nice…cute…
If this thread is an example of the ideas behind “pro-life” then it is indeed a moral issue. The idea being that it is morally “wrong” to take a human life. I think it has also in large part become a Christian issue of dictating morals. It really has not ever been much of anything else.
I really discombobulated my sister this weekend (A fledgling member of the Moral Majority.) when we discussed this subject. I wanted to know how she stood. Guess what she did say to me…(in a rather loud voice) “Do you think it’s OK for a woman to have 3 and 4 abortions!?” And I asked…“Are you against abortion because you want to protect the rights of the child or dictate sexual responsiblity to the mother?” Naturally this created a debate between my sister, my mother (who is pro-choice) and I. (I being ambivelent.) I posed to my sister that she was simply parroting the view of her husband and church and had not fully thought out her position on the subject. Which I believe is probably true for quite a few people. (Most of which we know do not have knowledge about the lively debate on The Straight Dope.)
I know many of you do not see a parallel between abortion and the death penalty but I do. Perhaps because I am not afraid to admit that so many hold their opinions on these two subjects through their religious beliefs. I asked her the same questions we have asked here. “If abortion is wrong, why is it right under certain circumstances that YOU decide make it acceptable, like rape or incest?” “Why is the child of rape or incest any less deserving of life than any other child under your view?” I really confused her with that one. If you value the sanctity of human life then it should apply to all human life, don’t ya know! She blubbered on that one.
I do believe that people hold their opinions on such matters very often without thinking much of it through. The pro-lifers that believe as they do because of religious convictions are often also willing to attempt to force more than this particular moral issue on the rest of the public. Toward the end of the conversation I simply reminded my sister that we live in a country and a society where we are protected from being forced to prescribe to the tenents of any one religion.
Needs2know
He has addressed the issue here, (where he says they respond to sound) and here (where he says they do not have ESP [Well, DUH!]).
Yes you´re right, this was written at almost 1:00 A. M. and at that time I usually write spanglish, that happens also when I´m writting in French I mix Italian words. No, they don´t vanish, they faint, they use electrodes to read ther emotional waves. So you can eat your salad, no I did´t read it from an April issue in a Magazine like Cosmo or something similar, I don´t read those even if I know they exist, this was through a seminar held by the Insitute of Psychorientology,Inc. This was a research on the relation of human being and it´s enviroment regarding plants and their streight relation with human life. And you can have more details on it, writte to this address I will try to get you the e-mail if you are interested.
Silva Mind Control, Inc. 1110 Cedar Avenue, Laredo,Texas 78040 U. S. A.
The name of the Medical Article is: When Do Human Beings Begin is on page 3 on this same thread. It´s been posted by Beagledavle to me the only thing you have to do is click the mouse and you will be there.
If there is any difference between a Prenatal Human or a Bacteria, well it all depends in your point of view, you can either believe in the scientific theory that
YOU descent from the apes or that you are a God´s child and therefore you have to respect life that was by Him created, if you did´t know all this scientific names on a Human Prenatal will you have the same point of view?
There is another way you can go to a mirror and find out if you have anything that reminds you of an ameeba.
I´m a God´s child, what are you? Do you have any other theory?
About the morning after pill, if it´s a man should change the condom´s brand, if the woman forgot his pills or loose them then should take glutamate is very good for memory, please don´t answear this at 1:00 A. M. I will be having a responsible sex life.
NEED2KNOW:
You better take a look into a dollar bill, the legend says:
“In God we trust.”
That is an estatement made by the U. S. Government, do you agree with it?
And by the way when two women are discussing about abortion you shouldn´t interfere that is a woman´s field unless you are ready to discuss about menstruation too. That doesn´t mean that you can´t express your feelings in this thread of course or any other forum.
[“Why is the child of rape or incest any less deserving of life than any other child under your view?” I]
I know this is an argument pro abortion people use agains anti abortion people, but for someone who values life at conception this is a appeal to emotions. It is like asking a anti death penilaty person ‘would you support it if your daughter was murdered’.
the answer is NO, this child is not less deserving of life. It might be to tramatic for the bio-parent to raise him, but that’s what adoption is for.
ruadh, I hoped you would have responded by now, did I make a mistake on calculating the abortion rate using your numbers?
as far as I can tell using the link you provided:
1996 22% of pregnancys ended in abortion
2000 22% of pregnancys ended in abortion
(and barring any mathmatical errors) is the abortion rate any lower?
NO!
Also these percentages are ‘hidden’ in that the numbers given are not directly comparable. I find it telling that the link you mentioned didn’t state the numbers clearly.
A fundamentalist board isn’t going to list the same reasons that others of us have for being pro-life. It would behoove a lot of people to stop trying to assume that because you, as one person, believe something about abortion, that everyone else who is prolife must as well. This appears to be the case with the fundy board, even sven.
