Some questions to those who want abortion to be illegal
-
In most countries of the southern hemisphere abortion is legally restricted; in most countries of the northern hemisphere it is allowed*. In countries like Nicaragua and Chile any abortion is illegal. In countries like Brazil, Argentina and Mexico it is legal just in cases of rape or when pregnancy poses a danger for the carrying woman. However, this has brought a big problem to the courts: how do you punish a woman that made an illegal abortion? In almost every case what you have is someone without a criminal story that did something desperate because she had no other choice. Should you send someone in this situation to jail? What punishment should you give? If you don't punish her, then what is the point of making it illegal if there is no punishment? * AFAIK abortion is legal in Canada, US, most of Eastern Europe (except Poland and Spain) and most of former/present communist countries. It is restricted in middle east, most of Africa and most of Latin America (except Cuba). Southern Asia and Oceania are mixed cases.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
In most countries of the southern hemisphere abortion is legally restricted; in most countries of the northern hemisphere it is allowed*. In countries like Nicaragua and Chile any abortion is illegal. In countries like Brazil, Argentina and Mexico it is legal just in cases of rape or when pregnancy poses a danger for the carrying woman. However, this has brought a big problem to the courts: how do you punish a woman that made an illegal abortion? In almost every case what you have is someone without a criminal story that did something desperate because she had no other choice. Should you send someone in this situation to jail? What punishment should you give? If you don't punish her, then what is the point of making it illegal if there is no punishment? * AFAIK abortion is legal in Canada, US, most of Eastern Europe (except Poland and Spain) and most of former/present communist countries. It is restricted in middle east, most of Africa and most of Latin America (except Cuba). Southern Asia and Oceania are mixed cases.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
The point isn't to punish those who want to abort, the point is to stop killing babies. As such, I don't have a solid opinion on what should be done to those who abort illegally. My first thought is that they've probably been through enough in most cases, but not sentencing some punishment wouldn't do much to support the law. In this case, I'd suggest that the punishment be something sufficient to deter. There are plenty of problems that come with either stance. Obviously you wouldn't just make it illegal and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done. The concentration on programs to lower the rates of unwanted pregnancies would be even more important, and that should be a primary concern for both sides. Speaking of side effects, there was an interesting analysis in Freakonomics. The crime wave that was happening in the late 80's and early 90's in the States was projected to be apocalyptic by now. But in the later part of the 90's crime rates started to drop, and continued. Freakonomics posited that the drop in crime started to happen right about the time that the kids of post-Roe v Wade would have reached early adulthood. Which makes perfect sense considering that being poor makes you highly more likely to turn to crime (I forget the percentage), and having a single parent ups your chances rather significatly as well, and most abortions are for poor single mothers (a rather large portion of those are black as well). Which is a stark reminder that either way we go, this is an important issue that dove tails into plenty of other societal problems that need work. Plus it allows me to call pro-abortionists racists (that was a joke, my faithful uni-voter whoever you are).
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
The point isn't to punish those who want to abort, the point is to stop killing babies. As such, I don't have a solid opinion on what should be done to those who abort illegally. My first thought is that they've probably been through enough in most cases, but not sentencing some punishment wouldn't do much to support the law. In this case, I'd suggest that the punishment be something sufficient to deter. There are plenty of problems that come with either stance. Obviously you wouldn't just make it illegal and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done. The concentration on programs to lower the rates of unwanted pregnancies would be even more important, and that should be a primary concern for both sides. Speaking of side effects, there was an interesting analysis in Freakonomics. The crime wave that was happening in the late 80's and early 90's in the States was projected to be apocalyptic by now. But in the later part of the 90's crime rates started to drop, and continued. Freakonomics posited that the drop in crime started to happen right about the time that the kids of post-Roe v Wade would have reached early adulthood. Which makes perfect sense considering that being poor makes you highly more likely to turn to crime (I forget the percentage), and having a single parent ups your chances rather significatly as well, and most abortions are for poor single mothers (a rather large portion of those are black as well). Which is a stark reminder that either way we go, this is an important issue that dove tails into plenty of other societal problems that need work. Plus it allows me to call pro-abortionists racists (that was a joke, my faithful uni-voter whoever you are).
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
the point is to stop killing babies
You see? We are not very much different. No one "likes" abortion. Even us, the "pro-choice", are not happy when it happens. We want it to be avoided too.
