[$tinkle]

All of those examples have brain function. A first trimester fetus doesn't.

as all adults have been children, who have all been babies, who have all been fetuses, who have all had brain development. (that last "who" may be a stretch - but don't let it distract)

shouldn't it just come to the fact that if you regard the life as having value, then dispense with these arbitrary lines in the sand? either you value life, or you don't.

we can intellectualize this to death, until more research has reached further into the abyss

 

[llkoolkeg]

All of those examples have brain function. A first trimester fetus doesn't. Toshi could chime in here as well...

And if our powerful modern tools are not able to detect something, it therefore does not exist. It's a good thing that Zacharias Janssen, Robert Hooke and Anton van Leeuwenhoek did not share that opinion!

 

[Silver]

as all adults have been children, who have all been babies, who have all been fetuses, who have all had brain development. (that last "who" may be a stretch - but don't let it distract)

shouldn't it just come to the fact that if you regard the life as having value, then dispense with these arbitrary lines in the sand? either you value life, or you don't.

we can intellectualize this to death, until more research has reached further into the abyss

Can we stop with the bull****? You don't value life any more than I do.

I don't think abortions are good. I don't think they should be illegal, however.

 

[Silver]

And if our powerful modern tools are not able to detect something, it therefore does not exist. It's a good thing that Zacharias Janssen, Robert Hooke and Anton van Leeuwenhoek did not share that opinion!

Just say it. You believe in a soul, I don't. That's where we differ.

 

[$tinkle]

Can we stop with the bull****? You don't value life any more than I do.

having 2 mad-as-a-box-of-frogs-ex-gf's who have aborted, and now being a parent, i certainly value life more than i did years ago; we don't need to compare masts

I don't think abortions are good. I don't think they should be illegal, however.

agreed.
however the capriciousness with which it is done needs to eliminated; this in turn will be for the greater good (imho)

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

All of those examples have brain function. A first trimester fetus doesn't. Toshi could chime in here as well...

(I'm not speaking strictly of brain waves, either. My dog has those too. I'm talking about higher level functioning.)

what about when your "higher level of functioning" is impaired only temporarily, which is the case of a fetus.

strictly speaking, i dont think you dont have a higher level functioning when you pass out by lack of oxygen either....

does purposely interrupting a self-started act that would mantain alive a temporarily unconscious person is considered murder??

isnt abortion purposely interrumpting the fetus from reaching a conscious state that it would probably reach otherwise?????

 

[Silver]

what about when your "higher level of functioning" is impaired only temporarily, which is the case of a fetus.

strictly speaking, i dont think you dont have a higher level functioning when you pass out by lack of oxygen either....

does purposely interrupting a self-started act that would mantain alive a temporarily unconscious person is considered murder??

isnt abortion purposely interrumpting the fetus from reaching a conscious state that it would probably reach otherwise?????

An unconscious person has brain activity.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Just say it. You believe in a soul, I don't. That's where we differ.

True, but I think it's more than that. I simply do not believe in killing living things needlessly, lower animal or human, even though I don't think lower animals have a soul. My position on abortion has less to do with my religious beliefs than what I have learned and witnessed over the years about the human body and its development. I did not start practicing religion until much later in life. Doctors in my lifetime used to discount as nonsense parental protests against circumcision, too, basically saying that it was a minor procedure that the baby hardly feels, would never remember and that their agonized screaming afterwards was because "...babies cry; you'll have to get used to that pretty quick."

Human babies deserve better than to be killed and end up in a medical waste landfill or pickled in jar. If you take notice of where the predominant medical opinions lie with regard to nearly all matters of ethics, you will see that like lawyers, they usually follow the dollar. e.g. Aged vegetables need to be kept alive no matter what the cost because there is money to be made in sustaining their existence, especially if they are wealthy or covered by a good insurance policy. Here they "value life". Unborn babies, however, are not babies or even human- they are just unthinking clots of blood and cells to be disposed of like a tumor. I'm sure it is just a coincidence that unborn babies have no money, no rights, no legal advocates and don't have their own insurance policies to bilk.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

An unconscious person has brain activity.

i think using only the brain analogy to determine if something is alive or not, or human or not, or for example, comparing a brain dead 80yo and a brain dead fetus doesnt work quite well.

a 80yo old brain dead, doesnt grow anymore, its cells start to die right after... on the other hand, a "dead or un-human" 1st trimester fetus without brain actitivy, which according to such reasoning is dead, is still developing and its cells are reproducing and stuff, regardless of the brain activity, which it will probably develop...
so is not as "dead" as a grown-up brain dead.

 

[Toshi]

ok, as it happens two of my lectures today were on birth defects. and the stats for first trimester were that 50% of pregnancies spontaneously abort during that period, with 30% of the total aborting unnoticed to the mother (detected using other means, monitoring hormones in particular), 10% being "normal" in the gross sense of not having duplicate or missing chromosomes, 10% having drastic chromosomal abnormalities. i don't have a citation handy but it was in an m.d.'s (a pathologist to be specific) lecture slides for what that's worth.

you pro-lifers, what are your stances on terminating pregnancies with catastrophic birth defects such as failure of the neural tube to close? where is your line drawn in terms of what should be allowed to come to term (and die a death within a month or a year without ever becoming conscious) and what shouldn't?

 

[Silver]

i think using only the brain analogy to determine if something is alive or not, or human or not, or for example, comparing a brain dead 80yo and a brain dead fetus doesnt work quite well.

a 80yo old brain dead, doesnt grow anymore, its cells start to die right after... on the other hand, a "dead or un-human" 1st trimester fetus without brain actitivy, which according to such reasoning is dead, is still developing and its cells are reproducing and stuff, regardless of the brain activity, which it will probably develop...
so is not as "dead" as a grown-up brain dead.

