Abortion

[FoolKiller]

That's really only a matter of convention. It depends on how bad a crime you think it is to rob a mother of the possibility of bringing that potential person to term. I can see pretty harsh penalties for that.

Example:

What if the mother and father had been trying for years. They were starting to get older and realized that it was now or never. Somehow, they managed to get pregnant and had a chance at becoming parents... when out of nowhere the mother gets injured by someone who wanted to steal her wallet. She then miscarries.

What crime has the mugger committed? He might have just robbed the couple (not just the mother) of the opportunity to become parents AT ALL. He at the minimum wasted years of trying to conceive.

It's a pretty bad crime... I think it's possible that it should be its own category, but putting it under murder doesn't bother me so much. I think the penalty should be harsh.

So, once again, the priority of how important the fetus is is placed on whether it is wanted or not. If it is not wanted it is just removing a part of the mother she doesn't like. Merely a cosmetic procedure. If it is wanted you have commited an atrocious crime that is punished as harshly as murder.

 

[Swift]

So, once again, the priority of how important the fetus is is placed on whether it is wanted or not. If it is not wanted it is just removing a part of the mother she doesn't like. Merely a cosmetic procedure. If it is wanted you have commited an atrocious crime that is punished as harshly as murder.

Isn't that how it works with all people? Seriously, it all depends how much that person was cared about or in the public eye. Look at OJ's case. Whether or not he did it(and he probably did) is not my point. My point is that it was the center of American attention for about 2 years just because it was "OJ". If it had been some "regular" guy that got mad and murdered his wife and her boyfriend, I seriously doubt it would've gone further then a sound bite on the 5 o'clock news.

It all comes down to who it involves, now what was done.

 

[Danoff]

So, once again, the priority of how important the fetus is is placed on whether it is wanted or not. If it is not wanted it is just removing a part of the mother she doesn't like. Merely a cosmetic procedure. If it is wanted you have commited an atrocious crime that is punished as harshly as murder.

No, it all depends on consent.

Example, if a person decides to throw something away... that's their perrogative. If that person has that thing stole from them, that is a crime.

 

[Swift]

No, it all depends on consent.

Example, if a person decides to throw something away... that's their perrogative. If that person has that thing stole from them, that is a crime.

What about stealing from the garbage?

I'm just playin.

But seriously, I think foolkiller has a great point. It's all point of view. Some people think it's murder and others think it's a choice. The action is the same, so it just comes down to point of view.

 

[Danoff]

What about stealing from the garbage?

I'm just playin.

But seriously, I think foolkiller has a great point. It's all point of view. Some people think it's murder and others think it's a choice. The action is the same, so it just comes down to point of view.

I agree, the heart of Foolkiller's post is that it depends on the point of view, which is a fine thing to point out. But the substance of foolkiller's post was that it depends on whether the thing is "wanted" as to whether it is considered a crime.

I was explaining that it has nothing to do with whether it is "wanted" but whether it is forced or voluntary - the basis of so much of what makes criminal acts criminal.

 

[FoolKiller]

No, it all depends on consent.

Example, if a person decides to throw something away... that's their perrogative. If that person has that thing stole from them, that is a crime.

I am referring to:

It depends on how bad a crime you think it is to rob a mother of the possibility of bringing that potential person to term. I can see pretty harsh penalties for that.

When the mother chooses to bring it to term it is a potential person but when she wants to abort it is a growth or unwanted body part?

I am discussing how it is dealt with by the law. The law is making concessions for the death/termination of a fetus depending on the mothers wishes. There is even a completely different terminology used (death/termination, unborn child/fetus) depending on whether the mother intends to keep it.

For me I feel as if the law needs to determine if it is a death or not. Are we killing something or not? I just think it leaves a gray area.

There is too much room for a woman who is immediately regretful of an abortion to sue. I don't know how it would play out in court but I can see a lawyer making a strong case by accusing the doctors of lack of proper counseling.
^Yes, I see this as just being argumentative, but I presented it so that I could ask, where would the law play out here? Was it just a terminated fetus or because once it was too late the mother decided she did want it is it an unborn child that has been killed?

