Abortion

[boogalee]

ultimately all of this is irrelevant though. Thank you Kuli for seeing what the true issue to debate here is, when human life begins. We would all agree that none of the above matters if the person is already born because they are a human being. It's if the person is unborn that we start disagree, and so we must decide what we consider a human being, because as Kuli (and I earlier) said, if it's a human, you can't kill it (except under a limited set of circumstances), but if it's not, you can.

Kuli, while I thank you you for recognizing the terms of the debate and even coming up with a plausible alternative, I'll have to disagree with you about brain activity being the start. Once that sperm and egg join, you have something that meets the scientific criteria of being alive, you have the 46 chromosomes of a human being, the DNA codes for 100% human, and so I say you have a human being, even if it unrecognizable as one.

As far as capital punishment, war, self defense, and any other government sactioned/performed killing goes, it is (as has been said) a seperate issue. You can be against abortion and in favor of capital punishment the same way someone who can be pro choice and in favor of it - both groups believe murder is wrong and both support capital punishment, the disagreement is over whether or not the destruction of an unborn human is murder, which is seperate from capital punishment.

I call BS. The Republicans have made it abundantly clear that even a business has personhood, with all the attending rights.

It has long been the practice around the world to determine life in various ways...and most have nothing to do with Christian belief. Some didn't even name a child until it reached 12 months old....others consider life a heartbeat....brain activity etc. This discussion isn't about what is life...that is a ruse. It is about legislation...to suit the Christian belief.

 

[jdoe4822]

I call BS. The Republicans have made it abundantly clear that even a business has personhood, with all the attending rights.

and I call double Bullshit. I don't recall citing anything other Republicans say in my post. Addressing them is a convenient way of ignoring what I said. As far as giving business "personhood", exactly what do you mean by that? Need I remind you that John Locke Identified 3 fundemental rights, life, liberty, and property.[/QUOTE]

It has long been the practice around the world to determine life in various ways...and most have nothing to do with Christian belief. Some didn't even name a child until it reached 12 months old....others consider life a heartbeat....brain activity etc. This discussion isn't about what is life...that is a ruse. It is about legislation...to suit the Christian belief.

once again, you ignore my post entirely. I never once mention religion, the bible, or anything else. I am not a Christian (although I was in the past), I am a materialistic atheist. That the rest of the world has other standards on what is human life goes without saying. The rest of the world has a long history of considering live adult humans not, and proceeding to exterminate them.

This discussion is precisely about what is life. And however other people wish to determine it, I am suggesting we stick to the science.

 

[wrestlingobsessed]

its killing the life of an innocent child, if they got themselves in this mess then they have to deal with the consequences.

 

[boogalee]

and I call double Bullshit. I don't recall citing anything other Republicans say in my post. Addressing them is a convenient way of ignoring what I said. As far as giving business "personhood", exactly what do you mean by that? Need I remind you that John Locke Identified 3 fundemental rights, life, liberty, and property.

Well it speaks to your statement that this is just a discussion about what is and what is not life....and indicates one way it has been defined, by conservatives and bluedogs. Isn't personhood an indication of life?

once again, you ignore my post entirely. I never once mention religion, the bible, or anything else. I am not a Christian (although I was in the past), I am a materialistic atheist. That the rest of the world has other standards on what is human life goes without saying. The rest of the world has a long history of considering live adult humans not, and proceeding to exterminate them.

This discussion is precisely about what is life. And however other people wish to determine it, I am suggesting we stick to the science.

I haven't ignored your post, in fact I have addressed your post. I have not said you were religious, I have said that much of this discussion is around the Christian definition of what is life and how, consequently, how some feel we MUST legislate with that in mind.

It is true that human life has often been cheap all over the world. (even here) However, I find that other cultures and customs can often lend a great deal to a discussion. I am not one that thinks the rest of the world can take a hike, nothing they say applies to we "exceptional" Americans.

I say this is about legislation because I have often seen words used in this thread that indicate that legislation is the way to ensure the "rights" of the unborn...zygote. Which, incidentally, brings me back to corporate "personhood", something I'll never understand.

In any case what exactly is the science you refer to?

What difference does it make with regard to birth control? Shall no woman have access to any form of birth control if it causes a fertile egg to be expelled? Isn't that the stance the Roman Catholic Church has taken forever? What's to discuss?

 

[Alpha1851]

it's killing the life of an innocent child, if they got themselves in this mess then they have to deal with the consequences.

They who? A woman can't get pregnant w/o sperm you know. And, how do you know that they got themselves into this mess.

