Abortion, more than meets the eye?

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings

Following the "mind is a cause of physiology" discourse, which presuposes that mind is essentially non-existent, or should I say, irrelevant to the brain, a couple of questions spring up concerning the topic which I am addressing. Ultimately, abortion is termination of zygote/embryo. Those who are not pro-choice claim that destroying an embroy is non-ethical and immoral. However, I would just like to point out a couple of facts that stem from natural reasoning alone. A child conceived out of non-consentual coitus is less likely to embrace life due to either poor family care, poor social care, possible medical conditions, and more such obstacles which the "normal" children do not face. Furthermore, a child conceived during an unfortunate time cannot possibly enjoy life as would a child that has good financial groundings and parental love.

I find it incredibly silly that people that claim that abortion is wrong still go on and get impregnated by some random person who later leaves them.

I was involved in a discussion a little while ago, and the talk was concerning the possiblity of consciousness in a fetus. To spare the discussion of the notion of soul, I think it is important to consider the effects of consciousness of abortion. Destroying a conscious entity is murder, according to moral code, however, in my opinion, no way is consciousness developed during such early years of development. Why would people want to instill life in an entity at an inoportune time?

[ramseytheii]

Greetings

Following the "mind is a cause of physiology" discourse, which presuposes that mind is essentially non-existent, or should I say, irrelevant to the brain, a couple of questions spring up concerning the topic which I am addressing. Ultimately, abortion is termination of zygote/embryo. Those who are not pro-choice claim that destroying an embroy is non-ethical and immoral. However, I would just like to point out a couple of facts that stem from natural reasoning alone. A child conceived out of non-consentual coitus is less likely to embrace life due to either poor family care, poor social care, possible medical conditions, and more such obstacles which the "normal" children do not face. Furthermore, a child conceived during an unfortunate time cannot possibly enjoy life as would a child that has good financial groundings and parental love.

What a sensitive topic you've just bombed us with on pianoforum.  I only want to mention this, that we certainly cannot favor "terminating" someone on the basis that they are "less likely to embrace life," or that they "cannot possibly enjoy life."  On this logic, we should also terminate those old and infirm, who live in pain, and cannot enjoy life to the fullest.

This from a favorite blog of mine:
"You are a pregnant woman. You've had 8 kids, 3 born deaf, 2 born blind, and 1 mentally retarded. You also have syphillus. Should you get an abortion?
If you answered yes, you just killed Beethoven."

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

A child conceived out of non-consentual coitus is less likely to embrace life due to either poor family care, poor social care, possible medical conditions, and more such obstacles which the "normal" children do not face.

I don't think this has any effect. A child, no matter where it is born or in what social class it is born, will 'accept' life in the same way. Well, it doesn't even have a choice. You can't refuse to accept life.

The child will certainly be ignorant of the social status of her/his parents.

I don't think this is an issue in an abortion debate at all. You can never ask a child if it wants to live. And even if you could, the child could not answer.

So what the child wants can play no role.

I find it incredibly silly that people that claim that abortion is wrong still go on and get impregnated by some random person who later leaves them.

People are silly. But I don't really see how being against abortion makes it more silly.

I was involved in a discussion a little while ago, and the talk was concerning the possiblity[sic] of consciousness in a fetus. To spare the discussion of the notion of soul, I think it is important to consider the effects of consciousness of abortion.

Imo, this is the correct question.

Destroying a conscious entity is murder,

I don't think many people would agree with this. All mammals and birds are conscious, for example.



Ooh, and do expect a Pianistimo bible ramble anytime soon.

...according to moral code, however, in my opinion, no way is consciousness developed during such early years of development.

It can be measured, in a sense, and your opinion matches measurements.

Why would people want to instill life in an entity at an inoportune time?

What do you mean here? The entity is the mind, existent but incomplete late in the pregnancy, and if the pregnancy wasn't planned we humans shouldn't nurture the life this entity will be given?


