Abortion.
-
I think the issue will always be confused by mixing in those situations where the life of mother is deemed at risk by the pregnancy. These situations - both actual and hypothetical - bring up so many different ethical issues that it is impossible to ever come to a consensus on it, although i'll give my take in just a bit. However, in many situations there is no reason to think the pregnancy could not be successfully brought to term with no unusual consequences. In these situations, the issue is simply whether the mother should be forced to give birth to a child when she does not want to. This is my take, on both of the above: I believe that terminating the life of a child prior to birth is as much murder as doing so after birth. Yes, i said believe; if this was something that could be proved conclusivly one way or the other, it would have been done already. How can you be sure what life even is, much less when it begins and when it ends. Many people have many different viewpoints on these issues, and although i know mine is correct, i also know that i will never be able to convince all of them. A good many people do not believe a child is truely a human until a given point in its life; whether this point is birth or the third trimester, etc. is merely a detail. For these people, i can understand their conviction that the wishes of the mother take presedence over the life of the child, as much as i deplore this point of view. My first paragraph above singles out cases where the life of the mother is deemed to be at risk. I draw attention to this since it has been dragged out so often whenever this subject is debated, and i fear it has become more a red herring than anything else. There are many situations, even not including abortion, where presearving the life of one person would seem to require ending the life of another. Two starving persons on a desert island, many conjoined twins, etc. These (i would hope!) are NEVER easy decisions, and the only way it becomes relevant to this discussion is when the unborn child is no longer deemed human. See the previous paragraph for my opinion on that. Fuck that two cents shit; this is what i believe. BTW, i am so glad you didn't post this in the lounge. :-O --------_**
People they come together People they fall apart. No one can s
**_
Shog9 wrote: In these situations, the issue is simply whether the mother should be forced to give birth to a child when she does not want to. Men are forced to be fathers all the time. If a woman gets pregnant even though the father was just after the sex, she *decides* if they are going to have a child. The man has no say in it what so ever. That means the precedent has already been set. So a woman *can* be forced to give birth according to the logic of US laws.
-
I think the issue will always be confused by mixing in those situations where the life of mother is deemed at risk by the pregnancy. These situations - both actual and hypothetical - bring up so many different ethical issues that it is impossible to ever come to a consensus on it, although i'll give my take in just a bit. However, in many situations there is no reason to think the pregnancy could not be successfully brought to term with no unusual consequences. In these situations, the issue is simply whether the mother should be forced to give birth to a child when she does not want to. This is my take, on both of the above: I believe that terminating the life of a child prior to birth is as much murder as doing so after birth. Yes, i said believe; if this was something that could be proved conclusivly one way or the other, it would have been done already. How can you be sure what life even is, much less when it begins and when it ends. Many people have many different viewpoints on these issues, and although i know mine is correct, i also know that i will never be able to convince all of them. A good many people do not believe a child is truely a human until a given point in its life; whether this point is birth or the third trimester, etc. is merely a detail. For these people, i can understand their conviction that the wishes of the mother take presedence over the life of the child, as much as i deplore this point of view. My first paragraph above singles out cases where the life of the mother is deemed to be at risk. I draw attention to this since it has been dragged out so often whenever this subject is debated, and i fear it has become more a red herring than anything else. There are many situations, even not including abortion, where presearving the life of one person would seem to require ending the life of another. Two starving persons on a desert island, many conjoined twins, etc. These (i would hope!) are NEVER easy decisions, and the only way it becomes relevant to this discussion is when the unborn child is no longer deemed human. See the previous paragraph for my opinion on that. Fuck that two cents shit; this is what i believe. BTW, i am so glad you didn't post this in the lounge. :-O --------_**
People they come together People they fall apart. No one can s
**_
Shog9 wrote: f*** that two cents shit; this is what i believe Wow! Good, solid post Shog. Most impressive, I say truly most impressive. Nish
Check out last week's Code Project posting stats presentation from :- http://www.busterboy.org/codeproject/ Feel free to make your comments.
