You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 18, 2018, 11:34:05 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"  (Read 3208 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TheVillainTopic starter

"Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« on: September 23, 2010, 06:38:00 PM »
Relax, I'm not going for an in-depth discussion.

Just tried to make a troll post on 4chan and surprisingly I had little takers. Here's my thoughts on a sane abortion policy. This isn't to match my positions on issues. Just get something down in which a clear majority of people are willing to say "fuck it, I'm not entirely happy with it but I can live with this".

1.) It's legal, no questions asked. Whether you are for or against it, too many women die in illegal back-alley or self-administered abortions to justify it being illegal. You don't have to like it and if you want to start a social program to dissuade women form getting abortions that's fine, but you can't stop them.

2.) The government only has to pay for it in cases of rape, incest, and when the life/health of the mother is put in too much jeopardy. Underage definitely counts as "health of the mother", and statutory rape cases are considered rape for this policy. It can pay for more depending on local laws, but it only has to pay for these cases. There won't be a committee set up to explore women who want abortions to ensure that this is always true- but if it's discovered that the woman or the doctor is lying and the circumstances don't actually apply it's considered a case of Fraud. If you're country does universal healthcare, ignore this point- it should be covered always anyway.

3.) None of this "Abstinence Only" Sex Ed crap. The CDC has known for decades, and is willing to show you, that Abstinence-Only Programs don't make even a dent on teen pregnancy rates and actually make STD rates worse. Birth control should be widely available for dirt cheap if not free. If you don't like the two things that are actually proven to have an actual effect on lowering the number of abortions in the direction we want then you must not actually want there to be less abortions.

4.) Men get a legal form of abortion too. If you want her to have the baby but she doesn't, she can abort. But if you are willing to sign away any and all paternal rights- and I mean ALL of them- you can't be dinged for child support either. You want to see your kid? Pay up and/or help raise it. You don't want to pay? You can't see your kid. This does have the added bonus of preventing entrapment, and if you can prove that if a child was not biologically yours but you were put under the impression that they were it can even be done after the child is born.



-----


So, can everyone at least live with this?

Offline Katrina

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2010, 07:06:12 PM »
Ok, here's my thoughts.  Don't like em, tough.  :P

I'm prolife. To me, an abortion is murder.  I think some who abort, just don't realize what a 12 week fetus looks like.  Its not a mass of cells, its a baby, and anyone can look at a 12 week fetus can see that.  The heart itself begins to beat 18 days after conception.

Now, these late term abortions...how anyone can say those aren't murder are insane.  These take place AFTER 7 months when most babies can survive.  I've heard these are done if the mother's life is in danger.  Hello?  C-Section?

Ok, I have a kid in highschool and I had to sign a sex ed paper.  It was Abstinence Only or Abstinence Only and birth control.  I've had this discussion with my kid, and he knows I'd like for him to wait, but if he isn't going to, I want him to know how to protect himself.

Not sure about everywhere else, but here, one can go to the health department and get a bag of condoms for free.

And your last one.  Personally I feel if the father wants the child but the woman doesn't, he should be allowed to get a paper making her have the child.  He pays of course and after the mother should give up her rights and give the child to the father.

Offline TheVillainTopic starter

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2010, 07:14:09 PM »
Why is the heartbeat such a big deal? Emotionally I can see it, but we have to base policy on rational reasoning because emotions are so subjective. If anything we should be going by when Brain Activity starts, which isn't even theoretically possible before week 26 to 28. The brain just isn't hooked together enough for awareness before then. And even then, more and more studies are showing that consciousness isn't achieved until after birth. Before then the embryo/fetus/zygote isn't even capable of consciousness- is that murder?

Which is ultimately beside the point. Bodily domain should come into play. Nobody can force anyone to give up body parts by law. This is a cornerstone of civilization here. Illegal abortions violates Bodily Domain. It's a bit of a leap between making abortion illegal and people coming up to the door demanding one of your lungs, but you are definitely on that path.

Sorry, I don't think a rational abortion policy will ever make abortions illegal.

Edit:- I am also really, really uncomfortable with someone being able to force a woman to breed if she doesn't want to.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 07:34:47 PM by TheVillain »

Offline Jude

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2010, 07:43:17 PM »
I'm prolife. To me, an abortion is murder.  I think some who abort, just don't realize what a 12 week fetus looks like.  Its not a mass of cells, its a baby, and anyone can look at a 12 week fetus can see that. The heart itself begins to beat 18 days after conception.
A fetus is not a baby, it's just not.  But if you want to get technical, a fetus, a baby, and a human being are all masses of cells.  A beating heart does not indicate anything special.
Now, these late term abortions...how anyone can say those aren't murder are insane.  These take place AFTER 7 months when most babies can survive.  I've heard these are done if the mother's life is in danger.  Hello?  C-Section?
Are you convinced that you know better than a doctor about the life of the mother?  Unless you have any evidence to back up the claim that it's never necessary to save the mother, you can't really make that statement fairly at all.