BoneSoft wrote:
I'd suggest that the punishment be something sufficient to deter.
And that's exactly the whole point of my post: what would the punishment be? No punishment means it's not illegal. Illegal means "what punishment?". If you can't propose a punishment how can you ask it to be illegal?
BoneSoft wrote:
The concentration on programs to lower the rates of unwanted pregnancies would be even more important, and that should be a primary concern for both sides.
Many thanks. You just proved that there can be agreement and good sense between both sides of this painful issue.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
the point is to stop killing babies
You see? We are not very much different. No one "likes" abortion. Even us, the "pro-choice", are not happy when it happens. We want it to be avoided too.
BoneSoft wrote:
I'd suggest that the punishment be something sufficient to deter.
And that's exactly the whole point of my post: what would the punishment be? No punishment means it's not illegal. Illegal means "what punishment?". If you can't propose a punishment how can you ask it to be illegal?
BoneSoft wrote:
The concentration on programs to lower the rates of unwanted pregnancies would be even more important, and that should be a primary concern for both sides.
Many thanks. You just proved that there can be agreement and good sense between both sides of this painful issue.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
If you can't propose a punishment how can you ask it to be illegal.
I can sit on a jury and vote guilty without a thought to the punishment. In fact, on a jury I may be required to not consider the punishment. There are lots of thing that I, as well as most people, think should be illegal beyond debate, that I couldn't suggest the correct punishment for. It's not my job to decide punishment, and even if I did, legislators wouldn't likely listen to my suggestion anyway. I have no doubt that we can all agree that it's not something we like or want, and that we need to do much much more to prevent the scenario altogether. But I also understand why these discussions get so far out of hand regularly. It's a tough issue, and infuriating in that most are completely unwavering in their position on the issue. Which is pretty strange if you think about it. The entire debate revolves around such a trivial question, when is a growing human a human by legal definition. Personally, legal definitions don't concern me. It's completely conceivable that a legal definition will render me an unvialble tissue mass. Common sense tells me that at no point after conception is there a definite line that can be drawn where you can say with certainty that before it's tissue, after it's life. I say err on the side of caution. But I have no doubt whatsoever that after the first 3 months, and certainly beyond the first 6, that that's a human being that's being killed. And actually, I think a lot of the issue is driven by politics more than anything else. It's another battle front between those who want religion to have some moral hold on society and those who want to remove religion from everything. And the issue gets further clouded, because some folks take up those mantles for their own agenda, using this political fight as a tool to support their plans. As a couple of examples, socialists support abortion because it supports their need to destroy religion. Those who appose socialism support the religious stance on the issue in the hopes of a win for religion as a means to slow socialist progression. It's an ugly issue, and the more politicised it gets, the more complicated it gets.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
In most countries of the southern hemisphere abortion is legally restricted; in most countries of the northern hemisphere it is allowed*. In countries like Nicaragua and Chile any abortion is illegal. In countries like Brazil, Argentina and Mexico it is legal just in cases of rape or when pregnancy poses a danger for the carrying woman. However, this has brought a big problem to the courts: how do you punish a woman that made an illegal abortion? In almost every case what you have is someone without a criminal story that did something desperate because she had no other choice. Should you send someone in this situation to jail? What punishment should you give? If you don't punish her, then what is the point of making it illegal if there is no punishment? * AFAIK abortion is legal in Canada, US, most of Eastern Europe (except Poland and Spain) and most of former/present communist countries. It is restricted in middle east, most of Africa and most of Latin America (except Cuba). Southern Asia and Oceania are mixed cases.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
It still boils down to when does the combination of a spermatozoa and an oocyte become a human being, doesn't it? If that happens at the moment of fertilization, then the answer to what to do with the woman is legally simple: try her for murder. She has no more right to claim that she aborted because she was desperate than another mother can claim she killed her three-year-old because she was desperate. (Of course some women do exactly that and then Gloria Alred represents them, but that's for a different time.) It also means that the provisions in many abortion laws for exceptions in the case of rape and incest are b.s. and it also means the issue about the mother's life versus the child's is decided just about 180 degrees opposite from the way most mothers would decide about a post-partum child. In other words, if humanity begins at conception, the only grounds I can see for abortion is if the mother will die because she is pregnant before the fetus can survive outside the womb. Note that the question "When does life begin," cannot be answered by anyone who has the