-
I used to be pro-choise, but now I find myself in the pro-life camp. What are your opinions on this matter? It seems that as I get older, I get more conservative. :confused:
To kill a child is murder, plain and simple. If a woman does not want to get pregnant, she should keep her panties on. The same goes for guys, if you are not prepared to be a father, keep you little friend to yourself. People are intelligent enough to make choices, just make the choice before, not after the fact. --- CPUA 0x5041 Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him...is he still wrong?
-
I think the issue will always be confused by mixing in those situations where the life of mother is deemed at risk by the pregnancy. These situations - both actual and hypothetical - bring up so many different ethical issues that it is impossible to ever come to a consensus on it, although i'll give my take in just a bit. However, in many situations there is no reason to think the pregnancy could not be successfully brought to term with no unusual consequences. In these situations, the issue is simply whether the mother should be forced to give birth to a child when she does not want to. This is my take, on both of the above: I believe that terminating the life of a child prior to birth is as much murder as doing so after birth. Yes, i said believe; if this was something that could be proved conclusivly one way or the other, it would have been done already. How can you be sure what life even is, much less when it begins and when it ends. Many people have many different viewpoints on these issues, and although i know mine is correct, i also know that i will never be able to convince all of them. A good many people do not believe a child is truely a human until a given point in its life; whether this point is birth or the third trimester, etc. is merely a detail. For these people, i can understand their conviction that the wishes of the mother take presedence over the life of the child, as much as i deplore this point of view. My first paragraph above singles out cases where the life of the mother is deemed to be at risk. I draw attention to this since it has been dragged out so often whenever this subject is debated, and i fear it has become more a red herring than anything else. There are many situations, even not including abortion, where presearving the life of one person would seem to require ending the life of another. Two starving persons on a desert island, many conjoined twins, etc. These (i would hope!) are NEVER easy decisions, and the only way it becomes relevant to this discussion is when the unborn child is no longer deemed human. See the previous paragraph for my opinion on that. Fuck that two cents shit; this is what i believe. BTW, i am so glad you didn't post this in the lounge. :-O --------_**
People they come together People they fall apart. No one can s
**_
I find a lot of common ground with what you have said. Finding definitions of when life begins or ends is impossible. One thing of interest to me is that these days in the 1st world there are less miscarriages and infant deaths. I realise this has no direct relevance. But also in many cases a uterus self aborts a fetus at the early stages. I don't see much difference between abortion and murder. And to me the bible commands "Thou shalt not murder" But if death occurs naturally is it murder ? Ethics like this will be debated continually, but scientific and medical advancement will make more ethical quandries apparent. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
-
Shog9 wrote: f*** that two cents shit; this is what i believe Wow! Good, solid post Shog. Most impressive, I say truly most impressive. Nish
Check out last week's Code Project posting stats presentation from :- http://www.busterboy.org/codeproject/ Feel free to make your comments.
:-O Thank you Nish. Perhaps that last line was a bit much; i get too worked up over these things at times. --------_**
People they come together People they fall apart. No one can stop us now 'cause we are all made of stars...
**_
-- Moby, We are all made of stars
-
Shog9 wrote: In these situations, the issue is simply whether the mother should be forced to give birth to a child when she does not want to. Men are forced to be fathers all the time. If a woman gets pregnant even though the father was just after the sex, she *decides* if they are going to have a child. The man has no say in it what so ever. That means the precedent has already been set. So a woman *can* be forced to give birth according to the logic of US laws.
Martin Marvinski wrote: Men are forced to be fathers all the time. I'm not sure i totally agree with that Martin. If the father was just after sex, he should have made good and sure that was all she wanted too. I don't say that's an easy thing to do, but that is the way it is. --------_**
People they come together People they fall apart. No one can stop us now 'cause we are all made of stars...