If so, it's not really our choice. We either do nothing and the entity will get a life. Or we destroy the entity. And if I was that entity I would be pissed. Not because I would have been alive that bad, I have no idea yet, but because they made me exist and then destroyed me. I never really had any purpose or anything. I could not have existed just as well. And that's probably what they should have done.

[timothy42b]

"You are a pregnant woman. You've had 8 kids, 3 born deaf, 2 born blind, and 1 mentally retarded. You also have syphillus. Should you get an abortion?
If you answered yes, you just killed Beethoven."

Walter Ramsey

Say what?  Even I know Beethoven was the third child not the ninth, I bet the rest of it is false too. 

I'm not sure it is relevant, though.  If we are protecting "a person," his future quality of life is not determinative.  I would imagine if Horowitz had his hands cut off in an industrial accident he would be devastated, but we would not consider euthanizing him.  If the zygote is a functioning aware person, then it must be protected regardless of whether it is a future Beethoven or Brittany Spears. 

And if the zygote is not a person (which i believe) then it has no right to protection either, regardless of whether it would turn out to be a Hitler or a Mother Theresa. 

[thalberg]

Abortion hurts women more than it hurts anyone.  Women who have had abortions experience tremendous remorse, guilt, depression, and more.  Many name the baby they would have had and think of it every time they see a child who was the age their child would have been.  I know one woman who even remembers the supposed birthday of her aborted fetus each year.  Many want to have another baby right away to replace it.  Why do you think protests have all those women holding up signs saying "I regret my abortion"?

It was this exact belief that led a friend of mine in his actions.  His younger sister was pregnant and did not want the baby.  She was set on having an abortion.  But my friend, knowing what the abortion would do to her, promised that he and his wife would adopt the baby, and the sister could be part of the baby's life in any way she wanted.  I don't know what happened in the end.  I've been out of touch with him.

[maul]

raise your hand if you wish debussy symbolism had been aborted. *raises hand*

[wotgoplunk]

Abortion hurts women more than it hurts anyone. 

Some women are still very happy with their abortions, though. Those that aren't likely went against religious beliefs of some sort, or were pressured into it.



But back to fetal consciousness.

It is deemed a zygote until the 8th week of pregnancy. Vital organs, including the brain, would not have begun serious development until this point. The brain would never be fully complete until at least 9 weeks. Sensory connections aren't even formed until the 32nd week. However, the heart begins beating in the 5th week, before it is actually developed. So for four weeks at the minimum, a fetus would have a heartbeat yet not be conscious about it's existence.  So the question becomes, is it consciousness of its existence, or a heartbeat that determines life?

Also, I would like anyone who is pro-life to answer the following: If you make abortion illegal, then you are denying people medical, and personal rights. Why can't it stay legal for those who want it, and you personally don't have one, instead of denying others? What gives you the right to take away someone else's choice?

[maul]

So the question becomes, is it consciousness of its existence, or a heartbeat that determines life?

The question is not whether at that point it in time the being has consciousness or not... the point is, the being is going to grow into an adult human being. That's a given. It's not going to stay at 8 weeks development forever, otherwise I'd say kill it all you like. Whether you kill someone when they are 8 years or when they are 8 weeks, you are killing a human. Plain and simple.

[wotgoplunk]

I have the potential to become a Nobel Prize winner.

I should be up in arms if someone denies me a science lab.


It's moot if it's going to grow into an adult, because it's not an adult when the pregnancy is terminated! If they get it before it's "alive", then where is the moral wrong?

[maul]

*sigh*. Your brain is not comprehending. Try again.

[wotgoplunk]

You said that it has the potential to become an adult, n'est-ce pas?

[pita bread]

Dude, women who want abortions should get abortions, women who don't want them shouldn't. I don't see why ya'll gotta get your feathers ruffled up about this.

[rach n bach]

If the only restriction on killing a being is whether it's conscious or not... why not legalize infanticied?  Can you honestly say that a 3 or 6 month old is conscious?  If so, you have not worked with children.

