[dgs212]

I'm completely undecided. Convince me of the moral or ethical superiority of your position, or join me in my indecision.

[MindFad]

[dgs212]

You made me spit cornbread all over the monitor. LO-F*cking-L

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by dgs212:
I'm completely undecided. Convince me of the moral or ethical superiority of your position, or join me in my indecision.

Basing your decision on someones else's sense of moral or ethical superiority is your first mistake.

Me, I hate the thought of women having abortions. I hate even more the thought of the government
telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. Especially when it involves the most fundamental
biological aspect of female sexual identity.

(I am trying to separate female sexual roles form female gender roles in this
discussion. Human sexual roles are not malleable like gender roles are/can be.)

[Shaddim]

http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionPictures1.htm

Check them out, count their fingers and toes.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by dgs212:
I'm completely undecided. Convince me of the moral or ethical superiority of your position, or join me in my indecision.

Here's my official stance, and somewhat agreeable to Kerry's:

Whether or not abortion is religiously or morally wrong, it is still our duty to protect the rights of the individual to make their own decision. You do not have to agree with them, you can flat out oppose someone's decision to get an abortion, but you should not impede on their right to freedom of choice!

There is no convincing needed here on the question of moral or ethical standards when it comes to abortion. What it really comes down to is whether or not you're willing to give up our Constitutional, natural, and God given rights!

So many people who've literally died to assure that you have the right to choose; meanwhile the people who are voting for Bush are literally flushing all of what they worked for down the toilet.

Free America indeed. F*ck Bush.

[Captain Obvious]

People with the resources to go abroad will be able to have abortions if they are banned in the US. Meaning the people least financially able to take care of children will be the ones who will not be able to have an abortion. End result, more people on welfare costing you money.
On the other hand the ability to have abortions now isn't really encouraging most people on welfare to stop having kids.

Late term abortions should be very much illegal. If you have to wait 7 months before you decide you don't want the baby you should have to forfeit your own life.

[itai195]

I think this is a personal value judgement. I'm certainly no fan of abortion, but I think people should have a choice. The reason why I think choice must be preserved is because I recognize that the ethics of abortion are not straightforward and that strong cases could be made for either side of the argument. I think the fact that this issue [obviously] affects women disproportionately is also a consideration. Finally, I don't believe in putting our medical decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Late term abortions should be very much illegal. If you have to wait 7 months before you decide you don't want the baby you should have to forfeit your own life.

Partial birth and late term should be illegal. However, it's still not clear cut. There're always circumstances such as children giving birth; there's a very real danger of it killing them as they're still undeveloped. Aborting the child (as horrible as it sounds) may be the only way to save the mother. Do you kill a 15-year-old girl to save the baby?

Very tough call. Again, it comes down to choice, and we need to protect that.

As much as Bush likes to think it's a "black and white" issue, "you're either for it, or against it," it's not. Abortion is a very complicated issue.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by itai195:
I think this is a personal value judgement. I'm certainly no fan of abortion, but I think people should have a choice. The reason why I think choice must be preserved is because I recognize that the ethics of abortion are not straightforward and that strong cases could be made for either side of the argument. I think the fact that this issue [obviously] affects women disproportionately is also a consideration. Finally, I don't believe in putting our medical decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats

Good call.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Partial birth and late term should be illegal.

Again, it comes down to choice, and we need to protect that.

If it's "choice" then when should that "choice" become illegal?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Late term abortions should be very much illegal. If you have to wait 7 months before you decide you don't want the baby you should have to forfeit your own life.

Exactly! If a woman learns after 7 months that a baby has a medical condition that will prevent it from living outside the womb, that's just her tough luck! She should simply die!

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Exactly! If a woman learns after 7 months that a baby has a medical condition that will prevent it from living outside the womb, that's just her tough luck! She should simply die!

Then that's not really the same as an abortion is it. The baby upon delivery, even if you deliver it the 7th month, will die on its own. Its quite a huge leap from not being able to help it be viable to sucking its brain out with a Hoover. At least try to make a good argument, dumbass.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
If it's "choice" then when should that "choice" become illegal?

That is the question, and I have no answer. It all comes down to the individual.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Then that's not really the same as an abortion is it. The baby upon delivery, even if you deliver it the 7th month, will die on its own. Its quite a huge leap from not being able to help it be viable to sucking its brain out with a Hoover. At least try to make a good argument, dumbass.

