Abortion

[ledhed]

Not the right to life. Ask anyone who works at an animal shelter.

Nope they have no right to life ..only a humane death...if that .

Hey in Mexico and Korea and other countries they are food.

In Egypt they were worshiped as gods.


Time to break out the Mooshead....all your fault Dan 👍

 

[Danoff]

Time to break out the Mooshead....all your fault Dan 👍

Enjoy. I'm glad I could encourge drinking by at least one person. In my time zone, there's still a lot of work left to do today.

Anyway you see where I'm going, and I think I've got you in a tough spot in this argument. Infants aren't more self-aware than many animals we don't offer rights to - but self-awareness is the very reason we give ourselves rights and feel ok about killing the occasional animal.

It would follow then that we're not morally obligated to extend rights to infants. On the otherhand, we are morally obligated to extend rights to the mother...

 

[ledhed]

Enjoy. I'm glad I could encourge drinking by at least one person. In my time zone, there's still a lot of work left to do today.

Anyway you see where I'm going, and I think I've got you in a tough spot in this argument. Infants aren't more self-aware than many animals we don't offer rights to - but self-awareness is the very reason we give ourselves rights and feel ok about killing the occasional animal.

It would follow then that we're not morally obligated to extend rights to infants. On the otherhand, we are morally obligated to extend rights to the mother...

Dude your going to hurt your brain thinking too much about this crap.
We ...you included..... live in a society that has decided that we are superior to other life forms . I'm sure if a cat could build a widget it would get more rights....or it just may be enslaved just like Africans and other HUMANS were and are at times.
hey dont forget Hitler ( Godwin can bite me ) decided other races were inferior and removed their rights ...AND THE GERMAN PEOPLE WENT ALONG WITH IT .

wasn't that long ago .

gimme more beer.

Me I am going to kill brain cells the old fashioned way...and while I am at it Play some Age of Pirates....while I still can....in peace and quiet with no wife looking to go out and make me deal with people....I'm done with humans for the week. I have suffered enough.

 

[Danoff]

We ...you included..... live in a society that has decided that we are superior to other life forms .

I have reasons - and they don't include the phrase "because we can". I thought you agreed with me earlier that it was our higher order brain functions, our self-awareness that separated us from other animals. Now you're saying it's arbitrary...

 

[ledhed]

I have reasons - and they don't include the phrase "because we can". I thought you agreed with me earlier that it was our higher order brain functions, our self-awareness that separated us from other animals. Now you're saying it's arbitrary...

Dude I just came back from hanging with my wife and ingesting as many shots of JD as my wallet would allow...( ummm she claims she forgot the promise of the Vodka..no doubt an excuse to get me out ...etc, )

Now all I ask of you is to think of one thing .


Who is it that determines what " brain function is " . ?

certainly not Dolphins...so we cook them and eat them ...RIGHT ?


What I AM saying is that HUMANS have decided ....and history proves ..THAT other humans are worth less than they are ....and can be made slaves or just killled ......because they are INFERIOR to thr current race that is in controll and that OTHER humans DESPITE higer brain functions have gone along with it .

Otherwise explain how Jews and others got made into lampshades,

With PRIDE .

 

[Danoff]

What I AM saying is that HUMANS have decided ....and history proves ..THAT other humans are worth less than they are ....and can be made slaves or just killled ......because they are INFERIOR to thr current race that is in controll and that OTHER humans DESPITE higer brain functions have gone along with it .

What does this have to do with anything I've said. Again, I ask you to find a legitimate reason why humans have rights and animals do not. Again, you will have to conclude that humans have rights because they are self-aware.

Once you've made that distinction, it follows that abortion should be legal.

 

[ledhed]

What does this have to do with anything I've said. Again, I ask you to find a legitimate reason why humans have rights and animals do not. Again, you will have to conclude that humans have rights because they are self-aware.

Once you've made that distinction, it follows that abortion should be legal.

Dan....Abortion IS legal .

And if you have followed ANYTHING I have said you know I have NO problem with the pro choice position....up to the point the fetus becomes able to live outside the womb...at around 6 months or so.

It just so HAPPENS that Roe VS Wade seems to agree with my belief .
And so do all the laws concerning abortion in the United States for the most part.

