Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Topic Author
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:58 am

Since I keep hijacking the other topic into an abortion debate against that OP's will, I decided just to start a new thread. I do ask a few things:

Please keep political parties out of it. The GOP (and the other party for that matter) are about as consistent as Swiss cheese, I'm trying to argue about ABORTION not why the GOP is for less government and against abortion or why they are pro-death penalty and against abortion.

And please, no generalizations. I pretty much just generalized without trying to--when I said GOP ^^ I was talking about the party's ideals, not everyone that considers themselves a Republican. People that are against abortion come in all shapes and sizes--some are religious nutjobs, some are smart people, some are pro-death penalty, some are not.

That being said, simply, I am not anti-woman's rights and I don't like government intrusion for the most part. But I believe the government has the right to ban the death penalty. 99.9% of people think the government should ban people murdering each other. Technically, not being allowed to murder is a government intrusion, but one that is needed. I see this same line of reasoning extending to abortion. Whether you call it a baby or fetus or whatever, that life form is living (I don't think anyone denies that) but what I see as making it deserve rights (as opposed to an unfertilized egg or some sperm) is that it is its own--it has its own DNA, and is neither the mother or father, just as every poster is not their mother or father.

I hope my perspective makes sense. I thought it out, and I believe it is sound reasoning (even if you disagree.) I respect others' opinions even if they contradict mine. I hope we can have a civil debate, and am interested in what others have to say (and if I'm the only pro-life person on A.net, I sure seem to be   )

PS: this time I posted it in non-av not the civil aviation forum lol
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:26 am

I am a person, who supports women's right to choose. There are health issues, mistakes, crimes, many considerations. A personal choice, not a governemtn function to take that away from a woman, or a man and woman.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Topic Author
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:34 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 1):
There are health issues, mistakes, crimes, many considerations.

And while unfortunate, you would not be free to kill the kid after it has been born, and I do not think it should be allowed to be killed before being born (but of course, if one doesn't consider it a kid yet it kinda changes the debate.) There is always adoption... still the woman would have to endure 9 months of pregnancy (haven't been pregnant, but doesn't sound fun) but I think that pales in comparison to the life of the kid.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 1):
not a governemtn function to take that away from a woman, or a man and woman.

But in my opinion, the man or woman takes the life away from the baby. I weigh the baby's life over the convenience of the parents.


To put a spin on things (and make myself further into the minority) some are against abortion except in the case of incest or rape. While traumatizing to the woman, I still think the baby's life is more valuable. I guess it's all in what you see as more important or what you consider a "baby"
 
Newark727
Posts: 2970
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:34 am

As I see it, abortion is a deeply personal matter and a deeply personal decision, that, within reason, should be the woman's choice to make. I don't think it's the first choice that it's sometimes made out to be- given the level of discourse on the matter, and the special nature of the fetus that is alluded to in the opening remark, I can only imagine that most women undergo the procedure as a last resort. I understand that one can hold the start of personhood to an early or late stage. As such, if it's your conviction that persons as you see them should be protected in the womb at an early stage, than I do not contest being pro-life. What I do contest is trying to sway an emotionally weighted and critical choice on the part of the woman with agitation and propaganda. That only magnifies the sadness of a sad decision.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10225
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:36 am

It doesn't matter how much I hate abortions I have serious concerns when politicians spend too much time in a woman's uterus. In talking to some pretty conservative women over the years there has been significant anger when politicians (especially male politicians) stick their nose when privacy dictates it doesn't belong.

Someone once said that if men had babies abortion would be a Constitutional Right. That comment was a bit sobering for me.

The difficulty I have with abortions is that it has been too often used in the past simply as birth control method. Maybe lack of solid birth control education and product distribution.

In terms of abnormal pregnancies I believe the law needs to stand back and let this be only between the doctor and the pregnant woman - and the husband.

In terms of rape and incest the law should keep their nose out.

And in terms of various medical conditions the doctor - patient relationship should be protected. A good example would be a woman who is diagnosed with cancer and needs immediate chemo. Chemo that will kill the baby if given and the mother is not given. That is such a horrid decision for a woman to have to make and she will not need so do good holy roller sticking their nose in.

Maybe the USSC was wiser than we now believe when they upheld the right to privacy for women.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Topic Author
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:44 am

I'm see everyone talks about it as a women's rights issue, which I have no problem with women's rights. But no one is talking about the effect on the baby--death!  Wow! Again, it doesn't really matter if you don't consider it a baby......
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:49 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
but of course, if one doesn't consider it a kid yet it kinda changes the debate.

Well, it's not a kid. There is no way that a fertilized embryo is analogous to a child. Everything that makes a person a person is missing from the embryo - the ability to perceive their surroundings, a personality, etc. None of it is there, and the fact that it will eventually be there doesn't change that.

I have zero problem with abortions performed early enough that the embryo/fetus is not developed to the point where it is aware of what's going on. Once it does develop that ability, then it becomes more complicated, and I'd tend to say that abortion is only acceptable when there's a health risk to the mother.

