Abortion

[Duke]

danoff, what if it the religion the country was founded on ?

When we're living in a country that's founded on religion, I'll get back to you.

 

[milefile]

It's very predictable how individuals' opinions on abortion change when they witness the birth of their own child. Suddenly objectivity and logic become less important than life. Even the former Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, now known as Norma McCorvey, has reversed her position.

 

[Duke]

Actually, I have to say that our opinions didn't change at all. It would have been the toughest decision we'd ever faced before we decided to have kids, and it would be just as tough now. But we're still both unswervingly pro-choice.

After all, you can always choose to not have an abortion.

 

[TwinTurboJay]

Freedom of choice is I guess they way... its the consequences of your choice that would be the hardest to deal with in my opinion.

 

[PhatFat]

I knew once you saw that reason you dismissed my othe reasons.
What I was saying is that a mother can not get rid of an unborn baby the same way as an arm because they have different DNA.
And that the cells are living cells therefore life has begun.
And they now have basic human rights because they are a live an have distinct human DNA.

But if you dont believe in a soul I guess you just say what ever makes you happy and I dare you to click on the link I posted and read the stuff on the site.

 

[Danoff]

My opinions on political and social issues change rarely and only after substantial debate. One such issue for me was the legalization of drugs. I was totally anti-drugs and pro-drug laws for a good portion of my life. I’m still anti-drugs and would never choose to do them, but after substantial debate I am now convinced that drug laws are a big problem.

It doesn’t matter what I would do personally – though personally I would never advocate a later term abortion. What matters for my opinion about what the law should be is what is right. Who has rights and who does not and at what time. Those lines have to be drawn and they need to be drawn at logical places. Not all lines in the legal world are drawn in logical places (18 and 21 yr age limits for example) but they can’t all be. Abortion is one that has a clear line for me.

The mother is growing the child into a human being. The mother’s body will produce this human being when the gestation period is complete. The mother is responsible for these steps and is directly affected by them. It is always the mother’s choice what she does with her body, so as long as the baby is physiologically dependent on the mother – the baby’s existence is at the mother’s discretion.

Not the father’s, society’s or the government’s discretion.

The baby is not a human being with rights to me until it is no longer physically dependent on the mother. That includes the physical dependence of the mother allowing her body to be surgically altered to remove the baby. How can a free human being be physically dependent on another - and supposing they were – who’s rights would supersede and by what criteria do we determine that?

 

[TwinTurboJay]

I have had family members / friends who have chosen to abort and those who have decided to have the child, even if they couldn't afford it, or didn;t live in an ideal place, so on and so forth....but the ones who have chosen to abbort have all been wrought with guilt, even 5 years after, when they actually did decide to have a keep a child...

 

[milefile]

But we're still both unswervingly pro-choice.

As am I. But lots of perfectly legal activities and those that participate in them still disgust me.

Abortion is not an issue to which logic can be used to any great effect. As has been shown already, the "umbilical cord argument" is no more or less logical than the "conception argument", or any other argument.

 

[Danoff]

I have had family members / friends who have chosen to abort and those who have decided to have the child, even if they couldn't afford it, or didn;t live in an ideal place, so on and so forth....but the ones who have chosen to abbort have all been wrought with guilt, even 5 years after, when they actually did decide to have a keep a child...

This has abosultely nothing to do with the discussion at all.

Abortion is not an issue to which logic can be used to any great effect. As has been shown already, the "umbilical cord argument" is no more or less logical than the "conception argument", or any other argument.

Please see my post above.

 

[PhatFat]

Abortion is not an issue to which logic can be used to any great effect.

Why?

 

[Duke]

Why?

Because the word 'soul' and the word 'logic' cannot be used in reference to each other.

 

[TwinTurboJay]

My opinions on political and social issues change rarely and only after substantial debate. One such issue for me was the legalization of drugs. I was totally anti-drugs and pro-drug laws for a good portion of my life. I’m still anti-drugs and would never choose to do them, but after substantial debate I am now convinced that drug laws are a big problem.

It doesn’t matter what I would do personally – though personally I would never advocate a later term abortion. What matters for my opinion about what the law should be is what is right. Who has rights and who does not and at what time. Those lines have to be drawn and they need to be drawn at logical places. Not all lines in the legal world are drawn in logical places (18 and 21 yr age limits for example) but they can’t all be. Abortion is one that has a clear line for me.

The mother is growing the child into a human being. The mother’s body will produce this human being when the gestation period is complete. The mother is responsible for these steps and is directly affected by them. It is always the mother’s choice what she does with her body, so as long as the baby is physiologically dependent on the mother – the baby’s existence is at the mother’s discretion.



The baby is not a human being with rights to me until it is no longer physically dependent on the mother. That includes the physical dependence of the mother allowing her body to be surgically altered to remove the baby. How can a free human being be physically dependent on another - and supposing they were – who’s rights would supersede and by what criteria do we determine that?

....and what of the cases of Siamese twins, co-joined twins, when they are dependent upon each other to survive ( minus extremely risky surgury ) do they have a choice to let one live and one die ? Does this come into play at all ?

 

[Duke]

If you read farther back in this debate, danoff addresses this issue.

 

[PhatFat]

Because the word 'soul' and the word 'logic' cannot be used in reference to each other.