I agree though, women have to deal w/ the consequences. They are the ones who get pregnant. So, they are the only ones who can choose what's right for them and their body. Continue w/ the pregnancy, or abort the pregnancy.

 

[Alpha1851]

"The fetus is not a person" is a statement of faith, not of fact. What's the scientific evidence for that? If there are brainwaves there indicating reaction to the environment, dream states, etc., then we're dealing with a person.

Legally is the fetus a person? Well, that depends on what stage the fetal development is in, which state we are in, and what type of rights or protections you're trying to give the fetus.

"We" don't force anyone to do anything: except in cases of rape, the woman made a choice, and selected the responsibility that comes with the choice. That involves the possibility of having a "guest" on board. The only time during which it's appropriate to evict the guest is before it becomes one, i.e. before those pesky brainwaves show up, before 'quickening'. Once those happen, it isn't your body any longer; there's a person there with his/her body (or multiple, in some cases).

So, what if the woman uses birth control and still becomes pregnant. You read my post about the rules involving sterilization, so you know it's damn hard to obtain. If the woman's tried everything she can to keep from getting pregnant, who are you tell her she's wrong for terminating the fetus. Oh, I guess we horrible women just shouldn't ever have sex until we're ready to become Mommies. Luckily, you can't control my body.

Kuli, while I thank you you for recognizing the terms of the debate . . .As far as capital punishment, war, self defense, and any other government sanctioned/performed killing goes, it is (as has been said) a seperate issue. You can be against abortion and in favor of capital punishment the same way someone who can be pro choice and in favor of it - both groups believe murder is wrong and both support capital punishment, the disagreement is over whether or not the destruction of an unborn human is murder, which is seperate from capital punishment.

Well, that's convenient.

 

[71390S]

I don't really "like" abortion, but I'm pro-choice.

 

[cbtfan]

My Mother was advised to abort me on medical grounds.

 

[01solara]

Where do you get that? Propaganda? Show me...where did he say that?

born alive infant protection act in the IL state senate google it

 

[Kurn]

It is a civil matter if the unborn is a person -- see above.

WOMAN trumps FETUS.

Basic fact of nature.

Unless you can demonstrate miraculous, heaven-sent power contra, I will not accept any profane intervention into the intimate precincts that are the woman's.

Powers over abortion are foundationally tyrannical powers and you won't ever hear me allowing it in America. A person may advise against. Our government may NEVER prohibit. Nature/God has given the precincts of childbearing to women. Government may never interfere there. Again, as a legal matter, it is, most adamantly, the woman's choice.

 

[rareboy]

It could be worse.

There are some animals who eat their unwanted young.

 

[boogalee]

born alive infant protection act in the IL state senate google it

I see that's a huge talking point for those that believe it's just alright to kill abortion providers...not saying you do but anyone who googles that can get a real eye full. This act (which I haven't read) seems to want to protect any "infant born alive" (how's that for language?) with legal rights...even "infants" that can't possibly survive. I agree with Obama on this...it is a back door effort to limit abortion...a foot in the door as it were.

Those who oppose abortion, having been unable to abolish Roe vs Wade, have focused on limiting access to abortion in every state...

Edited to add....this bit of information.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=8035336

Roughly a fourth of American women getting early abortions last year did so with drugs rather than surgery, statistics show, as a new study reported improved safety in using the so-called "abortion pill."

Some experts predict the percentage of such "medical abortions," which offer more privacy than surgical termination at an abortion clinic or hospital, will rise even more due to the new study.

The research, done at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country, shows that a new way of giving pills to induce abortion virtually eliminated the risk for a rare but dangerous infection. <snip>

The entire article is at the link.

 

[Spensed]

It isn't just my view -- the Bible flat out says that the clean/unclean stuff doesn't apply any more (Peter's vision in Acts), and later says that except for the provisions of the Noahic Covenant, that whole Mosaic Law thing doesn't apply (Council at Jerusalem, in Acts).
That's not opinion, it's baldly direct statements.

Try doing a few basic internet searches. The issue dosn't seem as clear cut as you're making out.

You may, or may not be correct. But it's just your interpretation, leaving aside the issue of why God would reverse him or herself on the issue and why he would do so in such a procrastinated way.

Maybe Jesus just forgot. After all, he is human. LOL.

 

[Spensed]

Who are you to specify what all people of every group should do. Their fight is on many levels and should be so long as the law is followed. We have rights to express our opinions as Americans in any legal way we see fit. Sometimes their behavior is counter productive and actually hurts their own position but it is absolutely their right to do it as they see fit. Their is extremism on both sides but the most extreme case I have seen of extremism comes from our current president who believes that if a full term baby somehow comes out alive after the mother has decided to abort should be put on a shelf to die and not receive medical care. I don't think that has anything to do with choice and is so over the line it should have been enough for him to never be considered fit for election from normal people. Most people cannot see past what the media tells them to think we are in huge trouble and there is little hope of things changing for the better.