-Mir
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:55 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
if one doesn't consider it a kid yet it kinda changes the debate

That is the most important point. A women is raped, she should be allowed to abort right away. A test reveals a serious birth defect, unfair to the child, and the parents. Abort right away. On my wifes side, terrible incidences of birth defects in her cousins's children., It is pathetic to see what it does to the family and the child. No one should live like that, in my opinion. I do not believe in late term abortion, unless? My views are forged by watching what unfolded in my wife's family. The doctor's assured them, it could never happen, but it did, more than once, more than twice.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Topic Author
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:55 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
I have zero problem with abortions performed early enough that the embryo/fetus is not developed to the point where it is aware of what's going on. Once it does develop that ability, then it becomes more complicated, and I'd tend to say that abortion is only acceptable when there's a health risk to the mother.

Although I somewhat disagree, I would be a lot happier if people thought this way. Like I said (well, maybe in the other thread,) I cannot see how anyone could be ok with aborting a fetus just before it is born. "Human" or not, it can still feel pain and such. I listen to their arguments, but it just baffles me
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:20 am

The US really is a different world.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Topic Author
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:35 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 9):
The US really is a different world.

Care to elaborate? We may disagree but at least I thought it out independently of political talking points
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:46 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 9):
The US really is a different world.

A blessing, and a curse at times, but I love it.  
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6318
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 am

What bothers me most is that people who are against abortions are quite often also against day nurseries, day-care centers and all-day schools, things that help mothers care for their children.

Sure, they're allowed to be conservatives, but at least they could try to be coherent.  
 
rabenschlag
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 10:28 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:15 am

This is your core argument:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter):
Whether you call it a baby or fetus or whatever, that life form is living (I don't think anyone denies that) but what I see as making it deserve rights (as opposed to an unfertilized egg or some sperm) is that it is its own--it has its own DNA, and is neither the mother or father, just as every poster is not their mother or father.

And then you say:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter):
I hope my perspective makes sense. I thought it out, and I believe it is sound reasoning (even if you disagree.) I respect others' opinions even if they contradict mine.

Now, I take your opinion very seriously, and your perspective makes sense. And given that you say that you thought it out, I am sure that you provided us with all the information to understand what your opinion is. And on that premise, I am really astonished. Specifically, if your main argument against killing fetuses is that they are their own and have their own DNA. If I take this argument seriously and respect your reasoning, then I must infer that you are also against killing animals and plants too. Just as a fetus, they have their own DNA, they are their own. Is that correct?
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15998
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:30 am

When it comes to abortion, I'm a hypocrite of sorts - and proud of it.

Raised Catholic, I firmly believe that abortion is wrong.

Having said that, I also firmly believe that as long as it's the law of the land, I have absolutely no right to preclude others from exercising their right to choose.

Being a conservative in most respects, I firmly believe that abortion should never, ever be used as a form of birth control.

Having said that, if my wife were ever raped and became pregnant as a product of that rape, I'd be the first one to suggest a trip to the clinic to have the pregnancy terminated.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 4395
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:39 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter):
That being said, simply, I am not anti-woman's rights and I don't like government intrusion for the most part. But I believe the government has the right to ban the death penalty. 99.9% of people think the government should ban people murdering each other. Technically, not being allowed to murder is a government intrusion, but one that is needed

It's called law and order, simple as that. Who decides those laws differs by countries.

I do think a lot of the libertarians in the US have gotten so extreme that a lot of them are basically anarchists.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter):
I see this same line of reasoning extending to abortion. Whether you call it a baby or fetus or whatever, that life form is living (I don't think anyone denies that) but what I see as making it deserve rights (as opposed to an unfertilized egg or some sperm) is that it is its own--it has its own DNA, and is neither the mother or father, just as every poster is not their mother or father.

It's living but so is a parasite whom feeds off a human to survive (the same as a fetus until birth) and if you have a parasite you will get rid of that.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
But in my opinion, the man or woman takes the life away from the baby. I weigh the baby's life over the convenience of the parents.

But if a mother's life is in danger would you rather end one life or two??

Also I don't think that the abortion area is taken easy by parents, its a tough decision in which to make. Also even if it known that you are the father of a baby that you want you don't have to carry it therefore it isn't your right. It is that of the mother, which is why this should be a debate decided by women.

Why aren't women more involved in this debate?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4):
Someone once said that if men had babies abortion would be a Constitutional Right. That comment was a bit sobering for me.

You are probably right about that which is why the more sensitive gender usually bares the children, at least with mammals. Which is why we should keep this decision out of the hands of the men.
We associate females with reproduction in all species we study because that is how we do it. Often in others the female is the dominant and more aggressive gender in other animal groups.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4):
The difficulty I have with abortions is that it has been too often used in the past simply as birth control method. Maybe lack of solid birth control education and product distribution.

Is that really true and that there is a significant number of women that get abortions because it is convenient?

Also I do find it ironic that the ones that don't want abortion are the ones that least want sex education and contraception.

Why do you think it is the most religious states that have the highest rate of teen pregnancy.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5):

I'm see everyone talks about it as a women's rights issue, which I have no problem with women's rights. But no one is talking about the effect on the baby--death!   Again, it doesn't really matter if you don't consider it a baby.....

Scientifically speaking its not a baby until well into the 3rd trimester it's a parasite that feeds off the mother until it it is viable outside the womb.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 9):
The US really is a different world.

Care to elaborate? We may disagree but at least I thought it out independently of political talking points

It's a women's choice in other developed countries (as it is presently in the US) and accepted as that. The debate is over on this and no political party is going to the challenge it because it will political suicide to do so.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Topic Author
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:51 am

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 13):
If I take this argument seriously and respect your reasoning, then I must infer that you are also against killing animals and plants too. Just as a fetus, they have their own DNA, they are their own. Is that correct?

