example of personhood. Very early pregnancies are not people, and even when they might be we would have no knowledge of that person anyway. We can't prevent it, so there is no way we can criminalize it.

I just wish people wouldn't be so quick to assume that this is a simple issue. This is a complex issue, and people make it very difficult when they "know" they have the right answer.

[APB9999]

Lemur, I agree with some of your post, but I'm not sure I understand the connection between tissue culture and a zygote. The culture is a bit of human tissue extracted from a person. The zygote is the bit of human tissue COMPRISING an individual member of our species. Doesn't that make these two VERY different cases? If not, then in what sense are YOU different than a tissue culture?

Do you think a rabbit zygote is not a new rabbit in the earliest stage of its development? Can you point to a single biology paper that has taken this view? (Obviously, I'm speaking generally, it doesn't have to be a rabbit.)

You leap rather blithely from "But beyond that...let me say that I can't get behind the idea that a fertillized egg is a person. It just wouldn't make sense" to "So, we've disposed of several problem areas...Zygotes are not people". But this is THE central issue for a lot of people: At exactly what developmental stage do we recognize that the developing entity has a claim on our conscience? Many, many people feel that a new individual begins with fertilization, and my point was, that is not out of line with the thinking of modern biology as applied to other species. (The issue is tactfully avoided with humans - it is labeled a medical issue. Biologists aren't idiots!). I think you need to make a much more compelling argument before dismissing the idea that a zygote is a living, individual, member of our species.

[doreen]

I'll try to stay objective here, at least until this gets inevitably moved. I was about to post something very like what APB9999 said, but with one other point: Is it a person? Note that this is not the same question as "Is it human?".



The question really is "is it a person" and not "is it human", and neither society or the government treats an unborn fetus as a person in any non-abortion context.For example, I had a miscarriage. Did people act the same as they would have if even a 2 day old baby died? Not unless you believe the parents of infants who die are commonly told " Don't worry, you'll get pregnant again" and expected to be emotionally recovered within a week or so.If a baby was born at 11:59 pm 12/31/99, that baby was a dependent on the 1999 tax return, but if the birth was 12:01 am 1/1/00, it wasn't , althought the costs incurred in 1999 were the same. If a baby dies a few minutes after birth,it can be claimed as a dependent but not if it's stillborn.A pregnant woman on welfare gets an additional allowance, but not the same amount she'll get after the birth.At best, society is conflicted as to whether a fetus is a person. Another example is pro-life people who make exceptions ( rape, incest, mother's life) If they completely believed it was murder, they wouldn't make those exceptions. It is however, entirely possible to believe abortion is imoral without believing it to be murder.After all, most people believe stealing is morally wrong, but don't feel they have to call it murder



[/quote]But do all of you who are pro-choice believe that the father of the baby (fetus, whatever) should have any input on whether there is an abortion or not? Assuming he is willing to take full responsibility for this child once it is born, do you believe he has the right to ask the mother to go through the 6 or 7 months remaining of the pregnance so that he will not be deprived of the child he wants? [/quote]

In this example, obviously the two parties disagree, and someone has to break the tie.It seems to me that should be the person who's most involved . I have to say, though I am biased. I had complications during a pregnancy which could have killed me, and I don't really think the non-risk taker should have the deciding vote.

[Spider Woman]

Her morals will be questioned if she is not married. And she will be harshly judged by a large portion of society if she aborts.

I live in a community that is considered to be very conservative by the rest of the state. There are many active "pro-lifer's" here. Most of the ones I know are the ones who would question the morals of the women who choose to have their babies and stay unmarried. Many of these people use the S(lut) word (I believe this word was invented by men to denigrate women; the only word that people apply to men that even comes close to this same meaning is stud).

I have talked to many people of many differing opinions over the course of the twenty-five years I worked in a factory in this conservative community. Many of the "pro-life" people I spoke with, ironically, were also pro-capital punishment. And many of these same people continually complained about welfare benefits paid out to unwed mothers.

And, as a sideline here, an interesting scenario: there are people in this very Catholic community who, in a choice between saving the life of the mother or the child in a dangerous childbirth situation, would save the newborn baby's life over its mother's life, so the infant could be baptized.

The whole abortion issue is highly emotionally charged, and I believe there are many more issues involved than the surface issue. So: until a better world exists where

1. little children have enough to eat and good medical care

2. unwed mothers (or those in poor health, or those who simply are not emotionally able to handle a pregancy) have all the non-shaming support they need

3. sex is viewed as a normal, natural and beautiful body function, and not something dirty and shameful

I believe that women will continue to choose to have abortions, and I will support our right to do so.

[Persephone]

If they were truly "anti-abortion" they would celebrate a woman who changed her mind or otherwise chose to keep her child. I guess pro-choice is okay as long as the choice ends up in an abortion.

They do.

One of the warmest hugs I ever got in my life was after speaking to a NARAL volunteer at the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair. Twelve years ago, I found myself facing an unplanned pregnancy. I excercised my right to choose, and chose not to have an abortion. I continued the pregnancy, and relinquished a beautiful baby girl for adoption. I told the woman my story, and she stepped out from the booth, hugged me, and said "That is exactly what we are all about."

"Pro-choice" absolutely does not mean "only choose abortion if you get pregnant and don't want to be." It means "make a choice that you can hopefully live with." For many, that choice is not aborting, and that is fine. That is your choice, that is your right. I personally am just as much against forcing anyone into an abortion they do not want as I am against preventing them from getting an abortion they may want or need.

As for the man's input, I believe that if he is around, his opinion should be considered and taken in to account. But the final decision as to whether or not to abort ultimately lies with the woman, because it is her body that will undergo either the abortion or the pregnancy. I also believe that if men got pregnant, they would no doubt demand the same consideration.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Lemur866
But perhaps this is missing the point. We are not trying to define "human", we are trying to define, "person". Meaning, someone who is entitled to our legal protection. If we define "person" as "human" then we'd be entitled to shoot aliens, or superintelligent dolphins, or sentient computers.


If you go back and read the thread, I think the word "human" is mentioned a few times. That's part of what we're debating here.
Originally posted by Lemur866
Now, everyone agrees that a newborn baby is a person, even though it cannot speak, it cannot care for itself, it will die without human care. Everyone also agrees that an egg cell is not a person, neither is a sperm cell. But beyond that...let me say that I can't get behind the idea that a fertillized egg is a person. It just wouldn't make sense.


So what is a person? You say a fertilized egg isn't one. What else is one, and what isn't?

Originally posted by Lemur866
So, I've got to say that a single totipotent cell cannot be a person. Sorry, fertilized egg. Everyone except the catholic church agrees that contraceptives that prevent the sperm and egg from meeting are moral, and I think contraceptives that go a step further and prevent a fertilized egg from implanting are also moral.


Everyone, Lemur? Are you sure you want to assume knowledge of the moral code of everyone who is not the Catholic Church?

Originally posted by Lemur866
But later? What then? Going at it from the other end, I can't imagine anyone would argue that a 9 month old fetus is not a person. After all, all you have to do is remove the person from the mother, no other adjustments needed, and you clearly have a person. Same with an 8 month fetus, and a 7 month fetus. Six months...we're getting murky here, but everyone can agree that a third trimester fetus is a person. If you don't agree, I claim that you aren't being reasonable. Does anyone really think this?


Some people argue (falsely, IMO, but anyway) that someone who has not yet taken a breath of air, or something to that effect, is not fully human.

Originally posted by Lemur866
OK, you might have a few objections. What if the mother is in danger? If the 7 month fetus is a person, then we can't allow abortion which might save the mother's life, so therefore the fetus cannot be a person. But that need not be so. We can decide a 7 month fetus is a person and still allow her to be killed if the mother's life is in danger.


Have been through this. Mother of baby carried her son as long as was feasinle, then delivered him. Doctors gave him 0 chance of survival (for reasons stated elsewhere). If the mother is in danger you deliver the baby as soon as is feasible, IMO, provided the mother won't have died by then.

It will be interesting to see how it is handled in the future if a baby who has attached him/herself to the womb of one woman can be implanted into another.

Originally posted by Lemur866
Suppose a person were trapped in a fire. Well, if there is no danger then you are obligated to help. But if there *is* danger, you are not required by the law to put yourself at risk to save another person. If the fetus is endangering the mother, she has the right to self-defense. If there is a medical procedure that would save her life but kill the fetus (say, chemotherapy), that is also moral.


IMO, on the fire bit, you do what is reasonable . . . if it is not possible to come close to the individual without certain death, you save one life by not trying to rescue the person. But you do try your level best to save their life.

And re: chemo, I haven't been in a situation like that, so I don't consider myself educated well enough to offer my opinion. Note here that I am not trying to cop out; this would be rather like me discussing polo strategy: I know 0 about polo.

Originally posted by Lemur866
But what if the 7 month fetus/baby is deformed or severly handicapped? Well, you could argue that abortion should be possible in those cases, but we should be clear that what we are talking about is euthanasia. If it would be moral to terminate the life of a newborn infant with the same condition, then it would be moral to abort the same fetus. If it is not moral, then it would also not be moral to abor the fetus.


Handicapped/deformed I've run into. Carried as long as possible, delivered (with damage already done to the mother) and we knew long beforehand that there was, scientifically, no way on Earth this baby would live very long. We were right: 15 minutes. But for that 15 minutes my aunt had the son she had hoped and prayed she'd be able to hold since she was not too old herself. I wouldn't take that feeling away from anyone.

Originally posted by Lemur866
So, we've disposed of several problem areas. But now we are reaching territory where science and logic are more difficult. Zygotes are not people, third trimester fetuses are people. But there's a very large grey area.


What is your definition of person, if you're going to say zygotes are not people? How do you differentiate, in this case, between a zygote not being a person and a 3rd-trimester baby being one?

Originally posted by Lemur866
How can we stop this without unnacceptable invasions of privacy?


We've done similar things with rape, incest, child abuse, drug use, pornography, etc. Granted some of those are not quite as private as abortion.

Originally posted by Lemur866
And it will get worse in the future. There will be a whole shelf of drugs that will terminate pregnancy safely, quietly, privately.


There are already dozens of preventative measures that, for all intents and purposes (in my opinion) either terminate the pregnancy or do their best to prevent such.

The fact that it's hard to enforce doesn't make it right.

My mother used to work in a hospital doing medical transcription . . . "products of conception" . . . beyond that and that she was trying to conceive with my dad at the time I won't comment.

Originally posted by Lemur866
But it is not just the mother's body. We've got another body involved. It is not between a woman and her doctor, there is a baby here, and arguably the father as well. Well, what if someone moved into your house against your will? Couldn't you have them evicted, no matter what might happen to them?


I agree with you on it being not just the mother's body, but I've seen compelling arguments for it being partly hers. The baby is inside her.

However, you could use the same argument to argue against breastfeeding, among other things. And piggyback rides, and carrying things, etc.

And if someone loved into your house you've got a legal right to kick them out, and it's not going to be so devastating as it would be with an abortion . . . kicking someone out of the house usually doesn't kill them.

Originally posted by Lemur866
Originally posted by If a male implants genetic material into your body without your consent, then you cannot be held responsible for carrying that child, no matter how much we might wish you would.


So you would kill an unborn baby despite the fact that s/he has done nothing wrong but to exist (which I don't believe to be wrong, but some might)?

Originally posted by Lemur866
Very early pregnancies are not people, and even when they might be we would have no knowledge of that person anyway. We can't prevent it, so there is no way we can criminalize it.


How do you figure very early pregnancies are not people? Did you already conclusively define "person"?

And it may not be possible to prevent it, but by criminalizing it you at least make it harder to do. You also make it much more dangerous . . . which would hopefully dissuade people from doing it.

Originally posted by Lemur866
I just wish people wouldn't be so quick to assume that this is a simple issue. This is a complex issue, and people make it very difficult when they "know" they have the right answer.

Thank you for not taking the road of "it's not my problem" or "it's a simple issue". Debating is how we get educated.

[Wee Man]

I had a brilliant reply written, and I erased it. Let me try again....

I agree with Lemur to a point. When does a fetus become a person is really the question. We all seem to agree that a baby at full term is a person, and that sperm and egg are not. But somewhere in between is where the problem arises. If we accept the opinion that a baby in the early stages is not a person, when does it become one? Let's say that up to day 150 of pregnancy, it is merely a mass of cells, but on day 151 it is a person whose abortion would be criminal. As the father of three, I only knew the conception date of one of my children. If we had chosen to get an aboution with one of the other two, we might have "killed" a person because we had made a mistake as to the date of coception. I am not comfortable with that estimation, so I choose to err on the side caution, and say that at conception, life begins.