Wait wait wait.

You said temporarily unconscious before. Not brain dead.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

We need a woman to chime in on this, since we've been ignoring that there are two entities involved here...

Where is Jr_Bullit? neaky:

So, no, not relevant to that, but relevant to the abortion debate.

Ahhhh - thanks for thinkin of me darlin - I was in meetings all day . I'm not done catching up on what all you boys have been discussing today, but...one thought did occur in reviewing this thread...

Why is it only men seem to find this subject worthy of debate on this site? Or is it, because "men" (yes yes, you great evil lot ) are viewed as trying to force women to do a particular thing with their bodies that they (men) will never fully comprehend, so thus women choose to not participate?
I haven't had kids yet - so all I can say is maybe once I have this particular argument will no longer have any interest for me at all...

In either case...to respond to the individual who wondered why "women are so eager to off their unborn child" first of all - what a bastardly thing to say...
and second of all - until you are in a position to do so yourself, then you really have no right to comment. A child and a mother's body are one - and the loss of the child affects the woman deeply - (I'm sure some of you won't agree with that, but regardless of the woman, you are cutting away a part of yourself that is growing to become another human).

Women are not eager to "off" their unborn children - they ARE eager to remove the influence of men on what they are "Allowed" to do with their bodies.
Sometimes I wonder if Abortion were legal, the debate dropped and women's right to choose accepted as a natural state of being, and there was conseling available for those who considered it an option, if the numbers of those who pursued it would drop naturally to those who physically or mentally cannot raise a child. I certainly wouldn't expect to see the numbers increase.

Sometimes, listening to those of you who froth over the prospect of a woman removing from her a life that is growing, I wonder if you picture women as some big black widow? An evil out to be conquered and stepped on, rather than treated wtih mutual respect and care?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

as all adults have been children, who have all been babies, who have all been fetuses, who have all had brain development. (that last "who" may be a stretch - but don't let it distract)

shouldn't it just come to the fact that if you regard the life as having value, then dispense with these arbitrary lines in the sand? either you value life, or you don't.

we can intellectualize this to death, until more research has reached further into the abyss

Ahh stinkle - do you start to foam at the mouth when you click on the Poli Debate forum?

 

[Silver]

Why is it only men seem to find this subject worthy of debate on this site? Or is it, because "men" (yes yes, you great evil lot ) are viewed as trying to force women to do a particular thing with their bodies that they (men) will never fully comprehend, so thus women choose to not participate?

I think you're reading way too much into that. You're pretty much the only woman that ventures in here on a regular basis.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

I think you're reading way too much into that. You're pretty much the only woman that ventures in here on a regular basis.

Good point....

But it is true that I'm not sure I fully understand why men often seem more passionate on this subject then women...Except for the nutty elderly 80 yo that stands outside the abortion clinic in the southend with the sign...

 

[$tinkle]

you pro-lifers, what are your stances on terminating pregnancies with catastrophic birth defects such as failure of the neural tube to close? where is your line drawn in terms of what should be allowed to come to term (and die a death within a month or a year without ever becoming conscious) and what shouldn't?

that decision would need to be an informed one (obviously), and as of now, i'm pretty ignorant.

it would be noble to take this to term, & for it to endure/suffer until its death as you've described. it's quite another deal to go through with it.

suffice it to say, i'll keep my options open (until jr_b finds out, then i have no rights to even speak on this topic)

 

[Jr_Bullit]

that decision would need to be an informed one (obviously), and as of now, i'm pretty ignorant.

it would be noble to take this to term, & for it to endure/suffer until its death as you've described. it's quite another deal to go through with it.

suffice it to say, i'll keep my options open (until jr_b finds out, then i have no rights to even speak on this topic)

Ahh yes - the noble woman is she who suffers through....

Toshi - could you explain what happens to the kiddo and mom in the situation you described?

And Stinkle - I didn't say you have no rights to debate this subject, I just find it odd that men are more passionate than women in debating it. It seems to coincide with my human anthropology professor's description of men: genetically, men will do what it takes to assure the successful birth of their seed, and since they cannot do more than simply fertilize, then they must fight the decisions the woman may make in regards to their "kids".

But - it still makes me laugh to read your responses, because they really do at times seem to be stated by someone who is frothing at the mouth, eager for battle.

 

[$tinkle]

and second of all - until you are in a position to do so yourself, then you really have no right to comment.

so we should overturn roe v. wade b/c the counselors & judges were male?

A child and a mother's body are one - and the loss of the child affects the woman deeply - (I'm sure some of you won't agree with that, but regardless of the woman, you are cutting away a part of yourself that is growing to become another human).

if you mean one in the chromosonal sense, i disagree. also, there's two heartbeats; the unborn will demonstrate other signs of dependent yet separate life. i do see your point & have never disagreed that it affects the woman deeply. it's more the proponents of this issue (a lot of males!!!) with whom i take issue.

Sometimes, listening to those of you who froth over the prospect of a woman removing from her a life that is growing, I wonder if you picture women as some big black widow? An evil out to be conquered and stepped on, rather than treated wtih mutual respect and care?

it's not the woman doing the removing; maybe if abortion were legal but had to be performed by the would-be mother it would be given more thought well ahead of time? maybe then we would then - as you suggest - begin to treat the would-be mother with more respect.

