Abortion

[Joel]

Shall we not get so technical as to say it's just a "being", and that it's not "living" yet.

To put it plain and simple, abortion is the discontinuation of a persons life. I don't care if some don't consider it to be "alive" because it is the taking of another's life. People simply consider it to not be "alive" because they want it to sound less evil or wrong.

Define "Evil" for me please. Define "wrong" too.


Like I said, I don't like abortions. Personally I think they're wrong. But still, were there to be a referendum on the legality, I would still vote "pro-choice".

It's easier for you to paint a pro-choice group as "baby killers" or "evil", than to detach your heart from the issue. It's a matter of choice, what right do I have to tell another person, let alone a member of the opposite sex what she can't do to her own body?


It just comes down to my opinion not being any more valid than another. Why should me not liking abortion mean somebody else should be prohibited from getting one?

 

[Sam48]

And? My spare MX-3 is going to be a supercharged track weapons, but right now it's a rusting hulk. I treat it based on what it is rather than what it's going to be.

And I'm sure you wouldn't if you knew it was to someday become fully human.

@Noob616- I would define them as exactly what they are. I consider "evil" to be someone doing something intentional when they know it is wrong, however,
defining "wrong" depends on who you are.

And I believe we have every right to tell woman they cannot, or should not, abort. Technically speaking, it is matter of life or death.

 

[WVUscion]

I agree with noob616 on this one. I do not like abortions. I do not think abortions are right and I would never ever get one. Being a male I (hopefully lol) will never have to make that choice. However my opinions are only that, my own. Why should I force them on others who simply do not agree? It would only let the vicious cycle of humanity continue.

 

[Joel]

And I'm sure you wouldn't if you knew it was to someday become fully human.

@Noob616- I would define them as exactly what they are. I consider "evil" to be someone doing something intentional when they know it is wrong.

Defining "wrong" depends on who you are.

And I believe we have every right to tell woman they cannot, or should not, abort. Technically speaking, it is matter of life or death.

If you don't like them, don't get one.

Your definition of "wrong" is different from mine (Actually, on this issue, they are the same), and different from anybody else's. And I know it may be shocking to hear this, but your definition of wrong is no more valid than mine, or anybody else's.

 

[Famine]

And I'm sure you wouldn't if you knew it was to someday become fully human.

If my car became human, I'd be astonished beyong the ability to remain continent.

However, you are badly missing the point. It is not against human rights to abort a foetus - it is not human. It is not a breach of "common law" because there is no such thing. There is no provision for treating things as they might be rather than as they are.

A foetus is not legally alive. An embryo is not legally or medically alive. Unless you can come up with a definition of alive and prove that the legal and medical definitions are not adequate or correct, the line of reasoning that abortion is murder or the killing of something must be abandoned. The notion that it's wrong or evil based on potential future events is... astonishing.

And I believe we have every right to tell woman they cannot, or should not, abort. Technically speaking, it is matter of life or death.

Yes. Theirs.

You have no domain over another person's body - nor do they have domain over yours.

 

[nevertell]

Dudes, there are already too many people on this planet. And look at the common teenager of today. At least where I live, the IQ is below 90 for teens. That's not a society I want to be a part of in the future. And if anytwo of those spare more money for beer sacrificing condoms, I'd rather they kill the baby than pollute the earth more.

 

[Sam48]

Yes. Theirs.

In very few cases.

You seem unmoved by the fact that abortion deals with a pre born person. So you simply resort to what the law justifies to be alive to defend your statement, thereby making a pre born child sound like a lump of un-assembled body parts. (which it isn't, it's just a smaller un born human)

Since your a libertarian (I think), would you be opposed to abortions that deal with what the child may be born with? For example if the parents discovered that their child would be born with some sort of disease (that wouldn't kill him), would aborting that child be OK, even though the parents wanted to have a child. (because they wanted the child to be perfect).

@Nevertell- no comment

 

[Famine]

In very few cases.

In all cases. Pregnancy is a tremendous stress on the body.

You seem unmoved by the fact that abortion deals with a pre born person.

No, I'm unmoved by the fact the abortion deals with something that is not alive by any classification.

So you simply resort to

*sigh*

I used the law to show your assertion that "aborting the child is against human rights, or common law." was false. I didn't "resort to" anything.

thereby making a pre born child sound like a lump of un-assembled body parts. (which it isn't, it's just a smaller un born human)

You can generate whatever impression you like but, as I said, my words are not a cryptic message. They say exactly what they say and, as yet, haven't said that a foetus is a lump of unassembled body parts. Not least because I'm actually a biologist and wouldn't use any such vague, inaccurate rubbish.