**_
-- Moby, We are all made of stars
-
I find a lot of common ground with what you have said. Finding definitions of when life begins or ends is impossible. One thing of interest to me is that these days in the 1st world there are less miscarriages and infant deaths. I realise this has no direct relevance. But also in many cases a uterus self aborts a fetus at the early stages. I don't see much difference between abortion and murder. And to me the bible commands "Thou shalt not murder" But if death occurs naturally is it murder ? Ethics like this will be debated continually, but scientific and medical advancement will make more ethical quandries apparent. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
**Colin Davies wrote: But if death occurs naturally is it murder ? Ah, that does bring up quite a few questions. What if a woman drinks heavily while pregnant and the fetus dies as a result? What if a stressful job can cause a miscarriage? The law cannot step in everywhere, but how far should it go? These situations are where hope in God's final judgement - and mercy - provide much comfort, IMO. --------_
People they come together People they fall apart. No one can stop us now 'cause we are all made of stars...
**_
-- Moby, We are all made of stars
-
Martin Marvinski wrote: Men are forced to be fathers all the time. I'm not sure i totally agree with that Martin. If the father was just after sex, he should have made good and sure that was all she wanted too. I don't say that's an easy thing to do, but that is the way it is. --------_**
People they come together People they fall apart. No one can stop us now 'cause we are all made of stars...
**_
-- Moby, We are all made of stars
Shog9 wrote: If the father was just after sex, he should have made good and sure that was all she wanted too. I don't say that's an easy thing to do, but that is the way it is. You have to remember women are sneaky. :suss: They will get their way. :-D
-
To kill a child is murder, plain and simple. If a woman does not want to get pregnant, she should keep her panties on. The same goes for guys, if you are not prepared to be a father, keep you little friend to yourself. People are intelligent enough to make choices, just make the choice before, not after the fact. --- CPUA 0x5041 Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him...is he still wrong?
PJ Arends wrote: People are intelligent enough to make choices, just make the choice before, not after the fact. Well put PJ! :) --------_**
People they come together People they fall apart. No one can stop us now 'cause we are all made of stars...
**_
-- Moby, We are all made of stars
-
I used to be pro-choise, but now I find myself in the pro-life camp. What are your opinions on this matter? It seems that as I get older, I get more conservative. :confused:
I do not consider myself to be anti-abortion, but I *am* anti-"Roe vs Wade". I think it was a gross abuse of the power of the court to simply decide in a non-democratic way that a fetus is not a human being. Obviously, pregnancy represents a medical condition, and there may be any number of valid medical reasons for the termination of a pregnancy. Like a lot of people, however, I do not consider birth control to be a legitimate reason. Also, we now have an environment where no expense may be spared to save a premature fetus in one room of a hospital, while in the next room an equally well developed fetus and equally deserving of life, can be destroyed and washed away as so much sewage. You have to be pretty morally bankrupt not to apprecicate the hyprocricy of that. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
I used to be pro-choise, but now I find myself in the pro-life camp. What are your opinions on this matter? It seems that as I get older, I get more conservative. :confused:
Hmm... I guess I seem to be the only pro-lifer here, bummer. That is, pro life for the actual human woman with the full rights as such (I guess the majority would call this pro-choice). I am actually fairly well informed on this matter, as I just researched it for debate class. I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months (initially I picked a blob of tissue, but then I realized a blob of tissue doesn't have a heartbeat or brainwaves. Hence the squirrel.). The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. The concept of murder does not apply to a pre-certain point fetus. The concept of murder only applies, say, when so called "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics. Whether the fetus is removed for medical reasons, or simply convenience, does not matter. What matters is that the rights of the free individual human woman to make a choice dictating the use of her body and any non-human parasites living inside of it are not infringed upon. As evil as it is for someone to dictate the use of her body by raping her, it is as evil for someone to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
-
Shog9 wrote: If the father was just after sex, he should have made good and sure that was all she wanted too. I don't say that's an easy thing to do, but that is the way it is. You have to remember women are sneaky. :suss: They will get their way. :-D
-
I do not consider myself to be anti-abortion, but I *am* anti-"Roe vs Wade". I think it was a gross abuse of the power of the court to simply decide in a non-democratic way that a fetus is not a human being. Obviously, pregnancy represents a medical condition, and there may be any number of valid medical reasons for the termination of a pregnancy. Like a lot of people, however, I do not consider birth control to be a legitimate reason. Also, we now have an environment where no expense may be spared to save a premature fetus in one room of a hospital, while in the next room an equally well developed fetus and equally deserving of life, can be destroyed and washed away as so much sewage. You have to be pretty morally bankrupt not to apprecicate the hyprocricy of that. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
Stan Shannon wrote: Also, we now have an environment where no expense may be spared to save a premature fetus in one room of a hospital, while in the next room an equally well developed fetus and equally deserving of life, can be destroyed and washed away as so much sewage. You have to be pretty morally bankrupt not to apprecicate the hyprocricy of that I agree 100%.
