abortion

[MRT144]

Well i had a spirited debate with a friend about abortion and i said that i believed that abortion was wrong only after 6 months, or until the fetus could become viable outside of the womb.

Now he asked me why i follow such an arbitrary month for that, and i stated that was because what medical science has helped us learn. he then asked me would i still believe that if medical science said that up until birth was alright.

i stood my ground but he said i was a sheep for that. i believe that abortion is medical issue and not a moral one.

[Dis]

sounds good to me

[Kuciwalker]

There are two problems with this thread:

1) while it takes a certain position on a controversial issue, it does not do so angrily, or in such a manner as to be a troll. Thus we cannot feed the troll and have an argument.

2) while it takes a certain positon on a controversial issue, it takes a relatively reasonable middle ground, and is somewhat flame-retardent. Again, not good for starting a big argument.

[Jaguar]

MRT the guy's an idiot.

[Dis]

though maybe your response to if medical science said it was alright up until birth could have been better.

But the way that is worded, I'm unsure how to respond to that. alright for what? I'm not sure. In any case it doesn't warrant responding to, because the fact babies can be removed from the womb of dead mothers and still survive shows that there can be (human) life before birth. You can't change fact.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MRT144
i believe that abortion is medical issue and not a moral one.

It's both.

While it's unethical to kill a person, it's up to medicine to decide whether the fetus becomes a person.

[Berzerker]

The "fetus" is a person, the fact a newborn had a few more months to grow doesn't mean the 3 month old fetus is something other than a person. One could argue the fetus is not a person until it has certain vital organs, but that still ignores that given a few months, those organs will develop...

[Spiffor]

You cannot settle through science alone whether a fetus is a human being that has a right to live or not. Basically, with science, one could argue that the very first cell is human, or that a 9 months old fetus isn't human: i.e, it leads nowhere.

That's why the anti-abortion crowd always destabilizes its opponents by talking about the moral reasons ofd the legal aborting age.
It allows them to shift the attention from the real issue (why abortion is needed in the first place: to avoid people ruining their life and the life of their kid by forcing them an untimely and huge responsibility) to this unimportant issue they make out to be the most important on Earth.

I personally completely ignore the debate on the good age to abort a fetus, because I know it is the rhetorical terrain the anti-abortionninst have created for themselves. For some reason, you'll notice the anti-abortionnists will never discuss the suffering of the family and of the unwanted kid should he be born anyway

(Well, actually Ben Kenobi is the most compassionate of the anti-abortion crowd: he mentions the suffering of women, even if he only mentions those that go along with his agenda)

[Q Classic]

i don't like abortions, but it's not our place to legislate something that is still so hotly debated.

i'm happy we got the partial birth abortions banned. seriously, if you're going to have an abortion, you should have made up your friggin' mind before the third trimester.

[Elok]

Why do you say that medicine isn't moral? Isn't the business of preserving human life an intrinsically moral enterprise?

Anyway, I'd say that identifying "morality" as a separate facet of human experience from any other portion of our lives is dangerous at best. That POV would identify the decent thing to as something unrelated to actual real-world decisions, as opposed to a pervading element of them. Unapplied morals are meaningless, sort of like the tree falling in the woods.

Now for Spiffor. It is true that abortion is often desired by those who choose it because of larger societal problems. However, you seem to be implying that the *only* answer to the problem is abortion, and that outlawing abortion necessarily means condemning thousands to life in hell. Er, adoption? Crisis Pregnancy Centers? Contraceptives and sex education? Tougher rape laws? Working to lower the broad social stigmatization and shame associated with unwed pregnancy? I would say that abortion itself is an attempt to ignore the big problem with a quick fix.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The "fetus" is a person, the fact a newborn had a few more months to grow doesn't mean the 3 month old fetus is something other than a person. One could argue the fetus is not a person until it has certain vital organs, but that still ignores that given a few months, those organs will develop...

Who knows if the fetus is a person? A more accurate determinng factor than the development of vital organs is the presence of a soul--and only God knows when in human development that happens.

Someone [Jon Miller?] suggested using the existence of brainwaves. I think his suggestion is a more accurate determinating factor than anything we're doing today. After all, isn't "homo sapient" latin for "wise & thinking man"?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MRT144
i believe that abortion is medical issue and not a moral one.

Color yourself wrong then.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by skywalker
There are two problems with this thread:

1) while it takes a certain position on a controversial issue, it does not do so angrily, or in such a manner as to be a troll. Thus we cannot feed the troll and have an argument.

2) while it takes a certain positon on a controversial issue, it takes a relatively reasonable middle ground, and is somewhat flame-retardent. Again, not good for starting a big argument.

Given the topic, neither #1 nor #2 are really problems. You could probably have just typed "Abortion" and left, and by the end of the week the thread would either be up around 500 posts or closed by the mods.