Nor is it a human, much less a smaller, unborn one.

Since your a libertarian (I think), would you be opposed to abortions that deal with what the child may be born with? For example if the parents discovered that their child would be born with some sort of disease (that wouldn't kill him), would aborting that child be OK, even though the parents wanted to have a child. (because they wanted the child to be perfect).

Before we start developing complex ideas, how about we finish sewing up the ones on the table.

Your assertion - Abortion is against the child's human rights.
Reality - It isn't human, it isn't a child, it isn't alive by any definition and it has no legal position covered by human rights legislation.
Your assertion - Abortion is against common law.
Reailty - There is no such legislation as "common law".
Your assertion - Abortion is wrong because the child will become a person.
Reality - There is nothing which would require consideration of possible future events to guide present morality.

Now, unless you're firing and forgetting this gems - or you've realised your position is indefensible - do you want to address any of these?

Also, no. No problem at all.

 

[DK]

Sam48, if you're supposed to be a libertarian, then why are you defending things which infringe on the freedoms of other people (in this case the mother of the foetus)? It seems kinda hypocritical to me. If you want to never be put into the situation where an abortion is necessary, use bloody contraceptives!

 

[Sam48]

Before we start developing complex ideas, how about we finish sewing up the ones on the table.

Your assertion - Abortion is against the child's human rights.
Reality - It isn't human, it isn't a child, it isn't alive by any definition and it has no legal position covered by human rights legislation.
Your assertion - Abortion is against common law.
Reailty - There is no such legislation as "common law".
Your assertion - Abortion is wrong because the child will become a person.
Reality - There is nothing which would require consideration of possible future events to guide present morality.

Now, unless you're firing and forgetting this gems - or you've realised your position is indefensible - do you want to address any of these?

Also, no. No problem at all.

I could be totally off here but this whole debate reminded me of something mentioned to me awhile ago, and the statement was, "You can't knock down a building that hasn't been built yet", which is basically what your trying to get across to me. I completely understand this, but if the building is only half built, and being patly held up by supports, you can knock it down. In the same way that if a child is not born yet, you can still stop it from ever living.

@Driftking18594- I'm one of a few pro life libertarians. Being raised Catholic kinda made me like that.

 

[Dotini]

Sam48, if you're supposed to be a libertarian, then why are you defending things which infringe on the freedoms of other people (in this case the mother of the foetus)? It seems kinda hypocritical to me. If you want to never be put into the situation where an abortion is necessary, use bloody contraceptives!

Actually there are many Libertarians who are anti-abortion, maybe the majority. Ron Paul is a good example. I'm not anti-abortion myself, but I have sense enough to be for Ron Paul.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

In the same way that if a child is not born yet, you can still stop it from ever living.

Yes - but that doesn't mean it's currently alive!

 

[Sam48]

Yes - but that doesn't mean it's currently alive!

By definition, no. However it can feel pain, and I would assume during an abortion, it would feel quite a lot of it.

 

[Famine]

By definition, no. However it can feel pain

Really? How does it manage that when its brain is non-functional before 12 weeks?

 

[Joel]

It comes down to one opinion not being more valid than another. It's perfectly fine to be pro life, but to tell somebody else they can't have an abortion is absurd.

 

[Sam48]

Really? How does it manage that when its brain is non-functional before 12 weeks?

Yup, 12 weeks. But not everyone aborts the child within that 12 weeks.

 

[Joel]

Yup, 12 weeks. But not everyone aborts the child within that 12 weeks.

After said 12 weeks, is the child sentient? No.

 

[Public'sTwin]

What I'd really like explained is the bit in my signature. I'm going to leave it there until you've given a satisfactory justification for it.

 

[Sam48]

After said 12 weeks, is the child sentient? No.

*Sigh* Why can't I think of these before posting. Screw my argument.

 

[Public'sTwin]

*Sigh* Why can't I think of these before posting. Screw my argument.

What I'd really like explained is the bit in my signature. I'm going to leave it there until you've given a satisfactory justification for it.

?????

 

[DK]

@Driftking18594- I'm one of a few pro life libertarians. Being raised Catholic kinda made me like that.

I was raised Catholic too and I'm pro-choice.

 

[LizMcQueen]

I'm one of a few pro life libertarians. Being raised Catholic kinda made me like that.

I was raised Catholic too and I'm pro-choice.

Try to keep religion away from this conversation, or someone could say catholic priests are against abortion and condom use because they don't have the problem of unwanted pregnancies... they only rape boys (yes, I know, it's a very radical statement).

 

[Famine]

Try to keep religion away from this conversation, or someone could say catholic priests are against abortion and condom use because they don't have the problem of unwanted pregnancies... they only rape boys (yes, I know, it's a very radical statement).

