Abortion debate (older thread)

[Kain]

Originally posted by narfblat

nervous system? spinal cord and brain tissue are present in fetuses.

 

But only after 3-4 months. Before that, the fetus has no sense of being whatsoever. Its kept alive by tubes and oxygen supplied by the mother. Hell, a fetus is nothing short of a parasite.

[narfblat]

Originally posted by Kain

But only after 3-4 months. Before that, the fetus has no sense of being whatsoever. Its kept alive by tubes and oxygen supplied by the mother. Hell, a fetus is nothing short of a parasite.

A fetus is no more a parasite than you are, as you require the poor earth to provide oxygen and food for you. You dont really feel pain, as it is only a bunch of nerve impulses going from receptors to the brain. Should I ask the earth if it wants to abort you?

[El Sitherino]

How about you read the entire thread instead of just running in and asking already asked questions.

 

originally posted by narfblat

You dont really feel pain, as it is only a bunch of nerve impulses going from receptors to the brain.

uhmmm, scuse me mister, smart*ad hominem* that's what causes one to feel pain. If you try to break things down to that, then all life is basically nothing but electronic signals, and thus really no point in giving a **** about anything. *shrugs*

 

Without a nervous system something cannot feel pain.

[Druid Bremen]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

How about you read the entire thread instead of just running in and asking already asked questions.

 

uhmmm, scuse me mister, smart*ad hominem* that's what causes one to feel pain. If you try to break things down to that, then all life is basically nothing but electronic signals, and thus really no point in giving a **** about anything. *shrugs*

 

Without a nervous system something cannot feel pain.

 

Indeed. You oversimplified the matter narfblat. These electrical signals/impulses be the providers of consciousness, which completely changes the matter altogether. You excluded consciousness, which made the matter easily dismissable.

[narfblat]

My point was that logic can be used to justify anything. Example: The dangers of bread.

 

Consider what the consequences are if your side is wrong. If your side is wrong, you are allowing murder. If my side is wrong, some women(mostly ones who should have been more careful) face 9 months of discomfort, a few hours pain, and a slight possibility of death.

[Lieutenant_kettch]

Originally posted by narfblat

My point was that logic can be used to justify anything. Example: The dangers of bread.

 

Consider what the consequences are if your side is wrong. If your side is wrong, you are allowing murder. If my side is wrong, some women(mostly ones who should have been more careful) face 9 months of discomfort, a few hours pain, and a slight possibility of death.

 

exactly... very true words

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by iamtrip

Official Press Release from the Roman Catholic Church

 

All hail Monty Python! Of course this is merely a good illustration of the "Strawman" fallacy if you ever tried to use this in a debate. ; )

[Kurgan]

Sorry folks, I just thought I'd stop in and do some replying...

 

Originally posted by ET Warrior

I'd go through more of your post, but it's late and I'm tired and sick, so this is all I've got in me.

 

I'm most against your stance on Euthenasia, because I honestly don't understand the logic. Why is it humane to force somebody to endure pain and suffering, when the end result is the same?

 

Why is it more humane to refuse treatment to ease someone's pain in favor of killing them? To me, that is the illogical part. The end result is not the same. With treatment, recovery and improved quality of life is possible.

 

My grandmother for example has terminal cancer. She's in the hospice program which combines treatments to improve a person's quality of life (reduces pain and anxiety). These measures are not designed to prolong the person's life indefinately with pain. So there is a difference there. It's not like she is being strapped down and force fed morphine. The hospice program is an example of a better solution than the idea of some Dr. Kevorkian paying a visit to give some lethal injection to her, or offing herself somehow to "end it."

 

Somebody who is that depressed (suicidal tendencies) needs help. Killing them, to me, is akin to ignorance, like how in the old days they would bleed people to release evil spirits because they didn't know what was causing the fever. Since we do have treatments (imperfect, but improving all the time) and alternatives, I see it more as barbarism for people who know better.

 

A suicidal person isn't thinking clearly. Like a child who runs into traffice, we have a duty to save them, frankly, from themselves. To me, that's perfectly logical.

 

There are diseases that we have no cure for, and are nowhere NEAR close to finding a cure.

 

See above. Hospice. I make a disctinction between refusing heroic life-prolonging at-any-cost treatments vs. refusing treatments in favor of "quality of life." That's different than outright killing (euthanasia, "assisted suicide") or suicide.

 

People with these diseases live the ends of their lives suffering through agony just because it is inhumane to let them decide whether they want to live or die?