[soliloquy]

This from a favorite blog of mine:
"You are a pregnant woman. You've had 8 kids, 3 born deaf, 2 born blind, and 1 mentally retarded. You also have syphillus. Should you get an abortion?
If you answered yes, you just killed Beethoven."

I've seen that.  That is the most idiotic, illogical sh*t I have ever heard (this afternoon).  While we possibly may have just killed a Beethoven, maybe we also killed a Mao Zedong or an Adolf Hitler.  Anyway, if some homeless 13 year old hooker heroine addict gets gang-raped and turns up pregnant with triplets, it's a crime to make her have those babies.  That may be the extreme of the spectrum here, but any law that will ban ALL abortion will ban that abortion.

[mike_lang]

Anyway, if some homeless 13 year old hooker heroine addict gets gang-raped and turns up pregnant with triplets, it's a crime to make her have those babies.

It is most certainly far from a crime to uphold those babies' right to life.  Although it is quite obviously not the young girl's fault that she was raped, the circumstances of the conception do not give her the right to commit another intrinsically evil act in response.  I believe, on the whole, that evil is allowed by God in the world (such as the rape, in this case) that a greater good might come out of it.  If the aforementioned victim does not have the means to support her children, she should turn them over to someone who can, e.g., an adoption agency.  She has, once again, no right to victimize them in turn.

[prometheus]

If some homeless 13 year old hooker heroine addict gets gang-raped and turns up pregnant with the new Mozart, it's, not a crime but, certainly immoral to make her have those babies.

[soliloquy]

It is most certainly far from a crime to uphold those babies' right to life.

So would you also say it is immoral to get a vasectomy because those sperm could be babies?  Let me ask you, have you ever jacked off or used a condom?  If so, you're a hypocrite.  A bundle of chromosomes and DNA is no more "alive" than a spermazoa.  Things that aren't alive yet do not have the "right" to life (I say in the hopes that you are aware that a baby can not be aborted past the second trimester).  In the situation I proposed, you would be more destroying the life of the girl to save a pile of genetics that has no stream of conscious.  Destroying a living girl is fine with you, destroying a rape-soup is abhorrent.

[rach n bach]

Somebody failed basic medical sciences.... sperm =/= life... eggs =/= life... sperm + eggs = life...

Of course, you may just want to tell me at what point sperm + eggs = life... is it when the stuff can talk?  walk?  do algebra?  eat?  when?

[pita bread]

It is most certainly far from a crime to uphold those babies' right to life.  Although it is quite obviously not the young girl's fault that she was raped, the circumstances of the conception do not give her the right to commit another intrinsically evil act in response.  I believe, on the whole, that evil is allowed by God in the world (such as the rape, in this case) that a greater good might come out of it.  If the aforementioned victim does not have the means to support her children, she should turn them over to someone who can, e.g., an adoption agency.  She has, once again, no right to victimize them in turn.

So she, after being raped, should have to labor and pain for an additional 9 months?

[soliloquy]

Somebody failed basic medical sciences.... sperm =/= life... eggs =/= life... sperm + eggs = life...

Yes and that person is apparently you.  Would you please tell me what the suffix "zoa" means in the word "spermatozoa".  A sperm is just as alive as a new egg+sperm (as you so scientifically put it); it just has different chromosomes.  Does it not move?  Can it not die?  Does it not have DNA?  So, my question to you is, how many millions of babies have you so callously "murdered" with the wipe of a kleenex or sock?

Of course, you may just want to tell me at what point sperm + eggs = life.

No, apparently that is you.  If you are not willing to consider a spermatozoa living, then there is no reason to consider a 5 second old embryo a living creature either.  You are picking and choosing to support your stance based solely on morals.  If you had any logical reason for your decision on this issue, you would not have to.  It is not fair for someone to make a choice based on their own personal beliefs, whether they be spiritual or otherwise, that will effect hundreds of millions of people, many of whom have different religions and moral codes.