I can be sympathetic towards your point of view as a pro-lifer, I'm on the fence myself (I argue with my pro-choice girlfriend about this all the time), but your arguments seem to come from an emotional place purely.

I agree with what you've said mostly Villain, but I'd also like to see free birth control pills provided by the government as well as some sort of punishment for people who have 3-4+ abortions.  I think abortion is a moral hazard, but so is forcing a woman to keep a child to term she doesn't want and won't take adequate care of.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 08:48:18 PM by Jude »

Offline TheVillainTopic starter

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2010, 07:46:14 PM »
Which there's nothing wrong with being emotional, it's just a poor way to write policy given it's inherent subjectivity.

And before we start fighting, can we keep focused on writing working policy that most people can live with? Can we keep finding a solution in mind?

Offline Kip

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2010, 07:59:08 PM »
I'd just like to step in and say two things.

Firstly, there isn't really a solution as there are so many differing points of view and some of those perspectives are very personal and emotive on either side of the spectrum.  This is a debate forum and debate will happen - emotional is fine and it's even better if it's backed up with logic or research but as long as it's not personally aimed at others it may have a place.  It's unlikely that a consensus will be reached and working policy is certainly beyond us.

Secondly, as I've already touched on, this is a very personal emotive topic - tread gently please.

(Edit to clarify).
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 08:00:40 PM by Kip »

Offline TheVillainTopic starter

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2010, 08:06:02 PM »
I respectfully disagree. I think if we disregard the emotional arguments as too inherently irrational to base policy on we can come up with something most people can live with. Not 100%, but better then 70% surely.

The trick is disregarding emotional arguments but with recognition that they're too subjective for basing rules on them it can be done.

Offline Jude

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2010, 08:30:21 PM »
Given that appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy (a family of them even), I don't see how emotion has any place in logical discussion.

EDIT:  That isn't to say I won't be considerate to avoid hurting other people's feelings, that is not and has never been my intention.  I try not to be offensive -- and will continue to.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 08:34:17 PM by Jude »

Offline RubySlippers

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2010, 08:31:27 PM »
I'm pro-life simply for one reason the unborn is going to become a human being, even if a disabled or deformed human is still a human. So unless there is some overwhelming cause to tip the right to life to the mother as in protecting her life the right of the unborn child is Equal To the mothers. Even incest and rape don't matter she should get counseling, have the child and surrender the to adoption if she wants to do that. Even disability is not a reason a child who has a disability has a right to live.

When one makes assumptions an unborn child is not a person I say we must on moral grounds give the weight to the childs life the instant of conception and that must be considered the legal standard, just to be sure.


Offline Spice

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2010, 08:35:48 PM »
In response to Villain's position,

Personally,

I favor all women having a safe, legal, and available right to abortion. In response to his specific points,

1. Agreed.

2. The process should be treated like any other medical procedure. If a person is entitled to government assistance for an appendectomy or emergency treatment after an automobile accident, I argue they should also be entitled to assistance for an abortion. I would not limit  it to rape, incest, or health.

3. I think sex education should be based on the current state of medical knowledge not on any one group’s particular beliefs.

4. I understand your position. But I think the government is going to look to the rights of the child and not the rights of the mother or father. While it may not be fair for a dad to have to pay for a child he does not want, it is also not fair to make us as the government pay for the children of individuals who can afford to pay for their children’s care. It is also not fair to the child to be left without adequate support from its procreating parents whether mother or father. If you don’t want to pay for child support, don’t become pregnant, don’t get someone pregnant. It's quite simple. In my opinion, if you play the game and its a really great game, you pay if your number comes up. You can greatly reduce the risk of your number coming up through use of that stuff you learned in sex education.

I understand that people will disagree with my opinion. I respect their right to do so.

Offline Kip

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2010, 08:36:08 PM »
I don't want to derail the topic but I'll answer and hopefully put my comments in context and to rest.

I'm saying it's fine because it'll happen here given the context of the topic. I don't have a problem with it as long as it's not used to attack or be deliberately divisive.