 

Because a person not in their right mind doesn't have the faculties to make an informed choice. Just as a little child who wants to swallow something that looks like candy (but you know to be deadly poison) or the dog who wants to rip out its stitches because they itch. Their quality of life can be improved or at least the pain halted, so killing them is not the only option.

 

Isn't it THEIR choice?

 

See above.

 

My life is my own, and I should have the right to choose what to do with it.

 

Well, as I said in my previous post, if you put a shotgun in your mouth in a back alley, what am I going to do about it? Reasonably if I were there I would try to stop it from happening. But here we're talking about people who have mental disorders or who are in a hospital bed right? There's a difference. These folks are already dependent on others. Because of this they have to accept that these folks do have power over them. And since they are in our care, we don't have the moral right to just kill them, when alternatives are available.

 

I would hope that were I a terminally ill patient, and it was a disease that brought me nothing but pain, that I would get the choice of ending that suffering, since I was destined to die young anyways.

 

But what if that feeling were to pass, then I'm sure you'd be glad that you were still alive, rather than dead, as would your loved ones. Becuase of that chance, I think all the more reason to err on the side of caution.

 

You see, this moral worldview also ties into my logic against the death penalty. Sure, you can kill the criminal, boom, dead, no more chance of committing crimes. Their life was probably pretty crappy in prison anyway, right? But people have been found not guilty later due to new evidence or corruption in the sentencing process. Innocent people HAVE been executed. So because of that margin of error, I see that as a good reason to prohibit executions in this way.

 

As for your second point, it's not that they're better off dead than poor, that was never my intent. My meaning is that they're better off never existing,

 

I guess you're going to have to define this for me then.

 

When does a person come into existence? Again, we're playing with society's definition of rights for classes of human. At what age is a human granted the right not to be killed? I don't mean how it is now, but how should it be, morally?

 

The pro-choice argument goes something like this:

 

1) a fetus has no rights.

 

2) the mother has rights.

 

3) therefore abortion should be legal, to protect the rights of the mother.

 

OR

 

1) the fetus may have rights

 

2) the mother has rights

 

3) the mother's rights are more important than the rights that the fetus may have.

 

5) Therefore abortion should be legal because the mother's rights override a fetus's rights and the mother's rights must be protected.

 

 

If a fetus is a human, and humans have a right to life, you can argue that this is more important than the mother's right to have an abortion or "put up with" being pregnant and giving birth. If humans don't have rights (and this is one argument I've heard put forth by some pro-choice debaters), then we have this societally recognized class of "person" which is a special type of human who has rights, like the right to life and cannot be killed. A fetus, while human, is not a person, so can be killed if desired. A mother is a person, so her rights must be protected, even if they conflict with the rights of another human (but a human who is not also a person, like a fetus).

 

However, the "person" argument still isn't self evident because you have to define what a "person" is.

 

If it's a being who can "make informed decisions" would it apply to young children or retarded people? If it's a being who can communicate, would it also apply to deaf mutes or parapalegics? etc. It's a complex question, and one not easily answered. My stance is that it's wrong to kill human beings, and I'm erring on the side of caution.

 

If we "don't know" if they are a person, don't kill them, because we might be killing a person and regret it later. If we know they are a person, then why are we killing them? We're just saying that one person has more right to live than another and being arbitrary executioners.

 

and never KNOWING that they never existed than living the life of an unwanted child.

 

That's assuming you know that they never existed and don't know they ever existed. And who's to say they would be "unwanted"? If they are adopted, then they were wanted by somebody. The fact is that there are tons of families who want kids, but can't have them because they are sterile, or because the lines for adoption are simply too dang long or the restrictions too high.

 

Isn't it sad that well-to-do, loving, childless families want children, and can't have them, but any idiot with some genitals can have one, and then be a drunken child abuser or dead-beat dad without any effort? Ok, I'm rambling.

 

I'd be in favor of reforming the adoption institution to take care of the "unwanted children" problem.

 

Simply being "unwanted" doesn't translate to "should be killed." Maybe they aren't wanted, but maybe they WANT to live. And when they get older they can express this desire. That's part of being human. I don't know of anyone who wants to be killed, except those with mental disorders which cause them to have self destructive behavior.

 

Now I can't quote any statistics as I dont know any, but I am fairly certain that they are highly more likely to end up neglected or abused, which is no way for a person to live.

 

But, that's not a reason to kill them is it? Again, it's like saying "well, better off dead than poor." We don't turn our guns on the homeless shelters or rehab centers. We even give people in prison accomodations even if they are cages. And there's no way for you to know that NOT being aborted will always translate to "abused, neglected child."