 

[llkoolkeg]

In either case...to respond to the individual who wondered why "women are so eager to off their unborn child" first of all - what a bastardly thing to say...
and second of all - until you are in a position to do so yourself, then you really have no right to comment. A child and a mother's body are one - and the loss of the child affects the woman deeply - (I'm sure some of you won't agree with that, but regardless of the woman, you are cutting away a part of yourself that is growing to become another human).

Women are not eager to "off" their unborn children - they ARE eager to remove the influence of men on what they are "Allowed" to do with their bodies.

Well, I'm not positive this was directed at me, but if it was, let me repost my misinterpreted quote-

"I personally find it nauseating that supposedly "pro-women" groups can find nothing more worthy of their time and passion than lobbying for their continued "right" to off their offspring for no reason greater than inconvenient timing.

Did I say women are eager to off their unborn children? No. Does my quote above make me a bastard? No, literally or figuratively. Let me paraphrase myself for clarity's sake- It makes me ill to see NOW and other such groups focus so much of their energy on fighting for what they call abortion rights when there are so many other worthy womens issues to fight for. Of course, abortion in not a right but a ghastly medical procedure allowed by law, but let's try and keep this simple. If they were only fighting to keep it legal in cases of medical necessity, rape, incest, or perhaps even very early in the 1st trimester, that would be one thing. That is not the case, however. They want abortion to be legal with almost no restrictions. Why should a baby have to die because his parents were stupid or careless? Why should a baby have to die because after things didn't work out with the dad, a mother decides to abort his child? Why should babies have to die because their creation-something THEY cannot be blamed for- occurs at a time inconvenient for the parents. Why should babies have to die because "condoms just don't feel good"? THAT is what pisses me off about pro-abortionists. The inability to see the procedure as inherently wrong or to support any rational regulation of it. I'd really love to thank the idiot who first verbalized the meritless "slippery slope" argument; undoubtedly, it was a lawyer.

Now, regarding the comment that "until you are in a position to do so yourself, then you really have no right to comment." Bull$hit. Do I not live in this society too? As a citizen, do I not get a say in how our laws should be written and enforced? It is a fallacy to believe that only women get to decide laws that affect women. Most women don't have a penis, but they are certainly within their rights as citizens to have a say in laws that limit what I am allowed to do with mine! Don't assume I know nothing about the loss of a pregnancy, either, as a few years back, that happened to my wife right in front of me. It affected us both very deeply and from time-to-time, she cries over it even to this day. And please, do not equate the accidental loss of a pregnancy with the deliberate one. A woman who has a non-essential abortion SHOULD have to face the demons over her decision. Not at all the same as when two parents have planned and celebrated a pregnancy, announced it to others, prepared a nursery, discussed possible names before falling asleep...only to have a miscarriage destroy it all in a matter of moments. Why don't you try walking a mile in my shoes before telling me I have no right to comment on abortion.

The last sentance I quoted really says it all-

"Women are not eager to "off" their unborn children - they ARE eager to remove the influence of men on what they are "Allowed" to do with their bodies."

It's about power. Some women see a man's protest of abortion as nothing more than an attempt to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body. Newsflash- paying someone to kill your baby without a darn good reason is WRONG. It's like women have retreated so far from the concept of equality that they now feel that they have to hunker down and defend their last bastion of self-determination...their bodies. "We're not going to be paid as well, respected as much, honored as highly or consulted on matters of importance, but I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to let some guy tell me what I have to do with my body!" That, I believe, is almost as sad as abortion. To be made to feel so small and insignificant by society that the only way you can feel empowered is by holding the fragile life of an unborn child in the palm of your hand. God, what a pitiful world this is after all.

If jrb's commentary was not directed at me, I apologize...but I think I said what was needed to be said.

 

[Toshi]

Toshi - could you explain what happens to the kiddo and mom in the situation you described?

the kid probably would be spontaneously aborted (that is, "naturally") before coming to term. if it did it would be born with no hope for ever being human, in the sense that if your neural tube doesn't close up top you don't have a brain (often accompanied by lack of skull and tissue -- just primordial nervous system tissue exposed to the winds).

 

[Velocity Girl]

Well, I'm not positive this was directed at me, but if it was, let me repost my misinterpreted quote-

"I personally find it nauseating that supposedly "pro-women" groups can find nothing more worthy of their time and passion than lobbying for their continued "right" to off their offspring for no reason greater than inconvenient timing.

Did I say women are eager to off their unborn children? No. Does my quote above make me a bastard? No, literally or figuratively. Let me paraphrase myself for clarity's sake- It makes me ill to see NOW and other such groups focus so much of their energy on fighting for what they call abortion rights when there are so many other worthy womens issues to fight for. Of course, abortion in not a right but a ghastly medical procedure allowed by law, but let's try and keep this simple. If they were only fighting to keep it legal in cases of medical necessity, rape, incest, or perhaps even very early in the 1st trimester, that would be one thing. That is not the case, however. They want abortion to be legal with almost no restrictions. Why should a baby have to die because his parents were stupid or careless? Why should a baby have to die because after things didn't work out with the dad, a mother decides to abort his child? Why should babies have to die because their creation-something THEY cannot be blamed for- occurs at a time inconvenient for the parents. Why should babies have to die because "condoms just don't feel good"? THAT is what pisses me off about pro-abortionists. The inability to see the procedure as inherently wrong or to support any rational regulation of it. I'd really love to thank the idiot who first verbalized the meritless "slippery slope" argument; undoubtedly, it was a lawyer.

