Abortion Survey...

[DrDNA]

There isn't "both" ways. It's one way. The mother grants rights to her unborn child - and only the mother can do that. That has been my opening position - that the state cannot afford rights to anyone by violating the rights of another. That the unborn child does not have any rights not granted by the mother. All I'm saying in the case of murder, is that the law should assume these rights have been granted without evidence to the contrary.

 

 

I believe that what you are saying is that in the case of abortion, it is akin like cutting off a toenail, but in another situation it is a double murder.

 

That is a heck a lot of grey. Sounds too much like when people impose their own feelings and emotions onto a pet, trying to make them more human than they really are.

 

Personally, I feel that it is more black and white than that. It is either a life or it isn't. Period.

[foodchain]

Part of me strongly disagrees with abortion on the basis it just does not sit right with me ending life like that. Then of course I think of reality and all the stuff in that which goes against such a notion, so I have or really am forced to think that I don’t know everything and should look outside of myself for answers. In which I find how could I force a women who got pregnant from rape to have such a child? Where is the objective answer to such a question simply because I know I don’t have it, thusly why should I enforce myself on someone over an ignorant internal notion.

 

I could only think we as people collectively somehow will figure it out over time.

 

So where does that leave the laws. Then to me I would think science can at least attempt to validate when an unborn child would lack anything related to consciousness. I would agree if the child in such a stage of development was to be born severely handicapped, I think such because the family could know, and they then might to want to exercise liberty on such an option. Simply from the basis they might have no way as a family to support such. I could also agree from the rape basis for abortion at such stages. I cant however find it in my to agree with a female having sex and having abortions because she can, regardless of stage in development. I do not think such a strategy would yield a positive anything to how people would appreciate the world over time for one, and for another it is still human life after all we are talking about. Take away reproduction and we happen to all die out, such should be treated with more respect then simply a whim. In light of something objective appearing from the issue, my choice would to be go with that as law.

 

I read a figure somewhere in which a total ban on abortion would cost the lives of a great many women from how things stand medically. Thusly I don’t see how one could have a total ban on abortion from just that alone.

[ParanoiA]

I believe that what you are saying is that in the case of abortion, it is akin like cutting off a toenail, but in another situation it is a double murder.

 

That is a heck a lot of grey. Sounds too much like when people impose their own feelings and emotions onto a pet, trying to make them more human than they really are.

 

Personally, I feel that it is more black and white than that. It is either a life or it isn't. Period.

 

Oh it's a life, no doubt. My position is about jurisdiction. That's why it seems quite black and white to me. If it's inside you, your personal rights trumps the child's rights. If it's not, it doesn't. Someone else doesn't have any more right to force you to maintain a life inside you, NOR do they have a right to force you to kill that life inside you, or kill it themselves.

[DrDNA]

Oh it's a life, no doubt. My position is about jurisdiction. That's why it seems quite black and white to me. If it's inside you, your personal rights trumps the child's rights. If it's not, it doesn't. Someone else doesn't have any more right to force you to maintain a life inside you, NOR do they have a right to force you to kill that life inside you, or kill it themselves.

 

If it is indeed a life (and I agree with you that it is) and a human life. Then we should call a spade a spade so ending it prematurely should be called murder; no matter what the personal feelings are of the host.

[iNow]

As I believe someone else pointed out above, that logic implies that taking antibiotics is murder too, since bacteria are life. And we murder our dinner and lunch everyday, or someone does for us. And we murder the fly who lands on our window sill when we smack it. Come on already.

 

Who gives you the authority to legislate your set of morals on to others? It's rhetorical. Nobody does.

[DrDNA]

As I believe someone else pointed out above, that logic implies that taking antibiotics is murder too, since bacteria are life. And we murder our dinner and lunch everyday, or someone does for us. And we murder the fly who lands on our window sill when we smack it. Come on already.

 

Who gives you the authority to legislate your set of morals on to others? It's rhetorical. Nobody does.

 

About legislating my morals on others, I am not the KOTW (King Of The World). But if I were........

 

I certainly don't equate the life of a bacterium, fly, pig, cow or chicken with a human a life or the life of an unborn or potential human. I doubt that you do either.

 

BTW: I said if it is indeed a life....I still believe that you can't have it both ways....

 

This is starting sound like the discussion about eating a pig vs eating a baby........

[iNow]

It's not your call. It's the mothers. It's that simple.

[DrDNA]

No dugh.

Until I become KOTW and change everything.