Oh don't get me wrong I agree 100% with you. I think she should carry the baby for another 2 months, allowing the condition to worsen, just so they can deliver the baby and let it die. It's the ethical thing to do! And if the baby has a condition that precludes vaginal delivery, and a c-section is impossible or dangerous, tough luck! We're talking about morality here!

[mikellanes]

I think Abortion should be legal for the instances of medical conditions, deformities in the child, pregnancy from rape, etc.

I do not think late term abortion should be allowed unless there is a medical condition.

I think abortion for the sake of birth control is wrong, and to curb that I think there should be more access to the morning after pill (Mifepristone) and the like. (I am also interested to hear what pro-lifers think of these pills)

I don't think there should be a ban only because of the cases I have said above. I have yet to see a Abortion reform policy that I agree with.

[itai195]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I think abortion for the sake of birth control is wrong, and to curb that I think there should be more access to the morning after pill (Mifepristone) and the like. (I am also interested to hear what pro-lifers think of these pills)

I very much agree. I can't believe these products (eg Plan B) aren't available over the counter. However, pro-lifers generally believe use of these pills is abortion, not contraception.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
That is the question, and I have no answer. It all comes down to the individual.

If individuals are unable to answer the question then isn't a social consensus needed then?

It really boils down to one's definition of life. Sort of like how it isn't murder if you kill another human in self-defense but murder if you kill the same person intentionally. The act in itself isn't any different in either case.

[Mithras]

Like most people in this thread, I believe what Bill Clinton did:
Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Up to around 14-20 weeks, I think abortion is regrettable but acceptable. After that point, when the fetus develops the capacity to feel pain, I think abortion should be legal only to save the life or (physical) health of the mother.

By the way -- in issues that are not unrelated -- I oppose the death penalty, and am (mostly) vegetarian.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
It really boils down to one's definition of life. Sort of like how it isn't murder if you kill another human in self-defense but murder if you kill the same person intentionally. The act in itself isn't any different in either case.

These sentences seem inconsistent to me. If killing in self-defense is legal, then it doesn't simply depend on one's definition of life. There are situations when you can take a human life. I personally don't think it boils down to your definition of life, and that's because there's not only a right to life, but also a right to determine how many kids you want.

The analogy I like to use is this one: What if the government informs you that you are the only person in the world that can save a stranger from a disease. In order to save this person, you must give a blood transfusion to this person. Well, what if you don't want to give the transfusion? Should the gov't force you to give it? The person with the disease may have a right to live, but what if that right to live involves taking away your rights?

The analogy isn't perfect (none are) but it brings the point home to me that the question of when life begins doesn't determine your answer to the question of abortion. It's a question of a conflict of rights, rather than a decision only about the status of the baby/fetus.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Oh don't get me wrong I agree 100% with you. I think she should carry the baby for another 2 months, allowing the condition to worsen, just so they can deliver the baby and let it die. It's the ethical thing to do! And if the baby has a condition that precludes vaginal delivery, and a c-section is impossible or dangerous, tough luck! We're talking about morality here!

Are we? I don't think I brought up morality at all. In fact I said the baby could be delivered in the 7th month making the situation neither dangerous to the mother nor technically an abortion. What you did was bring up an entirely invalid argument about a fetus that is already terminal that highlights the lack of thought you put into things you say.
Had you said something valid like Pigeon did then I might have left it alone.

But you didn't.

What you said was dumb. Its impossible for you to defend and furthermore it is a situation that neither supports nor condemns the issue at hand because it is not closely enough related. I feel bad for the education system that you were produced from. Go back, edit your post, and put something that is remotely intelligent in there. Maybe you'll do better next time. But I doubt it.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by BRussell:
If killing in self-defense is legal, then it doesn't simply depend on one's definition of life.

Yes and no. Society says it's OK to kill in self-defense provided that there's a clear danger to the victim. If that can be determined then there won't be prosecution for murder. It's still taking a life no matter what, isn't it? The circumstances don't change that.

There are situations when you can take a human life.

Provided that there's a clear threat to one's life or the killing is legal.

I personally don't think it boils down to your definition of life, and that's because there's not only a right to life, but also a right to determine how many kids you want.

Except that in the unique circumstance of abortion there's always one innocent life that's killed. Hence the difference. Plus, I wonder just what magic line gets crossed to cause some to not support mid-or-late-term abortions when they think it's OK to have early-term abortions. It's still the same human (or potential human depending on how you look at it). Unlike the difference between self-defense (legal killing of guilty person) and murder (illegal killing of innocent person) there's no difference in innocence of life between early term abortion and others.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Mithras:
After that point, when the fetus develops the capacity to feel pain, I think abortion should be legal only to save the life or (physical) health of the mother.

