Abortion

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by matt-windu

This was my whole Roe v. Wade point earlier. Except that it gains it's human rights once it can be sustained outside the mother's womb (as defined by the Supreme Court). I wonder what the development of artificial wombs would do to abortion rights.

 

Artificial wombs would remove the problem. As long, that is, as the treatmen was free.

 

Originally posted by matt-windu

No, our DNA makes us human. Neural cells just make consciousness possible, and that's where it happens. When knocked unconscious, do you lose your humanity?

 

Bullcrap. What part of "virus" did you miss. A "virus" changes the DNA of some body cells. Yet in some cases not even the body notices...

 

And, yes, I do lose my humanity if I lose conciousness. Like near-death experiences. But, point is, I can regain it. Keyword: Regain.

[Master_Keralys]

Okay, here's the whole thing - where do you draw the line for humanity? When does one become human? If it's when you're no longer dependent on anyone, then I'm not human. My parents still provide my food, clothing, etc. I could survive on my own much easier than a small child, but you get the point. For that matter, a five-year-old cannot survive on its own; is it human?

 

There are only four real differences between an unborn child and one outside the womb: SLED.

 

That is, Size, Level of development, Environment, and Dependency.

 

Trevor Pryce, a defensive end for the Denver Broncos, is more than twice my mass and at least 8 inches taller than me. Size difference. But is he any more human than I am? I don't think so!

 

I'm more developed than a ten-year old. Duh. But does that make me more human than that ten-year old? Or am I less human than a twenty-year old? No.

 

Environment - I just walked into my house after getting home from school a couple minutes ago. I changed environment. Same difference as moving eight inches from womb to the rest of the world - actually, it was a lot farther... so environment doesn't do it, obviously.

 

Dependency - a five year old is still pretty much entirely dependent on its parents, correct? Well, if so, then it's not human, by the common definition used by pro-abortionists (pro-choice doesn't seem to fit; the baby has no say at all in the matter about whether it gets to live the rest of its life or not). Someone with a bad case of diabetes is completely dependent on their medication to stay alive for any length of time. Does that mean that they're not human, and we can just kill them if they become inconvenient? Where's the line?

 

Either you protect all human life, or none.

[razorace]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Artificial wombs would remove the problem. As long, that is, as the treatmen was free.

Yeah, and if it was a instantous, painless, surgery to remove the baby.

 

Hell, we can't even take care of all the babies that already exist!

 

And almost everything is NOT all or nothing. Morality in practice is very subjective.

[Psydan]

Well, I don't know how many times I have made this point, but if the mother wants to kill the kid before it comes out of her, and before it can have any input, then it is okay. But if we don't abort the child, and the day after it is born an insane convict runs into the hospital and slits its throat, then it is a crime. If some mother goes crazy and kills her six-month-old infant, then she is locked away in a mental ward. SO WHY DO WE ALLOW THIS??? Because some people think that just because it is not fully developped it is not human. I totally disagree with this. When do we draw the line on life? If the child is aborted when it is only halfway out of the womb does that make it legal? I think that as soon as sperm meets egg, and the cell has 46 chromosomes then it is a child. If we do anything to willfully prevent the child from fully developing, and say that it was never human, then I think that is wrong, ITS MURDER!!! Is there one (logical) reason that the mother can kill the child while it's in the uterus? I don't think so.

[razorace]

Fine, but how do you suggest we save all these unborn children?

[TheWhiteRaider]

WHat happened to my 2? it was 25% not 5%.

 

For the most part Rape vitims are enjected with something to stop the sperm from merging with the Egg.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Psydan

Is there one (logical) reason that the mother can kill the child while it's in the uterus? I don't think so.

 

Yes. As we have been trying to tell you all the way through, it DOESN'T HAVE A MIND. That's the difference.

 

Also: To all those antichoicers who have said "use the pill" or something to that effect: Remember that every hormonal or chemical treatment kills the foetus, by preventing it from settling itself in the womb. AND that takes place long after the conception, as anyone who has not slept through every Biology class should know.

 

This means that the only means of prevention that do not kill the foetus are the mechanical ones! This just goes to show that some people have been forcefed dogma and never bother to verify it or put it through a logical test.