[ParanoiA]

If it is indeed a life (and I agree with you that it is) and a human life. Then we should call a spade a spade so ending it prematurely should be called murder; no matter what the personal feelings are of the host.

 

I am calling it a spade. It's a human life. And as long as that human life is inside another human life, it has no rights obviously not given by the host human life. Feelings are irrelevant here as we're talking about matters of law. My feelings matter when I'm faced with the situation personally, which I have been once, and I'm glad she didn't do it.

[DrDNA]

The law?

I didn't realize that this was a debate about the legality of abortion. Is that why everybody keeps telling me it is ok, because its legal?

I already heard about the supreme court's interpretation of Roe v Wade.... about 35 years ago.

 

I thought that this was a survey about people's opinons regarding abortion.

[Mr Skeptic]

What's the difference between an unborn child leeching resources off its parents, and a born child also leeching resources from its parents?

An unborn child is within the mother's body. You have to violate her personal rights to get to it in any way. Her compliance is required, in my view, and not enforceable.

 

I agree with you that "accessing" an unborn child would violate a woman's rights if it were done without her permission. However, I do not see how that translates into permission for the woman to kill the unborn child. For example, an endangered species eating from your farm is violating your rights, but you are not allowed to kill it.

 

A born child becomes a responsibility; it has the "natural born rights" afforded to it by the state - us. Once it is protected by our constitution, naturally, the responsibility follows the parent.

 

The resources being leeched by the unborn vs the born child are different as well. A born child does not need any specific food provider, or in any specific manner (ie..breast feeding by mom is not required etc). An unborn child takes specific resources by a specific provider in a specific way - most of which are uncontrollable, involuntary processes by the host. She will miss work; she will suffer biological consequences that could jeopardize any other aspects or responsibilities in her life - like providing food, shelter and clothing for 3 already born children, all on her own.

 

You're dodging my second question:

 

What's the difference between an unborn child leeching resources off its parents, and a born child also leeching resources from its parents? Better yet, what if the unborn child is mature enough to survive if it were to be removed from its mother?

 

Note that at the moment of conception, a fertilized egg can be transplanted to another woman. Near the end of a pregnancy, the child is able to live on its own or with some life support. In between, it is likely we will eventually be able to keep and nourish an unborn child outside of its mother's body. Regardless, an unborn child can sometimes survive outside of its mother's body, so could be taken care of by someone else. Should it not then have some rights?

[iNow]

It's life. Most agree.

Is it truly "killing" though if it's not yet even born?

 

Life starts at birth for most of us. We don't tend to celebrate our conception, we celebrate our passage through the birth canal.

 

Again, to be clear, I'm not saying abortion is a good thing, but seriously folks... let's recognize the mother is the one who chooses what to do, and the rest of us cannot force otherwise.

[ParanoiA]

Note that at the moment of conception, a fertilized egg can be transplanted to another woman. Near the end of a pregnancy, the child is able to live on its own or with some life support. In between, it is likely we will eventually be able to keep and nourish an unborn child outside of its mother's body. Regardless, an unborn child can sometimes survive outside of its mother's body, so could be taken care of by someone else. Should it not then have some rights?

 

Yes I believe this is reasonable. You're not forcing the mother to carry, yet you're not killing the child, and I think that's more than decent. So, why isn't that the standard? Why are there any abortions?

 

The law?

I didn't realize that this was a debate about the legality of abortion. Is that why everybody keeps telling me it is ok, because its legal?

I already heard about the supreme court's interpretation of Roe v Wade.... about 35 years ago.

 

I thought that this was a survey about people's opinons regarding abortion.

 

Well, I guess I lost my way...

 

With that in mind, I can only offer a personal opinion based on logic and emotion - which is that killing that life is wrong and I could never go along with it.

[DrDNA]

It's life. Most agree.

Is it truly "killing" though if it's not yet even born?

 

Life starts at birth for most of us. We don't tend to celebrate our conception, we celebrate our passage through the birth canal.

 

Again, to be clear, I'm not saying abortion is a good thing, but seriously folks... let's recognize the mother is the one who chooses what to do, and the rest of us cannot force otherwise.

 

Logic path for an unborn child is life=>death=>killing:

1. Most agree that it is life (I was actually surprized by this)

2. Death is the end of life

3. Killing is death at the hand of another (for example, by a doctor)

4. Therefore, abortion must be killing

 

Everyone, is there anything wrong with the logic? Please feel free to throw rocks at it.....