As for the effect of said emotion, what weight you give it is up to you.  Most people will give it no weight on the debate hence I pointed out that it's better to support your position with logic and research.

Offline TheVillainTopic starter

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2010, 08:54:09 PM »
In response to Villain's position,

Personally,

I favor all women having a safe, legal, and available right to abortion. In response to his specific points,

1. Agreed.

2. The process should be treated like any other medical procedure. If a person is entitled to government assistance for an appendectomy or emergency treatment after an automobile accident, I argue they should also be entitled to assistance for an abortion. I would not limit  it to rape, incest, or health.

3. I think sex education should be based on the current state of medical knowledge not on any one group’s particular beliefs.

4. I understand your position. But I think the government is going to look to the rights of the child and not the rights of the mother or father. While it may not be fair for a dad to have to pay for a child he does not want, it is also not fair to make us as the government pay for the children of individuals who can afford to pay for their children’s care. It is also not fair to the child to be left without adequate support from its procreating parents whether mother or father. If you don’t want to pay for child support, don’t become pregnant, don’t get someone pregnant. It's quite simple. In my opinion, if you play the game and its a really great game, you pay if your number comes up. You can greatly reduce the risk of your number coming up through use of that stuff you learned in sex education.

I understand that people will disagree with my opinion. I respect their right to do so.

So you agree with point 3 then. Awesome.

Like I said, this was an attempt to write policy everyone can live with. I'm personally in favor of universal healthcare actually, but compromise is the soul of democracy. I went for something most people could live with, not what I personally liked.

As for my last point, it's really about reproductive freedom. If the man wants the child but the woman doesn't, there's abortion. There should be something similar for men if we really want an equal society. Now, it doesn't have to be exactly what I suggested- but there has to be something.


@Ruby-

I respectfully disagree. Two-thirds of all pregnancies end with what can be considered miscarriages, the egg being fertilized but not implanting on the uterine wall. By your logic, this makes almost all sexually active women murderers.

And if you study the science behind the developing zygote/embryo/fetus you'd see a fascinating journey to achieve humanhood- and that when it starts a zygote is about as biochemically complicated as a tapioca pudding desert with raisins.

Offline Serephino

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2010, 09:27:22 PM »
I do not really agree with abortion, however, I do recognize that it is wrong to force my beliefs on another.  It's the same for this as it is anything else.  If you think abortion is wrong; don't get one.  It really is that simple.

I'm not sure rape is a good reason for an abortion.  I'm a little on the fence about that.  But I do think a good reason is the mother's life being in danger.  I don't know where anyone heard this, but usually, if the baby can possibly survive outside the womb then they do a C-section. 

The child support issue I go back and forth on too.  I do think that it isn't quite fair that a woman can decide if she wants to be a mother or not, but a man can't.  If the father decides he wants nothing to do with it, but the mother decides to have it she can nail him for child support.

On the flip side, if the father wants it, but the mother doesn't... too bad for him.  I think the father should have the right to decide he wants the baby, and will take it and not require anything from the mother other than having the baby. 

I understand that women are the ones who have to go through pregnancy, but that isn't the fault of the men who want to be fathers.  Any sane rational woman knows that when she consents to sex there is a chance of getting pregnant.  Of course the man should know this too.  No birth control is 100% effective.  Only abstinence works that well.

I also firmly believe that abstinence only education doesn't work, and is forcing beliefs on kids.  Proper use of birth control should also be taught.  If they want to do it, they are going to, and there are all sorts of misconceptions out there, such as the 'pull out' method works.  Teenagers need to know how to properly use birth control, and they need to have it available. 

Villain is sort of right about the high rate of miscarriages.  Someone I used to consider a friend had two of them, one at 7 weeks, and the other at 9 weeks.  Of course I think she may have had something to do with it, I did some research.  The numbers I found were that 40-65% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.  That isn't exactly 2/3rds, but it makes you think.  Are you suggesting that if a woman is say 15 weeks pregnant and has a miscarriage that has nothing to do with anything she did, that she be charged with manslaughter? 

http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/complications/miscarriage.aspx?xid=MSNLP_TFK_Miscarriage_Srch&utm_source=MSN&utm_medium=CPC&s_kwcid=TC-20849-4820829365-b-425724528

There is the link where I found the info.  It also says that every sexually active woman will have at least one miscarriage, and may not even know it. 