Having said that, I think that abortion should be legal. If we were to make abortions illegal, they would only move underground. Mothers and babies would die because of abortions being performed in unsafe ways or by untrained people.

Abortion is not in and of itself the problem, it is a symptom of deeper social ills (fodder for another thread), but making it illegal would do nothing.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Could someboby here who is "pro-life" explain, why "your side" is also against birth control & the "morning after pill"? How is birth control "muder"? And the "morning after pill", could you really say that some 16 undifferetiated cells are a "person"?

[TroubleAgain]

Daniel, you're making the assumption that all pro-lifers are anti-birth control. I assure you that is not true. Sometimes they believe both, sometimes not. I personally believe in birth control (on the pill, myself), am against abortion-as-birth-control (would not have an abortion if I accidentally got pregnant) and haven't yet made up my mind about the morning after pill.

[Triskadecamus]

Originally posted by IzzyR
Calm down there a bit. I did not say all people. I said most. You may be one of the few who came up with this contorted logic honestly.

And you speak without knowing them either. You know, most people who judge groups of others without knowing them arrive at that contorted logic because of narrow-minded bigotry.

Of course, you might have arrived at your self-serving moralisms honestly.

Perhaps you might consider that the world is a complicated place and many people in it arrive at different opinions. The fact that others have a different opinion than your own does not make them dishonest. It doesn't even make you dishonest.

Tris

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Wee Man
I had a brilliant reply written, and I erased it. Let me try again....


Another gem lost to keyboard malpractice. I recommend you sue for lost brains.

Originally posted by Wee Man
Having said that, I think that abortion should be legal. If we were to make abortions illegal, they would only move underground. Mothers and babies would die because of abortions being performed in unsafe ways or by untrained people.


I think, in addition to this, a lot of mothers would see that it was unsafe and decide it wasn't worth the risk.

On a related note, I was reading a brochure on abortion (and this was not "why not to have one" but facts about abortion) and it talked a lot about one woman who tried to have an abortion. The surgeon or doctor (or whatever it was) failed to kill the woman's baby and instead chopped off part of her arm. The baby was delivered successfully som time later (in other words, I don't know how much later).

If something is so dangerous as to risk human life that badly, I both hope and think people weigh the disadvantages as much as the advantages. There is little worse than being uninformed when you're having a medical procedure performed on you.

Originally posted by Wee Man
Abortion is not in and of itself the problem, it is a symptom of deeper social ills (fodder for another thread), but making it illegal would do nothing.

I don't think I can prove this at all, but I think that making it illegal would dissuade a lot of people from doing it. I don't know that overall more or fewer people would die. But I can hope for a day when it is not legal to kill a human being.

But abortion is not the biggest problem. The bigger problems are, as you said, social (and psychological). To fix them would require that a lot of people admit they exist and work toward solving them. As there are still a great many people who don't either want to see these problems or don't want to fix them . . . it may be a while.

[N.B.: I was not addressing any doper I know in that previous paragraph,]

[IzzyR]

Triskadecamus,And you speak without knowing them either. You know, most people who judge groups of others without knowing them arrive at that contorted logic because of narrow-minded bigotry.Not quite. I am judging a position on an issue, and the true positions of those who claim to hold it. There has been more than enough discussion of the abortion issue in America for anyone to have an opinion on the motivations of the groups of people who would take any position on either side.

In fact, at the risk of questioning your sacred honesty, I would bet that there are many groups of people who you do not know personally, but are willing to judge based on their publicly stated positions and actions.

I explained in my earlier post to missbunny, how one might tell someone opposed to abortion but in favor of freedom to have it, from someone who genuinely favors abortion. But I will add that when I see such pathetic attempts at justifying this position such as yours, it reinforces my conviction.Of course, you might have arrived at your self-serving moralisms honestly.Very self serving. And, you forgot to mention, sanctimonious.Perhaps you might consider that the world is a complicated place and many people in it arrive at different opinions. The fact that others have a different opinion than your own does not make them dishonest. It doesn't even make you dishonest.It doesn't make them dishonest. But they might also be dishonest anyway. Fortunately other evidence exists on this score beyond their disagreement with me.

Frankly, I don't care whether you personally are dishonest, or whether you think I'm dishonest or self-serving or whatever. It's a shame that you've chosen to focus on such matters.

[Lemur866]

Originally posted by iampunha
Originally posted by Lemur866
So, I've got to say that a single totipotent cell cannot be a person. Sorry, fertilized egg. Everyone except the catholic church agrees that contraceptives that prevent the sperm and egg from meeting are moral, and I think contraceptives that go a step further and prevent a fertilized egg from implanting are also moral.


Everyone, Lemur? Are you sure you want to assume knowledge of the moral code of everyone who is not the Catholic Church?


I don't mean *everyone*, I mean all reasonable people. I can't imagine a reasonable opposition to birth control for adults who are entitled to have intercourse with each other. I know the Catholics do, but they are unreasonable. And sure, you can be opposed to birth control for minors, or unmarried couples or whatever, but if under your moral system a couple is entitled to have intercourse with each other, then in god's name why would you deny them birth control? If someone wants to correct me, and explain why birth control (for married etc) is immoral, good luck. I can't imagine anyone doing a good job on this.



Some people argue (falsely, IMO, but anyway) that someone who has not yet taken a breath of air, or something to that effect, is not fully human.


Yes, but this is ridiculous. If you remove the baby from the womb during the third trimester it will be able to take that breath of air, perhaps with some help. Anyway, we're talking about reasonable people, not idiots. Does anyone who has spent some time thinking about the ethical implications of abortion really think this? I don't think there are any. I hereby declare that a third trimester fetus is a person, anyone who disagrees should state that they disagree, not that a theoretical stupid person might disagree. Note that because of other factors this does not mean that under certain circumstances the babies life is always protected, just like a post-birth baby might sometimes die. See my post above for thoughts on this.



Originally posted by Lemur866
OK, you might have a few objections. What if the mother is in danger? If the 7 month fetus is a person, then we can't allow abortion which might save the mother's life, so therefore the fetus cannot be a person. But that need not be so. We can decide a 7 month fetus is a person and still allow her to be killed if the mother's life is in danger.


Have been through this. Mother of baby carried her son as long as was feasinle, then delivered him. Doctors gave him 0 chance of survival (for reasons stated elsewhere). If the mother is in danger you deliver the baby as soon as is feasible, IMO, provided the mother won't have died by then.

It will be interesting to see how it is handled in the future if a baby who has attached him/herself to the womb of one woman can be implanted into another.


I'm not saying that the baby should be killed as it is removed. If your life is threatened, you can remove the baby, and whatever happens, happens, there's nothing you can do and you are not obligated to risk your life to save the baby's life, any more than the doctor is. We will *try* to save the baby's life, but that might not happen and if it doesn't happen then no one has done something immoral.



Handicapped/deformed I've run into. Carried as long as possible, delivered (with damage already done to the mother) and we knew long beforehand that there was, scientifically, no way on Earth this baby would live very long. We were right: 15 minutes. But for that 15 minutes my aunt had the son she had hoped and prayed she'd be able to hold since she was not too old herself. I wouldn't take that feeling away from anyone.


I'm not saying that such babies should be killed, far from it. I'm equating removing the baby from the mother's womb to removal of life-support equipment from a post-birth baby. If it would be moral to remove life support equipment from a person because there is no hope, then it is similarly moral to remove the organic life support equipment of the mother's womb. Obviously, different people would put that at different points. But we do allow removal of life-support legally, and abortion should be legal under the same guidelines...brain death, no hope, etc. We allow these babies to die, but we don't kill them. If you want to call it premature delivery followed by the decision to withhold medical care instead of calling it abortion that's fine, but it amounts to the same thing.


What is your definition of person, if you're going to say zygotes are not people? How do you differentiate, in this case, between a zygote not being a person and a 3rd-trimester baby being one?


OK, I can see I didn't explain the zygote thing enough. We all agree, sperm and eggs aren't people, 3rd trimester babies are people. In fact, you can usually be charged with at least manslaughter for killing an unborn baby. I know of a case here in Seattle where a man shot and killed his pregnant wife as she was filing for divorce. He was charged with first degree murder for killing her, and manslaughter for killing the unborn baby. I can't recall how far along the baby was, but I believe it was at least second trimester, if it had been first trimester I don't think anyone would have known.

But back to zygotes. Here we have a genetically unique totipotent cell. Why isn't this a person? Well, we have other examples of genetically unique cells that we don't consider people, if I take a cell sample from you and you die, then that cell sample is now genetically unique. But it doesn't become a person when you die. Genetic uniqueness doesn't guarantee personhood, otherwise one of my sisters would not be a person since they are naturally occuring clones.

In fact, the whole question of individuality is not so clear when we look at the biology. Is a single blade of grass an individual? Well, it often grows up from the roots of another grass blade, it is genetically identical and physically connected to the other grass. It might make more sense to call a whole patch of genetically identical grass an individual. But you can physically separate the grass, say with a shovel, and they do fine. So what is an individual member of the species "grass"? It is hard to say, in fact we could argue that the term individual is not useful when describing grass, or any number of plants with the same habits. There are animals that work the same way...corals for example. Is an individual coral an individual polyp, or a whole head? The polyps are genetically identical, and share resources, but they can live separately if they need to. So biology teaches us that clear cut lines do not neccesarily exist.

We could also imagine a single cell in your body becoming totipotent for some reason. Just because it is genetically identical to you means nothing, clones are people too. The fact that the cell will not develop into a person means nothing, it *could* develop into a person, your identical twin, if it was placed in the right environment. But we don't consider your cells to be people, that's crazy since your cells are dying, sacrificing themselves by the millions every day. Every multi-cellular life-form is a sort of super-organism, every cell has the potential to create a whole new organism. But 99.999999...% of the cells in your body do not become new organisms.

What makes the fertillized egg special? It is really the same as all the other cells that die every day, except it has extra nutrients, and it's genetic machinery is "primed" for development, the blocks that prevent the 99.999...% of your other cells from turning into babies are not active. This is biologically significant, but it is not morally significant. I mean, we could theoretically step in and genetically "turn off" the zygote's machinery, and it would stop dividing and growing into a person but not be killed. We haven't killed anything, we haven't destroyed anything, we've merely changed the growth pattern of a cell. It isn't killing a person any more than stopping one of your liver cells from dividing is killing a person. In fact, killing your liver cell is not killing a person. So how can killing a zygotic cell be killing a person? It makes no sense, there is nothing magic about the zygote.

I agree, later we will have an unarguable person. But at this stage we clearly do not. At some point the baby's brain will develop, at some point it's heart will start beating. But not yet, there is no heart, no brain, just a cell. Yes, that cell has the potential to become a person, but so do all your other cells, it's just that the other cells will not develop into people naturally, they've voluntarily chosen not to.

Pro-life people cling to the moment of conception because it is the only clear dividing line in the continuum of development. But it is not a significant dividing line. There is no dividing line between a cell with no rights and a person with rights, at some point it becomes unreasonable to keep arguing that the mass of cells is not a person. When the cell mass begins to walk and talk it is a person, everyone agrees. When it is a third trimester fetus, it is unreasonable to argue that it is not a person, even the most fanatical pro-choice people become uncomfortable here. The only reason they deny the baby personhood at this point is because they don't want to deny life-saving abortions. But I have shown, I think, that we can call a third-trimester fetus a person and still cause it to die if the circumstances are severe enough.

A second trimester fetus...well, now we are in unarguably arguable territory. There is no clear line, no stopwatch you can click down. I would say that if there was consent to have heterosexual intercourse, then there is also implied consent to care for the arguable person that might be created. Yes, mothers have rights to their bodies, but we are talking about a person. You can dismiss the arguments that it is a person, you may put the line somewhere else, but that is a matter of opinion, there is no clear line, you might be making a mistake.