[Reborn Outcast]

Om I swore I wasn't going to get into thius debate again but I will pst one last thing. Has anyone here heard of partial-birth abortion. Its where a fetus is removed in the late stages of pregnancy. Its not as common but it still occurs a lot. THAT IS MURDER...

 

 

 

I'm not going to post again unless I really feel the need to.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Its where a fetus is removed in the late stages of pregnancy. Its not as common but it still occurs a lot. THAT IS MURDER...

 

More or less, yes. I agree.

 

But I hold the view that the mother's life is more valuable than the unborn baby's, and I suspect this type of abortion is only carried out in extreme cases where the mother's life is at risk.

 

I find it odd that these "pro-lifers" hold this extreme point of view, regarding life as sacred, on the one hand - yet on the other, most of them will gladly see Saddam removed from power and a few civilians casualties are deemed necessary as well, because it benefits the greater good.

 

Now how does an abortion not benefit the greater good? The mother's economy is saved and the world's population is held in check (saving millions).

 

I find it very odd that these pro-life people regard a tiny group of cells as sacred to the race of man, while at the same time contributing to the killing and death of a million others. In my opinion, these people don't see the whole picture.

[Reborn Outcast]

The cells are sacred because without them, THE WOULD BE NOT HUMANS.

 

And read this website... all of it.

 

It talks about how CONGRESS VOTED IN 1995 TO BAN PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BUT CLINTON VETO'D IT SO IT WAS NEVER PASSED. CONGRESS VOTED ON A 2-1 RATION FOR BANNING THE PRACTICE.

 

 

And now read this... its not long... only about 2 paragraphs.

 

And this... which is the number of abortions performed. The second link is very short also.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

It talks about how CONGRESS VOTED IN 1995 TO BAN PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BUT CLINTON VETO'D IT SO IT WAS NEVER PASSED. CONGRESS VOTED ON A 2-1 RATION FOR BANNING THE PRACTICE.

 

I agree with Clinton's decision.

 

It's important to have this fail-safe when the mother's life is in danger.

 

And now read this... its not long... only about 2 paragraphs.

 

It tries to somehow make me feel sorry for aborting a fetus. Such a low ploy is cheap as ever.

 

I know that a fetus resembles a human after some time, but I'd much rather go with GonkH8er's deifition by using the same procedure for defining a dead person. "The heart is beating" - Bah! A beating heart does not make us human in any way. I'm thinking this site is full of Christian hogwash like it.

 

 

And this... which is the number of abortions performed. The second link is very short also.

 

Abortions are perfomed. Yes? About 1 million? Ok.

 

Do you want the numbers alone to make me feel sorry about my views?

 

The cells are sacred because without them, THE WOULD BE NOT HUMANS.

 

Yet most Americans compromise their "pro-life" stance by agreeing with the invasion of Iraq. How come an unborn fetus is much more worth than an Iraqi civilian? How come it's alright to compromise their principle when dealing with fetuses, but not when dealing with grown adults? Does this not show they agree it's sometimes necessary to terminate the lives of other humans?

 

I'm thinking it does.

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by C'jais

I agree with Clinton's decision.

 

It's important to have this fail-safe when the mother's life is in danger.

 

If you look at it that way then EVERY child would have to be aborted because the mother was "in a life threatening situation".

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

If you look at it that way then EVERY child would have to be aborted because the mother was "in a life threatening situation".

 

Not really.

 

While every pregnancy bears the chance of the mother dying from it, you can also die from randomly tripping and breaking your neck.

 

What I meant with life-threatening is that if the baby's birth involves complications that endanger's the mother's life. Most do not.

[Reborn Outcast]

You and me... backa at it again C'jais.

 

C'mon people join in.

 

 

 

Have you heard about the woman who had (I think they're 8 now) sextuplets? They are the only living, surviving sextuplets in the world except for one other family that just had them. This was VERY dangerous to the mother but she kept going. Why? Because she wanted to love what was going to come out of her.

[razorace]

sextuplets aren't a natural possibility to start with. Both couples were taking fertility drugs.

[Breton]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Have you heard about the woman who had (I think they're 8 now) sextuplets? They are the only living, surviving sextuplets in the world except for one other family that just had them. This was VERY dangerous to the mother but she kept going. Why? Because she wanted to love what was going to come out of her.