Thats bull but I wont get into that now.
And there are other ways to logicly prove abortion is wrong!

 

[milefile]

The mother is responsible for these steps and is directly affected by them. It is always the mother’s choice what she does with her body, so as long as the baby is physiologically dependent on the mother – the baby’s existence is at the mother’s discretion.

This remains true after the baby is born. It is not logical.

 

[milefile]

Because the word 'soul' and the word 'logic' cannot be used in reference to each other.

Who used the word "soul"? Not me.

 

[Danoff]

This remains true after the baby is born.

No it doesn't. The baby is no longer physically dependent on any one person. Any of a number of people could care for the baby after birth.

 

[PhatFat]

No it doesn't. The baby is no longer physically dependent on any one person. Any of a number of people could care for the baby after birth.

So any number of people could kill the baby.

 

[milefile]

No it doesn't. The baby is no longer physically dependent on any one person. Any of a number of people could care for the baby after birth.

Any number of people could care for a baby long before an ideal, nine month gestation, too. It happens all the time.

 

[Duke]

Who used the word "soul"? Not me.

I understand that... he was asking why abortion couldn't be discussed logically, after having mentioned the fact that the soul was an issue in why abortion was wrong.

 

[PhatFat]

I dare you guys to go here http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/ and read the stuff on the page.

 

[Duke]

Don't need to be dared. I'm very aware of precisely what is involved in abortions of all phases.

 

[Famine]

I have a neice who was born 5 1/2 or 4 1/2 months early and is still alive and 6 years old.

Do you not know which?

For reference, 5.5 months early is 15 weeks into term. No foetus can be viable at that point.

4.5 months early is roughly 20 weeks into term. Such a foetus CAN be viable (23 weeks is a good ball-park for viability) but would be, in almost all cases, severly handicapped, probably with spina bifida, amongst the nicest of its problems.

danoff you said that a women should be able to abort a child as long as its connected to her and you said it is just like she can ave an arm removed, did you know that from the moment of conception the baby has a different DNA so it can no way be considered part of the mother??

No it doesn't. Where did you learn this?

Any child shares at least 50% of its mother's DNA and at most 50% of its father's. In girls, the child will have one of its mother's entire X chromosomes and its father's entire X chromosome. In boys the child will have one of its mother's entire X chromosomes and its father's entire Y chromosome (which is significantly smaller, and contains only 19 genes). Every child ever born has exactly the same mitochondrial DNA as its mother.

While its sum-total DNA may be different, it is comprised of parts which are at the very least 50% identical to those of its mother.


As a curiousity, almost all cancer cells have "different DNA", by your definition, to the host organism. Malignant cells can have well in excess of 200 chromosomes (we have 46, as a matter of course, although 45, 47 and 48 chromosomed individuals exist), not to mention being immortalised. Why is it not right to remove a 4-celled embryo and acceptable to remove a six million-celled malignant cancer?


Abortion may be a risky, painful procedure. What on Earth do you think child-bearing is? On the nice side is the delivery and haemorrhoids. Childbirth can STILL be fatal - as can pregnancy (look up "pre-eclampsia"). Mothers with Rhesus incompatible foetuses have to endure injections - also risky. Amniocentesis carries a 1% risk of auto-aborting the child. Miscarriage can be fatal.

Why do you want to force every woman to suffer this litany of malaises, and not allow them the choice of whether they want the potential pain of carrying a child or the potential pain of abortion?

 

[milefile]

4.5 months early is roughly 20 weeks into term. Such a foetus CAN be viable (23 weeks is a good ball-park for viability) but would be, in almost all cases, severly handicapped, probably with spina bifida, amongst the nicest of its problems.

I had no idea spina bifida had anything to do with premature birth.

But hey, just kill the infant before the cord is cut. It's logical.

 

[Famine]

It can - it's simply a case of the spine/back not being developed enough to yet be covering the spinal cord.

Oh, and there's no evidence that a foetus without a heartbeat can sense pain.

 

[Anderton Prime]

Don't need to be dared. I'm very aware of precisely what is involved in abortions of all phases.

I had no idea such a dispicable thing as Partial Birth Abortion even existed until i went to that link. Not all of us are as thoroughlly educated on this subject as you are, neon. The link was a helpful one to at least one GTP user, me.

 

[Famine]

The Chinese are known for aborting viable foetuses (usually girls) by injecting them with a concentrated saline solution, which destroys the central nervous system. Given that it's a viable foetus, this must hurt a ****load.

 

[demon of speed]

Is that due to the "one child per family" policy?

 

[Duke]

Yes. The Chinese are particularly brutal about it. It should be noted that we're referring to Communist China specifically.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Is that due to the "one child per family" policy?

Yes it is.
It sounds barbaric but China's population is a big problem in terms of over crowding and food. Parents face jail if they have more than one child, and most Fathers in China want a son so that it will carry on the family name.

I'm pro life and pro choice I have a beautiful daughter, but years ago my ex partner had two abortions. We were too young, it just wouldn't have been fair on the child or ourselves to have brought it into the world. btw they were terminated very early, it makes the decision less painfull.
It is only right that a woman has the choice as to carry out a pregnacy or not, and if it is illegal, then you will have unregulated back street abortions or even worse, young girls risking their lifes trying to do it themselves.

Boy..tough thread..not shy of exploring hard topics here at GTPlanet.