|
Premature babies have greater and greater survivability as neo-natal medicine progresses. In my opinion, this is pretty important for the abortion debate since one of the arguments for abortion is that the fetus is a helpless leech, dependent on the mother completely, and abortion is no different than shutting off life support essentially.
I borrowed this chart, credited to march of dimes, from an about.com writeup here : http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/a/prematurebirth.htm
Length of Pregnancy Likelihood of Survival
23 weeks................. 17%
24 weeks................. 39%
25 weeks................. 50%
26 weeks................. 80%
27 weeks..................90%
28-31 weeks.............90-95%
32-33 weeks.............95%
34+ weeks ...............Almost as likely as a full-term baby
Sources: March of Dimes, Quint Boenker Preemie Survival Foundation
There are two recorded cases of babies surviving after being born at only 21 weeks and 5 days gestation (most recent case documented here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.html?ITO=1490)
As neo-natal medicine continues to improve survivability of these babies, it will become harder and harder to argue that late second and third trimester abortions are not in fact ending a viable human life.
|
On April 29 2011 04:50 mister.bubbles wrote:Show nested quote +Babies born on rainy days are 10% more likely to be depressed in their lives, I say it's okay to kill it if it's raining out on the day of expected delivery.
also, unrelated, 54.5% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Oh man, for a second I was like "54.4% huh, that's really interesting." Then I laughed at myself for my hubris. On a more related note; I am against any ban of abortion under any condition because I can't think of anything more cruel to a child then bringing it into the world when no one wants it to exist or the parents don't feel they are in a situation to raise it right. On the other side I think it is even too cruel to the parent to bring them into that situation. I always feel that people are too prone to drawing black and white situations out of life and death. There are very many situations where death is preferable to life and I think there are even more times when it would be preferable to have never been born. Dying is a natural and beautiful thing that everyone does, we shouldn't look at it as some unspeakable evil.
The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to.
|
On April 29 2011 04:46 ShovZ wrote:
Yes, these are very emotive images...but one must also remember that at 20 weeks, the fetus is only around 15cm long...
Also, is it not up to human beings, to use their rationality and question our own moral intuition? To reject a theory/action on the basis of a reaction to it is not a good way of going about things, then we wouldn't really progress much as a race...things like vaccinations, blood transfusion etc would all have stopped in their tracks because of an initial 'YUK' factor.
Here's the problem, if you and I put our heads together, given enough time, we would come up with some very convincing reasons to kill eachother. Everything can be rationalized with our limited minds. When someone comes up to us and tells us not to kill eachother because life has value, we might very well agree that he is a backward thinking traditionalist and disregard him.
We have value, don't kill eachother, don't kill these children either.
|
Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 04:11 TanGeng wrote:
There are natural miscarriages and spontaneous early term abortions. The mother's body can react to physical trauma or hormones and dislodge a fetus and out it goes. That happens quite often, sometimes to the great sadness of the expecting mother.
I don't have any moral qualms about that natural phenomenon and there is no moral imperative to replant the fetus into the uterus. If doctors and the mother wants to simulate that, it's a technicality and should not be illegal. They will have to live with the morality of their own decision and the consequences of their actions.
Taking a knife to fetal tissue or any type of invasive action against fetus is extremely reprehensible. I wouldn't want any part of that and probably won't want to have anything to do with anyone that was part of it.
The only weapon and threat the man rightly has against a woman aborting his baby over his objections is kicking the girl out of his life and never having anything to do with her again. If there is no civil way to reach an agreement, it probably wasn't going to be a good match. On the other hand, when the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, the man is forced to pay child support and go along with the decision.
For equality, treatment of the situation should be a bit more symmetrical.
Oops, sorry to double post but I just noticed this post. I like TanGent's style and feel that the point he brings up is a lot more debatable then the abortion/no abortion debate.
|
The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to.
I love this point because it is very true and relevant to the human condition. Allow me to explain myself further. I don't address the situation flippantly, moreover I also believe in ering on the side of caution. I personally would prefer to die unborn before I was even aware of myself over a life of misery. You could take that as proof that other people might feel the same and say "we need to abort all babies to save the ones that will have horrible lives." That would be just like the banning all abortion. My point is that in such a sensitive issue it is totally irresponsible to ignore such a giant factor as the wishes of the mother over those of lawmakers. We can't afford to make this into a black and white issue because it is unfare to both parent and child. Someone has to decide even if it is difficult and ruling out the mother under any circumstances is cruel and stupid.
|
On April 28 2011 21:09 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +A lot of people who are against abortions are not necessarily religious, just as there are many Catholics who disagree with the churches views on abortion and contraception.