 

But what if she had died? Then all the children had to grow up without a mother. Sure, she was lucky this time, but what if she hadn't been? I really don't see why it's very loving to risk that 6 kids could be motherless.

 

About fetuses in general: If you put a beating, undenveloped heart in a box, would that be a human? No. If you put some tiny, undeveloped arm and legs onto it, would it be a human? No. If you make a face on it, would it be human? No. But if you put fully denveloped organs in it, plus fully functional arms, legs and such, make a fully denveloped head, and most important put a functional brain into it, would it then be human? Yes.

 

Originally posted by C'jais

Yet most Americans compromise their "pro-life" stance by agreeing with the invasion of Iraq. How come an unborn fetus is much more worth than an Iraqi civilian? How come it's alright to compromise their principle when dealing with fetuses, but not when dealing with grown adults? Does this not show they agree it's sometimes necessary to terminate the lives of other humans?

 

Duh! You see, those fetuses are American

[razorace]

Lets keep nationalism out of this please.

[UgonDieFoo]

I was watching Star Trek: The Next Generation a few nights ago. The episode was about a scientist who wanted to disassemble Data in order to learn from him and perhaps construct many more androids like Data. Data did not want this to happen for fear that he might be destroyed or damaged or that he may lose the memories and experiences he had acquired, so he resigned from Star Fleet. The scientist then took the matter to court with the position that Data was simply a machine and that he could not resign from Star Fleet because he was property of Star Fleet.

 

Captain Picard, who was defending Data, asserted that while Data was a machine people are really machines too but just of a different type. Captain Picard also demonstrated that while Data was a machine by design, he could not be denied his rights as a Star Fleet Officer or as a human because it could not be determined if Data was really a sentient life form or just a machine.

 

Ultimately the judge ruled that Data was a machine, but he was not the property of Star Fleet and he was entitled to every right as a Star Fleet officer and as a human being. In her decision, the judge stated that the real issue at hand was whether or not Data had a soul. The judge admitted that she could not say whether or not Data had a soul or even if she or anyone else had a soul. Therefore, she decided that the court could not curtail Data’s rights or deem him as property because in doing so, the court would in effect be making a decision about something that it has no authority to make a decision about.

 

This episode of Star Trek really captures the central issue of the conflict over abortion. That issue is whether or not an unborn baby has a soul. For those who do not believe in souls, the conflict may also be restated as whether or not an unborn baby possesses whatever essence that separates humans from any other form of life on Earth.

 

In the case of Roe vs. Wade, the US Supreme Court decided that the states could not restrict a woman’s right to an abortion during the first six months of pregnancy. During the last trimester the states were granted the right, but not the obligation, to restrict a woman’s right to an abortion to only those cases where the health of the mother is jeopardized. Through this decision, the Supreme Court made a judgment not only on the rights of the states, but in effect made the judgment that unborn babies do not posses a human life. This can be inferred because the Constitution guarantees specific rights to all people who are citizens of the United States. By allowing abortion the US Supreme Court effectually decided that an unborn baby does not have a human life; therefore, does not posses any of the rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution.

 

This is something that the Supreme Court had no authority to make a decision about, yet it did just that. It essentially decided that life does not begin for a baby until the moment it leaves the mother naturally. This is equivalent to saying that an unborn baby has no soul or does not posses whatever quality that makes a living being truly human. The example of the Star Trek episode serves to illustrate how the Roe vs. Wade decision leads to this conclusion. As we all should know, no individual, institution or government can decide on or draw a conclusion about something like that. Even the most qualified fields of knowledge, such as medicine, theology or philosophy cannot determine when an unborn child becomes human or if it has a soul. The Supreme Court especially has no business deciding on such matters that are so far beyond its authority and understanding. Also, the only powers the Supreme Court has are written in the Constitution. There is no clause in the Constitution that explicitly or implicitly gives it the power to decide on the matters of the beginning of human life or whether or not an unborn child has a soul. Hence, the Supreme Court not only breached its intellectual and moral authority in the decision of Roe vs. Wade but it also breached its Constitutional powers.