slightest scientific knowledge except by saying "At the moment of conception." the standards for determining what life is are well known. Life: is highly organized; has an ability to acquire materials and energy; has an ability to respond to its environment; has the ability to reproduce; has the ability to adapt. A fetus fits that definition quite well. Things we encounter on other planets (like the Horta) that fit that definition will be considered alive. So when does humanity begin? When, if you will, does a fetus develop a soul? In spite of the need for any defense of abortion to use the concept of soul, most abortion-rights people deny that there is such a thing. Some folks, I believe, talk about self-awareness. But apparently a fetus is self-aware long before it can exist on its own. It does not seem that learning to breathe would contribute to this aspect of humanity or take it away. The Supreme Court originally tried to say that humanity began at the moment the fetus could survive outside the womb. NOW seems to have been able to nibble away a that concept in lots of cases finding this exception and that one, so that we do seem left with the idea that a baby becomes human only by coming into contact with air. Or, that it's okay to take a human life as long as you don't have to look at its face. Which is why bomber pilots have a lot less PTSS than ground troops. On the other hand, apparently, God/Nature is the greatest abort
-
In most countries of the southern hemisphere abortion is legally restricted; in most countries of the northern hemisphere it is allowed*. In countries like Nicaragua and Chile any abortion is illegal. In countries like Brazil, Argentina and Mexico it is legal just in cases of rape or when pregnancy poses a danger for the carrying woman. However, this has brought a big problem to the courts: how do you punish a woman that made an illegal abortion? In almost every case what you have is someone without a criminal story that did something desperate because she had no other choice. Should you send someone in this situation to jail? What punishment should you give? If you don't punish her, then what is the point of making it illegal if there is no punishment? * AFAIK abortion is legal in Canada, US, most of Eastern Europe (except Poland and Spain) and most of former/present communist countries. It is restricted in middle east, most of Africa and most of Latin America (except Cuba). Southern Asia and Oceania are mixed cases.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
how do you punish a woman that made an illegal abortion?
you don't, you punish the doctor that facilitated it. fyi - I agree with efforts to reduce abortions that are implied / discussed in this thread, but that doesn't mean that the abortionist shouldn't be punished for murder. The sad fact is that there are families that would adopt babies brought to term. That makes the killing, and it is killing, more abhorent. fyi * 2 - we'll never agree, I suspect.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
It still boils down to when does the combination of a spermatozoa and an oocyte become a human being, doesn't it? If that happens at the moment of fertilization, then the answer to what to do with the woman is legally simple: try her for murder. She has no more right to claim that she aborted because she was desperate than another mother can claim she killed her three-year-old because she was desperate. (Of course some women do exactly that and then Gloria Alred represents them, but that's for a different time.) It also means that the provisions in many abortion laws for exceptions in the case of rape and incest are b.s. and it also means the issue about the mother's life versus the child's is decided just about 180 degrees opposite from the way most mothers would decide about a post-partum child. In other words, if humanity begins at conception, the only grounds I can see for abortion is if the mother will die because she is pregnant before the fetus can survive outside the womb. Note that the question "When does life begin," cannot be answered by anyone who has the slightest scientific knowledge except by saying "At the moment of conception." the standards for determining what life is are well known. Life: is highly organized; has an ability to acquire materials and energy; has an ability to respond to its environment; has the ability to reproduce; has the ability to adapt. A fetus fits that definition quite well. Things we encounter on other planets (like the Horta) that fit that definition will be considered alive. So when does humanity begin? When, if you will, does a fetus develop a soul? In spite of the need for any defense of abortion to use the concept of soul, most abortion-rights people deny that there is such a thing. Some folks, I believe, talk about self-awareness. But apparently a fetus is self-aware long before it can exist on its own. It does not seem that learning to breathe would contribute to this aspect of humanity or take it away. The Supreme Court originally tried to say that humanity began at the moment the fetus could survive outside the womb. NOW seems to have been able to nibble away a that concept in lots of cases finding this exception and that one, so that we do seem left with the idea that a baby becomes human only by coming into contact with air. Or, that it's okay to take a human life as long as you don't have to look at its face. Which is why bomber pilots have a lot less PTSS than ground troops. On the other hand, apparently, God/Nature is the greatest abort
Oakman wrote:
It still boils down to when does the combination of a spermatozoa and an oocyte become a human being, doesn't it?
at what point can you identify human DNA?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
If you can't propose a punishment how can you ask it to be illegal.