Or, as Andy Parsons says, "people who don't have sex telling people who have sex how to have sex".

 

[Sam48]

I was raised Catholic too and I'm pro-choice.

I'm not surprised as 52% of Catholics aren't pro life anyway.

 

[Public'sTwin]

I'm not surprised as 52% of Catholics aren't pro life anyway.

There's a difference between pro-life and anti-choice, you know.

But since you've ignored everything else I've said, I suppose I'll post this for the other members:

A few of the women who gathered at the University of Toronto last weekend grew up at a time when a young lady who became pregnant before marriage was hustled off to an unwed mothers' home to take care of her mistake.

Their daughters, who filled most of the seats in the auditorium, came of age at time when a woman who wanted to terminate an accidental pregnancy had to convince a hospital's therapeutic abortion committee that childbirth would endanger her life or health.

Their granddaughters, fewer in number but no less ardent, live in a Canada where abortion is legal, but often unavailable.

What brought the three generations together was the first anniversary of the death of Norma Scarborough, the mother of the pro-choice movement.

Scarborough was one of the unlikeliest feminists this city has ever produced.

She was a mother of five who stayed at home until all of her children were in school. She lived in the suburbs, volunteered at her local church, led a Girl Guide company and got a job in her mid-40s as a high-school secretary.

But, according to her daughter Pamela, there was a lot going on behind her mother's cheerfully efficient demeanour.

In her late teens, Scarborough (Norma Brown at the time), served in the Canadian Women's Army Corps in Fredericton. She returned to her barracks one day to find a roommate moaning in bed with blood all over the place. The woman refused to let anyone get medical help and died of the effects of her illegal abortion.

The memory stayed with Scarborough.

Article

 

[Sam48]

But since you've ignored everything else I've said, I suppose I'll post this for the other members:

Sorry, but I didn't understand what you meant.

 

[LizMcQueen]

Article

"People think abortion is widely available but it's hard to find places that perform the procedure. And the subject is still taboo. Young women don't know where to go." (from the article)

Something similar happens with emergency contraceptive pills too. In Spain, where these pills are available over the counter in pharmacies without prescription and with no age restrictions, some pharmacies refuse to give it, before they said morally can't do it, and now as they are forced to sell it by government, they say don't have stock.

 

[Danoff]

By definition, no. However it can feel pain, and I would assume during an abortion, it would feel quite a lot of it.

*sigh*

Sloppy sloppy sloppy. A puppy dog can feel pain, does it get protection under human rights? If a fly can feel pain are we forbidden to kill it? If a cow feels pain are we forbidden from eating hamburgers?

Whether or not something can feel pain is not the point.

The point is whether a fetus is classified as a human being and afforded all of the protections under the law that human beings are afforded. And to determine that we must understand WHY human beings are afforded rights and, say, a fully grown chimp, isn't afforded human rights. The answer? Highly developed brains. I argue that not only does the fetus need to have a brain, but it needs to have a well developed brain before it can receive human rights protection.

And, as I have argued earlier in this thread, since that line occurs after birth, I support a practical (rather than principled) cutoff at birth. Birth is a convenient place to begin protecting human rights. It's less convenient to determine when your child's brain is further developed than a cow, and so killing the child is less acceptable than killing the cow.

 

[Omnis]

The point is whether a fetus is classified as a human being and afforded all of the protections under the law that human beings are afforded.

You mean a person under the law. Obviously, fetuses are human beings. The argument is where personhood begins.

 

[Sam48]

*sigh*

Sloppy sloppy sloppy. A puppy dog can feel pain, does it get protection under human rights? If a fly can feel pain are we forbidden to kill it? If a cow feels pain are we forbidden from eating hamburgers?

Whether or not something can feel pain is not the point.

The point is whether a fetus is classified as a human being and afforded all of the protections under the law that human beings are afforded. And to determine that we must understand WHY human beings are afforded rights and, say, a fully grown chimp, isn't afforded human rights. The answer? Highly developed brains. I argue that not only does the fetus need to have a brain, but it needs to have a well developed brain before it can receive human rights protection.

And, as I have argued earlier in this thread, since that line occurs after birth, I support a practical (rather than principled) cutoff at birth. Birth is a convenient place to begin protecting human rights. It's less convenient to determine when your child's brain is further developed than a cow, and so killing the child is less acceptable than killing the cow.

I believed Famine when he said a fetus feels no pain within the first 12 weeks, so the argument was sorta resolved on that premise. However, you where referring to animals. A fetus is much more than an animal, it's the start of a human (If we aren't so technical as to say humans are animals, which they are).