 

Then what should the ruling have been? The only ruling the Supreme Court could have passed without breaching its Constitutional powers is that the willful or negligent destruction of an unborn baby is a criminal act. Not because destroying an unborn baby is taking a human life. As stated before, no one can determine that. However, the moment the Supreme Court fails to protect an unborn child at any stage in development is the moment it makes the decision about the beginning of human life and whether or not an unborn child has a soul. The Supreme Court has no authority to decide such things.

 

Although it would appear that this decision would completely inhibit a woman’s ability to have an abortion; that is not necessarily the case. Legally speaking, it would still be possible for a woman to terminate her pregnancy provided that every step necessary was taken to ensure the survival of the unborn child. This is a truly revolutionary idea; however, before I continue, let me address another issue first.

 

Some may think that this would defeat the purpose of having an abortion; and that is what the rage against abortion is all about. Abortion isn’t about the choice to terminate the pregnancy. It’s about the choice to terminate the unborn child. Pro choice women want to be able to destroy their unborn child if they desire. They want to not have to deal with the fact that their unwanted child is alive. This is demonstrated whenever a woman has an abortion, perhaps barring those situations when pregnancy threatens the mother’s health. Even when a woman argues in favor of abortion, they don’t discuss how they shouldn’t have to go through with a pregnancy if they don’t want to. They talk about how they shouldn’t have to have the child if they don’t want to.

 

I believe a woman has a right to her own body and to her privacy. I also believe that if a woman does not want to go through with a pregnancy then she should not have to. But a woman’s right to her body means just that, her body. An unborn child is a separate entity altogether. A woman does not have an inherent right to destroy her unborn child, and any woman who does so that she does not have to “deal” with it being alive, is a disgusting and selfish individual.

 

Now, let me get back to my revolutionary idea. If a woman wants an abortion then the unborn child should be removed from the womb but not destroyed. All necessary measures should then be taken to ensure the survival and development of the child outside of the mother. This may not be medically possible now, but then it should be made so it is. Perhaps some kind of artificial womb could be developed. If this were possible then it would be legal according to the Supreme Court decision proposed earlier and it might finally put an end to the controversy over abortion. The lives of unborn babies would be protected and the rights of women would be upheld as well. In addition, a woman who wants to have a child but cannot continue the pregnancy for health reasons might actually be able to keep her child.

 

In conclusion, this is all a bunch of hypothetical junk, from beginning to end. All I really want is for people to see that it is not necessary to be either totally against abortion or for abortion. I especially want people who are pro life to see that arguing that abortion should be allowed provided that the unborn child is not destroyed is a much stronger position legally and morally than just saying that abortion must be stopped altogether. Well at least I think so.

[razorace]

What?! An attempt at a constitutional arguement?! :shock:

 

Give me a sec to look up a copy of the constitution.

 

Ok, there's nothing in here that I can see that would imply that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to dictate legal policy for the Constitution on a case-to-case basis. They're within their jurisdiction as the highest law in the law to interprete the Constitution with it's relation to abortion. This doesn't mean that that's the final word on the subject. Congress could make a law (or more likely to legally fly, a Constitutional amendment) to ban abortion. This hasn't occurred because in reality MOST people are in favor of abortions. Since the US is a democratic republic, that's the way it's going to stay until public opinion changes.

 

As for your "compromise", I think forcing a woman to carry a baby to term or having painful, perminately scarring/damaging surgery would easily count as "cruel and unusual punishment", which is flat out banned by the Constitution. Plus, who would care for these saved babies?

[Breton]

Originally posted by razorace

Lets keep nationalism out of this please.

 

 

One entry found for sarcastic.

 

 

Main Entry: sar·cas·tic

Pronunciation: sär-'kas-tik

Function: adjective

Date: 1695

1 : having the character of sarcasm <sarcastic criticism>

2 : given to the use of sarcasm : CAUSTIC <a sarcastic critic>

- sar·cas·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

synonyms SARCASTIC, SATIRIC, IRONIC, SARDONIC mean marked by bitterness and a power or will to cut or sting. SARCASTIC implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding, taunting, or ridiculing <a critic famous mainly for his sarcastic remarks>. SATIRIC implies that the intent of the ridiculing is censure and reprobation <a satiric look at contemporary sexual mores>. IRONIC implies an attempt to be amusing or provocative by saying usually the opposite of what is meant <made the ironic observation that the government could always be trusted>. SARDONIC implies scorn, mockery, or derision that is manifested by either verbal or facial expression <surveyed the scene with a sardonic smile>.