Offline TheVillainTopic starter

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2010, 09:35:57 PM »


Villain is sort of right about the high rate of miscarriages.  Someone I used to consider a friend had two of them, one at 7 weeks, and the other at 9 weeks.  Of course I think she may have had something to do with it, I did some research.  The numbers I found were that 40-65% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.  That isn't exactly 2/3rds, but it makes you think.  Are you suggesting that if a woman is say 15 weeks pregnant and has a miscarriage that has nothing to do with anything she did, that she be charged with manslaughter? 

http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/complications/miscarriage.aspx?xid=MSNLP_TFK_Miscarriage_Srch&utm_source=MSN&utm_medium=CPC&s_kwcid=TC-20849-4820829365-b-425724528

There is the link where I found the info.  It also says that every sexually active woman will have at least one miscarriage, and may not even know it. 

Yeah, that's what I was refering to. The majority of pregnancies end in miscarriages- often because the fertilized egg didn't implant on the uterine wall. Could of sworn it said 2/3rds the first time I read the study- but it was a while ago.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2010, 09:43:05 PM »
Miscarriages are natural biological events so are not intentional abortions by a medical provider of the unborn child. Its a natural part of the bearing of children that happens. Abortion as we are considering it is not miscarriage.

I still argue since we do not know when life begins give the child the benefit and make it at conception unless the mothers life really is in danger, not just because she is underage but her life is at stake. Then the position must shift to the life that is here possibly over the unborn a standard one could consider at least. But I would still argue have the child if possible to where it has any chance of suvival outside the mother, remove the child and use all the medical care we can to have that child survive. If possible. Even if the chance is small.

Offline TheVillainTopic starter

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2010, 09:51:59 PM »
But for every other creature on the planet we don't consider it alive until after birth or what passes for birth for that species. We seem to have a rather firm grasp of when life begins for everything else. What makes humans different?


Edit:- Adding to my thoughts a bit. While I personally think you're wrong Ruby, I also think you do have a respectable position. Just not a rational one. You may be right for all we know, but we should base laws on rational lines of reasoning because only by staying rational do we approach being quantifiabely objective.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 09:56:59 PM by TheVillain »

Offline Jude

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2010, 09:53:18 PM »
We know when life begins, but the question really is when does moral value begin?  Unfortunately there's a schism there between different schools of thought that will probably never be joined.  Religious and secular ideas especially:  the soul is kind of an underpinning of this discussion.

I believe that only beings capable of making moral decisions have moral weight, but what about the future existence of such beings?  I can reason that it's obviously wrong to set a trap to kill someone who does not exist yet (thus is currently not capable of moral action) even if it happens 100 years from now, so is destroying a fetus that would develop into being a full-fledged person capable of moral action wrong?

I suppose it's important to look at the three components of behavior:  intent, action, and outcome.  Some schools of ethical thought place weight on one in particular, but I think it's important to analyze all 3.  Someone who gets an abortion does not intend to murder but in fact intends to do the right thing for themself (and may even intend to do the right for the child, reasoning that they cannot raise it), may be murdering, and the consequences have a net positive result (fewer unwanted children, prevents overpopulation, allows for better family planning, etc).  I suppose it's all where you place the emphasis; I honestly have no answer.

Offline Serephino

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2010, 10:12:26 PM »
That's why using when the soul enters the body as a measure is so tricky.  Many Christians believe it happens at conception.  Me, I think it happens sometime before the child is born, though I'm still against late term abortions unless the mother's life is in serious danger. 

Then of course you have people who don't believe in souls at all...  This is why I say let people decide for themselves.  I don't like it, and I will encourage people not to do it, but I would be a hypocrite if I supported a law against it.  Religious beliefs are not a valid reason to make a law that everyone has to follow. 

Offline Host of Seraphim

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2010, 10:58:54 PM »
For the most part, I like this solution (although I don't think there will ever be a solution to the issue of abortion that everyone will be happy with). No. 4 is a bit "ehh" to me-- it's definitely not the first time I've heard this idea presented, so I've done my fair share of thinking about it. I guess it makes sense, but I'm on the fence about it. *shrug*

I'm 100% pro-choice, regardless. It's a deeply personal decision that no one should be able to make for a woman except herself. The idea of forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is equally despicable as forcing a woman to have an abortion she does not want. I have an... odd fear of pregnancy (I break into a cold sweat whenever there's a birth scene in a movie, and almost passed out once in school when watching a video explaining gestation and all that in health class... I even get a little tense when near a pregnant woman. I really don't know why. It makes me feel bad when a family member is pregnant and like "YAY! :D" and I'm too terrified to even stand within ten feet of her,  :-( /ramble) and the thought of being forced to carry a fetus inside me literally makes my skin crawl.