 

[Danoff]

When the mother chooses to bring it to term it is a potential person but when she wants to abort it is a growth or unwanted body part?

I am discussing how it is dealt with by the law. The law is making concessions for the death/termination of a fetus depending on the mothers wishes. There is even a completely different terminology used (death/termination, unborn child/fetus) depending on whether the mother intends to keep it.

For me I feel as if the law needs to determine if it is a death or not. Are we killing something or not? I just think it leaves a gray area.

There is too much room for a woman who is immediately regretful of an abortion to sue. I don't know how it would play out in court but I can see a lawyer making a strong case by accusing the doctors of lack of proper counseling.
^Yes, I see this as just being argumentative, but I presented it so that I could ask, where would the law play out here? Was it just a terminated fetus or because once it was too late the mother decided she did want it is it an unborn child that has been killed?

I agree with you on the terminology, they should keep it consistent. It isn't the death of a child but the termination of a fetus - in both cases (unless you're pro-life in which case you'd say it was the death of a child in both cases). But a forcible miscarriage should still carry serious penalties.

 

[FoolKiller]

I agree with you on the terminology, they should keep it consistent. It isn't the death of a child but the termination of a fetus - in both cases (unless you're pro-life in which case you'd say it was the death of a child in both cases).

But the terminology is why they are able to say one is illegal while the other is not. To have consistent terminology would mean that the government is defining whether a fetus is a living human or not. No one seems to want to officially make this decision.

This is also why this debate can run in circles. One side has one terminology while the other uses their own. No one sees the situation from the same point of view. Alas, this is the point where one has to say that the opposing point of view cannot see their side. All evidence for both sides has been presented repeatedly and minds are not changing. Much like religion and politics (this kind of mixes both) it is pointless to argue because no one will change their minds or their point of view. I do it just because it is fun to debate/argue.

But a forcible miscarriage should still carry serious penalties.

Look, a third form of the terminology. Nicely done, sir. And this is a point I believe that we can all agree on (no matter what you call it).

 

[Danoff]

But the terminology is why they are able to say one is illegal while the other is not. To have consistent terminology would mean that the government is defining whether a fetus is a living human or not. No one seems to want to officially make this decision.

This is also why this debate can run in circles. One side has one terminology while the other uses their own. No one sees the situation from the same point of view. Alas, this is the point where one has to say that the opposing point of view cannot see their side. All evidence for both sides has been presented repeatedly and minds are not changing. Much like religion and politics (this kind of mixes both) it is pointless to argue because no one will change their minds or their point of view. I do it just because it is fun to debate/argue.


Look, a third form of the terminology. Nicely done, sir. And this is a point I believe that we can all agree on (no matter what you call it).

I don't see why pro-lifers would be against calling it a forcible miscarriage or the termination of a fetus. That is accurate (though not emotional) terminology. Even pro-life folks must admit that. If they called it the termination of a fetus, I'd say they weren't taking sides (yet).

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't see why pro-lifers would be against calling it a forcible miscarriage or the termination of a fetus. That is accurate (though not emotional) terminology. Even pro-life folks must admit that. If they called it the termination of a fetus, I'd say they weren't taking sides (yet).

While fetus is scientifically correct whether you consider a fetus to be a living human in an early stage or just a ball of flesh is where the opinion comes in. The pro-life movement has reworked their terminology to try and make people see things from their point of view.

It is much the same with how the pro-choice movement has gone through several name changes for PR. They were pro-abortion, but that sounded too much like they wanted everyone to have abortions. They became pro-choice but it lacked the effect that they wanted. Now I constantly hear them refer to themselvses as reproductive rights groups. Rights is much more patriotic sounding than choice.

No matter what the PR or the words used it is a matter of do you consider removing a fetus with the mother's permission to be murder because it is an early stage human or is it just removing a mass of meaningless cells with the potential to become human? This allows the debate to remain devoid of religious entanglements.