 

 

I believe a woman has a right to her own body and to her privacy. I also believe that if a woman does not want to go through with a pregnancy then she should not have to. But a woman’s right to her body means just that, her body. An unborn child is a separate entity altogether. A woman does not have an inherent right to destroy her unborn child, and any woman who does so that she does not have to “deal” with it being alive, is a disgusting and selfish individual.

 

A fetus is a part of the mother until it is born. It can't think for itself, can it? Therefore, it is nothing more than any other part of a woman's body, such as an arm or a leg.

 

Now, let me get back to my revolutionary idea. If a woman wants an abortion then the unborn child should be removed from the womb but not destroyed. All necessary measures should then be taken to ensure the survival and development of the child outside of the mother. This may not be medically possible now, but then it should be made so it is. Perhaps some kind of artificial womb could be developed. If this were possible then it would be legal according to the Supreme Court decision proposed earlier and it might finally put an end to the controversy over abortion. The lives of unborn babies would be protected and the rights of women would be upheld as well. In addition, a woman who wants to have a child but cannot continue the pregnancy for health reasons might actually be able to keep her child.

 

Ok.....

 

So you think we should spend $5 million+ to grow a kid than's not even wanted? We already have an overpopulation problem in the world. And BTW, who do you think should raise that child afterwards?

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

So you think we should spend $5 million+ to grow a kid than's not even wanted? We already have an overpopulation problem in the world. And BTW, who do you think should raise that child afterwards?

 

Correction. Every kid is wanted somewhere. Adoption is always an option rather than abortion.

[El Sitherino]

i still say why dont these people wanna adopt the unfortunate kids in china or africa? most of these people are white too,its the statistic so dont say anything about that. i think maybe they just want a white kid.

[Tyrion]

Abortion is a rather touchy subject to me. When we get into the "alive" buisness,it get's weird. If a baby,just barely think,is alive enough not to be aborted,then why dont we save all the ants? They have brains(proboly as smart as 3 month babies) and we kill them without remorse. So what's the difference between them and 3-month babies? The fact that's one human's and one's not?

[ShockV1.89]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

i still say why dont these people wanna adopt the unfortunate kids in china or africa?

 

Actually, me and my gf agreed that if she cant have kids (there's some question), then that's exactly what we'd do.

[UgonDieFoo]

Originally posted by razorace

What?! An attempt at a constitutional arguement?! :shock:

 

Give me a sec to look up a copy of the constitution.

 

Ok, there's nothing in here that I can see that would imply that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to dictate legal policy for the Constitution on a case-to-case basis. They're within their jurisdiction as the highest law in the law to interprete the Constitution with it's relation to abortion. This doesn't mean that that's the final word on the subject. Congress could make a law (or more likely to legally fly, a Constitutional amendment) to ban abortion. This hasn't occurred because in reality MOST people are in favor of abortions. Since the US is a democratic republic, that's the way it's going to stay until public opinion changes.

 

As for your "compromise", I think forcing a woman to carry a baby to term or having painful, perminately scarring/damaging surgery would easily count as "cruel and unusual punishment", which is flat out banned by the Constitution. Plus, who would care for these saved babies?

 

I agree that there is nothing in the Constitution that would imply that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to dictate legal policy for the Constitution on a case-to-case basis. But let’s get something strait first. The Constitution is what gives the Supreme Court its power. If there isn't anything in the Constitution that denies the Supreme Court a certain power, it does not mean that the Supreme Court can assume that power. The only powers that the Supreme Court has are those granted to it by the Constitution. Second, the Supreme Court does not dictate legal policy for the Constitution. It uses the Constitution, laws and other things to make its decisions. Third, you have implied that I argued that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution with its relation to abortion. This is not what I have argued.

 

Also, I did not ever argue that a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term. In addition, I fail to see how it can be concluded that what I have proposed would necessarily result in any more physical harm to the mother than what a regular abortion would.