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

Elok:
What you say is completely true (save for the "quick fix" part). Abortion is not the best tool, nor a sufficient tool to deal with all the societal problems that come from unwanted pregnancy. Actually, my girlfriend and I don't want kids for now, and we are trying hard to avoid abortion (contraceptive pills + condoms seem to do the trick). I agree with all the possible ways you mentioned.

Now, abortion, despite being the worst solution to unwanted pregnancy, is sometimes a sad necessity, when other ways have failed. I am no fan of abortion in itself -actually I know it scars women strongly- but I am fan of the right to abort, when the circumstances dictate it. And that's why I am completely at odds with the anti-abortionists.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The "fetus" is a person, the fact a newborn had a few more months to grow doesn't mean the 3 month old fetus is something other than a person.

It's a person? That's surprising, since surely it doesn't have any personality, at all.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's a person? That's surprising, since surely it doesn't have any personality, at all.

Neither do you, but I don't think anyone would accept me sucking your brains out.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't think anyone would accept me sucking your brains out.

Admit that you wrote this only to have several Apolytoners publicly supporting you !

[Drake Tungsten]

Guilty as charged.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who knows if the fetus is a person? A more accurate determinng factor than the development of vital organs is the presence of a soul--and only God knows when in human development that happens.

Well, if we go by science, human life begins at conception. Many religions teach the same.

Now, if we do not know when personhood begins, we ought not to kill unborn children. It is like an engineer demolishing a building without first ensuring no one remained inside.

Admit that you wrote this only to have several Apolytoners publicly supporting you !

Seeing as Drake has remained a permanent part of my sig...



I'll have to remember that retort.

[Ben Kenobi]

It allows them to shift the attention from the real issue (why abortion is needed in the first place: to avoid people ruining their life and the life of their kid by forcing them an untimely and huge responsibility) to this unimportant issue they make out to be the most important on Earth.

Well, one cannot really assess the merits of abortion without considering the impact of abortion. Prolifers simply refuse to ignore that abortion always results in the death of the unborn child.

You argue that to have a child at an untimely date would ruin the life of said child, but this consideration has no merit. Abortion ends the life of the child before we see how their life would turn out.

[Elok]

Congrats, Drake. That was just terrific.

Spiff: Abortion itself is not a "quick fix," but I think its legalization as a solution to the problems you refer to is. As an answer to rape, incest, and all the other circumstances surrounding unwanted pregnancies, abortion just sucks. It's only a "necessity" in cases where the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, which given modern medical technology is a very rare situation, and becoming more so every day.

I don't believe in mercy-killings for birth defects-"if we don't kill it, it will die!" Even a crappy life full of pain and misery is life. We don't know what happens after we leave this life, and it strikes me as criminal to deny anyone a single second, however ugly, of what they might have, in the interests of kindness. If they're going to die, let them die fighting for life, and not shoot them like lame livestock. They're still human, dammit.

Abortion is comparable in my mind to robbing a bank to keep angry bookies from breaking your kneecaps. Robbery may be the easiest way out of such a situation, but it more than raises moral questions in its own right, and I'd never recommend it as a legalized solution to the problems of extortion, gambling, or organized crime.

And that's just the thing; while you dismiss them as pro-life propaganda, there are genuine moral concerns at stake here. What else are we fighting for in the first place, if not the belief that abortion is murder? It can't be just a convenient rhetorical tool, seeing as it's our whole platform.

[Spiffor]

And that's just the thing; while you dismiss them as pro-life propaganda, there are genuine moral concerns at stake here. What else are we fighting for in the first place, if not the belief that abortion is murder? It can't be just a convenient rhetorical tool, seeing as it's our whole platform.

And this is precisely why I see your whole platform as being irrelevant to the debate.

[MRT144]

the reason i want to seperate it from moral positions is because i dont want emotions clouding my thought. emotionally i dont like the idea of abortion, but i think there is a place and purpose for it. i want something impartial which for the most part i believe science is to help me decide for myself what i truly believe in.

i think preventing life or depriving someone of life is wrong, but at the same time i dont consider a fetus a person.

its tough though because a fetus can become a person. The entire stance of my friends platform was that he wanted to protect the rights of people (or things that might become people). he said that the fetus would want to live and that right should be heard.