-
See my post below. --- CPUA 0x5041 Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him...is he still wrong?
My point was that women don't have a right to choose. I was illustrating the fact that men who become fathers cannot force a woman to have an abortion. If the fathers don't have a choise, then the precedent is set, and women don't legally have a choise either. I am against abortion. I guess I wasn't articulate in my agruments though..
-
My point was that women don't have a right to choose. I was illustrating the fact that men who become fathers cannot force a woman to have an abortion. If the fathers don't have a choise, then the precedent is set, and women don't legally have a choise either. I am against abortion. I guess I wasn't articulate in my agruments though..
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but how does this follow? Just because the father cannot force the woman to have an abortion, the woman can't have one if she wants? Since when is it the father's right to dictate the use of his wife's body in matters such as this? The woman does have a right to choose, it's her body. The father doesn't, it's not his.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
-
Hmm... I guess I seem to be the only pro-lifer here, bummer. That is, pro life for the actual human woman with the full rights as such (I guess the majority would call this pro-choice). I am actually fairly well informed on this matter, as I just researched it for debate class. I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months (initially I picked a blob of tissue, but then I realized a blob of tissue doesn't have a heartbeat or brainwaves. Hence the squirrel.). The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. The concept of murder does not apply to a pre-certain point fetus. The concept of murder only applies, say, when so called "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics. Whether the fetus is removed for medical reasons, or simply convenience, does not matter. What matters is that the rights of the free individual human woman to make a choice dictating the use of her body and any non-human parasites living inside of it are not infringed upon. As evil as it is for someone to dictate the use of her body by raping her, it is as evil for someone to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Aww damn, I GTG to bed :( Just when I thought I might find something more interesting than XSLT (which is truly utterly fascinating, BTW). Don't maul my argument into little tiny shreds before I wake up!
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
-
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but how does this follow? Just because the father cannot force the woman to have an abortion, the woman can't have one if she wants? Since when is it the father's right to dictate the use of his wife's body in matters such as this? The woman does have a right to choose, it's her body. The father doesn't, it's not his.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: The woman does have a right to choose, it's her body. The father doesn't, it's not his. The fact is that it is his sperm. And becuase it is his sperm, he must legally support the child with child support. I would agree with you if the courts didn't persue men for child support, but the fact is they do!