The debate over abortion is, more often than not, when life begins. It isn’t really about where the sin lies. Abortion is, to those who believe it to be killing a human being, a crime. To those who do not it is ending the formation of something which will be human at some point.
IMNSHO, it’s having compassion for the unborn child who is unable to protect him/herself. It’s about telling someone who willfully had sex without protection that she will not be able to kill a human and (to a degree) undo what she did (along with her partner). It’s not about punishing anyone purposefully. IOW, we who are prolife don’t, so far as I have seen, go out and get women pregnant and make them carry the babies as punishment.
And it’s not just for women who have sex outside of marriage. I don’t have numbers with which to back this point up, but I feel fairly safe in assuming that there are some women in this country who are married and have had abortions while married.
I don’t think brain function or ability to survive outside the mother’s body should have anything to do with it. I wouldn’t care if a fetus could quote Shakespeare and brush it’s own teeth, the fact that it is totally dependent on another person’s life removes it’s right to live. Nobody should be forced to do something dangerous to save another’s life if they don’t want to, regardless of how the situation came to be. You can’t make someone provide a kidney to another, even if you have the only one compatible and refusing to would cause that person to die. You can’t make someone go through childbirth, even thought he alternative is for the fetus to die.
What I wonder is how the Anti-Choice people envision their perfect world - do they think that by making laws forbidding abortion they could keep it from happening? How would these laws be enforced? Would every miscarriage have to be investigated to make sure the mother didn’t do something to induce it?
I’m not aware of any infants who are not “totally dependent on another person”. That person may be mom, dad, or a nurse in a hospital…but the infant very much is a leech on someone… Does this mean you support infanticide?
Since “personhood” is NOT a deciding factor for you (unless I misunderstood your teeth brushing and Shakespeare reference), but dependency is…I don’t see why you would be opposed to infanticide.
Batz Maru
Of course I beileve that you don´t care about the fetus life, you already made your statement, now I´m really glad that my mother didn´t think that way, your were a fetus, do you know that? and you should be greatfull that your mother was willing to give birth to a fetus considering it her baby. What I don´t see very clear is that most of people for-abortion always say that pro-life people makes other to have babies, as far as I Know this women put themselves under that situation, we didn´t put them there, we weren´t there. That is a two people situation. No, we know that there will still be abortions, the only thing we´re really trying to do is to make people get counciosness on prenatal humans, most of the people call them fetus because that is a neutral name, chicken fetus, pig fetus, cow fetus, so saying fetus is so impersonal, but pro-choice people never call them by their real name Humans under developement, of course, most of pro-choicee people -I´ve notice- call them with scientific names, don´t know why this won´t change the Human´s nature, if they like that they should try with “Echinocereus fendleri”, or “Carnegiea gigantea”, but at the end they still will be cactuses. Words don´t change nature of things, and what we´re discussing here is human life, women nature is to give birth but as I alredy said if they don´t want to have children they don´t have to, they can take their wombs out, as long as they don´t touch a life that is not theirs and therefore, it´s not their right. That is why it is punished by law. Do you believe in law? It´s murder in any case, yes!!! Whether they brush their teeth or not.
gloria:
Psychorientology? Forgive me if that doesn’t sound trustworthy to me. I’d need to see an article in a respected science journal to believe these extraordinary claims.
Sorry about not finding that link, I misread your post. I read the article and it seems to have some problems:
This quote appears in a section called “Basic human embryological facts”. It seems to me that the author is simply assuming from the start that a fertilized egg is a “whole living human being”, not proving it. She goes on throughout the entire article using “human being” as a synonym for “fertilized egg”.
Redefining “human being” to mean “cell with 46 chromosomes and unique genetic code” makes the article sound like it’s proving something, but it isn’t. She could easily have used “walrus” instead of “human being”… but that wouldn’t mean that an egg becomes a walrus when it is fertilized, only that the author has chosen to use one word to mean a certain concept.
I do tend to rely on scientific evidence. I don’t see a need to bring God into a discussion about biological processes that are understood very well by modern science.
Obviously, I am a grown person. I was a fertilized egg at one time, but that doesn’t mean I can tell that from looking in the mirror.
I don’t know about you, but I was being serious. Any brand of condom has some chance of failure, you could lose your pills by accident (maybe your pet/child wandered into the bathroom and knocked them out of the medicine cabinet into the toilet) - and even the pill has some chance of failure.
Anyway, you haven’t said whether you think the morning-after pill is immoral.
Maybe you had better take a look at the First Amendment, and countless letters and articles written by the US’s founding fathers. Our government does not officially endorse any religion. We are not a “Christian nation” any more than we are a “burger-eating nation”.