Howevere, Danoff, I know that you are not religious or atheist or however you choose it to be phrased, but for those who are religious the moral dilemma lies within whether you believe the fetus has a soul or if it doesn't gain one until birth. If it does have a soul then God sees it as a human, but if it doesn't have a soul then it is not important to God. This argument alone can keep my mother and aunt going at each other for hours.

 

[Danoff]

for those who are religious the moral dilemma lies within whether you believe the fetus has a soul or if it doesn't gain one until birth.

As I've stated before, that argument simply cannot be used to make abortion illegal. In a country with freedom of religion we cannot pass a law saying that an atheist cannot have an abortion because the state is christian and believes that her fetus has a soul.

The religious folks will have to find another justification for making abortion illegal. The state cannot recognize the soul.

 

[FoolKiller]

As I've stated before, that argument simply cannot be used to make abortion illegal. In a country with freedom of religion we cannot pass a law saying that an atheist cannot have an abortion because the state is christian and believes that her fetus has a soul.

The religious folks will have to find another justification for making abortion illegal. The state cannot recognize the soul.

I didn't mention illegal, but realize it was pretty much implied considering the nature of the debate. I was just explaining where their issue comes in.

I would hope that it wasn't decided upon based on one group's religious beliefs. It would be nice if a scientific study somewhere could provide data to allow the government to be consistent on the fetus as a living human debate.

I have grown to accept that not everything a person believes to be right or moral will be reflected in the law. It would be impossible to do this and make everyone happy. Society cannot work like that.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't mention illegal, but realize it was pretty much implied considering the nature of the debate. I was just explaining where their issue comes in.

I would hope that it wasn't decided upon based on one group's religious beliefs. It would be nice if a scientific study somewhere could provide data to allow the government to be consistent on the fetus as a living human debate.

I have grown to accept that not everything a person believes to be right or moral will be reflected in the law. It would be impossible to do this and make everyone happy. Society cannot work like that.

But certain things that are immoral - like muder - must be illegal and enforced by the state. Without a murder statute, there is no society, there is no civilization, there are no rights.

But is it also necessary from a social perspective for the murder statute to extend to fetuses? Clearly not. Society and civilization go on without murder statutes applying to the unborn. So strictly speaking society does not come to an end when abortion is legal. It's only from a moral perspective that abortion becomes necessary, not a social one.

 

[FoolKiller]

But certain things that are immoral - like muder - must be illegal and enforced by the state. Without a murder statute, there is no society, there is no civilization, there are no rights.

But is it also necessary from a social perspective for the murder statute to extend to fetuses? Clearly not. Society and civilization go on without murder statutes applying to the unborn. So strictly speaking society does not come to an end when abortion is legal. It's only from a moral perspective that abortion becomes necessary, not a social one.

Society doesn't come to an end when a lot of things are legal, but they aren't. Not that it makes it right.

The way to see the argument for illegal abortion is if the fetus is considered human then you are infringing on its right to be born and live. For those who see the fetus as a human the rights of that human are infringed upon by the actions of another.

 

[Danoff]

Society doesn't come to an end when a lot of things are legal, but they aren't. Not that it makes it right.

The way to see the argument for illegal abortion is if the fetus is considered human then you are infringing on its right to be born and live. For those who see the fetus as a human the rights of that human are infringed upon by the actions of another.

Totally agreed. But the rights of another human are infringed upon in order to preserve the rights of the unborn... and the whole issue is "what is considered a human individual with rights and why".

 

[Swift]

Totally agreed. But the rights of another human are infringed upon in order to preserve the rights of the unborn... and the whole issue is "what is considered a human individual with rights and why".

Well, the declaration of independence says that we are given our inalienable rights by our creator.

So, I guess that takes this conversation right back to the beginning doesn't it?

 

[Danoff]

Well, the declaration of independence says that we are given our inalienable rights by our creator.

So, I guess that takes this conversation right back to the beginning doesn't it?

Does it say who our creator is? Was it talking about our parents? When was the last time we used the declaration of independence as law? Does it happen to say when we get those inalienable rights? After birth? Prior to birth?