You're arguing against some point I never made. I never said anti-abortionists didn't have a right to do whatever they see fit within the law. All I'm doing is pointing out that their walk differs from their talk.

As for the media leading people by the nose, you're just allowing yourself to be similarly led. Trying to reduce a complex issue into one extreme and questionable example tells us little to nothing about abortion. Late term abortions are not common and they arise mainly when the mother's health is in danger or when the child is already doomed by genetics or disease. No one, as far as I know, is condoning killing a healthy and viable baby out of the womb.

You're losing yourself in absolutes. Decisions are made every day about who lives and who dies from collateral damage in war to state executions to acceptable levels of road deaths. Even if abortion is murder, better the victim be some blob, or even a developed fetus, than a fully conscious and self-aware human harming herself, often with fatal consequences.

Coercing people into not having abortions has never worked. Neither does pretending that there is some objective moral consensus on the issue, when there very clearly isn't.

 

[Kulindahr]

Very well put. Actually I see this as a theological argument and our country has separation of Church and State.

Uh-huh.

Since when is defining a "person" a matter of theology, in the U.S.? Seems to me we fought a war over personhood, getting a whole horde of Americans changed from being mere fractions of persons to being full persons. We had a political battle over chidren as persons, rather than effectively the property of their parents. This is just another step in that process of defining just who is covered by that "created equal" statement in the Declaration of Independence, which is to say, just who is a 'who' in the first place, to whom all the rights and liberties of existence and law pertain.

Kuli, while I thank you you for recognizing the terms of the debate and even coming up with a plausible alternative, I'll have to disagree with you about brain activity being the start. Once that sperm and egg join, you have something that meets the scientific criteria of being alive, you have the 46 chromosomes of a human being, the DNA codes for 100% human, and so I say you have a human being, even if it unrecognizable as one.

But without independent thought, how can there be a person?
Some Christians would say that the soul springs into being at the moment of conception, but that's without basis anywhere -- and highly implausible, since (assuming the existence of souls) the 'interface' between soul and body is the brain, and it's stretching reasonability to suggest that the soul sits twiddling its immaterial thumbs (so to speak) waiting for the brain to develop.
But as I recall, you're not a Christian, so I don't see why you'd pin personhood on the moment of conception.

It has long been the practice around the world to determine life in various ways...and most have nothing to do with Christian belief. Some didn't even name a child until it reached 12 months old....others consider life a heartbeat....brain activity etc. This discussion isn't about what is life...that is a ruse. It is about legislation...to suit the Christian belief.

1. You call "B.S.", but you didn't actually respond to anything in the post you quoted. That's a classic example of BS, one a politician would be proud of: don't answer the statement you 'respond' to, answer the one you wish had been made.

2. The practice of not naming a child until it was 12 months old was rooted in practicality, not in matters of who was considered a person: infant mortality was so high that until it was evident there was a good chance of survival, names just weren't given. We've managed to beat that problem, so that's hardly a measuring stick any longer.

3. Which "Christian belief"? If you're alert and reading this board, you'll know that there are three different Christian beliefs about when personhood begins: conception, 'quickening'/brainwaves, and the first breath following birth. Each can be argued to one extent or another from the biblical 'data', and has been since the early years of the church -- and the issue has never been resolved.

and I call double Bullshit. I don't recall citing anything other Republicans say in my post. Addressing them is a convenient way of ignoring what I said. As far as giving business "personhood", exactly what do you mean by that? Need I remind you that John Locke Identified 3 fundemental rights, life, liberty, and property.

This discussion is precisely about what is life. And however other people wish to determine it, I am suggesting we stick to the science.

Corporate personhood is a legal fiction used to shield participants in corporations from various slings and arrows of economic fortune. It's one of the more ridiculous things law has ever done.

WRT Locke on property, BTW, technically property in its proper sense (narrow sense; he uses the term broadly as well) consists only of things made by people; real estate is property only in a secondary sense.

Now, to science: is a brain-dead individual a person? He's definitely a human being. A fertilized egg is in the same position as the brain-dead individual: all the right chromosomes... no seat of intelligence.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well it speaks to your statement that this is just a discussion about what is and what is not life....and indicates one way it has been defined, by conservatives and bluedogs. Isn't personhood an indication of life?

Can you abort a corporation?
In a doctor's office?