In my ideal little science fiction world, human genetics are altered so everyone is born sterile and cannot have the option of becoming fertile until they pass a rigorous series of tests proving that they are responsible enough to bring another person into the world. But that's just my ideal little science fiction world. :P

Also, totally agree on the abstinence-only stuff. When I was in middle school, my school's health class taught sex education that included abstinence as one of many options when it came to birth control. I really liked it. Then when I was in eighth grade the policy changed and it was suddenly abstinence-only. There was some demonstration where the instructor gave a piece of gum to a student and had them chew it a bit. Then she asked for the gum back and asked, "Would anyone else like to chew this gum?" Nobody did, and the purpose of the demonstration was to compare someone who's had sex before marriage to chewed-up gum. I'm not even exaggerating. Little 14-year old me (who was a lot angrier back then-- who wasn't? XD) was furious, and I still seethe whenever I think about that.

(meh, sorry for derailing a bit with that tale, but I was filled with indignation after remembering it and had to get it off my chest. Mehhh!)
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 11:03:16 PM by Host of Seraphim »

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2010, 11:11:28 PM »
Anyone who thinks life begins at conception becomes a hypocrite unless they fight for the rights of teratomas, fetus in fetu, and induced totipotent stem cells. There is no difference between a fertilized zygote and a mass of proliferative totipotent cells. For a matter of weeks after that, the embryo can be called an organism, but cannot be human, the only differentiation from other higher eukaryotes is in the organization of its DNA. The same DNA we share with all life. The same DNA that is not magic because it is in a human. Before 12 weeks this isn't even a discussion. Unless you give the same rights to all animals and (in the case of the fertilized zygotes and blastocysts) testicular and ovarian cancers, you are being incredibly hypocritical.

After 12 weeks we can begin talking about humanity, and begin addressing the important points of consciousness and suffering. Before that point, this discussion is a waste of time.

Offline Sure

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2010, 11:26:54 PM »
1.) The argument you've given is shaky in my opinion, but the central conceit is that abortion is legal. I do have to say that pro-lifers would not accept it.

2.) The problem here is that people will start reporting normal abortions as due to one of these reasons. You've basically described the situation in Spain. Abortion is severely limited, but because there's virtually no penalty for lying about the reason, they happen all the time for one of the allowed reasons and the rates aren't significantly different from the rest of Europe (if I recall). Again, pro-lifers are unlikely to accept it.

3.) You know, I've heard 'abstinence doesn't work' from Liberals and Democrats quite a lot but have never actually seen the proof. That being said, competing ideas ought to compete. The problem is both sides think that competition should be won through political means and forcing their views on the other side. Birth control is already pretty easily available from what I understand.

4.) This has been tried, Feminists fought against it hard and beat it. So they'd never accept it. Presumably 'Family Values' would exclude this too.

Offline Wolfy

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2010, 11:33:20 PM »
Considering that studies have shown that "Abstinence only" education actually increases pregnancy rates...I don't think it's the best approach. O-o

Offline Jude

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2010, 11:38:57 PM »
As for the abstinence only proof, see me getting owned when I asked for it in this thread:  http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=69735.msg3070257#msg3070257

Offline Sure

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2010, 11:57:31 PM »
Wolfy, did you know studies have also shown that the majority of people starting a sentence with 'studies have shown' do not actually have a study to back it up? ::)

That links to a blog with a broken link to the studies it cites in one case, and the other 'study' is a bibliography.

Edit: Pardon me, that's actually a CV, I believe.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 11:59:39 PM by Sure »

Offline TheVillainTopic starter

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2010, 12:11:33 AM »
Letting competing ideas compete only works when both ideas have comparable levels of evidence to their credit. It's like Intelligent Design vs Evolution. "Competing Ideas Compete" sounds good, until you realize that there's literally no evidence for ID and literally mountains of evidence for Evolution.

Try looking up CDC reports, google points the way.


And "safe legal abortions kills less women then illegal unregulated abortions" is shaky to you?

Edit:- Just tried the links in the blog post, they work for me.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 12:39:23 AM by TheVillain »

Offline RubySlippers

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2010, 06:46:07 AM »
I have a good reason for being strict in this we cannot be sure when a human is alive. We are not talking a dog we are talking people the only species line with self-awareness and sentience we are aware of. As a Christian I use the standard at conception but acknowledge ,as the Jewish view is, the life here already takes precent if the mothers life is in danger and I mean by a consensus of medical opinion in each case. Riskier can be countered with better care its when the mother ,in those rare cases, is at risk the balance tips to the mother. I leave that matter up to the mother and her conscience.