And of course, without implied consent we cannot do anything to prevent the termination of the pregnancy. Yes, the baby will die. Yes, it did nothing wrong. It is a tragedy, but we cannot force the mother to care for this baby, any more than we can force her to care for a baby someone dropped on her front porch. We might hope that she would care for the baby if there is no other home for the baby, but we cannot force her to do so. Even though the baby will die, we don't have the right to force her to continue the pregnancy. We do have the right to force her and the father to care for children they conceived willingly through engaging in voluntary heterosexual intercourse, we have child abuse laws, etc.




Originally posted by Lemur866
How can we stop this without unnacceptable invasions of privacy?


We've done similar things with rape, incest, child abuse, drug use, pornography, etc. Granted some of those are not quite as private as abortion.


OK. Rape is not private, child abuse is not private, since they cannot take place while a person is alone. They involve second parties, they are not a matter of conscience, as citizens we can demand that the government enforce our rights to not be raped and abused. Incest could be considered private if it occurs between consenting adults. But if it involves minor children then it is not private because it involves second parties who are not able to give consent.

Drug use is private, it should be legal. Pornography is private, it should be legal, providing no laws were broken during the creation of it...if you have to abuse a child to create a photograph, it is a crime. If you rape, abuse, whatever, another person to create it, it is a crime and is not private. Absent that, it is private and is/should be legal.

At some point, we have to look at the not-human fertillized egg, the ball of 16 cells, the blastula and gastrula, and say that they are not people. But there is no dividing line between person and cell culture. I am saying that we can only do so much. As a practical matter, there is no way to ban abortion this early, since there are so many ways to quietly stop embryonic development short of surgery. We can ban these drugs, but I don't think any drugs should be banned under libertarian grounds. So how can we ban drugs that might have the side effect of termination of embryonic development? At some point, we as society are forced to recognize our responsiblity to protect the rights of other people, but how can we do this when these people are unknown and unknowable to us?

We cannot test every woman every day to see if she is pregnant, it would be a violation of our privacy. If she takes an overdose of legal birth control pills and prevents a zygote from implanting in her uterus, what can we do about that? Nothing, even if we feel that the zygote has some special status. Making it illegal because it would be more dangerous that way is crazy.

At some point, our presumption of the fetus's personhood reaches down to protect the unborn baby. At some point, our presumption of a cell culture's nonpersonhood reaches up to prevent our intervention.

I know I may not have convinced anyone, but I hope I've shown that we cannot call the zygote a person without argument, it is not that simple, there is no bright line, even at the moment of conception. We can't call the zygote a person, we can't call two, four, eight, sixteen cells a person, we will have no knowledge that such a person exists even if we wish to call it a person. How can we protect that "person" when we cannot know it exists without instituting totalitarianism? And totalitarianism means that individual rights to life are meaningless anyway, a totalitarian government is just as likely to shoot the mother as protect the fetus.


So, we're left with a compromise given our current lack of uterine replicators or fetal adoption. First trimester abortions, especially chemical ones, cannot be banned without destroying our freedom. Third trimester abortions are always banned, absent the various circumstances that would also apply to babies that are already born. Second trimester abortions are likewise banned, because the mother's right to privacy is outweighed by her consent to carry an arguable human person.

I know you don't like it, but what else are we going to do?

[phantomdiver]

It's my first post, so please excuse my lack of knowledge on how to format messages here. I'll ask a poster I know later.

I'm iampunha's mom, a "fathead" pro-life woman. (Seriously, I'm not offended -- I think it's hilarious!) BTW, I'm also a feminist. But that's another story.

iampunha posted:
"Techchick, as for your point about being there of having a scare, I'm minus one possible living cousin because of an abortion. My aunt called my mother almost literally the night following her abortion asking for moral support."

True.

"This while my parents were trying to conceive."

Nope. iampunha, you were in utero, about six months along. For the record, my husband and I had had a miscarriage two years before. iampunha is the first child to whom we gave birth. We were living 3000 miles from family.

My sister decided that she needed my comfort, but she evidently didn't think about my situation. 'Sokay. She was desolated and just wanted phone hugs from her sister.

"Does that count as me being there? Yes and no."

You were there, iampunha. You weren't understanding what was going on, but you had to feel my distress. Babies are much more sensitive than most adults think.

"From what I know of the situation, it would have been quite possible for my aunt to carry this baby for seven months or so and give him or her up for adoption."

Sure, to me and my husband. But she didn't ask us first, and she said afterward that she wouldn't have done it. If she didn't want to go through with the pregnancy, she didn't want to go through with the pregnancy. She seemed to thinkt hat having us adopt her baby wouldn't have helped her at all.

She had the abortion because she was in grad school and felt that having a baby would mess up her life. She had another one a year later.

This is all just for the record.

phantomdiver
too new to have a sig

[magdalene]

Originally posted by IzzyR

I have never seen any genuine oposition to abortion of any sort from anyone spouting the "pro-choice-but-anti-abortion" line. I am therefore convinced that it is, in most cases, a fraud. (I am not accusing anyone in particular, obviously. I mean most cases.)

Hi Izzy. I'm pro-choice, anti-abortion here, and I'll do my best to explain it to you.

I stay away from both the "pro-choice" and the "pro-life" movements because of rhetoric and corollary beliefs on both sides.

I'll try to address pro-choice first, then anti-abortion, and then a bit about men's role in the issue.

I believe that the "pro-choice" movement makes a big mistake when they try to pretend that abortion - ending a pregancy - is the same as getting a tumor or polyp removed. Somehow the attempt to decide when a blob of tissue becomes a child seems beside the point to me - in the case of a wanted child, the mother loves the little blob of tissue and possibility as soon as she knows it exists.

It's no secret that many people within the "pro-life" movement are also anti-contraception. I'll say that not all pro-lifers are like this, but many are, and it's their rhetoric that you hear most often because of the association between the movement and the Catholic Church. They want to limit women's choices about all kinds of things - the choice to have sex outside of marriage, the choice to have sex for pleasure rather than procreation, the choice to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, and the choice to terminate a pregnancy if she has no other option.

I'm pro-choice on all of these issues, and I don't want any government or religious institution making my choices for me or other women.

Abortion isn't a sterile, easy surgical procedure like getting your tonsils out. Abortion is an indicator of human misery. For example:

Your partner abuses you and your other children, and you don't want to have another child. Your birth control fails. You're 15 years old and your daddy comes into your room at night. You are raped. You can't afford to take care of a (nother) child. You are addicted to drugs. You have a serious illness, and pregnancy could kill you. You are mentally ill and unable to care for a child. Your husband is about to leave you. You are too old to raise another child. You are non-white and know that the chances of someone adopting your child are nil. Your birth control FAILS.

Some of you will come along and say "well, these people shouldn't be having sex." And I think most of you would agree (I've read the welfare mother rants) that they probably shouldn't be having children.

A lot of people on the fence claim that they oppose abortion, but they would support legislation allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest or when the health of the mother is threatened. Think about how few of these crimes are reported, how difficult they are to prove, and how long the judicial process takes. By forcing a rape or incest survivor through the judicial process to prove rape or incest before she can have an abortion, the state will de facto force her to have the child. A person with major health risks would be dependent on doctors to make the recommendation. What if your doctor is pro-life and won't make the recommendation for you? What if you can't afford to go to another doctor? What if it takes so long for a decision to be made that you get past the point where abortion is safe? Putting situational qualifications on the right to abortion requires the state to become extremely intrusive into painful and private areas of people's lives.

It would be nice if no one needed to end a pregnancy, if all children were wanted and loved. But people turn to abortion out of desparation, in the worst times of their lives. I believe they have a right to seek safe, legal, and PRIVATE medical care no matter what their decision. If you want to eliminate abortion, eliminate poverty and ignorance. Improve access to contraception and prenatal care. Yes, people should live with the consequences of their actions, but an unwanted child shouldn't be a punishment inflicted on someone by the state.

But being pro-choice doesn't mean that I am pro-abortion. I would love to make the world a place where poverty and misfortune didn't make abortion necessary.

I am adopted. All I know about my birth mother is that she was 17 years old. I was born when abortion was legal - I could have not existed at all! I admire her courage and her patience for giving up 9 months of her life so that I can have a whole life of my own. For me, an abortion would be a violation of my own existence. But I am lucky: healthy, educated, white, middle class. I've got access to resources and contraception that would make a "desperation" abortion unnecessary, and I would have no problem finding someone to adopt a child if I did become pregnant. At college, I volunteered in a program to help girls that became pregnant while in school make it through and have their babies, usually giving them up for adoption in the end. I'm glad that these women braved parental and societal disapproval and decided that a person's life is worth 9 months of inconvenience and suffering, and I wish I could help more people carry this through. These women weren't treated like they were doing something brave - they were treated like outcasts, sluts, people who should be ashamed - and the stigma made them consider abortion more than once.

As for men: Abortion lets 'em off too easy. The whole "it's a woman's choice" argument allows men to back off from any responsibility if a partner gets pregnant. Don't feel like paying child support? Don't feel like being a father? Tell her to have an abortion. Negative consequences of unwanted pregnancy affect men too, and now they can have even less responsibility - putting a painful decision all in the woman's court. But hey, we asked for it!

I believe abortion is never the happy, carefree option for anyone, at best it's the least of the evils facing the mother and child. I think the more choices we make available to women, the less often they will have to make this choice of last resort. But I believe in protecting their right to that choice of last resort - save, legal, and private abortions.

[Guy S. Tanzer]

Hmmm... I've always wondered if "pro-life" can be re-written as "anti-choice". Doesn't spin as positively that way, though.

Now, I'm pro-choice, and make no bones about it, and I'm also anti-abortion; and I see no contradiction in that. (For gosh sakes, I felt badly about having my cat fixed when she was pregnant!) I don't feel abortion should be used as a method of birth control. I do feel that subverting a woman's body - the most personal possession any person has - as a life-support system for another person, without her will, is kind of pushing things. How many pro-life women are willing to volunteer their own bodies as surrogate mothers to carry unwanted fetuses to term?

If abortion is truly wrong, then rape and incest have nothing to do with anything. The woman's body stops being her own, and belongs to the unborn baby, whether she wants it or not, or even had it forced on her in a criminal act. By allowing abortion under such circumstances, we're killing an innocent child, since a fetus cannot be held responsible for the circumstances of its conception... Or so the "pro-life" contingent would have us believe - it's merely taking their stance out to its logical conclusions. Would they feel the same way if it was their own wife/sister/mother/daughter who was raped? Even Dan Quayle said a "D&C" would be okay then.....

It's interesting, too, how often the pro-lifers are the ones cutting child-support services (welfare, food stamps, Smart Start, etc.) for the babies they saved. Apparently, once they're breathing on your own, that's the last many pro-lifers want to have to do with them.

Carl Sagan, in his last book Billions and Billions, wrote an extensive essay on this subject. His conclusion was basically that until the fetus starts exhibiting human-style EEG waves, it isn't fully human yet, it only has the potential to become fully human. Since something like 3/4 of all pregnancies spontaneously abort - often without the mother ever knowing it - should heroic efforts to save and preserve each one of these potential human lives be undertaken? Since each human egg and sperm constitutes 1/2 of a human life, should similar activities be undertaken as well? It's not hard to see how ridiculous this could become.

Perhaps the final point I'd make is: Instead of pro-lifers saying "Put unwanted children up for adoption", how many of them say "I'll adopt them"? When the money follows the mouth, my respect goes up a lot.

[IzzyR]

magdalene,

There is some confusion here about the term "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion". We are using them in different ways, confusing the issue. I will try to explain more fully.

There are, as I see it, three positions that have been taken. 1. Abortion is morally wrong. The rights of a woman to her body do not outweigh the rights of a fetus to it's life. Therefore society should protect the fetus' rights and outlaw abortion. 2. Abortion is not morally wrong. The rights of a woman to her body do outweigh the rights of a fetus to it's life. Therefore society should protect the rights of a woman over her own body and keep abortion legal. 3. Abortion is morally wrong (or ambigous). However, society should not take any stand on this issue. The morality of this issue should be left in the hands of every individual woman to decide for herself.

By my definition, position 1 is "anti-abortion", position 2 is "pro-abortion", position 3 is "anti-abortion but pro choice". Position 3 is the only one which involves opposition to abortion. It is frequently adopted by Catholic politicians who wish to find a way to reconcile their religious beliefs with their liberal political inclinations. (I can't say this for sure but I'd bet that current VP candidate Joe Lieberman is spouting a similar line.)