[devil’s advocate] You seem to think abortion is murder, don’t you think he has a right to interfere with a murder being planned? [/devil’s advocate]
k2dave:
(By the way, you misspelled “pro-choice”. HTH.)
I don’t see how this is an appeal to emotions at all. If a pro-lifer says “I don’t support abortion because we must respect the unborn child’s right to life. But I do support abortion in cases of rape or incest.” then the natural response is “Don’t we also need to respect the right to life of the unborn child of rape and incest?”
It points out a logical inconsistency. If you believe life begins at conception and it is immoral to terminate that life, and the right of that life to develop is more important than everything else, why do we need to care about what circumstances put the life there? Or if it’s not more important than everything else, what is more important?
So, Badtz Maru,
What about Siamese twins who are adults and inseperable. Does the fact that they each require the other to live negate their right to life?
To make the argument even more, suppose one wants to commit suicide. “It’s my body, I can do whatever I want with it!” he says. Do we support his right to suicide? Does the other twin really have no right to life, as you put it?
Zev Steinhardt
In the case of conjoined twins, I believe one has the right to do things that would be fatal to the other. If one wanted to commit suicide, even though it would of course lead to the death to the other, I don’t think that right should be denied, but in this I am at odds with most state’s laws, which rule that suicide in any circumstances is illegal.
THERE’S the difference - the infant is a leech on SOMEONE, not one particular person. Once the baby is born, it will require the assistance of others to continue it’s life, but so does everyone - no one person’s rights are going to be infringed upon to keep the infant alive, the duty can be shared by people who willingly help it and who have the right to refuse to (nurses can quit, foster parents can give the kid back, etc.). This is not the same situation with an unborn fetus, as it is wholly dependent on one person, who can’t say ‘I don’t want to be responsible for this fetus, let someone else carry it.’
Basically, if you say a woman should be forced to make sacrifices, including potentially her own life, to save the life of someone they don’t care about, you are infringing on everyone’s right to look out for themselves and nobody else. Forcing a woman to give birth when she doesn’t want to would be more intrusive on personal rights than forcing someone to give blood. How can you not see that?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Badtz Maru *
**
O.K. fine…scenario then: a woman delivers a baby in an isolated area…unfortunately, the father and for that matter, all other humans are nowhere near…the entire amount of care, at least for the forseeable future will come from one person…the birth mother. She is other wise healthy…is able to care for herself, and her infant if she so chooses. As unlikely, as this may seem, I’m not sure that it is any more unlikely than some of the other situations posited here…certainly this situation has happened historically I would imagine.
She decides that she would rather not care for the infant, and denies the infant care…the infant dies. Do you support this case of infantcide?
[ This is not the same situation with an unborn fetus, as it is wholly dependent on one person, who can’t say ‘I don’t
want to be responsible for this fetus, let someone else carry it.’ ]
I’m sorry that human reproduction is inconvienent to you
My mother was on the pill when she became pregnant with me in the early 1970s, and did not want more children. Had abortion been legal at the time, I most likely would not be here. Unfortunately, my parents were forced to take on responsibility for a new life when most of their four other children were already on their way out of the house. If it wasn’t for me they could have retired younger and would not be dependent on my siblings for a place to live.
Most women who get abortions did not intend to get pregnant. Many took measures to prevent that from happening (like my Mom did). Many women become pregnant from non-consensual sex, what about them?
HERE we see the thought processes behind most anti-Choice rhetoric - those women went and got themselves pregnant, it’s their fault and they deserve to be punished by having a child they don’t want.
Excuse me if I find this part rather bewildering, maybe you are running on little sleep, are under the influence of narcotics, or speak English as a second language. First you are saying that abortion would continue if it was made illegal, but the laws would cause people to stop calling fetuses fetuses and start calling them humans under development. Then you say that fetuses have more rights than the women who they are growing within, and that women who have abortions should be punished by law, that abortion is murder.
If abortion=murder than any miscarriage should be investigated to make sure it was accidental. I can see it now, police detectives interrogating women who have miscarried while still in the hospital, asking family members if the woman said anything about not wanting to have the baby, searching the house to see if there are any chemicals that could be used to cause a miscarriage. You think the police are overworked now?
just looking at my other post showing that the abortion rate is not decreasing, almost overlooked that 22% of all pregnacys end in abortion :eek:
over 1 in 5 mothers kill (or more correctly order a hit on) their child :eek:
I always assumed that the number was much lower
Also I think the terms pro life and pro choice are somewhat misleading - pro abortion and anti abortion are more fitting terms
Yes I do. In fact, I would support the woman if she chose to smother the infant to save it from suffering from starvation if she chose to. And if she was ever brought back into contact with civilization, it would be virtually impossible to convict her.