What if the fetus could feel pain sooner but we are simply unable to measure it?

Remember, just because science can measure it today doesn't mean that it didn't exist yesterday.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Are we? I don't think I brought up morality at all. In fact I said the baby could be delivered in the 7th month making the situation neither dangerous to the mother nor technically an abortion.

Don't try to weasel your way out of what you said. You said "If you have to wait 7 months before you decide you don't want the baby you should have to forfeit your own life." This is absurd, even leaving the "forfeit your life" comment aside. Sometimes there are medical complications that have nothing to do with "deciding you don't want the baby."

Next you try to backtrack and say that they could simply deliver the baby. The fact is, you don't know that in all possible cases the baby can simply be delivered and everyone can go along their merry way. Sometimes a baby can't be vaginally delivered. Why should abortion not be an option, especially in a situation where the baby can't be delivered normally and can't live outside the womb?

What you did was bring up an entirely invalid argument about a fetus that is already terminal that highlights the lack of thought you put into things you say.
Had you said something valid like Pigeon did then I might have left it alone.

But you didn't.

What you said was dumb. Its impossible for you to defend and furthermore it is a situation that neither supports nor condemns the issue at hand because it is not closely enough related. I feel bad for the education system that you were produced from. Go back, edit your post, and put something that is remotely intelligent in there. Maybe you'll do better next time. But I doubt it.

Uh-huh. It's not at all obvious that you've given up hope of making any factual or logical points and have therefore decided to, shall we say, bang the table.

[Cody Dawg]

MacNStein:

x 1,000,000,000,000 to the power of 10.



GOOD LINK.

Being a mom with four children (click on my sig below - Cody Dawg - and check out our latest addition) and trying to adopt another baby that needs a home (from another country) what can I say except that children ROCK.

Seriously, there is nothing more fulfilling in life than having a family and children and the beautiful little face that looks up at you with a smile and love and joy in his or her eyes.

Nothing else matters.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionPictures1.htm

Check them out, count their fingers and toes.

Tasty.

[Spliffdaddy]

I think women should be able to have an abortion whenever they want - provided that there is a public record of their decision.

I just want everyone who is interested to be able to avoid any women that chose to have an abortion.

I want some stigma attched to abortion. And I want it attached with some grade 8 aerospace quality titanium-alloy fasteners.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
What if the fetus could feel pain sooner but we are simply unable to measure it?

Remember, just because science can measure it today doesn't mean that it didn't exist yesterday.

Do you eat beef?

[itai195]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I want some stigma attched to abortion. And I want it attached with some grade 8 aerospace quality titanium-alloy fasteners.

I've got an idea! How about making them walk around for the rest of their lives with a scarlet 'A' attached firmly to their clothing and in plain sight?

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Do you eat beef?

No, don't eat meat.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
No, don't eat meat.

Alright then, we can discuss this rationally. Presumably you use some kind of heuristic to sort out which creatures you don't mind harming, and which you do.

I, for example, don't feel bad in the least about the yeast when I make bread, or the molds in yummy cheese. I have no problem setting out poison for ants and cockroaches.

I also don't mind eating fish, because I don't think the fish experience suffering in a way that makes it a moral wrong to kill them. Perhaps you disagree.

In assessing the fetus we have to make the same kind of estimate. As you point out, the science may change. I won't believe any hooey about special magic stuff that makes it a human before it has an appreciable nervous system, period. So that makes a lower bound of something like 8 weeks. For the upper bound, estimates cluster around 20 to 24 weeks for the capacity of suffering. But as you say, maybe we should be conservative, since it is worse to err on one side than the other.

A cutoff of 12 weeks is around the first trimester, which is the common threshold in Europe, and the general American consensus of when abortion stops being just fine and starts being queasy.

Thoughts? Or dgs?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by itai195:
I've got an idea! How about making them walk around for the rest of their lives with a scarlet 'A' attached firmly to their clothing and in plain sight?

Nah, that would be silly. We don't even make child molesters do that.

I'd be happy if there was simply a database containing the names of people that underwent abortions. That way, if it matters to you, then you can easily check to see.

There's nothing wrong with abortion, it's merely a choice. I'm just asking who chose what.

As a potential 'caring father', isn't my right to know if a woman might kill my child before it's born?