I believe this position ("position 3") is for the most part a fraudulent one, for reasons mentioned earlier. 1. One would expect people who genuinely believed that abortion is morally wrong would express that in their attitudes and words and actions. In reality, this line is only trotted out for use in abortion debates. 2. The idea that an action involving two competing interests should be left in the hands of one of them to decide has no parallel in our society.

Now your definitions. You are defining "pro-abortion" as someone who wants as many abortions as possible to take place. Anti-abortion means someone who wants as few as possible to take place. By these definitions you are not pro-abortion. I would imagine that very few are. But you appear to accept that abortion is morally proper. So by my definition, you are pro-abortion.

So to reiterate using different terminology: those who claim to belief in a woman's right to chose, while simultaneously denying that they have made a judgement that abortion is not morally wrong, are for the most part deluding themselves and others.

BTW, the position of the Catholic Church on contraception is completely irrelevent to this discussion. This opposition does not have anything to do with the Church's position on abortion. The constant dredging up of this issue by pro-abortionists is nothing more than a scare tactic.

[IzzyR]

Guy S. TanzerIt's interesting, too, how often the pro-lifers are the ones cutting child-support services (welfare, food stamps, Smart Start, etc.) for the babies they saved. Apparently, once they're breathing on your own, that's the last many pro-lifers want to have to do with them.Equally interesting are all the people who oppose infanticide, but who still won't support additional food stamps and welfare etc. Strange, the compromises we make.Perhaps the final point I'd make is: Instead of pro-lifers saying "Put unwanted children up for adoption", how many of them say "I'll adopt them"? When the money follows the mouth, my respect goes up a lot.This is equally pointless. The fact that many people cannot afford to bear the consequences of other's irresponsibility does not mean that they must support any attempts to eliminate those consequences.

But you will no doubt be interested know that Senator Jesse Helms adopted a paralyzed child in order to give him a better life. No doubt your respect for him will go up alot.

[absoul]

I am male and have no intentions of becoming pregnant in the near or distant future. Laugh if you must.. snicker, snicker. In a male dominated society (i'm not bitching!) this type of situation if likely to occur. The basic issue laying before us is right to one's own body. Who here would welcome having the government determine what is best for your own body? Anyone? Who here would welcome the goverments control over only pregnant females?

I can tell you right now that the majority of persons voting on this could never possibly have it occur to them.

I realize there is also a moral issue involved here, but that cannot supercede the need for common sence.

The moral right has no right to my body or anyone elses but their own.

[magdalene]

Originally posted by IzzyR
[b]magdalene,



Now your definitions. You are defining "pro-abortion" as someone who wants as many abortions as possible to take place. Anti-abortion means someone who wants as few as possible to take place. By these definitions you are not pro-abortion. I would imagine that very few are. But you appear to accept that abortion is morally proper. So by my definition, you are pro-abortion.

I am not defining "pro-abortion" as someone who wants as many abortions as possible to take place. I'm saying that the "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion"(according to your terminology) makes a mistake when they ignore the moral ambiguities of abortion.

[aseymayo]

phantomdiver, you consider yourself a feminist yet you don't believe women are entitled to make their own choices when it comes to childbearing? How does that work?

What I was trying to get across to your son, is that regardless of what he thinks about your sister's behavior, he cannot ascribe her motivations to every woman who elects to terminate a pregnancy.

Yes, abortion is killing, and killing is wrong - but it is also sometimes necessary and even merciful. And who is in the best position to determine when death is an acceptable alternative? In the case of my cat, I am, because it is assumed I am a responsible pet owner, a rational human being who does not act out of malice or cruelty. If I am capable of making this determination for a pet, why am I any less capable of making a rational and responsible decision when it comes to myself, my body and my child?

Yes, I KNOW killing is wrong - but if that is the choice I have made, you can be damned sure I have good and sufficient reason to take such a drastic step. I am not a monster, devoid of feelings, bent on the destruction of innocent children. I am a rational and responsible human being - and that is why you don't get to make my decisions for me.

Deplore your sister's actions all you like, but don't try to tell me that justifies taking away the rights of other women.

And yes, I do think you're a fathead. But I think most people are fatheads.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Lemur866
I don't mean *everyone*, I mean all reasonable people. I can't imagine a reasonable opposition to birth control for adults who are entitled to have intercourse with each other. I know the Catholics do, but they are unreasonable. And sure, you can be opposed to birth control for minors, or unmarried couples or whatever, but if under your moral system a couple is entitled to have intercourse with each other, then in god's name why would you deny them birth control? If someone wants to correct me, and explain why birth control (for married etc) is immoral, good luck. I can't imagine anyone doing a good job on this.


You're treading a very fine line here, my friend. Close to calling me unreasonable (which, in this case, I don't see as true). How do you define reasonle or unreasonable?

My problem with most forms of birth control is that they artificially prevent life from being formed. Things which make the attachment of a zygote to the uteran lining, in my opinion, kill that organism and as such prevent it from developing into as much of a human as it would have been. Things which make it relatively impossible for sperm and egg to meet (artificial things such as condoms), in my opinion, basically take away any chance the sperm and egg had of creating a life.

However, I don't think anyone can explain something to you in the way of it being moral or not if your moral code is something that isn't going to change. It'd be somewhat like trying to convince cmkeller that Christianity is "the way" or trying to tell me that Zen Buddhism is Truth. What it comes down to, in some cases, is your belief system.

Originally posted by Lemur866
Yes, but this is ridiculous. If you remove the baby from the womb during the third trimester it will be able to take that breath of air, perhaps with some help. Anyway, we're talking about reasonable people, not idiots. Does anyone who has spent some time thinking about the ethical implications of abortion really think this? I don't think there are any. I hereby declare that a third trimester fetus is a person, anyone who disagrees should state that they disagree, not that a theoretical stupid person might disagree.


I didn't say I believed it, just that this is the argument I've seen most of the time. What it comes down to, I think, is people not considering other ways of thought or other opinions or such.

I knew a guy in high school (name not important) who did not believe that someone who had not been born was human. he refused to discuss or debate this. Pity. He was almost a decent guy, IMO, notwithstanding his refusal to debate this.

Your announcement that a 3rd-tri baby is human and your grounds for a refutation are interesting. While I think human life is substantiated before the 3rd tri, I don't agree with the methodology of your refutation. You've stated previously that someone who disagrees with you is unreasonable, without providing a working definition, or a cause/truth defining that unreasonable quality.

Originally posted by Lemur866
I'm not saying that the baby should be killed as it is removed. If your life is threatened, you can remove the baby, and whatever happens, happens, there's nothing you can do and you are not obligated to risk your life to save the baby's life, any more than the doctor is. We will *try* to save the baby's life, but that might not happen and if it doesn't happen then no one has done something immoral.


I would say that the severity of the threat to your health would play a part in this. Are we talking about contracting e-coli or about getting a nasty case of mono? In some cases mono might present a true threat to the life of the mother, in which case I think you need to concern yourself more with the health of the mother, because if you cater to the baby's needs and neglect the mother . . . mother dies, baby's SOL.

IMO, so long as you try your level best, while not doing something you know will kill you, you've done your job. I've not yet seen a case where I didn't think someone's level best wasn't good enough.

Originally posted by Lemur866
I'm equating removing the baby from the mother's womb to removal of life-support equipment from a post-birth baby. If it would be moral to remove life support equipment from a person because there is no hope, then it is similarly moral to remove the organic life support equipment of the mother's womb. Obviously, different people would put that at different points. But we do allow removal of life-support legally, and abortion should be legal under the same guidelines...brain death, no hope, etc. We allow these babies to die, but we don't kill them. If you want to call it premature delivery followed by the decision to withhold medical care instead of calling it abortion that's fine, but it amounts to the same thing.


IMHO, this is getting into quite another debate . . . euthanasia. What I have been taught (and sccordingly, what I believe, simply because I've not yet seen a compelling argument against it) is that you do what you can. If there is no possibility of improvement from, say, a coma, then you do your best to make the person's last few days as pleasurable/empty of pain as possible. You involve their family or friends as much as is possible, per their wishes.

I don't think that removing a baby prematurely (with the knowledge that the chance it will live being slim to none) and trying to keep it alive is necessarily abortion. In the case of my aunt, we knew this baby would not live long at all. At the same time, it would have died in utero. She would have died had she tried to carry him (baby/my cousin) to term. A brain transplant was literally impossible.

What I have a problem with is withholding medical attention when such is available and practical. If you don't have a way to save someone, you do what you can to make their death as peaceful and pain-free as possible. If you do have a way to do it, go for it:)

Maybe this is a naive belief. My opinions and moral code are not immutable . . . if I see a compelling argument for something and I cannot find anything or do not know of anything to refute or otherwise break it down, sometimes I do change. I've changed my opinion on euthanasia twice now because of that.

Let me make sure I understand you right here: you're saying that in and of themselves, totally apart from anything else, sperm and eggs are not people. If that's what you're saying I agree with you.

Re: killing unborn babies, there's a case going on right now with Rae Carruth, I believe, which concerns his pregnant girlfriend and a drive-by shooting. I don't know how far along the pregnancy was as I don't know the specifics of the story.

Originally posted by Lemur866
. . . if I take a cell sample from you and you die, then that cell sample is now genetically unique. But it doesn't become a person when you die. Genetic uniqueness doesn't guarantee personhood, otherwise one of my sisters would not be a person since they are naturally occuring clones.


If I die, my cells still exist long after. That an individual skin cell is not a person . . . I won't disagree with you there. But I believe that a zygote, with human DNA, which is going to make a woman pregnant . . . that's a human life right there.

Originally posted by Lemur866
Is a single blade of grass an individual?


Grass, bilogically, as far as I know, is so different from a human that you might as well be comparing the price of magoes in Wichita with the temperature of spit in Sumatra (to quote Cecil Adams). Yes, they're both alive. How they reproduce . . . their genetic information . . . far as I know, very different.

Originally posted by Lemur866
The polyps are genetically identical, and share resources, but they can live separately if they need to. So biology teaches us that clear cut lines do not neccesarily exist.


Identical twins are genetically identical, far as I know. They share resources inasmuch as they often occupy the same general space. If I'm sleeping in a room with someone and reading the same book, that doesn't make me the same person.

Originally posted by Lemur866
The fact that the cell will not develop into a person means nothing, it *could* develop into a person, your identical twin, if it was placed in the right environment. But we don't consider your cells to be people, that's crazy since your cells are dying, sacrificing themselves by the millions every day. Every multi-cellular life-form is a sort of super-organism, every cell has the potential to create a whole new organism.


Can you explain to me excactly how a cell from my stomach could make a new "Patrick"? I don't think that's in its cellular code.

Originally posted by Lemur866
What makes the fertillized egg special? It is really the same as all the other cells that die every day, except it has extra nutrients, and it's genetic machinery is "primed" for development, the blocks that prevent the 99.999...% of your other cells from turning into babies are not active. This is biologically significant, but it is not morally significant.


What makes the fertilized egg special is that it has the capability to, without having its DNA enhanced or otherwise changed, to develop into a human. And I think it is very significant morally. I have no qualms about cutting my fingernails or washing my face. I have a very serious problem with killing a fertilized egg.

Originally posted by Lemur866
I mean, we could theoretically step in and genetically "turn off" the zygote's machinery, and it would stop dividing and growing into a person but not be killed. We haven't killed anything, we haven't destroyed anything, we've merely changed the growth pattern of a cell. It isn't killing a person any more than stopping one of your liver cells from dividing is killing a person. In fact, killing your liver cell is not killing a person. So how can killing a zygotic cell be killing a person? It makes no sense, there is nothing magic about the zygote.


What you have destroyed or killed (or temporarily disabled, perhaps) is that zygote's ability to do what is in its nature: to divide and multiply and grow into a human being. And a zygote normally develops into a human being, whereas a liver cell does not. Killing one liver cell isn't going to have the same impact as killing a zygote.

The magic of the zygote is that it, without tampering with or changing its genetic information, will normally develop into a human being.

Originally posted by Lemur866
I agree, later we will have an unarguable person. But at this stage we clearly do not. At some point the baby's brain will develop, at some point it's heart will start beating. But not yet, there is no heart, no brain, just a cell. Yes, that cell has the potential to become a person, but so do all your other cells, it's just that the other cells will not develop into people naturally, they've voluntarily chosen not to.


The part underlined is, I feel, your opinion. You feel that at the zygote stage we do not have a person. I feel we have a human being, albeit nowhere near completely developed.