No, I meant human. Even the embryo just after conception will have the same DNA as the full blown adult. I place humans on a different level than animals/plants (I guess that may be hypocritical to a small extent but that's just life sometimes...) On the flip side, I never kill a bug unless I have to, I even walk around outside mindful of ants I could be stepping on. Yesterday, I captured a wasp inside my house and set it free outside instead of smashing it. I only support animal killing if they are a danger or for food (humanely.) I know it's inconvenient, and the prospect of limiting my sex life to completely avoid pregnancy (because I wouldn't abort) is very inconvenient and less fun to an extent, but at least I pick a position and stick with it, I am trying very hard in life to reduce my hypocracy to 0. And to everyone that disagrees with me (apparently the whole entire site lol) don't worry--I am only one vote, and I don't plan on being world dictator soon, so my "crazy beliefs" won't affect any of yall  

I guess it also affects me to have a friend that uses abortion as birth control. He's 22 and already has had his gfs have 3 abortions, luckily way early so at least the fetus didn't develop the sense of pain
 
rabenschlag
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 10:28 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:50 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
I am trying very hard in life to reduce my hypocracy to 0. And to everyone that disagrees with me (apparently the whole entire site lol) don't worry--I am only one vote, and I don't plan on being world dictator soon, so my "crazy beliefs" won't affect any of yal

I have the greatest respect for your goal of acting in a way that is free of contradiction.

But then I really cannot understand how you can write these sentences:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
No, I meant human. Even the embryo just after conception will have the same DNA as the full blown adult. I place humans on a different level than animals/plants (I guess that may be hypocritical to a small extent but that's just life sometimes...)

Anyways - in my view, it is quite important to try to be clear about why we should treat human DNA different than other DNA. What is the ethical value that makes you to prefer human DNA so much over animal or plant DNA? This may sound like a very academic question, but I think it is vital for having a clear opinion on abortion.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:06 pm

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 11):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 9):
The US really is a different world.

A blessing, and a curse at times, but I love it.

True, but what I was referring to was that most of this barely shows as an issue (absent most but not all of the Catholic church and many of Islamic faith) in most other countries.

And then when Rabenschlag asks some of the fairly obvious questions, that would get discussion elsewhere there is a degree of shock and bewilderment.

Most countries worked out that abortion should not be an issue by about mid 1975, as did the US, only for the US to revive it. And curiously about the same with the death penalty. Alas Gary Gilmour (sp???). Here we had had enough of women dying after backyard abortions. And extremely brave and abused doctor propelled our changes. Now it is accepted that it is the woman's choice. End of story.

And the churches and others intent on imposing their own will can MLE (make love elsewhere).
 
StarAC17
Posts: 4395
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:06 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
No, I meant human. Even the embryo just after conception will have the same DNA as the full blown adult. I place humans on a different level than animals/plants

We need to stop doing that we are no more important than those plants and animals in fact if the die out then so do we, I do understand that we do have to eat some of them to survive but it can can be done in a sustainable manner.
We may be dominant but are not essental to (in fact we imede more often than not) life continuing on Earth.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
I know it's inconvenient, and the prospect of limiting my sex life to completely avoid pregnancy (because I wouldn't abort) is very inconvenient and less fun to an extent, but at least I pick a position and stick with it, I am trying very hard in life to reduce my hypocracy to 0. And to everyone that disagrees with me (apparently the whole entire site lol) don't worry--I am only one vote, and I don't plan on being world dictator soon, so my "crazy beliefs" won't affect any of yall  

Wear a rubber or only have sex girls on the pill (or do both) and then you have far less to worry about in terms of getting a girl. Sex is natural and feeling guilty about it doesn't get you anywhere.

I don't know if you are catholic but I wonder why they have such issues with contraception considering the age of the religion relative to modern (even primative) birth control.
 
ALTF4
Posts: 1256
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:01 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:48 pm

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 17):
Anyways - in my view, it is quite important to try to be clear about why we should treat human DNA different than other DNA.

Because you eat lettuce and lettuce does not eat you.

Let's stop beating around the bush and say humans are, by far, the most advanced species on the planet, and we are the obvious rulers over everything on the earth. You don't see elephants building the hoover dam now, do you? Of course not. Rabenschlag, the answer is obvious.


I agree with DeltaMD90 here. I am 'ok' with abortions when the mother's life is in question. I will even concede abortions for rape and siblings and immediate family conception. I feel that allowing abortions for rape will backfire in many ways, with a pregnant teen deciding her only option is to accuse her boyfriend of rape, unaware of the severe consequences he will face.

At any rate, many people are ok with early abortions but not with late-term abortions, yet cannot define when a human life is a human life. I believe it starts at conception; that is the only logical answer. That is when the most significant change from two separate entities merge into one. Most laws are pretty black and white; you were speeding or you were not speeding. You were over the limit for DUI or you were under the limit. You stole the money or you did not steal the money. Why can we not define an exact time when a human life is created? Well, probably because not every baby develops in the same way as other babies; some grow faster, some slower. You really are left with one option: the most significant change takes place at conception. Any other decision leaves you on a sliding scale of whether or not the baby is a baby. Sliding scales should be left to risk analysis in business and other applications, not human lives. You aren't mostly guilty of a crime - the jury finds you guilty or not guilty for the charges.