Now, regarding the comment that "until you are in a position to do so yourself, then you really have no right to comment." Bull$hit. Do I not live in this society too? As a citizen, do I not get a say in how our laws should be written and enforced? It is a fallacy to believe that only women get to decide laws that affect women. Most women don't have a penis, but they are certainly within their rights as citizens to have a say in laws that limit what I am allowed to do with mine! Don't assume I know nothing about the loss of a pregnancy, either, as a few years back, that happened to my wife right in front of me. It affected us both very deeply and from time-to-time, she cries over it even to this day. And please, do not equate the accidental loss of a pregnancy with the deliberate one. A woman who has a non-essential abortion SHOULD have to face the demons over her decision. Not at all the same as when two parents have planned and celebrated a pregnancy, announced it to others, prepared a nursery, discussed possible names before falling asleep...only to have a miscarriage destroy it all in a matter of moments. Why don't you try walking a mile in my shoes before telling me I have no right to comment on abortion.

The last sentance I quoted really says it all-

"Women are not eager to "off" their unborn children - they ARE eager to remove the influence of men on what they are "Allowed" to do with their bodies."

It's about power. Some women see a man's protest of abortion as nothing more than an attempt to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body. Newsflash- paying someone to kill your baby without a darn good reason is WRONG. It's like women have retreated so far from the concept of equality that they now feel that they have to hunker down and defend their last bastion of self-determination...their bodies. "We're not going to be paid as well, respected as much, honored as highly or consulted on matters of importance, but I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to let some guy tell me what I have to do with my body!" That, I believe, is almost as sad as abortion. To be made to feel so small and insignificant by society that the only way you can feel empowered is by holding the fragile life of an unborn child in the palm of your hand. God, what a pitiful world this is after all.

If jrb's commentary was not directed at me, I apologize...but I think I said what was needed to be said.

Ok, so I mainly lurk in the forums because I don't always have time to post, but now I feel the need to step in and voice an opinion.

I find some of your comments very offending. You say that women are fighting for the right to control thier bodies just to spite men? I call BS! And as for having other issues better to fight about, there are other very vaild issues out there but I think this is one of the more important ones, it's my body and I feel I have the right to decide if I should continue down the life-altering path of bringing a fetus to term or not.

You say "Why should a baby have to die because his parents were stupid or careless? Why should a baby have to die because after things didn't work out with the dad, a mother decides to abort his child? Why should babies have to die because their creation-something THEY cannot be blamed for- occurs at a time inconvenient for the parents. Why should babies have to die because "condoms just don't feel good"? " Your statements generalize all women who want aboritions into categories of being stupid or careless and although some might, not all do.

Your comments also bring up the debate that started this thread which is when does life begin or when is it considered to be it's own person/human. Your views obviously differ from others because I don't see this in anywhere near the same light as you do. I don't agree with abortion basically in the third trimester, when the baby is developed and can survive outside the womb (or in the cases of harm to the mother or severe deformity). But I think every women should have the right to an abortion before then for whatever reason they so choose. I have no intentions of ever having children and take precautions so that this will not happen, but until I can get "fixed" it's not foolproof. I can do everything I'm supposed to do and still have an accident. Well I am not about to bring an unwanted child into the world. To me that is worse than having an abortion in the early stages of pregancy.

Everyone has to make a decision for themselves as to how they feel on this issue and what they can and can not live with, but just because you don't agree with my decision doesn't mean I should have that right taken away.

Another interesting twist to this argument. If you're saying I shouldn't have the right to decide if I can or can not bring a child to term.....should the government then be able to dictate who is allowed to get pregnant in the first place there by dictating further what you can and can't do with your body?

 

[llkoolkeg]

the kid probably would be spontaneously aborted (that is, "naturally") before coming to term. if it did it would be born with no hope for ever being human, in the sense that if your neural tube doesn't close up top you don't have a brain (often accompanied by lack of skull and tissue -- just primordial nervous system tissue exposed to the winds).

That sounds very similar to something that happened to a young couple at my old church. When presented with the prognosis, they discussed abortion but ultimately decided to leave it in God's hands. The carried on...not quite as normal, but they carried on nonetheless. When their daughter was born, she lived only a few hours but her parents were with her the whole time and she died in their arms. They grieved, buried her and have gone on with their lives. Bravest thing I have ever personally witnessed to this day.

I'm not sure I could have done it. Had I been in their situation with an outlook SO grim, I probably would have just nudged my wife towards abortion. Ultimately, it would have been her decision to take with my support. I am not as spiritually strong as many, though. Did they take the right decision? Who knows. I believe they took the right one for their particular set of circumstances and I am certainly not wise enough to have seen a better path. I saw them this past Thanksgiving and they have a beautiful little boy now. Not being a very good Christian myself, I thought that was the least that God should have provided for what he put them through the first go around. I guess I'll never be able to comprehend or accept why the nicest people always seem to suffer so much.

 

[Changleen]

Not being a very good Christian myself, I thought that was the least that God should have provided for what he put them through the first go around. I guess I'll never be able to comprehend or accept why the nicest people always seem to suffer so much.

Because you start with the flawed preposition that god exists?

 

[mack]

Because you start with the flawed preposition that god exists?

 

[llkoolkeg]

Ok, so I mainly lurk in the forums because I don't always have time to post, but now I feel the need to step in and voice an opinion.