But with testing there are now issues in some nations like India they abort unborn girls just because they are girls. China there is the same thing going on. I'm a disabled, gay woman what if they can test for theses and people get the choice to abort just because a child might be gay or might be disabled. I don't want these choices to be in the hands of parents who can often avoid pregnancy in the first place. As for incest and rape those cases are rare you know that and for me the child still must be considered because we don't know, to give the mother and unborn the same equal consideration. Barring the rare case of the life of the mother.

Offline Jude

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2010, 07:34:50 AM »
I have a good reason for being strict in this we cannot be sure when a human is alive. We are not talking a dog we are talking people the only species line with self-awareness and sentience we are aware of. As a Christian I use the standard at conception but acknowledge ,as the Jewish view is, the life here already takes precent if the mothers life is in danger and I mean by a consensus of medical opinion in each case. Riskier can be countered with better care its when the mother ,in those rare cases, is at risk the balance tips to the mother. I leave that matter up to the mother and her conscience.
A fetus is not a human anymore than an egg is a chicken.  It cannot be sentient:  we understand what components of neural development are necessary for such cognitive sophistication, and fetuses are not capable of it early on.  I'm not even sure if young babies are capable of sentience, though I'm not fully read up on my child psychology/neurology, so I am unsure (and that's another discussion).
But with testing there are now issues in some nations like India they abort unborn girls just because they are girls. China there is the same thing going on. I'm a disabled, gay woman what if they can test for theses and people get the choice to abort just because a child might be gay or might be disabled. I don't want these choices to be in the hands of parents who can often avoid pregnancy in the first place. As for incest and rape those cases are rare you know that and for me the child still must be considered because we don't know, to give the mother and unborn the same equal consideration. Barring the rare case of the life of the mother.
A case being rare isn't really an excuse to ignore it.  Every law eventually has the implication of force behind it when it comes down to it, so you have to ask yourself if you're OK with force being applied to uphold that law even in the rarest of circumstances because that is what is being required of the government by the passage of that law.

If you vote for abortion being illegal in all circumstances then you are asking the government to, on your behalf, force a woman who was violently assaulted and impregnated in a traumatic, horrible, and life-destroying event to carry her rapist's child in her womb for 9 months and then give birth to his progeny.

Thinking that it's wrong for her to do it is one thing, but supporting the passage of a law barring it results in proxy coercion on your part.  Sometimes that's justifiable (like when coercing with the threat of punishment to make a husband not murder his wife for the insurance money), but in this case I think that's kind of hard to swallow.

EDIT:  As for the screening for homosexuality, it's not currently possible and may never be.  Current research suggests that there is no single gay gene, studies have found that homosexuality is correlated to some genetic (and epi-genetic) phenomenon, but twin studies confirm that the environment the individual experiences during developmental periods is far more influential (Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden, Niklas Långström, Qazi Rahman, Eva Carlström and Paul Lichtenstein - published in the peer reviewed journal "Archives of Sexual Behavior").
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 09:31:38 AM by Jude »

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2010, 09:41:54 AM »
Something that needs to be clarified here:
Sentience is  a quality of awareness and perception. It arises with a certain level of development of the brain and I'm going to hope that Ruby was mis-using the term and not saying that for instance dogs cannot experience pain, pleasure, or perceive and categorize their world.

Sapience is the quality of judgment that we attribute as the defining characteristic of humans (thus homo sapiens). Infants may not have it, but sapience is kind of a secondary consideration after the ability to suffer is present, which comes with sentience.

Regardless, an embryo has neither and there is no way to distinguish a human blastocyst from a dog blastocyst from a lizard blastocyst without DNA sequencing. And once again human DNA is not magic or different or special. A fertilized human egg is alive. It's alive in the  same way an unfertilized egg, or a sperm cell, or a tumor is. It is not its own organism, it is not distinguishably human, it does not possess self-awareness or sentience.

Further, I don't see Christianity as having any relevance to this discussion. If Christ had wanted to talk about abortion, he could have. It is not a wholly modern practice and was well discussed in the Greek and Roman medicine of the day. Besides which, the idea that law should be made with respect for a Christian concept with no underpinning is absurd.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2010, 01:22:05 PM »
Ok show me one case a pregnant human woman gave birth to something clearly not human - a dog, a bird, a lizard etc.? Humans ,as in our species, make humans regardless of what the little person looks like in the mother its going to be if naturally developed into a human baby.