 

Sure, there are probably cases of parents who abort because they can't afford to raise a child BECAUSE they spend all their money on crack cocaine. However, that doesn't mean all cases are like that. Again, adoption and the child is taken care of by SOMEONE, other than the parents who are unable or unwilling to take care of them.

 

It may not be life at the Trump Palace (until a wealthy family comes along who wants kids) but it's better than the dumpster for a grave.

 

Now granted, eventually they will grow up, and some of them become well adjusted adults. But there are also the ones who go home and eat 20 sleeping pills, or the ones who grow up and abuse their own children.

 

And there's plenty of folks from loving two parent families who will do the same. How many times have you read about some serial killer or assasin who seemed perfectly normal to everyone who knew him? There was a guy who went to a local school where I live and his friend who were both (iirc) Eagle Scouts. They had everything going for them, but they decided to build some pipe bombs, and the bombs went off by accident and killed one and maimed the other. Anyway, bad things happen to good people. I don't think it's a good idea to judge people just because their parents were jerks and this means the children have no right to live.

 

It seems to me that terminating a conglomeration of cells that doesn't even have a central nervous system can hardly be called murder.

 

It's murder if the law says it is. I know in the colloquial we say "murder" as "wrong killing" but murder is actually ILLEGAL killing. It's legal to kill your enemy in war. It's legal for the state to execute a death row criminal with the death penalty. It's legal to kill another person in self defense. In some countries it's legal to kill a person from another tribe. In the past it's been legal to kill a person of a different religion (in some places it still is). Etc.

 

I'm sure that's not what you meant, but I figured I'd point it out. The fact is, abortion can be made into murder simply by defining it in law.

 

And you're really arguing for early term abortions only. If that's what you want, then fine. Your view is consistent. Once a central nervous system developes, abortion should be illegal, because it's murder. That's not my argument, but is it your's? Just want to be clear...

[Kurgan]

Last reply for a bit (whew):

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

That is intuitively obvious. Difference, however, is hardly the same as individuality. As someone (I believe that it was Tyrion) said earlier: A fetus has all the awareness of your average retarded fish. And the argument that the fetus 'could potentially develop into a full human' doesn't hold either. It is still wholly dependent on the mother. After birth this is not the case. After birth there has to be some caring adult, certainly, but not nessecarily the mother.

 

I'm just trying to answer the common pro-choice argument "well the fetus is just a part of the mother's body so therefore okay to kill."

 

Is awareness the test of humanhood or personhood? Please let me know. I'd like to know what the test is of a person. Once it is defined, we can know clearly when it is okay to kill them (if at all). That's the key here.

 

The pro-choice argument line of reasoning generally seems to be that a fetus is never a person, but then suddenly becomes a person when society decides at some time. That's fine, but that's about as arbitrary as you can get.

 

Is it something medical science can tell?

 

I'm not using some religious argument that there is a "soul" that appears inside the babies body during the second trimester or something. I mean something we can measure. Is it when the baby has a central nervous system? When?

 

Because this determines when we can have abortions and when we can't. But the pro-choice debaters generally want to allow abortions all throughout. I've heard the other argument though (the slippery slope fallacy) that the ONLY reason anyone argues for Partial Birth Abortion is because they fear that if THAT procedure is made illegal, ALL abortion will become illegal and so they defend it.

 

If you're arguing that a fetus needs to be self-aware (how do we measure this?) and able to feel pain, then I guess you're arguing for the morality of early term abortions only. Is that correct?

 

 

Aha, but by the same token I wouldn't want to have to go through an unwanted pregnancy, and so should not force one on others.

 

However, I wouldn't want to be killed, and this is something that all (non-mentally disordered) people wish. So I should assume that in others (otherwise I could go around killing them at random, thinking that they wanted to die). So the "evil" of an unwanted pregnancy is insignificant next to the undesired killing of a person (unless you want to define person for me so we can classify a fetus or baby pre-birth as a non-person).

 

Being unwanted sucks, but is it really preferrable to be killed?

 

You're dodging the question. The point is that your would-be-adopted fetus removes an oppertunity for a born child to be spared starvation, illness and Emperor only knows what else.