Very early in development (I don't know how early, I'll adit), stem cells for the brain, heart, lungs, etc have been detected.

I have not yet seen evidence to support your claim that any of my skin or muscle or heart cells has the capability of developing into a person. Whence do you derive this claim?

Originally posted by Lemur866
Pro-life people cling to the moment of conception because it is the only clear dividing line in the continuum of development. But it is not a significant dividing line.


I do not so much "cling" to the moment of conception as I believe that is when a human life starts.

Originally posted by Lemur866
When the cell mass begins to walk and talk it is a person, everyone agrees. When it is a third trimester fetus, it is unreasonable to argue that it is not a person, even the most fanatical pro-choice people become uncomfortable here. The only reason they deny the baby personhood at this point is because they don't want to deny life-saving abortions. But I have shown, I think, that we can call a third-trimester fetus a person and still cause it to die if the circumstances are severe enough.


[underlining my emphasis]So when I have a newborn baby in my arms, a baby who can neither talk nor walk, I a holding a baby, a tiny human, but not a person? Perhaps you could point me to your definition of a human? All this copying and pasting has made me lose my sense of direction.

I'm truly confused by you here. First you say that a human who can't walk or talk isn't a person. Then you say that it isn't reasonable to argue against a 3rd-tri baby not being a person. As for why they deny the baby personhood (or don't), why not let each pro-choice person decide that for him or herself?

As for causing it to die . . . I feel fairly safe in saying that I am a person. It would be entirely possible to cause me to die if the circumstanes are severe enough. What is your point about 3rd-tri fetuses?

Originally posted by Lemur866
Yes, mothers have rights to their bodies, but we are talking about a person. You can dismiss the arguments that it is a person, you may put the line somewhere else, but that is a matter of opinion, there is no clear line, you might be making a mistake.


To which person are you referring in the first sentence? And as for it being a matter of opinion, and making a mistake, I'd rather err on the side of a baby being human (and therefore not killing him or her).

Originally posted by Lemur866
It is a tragedy, but we cannot force the mother to care for this baby, any more than we can force her to care for a baby someone dropped on her front porch. We might hope that she would care for the baby if there is no other home for the baby, but we cannot force her to do so. Even though the baby will die, we don't have the right to force her to continue the pregnancy.


I have used the argument as follows for women who unwillingly have sex (as in rape or incest): why would you not want to give life to a child who might become a good person inspite of his or her mother's rapist? I see it as a matter of control and assertion. "Yes, I'm going to carry this baby as long as I can, and I'll try to raise my child to be a better human being than the man who raped me." I realize, by the way, that the fact that I will never become pregnant after having been raped discounts this somewhat. I'm also not foreign to the concept of rape.

Originally posted by Lemur866
OK. Rape is not private, child abuse is not private, since they cannot take place while a person is alone. They involve second parties, they are not a matter of conscience, as citizens we can demand that the government enforce our rights to not be raped and abused.


Rape is very often kept as a private thing, as is child abuse, or our jails would be easily twice as full as they are now.

Originally posted by Lemur866
As a practical matter, there is no way to ban abortion this early, since there are so many ways to quietly stop embryonic development short of surgery. We can ban these drugs, but I don't think any drugs should be banned under libertarian grounds. So how can we ban drugs that might have the side effect of termination of embryonic development? At some point, we as society are forced to recognize our responsiblity to protect the rights of other people, but how can we do this when these people are unknown and unknowable to us?


That something isn't practical isn't going to stop me from saying I believe it is wrong. And there are drugs whose side effects include birth defects. Those drugs hae since been taken off the market, as far as I know. I don't believe that a drug whose sole design is to harm, kill, or otherwise tamper with a fetus or developing zygote, or whatever stage you're discussing, should be legal.

As for how we can protect rights . . . advocacy. Educating the human members of our society. Trying to support those who need our help. There are more things but I can't think of them right now.

Originally posted by Lemur866
We cannot test every woman every day to see if she is pregnant, it would be a violation of our privacy. If she takes an overdose of legal birth control pills and prevents a zygote from implanting in her uterus, what can we do about that? Nothing, even if we feel that the zygote has some special status. Making it illegal because it would be more dangerous that way is crazy.


I don't know about you, but I can pray for the soul of that baby and its (since at that stage it is neither male nor female) eternal repose in heaven. I can try to gain an understanding of the reasoning behind it. Ultimately that woman, I don't think, is going to tell me why she killed (in my opinion) a human, if she believes she did. But she will have her judgment.

Originally posted by Lemur866
I know I may not have convinced anyone, but I hope I've shown that we cannot call the zygote a person without argument, it is not that simple, there is no bright line, even at the moment of conception . . . How can we protect that "person" when we cannot know it exists without instituting totalitarianism? And totalitarianism means that individual rights to life are meaningless anyway, a totalitarian government is just as likely to shoot the mother as protect the fetus.


Do me a favor, Lemur? Email me your definition of a person. I'm not seeing it.

As for protecting those who are in utero . . . see my statements above regarding advocacy etc. While we cannot kave little monitors that tell us if a woman is 1/2 hour pregnant, we can instill in her some quality (not physical) that will perhaps cause her to want to keep that unborn baby alive.

Originally posted by Lemur866
So, we're left with a compromise given our current lack of uterine replicators or fetal adoption. First trimester abortions, especially chemical ones, cannot be banned without destroying our freedom. Third trimester abortions are always banned, absent the various circumstances that would also apply to babies that are already born. Second trimester abortions are likewise banned, because the mother's right to privacy is outweighed by her consent to carry an arguable human person.


What freedom, would that be? The freedom to kill a human being? I see that as violating the rights of an unborn child.

As for 2nd and 3rd-tri abortions, I had thought they were legal, to a point. Partial-birth abortions, anyone?

Originally posted by Lemur866
I know you don't like it, but what else are we going to do?


I think I've made pretty clear what I try to do. It's one of the reasons I started this thread.

Criminy, I'm sorry for the length of this post. ITF I will try to break things down more.

[zwaldd]

i've held for many years that abortion should be legal up to the age of two in all cases except adoption.
there are some folks who think abortion should also be legal from age 13-17, but that begs the question 'when does life really begin.'

[BullDawg]

I'm not offended if you call me "anti-abortion". Because I am anti abortion (in most cases. if a womans life is at risk, for instance a tubal pregnancy, or other life threatening circumstances, then yes, abortion is the only humane option. otherwise, keep your panties on or take the consequences of your actions. whether or not you give the child up for adoption is your "choice"). So why are you offended if I call you pro-abortion? It's obvious you are. "No" you say, "I am for the womans right to choose". Choose what? Abortion, if she so deems it. Ergo, pro abortion. Okay, I'll do ya one better, call me "anti choice". Because I'm that also. It isn't a choice, it is in fact a life. Regardless of what you may or may not believe, abortion kills a human being. A viable human being? In a lot of cases, yes! Would abortions still happen if it were illegal? No doubt they would. But so do all other crimes.

What a sick society we live in when the preferred method of birth control is murder.

Someone explain to me again why I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE? I don't mean the right to choose what happens to a womans body. But I do mean the right to choose whether or not I want to raise a child (or pay for that rearing under the threat of jail/wage garnishment/some judeges ruling of how much money the woman can squeeze out of me? Afterall, isn't that what "the right to choose" really boils down to? Whether or not you want to raise a kid? Or is the "right to choose" arguement more based on what a pregnancy can do to a womans body? i.e. stretch marks, etc.? Okay, so she decides to have the baby and stick me for child support. Why can't I in turn decide that I don't want to raise or help raise a kid and let's say take the child out and kill him/her? "Oh what a sick thought" you say. Yes, you're right, it is a sick concept. Very sick. Just as sick as "a womans right to choose."

[iampunha]

Originally posted by zwaldd
i've held for many years that abortion should be legal up to the age of two in all cases except adoption.
there are some folks who think abortion should also be legal from age 13-17, but that begs the question 'when does life really begin.'

Why do you believe that? Do you think humans under the age of two don't have the same right to life as anyone else?

BullDawg, I applaud your fervor . . . but sometimes being less zealous works more effectively as a means of arguing.

[GLWasteful]

BullDawg:
What a sick society we live in when the preferred method of birth control is murder.
Well, except that it isn't. It's really quite simple: As of this point in time, the ability to abort a pregnancy is legal. If you disagree with that, then knock yourself out trying to change it. Understand, though, that while you are trying to change the law, many people (and I include myself among them) will be working to keep things as they are.

Waste
Flick Lives!

[zwaldd]

Why do you believe that? Do you think humans under the age of two don't have the same right to life as anyone else?
it actually has more to do with my views on death than on life. i believe you will be born again after you die, so your life isn't all that valuable until you've lived for enough time to gather solid memories. i personally have no memories before the age of three so i picked 2 as an age where i would've had no problem being aborted and born again (that is if my parents didn't want me. they did.)

[Lemur866]

Originally posted by iampunha

You're treading a very fine line here, my friend. Close to calling me unreasonable (which, in this case, I don't see as true). How do you define reasonle or unreasonable?

My problem with most forms of birth control is that they artificially prevent life from being formed. Things which make the attachment of a zygote to the uteran lining, in my opinion, kill that organism and as such prevent it from developing into as much of a human as it would have been. Things which make it relatively impossible for sperm and egg to meet (artificial things such as condoms), in my opinion, basically take away any chance the sperm and egg had of creating a life.



Yes, I understand that if you don't accept my arguments against the non-personhood of a zygote, several forms of birth control would be wrong.

But what is wrong with preventing the sperm and egg from ever meeting? Yes, you are taking away the chance they will create a life, but you would be doing that if you refrained from intercourse. Which Catholics believe it is OK to do. It is not wrong to prevent your sperm from entering the female reproductive tract, is it? I just can't understand this. This may be the teaching of the Catholic church, and if you are a Catholic you may think this, but it makes no sense.


Originally posted by iampunha

Your announcement that a 3rd-tri baby is human and your grounds for a refutation are interesting. While I think human life is substantiated before the 3rd tri, I don't agree with the methodology of your refutation. You've stated previously that someone who disagrees with you is unreasonable, without providing a working definition, or a cause/truth defining that unreasonable quality.


What I mean is that I can't imagine a person actually believing this. I know you don't, of course not. But I also can't believe that anyone pro-choice would believe that a 3rd trimester baby is not a person. It would boggle my mind. If they haven't thought about it seriously they might think this, but then they don't fall under my "reasonable person" standard. Come on, all you pro-choicers...anyone think that it is perfectly OK to kill a baby up until the time the head comes out in the delivery room, but wrong after that? Hmmmmm...silence. No, no one thinks this, it is crazy, and I hold that if they do think this, they are absolutely wrong. They have their chance to explain why I'm wrong, but I'm pretty confident.


Originally posted by iampunha

What I have a problem with is withholding medical attention when such is available and practical. If you don't have a way to save someone, you do what you can to make their death as peaceful and pain-free as possible. If you do have a way to do it, go for it:)

Maybe this is a naive belief. My opinions and moral code are not immutable . . . if I see a compelling argument for something and I cannot find anything or do not know of anything to refute or otherwise break it down, sometimes I do change. I've changed my opinion on euthanasia twice now because of that.



Euthanasia is a difficult subject. But withholding medical attention is not euthanasia. Really, you could ask a priest about it, they'll probably tell you that sometimes man has to bow to god's will, that it is wrong to interfere with death when there is no other alternative. There's a difference between, say, giving a terminally ill baby a lethal injection and removing them from a respirator even though they might seem similar.

Originally posted by iampunha

If I die, my cells still exist long after. That an individual skin cell is not a person . . . I won't disagree with you there. But I believe that a zygote, with human DNA, which is going to make a woman pregnant . . . that's a human life right there.


Yes, but why? Yes, the zygote has the potential to form a human life, but every cell in your body has the entire complement of DNA to create an identical twin of you. The reason they don't is that certain genes get switched on after they've divided that quarantines the developmental genes. They still have them, they are just shut off. And of course, some cells lose that quarantine, they start to selfishly divide, this is cancer.

So, if I could take one of your cells, and somehow shut off the developmental blocks. If that cell is put in the right environment, it will develop into a brand new human being, your clone, an identical twin of you although it wouldn't be you. The fact that a cell can turn into a person does not make it a person, although at some point in the development it becomes perverse to argue that there is not a person.