I can sit on a jury and vote guilty without a thought to the punishment. In fact, on a jury I may be required to not consider the punishment. There are lots of thing that I, as well as most people, think should be illegal beyond debate, that I couldn't suggest the correct punishment for. It's not my job to decide punishment, and even if I did, legislators wouldn't likely listen to my suggestion anyway. I have no doubt that we can all agree that it's not something we like or want, and that we need to do much much more to prevent the scenario altogether. But I also understand why these discussions get so far out of hand regularly. It's a tough issue, and infuriating in that most are completely unwavering in their position on the issue. Which is pretty strange if you think about it. The entire debate revolves around such a trivial question, when is a growing human a human by legal definition. Personally, legal definitions don't concern me. It's completely conceivable that a legal definition will render me an unvialble tissue mass. Common sense tells me that at no point after conception is there a definite line that can be drawn where you can say with certainty that before it's tissue, after it's life. I say err on the side of caution. But I have no doubt whatsoever that after the first 3 months, and certainly beyond the first 6, that that's a human being that's being killed. And actually, I think a lot of the issue is driven by politics more than anything else. It's another battle front between those who want religion to have some moral hold on society and those who want to remove religion from everything. And the issue gets further clouded, because some folks take up those mantles for their own agenda, using this political fight as a tool to support their plans. As a couple of examples, socialists support abortion because it supports their need to destroy religion. Those who appose socialism support the religious stance on the issue in the hopes of a win for religion as a means to slow socialist progression. It's an ugly issue, and the more politicised it gets, the more complicated it gets.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
So one one hand you claim that you have no interest in legal definitions, on the other you proceed to explain how the jury system works in order to pass the buck on your ethical responsibility to (god forbid) actually consider the implications for women who get abortions once it's illegal. Of which legal consequences are the tip of the iceberg. It must be nice to live in that giant crystal palace on the moon where everything is oh so black and white and morally unambiguous and harm reduction strategies aren't necessary.
- F
-
So one one hand you claim that you have no interest in legal definitions, on the other you proceed to explain how the jury system works in order to pass the buck on your ethical responsibility to (god forbid) actually consider the implications for women who get abortions once it's illegal. Of which legal consequences are the tip of the iceberg. It must be nice to live in that giant crystal palace on the moon where everything is oh so black and white and morally unambiguous and harm reduction strategies aren't necessary.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It must be nice to live in that giant crystal palace on the moon where everything is oh so black and white and morally unambiguous and harm reduction strategies aren't necessary.
Why, exactly, does it always turn into a personal attack with you?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
In most countries of the southern hemisphere abortion is legally restricted; in most countries of the northern hemisphere it is allowed*. In countries like Nicaragua and Chile any abortion is illegal. In countries like Brazil, Argentina and Mexico it is legal just in cases of rape or when pregnancy poses a danger for the carrying woman. However, this has brought a big problem to the courts: how do you punish a woman that made an illegal abortion? In almost every case what you have is someone without a criminal story that did something desperate because she had no other choice. Should you send someone in this situation to jail? What punishment should you give? If you don't punish her, then what is the point of making it illegal if there is no punishment? * AFAIK abortion is legal in Canada, US, most of Eastern Europe (except Poland and Spain) and most of former/present communist countries. It is restricted in middle east, most of Africa and most of Latin America (except Cuba). Southern Asia and Oceania are mixed cases.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
The question is why do people insist on making such a complex issue out of something so simple. You pick some arbitrary moment and you make a law that codifies that moment as the moment a human life begins. As long as it is based upon democratic processes of some kind, that is the best you can hope for. If the majority wants that to be the moment a genetically distinct entity of anykind occurs or if the majority wants it to be the first fart, than that becomes the law. The only problem is when the power to define human life is invested in some kind of oligarchy - the US Supreme court, for example. The definition of human life is an intrinsically moral, religious issue, and should reflect the traditions and beliefs of the people in that regard and not be imposed by some kind of bureaucratic authority.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