[wotgoplunk]

Somebody failed basic medical sciences.... sperm =/= life... eggs =/= life... sperm + eggs = life...

Sperm has the potential for life 

[wotgoplunk]

If some homeless 13 year old hooker heroine addict gets gang-raped and turns up pregnant with the new Mozart, it's, not a crime but, certainly immoral to make her have those babies.

Most definitely.

Abortion is legal- Pro-choicers have safe abortion in medical environment. Prolifers do not have an abortion, and do not meddle with other people's free will.

Abortion is illegal- Pro-choicers have back alley abortion, and are hurt in the process, or are forcet to keep an unwanted child that gets neglected. Prolifers have meddled in people's lives, and still do not have an abortion.

On a side note, why are most prolifers religious? You always say "God gave you free will!" If God gave us free will, why can't we have the free will to have an abortion!?

[matterintospirit]

I've never come up with a good respnse to the abortion issue. the only think i know is that it feels unbearably sad to end a life. i don't even like killing bugs. even insects are so amazingly complex creatures and have a right to live. of course i understand the social issues involved with abortion, womens rights etc. but i could never find it within myself to condone an abortion. what other people choose to do is their own affair i suppose. when my wife was pregnant when we were very young, we considered abortion and decided against it. my son is now a grown up beautiful human being. the alternative is impossible to fathom.

[soliloquy]

I've never come up with a good respnse to the abortion issue. the only think i know is that it feels unbearably sad to end a life. i don't even like killing bugs. even insects are so amazingly complex creatures and have a right to live. of course i understand the social issues involved with abortion, womens rights etc. but i could never find it within myself to condone an abortion. what other people choose to do is their own affair i suppose. when my wife was pregnant when we were very young, we considered abortion and decided against it. my son is now a grown up beautiful human being. the alternative is impossible to fathom.

Unequivocally the most sane and coherent post ever on the PS anything but piano board.



Maybe a bit too sane...   I'm sorry, but this unbias and empathy does not belong in this thread!  XD

[matterintospirit]

 

[mike_lang]

So would you also say it is immoral to get a vasectomy because those sperm could be babies?  Let me ask you, have you ever jacked off or used a condom? 

I agree - all of those things are immoral as well.

[wotgoplunk]

I agree - all of those things are immoral as well.

Biblical again? I can't recall anywhere in my Bible it forbids those.

And it's moot anyway because millions die by themselves.

[mike_lang]

And it's moot anyway because millions die by themselves.

That's precisely why it is not moot.

[thalberg]

Also, I would like anyone who is pro-life to answer the following: If you make abortion illegal, then you are denying people medical, and personal rights. Why can't it stay legal for those who want it, and you personally don't have one, instead of denying others? What gives you the right to take away someone else's choice?

We have the right to take away someone else's choice the same way the government has taken away your choice to kill me or not.  If it is a human being, then it would be wrong not to take away that choice.  Your argument is not that murder is okay.  Your argument is that the fetus is not human.

Pro-choice folks often use cases of rape, or cases where the mother would die by giving birth as a reason for why abortion should be legal.  Rape and medical issues are *emergency* situations.  Why should we say that the way we would behave in an emergency should be the norm we use to write our laws?

[wotgoplunk]

If they die by themselves anyway, why should it be immoral?

They're going to die, so let them die, and leave it at that.

(Spermatozoa, that is.)

[thalberg]

Nobody on either side of this argument believes that murder is okay.

Pro-lifers believe a human is at stake, pro-choicers believe it is not a human at stake.  That's the REAL issue.

So let me ask you pro-choicers:  If you believed that human beings were being killed--in any setting, for any reason--would you not fight like mad to keep that from happening?

You may believe life begins long after conception, but hopefully what I just wrote will help you understand why pro-lifers fight the way we do.  It's not about taking your rights away, it's about preserving the rights of the unborn humans.