As for the argument that it is the woman's body: yes, her body is affected immensely by the pregnancy. She has an awesome, incredible responsibility, though, while she is pregnant. She is carrying a human life, nurturing it, caring for it, protecting it. While her body is affected physically, mentally, and emotionally, there is so much more at stake. So much more; to ignore everything in the equation is irresponsible.
 
ba6590
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 7:21 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:28 pm

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 20):
Most laws are pretty black and white; you were speeding or you were not speeding.

You could argue that they are only black and white because someone decided to make them so. "You were going too fast", " you had too much to drink" were too arbitrary so it was decided on fixed numbers to avoid any confusion. You have to remember that not all drivers are equally impaired at certain levels of intoxication.

But back to the topic at hand. There are many milestones during the development of a foetus/embryo. Its difficult to say what is a human and what isn't. Can you call a single cell (fertilized egg) a human?
I would say until the foetus is viable i.e able to survive on its own outside the womb then it should be the mothers decision on whether or not she wants to go ahead with the pregnancy. That does however raise the debate on when the foetus becomes viable.

I guess there is no easy answer, and that's why abortion has caused so much debate. Different people will see it differently.
 
Rara
Posts: 2310
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:31 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 9):
The US really is a different world.

My thoughts exactly.   As entertaining and interesting as it is to see these issues discussed here, I for one am glad I can just switch off my computer whenever I want and don't have to deal with it "in the real world".  
 
ALTF4
Posts: 1256
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:01 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:30 pm

Quoting ba6590 (Reply 21):
You could argue that they are only black and white because someone decided to make them so. "You were going too fast", " you had too much to drink" were too arbitrary so it was decided on fixed numbers to avoid any confusion. You have to remember that not all drivers are equally impaired at certain levels of intoxication.

So its perfectly fine to have black and white laws for speeding, but it is ok to be arbitrary on a human life? Don't tell me it is not a human life at any time in the womb, unless you believe life starts the moment the baby crowns during birth. Assuming you believe the baby is human life in the womb seconds before birth, you MUST specify a single point, a white & black time, in which the baby changes from non-life to life - otherwise you are using a sliding scale, something that is too arbitrary for a speeding ticket - something that might cause too much confusion. I think it is unacceptable to use something not 'good enough' for a speeding ticket on a matter of life or death. Wouldn't you agree?

Quoting ba6590 (Reply 21):
I would say until the foetus is viable i.e able to survive on its own outside the womb then it should be the mothers decision on whether or not she wants to go ahead with the pregnancy. That does however raise the debate on when the foetus becomes viable.

Thanks for proving my point on black & white. The only way to tell if the fetus can survive on its own is to extract it and see if it does. Ironically, you couldn't kill it then, because it would be a child because it is outside of the womb.

Again, the biggest single change or deciding point is when the sperm and the egg join. The next biggest part is when the child is born - but late term abortion is regarded as wrong to most people, so there is obviously something morally offensive in most people's mind to killing the child seconds before it is born.

Am I not correct that the most important, defining moment for human life to start is when the sperm and the egg join? Yes or no. If you say no, state what the single biggest deciding factor is. What is the biggest change that takes place.

[Edited 2011-11-09 09:31:19]
 
rabenschlag
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 10:28 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:55 pm

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 20):
Let's stop beating around the bush and say humans are, by far, the most advanced species on the planet, and we are the obvious rulers over everything on the earth. You don't see elephants building the hoover dam now, do you? Of course not. Rabenschlag, the answer is obvious.

I am sorry, but the answer is far from being obvious. I asked why to favor human DNA over animal DNA. And your answer is that humans are the most advanced species on the planet. Honestly (and please believe me, this is not a rhetoric game), I do not see what one has to do with the other. Please be more explicit in your argumentation.

Let me add that, besides not seeing elephants building the hoover dam, I never saw fetuses building the hover dam either. And fetuses are not the rulers over everything on earth, they cannot even survive on their own. So, doesn't suggest your reasoning that fetuses should not have the same rights as adult humans? I am not being cynical here. To the contrary, I am taking your argument very serious.
 
ALTF4
Posts: 1256
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:01 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:11 pm

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 24):
To the contrary, I am taking your argument very serious.

Don't worry, no need to defend yourself on that.


Sure, fetuses never built the hoover dam, but they are the start of human life; humans built the hoover dam; humans built the machines that helped build the hoover dam. Again, elephants never did anything like that, whether it be a full-size elephant or a baby elephant or a elephant fetus. Neither did your average head of lettuce in the supermarket.

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 24):
I asked why to favor human DNA over animal DNA.

Alright. I understood the question as 'why are humans better than plants and other animals', which is, I think, what DeltaMD90 first was talking about before you quoted him and brought up valuing DNA --- I answered in regards to why humans are better than plants and other animals, or why we are "allowed" to kill other animals and eat them and not have remorse.

As for your question about DNA specifically, no comment.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10225
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:15 pm

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 15):
Is that really true and that there is a significant number of women that get abortions because it is convenient?

Yes. I believe that most of them were unexpected pregnancies. Maybe a failure of birth control - I understand that some excellent options are 99.9% effective. That would leave the US with thousands at risk every day because they are in the 0.01%.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 15):
Also I do find it ironic that the ones that don't want abortion are the ones that least want sex education and contraception.

Bingo!