I might have started bragging by the 20th week - and if she killed it after that, then I'd look kinda silly.

[Mithras]

Spliff, that's a little strange. Does this stem from a specific traumatic experience or something?
Certainly a record of past abortions wouldn't solve the problem you describe -- a woman could be having her first (only) abortion, after all. Only a well-grounded relationship can really help you know whether a woman intends or would consider an abortion, no? And even so, people can be surprising and disappointing without warning

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Mithras:
I won't believe any hooey about special magic stuff that makes it a human before it has an appreciable nervous system, period. So that makes a lower bound of something like 8 weeks.

At what point would you say intelligence begins? I wasn't really aware that one of the criteria for being a human being was the ability to respond to pain. What is a nervous system anyways? Is a copper wire really any different than the ore from which it came?

See, for me, the reason why I feel life begins at conception is because something totally unexplained by science happens: a new life forms, has the ability to differentiate cells, form organs, and eventually resemble something we're more comfortable with. We don't understand how it happens because we don't have the insight, capabilities, or tools yet to know how 23 sets of chromosomes know that they should form a human being and not a monkey, for example. Those "primative" cells after fertilization do thing that aren't possible in the infant, child, or grown human being. Isn't the fact that we want to investigate stem cell lines ironic considering that a fully grown human doesn't have the basic cellular or structural intelligence to regrow arms, legs, or organs?

[Mithras]

Well, where do you draw the line with animals?

Also, the success in cloning demonstrates that the "totally unexplained" process you mention can be manipulated, and is beginning to be understood, if not fully. I'm sorry, but if you will resort to magic to describe this, then rational discussion must end, as far as humans are concerned. I turn your attention back to the problem of animals: how do you draw a line between which animals you kill and which you don't? What criteria do you use?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Spliff, that's a little strange. Does this stem from a specific traumatic experience or something?

Nah, it isn't strange at all.

It's what happens when everybody expects fathers to care for and about their children (to the point of incarceration for non-payment of child support) - but not until the mother decides not to kill it first. So, tell me when, exactly, a father should start being a father? Before or after the third trimester?

When you look at abortion from the perspective of a father - the answer is clear and well-defined.


I can't wait to unload on whoever suggests I can adopt a child.

[Mithras]

Spliff, the same caution applies to God or Fate or what have you. Some very good friends had a very late (7th month I think) miscarriage. It was terribly traumatic, obviously.

Well, my best wishes for your luck in such matters.

[Spliffdaddy]

It just seems that a father should have a 'choice', as well.

Especially if society holds them to higher standards of parenthood than is expected of mothers.

In other words, that 'choice' a woman makes affects far more people than just herself. It affects at least 2 other lives.

I believe abortion is wrong. And I didn't arrive at that conclusion because of religion...but in spite of it.

[dgs212]

Lots of food for thought, certainly.

Let's start from the top...

First of all, is it wrong to kill another human being? No special circumstances necessary. Is it wrong to, say, take a gun, walk up to someone on the street, and murder them? I think so. But why?

Should we not intentionally harm others because we, as humans, are unique in our ability to empathize (not sympathize) with others. Okay, I'll buy that.

So, we should not intentionally harm others. How about allowing others to come to harm through inaction? Sure.

But, how do we define "others" other people, certainly? When does a fetus become a person? I think either extreme in this case is absurd, i.e. a fertilized egg is not a human, and a full-term fetus just prior to being born is a human. So we are forced to draw an arbitrary line in the sand. After such and such a time a fetus is viable or has the caapacity to feel pain, so an abortion after that point would be morally wrong, following from the points above.

Except that fetuses do not develop identically. Any chronological milestone (8 week, 2nd trimester, etc.) may violate the moral precepts in some instances but not others.

And what about harming or allowing to come to harm the mother?

I think, ultimately, whether abortion is morally exceptable (and thus should be legal) is a rare instance of a truly unanswerable question. So how do you formulate public health policy based on such a murky area? Err on the side of caution and make them legal, or err on the side of caution and make them illegal? Who is qualified to make this decision?

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Well, where do you draw the line with animals?

In regards to what? Animal testing? Eating? Experimentation?

Also, the success in cloning demonstrates that the "totally unexplained" process you mention can be manipulated, and is beginning to be understood, if not fully.

We still don't know the mechanism of exactly how a fertilized egg gets from point A to point B other than observing at this point.

I'm sorry, but if you will resort to magic to describe this, then rational discussion must end, as far as humans are concerned.