NO sane person is going to suggest it should be legal for an abortion on a 7 or 8 month old baby ...because the MOM doesn't want it. And that is what the LAWS have found , that the fetus has rights when it becomes able to live outside of the womb. They have even modified it to include cognitive thought .

Its all in the links I provided you .

 

[Danoff]

Dan....Abortion IS legal .

I think you know what I meant.

And if you have followed ANYTHING I have said you know I have NO problem with the pro choice position....up to the point the fetus becomes able to live outside the womb...at around 6 months or so.

I'm trying to explain why that position is unecessarily hypocritical w.r.t. animal rights.

It just so HAPPENS that Roe VS Wade seems to agree with my belief .
And so do all the laws concerning abortion in the United States for the most part.

Last I checked, partial birth abortions were still legal.

NO sane person is going to suggest it should be legal for an abortion on a 7 or 8 month old baby ...because the MOM doesn't want it.

Calling me insane doesn't help the conversation.

And that is what the LAWS have found , that the fetus has rights when it becomes able to live outside of the womb. They have even modified it to include cognitive thought .

See above regarding partial birth abortion. Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd address my previous post.

 

[Danoff]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/30/GOP.abortion.ap/index.html

The GOP wants to try to define when a fetus feels pain. My question is, what does that have to do with anything? Lots of animals feel pain, that doesn't mean we afford them rights. Plus, its not like we can't figure out how to make an abortion painless for the fetus. I'm sure anesthetizing the fetus to death won't fix their problems with abortion. This bill misses the point, as have the republicans in general for the last few years. I say good riddence to this crop of politicians.

This bill is an attempt to draw the line for abortions at the threshold of pain for the fetus. I know it doesn't say that, but they're focusing on taking small steps and the objective is clear.

 

[FoolKiller]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/30/GOP.abortion.ap/index.html

The GOP wants to try to define when a fetus feels pain. My question is, what does that have to do with anything? Lots of animals feel pain, that doesn't mean we afford them rights. Plus, its not like we can't figure out how to make an abortion painless for the fetus. I'm sure anesthetizing the fetus to death won't fix their problems with abortion. This bill misses the point, as have the republicans in general for the last few years. I say good riddence to this crop of politicians.

This bill is an attempt to draw the line for abortions at the threshold of pain for the fetus. I know it doesn't say that, but they're focusing on taking small steps and the objective is clear.

You draw your arbitrary line at birth and they are drawing their arbitrary line at pain. Your line makes more sense to you and they are trying to make their opinion make sense to others.

At a minimum they want the message to be out there that if you get an abortion it can feel the pain and you are actually hurting it. It allows them to call pro-choice groups heartless (more than they currently do) and they know that at some point a girl will be contemplating an abortion and there will be that one anti-abortion person they know who will say something like, "You know, after the baby is X months along it can feel the pain. You will be torturing it before you get it removed," and they hope this will change the mother's mind.

It's politics, pure and simple. You won't convince a politician to change his stance on anything unless it means losing money or his position, so he will grab at any thing he can to back up his decision.

 

[Swift]

You draw your arbitrary line at birth and they are drawing their arbitrary line at pain. Your line makes more sense to you and they are trying to make their opinion make sense to others.

*snip*

It's politics, pure and simple. You won't convince a politician to change his stance on anything unless it means losing money or his position, so he will grab at any thing he can to back up his decision.

Well said.

The question is when is it a sentient being. Well, if it's able to feel pain apart from the mother, does that make is sentient? I'm not saying it does or doesn't. What I'm saying is that it's ridiculous to think that up until the moment of birth the mother has the right to murder the child/fetus or whatever you want to call it.

 

[ledhed]

Well said.

The question is when is it a sentient being. Well, if it's able to feel pain apart from the mother, does that make is sentient? I'm not saying it does or doesn't. What I'm saying is that it's ridiculous to think that up until the moment of birth the mother has the right to murder the child/fetus or whatever you want to call it.

If you look at the LAW ...Abortions after 6 months are NOT legal except under strict circumstances that usually involve protecting the life of the mother, so its BS to say " any time the mother wants to " After 6 months the law gets very strict and more weight is given to the state to protect the fetus as found in both Roe vs Wade and since modified to keep up with medical advancements.