The US is a lot more prudish than many countries. I can remember multiple times in Australia when women were nursing their babies in public. The world didn't end. No one panicked. And the baby was probably well fed. Can you see that happening here?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 15):
It's a women's choice in other developed countries

We must have more holy rollers than other countries.  
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 19):
Wear a rubber or only have sex girls on the pill (or do both)

I can remember when I was a teenager (half a century ago) reading that condoms had a 15% failure rate. That scared the hell out of me and you better believe I never trusted one to prevent pregnancy. Since that was before the pill it also means that I was a good little boy.
 
rabenschlag
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 10:28 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:16 pm

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 25):
As for your question about DNA specifically, no comment.

But that is important! A fetus is not a fully developed human, and it does not have all these abilities that make humans so special. It may (most likely) develop these abilities, but at the time of potential abortion, it has not. It is less able than a cow or a chicken.

The question remains why should the fact that an organism has the potential to become something that has the potential to do something great constitute the right to live for this organism?

See, for me the most important moral end is to increase happiness and to decrease suffering. As long as we can make sure that abortion does serve these ends, it is ok for me. And that is why it is important to closely look at what an embryo or fetus can or cannot do or experience at the point in time, not in a potential future time.
 
ALTF4
Posts: 1256
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:01 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:38 pm

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 27):
The question remains why should the fact that an organism has the potential to become something that has the potential to do something great constitute the right to live for this organism?

Because you have to define at some point where it is life and where it is not life. I think the ONLY answer to that is conception - that is where the most significant change is. Otherwise is it 2 months, 11 days, 34 minutes, and 33 seconds? Or is it 4 months, 1 day, 2 hours, 9 minutes, and 56 seconds? What about a baby that develops more quickly? More slowly? How can you tell if it has reached that magical spot where it springs to life? No; the answer is the most significant change, the one that sets everything in motion, is at conception. Prevent conception.

Can you answer my multiple questions for a real definition of a static point in time where the baby is 'alive'? Sort of like when a kid turns 18, he can vote in the U.S., or when he turns 21, he can drink in the U.S.?

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 27):
most important moral end is to increase happiness and to decrease suffering.

For who? Killing babies produces a hell of a lot of suffering - far more, in my opinion, than the woman having the child and giving the kid up for abortion. Still not ideal, but damn it is harsh and cold to kill a baby because it is an inconvenience. I could go to jail for doing that to my dog.

Maybe it is the way I'm wired, or the way I was raised, but it is simply not an option to kill a baby. It does not compute. It doesn't work. It doesn't happen. I realize other people don't agree, but I just cannot, for the life of me, see how it is acceptable.

I'm not judging you for thinking otherwise, I'm not trying to be rude about it, nor am I wanting to dictate your sexual freedom; I'm just trying to keep us from killing babies.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 17):
Also I do find it ironic that the ones that don't want abortion are the ones that least want sex education and contraception.

Yep. The fact is, people are going to have sex outside of marriage, and if religious folks want to save babies, they should focus on preventing the pregnancy in the first place and preventing abortion - not just preventing abortion.
 
Rara
Posts: 2310
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:34 pm

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 28):

Can you answer my multiple questions for a real definition of a static point in time where the baby is 'alive'? Sort of like when a kid turns 18, he can vote in the U.S., or when he turns 21, he can drink in the U.S.?

Not speaking for Rabenschlag, but let me help you here.

You make the point that laws, just as norms, have to have a certain degree of arbitrariness. There is no good reason for an 18-year-old to vote while a 17.9-year old can't. There is no good reason for you to get a ticket for driving with 66 mph, while driving with 64 mph is allowed. There are many more such examples.

Now you state that while somewhat arbritrary, such "static points" have to be set in order for the law/norm to be functional.

In a second step, you state that in a similar fashion, we have to define a point where human life becomes worthy of protection. You suggest the point of conception because "that is where the most significant change is".

That is problematic, because it's based on completely different criteria compared to the examples above. The 65 mph limit or the voting age of 18 are functional because they're based on best possible estimates. They might not hit the spot completely, but (by common consensus) they're not far off. Your point regarding conception, however, is quite the opposite. It's not based on any functional outcome (e.g. conscience, pain, complexity etc.), but on dogmatism. It's the single biggest event, sure, but it has next to no meaning for any functional consequence we may describe as desirable (e.g. prevent suffering, respect the right for self-determination etc.). You use it to avoid randomness, but the effect is quite the opposite. From a functionalist viewpoint, it's about the most random way imaginable.

Perhaps that helps to clear up where the differences lie.
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:35 pm

I hate to be old fashioned but a life is a life.

It doesn't matter if it is me, my family, all the people I know, my pets, you, your family, all the people you know, your pets, all the wild animals out there etc. A life is a life and it needs respect as a valid life.

An embryo is a life. Abortion is murder. Full stop.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14069
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:57 pm

Pro abortion and the woman's right to chose, why bring a child into the world which isn't wanted, there are enough of them now without adding more to the mix.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 15468
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:00 pm

It always amazes me how this is still an important political matter in the US. I feel it's because unlike in other similar countries, there wasn't an actual (federal) law voted about it in the 70's. Instead, all is hanging on a court decision.