[wotgoplunk]

We have the right to take away someone else's choice the same way the government has taken away your choice to kill me or not.  If it is a human being, then it would be wrong not to take away that choice.  Your argument is not that murder is okay.  Your argument is that the fetus is not human.

Pro-choice folks often use cases of rape, or cases where the mother would die by giving birth as a reason for why abortion should be legal.  Rape and medical issues are *emergency* situations.  Why should we say that the way we would behave in an emergency should be the norm we use to write our laws?

Murder is almost always never beneficial. Abortion in some cases is. Would it be more humane to allow a child to grow up in poverty, or to terminate the pregnancy before the embryo is conscious? It wouldn't know it was aborted.

Because people are going to do it anyway, and you may as well provide it safely. It's like age of consent. Kids will have sex at 16, so why make age of consent 18? If they're going to do it anyway, it may as well be legal. What do those who are pro-life gain by banning abortion? Nothing, compared to what pro-choice lose.

I wouldn't like to say much more for fear of treading on too many toes.

[mike_lang]

If they die by themselves anyway, why should it be immoral?

They're going to die, so let them die, and leave it at that.

(Spermatozoa, that is.)

I believe that 1) masturbation and 2) artificial contraception (condoms, vasectomy) are related, but different issues than abortion - it is not to do with the death of spermatozoa, but 1) the abuse of the gift of the sexuality and 2) artificial interference with the procreative act.

For an elaboration on both points, see Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI (contraception) and Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II (masturbation, contraception, etc.)  All of these are covered in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with abundant citations to both biblical and magisterial documents.

Back to the abortion issue...

[thalberg]

Murder is almost always never beneficial. Abortion in some cases is.

Abortion (not emergency abortion) is all about killing people who are inconvenient to have around.  People whose presence is unwanted.  Are you saying that murder could not be used the same way?  Many adults (criminals etc) are very inconvenient to have around, and murdering them would be considered very beneficial to society.  

Would it be more humane to allow a child to grow up in poverty, or to terminate the pregnancy before the embryo is conscious? It wouldn't know it was aborted.

You're saying poverty is worse than death, and it's okay to kill those who are unaware.  So, let's kill all the poor people in their sleep--they wouldn't know a thing about it.

Because people are going to do it anyway, and you may as well provide it safely.

If people will do something anyway, then the government should make it safe?  Take anything there's a law against--ANYTHING--and I'll tell you people will do it anyway.  So should the government make those things safe--cocaine, drunk driving, etc.

[prometheus]

Somebody failed basic medical sciences...

Ok, biology student right here for you:


sperm cells: alive, but no right to vote
egg cells: alive, but no right to education
zygote: alive, but no right to own property


Don't see why one should give a zygote the rights of a person while all other human cells that are just as alive don't get those rights.

[prometheus]

Yes and that person is apparently you.  Would you please tell me what the suffix "zoa" means in the word "spermatozoa".

Hahaha, owned.

A sperm is just as alive as a new egg+sperm (as you so scientifically put it); it just has different chromosomes.

Yeah, only difference is that it has a complete and totally unique genome.


But so have cancer cells...

[pianistimo]

perhaps i still have too much time on my hands.  i am glad to see that it is not just women who are pro-lifers - but men, too.

as i see it - society doesn't want to be told 'no' to anything.  and certainly not sex at 16.  but people forget that in previous generations that people were considered adults at 16.  now, it might seem that i am talking out of both sides of my mouth - but what i am trying to say is that they also carried all the responsibilities of adulthood.  they weren't (usually) still living at home.  they were married.  they had chores.  they weren't sitting doing video games and having sex in between gaming.  how can you provide for a child that way anyways?  besides - would they even know what sex meant?

as i see it - the issue here is maturity.  if you are old enough for an abortion - why go home and act like a child?  why not leave home and make it good.