I argued though that would legitimize 10 year olds giving consent to have sexual relations with older people.

he countered argued that having sex with dead people then would be allowable because they cant offer consent. in effect the babies are like dead people in that because they are dead or not living they have no rights.

i think the major problem is though, i dont see fetuses as people with rights and he does. he couldnt get over the fact that i couldnt see fetuses are people. to me its like the PETA people that say "dogs are people too". it just doesnt connect for me.

part of me feels bad for not being prolife because of this debate. there are certain things that i cant disagree with him with such as the fetuses not having a say in the abortion.

but its hard for me to deny that abortions might not be all bad. there are situations and positions that people are put in where i think abortion is completely acceptable.

this plays into a larger problem though that i have which is when it comes to liberty for people. i believe that in most cases we should have as much freedom as possible without hurting other people. having an abortion basicly imposes on the freedom of the fetus. its hard for my friend though to understand that potential life is not life though to me.

as a side note he said that there it is only black and white in the world, no shades of grey, which made debating with him so hard.

[MrFun]

At this point after the 10,000th post created on abortion here, I am tempted to adhere to a new slogan . . .

Abortion -- you know in your heart, I don't give a sh*t.

[Ben Kenobi]

MRT 144:

emotionally i dont like the idea of abortion,

Why not? What is so bad about abortion?

its tough though because a fetus can become a person. The entire stance of my friends platform was that he wanted to protect the rights of people (or things that might become people).

Well, when does personhood begin, MRT? Why should the fetus not count?

I argued though that would legitimize 10 year olds giving consent to have sexual relations with older people.

I don't see the connection between the right to life and consent.

to me its like the PETA people that say "dogs are people too". it just doesnt connect for me.

Well, if you never saw a picture of a dog, how could you know what a dog is, except in the intellectual sense. Here's a good website, if you want to see pictures of an unborn child.

http://www.cyfl.ca/development.html

[NeOmega]

I am quite ambivelant about abortion, I used to beextreme pro-life, but here are my current musings:

A) I eat meat, therefore abortion ain't too bad.
To me it is as tragic as having to put a puppy to sleep. Sad, but sometimes necessary, perhaps even for economical reasons.

B) An embryo is human with a unique genetic code:
It isn't just a blob of goo.

C) Noticeable Brainwaves occur at about three months.
But cows have brainwaves too, does this mean we can't make them into steaks?

D) Adoption is a better option.
It is selfish of a woman not to carry a child to term instead of giving it up for adoption.

E) Abortion should not in any way be funded by taxpayer money.
That's just wrong.

F) Zygotes.... who cares? I'm all for the morning after pill.

G) Rape incest, life of mother:
Destroy the spawn of a rapist if the mother desires. Life of mother, of course, it is up to the mother.

[Rex Little]

I agree with MRT that abortion should be legal (whether it's right or wrong is another question which I don't propose to answer) until the fetus is viable outside the womb. My reasoning is that even if the fetus is fully human with full human rights, that does not include the right to live inside another person's body without her consent. If the mother wants it out, that's her right. If this can be done without killing it, she has to choose that method. If not. . .

Regarding partial-birth abortions, does anyone know why they're usually performed? I can't imagine a woman carrying a baby for 9 months, then deciding she wants an abortion. I would think a PB abortion would happen when something has gone very wrong with the pregnancy and the mother's health is threatened. But that's just my thinking; what are the facts?

[NeOmega]

My reasoning is that even if the fetus is fully human with full human rights, that does not include the right to live inside another person's body without her consent. If the mother wants it out, that's her right. If this can be done without killing it, she has to choose that method. If not. . .

I must say, that is the most original argument I have ever read on these message boards.

[Kuciwalker]

The problem I have with the issue of abortion is that I really don't have any opinion on the issue. It seems to me not to be a conflict of logic but rather a conflict of premises, which cannot be resolved. Both sides have logical (and illogical) arguments for their case, and both cases are equally valid; it is just the fundamental assumptions upon which they are based are different.

I do, however, think Roe vs. Wade (sp) was a mistake; I really don't think anyone has a constitutional right to an abortion. It is a legislative issue; let the legislature decide.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Spiffor
You cannot settle through science alone whether a fetus is a human being that has a right to live or not. Basically, with science, one could argue that the very first cell is human, or that a 9 months old fetus isn't human: i.e, it leads nowhere.

That's why the anti-abortion crowd always destabilizes its opponents by talking about the moral reasons ofd the legal aborting age.
It allows them to shift the attention from the real issue (why abortion is needed in the first place: to avoid people ruining their life and the life of their kid by forcing them an untimely and huge responsibility) to this unimportant issue they make out to be the most important on Earth.

I personally completely ignore the debate on the good age to abort a fetus, because I know it is the rhetorical terrain the anti-abortionninst have created for themselves. For some reason, you'll notice the anti-abortionnists will never discuss the suffering of the family and of the unwanted kid should he be born anyway

(Well, actually Ben Kenobi is the most compassionate of the anti-abortion crowd: he mentions the suffering of women, even if he only mentions those that go along with his agenda)

ever hear of adoption? There are like millions of people desperate to adopt a baby. But they cannot. Many actually reach out to countries like Russia to adopt.