Here and in other countries, a law was written, with things like when an abortion is possible and when it isn't clearly defined and justified, and things are quite clear. There have been changes, for example in France the initial pregnancy time limit for an abortion without medical reason was 10 weeks, now it's 12. I feel it's adequate, if you can't make up your mind in three months, then it's very probable aborting after that would have psychological consequences.

In the US, there is no federal law (or wasn't until recently, as it's complicated to follow), and in some states it's possible to abort in the third trimester without medical reason, that's just crazy, and IMHO is at the heart of the problem, with pro-life activists always showing dismembered babies in their propaganda, distorting what abortion is in the vast majority of the cases.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4521
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:04 pm

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23):

So its perfectly fine to have black and white laws for speeding

The speeds are arbitrary points based on generally accepted standards

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 28):
Because you have to define at some point where it is life and where it is not life. I think the ONLY answer to that is conception

Yes, you do, but you dont have to put it at a point because there is a clear event at that point, they should make the road speed limits mach 1 as thats where a major event happens.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 28):
Can you answer my multiple questions for a real definition of a static point in time where the baby is 'alive'? Sort of like when a kid turns 18, he can vote in the U.S., or when he turns 21, he can drink in the U.S.?

You tell us why the specific point of 21 for drinking is? in the UK it's 18 (in public anywho) so there is already a difference there.

Fred
 
ba6590
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 7:21 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:14 pm

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23):

So its perfectly fine to have black and white laws for speeding, but it is ok to be arbitrary on a human life? Don't tell me it is not a human life at any time in the womb, unless you believe life starts the moment the baby crowns during birth.

I never said it is ok to be arbitrary on human life. The point I was trying to make is that it is more complicated than coming up with a speed limit.
I believe that some cases of abortions are justified. Just my personal view.
 
Starbuk7
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:09 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:15 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 31):
Pro abortion and the woman's right to chose, why bring a child into the world which isn't wanted


If said child is not wanted, they should have used birth control in the process to avoid the conception.

I have to agree with ALTF4 all the way on this one, once conceived (egg and sperm meet and create embryo) then it is now a human child and abortion is no longer an option.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Topic Author
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:26 pm

Well, there have been a lot of replies, sorry I can't address them all fully. To start off, it doesn't really matter to me that "the rest of the world has settled on the issue." What about the small percentage that initially fought to the end of slavery or other issues? I feel passionately about it so I am not gonna just roll with the majority. I will, however, keep it civil, respect others' opinions, and not do anything extreme like bomb abortion clinics. I am not one of those who is anti-sex education either.

Many of you have brought up counter arguments, and while I respect your opinions, you can see why I would disagree with you right off the bat. I believe that it is human life, so the issue of it being unwanted or causing pain emotional/financial pain to the mother is trumped by the fact that it is life in my opinion.

I did leave out abortions if the woman's life is in danger--I believe then it is the woman's choice, because a life will be lost no matter what, one must die, let the mother decide.

I didn't really get the whole fetuses not building Hoover Dam argument, maybe I have to re-read it, but a 1 year old baby can't build them either, heck, most people on this forum couldn't build the Hoover Dam lol.

I guess the whole issue in my argument is that I view a baby as negative 1 months old when it is a month away from birth, and negative 9 months during conception. I see banning the abortions of fetuses when they reach viability or the ability of feeling pain as somewhat reasonable (I still disagree to an extent but at least no pain is felt) but ALTF4 brings up a good point I forgot to mention--when does a fetus reach viability? Unless you set that limit on the low end, you will be aborting many viable fetuses.

Why do I value human life over animal life? I really can't answer that. Perhaps it's just evolution and my instinct to value my species over others. And for some reason, it is not a question that lingers inside me. Usually, when my beliefs are challenged I have a moral debate in my head. It just isn't happening, I don't know why. I just value the life of humans more. That being said, I remind you that I try my best not to kill. Ironically, after my last post last night I saw and killed a Brown Recluse Spider as I didn't want to take any chances (google Brown Recluse bite to see why I didn't.)

I'm glad we are having a civil abortion debate (I'm kinda surprised we achieved that!) Probably because I put in my original posts NOT to include political parties and generalizations, all the fun stuff  
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:33 pm

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 20):
At any rate, many people are ok with early abortions but not with late-term abortions, yet cannot define when a human life is a human life. I believe it starts at conception; that is the only logical answer.

It's not logical at all. An embryo, as I said before, is not a human. It possesses none of the things that make a person. Thus, while it is a life, it is not a human life.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 20):
Sliding scales should be left to risk analysis in business and other applications, not human lives. You aren't mostly guilty of a crime - the jury finds you guilty or not guilty for the charges.

Except that you don't have to be proven guilty to be ruled guilty by a jury - you just have to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So there's a sliding scale for that, too.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 28):
Still not ideal, but damn it is harsh and cold to kill a baby because it is an inconvenience. I could go to jail for doing that to my dog.

Because your dog has FAR more ability to figure out what's going on than a recently conceived embryo. It also knows what fear and pain are, while the embryo does not.

-Mir
 
rabenschlag
Posts: 1030
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 10:28 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:14 pm

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 28):
Because you have to define at some point where it is life and where it is not life. I think the ONLY answer to that is conception - that is where the most significant change is. Otherwise is it 2 months, 11 days, 34 minutes, and 33 seconds? Or is it 4 months, 1 day, 2 hours, 9 minutes, and 56 seconds? What about a baby that develops more quickly? More slowly? How can you tell if it has reached that magical spot where it springs to life? No; the answer is the most significant change, the one that sets everything in motion, is at conception. Prevent conception.