Stop trying to demonize religion as the root cause of peoples views that you don't agree with. The vast majority of them is. All those piles and piles of money that go into pro-life groups is all drenched in holy water. Not all anti-abortion people are religious but the vast majority of them is and the entire driving force behind the movement would fall away if religion stopped backing it with the green. Nobody has said that all anti-abortion people are religious but to pretend like it's 50/50 or that religion has a neglible influence on the movement is just outright deceitfull. The anti-abortion movement exists by the grace of organized religion, wether you like that or not. But wether your ideas come from a boring fantasy/rape novel or from your own mind it doesn't change much. Demanding other people live by your moral standards isn't a noble thing to do. This subject is controversial enough to have two split sides so to each his own. You can go through life never having an abortion or i suppose forcing your girlfriend/wife to have a child she doesn't want whilst the other half can still have the option. Too each his own. If you don't wanna hurt animals don't eat meat but don't go and make laws that other people shouldn't eat meat. Living by your own morals should be enough, you shouldn't seek validation by forcing others to live your view of what is right. That is what pro-choice is, everyone gets to live as they like. There is only one side that demands everyone adapt to their way and abolish the choice.
Dude.. nobody is tripping out because of abortion. If you don't see something wrong with killing a fucking fetus then I hope you find a good Physiatrist.
|
On April 28 2011 17:27 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote:There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false. There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy. This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below. + Show Spoiler +On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill. It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned. In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade. This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition. As a Hoosier, I'm concerned. As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus. This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew. What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness?
You can never be past "initial moral arguments." The heart, not the feet, or hands, or face, of the matter, is a moral one.
Science cannot answer the question of what is right or wrong in this case. Science can only answer what happens in week 20, in week 19, week 10, week 1, day 1, conception, preconception.
Science can answer when the egg is fertilized, when the 'baby' starts to look like a baby, when the heart starts beating, when the brain starts functioning. It cannot answer at which point the baby is a baby, to be cared for, to be loved, or not a baby, to be discarded, like any other trash or inconvenience.
Science is neutral. On every issue. Science merely explains the physical; it can never explain the moral.
So, do not presuppose your opinion and try to get science to back it up. You are not standing on science, then, you are standing on your own wisdom, and claiming the former!
If we are all just an accidental chemical reaction, then none of this relativistic moral poop means anything, and abortion is not only not wrong, it's inconsequential; let these people do what they want to do, for there is no right or wrong.
If there is a truth, however, and we are searching for it, even on this forum, the truth must reside outside of us or else we create the truth ourselves and it is not truth, but perception.
And if there is a truth that is outside of us, a real truth, for what else can truth be, then it must come from something, and if truth comes from something, you must ask yourself what that something is because, as we see, it is not something produced within. The very fact that so many are arguing their side so zealously indicates this very thing. Otherwise, who would care?
Whether you believe in the Bible or not, this is what it says, and this is what I choose to believe, since I believe the source of morality, God, made Himself known this way.
Exodus 21:22-23 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life...
This verse says that if a woman's child is hurt while in the womb, even on accident, and there is 'no serious injury' to the child, then it's up to the woman's husband and the court to decide the fine. But, if the child is killed, the offender shall be as well, even if it is an accident. Clearly, a baby, even unborn, is of great value to God.
Jeremiah 1:5a "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."
This verse is not speaking directly to abortion, but it is clear that we were known of God before we were born.
So, what day, what hour, and what minute, are we finally a baby? A human worth saving? I'm not sure that is the point. But, there is strong evidence in the Bible for conception. And anyway, erasing someone else's life on earth is not a line I want to come close to.
|
On April 29 2011 05:13 mister.bubbles wrote:Show nested quote +The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to. I love this point because it is very true and relevant to the human condition. Allow me to explain myself further. I don't address the situation flippantly, moreover I also believe in ering on the side of caution. I personally would prefer to die unborn before I was even aware of myself over a life of misery. You could take that as proof that other people might feel the same and say "we need to abort all babies to save the ones that will have horrible lives." That would be just like the banning all abortion. My point is that in such a sensitive issue it is totally irresponsible to ignore such a giant factor as the wishes of the mother over those of lawmakers. We can't afford to make this into a black and white issue because it is unfare to both parent and child. Someone has to decide even if it is difficult and ruling out the mother under any circumstances is cruel and stupid.
what does the wishes of the mother have to do with it if it is a question of murder?
I'm confident you would not advocate the legality of killing children that have been born already, regardless of whether the mother wants the child or not.
So are you saying the unborn child is not a human life? that is the crux of the debate, not the mother's wishes or whether the child might or might not have a miserable life.
|
On April 29 2011 02:35 PolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:19 Patate wrote:On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill. Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes. Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing. Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child. The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.By the way, first post :D What the fuck? You've got to be kidding me. Or at least I hope I am misunderstanding that statement of yours.
I think he is serious. This is the kind of person that warrants what I always wanted, a psychological/intelligence test for all people before being allowed to vote no matter if they are 15 or 55. So only stable and smart people would be the ones deciding what happens to us all.
|
On April 29 2011 02:35 PolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:19 Patate wrote:On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill. Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes. Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing. Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child. The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.By the way, first post :D What the fuck? You've got to be kidding me. Or at least I hope I am misunderstanding that statement of yours.
Don't want to get into the debate of abortion, but I did want to say that the statement is true. Humans are thought to become self-aware around the age of 2.