That's what I meant in that crack about walking and talking. At some point this cell mass starts walking around, riding bikes, reading the newspaper. No one, not even pro-choicers, think that a cell mass that can read a newspaper is not a person. They even think the same thing about a newborn baby who cannot do those things. And they may try to say that what applies to a newborn baby does not apply to a 3rd trimester fetus, but that is crazy, there is no significant difference, other than the fact that this tiny person happens to be located inside another person. If this tiny person was invited in, and is not an interloper of some sort, then you don't have the right to kill her.


Originally posted by iampunha

Grass, bilogically, as far as I know, is so different from a human that you might as well be comparing the price of magoes in Wichita with the temperature of spit in Sumatra (to quote Cecil Adams). Yes, they're both alive. How they reproduce . . . their genetic information . . . far as I know, very different.

Identical twins are genetically identical, far as I know. They share resources inasmuch as they often occupy the same general space. If I'm sleeping in a room with someone and reading the same book, that doesn't make me the same person.


Exactly. But the point is that our individuality is a consequence of our biology. It is significant for us, but for many creatures it is not significant. We can easily imagine that we could have evolved as colonial polyps, and the concept of individuality would have no meaning for us. What I'm saying is that biology does not support the idea that a unique genetic code, or a unique body neccesarily means a unique individual. After all, we can imagine two people with identical genes, who literally share the same body, this happens very rarely but it happens. I'm saying that there cannot be an unambiguous definition of "individual human", and that to try using biology will only confuse the issue. We have to draw the line somewhere, but there is no bright line, even conception is not a bright line.


Originally posted by iampunha

What you have destroyed or killed (or temporarily disabled, perhaps) is that zygote's ability to do what is in its nature: to divide and multiply and grow into a human being. And a zygote normally develops into a human being, whereas a liver cell does not. Killing one liver cell isn't going to have the same impact as killing a zygote.

The magic of the zygote is that it, without tampering with or changing its genetic information, will normally develop into a human being.


Yes, but consider this. I take a test tube with an egg cell, not a person, and a test tube with sperm cells, not people. I mix the two. Now we have a fertillized egg. But this fertillized egg cannot develop into a human unless it is given the proper environment, a uterus or uterine replicator. I just don't see the significance of the fact that the two cells have joined. Yes, we could cause this cell to develop into a person, but it would require a lot of "tampering". Would it be wrong to just let the test tube sit and do nothing? I hold that it is not wrong, the zygote is not morally significant.

Originally posted by iampunha

As for causing it to die . . . I feel fairly safe in saying that I am a person. It would be entirely possible to cause me to die if the circumstanes are severe enough. What is your point about 3rd-tri fetuses?



Well, what if you were threatening my life, and I had to defend myself? What if you were being kept alive only with machines and tubes and there was no "you" there anymore? It would be moral to remove the life support in that case.

Originally posted by iampunha

Originally posted by Lemur866
Yes, mothers have rights to their bodies, but we are talking about a person. You can dismiss the arguments that it is a person, you may put the line somewhere else, but that is a matter of opinion, there is no clear line, you might be making a mistake.


To which person are you referring in the first sentence? And as for it being a matter of opinion, and making a mistake, I'd rather err on the side of a baby being human (and therefore not killing him or her).


Yes, I'm agreeing. We sometimes cannot decide biologically whether this entity is a person or a non-person. We can decide when it is a baby you can hold in your hands and tickle. I say we can also decide when it is a couple of cells, although I understand that I haven't convinced you. But we have a gray area where it is definately not clear. I'm saying that in this area we can make a presumption that the entity should be protected.

Originally posted by iampunha

I have used the argument as follows for women who unwillingly have sex (as in rape or incest): why would you not want to give life to a child who might become a good person inspite of his or her mother's rapist? I see it as a matter of control and assertion. "Yes, I'm going to carry this baby as long as I can, and I'll try to raise my child to be a better human being than the man who raped me." I realize, by the way, that the fact that I will never become pregnant after having been raped discounts this somewhat. I'm also not foreign to the concept of rape.

Yes, we can give this reasoning to the mother, and hope that she will act on it. Yes, my personal opinion is that it would be best if she kept the baby, or let it be given to someone else, just like I would hope that she might care for a baby left on her doorstep. But we cannot compell that care like we can when a parent chooses to have a baby. If we could do a fetal transplantation then of course we will not allow the baby to die, we will only allow the mother to remove it, and it will be adopted by someone else. But this technology does not exist now, so the baby will die. I'm sad about that, but what can we do legally? We can persuade, but not compell.

Originally posted by iampunha

As for how we can protect rights . . . advocacy. Educating the human members of our society. Trying to support those who need our help. There are more things but I can't think of them right now.

...

I don't know about you, but I can pray for the soul of that baby and its (since at that stage it is neither male nor female) eternal repose in heaven. I can try to gain an understanding of the reasoning behind it. Ultimately that woman, I don't think, is going to tell me why she killed (in my opinion) a human, if she believes she did. But she will have her judgment.


I understand, there is nothing wrong with *convincing* people not to have abortions, I'm trying to show what a rational (by my standards) abortion policy should be. And yes, that includes a culture where even though you might have the right to have one under certain restricted circumstances, you would not have one.


Originally posted by iampunha

Do me a favor, Lemur? Email me your definition of a person. I'm not seeing it.


Oh, I forgot to state this explicitly. I'm saying that such a definition is not possible in an unambiguous way. Set out whatever definition of person you want, and I'll come up with some sentient computer or ET or liver cell or chimpanzee that you've declared either a non-person or a person when you didn't want to. There is no dividing line. We have to make choices, we have to make public policy, but the line does not exist. So, we make our laws. I know you think a zygote should be included under the people, but I've shown why I disagree. But I imagine on most other things we agree.

Originally posted by iampunha
Originally posted by Lemur866
So, we're left with a compromise given our current lack of uterine replicators or fetal adoption. First trimester abortions, especially chemical ones, cannot be banned without destroying our freedom. Third trimester abortions are always banned, absent the various circumstances that would also apply to babies that are already born. Second trimester abortions are likewise banned, because the mother's right to privacy is outweighed by her consent to carry an arguable human person.


What freedom, would that be? The freedom to kill a human being? I see that as violating the rights of an unborn child.

As for 2nd and 3rd-tri abortions, I had thought they were legal, to a point. Partial-birth abortions, anyone?

Oops, I was talking about my model abortion policy, not what we have now. Today, any woman who can find a doctor to perform the procedure can get an abortion at any time for any reason. Granted, it would be difficult to find a doctor to perform an abortion on a healthy 7 month fetus, but if they did they would be within the law.

Of course, my policy would drastically change abortion in this country, although it seems to you to allow all kinds of bad things. But I'm afraid my policy would prohibit (WAG) somewhere around 3/4 of all currently legal abortions. With better planning on the part of the "mothers", most of these could still occur if they take place earlier than they do now. This might happen if drugs that prevent implantation were more widely available. So perhaps there wouldn't be as many unwanted pregnancies as the pro-choice people might think.

Oh well, all I've done is outrage both sides. (See subject line) Hmmm...well, that's what I get for trying to use logic....

[BullDawg]

Semantics rears it's ugly head. Ok, I must concede that legally speaking, abortion is not considered murder.

I still stand by the premise, though. It is a sick society we live in when the preferred method of birth control is "abortion". Sorry, I'm not much of a political activists. So, you won't see me with the pro-lifers carrying signs of aborted fetuses or such. I happen to believe there are better ways. I wonder why the pro lifers (and by that I mean the activists), instead of causing such strife for women doing something that is legal, don't try to work from within the system and perhaps try to get the clinics to allow them to work in them in order to TRULY give women a "choice". For instance they could advise women on other options to abortion, like adoption. Perhaps the clinics wouldn't allow it. Perhaps they may have before things got so out of hand. I'm of the belief that some higher power will punish people if their wrong. Perhaps not. As far as being active to change laws, nah. Not me. I pick and choose the laws I wish to obey and so far it has worked for me.

Thank you for the advice, iampunha. I'll consider it and try and not be so ... what? emotional?

[GLWasteful]

BullDawg:
It is a sick society we live in when the preferred method of birth control is "abortion".
Except, and try to keep up here, it's not.

I wonder why the pro lifers (and by that I mean the activists), instead of causing such strife for women doing something that is legal, don't try to work from within the system and perhaps try to get the clinics to allow them to work in them in order to TRULY give women a "choice". For instance they could advise women on other options to abortion, like adoption. Perhaps the clinics wouldn't allow it. Perhaps they may have before things got so out of hand.
Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm forced to operate on the assumption that you have never been to a clinic, nor have any idea what actually takes place in one. Women are not forced to abort upon stepping into the local Planned Parenthood office. Most of the women who go there have already made up their minds, some of them arrive looking for advice, which they are freely given.

I pick and choose the laws I wish to obey and so far it has worked for me.
Y'know, I would think that your higher power might frown upon that sort of thing. Or are people only called upon to answer for those things that you consider wrong?

Waste
Flick Lives!

[Persephone]

For instance they could advise women on other options to abortion, like adoption

Good clinics do. I've had an abortion too, and prior to getting it, I was counselled quite heavily on all of my options.

Most clinics don't let you just walk in and say "hey, I'd like an abortion, please," then just usher you in and give you one five minutes later. You have to make an appointment (that's why the 24-hour mandatory wait period that some states have tried to pass is, IMHO, ludicrous).

Clinics such as Planned Parenthood will get you what you need. If you choose to have an abortion, you can get one. If you choose adoption, they will help you find a good, reputable agency that deals with adoptions, and get you the counselling you will need if adoption is your choice. If you choose to keep, they will find you help with things such as food and clothing, medical care, and anything an expectant mother needs. They counsel in all forms of birth control, including Natural Family Planning and the rhythm method. They also assist those who are having problems with infertility, and those who may not be infertile, but are having some trouble conceiving. Yes, Planned Parenthood helps you become a parent, if that is your choice.

[phantomdiver]

Originally posted by aseymayo
phantomdiver, you consider yourself a feminist yet you don't believe women are entitled to make their own choices when it comes to childbearing? How does that work?
Yep. Check this out: http://www.serve.com/fem4life/

If you still want to discuss it after that, let's do it!

Deplore your sister's actions all you like, but don't try to tell me that justifies taking away the rights of other women.
I think of this whole thing as a civil rights issue -- for the baby.

But that over-simplifies matters. I think there's something very, very wrong with our society when it is so terribly hard to be pregnant and to give birth and to be a mother that many women have their babies surgically removed from them. Why is it so hard for many in society to contemplate a pregnant woman, married or not? Why is that an embarrassment? Are women "broken" that we need to be fixed by becoming unpregnant?

And what on earth is wrong with our social system that we don't provide a long period of paid parental leave and fully-paid pregnancy, delivery, postpartum, and well-baby care?

Well, I didn't mean to rant. I am pro-life, but I don't think one can look at this in a one-sided way. When I was iampunha's age, I did. I am trying to help my children see beyond the black and white of this issue to the gray humanity of it.

And yes, I do think you're a fathead. But I think most people are fatheads.
No problem. I still think it's funny.

phantomdiver

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Originally posted by BullDawg
Semantics rears it's ugly head. Ok, I must concede that legally speaking, abortion is not considered murder.

I still stand by the premise, though. It is a sick society we live in when the preferred method of birth control is "abortion".

But it is not. for every pregnancy "prevented" by abortion, there are some 10000 prevented by other means, such as the pill, condoms, etc. Since we have no idea of how many sex acts without a condom (eg0 would actually end up ina pregnancy, the number is a guess, but a low end estimate. I have heard #s as 100000 to 1. Abortion is the "least favorite" method of birth control, not the most.

Are you then if favor of contracepives? If so, how about the "morning after" pill?

[doreen]

There are, as I see it, three positions that have been taken. 1. Abortion is morally wrong. The rights of a woman to her body do not outweigh the rights of a fetus to it's life. Therefore society should protect the fetus' rights and outlaw abortion. 2. Abortion is not morally wrong. The rights of a woman to her body do outweigh the rights of a fetus to it's life. Therefore society should protect the rights of a woman over her own body and keep abortion legal. 3. Abortion is morally wrong (or ambigous). However, society should not take any stand on this issue. The morality of this issue should be left in the hands of every individual woman to decide for herself.

IzzyR,

You're leaving out at least one position.