It still boils down to when does the combination of a spermatozoa and an oocyte become a human being, doesn't it? If that happens at the moment of fertilization, then the answer to what to do with the woman is legally simple: try her for murder. She has no more right to claim that she aborted because she was desperate than another mother can claim she killed her three-year-old because she was desperate. (Of course some women do exactly that and then Gloria Alred represents them, but that's for a different time.) It also means that the provisions in many abortion laws for exceptions in the case of rape and incest are b.s. and it also means the issue about the mother's life versus the child's is decided just about 180 degrees opposite from the way most mothers would decide about a post-partum child. In other words, if humanity begins at conception, the only grounds I can see for abortion is if the mother will die because she is pregnant before the fetus can survive outside the womb. Note that the question "When does life begin," cannot be answered by anyone who has the slightest scientific knowledge except by saying "At the moment of conception." the standards for determining what life is are well known. Life: is highly organized; has an ability to acquire materials and energy; has an ability to respond to its environment; has the ability to reproduce; has the ability to adapt. A fetus fits that definition quite well. Things we encounter on other planets (like the Horta) that fit that definition will be considered alive. So when does humanity begin? When, if you will, does a fetus develop a soul? In spite of the need for any defense of abortion to use the concept of soul, most abortion-rights people deny that there is such a thing. Some folks, I believe, talk about self-awareness. But apparently a fetus is self-aware long before it can exist on its own. It does not seem that learning to breathe would contribute to this aspect of humanity or take it away. The Supreme Court originally tried to say that humanity began at the moment the fetus could survive outside the womb. NOW seems to have been able to nibble away a that concept in lots of cases finding this exception and that one, so that we do seem left with the idea that a baby becomes human only by coming into contact with air. Or, that it's okay to take a human life as long as you don't have to look at its face. Which is why bomber pilots have a lot less PTSS than ground troops. On the other hand, apparently, God/Nature is the greatest abort
Oakman wrote:
The simplest solution to this whole stinking mess is to chemically or biologically tie the tubes of every preteener and make it clear to them that they won't get it reversed until they are 25 and can prove they are in a stable relations that has the financial wherewithal to support a child.
Are you referring to men and women or just women?
-
It still boils down to when does the combination of a spermatozoa and an oocyte become a human being, doesn't it? If that happens at the moment of fertilization, then the answer to what to do with the woman is legally simple: try her for murder. She has no more right to claim that she aborted because she was desperate than another mother can claim she killed her three-year-old because she was desperate. (Of course some women do exactly that and then Gloria Alred represents them, but that's for a different time.) It also means that the provisions in many abortion laws for exceptions in the case of rape and incest are b.s. and it also means the issue about the mother's life versus the child's is decided just about 180 degrees opposite from the way most mothers would decide about a post-partum child. In other words, if humanity begins at conception, the only grounds I can see for abortion is if the mother will die because she is pregnant before the fetus can survive outside the womb. Note that the question "When does life begin," cannot be answered by anyone who has the slightest scientific knowledge except by saying "At the moment of conception." the standards for determining what life is are well known. Life: is highly organized; has an ability to acquire materials and energy; has an ability to respond to its environment; has the ability to reproduce; has the ability to adapt. A fetus fits that definition quite well. Things we encounter on other planets (like the Horta) that fit that definition will be considered alive. So when does humanity begin? When, if you will, does a fetus develop a soul? In spite of the need for any defense of abortion to use the concept of soul, most abortion-rights people deny that there is such a thing. Some folks, I believe, talk about self-awareness. But apparently a fetus is self-aware long before it can exist on its own. It does not seem that learning to breathe would contribute to this aspect of humanity or take it away. The Supreme Court originally tried to say that humanity began at the moment the fetus could survive outside the womb. NOW seems to have been able to nibble away a that concept in lots of cases finding this exception and that one, so that we do seem left with the idea that a baby becomes human only by coming into contact with air. Or, that it's okay to take a human life as long as you don't have to look at its face. Which is why bomber pilots have a lot less PTSS than ground troops. On the other hand, apparently, God/Nature is the greatest abort
Oakman wrote:
The simplest solution to this whole stinking mess is to chemically or biologically tie the tubes of every preteener
Oh, don't say that - the parents will have a bird. Look at the reaction to giving 13yo girls the HPV vaccine. "Why would they need a vaccine against an STI, they would never have sex before they're married..."
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
It must be nice to live in that giant crystal palace on the moon where everything is oh so black and white and morally unambiguous and harm reduction strategies aren't necessary.