of course, the humanity that parents have often overextends the boundaries of good-naturedness into 'i don't want to see my child dead tommorrow' from being on the streets.  thankfully - my children haven't tested me in this area as neither even has a girlfriend or guyfriend.  and, i am not against girlfriends/guyfriends - but i do think that when i first meet the girl or guy - we'll have a sitting down talk.  i think honesty is the best policy.  i'm going to say - in our home - we believe that marriage goes before sex.  if you willingly and knowingly have it before that point - i expect you to marry my son/daughter.  if you cannot handle this - i don't want to see you again.  sounds harsh, i know.  but, i will be very inclusive of this person or persons (if both of them have friends) if they agree to this situation.

i have talked at length with my son and made him realize that all girls should be treated just as his sisters.  i hope that when he finds the right one - he asks her permission to marry him before he asks her permission to have sex with him.

btw, i think a strong cup of coffee beats anything else medically done (if done within the first week or two).  i found this out after being married and actually wanting a child - and finding out that certain toxins are not conducive to pregnancy.  don't try this at home.  just something i found out that happened to me.  i was surprised and disappointed at the time.  btw, i've never had an abortion - but hearing about some of the hemmoraging that can happen - it makes one very concerned for young mothers.  almost better to consider it not an equal risk - but a heavier one sometimes.  imagine that more mothers die from abortion than childbirth.  i'm not a catholic - but i agree with this article:
https://www.staycatholic.com/abortion_kills_more_mothers.htm

[pianistimo]

aside from the infection risk from an abortion, i've heard that in subsequent pregnancies you can have a higher risk of miscarriage or pre-mature birth.  this is probably due to the cervix not being ripe at the time of the abortion and losing somekind of strength in the uterus or cervix that would be regained after a natural birth.

and, there is the issue of breast cancer.  supposedly, the more children you have - there is a better immunity because you have used that breast tissue for good use.  feeding a child.  when it is left to nature without children - supposedly, the risk is higher for cancer.  i cannot prove this one way or another - but have heard this and thought it was interesting.  i think God always has a purpose to whatever his creation is meant to do and be for.

[ahinton]

perhaps i still have too much time on my hands.

I'm just not going to answer that!

i am glad to see that it is not just women who are pro-lifers - but men, too.

Well, I guess that we can all be relieved to find that there are opinions for and against among both sexes, yes.

as i see it

As soon as I see those words from you, Susan, I just sit and wait for the God, Bible and Jesus that follows as inevitably as day follows night - and, in this instance, I am at least pleased to see that you went for quite a few sentences and even spilt over into a second post before mentioning Him in this thread.

- society doesn't want to be told 'no' to anything.  and certainly not sex at 16.  but people forget that in previous generations that people were considered adults at 16.  now, it might seem that i am talking out of both sides of my mouth - but what i am trying to say is that they also carried all the responsibilities of adulthood.  they weren't (usually) still living at home.  they were married.  they had chores.  they weren't sitting doing video games and having sex in between gaming.  how can you provide for a child that way anyways?  besides - would they even know what sex meant?

as i see it - the issue here is maturity.  if you are old enough for an abortion - why go home and act like a child?  why not leave home and make it good.

of course, the humanity that parents have often overextends the boundaries of good-naturedness into 'i don't want to see my child dead tommorrow' from being on the streets.  thankfully - my children haven't tested me in this area as neither even has a girlfriend or guyfriend.  and, i am not against girlfriends/guyfriends - but i do think that when i first meet the girl or guy - we'll have a sitting down talk.  i think honesty is the best policy.  i'm going to say - in our home - we believe that marriage goes before sex.  if you willingly and knowingly have it before that point - i expect you to marry my son/daughter.  if you cannot handle this - i don't want to see you again.  sounds harsh, i know.  but, i will be very inclusive of this person or persons (if both of them have friends) if they agree to this situation.

i have talked at length with my son and made him realize that all girls should be treated just as his sisters.  i hope that when he finds the right one - he asks her permission to marry him before he asks her permission to have sex with him.