I do not understand why life per se should be a single criterion. It does not seem to be life alone that drives decisions, otherwise nobody would kill animals or plants. It must be specific features of life that are valuable and worth to protect.

What features are they? And at what point in time can we attribute these features to unborn children?

Some in this thread argued that human life is untouchable because humans have the potential to do great things, whereas animals and plants have such potential to a way lesser degree. My issue with this argument is that one could also argue that a sperm or an egg has the potential to become a human. So, if your moral imperative is not to waste the potential of human greatness, you must infer that there is a moral obligation to have as many babies as possible. If you decide pro contraception, you decide against life and against the potential of human greatness. Even more so, if you decide against having sex at all, you waste your potential to create human greatness. So, from this point of view, being abstinent would be evil. Would you agree? If not, why not?

I argue to make suffering/happiness balance the criterion of choice. But then you ask:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 28):
For who? Killing babies produces a hell of a lot of suffering - far more, in my opinion, than the woman having the child and giving the kid up for abortion. Still not ideal, but damn it is harsh and cold to kill a baby because it is an inconvenience. I could go to jail for doing that to my dog.

Suffering for everyone involved. We thus need to determine how much an unborn child suffers when it is suddenly killed. This is a scientific task. What makes you so convinced that a two month old embryo suffers a lot when it is killed?

edited for typo

[Edited 2011-11-09 15:40:01]
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5563
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:32 am

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23):
Again, the biggest single change or deciding point is when the sperm and the egg join.

Not really true. There are other benchmarks along the way, most notably when the heart starts to beat. Until about six weeks into the pregnancy, the embryo has no heartbeat. How is something with no heartbeat (and no brain activity) considered living?

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 28):
Still not ideal, but damn it is harsh and cold to kill a baby because it is an inconvenience.

It's even more harsh to bring a child into the world unwanted and abuse them and treat them like garbage.

And if life begins at conception, does that mean any woman who has a miscarriage can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter?
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Topic Author
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:51 am

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 39):
Until about six weeks into the pregnancy, the embryo has no heartbeat. How is something with no heartbeat (and no brain activity) considered living?

Well it can have things happen to it to stop development (kill it.) Just as cells have no brain activity or beating heart but can still be killed. I see it as a lifeform--just hasn't developed its heart or brain yet.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 39):
It's even more harsh to bring a child into the world unwanted and abuse them and treat them like garbage.

Yes, but doesn't life trump even this? If a child's abuse is so bad, don't you think the child would commit suicide? But many (probably most but I don't have stats) abused children do not kill themselves--they choose life! Just as these children choose to keep living, the embryo as well would probably choose it if given a chance. It is all very hypothetical, and I still don't condone killing/aborting the baby/fetus because it may have a tough life.

Plus, isn't adoption always an option?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 39):
And if life begins at conception, does that mean any woman who has a miscarriage can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter?

I hope common sense would prevail and people would realize that miscarriages are very common. I'm one of seven of my mom's pregnancies, only three made it to birth. She wasn't doing anything irresponsible. I know "some" people out think it should be manslaughter, but they are the minority of the minority. An interesting debate would be if it would be manslaughter if the mother intentionally miscarried the baby if abortion was outlawed. But the potential that this hypothetical may happen in the future doesn't deter me from being against abortion and fixing the legal problems of intentional miscarriages later.


I didn't go into this thread with the expectation of changing anyone's belief, many just to put forth my reasoning and show that there can be logic on this side of the debate, even if you don't agree with me. Too often people dub pro-life people as religious nutjobs, and I can assure you, I am not one of those. Good debate though nonetheless
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:34 am

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 38):
It must be specific features of life that are valuable and worth to protect.

Correct. Apparently people say 'being human', being part of mankind, is the specific 'feature'. This, however, does not answer the question when human life can be recognized as such or why human DNA should be of higher value than that of an animal.
And this response ...

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 20):
You don't see elephants building the hoover dam now, do you? Of course not.

... would lead to the unaswered question if the DNA of a mentally impaired human was less 'worthy'. If we start valueing humans according to their abilities, we start going down a slippery slope; eventually people will claim that abortions would only then be justified if the newborn is going to be severly impaired - or somewhat impaired or a little impaired, depending on how people define 'impairment'. Actually, this discussion is already taking place.

I understand that the poster did not want to say that people suffering(?) from say: Trisomie 21 (Down Syndrome) were 'less worthy' humans, but it would be much more appropriate, if not ethical to leave abilities out of the equation.
But if we leave abilities out, then why is human DNA more worth than that of an animal? Besides, animals don't need Hoover Dams, aeroplanes, goggles or nuclear bombs, nor do they trick themselves into thinking they would need a car or an iPhone.
 
Kent350787
Posts: 2428
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:53 am

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 35):
If said child is not wanted, they should have used birth control in the process to avoid the conception.

Abstinence is the only wholly effective method of contraception.

I am firmly in the pro-choice camp and have been for many years and it's a pity the Missisippi vote failed, as I tend to agree that it may have eventually put the option on a firmer footing for women in the US.