 

Not necessarily. That's assuming that it is an exclusive thing. That a person can choose only to adopt either a fetus that would have been aborted or a child from the third world. I've read plenty of stories about those who adopt groups of babies. Oh sure, you say, well babies are expensive, you can't adopt them all. True. However, those who are eligable for adoption are generally of means. That means they CAN afford it. I don't know if adopting foreign children is easier than adopting domestically. If it is, that would explain why some choose to do it. Of course there can be many more reasons for adopting children than just wanting children. Some people aren't sterile, but just don't want to have to go through the pain and inconvenience of natural childbirth. Some wish to help out racial minorities from other countries or "rescue kids from poverty" (like Mother Teresa). Or they may be past child-bearing years and simply want another one, and maybe the line was too long at home. Who knows?

 

The point is, that there are possibilities. Not aborting isn't a guarentee that the child will live and die in poverty, become a drug addict or die of starvation or that putting a child up for adoption rather than aborting is condemming a third world child to death.

 

But that rational, every meal you eat or gallon of gas you use is condemming somebody in a third world of those resources. It might seem logical, but it's not that simple. It's based on distribution and economies. I suppose you could send your resources in the mail to some poor farmer in the middle east. You can try it if you wish. But the availability of those resources is due to more factors than just one person's selfishness. Anyway, sorry to get off topic.

 

Hope I answered the question.

 

And why are you not suggesting that those Third World Babies should have been aborted? After all, aren't they suffering because they were allowed to live?

 

I don't see that abortion is preferrable to adoption, rather the opposite. Like the capital punishment thing, one the one hand you have at least the CHANCE that a person can live, on the other, you have no chance, and it's a permanent choice that can't be undone.

 

Except that it's robbing a child of the chance of getting a happy life. You're trading a fetus for a born child.

 

See above. There is no law that I know of that says you can only adopt one child, ever. And who's to say that these children at the adoption home will die or be unhappy if they are not adopted by you?

 

All well and fine, but if the fascists in the West Wing get it their way, those programs will be 'abstinence only'-biased, something that just doesn't work.

 

Irrelevant, really. Morality isn't based on what we think the people in power will do. Otherwise we'd have to concede that maybe Jews really are inferior, since Hitler will never treat them as anything more than scapegoats and animals.

 

As far as sex education programs, so far there is no "abstinence only" rule that I know of. I was never taught abstinence only (though Clinton was in office at the time I was in high school, with a Republican Congress). Some schools teach that, and some go the whole nine yards. That's a thing for the states to deal with I guess.

 

That's just a further measure. We can't argue that because sex education in schools sucks, we should have abortions instead. Parents SHOULD teach their kids about the facts of life. That's the only reason that sex ed in schools even comes up, because parent's aren't doing their jobs.

 

 

While I myself am sceptical of 'assisted suicide', you do paint a very monochromatic picture here. Most painkillers dull your senses and slow your brain (and are addictive to boot) - living on them for prolonged periods of time carries its own distinct problems. I for one would rather not live at all than live permanently in a drug-induced stupor.

 

But it's not that black & white either. Not all painkillers are going to leave you in a stupor either. And besides, which would you rather have, extreme pain, or dulled senses? Or is being killed preferrable to either option? I'd say it's not that simple. Rather, I was pointing out that a person NEED NOT have to choose between death and extreme unending agony with no relief.

 

Medical science is progressing all the time too, so even better drugs get developed.

 

 

You cannot quite compare the two. People who try to commit suicide by themselves can usually recover from whatever caused them to attempt to take their own lives - primarily because most of those that can be saved are not all that determined. If they are, then you'll have a really hard time saving them.

 

It depends on the method used. For example, I read that most women who attempt suicide recover, because the methods they use tend to be more easily reversed, like taking pills. Whereas men tend to be more successful with suicides because they employ methods like putting a gun in their mouth.

 

A person who is suicidal is NOT thinking clearly, so I am not surprised if they screw up. I've read about people who put a gun to their head and pulled the trigger. They wrote their note and everything, but the gun MISSED their brain and they lived. It's not like an on/off switch like they either fake a suicide and didn't really mean it or they wanted to do and succeed always. And a "hard case" can still be saved, it all depends on the circumstances.

 

Another factor could be societal exceptance. If society EXPECTS a person to kill themselves (for say, dishonor assciated with some act that is disapproved of), then there will be pressure on them to at least try to avoid greater shame. That doesn't mean it's right either, but in those cases there would be less chance for someone to try to stop the person. In those cases I'd say it's not just the individual who's sick, but the society itself. That's where the issue of assisted suicide comes in. I think there is something wrong with the society that says a person is better off dead than being treated or cared for.

 

The cases are different, but they are also similar, in that you are dealing with a person who has a disorder, that CAN be treated (not 100% certainty of success always, but at least a chance, which would be zero if the person is dead), and yet the option to treat the person is not being explored.