I find some of your comments very offending. (Sorry; I don't intend to do so but I do speak my mind without reservation.) You say that women are fighting for the right to control thier bodies just to spite men? I call BS! (No, that was not what I was saying, but SOME certainly do.) And as for having other issues better to fight about, there are other very vaild issues out there but I think this is one of the more important ones, it's my body and I feel I have the right to decide if I should continue down the life-altering path of bringing a fetus to term or not. (It would agree but for the fact that it's your body AND your baby's body. You have a fiduciary duty to protect your offspring and far better that you endure a life-altering experience than a baby endure a life-ending one)

You say "Why should a baby have to die because his parents were stupid or careless? Why should a baby have to die because after things didn't work out with the dad, a mother decides to abort his child? Why should babies have to die because their creation-something THEY cannot be blamed for- occurs at a time inconvenient for the parents. Why should babies have to die because "condoms just don't feel good"? " Your statements generalize all women who want aboritions into categories of being stupid or careless and although some might, not all do. (I was not generalizing ALL women; I only had time to provide four examples. Perhaps you will chime in with a few good reasons for having an abortion. Also, you might have not noticed that I used the word "parentS" instead of "women" where possible; the father of the child should certainly not escape his share of the culpability for the situation.)

Your comments also bring up the debate that started this thread which is when does life begin or when is it considered to be it's own person/human. Your views obviously differ from others because I don't see this in anywhere near the same light as you do. I don't agree with abortion basically in the third trimester, when the baby is developed and can survive outside the womb (or in the cases of harm to the mother or severe deformity). But I think every women should have the right to an abortion before then for whatever reason they so choose. I have no intentions of ever having children and take precautions so that this will not happen, but until I can get "fixed" it's not foolproof. I can do everything I'm supposed to do and still have an accident. Well I am not about to bring an unwanted child into the world. To me that is worse than having an abortion in the early stages of pregancy.(I don't think we disagree quite as much as you may think. I do not believe abortion should be outlawed for many reasons, one of which you list. But at the same time, I don't think it should be taking place after the 1st trimester or hopefully even earlier w/o a VERY good reason. Are you telling me it takes a woman three months to figure out she's pregnant? Are you telling me that you think a woman deserves up to six months after becoming pregnant to decide whether or not to end her child's life? Now I know y'all can be indecisive at times, but a developing child should not have to become even MORE developed while you slowly ponder his fate. If you don't want a child make up your mind before his develpment grows ever closer to the age of viability. Even though 24 weeks is the generally accepted age of viability, children as young as 19 weeks old have survived premature birth. You would bestow upon women the power and "right" to kill their children past the point they might well survive even without their mother's help!)

Everyone has to make a decision for themselves as to how they feel on this issue and what they can and can not live with, but just because you don't agree with my decision doesn't mean I should have that right taken away.(Again, abortion is is not a RIGHT; it is legal medical procedure and one that should be far more rare than it currently is. Again, I do not support outlawing it. A baby, however, is not a mole or unwanted hair to be lasered off your bikini line whenever it can be fit into your busy schedule.)

Another interesting twist to this argument. If you're saying I shouldn't have the right to decide if I can or can not bring a child to term.....should the government then be able to dictate who is allowed to get pregnant in the first place there by dictating further what you can and can't do with your body?(I'm not sure I follow. As a 58.5% Libertarian, I think the gov't should for the most part stay out of the private affairs of citizens. Killing another human, however, falls within the purview of the judiciary.)

(I just added my responses within your reply so that they would be near your comments.)

EDIT:

Changleen-
Mack- You get two for just peering from behind Changleen's skirt!

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

An unconscious person has brain activity.

well, replace with temporarily unconscioue then.

I´m not christian. I dont really believe in G-d (for other than practical uses), and i dont believe in soul, nor karma, nor afterlife, nor mostly anything that i cannot validate.
and i dont rely my argument on a pre-conception of g-d, or absolutes evils and crap like that, because i dont deem them worthy.

said that, i DONT believe abortion has to do anything with woman or couples rights.
i believe abortion is about whether or not a fetus is human, thus granted human-dom rights on itself.

a woman or man can do whatever they want to their bodies... BUT a fetus IS NO LONGER THEIR BODIES.
it may be attached to, but its not theirs anymore. and in fact... if its attached to them, is because they CAUSED that in the first place.

2nd. i dont believe the lack of brain activity or consciousness ALONE is enough to decide whether a person is dead or un-human or not.
since, as validated by fetuses, human LIFE, and human cells continue to grow even in the abscense of consciousness or brain activity.

3rd. I believe the timeframe in which a fetus lacks brain activity is a temporal one, which will be over by the fetus itself, in a self-started manner, unless external interrumption. unlike a brain-dead adult in a hospital bed. Since this is a temporal abscense of brain activity and consciousness (well, at least we suspect that given current state of medicine), i dont believe thats enough grounds to declare the fetus dead or un-human, because it doesnt comply with the other requirement of celular death on its own.

about the unwanted baby VS the killing the fetus problem. I believe that is a COUPLES problem, not the baby.
if he is unwanted, though luck mommy and daddy!!!, just pay your bill now. that is not a baby´s problem. you invited him to the party.
killing it, is just passing the bill to the only person of the 3, with no word about its future, and who didnt even put itself in said situation.

 

[Toshi]

2nd. i dont believe the lack of brain activity or consciousness ALONE is enough to decide whether a person is dead or un-human or not.
since, as validated by fetuses, human LIFE, and human cells continue to grow even in the abscense of consciousness or brain activity.

so you'd be against removal of cancerous tumors? they are most definitely "human cells" and they "continue to grow even in the abscense[sic] of consciousness or brain activity" by definition.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

so you'd be against removal of cancerous tumors? they are most definitely "human cells" and they "continue to grow even in the abscense[sic] of consciousness or brain activity" by definition.

no, because cancerous tumors are part of the owners body. they share the same dna, dont they??? so it would be like clipping a nail, or cutting your hair....