3. Abortion may or may not be morally wrong, depending on the circumstances.It is never a good thing, although it may be the best of the alternatives. Society has not reached any consensus that a fetus is a person in all respects ( see my previous post for examples),and even many who are pro-life make exceptions,so there's certainly no consensus that all abortions are murders. If abortion is illegal, with no exceptions, some women will be risking their lives. If there are exceptions, for the mother's life or health, for example, then the decision making has simply been moved from the mother to the doctor(s) (who may or may not make that decision based only on medical reasons). Rather than force some women to risk their lives and health,or allow doctors to make the final dceision, I think it should be the woman's choice for at least some part ( first 2 or 3 months) of the pregnancy.Ultimately, every individual determines the morality of an action for themselves. The government can only determine the legality. They are often not the same.

[Satan]

Originally posted by phantomdiver

If you still want to discuss it after that, let's do it!

I went to the site and it had a bunch of links which would not work. As such, I do't have anything to discuss and can safely say that someone who claims to be a feminist but also claims to be against women choosing what they do with their bodies is a model of inconsistancy IMHO. But hey, whatever works for you...

I think of this whole thing as a civil rights issue -- for the baby.

There is no baby. Look up baby in a dictionary. Then look up zygote and fetus. Then get back to us.

And the day we give a zygote or fetus more rights than a living, breathing actual human being without whose cooperation the zygote/fetus will never become a baby to begin with, it is a sad state indeed.

But that over-simplifies matters. I think there's something very, very wrong with our society when it is so terribly hard to be pregnant and to give birth and to be a mother that many women have their babies surgically removed from them. Why is it so hard for many in society to contemplate a pregnant woman, married or not? Why is that an embarrassment? Are women "broken" that we need to be fixed by becoming unpregnant?

Why are you assuming that all women who would want or need an abortion are doing so for these reasons? What gives you this impression?

And what on earth is wrong with our social system that we don't provide a long period of paid parental leave and fully-paid pregnancy, delivery, postpartum, and well-baby care?

Do you really think that there would be less abortions if these concerns were met? Do you have a shred of evidence to support this idea?
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, three weeks, 4 hours, 37 minutes and 0 seconds.
5727 cigarettes not smoked, saving $715.96.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 21 hours, 15 minutes.

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/i]

[phantomdiver]

Originally posted by Satan
I went to the site and it had a bunch of links which would not work.
Gosh darn it. Oh, well. I don't have the energy or inclination to rehash this debate -- no, it hasn't been done here, but I've done it a bazillion times in the last several years, and I'm a little tired of it.

As such, I do't have anything to discuss and can safely say that someone who claims to be a feminist but also claims to be against women choosing what they do with their bodies is a model of inconsistancy IMHO. But hey, whatever works for you...
<shrug> Another time, I'll take somebody up on this. For now, let me just say that I think feminism has been hijacked by those who are in favor of abortion rights. The early feminists (such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton) were demonstrably against it. I've read some of their editorials on it in their newspaper, The Revolution.
There is no baby. Look up baby in a dictionary. Then look up zygote and fetus. Then get back to us.
It's a definition thing. I say baby, you say zygote. I agree with you on zygote, but you don't agree with me on baby. To me -- and to many pro-lifers, including iampunha, and I know this because I have discussed this with him many, many times -- a baby can be anything from a fertilized egg to a pre-toddler.

And the day we give a zygote or fetus more rights than a living, breathing actual human being without whose cooperation the zygote/fetus will never become a baby to begin with, it is a sad state indeed..
Not more rights. Equal rights to life. But I'm not going to go the vituperative route. It's been done. What we really need is constructive answers. Common Ground is working on it. I don't have an URL right now.

But that over-simplifies matters. I think there's something very, very wrong with our society when it is so terribly hard to be pregnant and to give birth and to be a mother that many women have their babies surgically removed from them. Why is it so hard for many in society to contemplate a pregnant woman, married or not? Why is that an embarrassment? Are women "broken" that we need to be fixed by becoming unpregnant?
Why are you assuming that all women who would want or need an abortion are doing so for these reasons? What gives you this impression?
I'm assuming this because I know several women for whom this is true. I'm disregarding those who have abortions with no more emotion than removing a hangnail, because I don't think they are representative of aborted women as a whole.

And what on earth is wrong with our social system that we don't provide a long period of paid parental leave and fully-paid pregnancy, delivery, postpartum, and well-baby care?
Do you really think that there would be less abortions if these concerns were met? Do you have a shred of evidence to support this idea?[/quote]
I am told that we have a very high rate of abortions here in the US, much higher than in Europe, where social services are much more extensive -- paid parental leave, paid medical services, the whole nine yards. Heck, in France they even give parents of several kids (I don't know how many, but four kids qualifies) special discounts -- they refer to it as "famille nombreuse." BTDT. We got it when we were visiting France in 1995 and took various tours. (iampunha, do you remember this?)

phantomdiver

[IzzyR]

Doreen,

I'm not sure how you are distinguishing your postition from the third postition that I outlined. You are saying that abortion is morally wrong (in some circumstances) but you are still not giving society the right to take a stand on it. This is commonly done with regard to moral issues whose outcome has a direct effect only on the person making the decision. In the case of abortion the decision has a direct effect on the fetus. To advocate that in such a circumstance the decision be left totally to one interested party has no parallel that I know of.

Society makes all sorts of decisions that have enormous impact on people's lives, health, and other forms of well being. The argument that you give is never brought up in any context other than abortion.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Satan
I went to the site and it had a bunch of links which would not work. As such, I do't have anything to discuss and can safely say that someone who claims to be a feminist but also claims to be against women choosing what they do with their bodies is a model of inconsistancy IMHO. But hey, whatever works for you...


Maybe I can try my hand at this, as I've known PD for a while now.

PD believes, AFAIK, that it is not just a woman's body. When you abort the life of a fetus you kill its (or his/her, depending on how old wee're talking about) body. That is the nutrients the mother's been eating and giving to her baby, but it's the baby's body.

My mother is more an advocate for human rights than anything else. This includes the right of an unborn child to be born without harm (harm here being abortion). She believes, AFAIK, that to assume one person's life more important than the other, except in cases of direct dependency (such as pregnancy), is not terribly intelligent.

My rights, as well as those of thousands of people, have been infringed upon several times by other people. That doesn't give me the right to infringe upon the rights of those who injured me any more than it gives me the right to hurt others who had nothing to do with me being hurt in the first place.

Originally posted by Satan[/i]
There is no baby. Look up baby in a dictionary. Then look up zygote and fetus. Then get back to us.

And the day we give a zygote or fetus more rights than a living, breathing actual human being without whose cooperation the zygote/fetus will never become a baby to begin with, it is a sad state indeed.


I wasn't under the impression that we were using the definition of a baby as defined in a dictionary, firstly. Secondly, since when is every dictionary going to give the same definition of "babyb"?

As for giving a zygote/fetus/baby/human being more rights than a living, breathing human being . . . I don't see giving one human as much of a right to life as any other as an infringement of rights.

Satan, how about your definition of baby and human? that might make your argument easier to see.

[i]Originally posted by Satan[i]
Do you really think that there would be less abortions if these concerns were met? Do you have a shred of evidence to support this idea?


IMHO, there are a pretty good number of abortions performed each year by mothers who do not believe they have the resources to raise a child in this society. If we as a society provided more to mothers, regardless of their social position (i.e. unwed, teen, diabetic, whatever), there would, IMHO, be fewer pregnancies because the resources would be there, at least.

I know this was addressed to my mother. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to share my opinion.

PD, if anything I said about you wasn't true, feel free to say so:)

[BullDawg]

I don't see how abotion is a "pregnancy prevented". It is, in fact, a pregnancy terminated. This also occurs naturally, and possibly more then we know. One statistic I heard is that for every child a woman has had she has probably had 4-5 misscarriages but just didn't know it (a conservative estimate). Thinking it to be just another menstrual cycle. Perhaps abortion is not the "preferred method of birth control". My mistake for misstating that. I apologize. However just the fact that it is a method of birth control is still sickening. Condoms are not the same thing. Condoms prevent pregnancy, in most instances. The pill also prevents pregnancy. But the effects on the female body are often not good. So for the health of the woman, I certainly don't recommend it. Surely you realize there are health risks associated with birth control pills? If you don't know that then doctors must be dissimulating that information. Or you just don't believe the facts. I don't know enough about the morning after pill to speak on it. But I find it highly suspect. Probably more dangerous for a woman then birth control pills. I'm sure it will be proven in the future to do damage to a womans reproductive system (just as abortion also damages a womans reproductive system). You are right in assuming I have never been in an abortion clinic. I am going by information I have heard from third party's that abortion in these places is encouraged in most instances. It is a high money making racket. And it is a cash business. I do know women that have been to these clinics and they have told different stories then I see on here. Stories of how they were encouraged not to "destroy their lives by having the child". I tend to believe people that I know as friends before I believe someone on a bulletien board about the antics of abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood.

Perhaps my "higher power" does have a problem with me picking and choosing which laws I obey. But I hardly equate an occasional joint to a woman murdering her child. You, however, can put it on the same level if it makes you feel better. I don't have a problem with you trying to justify your actions. It's your world. If there is a God, then you'll answer to Him, not me. I'm nobody.

And just for the record, I'm only expressing my views. I'm not here to change anyones mind on any issue. I just enjoy expressing myself. You have free will and can believe what you want. No matter how wrong it is. Hitlers god given right to free will was also none of my business. Until you violate my space or the ones I love, I don't give a rats ass what you believe. If it affects me I'll just sick the pitbulls on you and then shoot you. (and if you know pit bulls, you know how silly that statement is. if you just believe everthing the media tells you then that's another issue and your problem, not mine)

[Spider Woman]

You are saying that abortion is morally wrong (in some circumstances) but you are still not giving society the right to take a stand on it.

Society already has taken a stand on it; Roe vs. Wade (a decision made by supreme court judges appointed by our elected officials), which leaves choice to the woman to make.


This is commonly done with regard to moral issues whose outcome has a direct effect only on the person making the decision. In the case of abortion the decision has a direct effect on the fetus.

At this point in time, the rights of the mother supercede the rights of the fetus, which has no legal rights separate from those of the mother because it is not viable (until late in pregnancy) outside the mother's body.

[IzzyR]

Spider Woman:You are saying that abortion is morally wrong (in some circumstances) but you are still not giving society the right to take a stand on it.Society already has taken a stand on it; Roe vs. Wade (a decision made by supreme court judges appointed by our elected officials), which leaves choice to the woman to make.The Supreme Court did, as you say, take a stand on it. They did indeed rule that the rights of the woman outweigh the rights of the child. Therefore they are pro-abortion.

My words that you cite were not directed by anyone who, like the Supreme Court, is pro-abortion. My words were aimed at those who claim to be anti-abortion - that is to have not determined that the woman's rights outweigh the child's. To say that and still maintain that society cannot impose a judgement on a woman is a departure from accepted practice.

[phantomdiver]

Originally posted by iampunha
Maybe I can try my hand at this, as I've known PD for a while now.
You could say that. :D (Woo hoo! I figured out some of the smileys! -- Okay, okay, I know, little steps for little feet. Fine.)

My mother is more an advocate for human rights than anything else.
Yeah, that's what it all boils down to for me. Men have rights. Women have rights. Teens have rights. Kids have rights. Babies have rights. Different rights at different times -- but all have the right to live.

IMHO, there are a pretty good number of abortions performed each year by mothers who do not believe they have the resources to raise a child in this society. If we as a society provided more to mothers, regardless of their social position (i.e. unwed, teen, diabetic, whatever), there would, IMHO, be fewer pregnancies because the resources would be there, at least.
Education is one of the basic things I think needs to be worked on in this society. That, and some way to help those in their early years (maybe 0 to 20) realize that they have a future and they can affect a good part of it. If we can do that, we can affect a lot of what people do that gets them pregnant (or makes them responsible for getting people pregnant) in the first place.

PD, if anything I said about you wasn't true, feel free to say so:)
Ya done good, honey-pie. :)

phantomdiver

[Spider Woman]

I guess I quoted you out of context or something like that. I understand now what you were trying to say.

[Persephone]

". I tend to believe people that I know as friends before I believe someone on a bulletien board about the antics of abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood.