 

That's beside the point. The point is that it's a part of the mother's body. I've yet to see a 4 weeks old fetus exist in anything but a symbiotic relationship with its "host".

 

So being able to live independant of the mother's body is a pre-requisite for personhood (and protection from being killed)? Tell me if this is what you're saying.

 

Here again, I assume we're touching on the "Mother's Body - Mother's Right to Do What She Wants With It" argument... if I'm wrong, tell me.

 

However, in none of the above cases did the addition of rights hurt other people as gravely as in this.

 

I'll have to grab the quote again, but are we talking about giving rights to slaves, non-whites, women here?

 

Again, it's arbitrary philosophy that we're dealing with here.

 

I've read arguments that banning slavery destroyed the economy of the American south. It put slave traders out of business (well, not right away, but eventually, the ones that operated in the Americas were severally hurt by it; there's still slavery in parts of Africa and in Thailand for instance). Women's rights meant more competition for men (though voting rights just means that politicians have to campaign to appease more people than before).

 

But anway, the abortion thing, are you arguing that women are "hurt" by not allowing abortion? Again, we should get into why a woman should have a right to terminate her pregnancy (kill her unborn child or have it killed) and why a fetus shouldn't have a right to life.

 

The only thing wrong witht that is that it's a rationalisation.

 

All of these things are rationalizations. Otherwise our decisions are arbitrary, and we have no debate, right? Sorry, that just seems logical to me.

 

 

That hardly justifies fascism.

 

No, it doesn't justify fascism, but then we're not debating about the politics of Hitler, Franco or Mussolini, we're debating about the politics of abortion.

 

If you want to debate about fascism instead, please let me know.

[Kurgan]

More replies....

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

An interesting question, and one that is not easily anwered. The fundamental difference between a religion and a non-religious ideology (for lack of a better term), is that religion is dogmatic and claims to be justified a priori, whereas the non-religious idea accepts detractors. Thus Humanism is not a religion per se, but a lot of people are doing their level best to turn it into one. They have not quite succeded just yet, but there is a distinct possibility that they will.

 

That's not necessarily true. There are plenty of religions that accept detractors. Hinduism for example is the biggest exception to that "rule." There are 333 million deities in Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma, sp?, as it is called in India). You can believe in any of those gods you wish, all of them, or none of them. Only a few basic tenants tie together the numerous sects within the religion Hinduism. Hindus accept innovation, and they admit they could be wrong about certain things. Likewise they can accept the gods of others, since for all they know, they are one of the 333 million, or another "face" of the one all-encompassing Brahman (like a world-soul or life force of the universe, for those unfamiliar with Hindu theology).

 

Likewise I'm Catholic, but I admit I could be wrong. My church even teaches that while we believe Jesus IS the way, the truth and the life, and in fact, the Catholic Church is the complete teaching (as opposed to partial) of the Gospel instituted by Christ and his chosen Apostles and handed down to us, God is also all-merciful and loving, and people who seek God, with a sincere heart and follow the dictates of their conscience, even without knowing Christ or his Church may being granted eternal salvation. So even a conservative church like mine isn't 100% "you die Joe!"

 

There's plenty of religious liberals, probably as many if not more than every fanatic you'll hear about. But nobody is afraid of liberals (okay, maybe Rush Limbaugh, but besides him), people do fear fanatics. The trouble is that some folks can't distinguish between the two.

 

Religion is a wide spectrum. Anyway. Humanism too isn't just one "thing." It's a philosophy with many different variants.

 

My point was NOT to denigrate Humanism. I have great respect for the ones I've met and discussed with. We have similar goals.

 

Rather, I was saying that Humanism is BASED on beliefs, and things which are not objectively anymore provable and unemotional than any religious teaching.

 

Who says that Human beings are anymore valuable than dirt? Who says that being happy is "better" than being sad? There's no list of rules written in our brains that say how we're supposed to live (well, this is an argument for another discussion.. I'd say the Golden Rule of conscience is as close to that as we can get, but it does take some logic to arrive at and not everyone is willing to consider it).

 

So in that sense, Humanism is as much a religion, even if it's as different a religion as one can come up with. ; )

 

Unless you want to define religion as "belief in the supernatural" or something like that and say that Humanism isn't like that.

 

 

Now, that's not quite correct. The genetic make-up of sperm and eggs is actually quite distinct from that of the contributor (it has only one pair of chromosomes, for instance).

 

 

But the same thing goes for 9 weeks old fetuses.