I watched a British doco a few weeks ago on the issue of premature births at 24 weeks, and whether the medical, finaincial and emotional resources to support these infants when the overwhelming majority did not live past 6 weeks of age, and the overwhelming majority of those that did required ongoing lifetime medical support did nothing to make me question my stance, more reinforced my view that a human, barring illness or disability, is one that can survive unsupported outside the mother's womb.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5849
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:30 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 26):
The US is a lot more prudish than many countries. I can remember multiple times in Australia when women were nursing their babies in public. The world didn't end. No one panicked. And the baby was probably well fed. Can you see that happening here?

Yes, and often have. I would acknowledge that it is a lot more prevalent, well-accepted, now than it was (for instance) thirty years ago - I'd also imagine it is more likely to be accepted in (let us say) Dallas, than in Stockton. But stereotypes don't much carry, do they?

Quoting Aesma (Reply 32):
It always amazes me how this is still an important political matter in the US. I feel it's because unlike in other similar countries, there wasn't an actual (federal) law voted about it in the 70's. Instead, all is hanging on a court decision.

The whole problem is the fundamental difference between the essential structure of the USA and that of other countries - there are no "similar" countries. The states are the dominant legal entity (or, constitutionally, they are intended to be). The myth (oft-repeated) is that the Roe v Wade "legalized" abortion - which, of course, is utter buncombe. What Roe v Wade did do was to conjure a judicially-fabricated constitutional right to abortion on a foundation of an illusory right to privacy.

Roe v Wade is bad law, but not because abortion is bad (I find the very notion of routine elective abortion to be repugnant, but then again, I don't know of anyone, no matter their position on this issue, who thinks abortions are somehow good either), but rather, because the issue is one for determination by the citizens of the various states, whose elected legislators are sworn to represent their interests faithfully.

The whole notion of simply selecting a size of a fetus, or the fetus' status of being a "parasite" is a slippery-slope too - when my son was in hospital after he was born (in the NICU), I saw preemies the size of small hamsters in incubators - and they made it; should they have just been flushed? Or how about this one: a child who is born, or who becomes, profoundly retarded and unable to tend to basic life needs is certainly a "parasite" - shall we implement a policy of enforced euthanasia? Permissive euthanasia?

Me, I can't say - I can't play God. I cannot presume to speak for those who feel the desperate need to terminate pregnancies, either.

None of the pat-answers work here; no matter what conclusion you draw, there can and will be sincere, well-grounded arguments in opposition. And, you may well find that some life-experience over time will mellow - or temper - your views. It helps, of course, to keep your eyes open to the the experiences of others, your mind open to their views.

Nothing easy here, nothing at all.

----

Anyone want to discuss Dr. Kervorkian? I used to think he was an animal. Now, i am not so sure.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:38 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
Most countries worked out that abortion should not be an issue by about mid 1975, as did the US, only for the US to revive it. And

I am amazed myself, how we got back to this point. I never agreed with my church about birth control, from a young age. I certainly do not agree on banning abortions. The government is reviled by the same people who want government to ban abortions. Only in America.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5849
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:22 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 44):
The government is reviled by the same people who want government to ban abortions.

You do yourself a disservice with statements such as this.

The government is reviled by people who revile the government.

Some of these same people may wish to ban abortions, but certainly many will not.

These are independent issues.

If you can manage to separate the sticks from the bundles, so to speak, you may find there are a lot of ways in which you can agree with someone on some things, while disagreeing on others - and in the process, your credibility will be enhanced.

In this present context, one might do well to draw a significant distinction between those who would seek to have federal law which serves to ban abortions (a "right to life" amendment to the Constitution, for example), and those who recognize that such laws are the proper subject of state action and not federal action.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:35 am

Quoting sccutler (Reply 45):
You do yourself a disservice with statements such as this

Doesen't it seem that when someone wants less government action in their lives, and then advocates more government intrusion to further a personal belief, such as banning abortion, it comes across as a little hypocritical?

Quoting sccutler (Reply 45):
The government is reviled by people who revile the government

If you revile government, do you only revile that part of government that does not adhere to your beliefs, but likes that part that does, such as an anti-abortion law? One or the other, or it is somewhat hypocritical. We know the right to lIfe people tend to be, somewhat conservative, somewhat religious, and somewhat anti big government. Is this not true?
 
sccutler
Posts: 5849
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:51 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 46):
Doesen't it seem that when someone wants less government action in their lives, and then advocates more government intrusion to further a personal belief, such as banning abortion, it comes across as a little hypocritical?

Yes.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 46):
We know the right to lIfe people tend to be, somewhat conservative, somewhat religious, and somewhat anti big government. Is this not true?

No, it is not true, unless you adhere to a stereotype of what "conservative" means, largely as defined by mainstream press and political grandstanding.

True conservatism advocates limited government, and for that government which exists, government which is responsive to the desires of the electorate.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:13 am

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 39):
It's even more harsh to bring a child into the world unwanted and abuse them and treat them like garbage.

You would think that this consideration might receive more attention than seems to be the case.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 39):
And if life begins at conception, does that mean any woman who has a miscarriage can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter?

Anyone not see such proposals as the next move on the menu? It is what I thought of as soon as I heard about the crazy proposal being discussed here.

What is interesting is that there has not been much reference to actual cases. Probably much too personal.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14069
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: The Dreaded Abortion Debate

Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:21 am

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 35):

If said child is not wanted, they should have used birth control in the process to avoid the conception.

Sometimes contraception fails, why punish people for it?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MohawkWeekend, N14AZ, Toenga, william and 31 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos