[shocktower]

That`s how the new bill is heading ,the prez has just signed in a new bill if you injur/kill a fetus you will be prosicuted ,and soon when you go to terminate that unwanted child you could go to jail ,that my perspective the puritans are taking over:devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

 

[Changleen]

Yeah, I agree, that new bill just opens up a whole can of badness.. Oh well, I guess that's what you get for having a 'religious' president.

 

[jdcamb]

Uhhh did you read the "Bill" or the headline? The "Bill" has no teeth and doesn't effect Rowe vs Wade.....jdcamb

 

[Changleen]

(Nice avatar BTW - VIVIAN!)

The bill lays open the precident - it's not a stretch of the imagination for a good lawyer to argue that a late 2nd trimester abortion, in difficult circumstances (say after a car wreck, mother unconcious) fits the crime as laid out by the bill. From that point on it's a house of cards.

 

[Silver]

Ever notice how a fetus is the most important thing in the world to the conservative Christian wing of the Republican party, until it emerges from the womb, then it's just another goddamned minority welfare mouth....

Remember kids, God doesn't like socialized medicine or helping the poor. He made them downtrodden and diseased. Who are we to question his wisdom?

 

[MMike]

Originally posted by Silver
Ever notice how a fetus is the most important thing in the world to the conservative Christian wing of the Republican party, until it emerges from the womb, then it's just another goddamned minority welfare mouth....

Remember kids, God doesn't like socialized medicine or helping the poor. He made them downtrodden and diseased. Who are we to question his wisdom?

I like that...I may use that one of thesedays

 

[Silver]

Hey, would withholding prenatal care from a mother who couldn't pay qualify as negligent manslaughter then?

I know at this point it is a federal bill that covers a narrow range, but you know there is something broader coming down the pipe soon...

 

[$tinkle]

glad someone else picked this fight. I was gonna but i knew i could depend on you guys.

Originally posted by Silver
Hey, would withholding prenatal care from a mother who couldn't pay qualify as negligent manslaughter then?

on a related note, cretins like Maureen Paul are already kept in check by the ban on partial birth abortion

In San Francisco, a chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood testified that she chooses methods of abortion that violate the new law because they are among the safest options.

Asked by a government lawyer whether the fetus exhibits pain during the procedures, Maureen Paul replied, "I have no idea what you mean."

does this sound like some one who should be doing anything in the medical field? Sounds more like joseph mengele to me.

here's what a rep from planned parenthood had to offer:

"This bill [the Unborn Victims of Violence Act] elevates the legal status of a fetus to make it equal to that of the adult woman who actually suffers the primary injury. It is part of ongoing attempts to bestow personhood on the fetus by granting it separate legal rights equal to and independent of those of the pregnant woman." --Planned Parenthood statement objecting to recognizing unborn humans as legal persons through "separate legal status to a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus, even if the woman does not know she's pregnant."

didja catch that? She doesn't even want seperate but equal.

Originally posted by Silver
I know at this point it is a federal bill that covers a narrow range, but you know there is something broader coming down the pipe soon...

are you suggesting there's a slipperly slope?

maybe now you can understand just one of the reasons why i have my opinion about gay marriage.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by Silver
Remember kids, God doesn't like .... helping the poor. He made them downtrodden and diseased. Who are we to question his wisdom?

He doesn't? My Bible says if you don't help the poor around you your "robbing God".

 

[Andyman_1970]

This seems like a relavant thread to post this in:

Now, my point of view / opinion / beliefs (whatever you want to call them): just as murdering a “full grown human” is wrong so is abortion. Granted that’s my opinion, feel free to disagree. In the research I have done on the subject, it seems to me there are only 4 basic differences between a “full grown human” and an embryo: size, environment that the person/embryo is in, length of development, and level of dependency. Of these 4 differences, none of them qualify as “valid” reasons to terminate a human life, again my opinion.

I don’t know if I read that post on here or another thread but the statement was made that abortion is acceptable because there are so many unwanted children (or something to that effect). Does being wanted make a human life more “valuable”? Who is to judge quality of life, and does having a better quality of life mean your life is “more valuable”?

Our culture is great at taking things for granted and I think that is what we have done with the lives we have been given. When we lose the sense of awe that we are in fact alive, we lose sight that every human is a precious creation.

(Rant) I guess my biggest problem with the whole abortion “issue” is not the women who want abortions, or the Dr’s who perform them (take note I am “Pro life”), my biggest problem is with the stereotypical Christian “Pro Lifer” who stands in front of an abortion clinic and yells “Baby Killer” at those women going in there. How many of those “Pro Lifer’s” stand there and hold up a sign that says “We’ll adopt your baby” or “We love you, you have other options, we’ll take care of you”…………..not many that I have seen. When Jesus (sorry I had to bring the whole God thing up) ministered to the sinners (prostitutes, tax collectors, those at the margins of society) He did so by ministering to their needs, not yelling at them telling them they were going to hell. As Christians we are specifically called to minister to these people in love, not yelling.

Anyway my whole point is, that if my wife would have had support either at home or at church, the outcome would have most likely been different. It’s sad that because of the stance (more like how it is talked about) of the modern Christian church on some issues (abortion, pornography, adultery) that people are “shamed” into silence when they encounter these problems. The Scriptures are crystal clear that as a community we are to encourage, support and bear each others burdens. But because people who struggle with these things are “shamed” into silence (this is so “bad” if anyone found out, they would not think I’m “super Christian” that I act every week), they hide these things, instead of sharing them so others can help.(rant off)

Sorry about the rant…………..it’s just been bugging me for a while, I hope all this made sense.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
Ever notice how a fetus is the most important thing in the world to the conservative Christian wing of the Republican party, until it emerges from the womb, then it's just another goddamned minority welfare mouth....

Remember kids, God doesn't like socialized medicine or helping the poor. He made them downtrodden and diseased. Who are we to question his wisdom?

just curious, how would you describe the vast majority of outreach programs & charities? Let me put straight to you: what have you done or given for those "less than you"?

furthermore, i recall you having a beef w/ faith based initiatives. Are you afraid they'll prostletyse (never could spell that word) or hand out tracts or make someone confess jesus is lord before they get assistance?

you seem to inextricably lump a political party with a religion. I don't see godless greedy bastard republicans as giving a bucket of warm spit about julio or willie or billie-ray.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

What I don't understand is this...if we make abortions illegal...we're not gonna make them go away...we're just gonna make it easier for the icky old creature with the dirty coat hanger rich and a lot of women are gonna get bloody sick as hell from improper medical treatment.

I know I don't see or even comprehend the god-fearing side that wants to give a fetus rights....and I'm sorry that I simply don't understand your logic on this one...but from my eyes (and no I'm not giving you a good logical argument right now), this whole concept is absolutely ludicrous....

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
What I don't understand is this...if we make abortions illegal...we're not gonna make them go away...we're just gonna make it easier for the icky old creature with the dirty coat hanger rich and a lot of women are gonna get bloody sick as hell from improper medical treatment.

if it were just making abortions illegal, we should not be surprised if this did take place. My first hope is for comprehensive education on the topic of life & its roots. Honestly, how many kids/couples have unprotected sex & know full well they'll (she'll - whatever) get pregnant? As BurlySurly threaded up last month, abortion as birth control is pretty rediculous & rare.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
I know I don't see or even comprehend the god-fearing side that wants to give a fetus rights....and I'm sorry that I simply don't understand your logic on this one...but from my eyes (and no I'm not giving you a good logical argument right now), this whole concept is absolutely ludicrous....

again, this comes down to what you've been taught (i almost typed "educated", but realized this implies there's a smart kid & a dumb kid). If we walk backward in life, i think we can certainly agree that a kid 1 day old has absolute rights. Furthermore, i believe we would agree that these rights are based upon morality, not merely law. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

I think the divergence occurs somewhere between the instant a human is born & some previous point on the time graph. I personally believe in leaving potential life on its natural course. There is certainly merit & honor in revering human life at all stages. I suppose defenses have been mounted & embraced for making the point of relevance for human life some place different that what i believe, and that's where i'm befuddled.

What's your basis (if any) for the beginning of alloting rights to the unborn? Some folks choose sentience, some when it just "looks like a baby", some other.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by $tinkle
if it were just making abortions illegal, we should not be surprised if this did take place. My first hope is for comprehensive education on the topic of life & its roots. Honestly, how many kids/couples have unprotected sex & know full well they'll (she'll - whatever) get pregnant? As BurlySurly threaded up last month, abortion as birth control is pretty rediculous & rare.
again, this comes down to what you've been taught (i almost typed "educated", but realized this implies there's a smart kid & a dumb kid). If we walk backward in life, i think we can certainly agree that a kid 1 day old has absolute rights. Furthermore, i believe we would agree that these rights are based upon morality, not merely law. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

I think the divergence occurs somewhere between the instant a human is born & some previous point on the time graph. I personally believe in leaving potential life on its natural course. There is certainly merit & honor in revering human life at all stages. I suppose defenses have been mounted & embraced for making the point of relevance for human life some place different that what i believe, and that's where i'm befuddled.

What's your basis (if any) for the beginning of alloting rights to the unborn? Some folks choose sentience, some when it just "looks like a baby", some other.

I do agree that most of the judgments come from morality, or gut feelings if you will. I agree wtih you that we should let nature take its course, however I also strongly feel that if a mom can't offer any kind of life to her child (let's say she's underage), or if the child poses a physical threat to the mother (at any age and during any trimester), then an abortion should be considered. I don't agree with abortions as forms of birth control, but I also don't think they should be eliminated from the options available to a woman depending on her circumstances in life.

I have to say that as a woman this issue is harder to be objective on for me, and I have a really hard time with the concept of people other than my family or friends that are close to me having any say in what I do with my body...and even family or friends are relegated to the "advice" giving level, not actually being able to dictate what I do. If I were to get knocked up today I'd keep the kid, because I know I can offer a good and stable life....if I got knocked up 5 years ago as a starving college student who barely had her act together and could barely support herself...well...that's a tougher call...because if I can't support myself I'm in no position to support a child either. There are a lot of options out there for those situations, but I don't think we should have the right to remove those options...

As for when a baby has rights...definitely upon its emergence into the real world, but seeing as I've never been pregnant I can't honestly tell you when I would grant my child rights over myself. That's a personal decision between a woman and her own belly.

I hope I'm saying this right...most of you are very good at being analytical on this issue where I'm more passionate and try to relate it to the women I have known who have had to make these decisions in their lives. There are so many variables that come into play that it's silly to remove it as an option...encourage and educate and advise yes, but don't force those kinds of decisionson an already emotional mom who needs to really agree with what's happening and the choices she makes.

Sorry...just my own .02

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
if I got knocked up 5 years ago as a starving college student who barely had her act together and could barely support herself...well...that's a tougher call.

yeah right, you cant even kill a stray cat.

 

[Changleen]

What's your basis (if any) for the beginning of alloting rights to the unborn? Some folks choose sentience, some when it just "looks like a baby", some other.

How do you measure sentience? I would plump for 'Self-awareness' as a good starting point for the beginning of (human) sentience - although that's also quite hard to measure.

However I would contend that a Foetus does not have self awareness in most cases untill after birth. Some exceptionally intelligent people claim to 'remember' being born, but I don't think anyone has claimed to be aware of being in the womb.

So what makes a human? I think in the end the answer is personality - which cannot start to exist until self awareness takes hold. Therefore I would say abortion is totally fine up till the end of the second trimester, and probably longer, but I would be fine with a law banning it after that point.

I think the argument that a Foetus is a proto-human is stretching the point, and also to me, somewhat hypocritical on the part of most anti-abortionists. I mean, Andyman, are you a vegitarian? If not you're happy to kill a wide range of animals which are self-aware.

I know some people beleive that animals are 'less' than humans, but that's just rubbish. Examine an animal. Does it not have feelings, eyes. ears, a brain - all the fundamental features that make it alive? Nearly all animals we eat are 'self aware' and feel pain, emotion and distress (well, maybe not sheep, sheep are really stupid ). To me the life of an animal is as 'valuable' as the life of a human. That doesn't mean I'm a vegitarian though, it means I'm a realist. To me the abortion of a partly formed, un-self aware Foetus is not even on a par with slaughtering a Cow.

Humans are so self-important...

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
He doesn't? My Bible says if you don't help the poor around you your "robbing God".

Just illustrating the Republican party line, that's all. You know, the party that'll spend billions on bombers to counter the Soviet threat, but spits on people who need welfare every single chance they get.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Changleen
To me the life of an animal is as 'valuable' as the life of a human. That doesn't mean I'm a vegitarian though, it means I'm a realist. To me the abortion of a partly formed, un-self aware Foetus is not even on a par with slaughtering a Cow.

Well there's the fundamental difference then. An animal is not worth what a human is at all in my eyes, therefore I see no hipocracy in not being vegetarian. In fact, i think people who say that an animals life is just as meaningful are just kind of crazy. This "self-aware" theory boggles me a bit. Is running over a squirrel the same as running over a 2-month-old baby?


Im not a pro-lifer, but Id never condone abortion if i had a say in the matter, on a personal basis.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by $tinkle
just curious, how would you describe the vast majority of outreach programs & charities? Let me put straight to you: what have you done or given for those "less than you"?

furthermore, i recall you having a beef w/ faith based initiatives. Are you afraid they'll prostletyse (never could spell that word) or hand out tracts or make someone confess jesus is lord before they get assistance?

you seem to inextricably lump a political party with a religion. I don't see godless greedy bastard republicans as giving a bucket of warm spit about julio or willie or billie-ray.

The vast majority of outreach programs and churches? Admirable (except for the Catholic Church in Africa, but that's another story.) But, it's not like they have a monopoly on "good works." You don't think there is a whole lot of evangelical work being done under the cover of the charity?

You're damn right I have a problem with faith-based initiatives. Tax churches, and then maybe I won't have as large a problem with money flowing to them. There is nothing in the bible that says that God blesses those who take money from the government.

I'm only lumping the Republicans in with a religion because they are really starting to kowtow to it. They helped put Bush into office, and now they are screaming to get what they want.

As to your first assertion: My wife and I give money to charities every year. It goes up and down depending on how well we do that year.

PS...I can't spell proselytize either. If you type your mangled attempt into google, it'll usually come back with a recommended spelling. I use it all the time

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by Changleen
However I would contend that a Foetus does not have self awareness in most cases untill after birth. Some exceptionally intelligent people claim to 'remember' being born, but I don't think anyone has claimed to be aware of being in the womb.

What about the mentally retarded, many of them are not "self aware", they can't even remember that they pooped their pants 5 minutes ago. Is their life less valuable than say someone who is self-aware?

This is a slippery slope indeed.

Originally posted by Changleen
So what makes a human? I think in the end the answer is personality - which cannot start to exist until self awareness takes hold. Therefore I would say abortion is totally fine up till the end of the second trimester, and probably longer, but I would be fine with a law banning it after that point.

Again I go back to my example of the mentally retarded, many of them are so retarded they essentially have no personallity, so are they not human?

My wife is now 6 months pregnant (end of second trimester) and we did a little experiment. We wanted to know if our son would react to external stimuli. So my wife and I would take turns talking in various tones and volumes. It was interesting that when I yelled, he kicked and moved around more than normal (this was not scientific be any strectch of the imagination). My wife has noticed that when she is with a patient that is loud Noah would kick and move around more.

I would say the awareness he has is on par with some animals, and since you say animals are as valuable as humans..............

Originally posted by Changleen
I think the argument that a Foetus is a proto-human is stretching the point, and also to me, somewhat hypocritical on the part of most anti-abortionists. I mean, Andyman, are you a vegitarian? If not you're happy to kill a wide range of animals which are self-aware.

An animals self-awareness is not as developed as say a human, but it is about the same as say a fetus at about 5 months. So if self-awareness is the criteria for terminating life, and you argue animals are just as valuable.................

There are only 4 biological differences between and unborn child and a "born child":

Size

Length of developement

The environment they are in

Level of dependency

I would argue none of these differences are valid "criteria" for ending a human life.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
Just illustrating the Republican party line, that's all. You know, the party that'll spend billions on bombers to counter the Soviet threat, but spits on people who need welfare every single chance they get.

ah, yes. Your old friend: class warfare.

and just who defines the class boundaries? Both parties, i submit. It took me almost 6 years in the military before i poked my head above the "poverty line". Recall the military is a gov't subsidized program, and for some, a handout (especially in the first few years). You do w/ what you have. But, that sounds to you a lot like "get off your blak a$$ & work, boy". You ever suffer through a crisis of any length & look back on it? I"m hoping you don't re-live the horror, but feel a little bit of pride for overcoming your circumstances, which in turn emboldens you & restores self-esteem. Ok, i'll step aside before i get into my soul-sucking anti-affirmative action rant.

This is my hope. There are those who would rather wallow in their plight, or just plain re-live it.

Pity.

 

[Thepagoda]

Why do people examine this issue as if the mother has no morality whatsoever?

This whole idea of limiting the options approaches the subject as if it is needed because people cannot make moral choices for themselves. people are acting as if if the option were available, we're going to be having people lining up for abortions, It's not the kind of choice that is easy for anyone to make.

Laws and regulations cannot make up for a lack of morals, which may be percieved due to differences in religion or upbringing. I do not want the government to get the idea that impressing the morals of our leaders (who may represent as few as 50% of this country's citizens) is acceptable. That's what the bigger picture is.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by $tinkle
ah, yes. Your old friend: class warfare.

and just who defines the class boundaries? Both parties, i submit. It took me almost 6 years in the military before i poked my head above the "poverty line". Recall the military is a gov't subsidized program, and for some, a handout (especially in the first few years). You do w/ what you have. But, that sounds to you a lot like "get off your blak a$$ & work, boy". You ever suffer through a crisis of any length & look back on it? I"m hoping you don't re-live the horror, but feel a little bit of pride for overcoming your circumstances, which in turn emboldens you & restores self-esteem. Ok, i'll step aside before i get into my soul-sucking anti-affirmative action rant.

This is my hope. There are those who would rather wallow in their plight, or just plain re-live it.

Pity.

You're telling me that's class warfare? What do you think Bush's tax cuts are? How about the dividend tax cut? How many poor people does that help?

Class warfare is alive and well, and the rich are winning, not losing. Remember who demonized "Welfare Queens?"

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Thepagoda

Laws and regulations cannot make up for a lack of morals, which may be percieved due to differences in religion or upbringing. I do not want the government to get the idea that impressing the morals of our leaders (who may represent as few as 50% of this country's citizens) is acceptable. That's what the bigger picture is.

That's exactly the point of a law in most cases--to make up for lack of morals.
Think murder, rape, theft and assault here. Not everyone has the morals to not do these things....that's why laws were created.

The point of government is to express the majority's morals through law. Duh! That's why you vote for the guy whose views are closest to yours.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Thank you changleen and thepagoda You both have said what I myself cannot correctly seem to phrase.

Andyman...you're right, your baby should respond to external stimuli at this time. Many parents commonly place headphones on the mothers belly and play music or will read stories aloud while sitting close to the belly. It is not felt that babies are self-aware while in the womb, but that is not to say that they are not "aware." All species, irregardless of how developed or underdeveloped they are do react to external stimuli. As you continue to point to a child with slower mental capabilities, he/she no doubt reacts quite well to the world around him, but that doesn't mean he is aware in the same sense that you or I am. Many cultures historically have ostracized or simply eliminated humans that could not on their own reproduce or offer any use or benefit to the society. Essentially helping along what nature would normally do in these instances.
However, a foetus is a "developing" animal. That means many of its natural reflexes come into place around the 2nd trimester, and you can help with the development of the brain during the pregnancy, but that does not in any way indicate that the child's mental capacity has given him/her the ability to be self aware. Why do you think it is such a big deal for parents when their child first looks in a mirror and recognizes that it is NOT a stranger...or when the child first says the word "I" or "Me"...these are indicators that their little person is becoming self-aware, and not simply a genetic lump doing as its body is programmed to eat and **** and etc etc.

Changleen is quite right to associate a foetus and a young child in its first few months to an animal, because in many cases they are on a similar par. And if you had ever truly had a meaningful relationship with an animal you would realize that animals do have feelings and are aware, and are even self-aware. Their cultures are not like humans, but animals do have their own "cultures" and appropriate behaviors.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
What do you think Bush's tax cuts are? How about the dividend tax cut? How many poor people does that help?

i don't get it.
we have this great country where people can go from rags to riches, but then they get hammered b/c they're not keeping it real? I bet that ted turner is secretly happy that bush is president & hoping he will be next term. This is assuming Kerry would predictably raise taxes on those earning over $200K/yr. You do know that's eeking by in the bay area or los gatos, ya?

what were we talking about again? <...scrolls up...>. Oh yeah: don't you appreciate that there's no tax on lottery tickets? Perhaps those who don't pay income taxes (due to income level, not evasion) should also not pay gas, consumption, or other "sin" taxes?

if i understand your argument, poor people are being hurt b/c they're not getting money kicked back they never put in?

Originally posted by Silver
Class warfare is alive and well, and the rich are winning, not losing. Remember who demonized "Welfare Queens?"

rush limbaugh? newt gingrich? i give up. i anticipate those would be your first 2.

just so i'm sure what you mean, aren't welfare queens those who stay on their backs pumping out babies to get more gov't checks? On a related note, why are "breeders" white? You won't see a sneer from a lez couple given to a baby-momma w/ her 4 kids at the bustop.

it's tough being white.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by $tinkle

it's tough being white.

Its not really.

I mean, you put up alot of double standard crap...but I like the stereotypes Im generally given.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Its not really.

I mean, you put up alot of double standard crap...but I like the stereotypes Im generally given.

ok, but it's tougher being a haolie

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by $tinkle
ok, but it's tougher being a haolie

Hawaii is an exception to the rest of the country, as you obviously well know by calling me "Haoli"

Ive seen hate and descrimination in reverse, and Im a bit more enlightened than I was. But I think any race has its things to overcome.
Its no crutch for me, and shouldnt be for anyone else.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Changleen is quite right to associate a foetus and a young child in its first few months to an animal, because in many cases they are on a similar par. And if you had ever truly had a meaningful relationship with an animal you would realize that animals do have feelings and are aware, and are even self-aware. Their cultures are not like humans, but animals do have their own "cultures" and appropriate behaviors.

I have had a very close relationship with animals. Our dog passed away during our trip home from Christmas this year while he was in the truch with us. We didn't know until we stopped to let him pee, and he didn't wake up. My wife and I both greived like that was our child.

Since I'm in the mood to share, when I was going through a very dark time in my life, I seriously thought about suicide. But as strange as it might sound the one thing that kept me from doing it was my cat (Tiny Elvis, sorry had to share the name) because he needed me to take care of him.

Now does that humanize my dog and cat, be cause they have human like quialities, I'll say no.

This is where my faith kicks in, and it's not so I can picket a clinic and yell baby killer and the like. I believe that every human (born, unborn, retarded, normal, straight, homosexual) is created in the image of God (that in some way every human would refect what God is like) and because of that all humans are to be treated with respect and dignity.

I find it interesting that some compare a small child or unborn child to an animal. I would be willing to bet those that think that also (to some extent) believe we shouldn't kill animals, does anyone see the irony in that. It's ok to teminate a child (with the understanding it's an animal, or is still animal like in its development) but heaven forbid we kill a spotted owl.

 

[Changleen]

What about the mentally retarded, many of them are not "self aware", they can't even remember that they pooped their pants 5 minutes ago. Is their life less valuable than say someone who is self-aware?

From a purely evolutionary standpoint, then their life is clearly not only less valuable, but even a detriment to humanity as a whole. But before you all start screaming, HOWEVER: We now have the technology, skills, medicine and most importantly, surplus energy in our sucessful modern society to ensure some of these people have a decent quality of life. Since we have enabled them to be born into the world, and supported them through the early stages of life where previously they might have died, then it is our responsibilty to ensure their continued existance at a respectable level of comfort. Secondly, some 'retard' peopel have turned out to be brilliant at certain disciplines - Chemisrty, maths, physics. Some are simply fiancial and emotion burdens through the course of their life. So I guess the answer to you question is 'Maybe - It depends, on a case by case basis.' It's too big an area to apply a blanket judgement to.

I DO NOT agree it is any way correct, moral or helpful for parents who discover their baby has a high chance of being affected in such a way to go ahead and bring it into the world. This is one of the reasons why I agree with abortion. (I'm talking about serious issues here, not that the parents don't like that the kid has big nose.)

Again I go back to my example of the mentally retarded, many of them are so retarded they essentially have no personallity, so are they not human?

Maybe - It depends, on a case by case basis. It's too big an area to apply a blanket judgement to.

My wife is now 6 months pregnant (end of second trimester) and we did a little experiment. We wanted to know if our son would react to external stimuli. So my wife and I would take turns talking in various tones and volumes. It was interesting that when I yelled, he kicked and moved around more than normal (this was not scientific be any stretch of the imagination). My wife has noticed that when she is with a patient that is loud Noah would kick and move around more.

I would say the awareness he has is on par with some animals, and since you say animals are as valuable as humans..............

The seven characteristics of all life include 'response to external stimuli' - Flowers open up in the sun, yadda yadda yadda, so it not suprising that the foetus responds when exposed to external stimuli. I'm happy for you that he(?) does.
However, I don't agree that this makes him on a par with an animal. I don't think he has any ability to rationalise, make judgements, or be aware of his self and that's the critical thing. At this stage the nerves in this ears are simply passing information to his nervous system and it is growing, and starting to figure out what to do with those signals.

There are only 4 biological differences between and unborn child and a "born child":

Size

Length of developement

The environment they are in

Level of dependency

No, some of this is demonstratably wrong and some kind of irrelivant:

Size: Not only is a child, once born, larger but he starts to develop a more complex nerous system and more complex patterns of brain activity. He has also up till this point had any need to feed or breathe for himself. His lungs and stomach have never moved. They are not fully developed. His final stage of development, most importantly mental devlopment, does not start to occur untill he is born into the world and is exposed to external stimuli.

Length of Development - Well, clearly. And as I said, even when he's born he's still not totally developed into a self-supporting organism. Babies have to be slapped to make them take their first breath. That's how unaware they are.

The environment they are in - womb/not womb. Whilst in the womb they are deprived of certain stimuli that are required to make them 'sit-up' - to take advantage of their 'nervous sytem' and enable their body to start working for itself.

Level of dependency - This a real grey area. One could argue that until right up to birth, foetuses are so dependant on their mother that without her, they would certainly die. This is not a characteric of an independant human life. Actually by saying 'an unborn baby is same as a born one, except for its level of dependancy' is to me, like saying 'they're the same, except they're not.'

I would argue none of these differences are valid "criteria" for ending a human life.

As we've discussed, we clearly differ at the stage that we define as the beginning of life. This being as such, the courts have taken a wide medical view, and decided that a safe point to say that a 'human' has been created is at the end of the second trimester. Fine with me.

For those who are not happy with this, don't have an abortion.

But once again, this isn't good enough for certain people who feel it is their 'right' to tell others what they should think. Our best scientists say 'end of second trimester' - but a lot of people with zero medical knowledge start to want to apply their 'morals' - (actually probably in most cases not even their own morals, morals they've read in a 2000+ year old book and decided to adopt without question for themselves) to everyone - no matter what the situation.

You're talking about rape victims, damaged or poorly developed foetuses, mothers who are way beyond the povery line. Do you really think it's right to bring people into the world in such circumstances? IIt's like condeming them to a life, or at least a childhood of torture and mental anguish.

This is about the Mother's right to choose, and also the quality of life of the baby which some people seem so desperate to be born, no matter the increased strain on the environment, no matter the grief it might cause the mother, no matter the burden it will place on society.

People have no right to tell other people what they can and can't do in this situation. It's not like the decison to have an abortion isn't hard enough for a mother. It's bad enough to decide to terminate your pregnancy without having a bunch of 'holier than thou' ..people.. shouting at you.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Changleen
From a purely evolutionary standpoint, then their life is clearly not only less valuable, but even a detriment to humanity as a whole. But before you all start screaming, HOWEVER: We now have the technology, skills, medicine and most importantly, surplus energy in our sucessful modern society to ensure some of these people have a decent quality of life. Since we have enabled them to be born into the world, and supported them through the early stages of life where previously they might have died, then it is our responsibilty to ensure their continued existance at a respectable level of comfort.

Your logic is confusing. If youre wanting to make judgements like that from an 'evolutionary standpoint' than you'd also have to agree that gays, since they do not reproduce, are less valuable as a whole than regular humans...right? If you could detect that before birth...should they be aborted to? How do you put a value on human life?

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Your logic is confusing. If youre wanting to make judgements like that from an 'evolutionary standpoint' than you'd also have to agree that gays, since they do not reproduce, are less valuable as a whole than regular humans...right? If you could detect that before birth...should they be aborted to? How do you put a value on human life?

i say if stephen hawking doesn't have the wherewithall to roll is a$$ in from the sun, he should get skin cancer & die.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I'll do this in two parts to make it more readable for the audience.

Originally posted by Changleen
From a purely evolutionary standpoint, then their life is clearly not only less valuable, but even a detriment to humanity as a whole. But before you all start screaming, HOWEVER: We now have the technology, skills, medicine and most importantly, surplus energy in our sucessful modern society to ensure some of these people have a decent quality of life. Since we have enabled them to be born into the world, and supported them through the early stages of life where previously they might have died, then it is our responsibilty to ensure their continued existance at a respectable level of comfort. Secondly, some 'retard' peopel have turned out to be brilliant at certain disciplines - Chemisrty, maths, physics. Some are simply fiancial and emotion burdens through the course of their life. So I guess the answer to you question is 'Maybe - It depends, on a case by case basis.' It's too big an area to apply a blanket judgement to.

I guess this is boiling down to faith, and what you put your faith in. I believe that EVERY human is valuable and precious and should be treated with dignity and respect. That is the core of what it means to be a Christian, no matter how it has be perverted by the conservative mouthpieces and such.

Originally posted by Changleen
I DO NOT agree it is any way correct, moral or helpful for parents who discover their baby has a high chance of being affected in such a way to go ahead and bring it into the world. This is one of the reasons why I agree with abortion. (I'm talking about serious issues here, not that the parents don't like that the kid has big nose.)

So who makes these "value" judgements? Where does it end, wheres the boundary? That is a very slippery moral slope your on.

Originally posted by Changleen
Size: Not only is a child, once born, larger but he starts to develop a more complex nerous system and more complex patterns of brain activity. He has also up till this point had any need to feed or breathe for himself. His lungs and stomach have never moved. They are not fully developed. His final stage of development, most importantly mental devlopment, does not start to occur untill he is born into the world and is exposed to external stimuli.

You are actually touching on the length of development, I was speaking of physical size. Is it ok to terminate every one that is short? You must be this tall to ride this ride?

Originally posted by Changleen
Length of Development - Well, clearly. And as I said, even when he's born he's still not totally developed into a self-supporting organism. Babies have to be slapped to make them take their first breath. That's how unaware they are.

So you have two 13 year old girls, one gets her period and one has yet to, one is developing faster than the other, is that a criteria to terminate the slow developing one? You mention "self supporting" what about people on dialysis? They are not self-supporting, should they be terminated, are their lives less valuable?

Originally posted by Changleen
The environment they are in - womb/not womb. Whilst in the womb they are deprived of certain stimuli that are required to make them 'sit-up' - to take advantage of their 'nervous sytem' and enable their body to start working for itself.

So while we are out of the womb we don't have the same stimuli, what's the difference? I'm going to sleep in a house tonight, I will change enviorments from room to room, is that grounds for termination?

Originally posted by Changleen
Level of dependency - This a real grey area. One could argue that until right up to birth, foetuses are so dependant on their mother that without her, they would certainly die. This is not a characteric of an independant human life. Actually by saying 'an unborn baby is same as a born one, except for its level of dependancy' is to me, like saying 'they're the same, except they're not.'

See dialysis patient I noted earlier.

I never said they were the same, I said these were the only differences from a biological point of view and none are valid criteria to terminate a life.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by Changleen
But once again, this isn't good enough for certain people who feel it is their 'right' to tell others what they should think. Our best scientists say 'end of second trimester' - but a lot of people with zero medical knowledge start to want to apply their 'morals' - (actually probably in most cases not even their own morals, morals they've read in a 2000+ year old book and decided to adopt without question for themselves) to everyone - no matter what the situation.

I don't think I have ever said "you can't get an abortion", I have said, because this is what I believe, that and abortion is killing a human. Now I have expressed my beliefs, you have expressed yours, but since mine conflict you imply they are not valid.

Like I said in the other post about Buddist monks, your basing your morals on just as much faith and absolutism as a Christian, so please don't assert that we are somehow less enlightened that you because of were we have our faith. Do you see the irony in that?

I'm not forcing my morals on anyone, if it be said you seem to be forcing your morals off on me.

Originally posted by Changleen
You're talking about rape victims, damaged or poorly developed foetuses, mothers who are way beyond the povery line. Do you really think it's right to bring people into the world in such circumstances? IIt's like condeming them to a life, or at least a childhood of torture and mental anguish.

How do you know that do you have a crystal ball? Does money or income equate life value? Those are pretty superficial standards. Life is way more than money and things and what we can learn.

Let me share a little story with you, I post here because of the experiences my wife and I have had, so I'm not some "nutjob" Christian yelling baby killer at some clinic.

16 years ago my wife was raped and got pregnant. She was a CHristian and grew up in a Christian home, but because of the stigma attached and a whole host of other variables I wont get into, she had an abortion. She was in Jr. college at the time, would it have been hard for her to be a single mom, yep. But after it was all said and done she carries more regret because of that decision than anything else in her life. Not because those "narrow minded" Christians put a scarlet "A" on her and kicked her out. She regrets ending a life that would have been precious, no matter if she raised that child or she gave it up for adoption.

Originally posted by Changleen
This is about the Mother's right to choose, and also the quality of life of the baby which some people seem so desperate to be born,

Yes she can choose but it is ending a human life.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970

I find it interesting that some compare a small child or unborn child to an animal. I would be willing to bet those that think that also (to some extent) believe we shouldn't kill animals, does anyone see the irony in that. It's ok to teminate a child (with the understanding it's an animal, or is still animal like in its development) but heaven forbid we kill a spotted owl.

I try really hard not to argue on the basis of faith, you have your beliefs and I have mine and we both got to this point in our lives as a result of them. So I'm not touching the paragraphs prior to this one .

As I probably fall into the category you have described above, I'll do my darndest to explain how I see the difference:

Animals serve a purpose not just to humans but to the environment that we are in, and on a purely genetic basis we are more similar then we are different. Just because you or I cannot understand animals...doesn't mean they don't understand each other...that whole inter-species communication bit doesn't always work too well . It's also true and makes sense that we as humans want to protect and expand our species...that is a genetically programmed behavior...we are designed to want to further our species and have kids and etc etc...so are all other species. We are not designed genetically to try and protect or further the lives of other species or those members of our species that do not in any way benefit our society or are simply leaches upon society.

I'm not one of those "save the world protect the animals protect the environment" nut cases out there...but...to clarify this argument a wee bit...an animal doesn't have the political and religious training we do that says killing an offspring that cannot survive past the normal amount of parental caring is wrong...they leave those animals that cannot reproduce due to genetic defaults to let nature do as she will with them. And...to bring an example into this...my cat Bluebell had kittens too young and mentally she couldn't handle it and tried to leave them outdoors where they would surely freeze to death...while yes we worked with her to make sure her kittens survived, we also wouldn't have ever thought anything was wrong with her for trying to deal with whatever was going on in her wee head. A good parallel to this is the young mom who didn't understand what a C-Section was and chose not to have one done and lost one of her twins as a result...but unlike an animal where we would consider such behavior normal for an emotional mom, we are considering sending her to jail.