 

 

Again we have the problem of "when is a person a person"? Etc. I'd say that so far as we know there is no "cut off" when a person becomes a person, unless "personhood" is simply a societally agreed on arbitrary legal thing (as the pro-choice version of that argument seems to go... society says a living child fully out of the womb is a person, otherwise no). Since it's a spectrum, the whole process should be taken into consideration. And, erring on the side of caution, we don't kill "it" for fear of taking away the rights of that being.

 

If you have a belief about when a person becomes a person, I'd love to hear it, though.

 

 

But so is the 'conception' line of argument. Artificial. And likewise, the conventions of human rights are artificial. And the Bible is artificial. Everything we use to justify certain moral standards is artificial.

 

I agree. Well, actually I don't (ha!), because I believe in a God, and objective morality. But I'm not trying to force you to agree to that either (if you did, that would be okay, it would change the focus of or argument).

 

However the pro-choice side of the debate has always hinged on the idea that "A Woman's Right to Choose What Happens to Her Own Body Should Not be Infringed by Forcing Her to Keep a Baby Against Her Will."

 

And this (artificial) reason is given as TRUMPING any other possible reasons: "right to life" of a fetus, "God doesn't approve," "human beings should be given a chance at life," "people want to adopt," "killing humans is wrong," etc.

 

So the argument FOR abortion is just as weak then as the arguments against, if we take that reasoning. Do you get what I'm saying here? If we argue abortion for different reasons fine, but that's the #1 reason given for abortion in any pro-choice debate. It's "women's rights" and without abortion we're attacking "women's rights."

 

If you disagree, fine, just let me know.

 

But by adoption you can save a third-world child that's actually been born already. So, to save a four-week fetus you sacrifice a four-year child?

 

To take your line of reasoning. Why bother with that? Abort the third world children. Why should they be unwanted? Right?

 

But seriously, who says we're killing the 4 year old? Not me. So it's not a case of killing the 4 year old vs. killing the child still developing in the womb or just partway out of the womb (partial birth abortion). If people want to adopt Third World Children, great. I hope they all get adopted. All children are equal. But that also means that we don't need to kill children here because it might prevent people from adopting third world kids.

 

Think about it though, as long as there are people there will be unplanned pregnancies, right? So there will always be a place for abortion and adoption, theoretically.

 

Still, I think for humanitarian reasons, if for no other reason, we should move away from something life destructive like abortion and towards something life affirming (and human rights affirming) like adoption.

 

Yes, this is a philosophical and moral position and also a religious one. But what else? If it's just about money or convenience then I have no argument, kill them all. Nobody cares. I just hope nobody decides I'm unfit to live and kills me or anyone I care about!

 

 

I realize these are LONG replies, but these were adressed to certain people who were addressing me, if that helps. ; )

 

A closing thought on the "well maybe they will grow up to cure cancer!" thing. This is in counter to the "well they will just grow up to be poor and crime-prone!" argument.

 

Likewise people in well-adjusted families may turn out to be jerks or heroes too. The point is that we shouldn't JUDGE that person based on what they MIGHT do, rather give them the chance that we all should have.

 

Judge a person's actions, not their future actions (unless you have come up with a reliable way to accurately see the future with your Jedi Powers).

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by narfblat

If my side is wrong, some women(mostly ones who should have been more careful) face 9 months of discomfort, a few hours pain, and a slight possibility of death.

 

Your comments here make it blatantly obvious that you know NOTHING about the process a woman goes through in conceiving, bearing, and giving birth to a child. You obviously think that those 9 months really aren't to rough, and birth itself is only pretty bad, and you know, dying might happen but might not so that's alright too.

 

Having a baby can absolutely RUIN a woman/young girls life. Even if she gave the baby up for adoption she still had to go through the trauma of labor and the emotionally damaging process of bearing a child to term and giving it up.

 

So I am done listening to any of your arguments.

[Kurgan]

Your reply to narfblat, but I thought it was interesting enough to reply to (or with)...

 

Originally posted by ET Warrior

Your comments here make it blatantly obvious that you know NOTHING about the process a woman goes through in conceiving, bearing, and giving birth to a child. You obviously think that those 9 months really aren't to rough, and birth itself is only pretty bad, and you know, dying might happen but might not so that's alright too.

 

Having a baby can absolutely RUIN a woman/young girls life. Even if she gave the baby up for adoption she still had to go through the trauma of labor and the emotionally damaging process of bearing a child to term and giving it up.

 

So I am done listening to any of your arguments.