I say this is about legislation because I have often seen words used in this thread that indicate that legislation is the way to ensure the "rights" of the unborn...zygote. Which, incidentally, brings me back to corporate "personhood", something I'll never understand.

Of course it involves legislation. Getting blacks defined as actual persons required legislation, after all.

In any case what exactly is the science you refer to?

It's been here, if you're reding along....

What difference does it make with regard to birth control? Shall no woman have access to any form of birth control if it causes a fertile egg to be expelled? Isn't that the stance the Roman Catholic Church has taken forever? What's to discuss?

Well, Rome has its problems, and since it didn't form a denomination till a lot of serious thinkers had had their say, its teachings are, properly speaking, parochial opinions.

Early Christians had different views on the subject, and the matter was never settled -- as I already noted, there are (at least) three different Christian views on the matter.

 

[Kulindahr]

Legally is the fetus a person? Well, that depends on what stage the fetal development is in, which state we are in, and what type of rights or protections you're trying to give the fetus.

Rights can't be given, only given free exercise and protection.

The question is whether, biologically, that organism is a person. You can call it by its sterile biological name all you want, but until you answer the question, all you're doing is dodging.

So, what if the woman uses birth control and still becomes pregnant. You read my post about the rules involving sterilization, so you know it's damn hard to obtain. If the woman's tried everything she can to keep from getting pregnant, who are you tell her she's wrong for terminating the fetus. Oh, I guess we horrible women just shouldn't ever have sex until we're ready to become Mommies. Luckily, you can't control my body.

Quite simple: if she allows the pregnancy to continue until there's a person present, she already made her decision, and she has to stick with it, or be a doubly-premeditated murderer: first premeditation in bringing a person into existence, then in killing it in cold blood.

And yes, any woman who purposely carries a pregnancy past quickening, and then has an abortion, ought to go to prison, along with the doctor who fif it.

Well, that's convenient.

It's logically consistent, as I demonstrated before: there's a difference between innocent life and non-innocent, rather like the difference between good meat and meat that's gone bad -- one you keep and guard, the other you get rid of.

In fact, if you value life, a good case can be made that it's the duty of every citizen to terminate anyone who by attacking puts them in danger of life and limb.

 

[boogalee]

Uh-huh.

Since when is defining a "person" a matter of theology, in the U.S.? Seems to me we fought a war over personhood, getting a whole horde of Americans changed from being mere fractions of persons to being full persons. We had a political battle over chidren as persons, rather than effectively the property of their parents. This is just another step in that process of defining just who is covered by that "created equal" statement in the Declaration of Independence, which is to say, just who is a 'who' in the first place, to whom all the rights and liberties of existence and law pertain.

Personhood/life...with all the "rights"....from all that I've heard from the far right religious christianists begins upon the uniting of sperm with egg. In their view, women loose all rights at that point until she is forced to give birth to said supposed "person/child"....YOU want to talk about when life begins...this is very much the tack taken by those that are anti-choice...so they can call women who have abortions murderers, and preach violence against abortion providers.

It has already been expressed on this thread that not all murders are equal, some are even justified...but we must protect, with all the "rights" a collection of cells that has the potential to become a person....this includes accepted forms of birth control be sure of it. The references to Sanger are evidence of that.

And by the way...Women are still fighting for equality just as the GLBT community is...we were property and subject to Fathers, Husbands, Pastors etc. until we finally won the vote and laws were changed. This issue is part of that continuing struggle....

If men carried a pregnancy 9 months you can be sure this "discussion" wouldn't be happening.

1. You call "B.S.", but you didn't actually respond to anything in the post you quoted. That's a classic example of BS, one a politician would be proud of: don't answer the statement you 'respond' to, answer the one you wish had been made.

2. The practice of not naming a child until it was 12 months old was rooted in practicality, not in matters of who was considered a person: infant mortality was so high that until it was evident there was a good chance of survival, names just weren't given. We've managed to beat that problem, so that's hardly a measuring stick any longer.

3. Which "Christian belief"? If you're alert and reading this board, you'll know that there are three different Christian beliefs about when personhood begins: conception, 'quickening'/brainwaves, and the first breath following birth. Each can be argued to one extent or another from the biblical 'data', and has been since the early years of the church -- and the issue has never been resolved.

1. I did respond to the post...even if you have a different opinion...I responded. In other words Kuli, educate me...what didn't I respond to? Show me please...

2. You are correct infant mortality was part of the various approaches, and how can one have an infant (regardless of mortality) and not know they are a person? It seems to me it's one and the same...once a child comes to term and is born they are a person...they don't start out as much of a personality but that comes with time. I wasn't using it as a measuring stick I was simply stating that historically these questions have been approached in many varied ways.