While I don't condone the random killing of animals for fun, I hate the concept of sport killing, I hate random deaths that serve no purpose...there is nothing wrong with killing when it is needed or necessary either for my own survival or for the betterment of the creature that has been put down. This relates directly to the having of an abortion. If that foetus poses a threat to a woman's life, or if that foetus will be born so maimed it cannot possibly survive on its own, or will be born into a life that will permanently scar and hinder it simply through teaching, then yes a mother should have the right to choose what is best for her child.

And in response to your question to Changleen "makes these "value" judgements? Where does it end, wheres the boundary?" - the mother and father of the child....

 

[Changleen]

I don't think I have ever said "you can't get an abortion",

Good, that's all I want to hear. Then it's not people like you I have a problem with.

What I have a problem with is people, who because of their 'moral' standpoint, think that no-one else has the right to have an abortion in any circumstances.

Please re-read my post - If you don't subscribe to an absolute set of moral values then I am not attacking you.

I'm not some "nutjob" Christian yelling baby killer at some clinic.

I'm very gald to hear it!

but it is ending a human life.

This is where we disagree, but that's just fine as long as you don't try to stop me acting on my opinions. I certainly won't stop you acting (or in this case not acting) on yours.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Changleen
You're talking about rape victims, damaged or poorly developed foetuses, mothers who are way beyond the povery line. Do you really think it's right to bring people into the world in such circumstances? IIt's like condeming them to a life, or at least a childhood of torture and mental anguish.

if this thinking had been applied 70 years ago, our country would have received a death sentence during the great depression.

WRT: "like condemning them to a life/childhood of torture & mental anguish", i would also point out those who are born into a lifestyle of being coddled & enabled, thusly becoming their own burden upon society & everyone they run into. I could lump in various oligarchies, ruling factions & the like. We can find undesireable features in nearly everyone, in nearly every society, and nearly every third world region.

If we do assign some value to life, why not err on the side of valuing it?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by $tinkle
If we do assign some value to life, why not err on the side of valuing it?

I don't know that anyone here is saying life is invaluable...but why is it up for debate at all that an unproven foetus has greater rights then the mother who has lived her life and probably has a great many years to come? Why are her decisions and choices rendered invalid or her options removed from her by a third party who is not involved within her life at any point in time. You see, this issue is not just about the foetus ...it is about the mother who carries that child as well...you are relegating and removing any acknowledgement that the mother has any role other than that of "host" to her baby's life.

Now I know that there are women out there that have and do continue to mis-use what abortions are. And there are definitely examples where gosh, it sure would be nice if we had more control in the saving of that baby's life...but...if we move into a path where we can prosecute a mother for choosing to have an abortion or if we move into a course of action where abortions are outlawed then we move into an area that affects EVERY woman and every child out there. Now, some women are more than willing to role over and let society dictate what she can do with HER body and the baby within...but I sure as hell am not one of them, and not many that I know are. If I'm pregnant and carrying to term could kill me, or if I'm pregnant with a child who cannot survive or may never even be conscious, or whatever the scenario may be, I'll be damned if society has the right to tell me I must carry that baby to term, my own life and my own judgement be damned...irregardless of the style or type of life that I have lived thus far. As an educated upstanding and well employed citizen of a nation there is no way in hell someone else can dictate that.

Sorry if I'm a little heated...this to me is a personal issue...after all, I'm a girl who may want a kid someday but there's no saying I won't be in a situation where abortion is necessary

(edited)

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
why is it up for debate at all that an unproven foetus has greater rights then the mother who has lived her life and probably has a great many years to come? Why are her decisions and choices rendered invalid or her options removed from her by a third party who is not involved within her life at any point in time. You see, this issue is not just about the foetus ...it is about the mother who carries that child as well...you are relegating and removing any acknowledgement that the mother has any role other than that of "host" to her baby's life.

hmmm...i don't think this was the topic of debate. Not for me anyway. The newly enacted law is federal, which means that in the committing of a federal crime (kidnapping for one), if the unborn victim is harmed/killed, there's charges which may be filed. Maybe this debate went hypothetical when i wasn't looking...

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
If I'm pregnant and carrying to term could kill me, or if I'm pregnant with a child who cannot survive or may never even be conscious, or whatever the scenario may be, I'll be damned if society has the right to tell me I must carry that baby to term, my own life and my own judgement be damned...irregardless of the style or type of life that I have lived thus far. As an educated upstanding and well employed citizen of a nation there is no way in hell someone else can dictate that.

Sorry if I'm a little heated...this to me is a personal issue...after all, I'm a girl who may want a kid someday but there's no saying I won't be in a situation where abortion is necessary

(edited)

this isn't a setup, i'm just curious: isn't our medical technology at a level where a mother's life being in danger is wwwwaaaaayyyyy low? More specifically, what are the numbers claimed that a mother's life was in danger, and thusly an abortion was performed to save the mother? I don't even know where to get these numbers, or what kind of phrase to google.