[iNow]

Everyone, is there anything wrong with the logic? Please feel free to throw rocks at it.....

It leaves out the context of the kill. We kill all of the time. Sometimes it's for the better.

[DrDNA]

It leaves out the context of the kill. We kill all of the time. Sometimes it's for the better.

 

Who are your refering to that "we kill all of the time"?

I only know about society condoning "killing" in cases of abortion, the death penalty and acts of war. And even though it may be condoned and/or legalized, it does not necessarily follow that such acts are moral.

 

As a society we usually don't condone the killing of the helpless and/or the innocent, do we?

 

Am I missing something?

[bombus]

If forced, I'd rather kill a human foetus than a mature cow. Just 'cos it's human doesn't make it special to me.

 

No-one gladly has an abortion, but sometimes it's better than not having one. At the very least, banning abortions just means that it gets done in secret and more young women die as a result.

 

I am pro-choice. Until a foetus is a breathing baby its just another part of a womans body IMHO.

[MrMongoose]

The line where a foetus becomes human is a hazy one, but as long as it's done early, I think abortion is entirely acceptable, rape or not. What is so special about the moment a sperm enters an egg to say after that abortion should not be allowed?

 

Having said that, if society takes that view, there is the risk of people not even bothering with contraception because they know abortion is readily available.

 

Whats everyones opinion on the power a father should have? A lot of people seem to think it should be entirely down to the woman, which I think is wrong.

[iNow]

Having said that, if society takes that view, there is the risk of people not even bothering with contraception because they know abortion is readily available.

The slippery slope you've presented here is not at all likely. While some infinitely tiny percentage of people MIGHT do this, I suggest that the VAST majority of women would not proceed in this manner.

 

 

The reason people are against abortion is because it conflicts with a morality which is most often rooted in their religion, or the teachings of religious parents and community leaders.

 

Nobody is FOR abortion. People are FOR choice.

 

 

Instead of just talking about the ideals of freedom, it's important to support them consistently.

[MrMongoose]

I wasn't talking of any idealistic freedom, I was merely cataloguing my contempt for embryo's shortly after conception, which in my opinion are no more human than the billions of sperm that the average frustrated teenager throws away every year.

 

How is abortion a short time after conception any different to using the morning after pill because a sligtly tipsy couple can't be bothered with a condom? Many people have chosen to slide down this slippery slope, so I can't see why using readily available abortion as a premeditated convenience will be any less frowned upon.

 

The mystical powers of the cosmos shouldn't be considered here. I think that religion should not take a part in a discussion on a science forum.

 

Being pro choice rather than for abortion is merely a term that pro-choice organisations chose to force upon us. I think it is clear that by for abortion I mean for the allowance of abortion freely within society to those who desire it rather than going round forcing every pregnant woman to abort her child until the human race dies out.

 

As for your last comment, I don't understand what you're getting at. Was that aimed at me?

[iNow]

I'm pretty sure you didn't understand most of my post. No worries.

[MrMongoose]

Perhaps you should worry

[Reaper]

It's life. Most agree.

Is it truly "killing" though if it's not yet even born?

 

Unless they put the embryo or fetus in a frozen test tube, then yes, it is killing because it is technically alive.

 

The reason people are against abortion is because it conflicts with a morality which is most often rooted in their religion, or the teachings of religious parents and community leaders.

 

Yeah, pretty much. It seems to me that once they remove the religious part from it, there really is no good reason to be against abortion. It's not so much the killing of the cells that concerns them, but so much that it may have had a so-called soul (well, according to the Vatican anyways)... Go figure.

 

Pro-choice...

 

I love these semantic games, especially the ridiculous euphurisms .

 

=============================

 

Besides, sometimes an abortion is needed. After all, pregnancies have been known to actually kill or make the would be mother terminally ill. I know that happened to my mother before my sister was born. But, thank goodness for modern medicine .

[Mr Skeptic]

On that note, does freezing something (reversibly) count as "killing" it? Most definitions of "alive" require something to be active.

[Psyber]

Woman pregnant exercises choice - nobody else's business.

 

There also has to be freedom for individual doctors to agree to do them or not. Those who do not wish to should simply say so politely and suggest where else to seek advice. No other interference in the choice.

 

There is a third issue - whether the state or a health fund should pay for them. That would have to depend on what the medical indications were or whether their were any. Distress at being pregnant after a rape looks like a fair indication - the rape victim has suffered enough.

 

Abortions after the first trimester should in my personal view depend on the existence of real indications, not just not having gotten around to it sooner.