Why, exactly, does it always turn into a personal attack with you?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
The question is why do people insist on making such a complex issue out of something so simple. You pick some arbitrary moment and you make a law that codifies that moment as the moment a human life begins. As long as it is based upon democratic processes of some kind, that is the best you can hope for. If the majority wants that to be the moment a genetically distinct entity of anykind occurs or if the majority wants it to be the first fart, than that becomes the law. The only problem is when the power to define human life is invested in some kind of oligarchy - the US Supreme court, for example. The definition of human life is an intrinsically moral, religious issue, and should reflect the traditions and beliefs of the people in that regard and not be imposed by some kind of bureaucratic authority.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
It still boils down to when does the combination of a spermatozoa and an oocyte become a human being, doesn't it?
at what point can you identify human DNA?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
at what point can you identify human DNA
Since the zygote uses the DNA to guide its development, I have to assume that it's immediately after the 23 chromosomes of the sperm hook up with the 23 chromosones of the egg. And DNA is certainly the class that says, "human." But, in this case, is the class the same as the instance?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You pick some arbitrary moment
It's not really arbitrary that before 22-24 weeks, a fetus won't survive outside the womb because of the lack of lung development.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's not really arbitrary that before 22-24 weeks, a fetus won't survive outside the womb because of the lack of lung development.
So? If you were removed from your natural environment, your lungs probably wouldn't function properly either.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Why, exactly, does it always turn into a personal attack with you?
I dunno, Jon, you could probably answer the same question.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
I dunno, Jon, you could probably answer the same question.
I haven't the slightest idea why you need to attack everyone you disagree with. Boney and I, fyi, has disagreed about as often as we've agreed over the time we've both posted here. Yet somehow, we've never felt the need to insult each other, even if we've been dismissing the other's viewpoint as absurd. You ought to try losing that chip on your shoulder. If for no other reason than I gather you think that some of what you say should be listened to.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
The simplest solution to this whole stinking mess is to chemically or biologically tie the tubes of every preteener and make it clear to them that they won't get it reversed until they are 25 and can prove they are in a stable relations that has the financial wherewithal to support a child.
Are you referring to men and women or just women?
wolfbinary wrote:
Are you referring to men and women or just women?
Both or just women, mox nix. Only women have abortions.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
how do you punish a woman that made an illegal abortion?
you don't, you punish the doctor that facilitated it. fyi - I agree with efforts to reduce abortions that are implied / discussed in this thread, but that doesn't mean that the abortionist shouldn't be punished for murder. The sad fact is that there are families that would adopt babies brought to term. That makes the killing, and it is killing, more abhorent. fyi * 2 - we'll never agree, I suspect.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
you don't, you punish the doctor that facilitated it.
But this brings another dilemma, very common in my country. Here it is: a patient comes to the gynecologist and tells him she needs an abortion. She's gonna do it with or without the doctor's help. In Brazil the doctor is not allowed to perform the abortion, but is not blocked by law of providing the patient with the knowledge on how to perform it (e.g: using Cytotec, an efficient abortive drug). As the doctor has an obligation of taking care of the woman's health that's what most of them do, to avoid her of using more dangerous means. And for the same reason all doctors do take care of the patient after she performed the abortion. So in name of taking care of the patient health you just can't prevent her from performing abortion. So, for the same reason, why not extend this care to assist her on performing the abortion? It would be even safer.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
fyi * 2 - we'll never agree, I suspect.
I don't think we will, either. But we can have an intelligent debate and agree in very important details like:
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I agree with efforts to reduce abortions that are implied / discussed in this thread
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
The question is why do people insist on making such a complex issue out of something so simple. You pick some arbitrary moment and you make a law that codifies that moment as the moment a human life begins. As long as it is based upon democratic processes of some kind, that is the best you can hope for. If the majority wants that to be the moment a genetically distinct entity of anykind occurs or if the majority wants it to be the first fart, than that becomes the law. The only problem is when the power to define human life is invested in some kind of oligarchy - the US Supreme court, for example. The definition of human life is an intrinsically moral, religious issue, and should reflect the traditions and beliefs of the people in that regard and not be imposed by some kind of bureaucratic authority.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You pick some arbitrary moment and you make a law that codifies that moment as the moment a human life begins.
How about the eighth birthday? Or the 21st? 45th? Do we get to codify when humanity ends, too? Are you on the right side of that age? Am I? :~
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.