That is fine, but I guess I'll need for you to explain on how counseling women in all of their options qualifies as "antics." I was a client of Planned Parenthood for many years (got birth control & yearly exams from them too, before I got health insurance and started seeing a regular doctor), and the employees there treat their clients with the utmost in courtesy and consideration. They encourage their clients to do what is right for them. They do not try to force anyone in to any particular decision.

I also vividly remember one occasion where I had to go to PP to pick up my birth control pills, and there happened to be protesters there. Now, at the time, PP had sucessfully gotten an injunction against their protesters, which meant they had to stay a certain distance away from the clinic doors and the clients entering. I remember being shouted at by these protesters, telling me "Don't kill your baby! We can help you!" Now, these women had no frickin' idea what I was there for. Why shout at me? I know they were shouting at me, because there was no one else going in at the time. I didn't shout or argue back with them. There was no real point. They've got the right to assemble, and they were too far away from me for me to consider them harrasing. But had I been close enough, I'm sure they would have been in my face, something that I've never seen a PP employee do.

[doreen]

Izzy,

Sorry, I was kind of tired when I posted.I'll try to clarify. You seem to be using " society taking a stand" to mean making abortion be illegal, either under all circumstances or some. I don't believe the woman's rights in all cases outweigh those of the fetus', nor do I believe those of the fetus outweigh the woman's in all cases. However, in a society where there is no consensus as to when a fetus becomes a person,and in fact, the personhood of a fetus is not even seriously argued in any context except abortion, and where every moral issue does not lead to a law ( it may be wrong for me to lie to my husband or to drink or gamble to excess or to not work all the hours I'm paid for, but there's no law against those things},who should decide which rights take precedence in a given situation? The doctors? I don't really trust them not to impose their own views, as they used to with tubal ligations,or to consider outside issues such as reputation, as hospital abortion committees used to.The judges? I might have trusted them before I heard a few years ago about a pregnant woman with cancer who had a court-ordered caesarian against her wishes, although her doctors testified that it would shorten her life,(she died the same day)in the hopes of saving the baby ( it didn't-too premature). If there are to be any exceptions, who should decide whether a particular case is one of them? It's not the type of issue where anyone doesn't have an opinion.If there aren't any exceptions, then at least some women (and girls) will be in a position of risking their lives or health for another,which except during war, isnot a position we put people in unless they volunteer.

[doreen]

IzzyR,

I should have made one point more explicitly in my last post. If you have not made a determination that either party's rights _always_outweighs the other's, ( that is, if you neither believe that abortion is wrong in all circumstances, nor do you believe it is morally neutral in all circumstances) you must then decide who makes the decision in a particular case.You might not agree it should be the woman, but you have to pick someone.


If by society taking a stand, you mean individuals making judgements about other individuals based on their actions and reasons, I have no problem with that. I would treat an aquaintance who had an abortion for a trivial reason the same as I treated a friend of my husband's who walked out on his pregnant wife. I told him I lost all respect for him and I don't associate with him. I don't think there needs to be a law making it criminal to leave your pregnant wife just because I find it morally repugnant.

[GLWasteful]

BullDawg:
I don't see how abotion is a "pregnancy prevented". It is, in fact, a pregnancy terminated.
And maybe I've missed it, but I don't recall anyone making the above argument.

You are right in assuming I have never been in an abortion clinic. I am going by information I have heard from third party's that abortion in these places is encouraged in most instances. It is a high money making racket. And it is a cash business. I do know women that have been to these clinics and they have told different stories then I see on here. Stories of how they were encouraged not to "destroy their lives by having the child". I tend to believe people that I know as friends before I believe someone on a bulletien board about the antics of abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood.
Oh, I knew I was right. Even without you verifying it. I have been an escort at a PP clinic, and Persephone has actually been to a PP clinic for reproductive services that had nothing whatsoever to do with abortion. And you are using FOAF information. Somehow, I think that what she and I have to say carries just a smidge more credibility than what you report. "Antics", indeed.

Perhaps my "higher power" does have a problem with me picking and choosing which laws I obey.
Doesn't really matter to me. After all, it's your higher power, not mine.

But I hardly equate an occasional joint to a woman murdering her child. You, however, can put it on the same level if it makes you feel better.
Help me out here. . .when did I equate an occasional joint to abortion? Oh, that's right! I didn't.

And just for the record, I'm only expressing my views. I'm not here to change anyones mind on any issue ... You have free will and can believe what you want.
Well, thank you ever so much. No, really, I mean that with all my heart.

No matter how wrong it is.
Judge much? If your higher power is anything at all like the one ascribed to by so many folk on this board, then I'm guessing he might be a little peeved at you.

Until you violate my space or the ones I love, I don't give a rats ass what you believe. If it affects me I'll just sick the pitbulls on you and then shoot you. (and if you know pit bulls, you know how silly that statement is. if you just believe everthing the media tells you then that's another issue and your problem, not mine)
Ooooohhhh! Well, you certainly win the "My penis is bigger than your penis" contest. Just try not to hurt your pitbulls whilst swinging that thing around, otherwise you'll have animal control called on you.

Waste
Flick Lives!

[IzzyR]

Doreen,

I think I understand your position. I'll summarize, and you can correct me if I get it wrong.

"Abortion is a gray area morally, and can be right or wrong depending on the circumstances. However, the nature of the circumstances upon which this morality depends is unique to each woman and situation. Thus, no outside entity is equipped to make a judgement on the morality of a given abortion. Therefore the decision must be lift to the woman."

As I said, I understand this position. But I would still question whether this can be extended as far as opposing all restrictions on abortions. I would think there can be some guidelines put in place. Of course there will be miscarriages of justice. Every law is subject to these. But laws deal with some complex and difficult areas, as they must in order to provide some common moral ground for society.

(BTW, has anyone ever suggested, as you indicate, that doctors be given authority to decide about abortion? I can't imagine any role for them other than determining facts.)

Furthemore, and this is the important point, you will surely acknowledge that your position is completely dependent on your premise that the morality of abortion is subject to change based on the particular circumstances. This is of course a valid viewpoint. But from the perspective of someone who disagrees with this viewpoint, it is pointless to argue for the right of a woman to make this decision. The argument should only concern the morality of abortion itself. To the extent that your viewpoint is accepted, you can then argue the "right to chose" perspective.

Having said all that, you would appear to be a genuine "pro-choice-anti-abortion" person.

[Persephone]

BTW, has anyone ever suggested, as you indicate, that doctors be given authority to decide about abortion? I can't imagine any role for them other than determining facts.

I would think that doctors do have the authority to decide, in that they can choose not to perform them, or take the role of advisor, if a patient asks them to. At the time I became pregnant with the daughter I ultimately relinquished for adoption, I had a doctor who was anti-abortion, and she gave me some information about adoption that I had not even considered. In no way did she pressure me out of aborting--she just reminded me that I did in fact have other options. I investigated them all, and chose adoption.

[doreen]

IzzyR,


My postition can't be extended so far as to oppose all restrictions on abortion, but then, as best as I remember neither did Roe v.Wade.If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court decision allowed no restrictions for the first trimester, restrictions based on protecting the woman's health during the second (requirements that they be performed in a certain setting,etc), and restrictions based on protecting the life of the fetus in the third.If the states have not imposed such restrictions, that's a different matter. The only thing I can imagine that would justify a third trimester abortion is if a great risk to the mother's life is newly discovered early in the third trimester ( so early that premature delivery would not result in survival.)-not a common occurence.On the other hand, I'm not even sure if a morning-after pill thae day after sex qualifies as an abortion.


Before Roe v Wade, abortions were legal in some states based on medical reasons. In at least some places, the case would go before a hospital committee ( made up of doctors)which would decide if the abortion would be performed. Even if the woman's doctor thought it necessary,if the committee didn't agree,it wasn't performed.Some of those committees certainly based their decisions, at least in part, on non-medical reasons,such as already having approved too many.Even though it may seem the doctor is only determining facts,he/she is actually making conclusions (saying " this woman has complication X is a fact".Saying "this woman's life is in danger is a conclusion". If the decision is based solely on those conclusions the doctor has essentially made the decision as to whether it should be permittted, and a bias may affect the conclusion he/she makes. For example, say abortions are permitted if the mothers life is in danger. Well, every pregnant woman has an very slightly greater risk of death than she had immediately prior to pregnancy. I can easily see one doctor deciding that every woman who comes to him should be allowed an abortion based on that tiny risk, while another requires that the woman be actively hemmoraging before its permitted.


My position does depend on the premise that its a gray area, but the pro-life position depends on the premise that either it's a black-and-white issue or more commonly, that there are one or two clearly defined exceptions.I don't think there are many black and white issues in the world. Is murder always wrong? Yes, but that's because the definition of murder is the unjustified killing of a human being.Is there such a thing as a justified killing of a human being? Yes, in my state it's justified if you defending your life or another person's. In other states it's also justified if done to protect your property. Could abortions be handled in the same way as these homicides? Theoretically, yes, but practically, no. Those homicides are investigated by the police after the fact, a prosecutor decides whether charges are brought,if charges are brought, it goes to a grand jury, which may or may not indict, and if there's an indictment it goes to trial,where a jury may accept the defense of justification. That system works okay for a rare and spontaneous event that doesn't involve anyone else, but what doctor would get involved with performing even the most life-saving abortion if the legality couldn't be known ahead of time?

[CollegeStudent]

Abortion is first degree murder plain and simple. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Satan]

Originally posted by CollegeStudent

Abortion is first degree murder plain and simple. Nothing more and nothing less.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one.

Yeah, that adds a lot to the debate... :rolleyes:
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, three weeks, one day, 21 hours, 48 minutes and 24 seconds.
5796 cigarettes not smoked, saving $724.54.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 3 hours, 0 minutes.

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/i]

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by CollegeStudent
Abortion is first degree murder plain and simple. Nothing more and nothing less. ]

So tell me collegestudent. If you knew a madman was going to go and kill hundreds of schoolkids tomorrow, and you had the chance to kill him and protect those lives, would you do it? Or would you just stand around making comments about how it's murder plain and simple, and not lift a finger.

[porcupine]

Originally posted by CollegeStudent
Abortion is first degree murder plain and simple. Nothing more and nothing less.

And I suppose you think miscarriage is manslaughter as well.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by CollegeStudent
Abortion is first degree murder plain and simple. Nothing more and nothing less.

Here at GD, we try to back up what we say with things called evidence and proof. You didn't back that up with anything. Stating your opinion is one thing. Stating it as fact is another.

[GLWasteful]

iampunha:
Here at GD, we try to back up what we say with things called evidence and proof. You didn't back that up with anything. Stating your opinion is one thing. Stating it as fact is another.
Actually, CollegeStudent does this sort of nonsense fairly often. It's probably best to ignore him and continue with the debate.

Waste
Flick Lives!

[iampunha]

Originally posted by GLWasteful
Actually, CollegeStudent does this sort of nonsense fairly often. It's probably best to ignore him and continue with the debate.


FTR, that SN is an insult to intelligent college students. I wish s/he would change it to . . . hell, something else.

[GLWasteful]

iampunha: I think of it as an insult to all college students.

Including frat boys and debs.

Waste
Flick Lives!

[iampunha]

Originally posted by GLWasteful
iampunha: I think of it as an insult to all college students.

Including frat boys and debs.
[/B]

Well, but some of them possess the same reasoning/logic skills as our acquaintance CollegeStudent.

[capacitor]

The subject of abortion has reached an impasse. The problem now is that until recently the subject has overshadowed other issues of pre-natal and post-natal care, and may have been a too-focal point for the feminist movemnt, much to the chagrin of women who might have joined the movement but for their personal opposition to abortion-on-demand. The victory that the feminists achieved in the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade had the consenquence of a huge backlash against the movement, to the extent that many women today do not define themselves as 'feminist'. As a result, other pro-woman, or rather, pro-human, legislation, such as the ERA, new programs for pre-natal care, time-off work for parenting, sexual harassment, deadbeat dads paying child support, and improved enforcement and beefing up of sexual crimes, all of thes propose laws were stalled or defeated for years. Those opposed to the feminist movement, who might have been otherwise more placatable or to the above legislation, turned the Supreme Court decision into a rallying cry, and successfully beat back the other legislation, which, to an extent undermined the movement. Only until the ascendency of Sandra Day-O'Connor to the Supreme Court did the women's movement pick up speed again.

[capacitor]

should say, "...beefing up sentences for sex crimes...