 

[Velocity Girl]

(I just added my responses within your reply so that they would be near your comments.)

EDIT:

Changleen-
Mack- You get two for just peering from behind Changleen's skirt!

(Sorry; I don't intend to do so but I do speak my mind without reservation.) - No worries. We all have strong opinions and that's what can make good debates. I just call people out on it from time to time.

(It would agree but for the fact that it's your body AND your baby's body. You have a fiduciary duty to protect your offspring and far better that you endure a life-altering experience than a baby endure a life-ending one) -
I don't see the two as being seperate at the early stage of pregenance. I see the baby as more of an "extension" of the mother at that point, but not completely it's own entity because it still needs the mother to survive.


(I don't think we disagree quite as much as you may think. I do not believe abortion should be outlawed for many reasons, one of which you list. But at the same time, I don't think it should be taking place after the 1st trimester or hopefully even earlier w/o a VERY good reason. Are you telling me it takes a woman three months to figure out she's pregnant? Are you telling me that you think a woman deserves up to six months after becoming pregnant to decide whether or not to end her child's life? Now I know y'all can be indecisive at times, but a developing child should not have to become even MORE developed while you slowly ponder his fate. If you don't want a child make up your mind before his develpment grows ever closer to the age of viability. Even though 24 weeks is the generally accepted age of viability, children as young as 19 weeks old have survived premature birth. You would bestow upon women the power and "right" to kill their children past the point they might well survive even without their mother's help!) - I actually don't know how long it takes a women to find out they're pregnant. If you're on the pill and supressing your period or on the shots that eliminate it then it might take you longer to realize what's up....could that be 3 months? Not sure? I do see your point of waiting far into the 2nd trimester to make the decision. I think that if it's a decision of just wanting a child or not, then that should be made ASAP. If it's due to medical reasons (with mom or child, deformity, risk, etc.) then I can see that decision being made later. As for the very good reason, to me not wanting to bring a child into the world that is unwanted is reason enough.

(Again, abortion is is not a RIGHT; it is legal medical procedure and one that should be far more rare than it currently is. Again, I do not support outlawing it. A baby, however, is not a mole or unwanted hair to be lasered off your bikini line whenever it can be fit into your busy schedule.) - That's where we differ. Being able to decide what happens to my body is my RIGHT. It may be a medical procedure, but so are bood jobs, liposuction, nose jobs.....my body, my right to choose.
And I'm not trying to sound callous as I know pregnancy is vastly different from a boob job, but it's still my body and I should be able to control what happens to it.


(I'm not sure I follow. As a 58.5% Libertarian, I think the gov't should for the most part stay out of the private affairs of citizens. Killing another human, however, falls within the purview of the judiciary.) - - You see it as killing another human and I don't see it the same at earlier points in pregancy (for the reasons I stated above). Because of that this doesn't fit into your logic pattern. But I see limitations on what I can do with my body after a preganancy the same as putting a limitation on weather on not that preganancy can even happen in the first place. It's taking away a fundamental right of a person to have a say in what happens to their body....just at different time.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

(Sorry; I don't intend to do so but I do speak my mind without reservation.) - No worries. We all have strong opinions and that's what can make good debates. I just call people out on it from time to time.

(It would agree but for the fact that it's your body AND your baby's body. You have a fiduciary duty to protect your offspring and far better that you endure a life-altering experience than a baby endure a life-ending one) -
I don't see the two as being seperate at the early stage of pregenance. I see the baby as more of an "extension" of the mother at that point, but not completely it's own entity because it still needs the mother to survive.


(I don't think we disagree quite as much as you may think. I do not believe abortion should be outlawed for many reasons, one of which you list. But at the same time, I don't think it should be taking place after the 1st trimester or hopefully even earlier w/o a VERY good reason. Are you telling me it takes a woman three months to figure out she's pregnant? Are you telling me that you think a woman deserves up to six months after becoming pregnant to decide whether or not to end her child's life? Now I know y'all can be indecisive at times, but a developing child should not have to become even MORE developed while you slowly ponder his fate. If you don't want a child make up your mind before his develpment grows ever closer to the age of viability. Even though 24 weeks is the generally accepted age of viability, children as young as 19 weeks old have survived premature birth. You would bestow upon women the power and "right" to kill their children past the point they might well survive even without their mother's help!) - I actually don't know how long it takes a women to find out they're pregnant. If you're on the pill and supressing your period or on the shots that eliminate it then it might take you longer to realize what's up....could that be 3 months? Not sure? I do see your point of waiting far into the 2nd trimester to make the decision. I think that if it's a decision of just wanting a child or not, then that should be made ASAP. If it's due to medical reasons (with mom or child, deformity, risk, etc.) then I can see that decision being made later. As for the very good reason, to me not wanting to bring a child into the world that is unwanted is reason enough.

(Again, abortion is is not a RIGHT; it is legal medical procedure and one that should be far more rare than it currently is. Again, I do not support outlawing it. A baby, however, is not a mole or unwanted hair to be lasered off your bikini line whenever it can be fit into your busy schedule.) - That's where we differ. Being able to decide what happens to my body is my RIGHT. It may be a medical procedure, but so are bood jobs, liposuction, nose jobs.....my body, my right to choose.
And I'm not trying to sound callous as I know pregnancy is vastly different from a boob job, but it's still my body and I should be able to control what happens to it.