 

[Swift]

Does it say who our creator is? Was it talking about our parents? When was the last time we used the declaration of independence as law? Does it happen to say when we get those inalienable rights? After birth? Prior to birth?

It says creator, singular.

When was the last time seperation of church and state was in the constitution?

Also, where do you think the founding fathers got rights that they put into the constitution. I know the declaration of independence isn't law, but it is one of if not THE document on which our constitution is rooted in.

 

[Danoff]

It says creator, singular.

When was the last time seperation of church and state was in the constitution?

Also, where do you think the founding fathers got rights that they put into the constitution. I know the declaration of independence isn't law, but it is one of if not THE document on which our constitution is rooted in.

We went through this already. Article VI of the constitution... the so called "separation" clause. The bill of rights also has a religion guarantee.

Let me put it to you this way Swift. Let's say that the majority of people in the country bought in to some new religion that cosidered the display of crosses to be a sin. Since they're a majority they then pass a law that says crosses cannot be displayed in public. How would this make you feel? A little oppressed perhaps?

Let's say they considered the eating of macaroni to be a sin and passed a law saying that nobody can eat macaroni. Getting my drift? Laws can't be based on religion because no everyone has the same religion. The foundation for law must come from logic and reasoning - NOT religion.

What if someday a race of aliens comes down and says that they wrote the bible and that Jesus was actually one of them, and all of christianity is based on a lie. Does that then invalidate our laws? It would if those laws were based on christianity.

Swift, not everyone has the same god as you do. Some people don't have any god. Some have several. You cannot simply impose the morals that your religion hands you onto those who don't share them. Religion is, and should always be, voluntary.

Your challenge is to find an objective logical reason to ban abortion - one that you can use to convince people who don't believe in the soul or in Christ.

 

[Swift]

Swift, not everyone has the same god as you do. Some people don't have any god. Some have several. You cannot simply impose the morals that your religion hands you onto those who don't share them. Religion is, and should always be, voluntary.

Your challenge is to find an objective logical reason to ban abortion - one that you can use to convince people who don't believe in the soul or in Christ.

Ok, let me get this straight. There is ONE way for people to be born naturally, just one. And that's pregnancy that results from sex. How then can you say that aborting a fetus is not killing the natural progress of life?

 

[Famine]

Death is natural progress of life. Should we ban interventionalist medicine?

 

[Swift]

Death is natural progress of life. Should we ban interventionalist medicine?

But how many different natural ways can one die with no intervention from others?

There is only one way for people to procreate naturally.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, let me get this straight. There is ONE way for people to be born naturally, just one. And that's pregnancy that results from sex. How then can you say that aborting a fetus is not killing the natural progress of life?

The natural progress of life?? Define natural. I'd say that the mother and all of the choices she makes are the natural process of life. So abortion is a natural process.

Yes, aborting a fetus does end it's biological progress toward becoming a person. So what? How can you say that ending it's biological progress toward becoming a person is wrong?

You keep trying to sidestep the issue. I know you're not doing it on purpose, but that's what's happening.

Tell me exactly why I should think that halting the progress of a fetus toward becoming a baby is wrong?

 

[Swift]

Tell me exactly why I should think that halting the progress of a fetus toward becoming a baby is wrong?

Because that IS life. You see it as a blob of cells, I see it as an unborn child. Point of view.

BTW, did you have any say at all in your creation/conception?

 

[Specialized]

Yes, aborting a fetus does end it's biological progress toward becoming a person. So what? How can you say that ending it's biological progress toward becoming a person is wrong?

Tell me exactly why I should think that halting the progress of a fetus toward becoming a baby is wrong?

IMO - It seems that you have misconceptions about what a fetus is. You mention about halting the process of a fetus towards becoming a baby. Well a fetus is a baby, it is just at a less developed stage. The same as a baby can be compared to a child or a pre-pubecent tenageer can be compared to a adult. The fetus is just one stage of growing up so what you are actually saying is that by aborting a fetus you are aborting a person and could be compared to maybe halting the progress of a pre-pubecent person bilologically changing and becoming an adult which im sure is classed as murder! And instead of asking us whats wrong with essentially killing a person think about what gives you the right to be able to decide the fate of a unborn child?