As for the genetic testing ok maybe they can't get the childs sexual orientation if born they can for many diseases and conditions and can for gender, I for one think its a danger to leave mother to choose not to have the child due to likely burden (disease) or gender (they don't want a boy or a girl or that extra child if multiple births). If the child cannot growold enough to be removed from the mother and given neonatal care on its own and the pregnancy is really a serious danger risk (physically) then one could argue the mothers life being established could come first. I just pointed out that is not wrong its a rare and clear case to base a decision on in one major religion and to many Christians who tend to have a practical view on this matter. And its a good NEUTrAL standard that is not complicated the doctors have a medical finding and the abortion is not illegal since its medically justified.

If the mother is a victim of incest or rape and the mother is otherwise healthy, they can carry the child to term and surrender it for adoption. Its rare. And the child in the mother ,who we cannot be sure is a "person" or not, should be given the benefit and be given the same rights as the mother to live.

I would make it illegal in the latter cases and legal for the medical safety of the mother, but note a very young mother might fall into that in the cases of incest and rape.





Offline TheVillainTopic starter

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2010, 01:31:41 PM »
But not sharing everyone shares your religious views, and there's Bodily Domain to consider. Are you really fine with forcing people to give up parts of their own bodies, with potentially fatal results, to satisfy your personal religious beliefs that they may not share?

Nobody is saying you have to like it, but you're talking about a huge invasion and violation of personal liberty.

Offline dominomask

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2010, 03:46:52 PM »
I applaud your attempt.  I would argue that #4 gets into a rather dangerous and often-ignored area...namely that one of the big misconceptions about child support is that it is a "I get to see my kid" fee.  It isn't.  The issue of a parent's financial responsibility to a child and their suitability to have contact with that child are, and must be, separate concerns.  I would support government funding of DNA tests to prevent men from being forced to pay for children that are not their own, but I would want there to be some provision to protect a woman from "that was fun, see ya, tough shit" circumstances.  If you're willing to take measures to prevent entrapment of men by women, you have to concede that women get used and lied to as well, and would need some measure of protection.  "Be safe or be sorry" policies need to run both ways.  Men need to share equally in the risks associated with sex.  Biologically, women will always carry an increase in certain risks and costs, so I consider it fair that their rights be more extensive as related to whether a pregnancy need or need not continue.  A man who really cares to see a child born has means of making it worth a woman's while without resorting to nine-months of government-sanctioned imprisonment (which is what it would take, both figuratively and literally).

I have a good reason for being strict in this we cannot be sure when a human is alive. We are not talking a dog we are talking people the only species line with self-awareness and sentience we are aware of.

I would like to point out two things in these sentences that, I feel, help to explain my feelings on the whole "what the hell is life anyway" subject.

The first sentence, in substance if not in spirit, I agree entirely.  But saying that we cannot be sure when a human is alive can not logically defend a mandate that it be assumed to begin at one point over another.  It only defends agnosticism.

You follow that with talking about dogs, and how humans are the only self aware (to the degree that we are capable of knowing, which is only whisperingly better than our ability to objectively determine the beginning of "human" "life" for however you would define either of those terms) beings in existence.  I'm sure many dog owners would disagree.  As would many people who work with chimps, etc.  Setting the bar at "sentience" and "human" begins to demand a definition, and those definitions are very very tricky.  If you set it at language or other self-expression, then many kinds of disabled people become non-human.  Because it is a hard and uncomfortable question, it is tempting to try and answer it emotionally, which is even more dangerous.

I do not mean this next to be considered a compelling point of logic, and I don't mean to offend you so I hope you will be charitable.  It might be worth your while to reflect a little further on the subjectivity of your feelings in this matter, and whether that's a charitable and humane way to determine policy for millions and millions of situations that it is arguably arrogant to think you can, as an individual, begin to intuit in all their complexity.  As you say, we cannot make a meaningful definition for life until we get to the very very small scale of cells or the very very huge scale of biospheres, which makes it unkind to insist on your own arbitrary definition for all people.

I tend to try and define the situation from the other side.  I find death more easily understood than life, and I think we have some decent societal guidelines for what we will tolerate, relative to the necessities of both justice and governance, where suffering and death are concerned.  We know that zero-tolerance for allowing suffering and death is unworkable.  The two things are inseparable from the complex processes of life and living.  Generally we get by by setting some minimal degree of tolerance for situations where we can allow or inflict suffering and death in an attempt to balance the rights of individuals against the needs of the population.  It is the best way to accomodate logic and knowledge (along with its limitations) as well as emotional considerations.  When setting policy for a society, when taking emotions into account, you need to look at ALL the emotions involved in an issue...the empathic sense of wrongness in deliberately killing someone or something must be balanced equally with the empathic sense of justice and social safety when determining if it is acceptable to kill a sociopathic murderer or control animal populations, just to make a severly over-simplified example. 