I have already posted the relevant links in this thread to both the law and the medical arguments.

BOTH sides , should argue with facts and NOT emotion combined with horse crap assumptions.

Each STATE is allowed to decide its abortion law as long as it passes the test for Constitutionality , so some states are more stringent than others on third trimester abortions but NONE are ..." OK no problem " .

 

[FoolKiller]

If you look at the LAW ...Abortions after 6 months are NOT legal except under strict circumstances that usually involve protecting the life of the mother, so its BS to say " any time the mother wants to " After 6 months the law gets very strict and more weight is given to the state to protect the fetus as found in both Roe vs Wade and since modified to keep up with medical advancements.

I have already posted the relevant links in this thread to both the law and the medical arguments.

BOTH sides , should argue with facts and NOT emotion combined with horse crap assumptions.

Each STATE is allowed to decide its abortion law as long as it passes the test for Constitutionality , so some states are more stringent than others on third trimester abortions but NONE are ..." OK no problem " .

I think he is arguing against Danoff's stance that any time before birth is fine.

 

[Swift]

If you look at the LAW ...Abortions after 6 months are NOT legal except under strict circumstances that usually involve protecting the life of the mother, so its BS to say " any time the mother wants to " After 6 months the law gets very strict and more weight is given to the state to protect the fetus as found in both Roe vs Wade and since modified to keep up with medical advancements.

I have already posted the relevant links in this thread to both the law and the medical arguments.

BOTH sides , should argue with facts and NOT emotion combined with horse crap assumptions.

Each STATE is allowed to decide its abortion law as long as it passes the test for Constitutionality , so some states are more stringent than others on third trimester abortions but NONE are ..." OK no problem " .

Uh, ledhed. Isn't this thread about the discussion of the law? Just because a law exists doesn't make it right. I know about the 6 month rule and the like. But there are people that think a mother should be able to abort whenever she wants to. That's what I was addressing with my post.

 

[ledhed]

Uh, ledhed. Isn't this thread about the discussion of the law? Just because a law exists doesn't make it right. I know about the 6 month rule and the like. But there are people that think a mother should be able to abort whenever she wants to. That's what I was addressing with my post.

I think thats wrong . "Any time she wants to" can't and should not include the third trimester. I ummm am just making MY point again ...

Legal Arguments



The notion that the Constitution of the United States, designed, among other things, “to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, . . . and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” prohibits the States from simply banning this visibly brutal means of eliminating our half-born posterity is quite simply absurd. -- Justice Antonin Scalia

The legal experiment of abortion-on-demand began January 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court of the United States delivered its opinion in the Roe v. Wade case. The court forced all fifty states to legalize abortions done before the third trimester. The states were allowed to restrict abortion after the third trimester, but the court required states to make an exception for cases where abortion is necessary to preserve a woman's "health". Unfortunately, the term was defined broadly to include "emotional" and "psychological" health--concepts which have very little meaning in legal context.

This is of course from a "Pro life " Argument on the law and is taken from an argument against third trimester abortions.

If you look back in these post you will find that as part of the search to find out when " thought " or consciousness occurs they ( medical science ) are using pain as a signal or a testing measure because response to it is found in the same center of the brain that is considered essential to " thinking " .


@ Swift ...I was just responding to those that still think that its " legal " to have abortion on demand into the third trimester...and thats a huge group of people . Politically they throw the term " legal " around so that dolts will assume you can just walk into a clinic and get a fetus removed like a tooth .
No one ever bothers to explain how to meet the terms to become " legal " .
The " pain " test is another gambit by the anti abortion crowd to get around the Supreme court...much the same argument they themselves use to fight against gun control by the way...if it wasn't so serious a subject I would find the irony amusing .

 

[Swift]

Ledhed, I'm not disagreeing or arguing with you. I'm really not.

But there are some, not all, but some pro choice people that believe complete "choice". That's all I'm saying.

As far as the law goes. Well, I think it's inconsistent to have some abortions legal and some not legal. But that's just me. I'd like to see all abortions illegal except for 2 possible exceptions. Forced sex and of course saving the life of the mother. But I've been over all that before.

 

[ledhed]

I think I argued with Dannoff for about three pages before I needed to have a Mooshead break.