You can tell your own children what you like, of course, but your apparently inflexible attitude to abstinence from sex before marriage has one grave flaw that perhaps you may have overlooked - and that is that almost ever second marriage will be between people who will have had sex previously to that marriage. You surely are not going to tell people that they should not even have sex during marriage if they ever feel the slightest risk that the marriage may end, either through divorce or widowhood. If your diktat re no sex before amarriage is sepcifically intended only to apply to first marriages, then fine (not that I necessarily agree with you, but I can understand where you're coming from on that). That said, if someone's first marriage is to a widow/er or divorcee, can they seriously expect them not to have had sex before that marriage?

Sex before marriage is, however, not the issue here. Abortion is not something to be entered into lightly or with ease, whether it be for emergency medical reasons or followig a rape or for any other reason. As you know, many countries set time limits after which abortion is illegal (these vary from country to country), other than in a medical emergency. People may disagree over what those time limits should be, but the fundamentalist pro-lifers of either sex who consider that all abortion at any time, regardless of circumstance, is wrong are thereby showing a profound human insensitivity, in my view.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

just as you can blur lines with marriage (ie first marriage, second marriage) you can also blur lines with 'how much God can we play?'  for instance - changing the length of term for an abortion and calling each 'safe.'  is any abortion safe?

but, that's just my argument side coming out.  i'm sure that i would mind my own p's and q's if it were even someone i knew that had a child or friend in a dillemma.  i just don't consider this my business.  i would vote 'no' on abortion - but maintain other's right to hold their opinion.

i feel that it is tantamount to murder because life starts at conception for religious folk.  in china, abortions were mandated after one child.  a state law that mandates this without regard to the opinions and preferences of it's people's is taking away a freedom.  perhaps the human rights act should include - the right to own your own body and any fetuses that are inside it?

ps the christian religion was also mandated to be out for a time in china.  wonder if there's any correlation?  also, china now has a significant gender imbalance from past abortion laws.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/25/2015166.htm

i forgot another thing, too - stem cell research.  who is upset about abortion?  only teenagers?  i don't think so.  as i heard it - many are becoming much more careful (excepting drug infested areas).  the real people who are upset are likely much older researchers that want to use the 'tissue.'

[pianistimo]

oh.  and in roe vs. wade - people lost their minds by defining a 'person' as having had to be born.  my children's lives were felt by the first 'quickening' which most mothers feel.  the first little shiver when they are only weeks into development.  after a while - you feel them moving and doing somersaults.  later on - at the end - you develop a relationship talking to them and seeing them respond by moving a foot closer to where you were rubbing it.  or reaching a hand out. 

they are capable of sucking their thumbs very early on.  i'm sure they feel.  who can speak for them?  only us - the parents.  they are full of blood.  the bible says - the life is in the blood.

[soliloquy]

Pro-choice folks often use cases of rape, or cases where the mother would die by giving birth as a reason for why abortion should be legal.  Rape and medical issues are *emergency* situations.  Why should we say that the way we would behave in an emergency should be the norm we use to write our laws?

See that was my point earlier.  This seems to be what a lot of pro-life advocates lean back on; that there are frivolous abortions, and very rarely an important abortion.  The problem with this logic is that there is no way to police whose abortions get to be deemed "frivolous", so any law that prohibits abortion will also prohibit saving the life and many times psyche of those who would be permanently harmed or even killed if they were forced to carry.  Completely banning abortion would kill many women and destroy the lives of even more, not to mention some men.

On the other hand though, I don't particularly agree with the argument that pro-choicers use that says something to the effect that even if it's banned people will still do it, so it should be legal.  One could say the same thing about cocaine, prostitution etc.