 

Yet, millions of mothers go through it every year. How do they do it? It's a miracle, but thank goodness it happens, or we wouldn't be here (not having perfected reproductive cloning and birthing outside the womb yet).

 

Labor can be traumatic, but we have drugs that can ease the pain incredibly (many women choose not to have them, because they want to have the "natural" experience, but the option is there). Likewise with modern technology C-sections are more common, to avoid the process entirely. While surgery isn't for everyone and leaves some scaring, it's certainly less painful than the "normal way" if the patient is willing to go through with it.

 

While a pregnancy could ruin a person's life, it could also fulfill it. Many women find being a mother to be a wonderful labor of love (no pun intended). It's not just being fat for 9 months and then having to push the baby out for up to several hours. It's about raising those children too.

 

Granted, we'd all want our children to have the absolute best chances in life and have all the support and give them everything we possibly could. But we don't live in a perfect world, so we just have to do the best we can.

 

I just still can't imagine that the solution is just to throw caution to the wind, and then kill it, because we don't want to deal with it.

 

While giving birth and putting up for adoption aren't easy by any stretch of the imagination, are you saying that abortion is any easier? Certainly the baby is now dead and doesn't need to be cared for, but that doesn't mean it's pain free (physically, emotionally, etc).

 

And while women do die from childbirth, they also die from abortion (and someone always dies in an abortion, anyway). But maternal fatalities are rare in both cases with modern methods in the US at least.

[reelguy227]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

and the emotionally damaging process of bearing a child to term and giving it up.

 

 

So giving up your child to a good loving family and letting it actually live a life is better than killing it ? My gosh what has this world come to ?

 

God Bless,

Reelguyl

[reelguy227]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

and the emotionally damaging process of bearing a child to term and giving it up.

 

So killing your child through abortion is better than giving it up for adoption to a family who loves and will actually let it live its life ? My gosh what has this world come to ?

 

God Bless,

Reelguyl

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Kurgan

Yet, millions of mothers go through it every year. How do they do it? It's a miracle, but thank goodness it happens, or we wouldn't be here (not having perfected reproductive cloning and birthing outside the womb yet).

 

And while women do die from childbirth, they also die from abortion (and someone always dies in an abortion, anyway). But maternal fatalities are rare in both cases with modern methods in the US at least.

 

The mothers who DO go through it, however, have typically already prepared themselves for it, and are at a point in their lives where they are ready. Young women who have no source of income and no idea where they're going in life are in NO position to bring more people into this world.

 

 

And as far as someone dying in abortion always, that's where our views differ. I personally don't view an unborn unmature fetus as a person. it's a collection of cells with no self-awareness that will EVENTUALLY become a human. But to me aborting the fetus is essentially the same as any other form of birth control. While I don't agree that it should be used that way (not as safe, for one) I still agree that the ultimate decision should be between a mother and her doctor. NOBODY else has the right to tell her what she can or can not do.

[reelguy227]

Originally posted by Kain

But only after 3-4 months. Before that, the fetus has no sense of being whatsoever. Its kept alive by tubes and oxygen supplied by the mother. Hell, a fetus is nothing short of a parasite.

 

So feeling pain is the now the definition for living or not living ? What about people who are in a coma or people like Chris Reeve who are paralyzed from the neck down ,they cant feel pain ,does that mean its legal to kill them ?

 

Then I guess from age 1 to at least 14 the child is a parasite to their parents if you go from your point of view.The average child wouldnt be able to live on their own between those ages without the aid of their parents . So I guess they are parasites to ,especially in the first few years ,my 2 year old cousin would die if it werent for her parents ,so I guess shes a parasite to them .

 

God Bless,

Reelguy.

[reelguy227]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

The mothers who DO go through it, however, have typically already prepared themselves for it, and are at a point in their lives where they are ready. Young women who have no source of income and no idea where they're going in life are in NO position to bring more people into this world.

 

 

And as far as someone dying in abortion always, that's where our views differ. I personally don't view an unborn unmature fetus as a person. it's a collection of cells with no self-awareness that will EVENTUALLY become a human. But to me aborting the fetus is essentially the same as any other form of birth control. While I don't agree that it should be used that way (not as safe, for one) I still agree that the ultimate decision should be between a mother and her doctor. NOBODY else has the right to tell her what she can or can not do.

 

Ok,so you say she has the right to kill her child in the womb ,and nobody can tell her what to do or not do .Then if your so adament about that point of view than why shouldnt parents in your view be able to kill their children once outside of the womb ? I mean ,in your eyes she has dominion over the child in utero so why doesnt she have dominion over the child outside of the womb ?