If people are going to be nieve about such things then they should not punish the child for there own foolish actions. The conception of a child requires two people to engage in intercourse and in doing so both participants know what can happen and have the responsibility to use contraceptives to prevent the need for abortion.

In cases such as rape, the woman should be given the choice to abort the child as it was conceived without concent of the mother and she should not be forced to be put under the torture of having to look at the child of a incredibly sick and disturbed human being (if they can even be clased as that)

Anyhoo thats just my opinion

 

[Danoff]

Because that IS life. You see it as a blob of cells, I see it as an unborn child. Point of view.

BTW, did you have any say at all in your creation/conception?

Yes. I personally asked my parents to have me.

Sure it's life. But is it human life? We don't protect all forms of life. Just human life. Why? That distinction is what drives me to my stand on abortion. I need more reasoning behind your opinion that simply "it IS life". Plants are life. Animals are life. We can kill them because we're not destroying a conciousness - similar to fetuses.

IMO - It seems that you have misconceptions about what a fetus is. You mention about halting the process of a fetus towards becoming a baby. Well a fetus is a baby, it is just at a less developed stage. The same as a baby can be compared to a child or a pre-pubecent tenageer can be compared to a adult.

Ok. In the first part you say that a fetus is a baby. Is a pre-pubecent teenager an adult? No. It is developing into one. A fetus is not a baby (unless you redefine baby), it is developing into one. Fetus is the name we give it until it is born - at which time it becomes a baby.

 

[FoolKiller]

In cases such as rape, the woman should be given the choice to abort the child as it was conceived without concent of the mother and she should not be forced to be put under the torture of having to look at the child of a incredibly sick and disturbed human being (if they can even be clased as that)

I really don't like this I hear so many people talk about being opposed to abortion because they see it as murder, unless it is a rape. It sounds too much like punishing the child for the sins of the father.

While this is a sympathetic position in order to prevent the mother the 9 months of emotional torture she will go through I would say that if you believe abortion to be murder then adoption is the better choice.

Another option, depending on how you feel about it, is the morning after pill (Not RU486-the abortion pill).

 

[Danoff]

I really don't like this I hear so many people talk about being opposed to abortion because they see it as murder, unless it is a rape. It sounds too much like punishing the child for the sins of the father.

There is no child. It isn't born yet. You cannot punish a person that doesn't exist. Seriously, how exactly can you punish a fetus? I has no concept of anything.

 

[FoolKiller]

There is no child. It isn't born yet. You cannot punish a person that doesn't exist. Seriously, how exactly can you punish a fetus? I has no concept of anything.

I was showing why I had a problem with his argument by using his own belief to explain why I didn't think the, "Well, if it is rape," argument worked. My whole statement is not even relevant to your belief on the subject.

Sure it's life. But is it human life? We don't protect all forms of life. Just human life. Why? That distinction is what drives me to my stand on abortion. I need more reasoning behind your opinion that simply "it IS life". Plants are life. Animals are life. We can kill them because we're not destroying a conciousness - similar to fetuses.

When do humans develop conciousness? Is it right at birth? If not, then by this rationale we have a small frame of time to kill a newborn.

Is a pre-pubecent teenager an adult? No. It is developing into one.

Both both are stages in human development, as is fetus-baby, which is what I think he was attempting to get at. People see a fetus as a developing baby, the same as many people see a teenager as a developing adult.

 

[Danoff]

I was showing why I had a problem with his argument by using his own belief to explain why I didn't think the, "Well, if it is rape," argument worked. My whole statement is not even relevant to your belief on the subject.

I see. I missed that.

When do humans develop conciousness? Is it right at birth? If not, then by this rationale we have a small frame of time to kill a newborn.

We do. But once it is an individual, and protecting it no longer means violating the rights of another person - then it makes sense to draw the legal line there.

Both both are stages in human development, as is fetus-baby, which is what I think he was attempting to get at. People see a fetus as a developing baby, the same as many people see a teenager as a developing adult.

I understood that.