(I'm not sure I follow. As a 58.5% Libertarian, I think the gov't should for the most part stay out of the private affairs of citizens. Killing another human, however, falls within the purview of the judiciary.) - - You see it as killing another human and I don't see it the same at earlier points in pregancy (for the reasons I stated above). Because of that this doesn't fit into your logic pattern. But I see limitations on what I can do with my body after a preganancy the same as putting a limitation on weather on not that preganancy can even happen in the first place. It's taking away a fundamental right of a person to have a say in what happens to their body....just at different time.

velocitygirl. your whole argument goes around the idea of an abortion being a procedure on your body.

I dont think a baby is part of your body. its a whole different entity.

you can cut your leg of if you want... its your dna, is your body... a baby... well... isnt.

if you kill the supply to the baby (which may be a part of your body), you not only do something to your body, but this has an effect on another entity, that you put in the situation of being dependant on you in the first place.

the fact that the link between you and the baby may be part of your body, does not make you less liable from the death resulting from your action.

and i think we all agree that an abortion equals to a death. we are trying to argue whether the death is of a human, or not.

 

[$tinkle]

I don't see the two as being seperate at the early stage of pregenance. I see the baby as more of an "extension" of the mother at that point, but not completely it's own entity because it still needs the mother to survive.

so when do you? when science (available to the would-be mother) is readily available? i just want to understand what your threshold is & your basis for it.

don't distract me by talking about your boobs. that's not fair.

 

[Toshi]

no, because cancerous tumors are part of the owners body. they share the same dna, dont they??? so it would be like clipping a nail, or cutting your hair....

your point about dna is a technicality, and will become totally moot when/if human cloning becomes feasible. i would argue that a fetus is much more dependent on its mother in the first two trimesters than a tumor. it's possible that you could get a choristoma (type of tumor where a "normal" tissue type inappropriate for the area it appears in starts to grow) that, say, essentially grows a second brain sprouting from your back. would it be ok to remove that?

yes, i'm being intentionally gross here. the points i've been trying to make:

- normal development often goes very wrong (50% "natural" abortions in 1st trimester as per previous post)
- pointing to any one feature as being definitive of human life is an untenable position (as seen by my grotesque but true cancer example above)
- this all boils down to when a fetus becomes a baby. and while no one suggests boiling babies that make it out of the womb or other such nonsense it is also true that no one contests that babies (minors in general) don't have the full complement of rights until age 18 or whatever local laws dictate. furthermore, few people take issue with "therapeutic" abortions (with gross deformities, also as mentioned above)

given all of the above i can't see how any of you can see the issue as entirely black and white. there are many circumstances that can change, with the mother, mother's life, the fetus<-->baby, its development...

 

[Velocity Girl]

velocitygirl. your whole argument goes around the idea of an abortion being a procedure on your body.

I dont think a baby is part of your body. its a whole different entity.

you can cut your leg of if you want... its your dna, is your body... a baby... well... isnt.

if you kill the supply to the baby (which may be a part of your body), you not only do something to your body, but this has an effect on another entity, that you put in the situation of being dependant on you in the first place.

the fact that the link between you and the baby may be part of your body, does not make you less liable from the death resulting from your action.

and i think we all agree that an abortion equals to a death. we are trying to argue whether the death is of a human, or not.

That's why our views differ. I don't see the baby as a seperate entity at that point. Just because the dna isn't a clone of my own doesn't mean it's still not a part of my body. When it is no longer part of my body, or can survive without being part of my body, then it is it's own entity. Therefore in response to "and i think we all agree that an abortion equals to a death. we are trying to argue whether the death is of a human, or not" I don't see it as "death" in the same light as kililng a 45 yr old, 1 year old, or 1 day old individual. So I guess that might mean I don't consider it to be fully "human" at that point.

 

[Velocity Girl]

so when do you? when science (available to the would-be mother) is readily available? i just want to understand what your threshold is & your basis for it.

don't distract me by talking about your boobs. that's not fair.

Sorry...no more boob talk (Boob, boob, boob, boob, lol!)

When do I see the two as being seperate and the baby it's own entity. I think I would have say sometime in the 3rd trimester probably. When the baby is developed enough that it can sustain meaningful life outside the womb.

 

[$tinkle]

i saw the manitou way back in the day.

 

[Silver]

Another problem with Alexis' theory is that offing a clone would be ok, since his DNA would be identical to yours.

edit: not in the way Toshi means, either neaky:

 

[llkoolkeg]

As I thought, VG, our opinions are not THAT far apart. I guess it really boils down to whether you consider a baby a separate entity. The reason I believe so is because they have different DNA(although half identical), different body, different brain, different organs, different bodily systems(that pre-birth are interrelated)...different everything for the most part. They are connected by a faciliatory multi-function organ-like wonder called the placenta, which is discarded at birth. Early on, the baby is completely reliant upon his mother for everything, but that does not make him a mere extension of his mother. Baby kangaroos are the closest thing that springs to mind as an example of a separate entity that is attached to the mother in the pouch for weeks while developing. There are many symbiotic, codependent life forms that exist together without one being considered the same as or more relevant than the other. I see it not so much as having a say in what happens to your body, but as having the only say in what happens to the body and future of another you took partial responsibility for creating. Given the option of abortion or women dropping their newborns off in plastic bags into lakes or dumpsters, obviously, I'd vote for abortion every time. My personal belief, though, is if you absolutely do not want your child, be merciful and kill it before it is anywhere near developed -or- take responsibility for your actions which led to the pregnancy, carry the child to term(the father should also be held liable for half the required work/expense, because HIS sperm led to the pregnancy) and give him up for adoption immediately. That second option is why my wife exists today and is now the mother of two small children of her own. God bless her unknown birth mother for taking the unfathomably difficult, right and responsible decision as a frightened, unmarried college student.