Which is why I would advise more careful thought on your part as regards your emotions.  As a mother, I affirm whole-heartedly that your feelings about the preciousness of babies, regardless of any knowledge we can have of when that status actually begins in the eyes of objective reality, are as valid and right and good as any of the feelings that can be brought to bear on the subject at hand.  But consider, being who you are, as a woman with no inclination towards sex with men, it is more than a little likely that you cannot weight with sufficient empathy the validity of the feelings of women who would be subject to the laws on which you would insist.

While I am careful to remain open to the possibility of new evidence and insight, when I weigh every variable I am capable of considering at present, zero-tolerance-except-in-very-specific-cases is both socially unworkable and morally insupportable.  It simply does not serve to effect the practical reality that your moral imperative is seeking, and the emphatic-full-stop of "murder is wrong period" is morally incomplete.  In general, a real stance of "pro life" is only cut and dry for people with an unjustifiably narrow definition of life.


Offline TheVillainTopic starter

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2010, 03:55:49 PM »
Touché, Dominomask. Though I would counter that birth control and legal abortion ARE protection from men who are willing to put women in "that was fun, see ya, tough shit" situations.

I'm not saying women shouldn't have such protection, I'm saying they already have it and men should have something along those lines as well.

Offline Jude

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2010, 05:08:41 PM »
If the mother is a victim of incest or rape and the mother is otherwise healthy, they can carry the child to term and surrender it for adoption. Its rare. And the child in the mother ,who we cannot be sure is a "person" or not, should be given the benefit and be given the same rights as the mother to live.

I would make it illegal in the latter cases and legal for the medical safety of the mother, but note a very young mother might fall into that in the cases of incest and rape.
I feel like you have not addressed this part of my post:
Quote
A case being rare isn't really an excuse to ignore it.  Every law eventually has the implication of force behind it when it comes down to it, so you have to ask yourself if you're OK with force being applied to uphold that law even in the rarest of circumstances because that is what is being required of the government by the passage of that law.

If you vote for abortion being illegal in all circumstances then you are asking the government to, on your behalf, force a woman who was violently assaulted and impregnated in a traumatic, horrible, and life-destroying event to carry her rapist's child in her womb for 9 months and then give birth to his progeny.

Thinking that it's wrong for her to do it is one thing, but supporting the passage of a law barring it results in proxy coercion on your part.  Sometimes that's justifiable (like when coercing with the threat of punishment to make a husband not murder his wife for the insurance money), but in this case I think that's kind of hard to swallow.
Are you OK with being an accessory to that?

Offline Serephino

Re: "Oh God, Not Another Abortion Thread"
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2010, 10:39:10 PM »
I actually agree with Jude here.  While I don't like abortion, being raped is a traumatic event.  I know women who were raped.  I was raped, though I have almost no memory of it. 

I don't like the idea of a woman consenting to sex knowing full well that pregnancy could happen, and then just getting rid of it.  However, if a woman was raped then she didn't consent.  She didn't have the option of using a condom.  The rapist decided all that for her.  And it would be hard to heal while carrying a constant reminder inside you.  Sure, it's only nine months, but that's nine months that she would be reminded of the event.  Some women can get past it, some can't.  That should be up to them. 

I also don't like the idea of women aborting a baby because of the gender, but that's China and India.  I think it's screwed up, but nothing we can do about it.  I don't think it's wrong to consider it if there's something wrong with the baby though.  You may be disabled, but obviously you can think, type, I'm guessing speak....  What about a baby with something more serious?  What kind of life would it be to never be able to talk, walk, feed yourself, go to the bathroom on your own....?  I'm talking those that are prisoners in their own bodies.   

I don't think that would be much of a life.  It's certainly one I wouldn't want.  I told my boyfriend in no uncertain terms that if I ever get to the point where I'm bedridden in a diaper and can't at least talk to just kill me.  If I had a wife who was pregnant with a child that was going to need round the clock care, maybe dozens of surgeries, and may never have a decent quality of life, I would give it serious thought.  I don't think giving it up to the state is a good option either.  For one, I'd be thinking about the child believe it or not.  Second, if I did that then the cost of that needed care would be placed on tax payers. 

Last but not least, once again, not everyone is Christian.  I'm not.  I quite like separation of Church and State.