 

God Bless,

Reelguy.

[ET Warrior]

He didn't SAY that it wasn't living. I believe the point was that not only does it not FEEL pain, it's not even self-aware, and so how can you classify it as human? Our self-awareness is really what seperates us from other animals.

 

And no, from 1-14 is totally different from the way a fetus acts on a mother. The fetus is actually stealing nutrients from the body of the mother directly, without offering anything in return. That's the basic deffinition of a parasite.

 

Now from 1-14 the child is more of a time/money parasite.

 

 

Edit - She has the RIGHT to have an abortion because it is not a human being. She is denying a group of cells the right circumstances in which they could eventually develop into a human being. It's the same thing as your not having sex. you are denying YOUR sperm THEIR right to join with an egg and form more humans.

[reelguy227]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

He didn't SAY that it wasn't living. I believe the point was that not only does it not FEEL pain, it's not even self-aware, and so how can you classify it as human? Our self-awareness is really what seperates us from other animals.

 

And no, from 1-14 is totally different from the way a fetus acts on a mother. The fetus is actually stealing nutrients from the body of the mother directly, without offering anything in return. That's the basic deffinition of a parasite.

 

Now from 1-14 the child is more of a time/money parasite.

 

So now being aware classifys you as a living being ? Well then all people in a coma or who are brain dead should be able to be murdered while in that state ,because they are not conciouslly (spelling) aware either .

 

A heart /lung machine does everything for the person attached to it ,it circulates their blood and breathes for them ,they cant survive without the heart lung machine . So they should be able to be murdered in your eyes ?

 

God Bless,

Reelguy.

[ET Warrior]

I personally feel that if a person is ONLY kept alive by life support and machines, and there is no chance of their recovery, then it is actually inhumane to leave them on those machines. what kind of enjoyment will they get out of life? The only reason to not let them die is because the people around them are selfish and refuse to let go.

 

Or if they themselves are able to decide, then it is their decision. But if they cannot then I think the humane thing is to let nature take it's course.

[reelguy227]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

 

It's the same thing as your not having sex. you are denying YOUR sperm THEIR right to join with an egg and form more humans.

 

Thats a totally different argument ,and plus when two people arent having sex there is no way a child can be concieved ,after conception there is a child already growing ,no sex ,no child .

 

God Bless,

Reelguy.

[ET Warrior]

And abortion is just removing a fetus from a uterus. No uterus, no child.

 

And since you CANNOT convince me that a group of cells with no nervous system and no sense of awareness if human, how can you convince me that it's murder? As I would define murder as the unlawful killing of another human being.

[reelguy227]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

I personally feel that if a person is ONLY kept alive by life support and machines, and there is no chance of their recovery, then it is actually inhumane to leave them on those machines. what kind of enjoyment will they get out of life? The only reason to not let them die is because the people around them are selfish and refuse to let go.

 

Or if they themselves are able to decide, then it is their decision. But if they cannot then I think the humane thing is to let nature take it's course.

 

 

Inhumane,explain please ? Who are the other people around them to say that they shouldnt be kept alive ? So now we live life for enjoyment ,first it was to feel pain ,then it was consciousness now it is enjoyment ? We live to live and reproduce thats why we are here . But technically in your case they are human because they are out of the womb ,just because they are on life support doesnt make them less human ,and they are also a person when out of the womb in your definition ,so who are we to have dominion over their life .

God Bless,

Reelguy.

[ET Warrior]

Firstly, I dont think you can call letting a dying person die as opposed to putting them on life support forever murder.

 

Secondly, it is humane because you must take into account quality of life. I know I certainly would NOT enjoy living off of life support, not concious, not happy, not ANYTHING. If there is no quality in life, why live it? Why be miserable until you eventually just get so old and frail that nothing can keep your body going?

 

Why live in constant pain?

[reelguy227]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

Firstly, I dont think you can call letting a dying person die as opposed to putting them on life support forever murder.

 

I know I certainly would NOT enjoy living off of life support, not concious, not happy, not ANYTHING. If there is no quality in life, why live it?

 

I meant that taking them off of the life support is murder .

 

The child in the womb doesnt know what his/her life will be like in the womb because it is snuffed out long before it is able to live . Just because the child is in the uterus doesnt make it less of a human ,it has human DNA and it has all of the capabilities to develope into a fully grown human ,it also has a beating heart and abortion stops that heart .

 

I got a question for you ET ,are you happy with your life ? And if so, are you glad that you were born ?

 

God Bless,

Reelguy.