While mortality may not be a measuring stick anymore due to medical care and nutrition I will say that America has a very high infant mortality for a developed country.

3. Indeed..it has never been resolved, but that hasn't stopped the effort to end abortion and in some cases demonize birth control and sex education.

Now, to science: is a brain-dead individual a person? He's definitely a human being. A fertilized egg is in the same position as the brain-dead individual: all the right chromosomes... no seat of intelligence.

The lights are on but no one is home. Is the house occupied? A person only in the sense of a physical body...a resource.

 

[boogalee]

I am pro-life through and through, a Republican to boot. I prefer that my taxes go to groups that help women carry their babies to term and pay what ever else they need to survive, including schooling. I do not approve of Planned Parenthood when it comes to counceling for abortions instead of adoption as an option. I wished I had money to give to those pro-life groups who help women.

Life does begin the very moment of conception. BTW, I am a Catholic.

I prefer my taxes not be spent on abstinence only sex education which has been proven ineffective but my tax dollars have been mis-spent for the last 8 years...

Planned Parenthood (family planning) doesn't council for abortion and it does give information on adoption if the woman wants it. They simply provide the information and services (they do much more than birth control) the women need, at a reasonable price.

 

[FirmaFan]

I am pro-life through and through, a Republican to boot.

Those two things seem to go together a lot.

I prefer that my taxes go to groups that help women carry their babies to term and pay what ever else they need to survive, including schooling.

Would that include your taxes going to a nine year old girl that, after being raped by her stepfather, becomes pregnant with twins (it happened in Brazil earlier this year) - a situation that would inevitably lead to the death of not only both twins but the 9 year old as well if allowed to carry to term? How about those who via amniocentesis discover their child has a trisomy of chromosome number 18(also known as Edwards syndrome) where the fetus, if it managed to survive until birth (about 95% don't), has a near 100% mortality rate within the first few months postpartum? Should your tax dollars be spent on putting expectant parents through the emotional hell of seeing their extremely deformed child struggle through a few months of life before finally dying?

I think the problem with "pro-life through and through" is that it is assumed that each "life" is a perfectly viable human being and the choice of abortion is made out of convenience or some other trivial excuse, making adoption a perfectly reasonable alternative. It is an intellectual self-sabotage to be so "100%" on an issue, as it prevents the ability to rationalize and make judgments when the circumstances of the issue deviate from the normal even slightly. Can you think of any other circumstance in this universe where it is valuable to always have a decided answer to a given situation even before fully understanding the aspects of that situation?

I do not approve of Planned Parenthood when it comes to counseling for abortions instead of adoption as an option. I wished I had money to give to those pro-life groups who help women.

Good stance, fully commendable ONLY when adoption is a viable alternative to abortion...that is NOT ALWAYS the case.

Life does begin the very moment of conception. BTW, I am a Catholic.

I quoted Sam Harris earlier in this topic and found a 3 minute section of one of his lectures they were taken from which specifically addresses the idea of "life beginning at conception" and, even more specifically, the detrimental effects such thinking can have on stem cell research that could one day prove invaluable in the treatment of many diseases, disorders, and injuries.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKWYENPxNtM[/ame]

I specifically like the small note he made about the mentioning of religious faith being a "conversation stopper" such that, whenever someone mentions that it's "just their religion" the opponents must be content to leave it at that. I respect your right to believe what you believe - anyone can believe anything they want to, but, religion is not above criticism, it's not above ridicule, ESPECIALLY when used to make medical and political decisions, and, in those cases, ridicule and criticism of religion is REQUIRED. Did you know that Ireland has now passed an anti-blasphemy law, making it ILLEGAL to criticize a person's religion. That would make it illegal to criticize the roman catholic church from trying to prevent the 9 year old rape victim from getting an abortion (which they tried to do...very very hard!) That means that it would be illegal to criticize a parent who allowed their child to die from a treatable form of diabetes when opting for prayer over medical treatment, like what happened on Easter of last year in the US. Quite ironically, I am willing to bet that the same religion (which was internet based, so you know it's true) that instilled a pro-death-for-a-child-if-it-means-that-child-needs-medical-treatment belief also fuels a pro-life stance for a collection of cells that can, in no stretch of the definition, be called "life" as is currently experienced by you and I. It is for those reasons that I criticize your argument that life begins at conception, and it is for those reasons that I criticize your statement that you are a catholic. Nothing more personal than if this had been a post criticizing your views as a republican, it's just that most do not see them as equal targets, but as they are often used equally in making decisions that affect others, religion should never be immune to criticism.