Its like attacking a brick wall with a screwdriver and trying to take it down brick by brick.

Too much work for little gain.

Thats the whole problem with this issue. No middle ground.

 

[Swift]

Thats the whole problem with this issue. No middle ground.

That's true. We're talking about human lives here. So, there is no middle ground to speak of. Whether or not you believe that a baby is a baby before the third trimester after it's born isn't the point.

You either think that a woman has complete rights and control over her own body, after engaging in consensual sex. Even if she doesn't tell the father. Or you think that a woman should bring the child to term. Yeah, it's a tough issue. I hated debating for abortion in the mass-debate we did.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think I argued with Dannoff for about three pages before I needed to have a Mooshead break.

You too, huh?

If you're ever in Kentucky let me know and we can both drink to Danoff to get rid of his headaches.

 

[Danoff]

Here's something to drink about...

The legality of partial birth abortions is currently being tested in the supreme court. Until they say otherwise, partial birth abortions are still constitutional.

...oh, and like I said before, many many many animals that we don't give rights to feel pain. Squirrels feel pain, should we give them rights because of it? The argument is whether the baby is sentient/self-aware. Feeling pain != self-aware.

 

[Swift]

Here's something to drink about...

The legality of partial birth abortions is currently being tested in the supreme court. Until they say otherwise, partial birth abortions are still constitutional.

...oh, and like I said before, many many many animals that we don't give rights to feel pain. Squirrels feel pain, should we give them rights because of it? The argument is whether the baby is sentient/self-aware. Feeling pain != self-aware.

A newborn baby, say five seconds old, is not self aware. Even at 5 minutes old.

 

[Danoff]

Yup.

 

[ledhed]

Here's something to drink about...

The legality of partial birth abortions is currently being tested in the supreme court. Until they say otherwise, partial birth abortions are still constitutional.

...oh, and like I said before, many many many animals that we don't give rights to feel pain. Squirrels feel pain, should we give them rights because of it? The argument is whether the baby is sentient/self-aware. Feeling pain != self-aware.

Sure ..if you are weighing the life of the mother against the life of the fetus.

Thats always being tested because Roe ...used words that can be construed to mean " physiological damage " or any type of " Damage " to the mother. the reason why its being brought up is that the STATES want a strict definition of what " danger to the mother " is so they can almost outright ban third term abortions. ( Some states anyway ) .

 

[Sam48]

I honestly don't have much to say about this one. However I will say, as most of you probably already know, I am a conservative/libertarian, and I am pro life. I don't usually hear both sides of this argument. Anyway, what's your opinion on this?

 

[Public'sTwin]

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Simple.

 

[Joey D]

Abortion should be legal. If you make it illegal you are probably going to end up doing more harm. Women who will do anything to terminate a pregnancy will end up doing "back alley" abortions, which are unsafe and unsanitary for the most part. Women who aren't so keen on back alley practices could very well drink excessively, do drugs, etc to terminate the pregnancy though other means. Women who aren't willing to go that far and end up having an unwanted child could very well neglect him/her making for a bad environment for the child.

Having legal abortions will give women a safe way to terminate their pregnancy by a trained professional in a medical setting.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Simple.

Unless you're a dude.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Since I'm a guy I opted for the no opinion option. It felt cowardly, but whatever, I hopefully don't have to experience rearing a child in my body.

 

[LizMcQueen]

Nowadays abortion is legal in most parts of the world, and yes, it's absolutely necessary.

Maybe this poll needs a fourth option: "Abortion should not be legal with exception for maternal life health, mental health, rape, fetal defects... "

 

[Nicksfix]

I think a woman has the right to an abortion, ONLY , if she can prove somehow that she was raped,molested,whatever the cause may be. The other would be,if the mothers life is in danger while pregnant.

If it is just plain outright legal for all , then No.Whats to stop the hussies,ho-bags,careless women from going out and getting knocked up,and then taking the attitude thats it's ok to abort ?

 

[Joey D]

Whats to stop the hussies,ho-bags,careless women from going out and getting knocked up,and then taking the attitude thats it's ok to abort ?

You'd rather them raise, or that might be too strong of a word, a child? I think an abortion is far more civil then years of neglect.