 

[Velocity Girl]

As I thought, VG, our opinions are not THAT far apart. I guess it really boils down to whether you consider a baby a separate entity. The reason I believe so is because they have different DNA(although half identical), different body, different brain, different organs, different bodily systems(that pre-birth are interrelated)...different everything for the most part. They are connected by a faciliatory multi-function organ-like wonder called the placenta, which is discarded at birth. Early on, the baby is completely reliant upon his mother for everything, but that does not make him a mere extension of his mother. Baby kangaroos are the closest thing that springs to mind as an example of a separate entity that is attached to the mother in the pouch for weeks while developing. There are many symbiotic, codependent life forms that exist together without one being considered the same as or more relevant than the other. I see it not so much as having a say in what happens to your body, but as having the only say in what happens to the body and future of another you took partial responsibility for creating. Given the option of abortion or women dropping their newborns off in plastic bags into lakes or dumpsters, obviously, I'd vote for abortion every time. My personal belief, though, is if you absolutely do not want your child, be merciful and kill it before it is anywhere near developed -or- take responsibility for your actions which led to the pregnancy, carry the child to term(the father should also be held liable for half the required work/expense, because HIS sperm led to the pregnancy) and give him up for adoption immediately. That second option is why my wife exists today and is now the mother of two small children of her own. God bless her unknown birth mother for taking the unfathomably difficult, right and responsible decision as a frightened, unmarried college student.

We do disagree on the point of when the baby is it's own entity, but I do agree that if you do not want the child to do have an abortion ASAP or give it up for adoption.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

your point about dna is a technicality, and will become totally moot when/if human cloning becomes feasible. i would argue that a fetus is much more dependent on its mother in the first two trimesters than a tumor. it's possible that you could get a choristoma (type of tumor where a "normal" tissue type inappropriate for the area it appears in starts to grow) that, say, essentially grows a second brain sprouting from your back. would it be ok to remove that?

yes, i'm being intentionally gross here. the points i've been trying to make:

- normal development often goes very wrong (50% "natural" abortions in 1st trimester as per previous post)

i know most pregnancies dont go the full 9 months, but i dont consider the chances very important in the definition of whether the fetus is a human baby (from now on "baby") or not. either its a baby, or not.
whether it lives 30seconds, or 90 years, that doesnt make you more or less of a human.

- pointing to any one feature as being definitive of human life is an untenable position (as seen by my grotesque but true cancer example above)

i propose my at least 2 point requirements to determine human in-existance. both permanent unconsiousness or lack of permanent brain inactivity AND a complete halt of cell-growth and development (because a halt of growth means no chance at all of the unconsciouness being temporal).

- this all boils down to when a fetus becomes a baby. and while no one suggests boiling babies that make it out of the womb or other such nonsense it is also true that no one contests that babies (minors in general) don't have the full complement of rights until age 18 or whatever local laws dictate. furthermore, few people take issue with "therapeutic" abortions (with gross deformities, also as mentioned above)

you are not "half alive", you are either dead or not.
i believe there is not a stage in which you can say a fetus is not a baby. i believe it is black at some point, and white in another.

black until implantation (since the fertiliized egg has no chance of growth at all until reaching a place to implantate, and obviously has no consciousness), thus complying with my at least 2 requirements to un-human-dom.
white after implantation, when it has a chance of survival of the 9th month, whatever it is. while it has not consciousness yet, its temporarily unconscious, because cells are still growing and posibly will develop brain activity. so does not fully compply with the "dead" or "not-human" definition.

i got the issue with therapeutic abortions. i think you have to be permanent unconscious (plus no chance of celular development) before you can be considered dead or not-human.
i mean, acording to that, killing any person would be ok, since we would all be dead at some point anyways...
what would be the difference from making it today or in 70 years?? regardless of the condition of the baby, since i dont believe any condition short of death takes away human-dom. again, whether you are left with 2 days of life, or 90 years i dont think that is a matter of consideration when defining your human-dom.

now if a baby is born without a brain... it means its unconscious AND that it has already completed its celular development into what should have been a conscious entity (and no chance of more development) just like a brain dead adult in a hospital bead, then its dead.
i dont see no abortion there...

given all of the above i can't see how any of you can see the issue as entirely black and white. there are many circumstances that can change, with the mother, mother's life, the fetus<-->baby, its development...

well, all the things variable and circumstances are independant from the human-dom or not of the baby.
they might be important regarding the survival of the baby, but are not important regarding the human-dom of it.


the whole clone-dna thing also doesnt work like that.
because while it is the same dna, it has a different consciousness.

a human is at least one set of dna, PLUS only one consciousness. if you have 2 out of the same set of dna... well you have 2 humans then...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

We do disagree on the point of when the baby is it's own entity, but I do agree that if you do not want the child to do have an abortion ASAP or give it up for adoption.

alright.. why is the baby NOT its own entity if is has its own dna, and its consciouness is only temporarily unavailable???

say, you have a siamese twin attached to you, and your siamese is temporarily unconscious (say lack of oxygen)... can you dispose of her as your body??

it the baby is part of your body... would you chop only one of the baby´s leg just like you clip your nails, but then letting it grow into birth??