While obviously most people will say that the point of the entire life/choice argument is as to whether an embryo is considered a "living human" (and if the embryo is terminated late in the second trimester the argument is stronger, but a strong majority of abortions are done in the VERY early stages of a pregnancy), I personally don't even find that to be the most important aspect of the debate.  The fact of the matter is, an embryo is not really "alive" yet in the sense of having self-awareness, any knowledge or actually having led any sort of life in the more common use of the phrase, so I don't think (erg, having trouble wording this without sounding evil) the value of saving the future life of something that never knew it even had a future is worth, in some cases, destroying the life of someone else, or in the case of where the mother may die due to labor, the lives of many people.  Again, I refer back to my sperm analogy.  Those are potential human babies, but I'm sure everyone in this thread (with the exception of pianistimo obviously) who is arguing against abortion has dumped a few hundred million knuckle babies in the toilet bowl in their lifetime.

[thalbergmad]

my children's lives were felt by the first 'quickening' which most mothers feel. 

Been watching Highlander again?

Thal

[thalbergmad]

i have talked at length with my son and made him realize that all girls should be treated just as his sisters.  i hope that when he finds the right one - he asks her permission to marry him before he asks her permission to have sex with him.

hahahahahahahaha

[leonidas]

Would you kindly permit me to enter your crevice?

[thalberg]

See that was my point earlier.  This seems to be what a lot of pro-life advocates lean back on; that there are frivolous abortions, and very rarely an important abortion.  The problem with this logic is that there is no way to police whose abortions get to be deemed "frivolous", so any law that prohibits abortion will also prohibit saving the life and many times psyche of those who would be permanently harmed or even killed if they were forced to carry.  Completely banning abortion would kill many women and destroy the lives of even more, not to mention some men.

This is the first decent point I've ever heard from a pro-choicer.  I can only hope that as rational and intelligent human beings, we are capable of writing a law with enough firmness to save lives, but enough flexibility not to ruin other lives in the process.  Although, once an unwanted pregnancy occurs, no one is escaping free and clear no matter what the choice.

The law could, for instance, mandate certain steps before an abortion, like having an ultrasound.  Women who have seen their babies on an ultrasound often change their mind and decide to keep it.  Steps like this might help filter out women who would regret their choice later.

[thalberg]

Would you kindly permit me to enter your crevice?

Hmmm.......latest incarnation of comme?

[thalbergmad]

I was thinking that.

Pretty obvious after a few posts.

Thal

[leonidas]

Hmmm.......latest incarnation of comme?

No, this is what I said when the persians refused my entry, I thought I'd try asking nicely before slaughtering them 

[ahinton]

just as you can blur lines with marriage (ie first marriage, second marriage) you can also blur lines with 'how much God can we play?'

But I didn't do that; I simply challenged you to say whether you see your "no sex before marriage" argument as equally applicable to second marriages - but you did not answer.

for instance - changing the length of term for an abortion and calling each 'safe.'  is any abortion safe?

An abortion is a medical procedure. It's not just that, of course, but it IS a medical procedure nonetheless. Many medical procedures come with attached risks and those risks will vary from patient to patient, procedure to procedure, etc. On those grounds, one could reasonably suggest that no medical procedure of any kind can be guaranteed as 100% "safe".

but, that's just my argument side coming out.  i'm sure that i would mind my own p's and q's if it were even someone i knew that had a child or friend in a dillemma.  i just don't consider this my business.  i would vote 'no' on abortion - but maintain other's right to hold their opinion.

i feel that it is tantamount to murder because life starts at conception for religious folk.

Do you mean by this that religious folk have a natural disposition that gives them an entirely different view of abortion from the rest of us, irrespective of which religion they may follow? Why in any case would "religious folk" necessarily be alone in thinking that "life starts at conception" - and, by the same token, whatever makes you so confident that you feel able to state that all religious folk - again, regardless of particular religion - believe that "life starts at conception"?

in china, abortions were mandated after one child.  a state law that mandates this without regard to the opinions and preferences of it's people's is taking away a freedom.  perhaps the human rights act should include - the right to own your own body and any fetuses that are inside it?

If such laws did indeed include such a right, they would by definition embrace the right of any woman to abort at her own choice; you can't have it both ways, Susan!

Best,

Alistair