What magic? I never argued that it was magic. It's simply something we don't understand, sort of like time or the beginning of the universe. It's a process of nature that we cannot duplicate even with our most advanced technology. We can split the atom but we can't bring back something alive that is dead. We seem to be so good at developing more advanced ways to kill people but have arguments about when life begins. And how does consciousness develop from something without a conscience? How is it that a group of molecules has the ability to think and type on a computer and post on the internet? Where does that come from?

I turn your attention back to the problem of animals: how do you draw a line between which animals you kill and which you don't? What criteria do you use?

Killing for survival is necessary. We are animals, after all, and other animals kill as well but only what's needed to survive. Only humans have this ability to kill senselessly and without reason or justification. But for the most part abortion isn't needed for survival except in the rarest of cases. So I'm not sure how you are trying to stitch together the lines of thinking here.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
There's nothing wrong with abortion, it's merely a choice.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I believe abortion is wrong.

Flip flopping? well, which is it Spliff?

Would you still think it wrong if the father (in a married relationship) had a legal say in the matter?

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Would you still think it wrong if the father (in a married relationship) had a legal say in the matter?

I wouldn't change my mind, though, I find it disturbing that the father has no legal rights whatsoever in the matter.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
I wouldn't change my mind, though, I find it disturbing that the father has no legal rights whatsoever in the matter.

I would like to know what % of abortions are opposed by the father, somehow I don't think it is as high as some think. I think you overestimate these "fathers"

I'd bet most don't even know or care to know...

[Spliffdaddy]

100% of caring fathers are against abortion.

Tell me how many caring mothers would have an abortion.

[chalk_outline]

Until you possess a vagina you should STFU.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action...issue=041013#5

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by chalk_outline:
Until you possess a vagina you should STFU.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action...issue=041013#5

Until you can make a baby without a man, you should take your own advice.

[fireside]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
As a potential 'caring father', isn't my right to know if a woman might kill my child before it's born?

if your wife/significant other/girlfriend/whatever decides to get an abortion without consulting the father, there is obviously something wrong with the lady, or she is afraid to come out and admit shes pregnant and doesn't want you to know. i think if you two are in a truly loving relationship than the lady will tell you about it, and if she doesn't, maybe you need to rethink your choice in women?

but lets say its NOT a loving caring relationship, and you're a scary dude who hates children, and would probably hurt the woman for coming out and being pregnant, should the mother have to tell you shes pregnant?

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Until you can make a baby without a man, you should take your own advice.

I don't like abortions, but should we put the blame on the lady when the father who refuses to take economic responsibility is mostly to blame.

deadbeat dad.

[Spliffdaddy]

If a father is compelled by law, under threat of imprisonment, to provide for his child - shouldn't *he* have a 'choice', as well?

Should a father only be a loving caring father only *if* the mother states her approval?

Should expectant fathers play it safe and just assume all pregnancies will result in abortion?

More women support abortion than men.
Most Americans do not support abortion, although 57-61% would allow abortions in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the health of the mother. Very few Americans support abortion for social reasons - although 94%+ of abortions are performed for those reasons.

I think it's well past time for some father's rights.

The way fathers are treated is downright sickening.

You are assumed to be uncaring, unsupportive, and absent...while the VAST majority of fathers are quite the opposite. Always remember the golden rule: Men are not allowed to have any good stereotypes. We maim, we kill, we control. Any behaviour above that threshhold is considered optional and uncommon. Everytime I hear somebody suggest that a man is a "good father", the bad stereotype is refueled. Why is that, Spliff?, you ask. Because the expectation is that a man is a bad father, else the comment would not be worthy of note. That's like saying "he's a good Jew", as if most are bad. "Oh, Kerry, he's a good Democrat". "He's one of the good homosexuals...glory be". "He's a good Muslim" etc etc.


It's a small wonder that fathers haven't been granted any special rights or privileges. Only men can be fathers, and men seem to pass all the laws. If men are so damned ruthless and controlling, why haven't they taken anything for themselves?

Stay tuned. Spliffdaddy may have just found his calling.

[olePigeon]

I would recommend everyone here pick up and read "The Giver," by Lois Lowry. It's an awesome book (one of the top 20 most banned books, actually) that talks about morality and how it is created. Right and wrong have no place, only knowledge.

Awesome book. Another book I would recommend is "Ishmael," by Daniel Quinn. Another fantastic book that takes a look at society and how it's molded. Another top banned book.