-
Hmm... I guess I seem to be the only pro-lifer here, bummer. That is, pro life for the actual human woman with the full rights as such (I guess the majority would call this pro-choice). I am actually fairly well informed on this matter, as I just researched it for debate class. I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months (initially I picked a blob of tissue, but then I realized a blob of tissue doesn't have a heartbeat or brainwaves. Hence the squirrel.). The thing about rights are that they only apply to humans functioning within society, and fetus does not function within society, and is not human before this aforementioned certain point. I don't care when life begins; I care when there is a human functioning within society. Of course, this doesn't mean I believe killing a baby 10 days before it is born is right, simply because at that point it IS a baby, not a fetus. The concept of murder does not apply to a pre-certain point fetus. The concept of murder only applies, say, when so called "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics. Whether the fetus is removed for medical reasons, or simply convenience, does not matter. What matters is that the rights of the free individual human woman to make a choice dictating the use of her body and any non-human parasites living inside of it are not infringed upon. As evil as it is for someone to dictate the use of her body by raping her, it is as evil for someone to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
hmmmm Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
-
hmmmm Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: I guess it comes down to my believe that before a certain point (which is probably about the third trimester), the fetus is not human, and should not be given the rights of such. In my debate, I equated the fetus to a squirrel that could not survive outside of a plastic bag, because although it has brain waves and heartbeat, it is still very undeveloped, and cannot survive outside of the human mother before 5 months A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
Well, given that my dad went to bed, I can stay up a little longer :) ****Colin Davies wrote: hmmmm Now what could that mean. Is that a "hmmm... Where should I start my attack on this pitiful excuse for an argument?", or a "hmmm... I wonder where he got this point of view.", or a "hmmm... now I have to really think!" :) ****Colin Davies wrote: A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? No of course infanticide is not acceptable, but now I've got to think of how to refute that. It seems that there's a clear difference between a living breathing human child in society, which is a functioning sentient being, and a pre-certain point fetus. The fact that it cannot survive on its own is different from the fact that it cannot function on its own, I guess, I don't know if I can really support that line of reasoning well though... Requiring constant medication is simply like requiring food: both need parents to administer it on a regular basis. Actually, that could bridge over into the infanticide argument. A parent is needed to supply a child with food, a place to live, education, etc., and perhaps constant medication. But there's a difference between being dependent upon a parent to continue living healthily, and dependent upon the environment of the womb to live period. Children are dependents, but fetuses are so much more so to the extent that they are parasites, and before this certain point, parasites with no legal rights.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
-
Well, given that my dad went to bed, I can stay up a little longer :) ****Colin Davies wrote: hmmmm Now what could that mean. Is that a "hmmm... Where should I start my attack on this pitiful excuse for an argument?", or a "hmmm... I wonder where he got this point of view.", or a "hmmm... now I have to really think!" :) ****Colin Davies wrote: A child can not survive without older supervision from 4 years down, does that make infanticide acceptable. Or babies born with conditions requiring constant medication ? No of course infanticide is not acceptable, but now I've got to think of how to refute that. It seems that there's a clear difference between a living breathing human child in society, which is a functioning sentient being, and a pre-certain point fetus. The fact that it cannot survive on its own is different from the fact that it cannot function on its own, I guess, I don't know if I can really support that line of reasoning well though... Requiring constant medication is simply like requiring food: both need parents to administer it on a regular basis. Actually, that could bridge over into the infanticide argument. A parent is needed to supply a child with food, a place to live, education, etc., and perhaps constant medication. But there's a difference between being dependent upon a parent to continue living healthily, and dependent upon the environment of the womb to live period. Children are dependents, but fetuses are so much more so to the extent that they are parasites, and before this certain point, parasites with no legal rights.
-Domenic Denicola- [CPUA 0x1337] MadHamster Creations "I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it's something we have the power to change..."
Domenic [CPUA 0x1337] wrote: Now what could that mean. Is that a "hmmm... hmmmm is an indication of engine grinding noise, or having to think. The only point of trying to make in my post Domenic is there is no way to draw the line as to when life begins and ends. And sometimes even if life exists. A lot of both pro and anti abortion literature refers to nonsensical misinterpreted scientific information as well. Here in NZ our neonatal units regulary manage to save babies at 21 weeks age. Apparently in the USA babies can be aborted by error at the same age. The word fetus is used to give non emotional attachment, whilst baby for emotional attachment. Your usage of the word parasite is derogatory to humanity. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