Source
+ Show Spoiler + http://sharepoint.niles-hs.k12.il.us/north/renser/Lecture Notes/Module 4 Research Strategies/The Mirror Test Article.pdfSelf-Recognition in Humans In parallel with the comparative studies of nonhuman primates, developmental psychologists have tried to map the ontogeny of self-recognition in children, and elucidate the relationship between self-recognition and other aspects of the developing sense of self. The modern era of self-recognition studies on humans began when Amsterdam (1972) observed the reactions of young infants and toddlers to a mirror and devised a less rigorous version of the mark test that involved applying rouge to the child’s nose (see Gallup 1994 for a critique). Children toward the end of the first year of life show mostly social responses to their reflection (e.g., smiling, The Cognitive Animal -- Gallup, Anderson, and Shillito, page 9 vocalizing). These sometimes persist into the second year, when coy reactions and avoidance are also observed. Not until around 18 months do some infants use the reflection to investigate the mark on their nose, the majority doing so by two years of age. One study reported a positive relationship between performance on tasks related to self-recognition and tasks related to object permanence (Bertenthal and Fischer 1978), but age as a covariate can rarely be ruled out in such studies. In an attempt to establish more precise age-norms, subsequent research has used video techniques to demonstrate the importance of contingency cues in the infant’s developing understanding of its own image (Johnson 1982; for a review see Anderson 1984).
|
On April 29 2011 05:24 danl9rm wrote:
Whether you believe in the Bible or not, this is what it says, and this is what I choose to believe, since I believe the source of morality, God, made Himself known this way.
Exodus 21:22-23 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life...
This verse says that if a woman's child is hurt while in the womb, even on accident, and there is 'no serious injury' to the child, then it's up to the woman's husband and the court to decide the fine. But, if the child is killed, the offender shall be as well, even if it is an accident. Clearly, a baby, even unborn, is of great value to God. Did you just quote a passage of the bible where god says it's cool to kill people to rationalize why abortion is bad?
C'mon. If you just want to believe something for no good reason other then your own opinion. Then just admit it's just your own opinion. Don't go try to cherry pick stuff from the bible to support you because you'll end up like the WBC zealots.
|
On April 29 2011 05:26 aidnai wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 05:13 mister.bubbles wrote:The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to. I love this point because it is very true and relevant to the human condition. Allow me to explain myself further. I don't address the situation flippantly, moreover I also believe in ering on the side of caution. I personally would prefer to die unborn before I was even aware of myself over a life of misery. You could take that as proof that other people might feel the same and say "we need to abort all babies to save the ones that will have horrible lives." That would be just like the banning all abortion. My point is that in such a sensitive issue it is totally irresponsible to ignore such a giant factor as the wishes of the mother over those of lawmakers. We can't afford to make this into a black and white issue because it is unfare to both parent and child. Someone has to decide even if it is difficult and ruling out the mother under any circumstances is cruel and stupid. what does the wishes of the mother have to do with it if it is a question of murder? I'm confident you would not advocate the legality of killing children that have been born already, regardless of whether the mother wants the child or not. So are you saying the unborn child is not a human life? that is the crux of the debate, not the mother's wishes or whether the child might or might not have a miserable life.
The difference in my mind is that children do not become self aware until well after birth and the life being ended never knew it existed so to me at least (and I acknowledge that my moral compass is at odds with that of the general populace) there is nothing cruel to the fetus itself in killing it and there is everything cruel about forcing it to live when the odds are stacked against it.
Regardless, this to me is a subtext to the moral dilemmas involving the mother. How anyone could value the life of something that doesn't know it exists over the basic human freedoms of a living breathing human is beyond me.
EDIT:The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.
I am in favor of the freedom of the parents to chose this for their children.
|
On April 29 2011 05:35 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:35 PolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2011 02:19 Patate wrote:On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill. Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes. Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing. Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child. The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.By the way, first post :D What the fuck? You've got to be kidding me. Or at least I hope I am misunderstanding that statement of yours. I think he is serious. This is the kind of person that warrants what I always wanted, a psychological/intelligence test for all people before being allowed to vote no matter if they are 15 or 55. So only stable and smart people would be the ones deciding what happens to us all. OMG A guy who believes in magical cures for cancer using resonance are being hidden from us in a conspiracy by the evil drug companies just posted saying that dumb people shouldn't vote!
I swear I saw it with my own eyes!
|
On April 29 2011 05:13 mister.bubbles wrote:Show nested quote +The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to. I love this point because it is very true and relevant to the human condition. Allow me to explain myself further. I don't address the situation flippantly, moreover I also believe in ering on the side of caution. I personally would prefer to die unborn before I was even aware of myself over a life of misery. You could take that as proof that other people might feel the same and say "we need to abort all babies to save the ones that will have horrible lives." That would be just like the banning all abortion. My point is that in such a sensitive issue it is totally irresponsible to ignore such a giant factor as the wishes of the mother over those of lawmakers. We can't afford to make this into a black and white issue because it is unfare to both parent and child. Someone has to decide even if it is difficult and ruling out the mother under any circumstances is cruel and stupid.
Are you living a life of misery? How do you know any of this? If you were killed before you were born you could not know if it would have been better to live. Rich and happy people die each day and poor and those that were miserable find happiness or richness. Who are you to claim they are better dead?!
As Tyrion says in Game of Thrones: "Death is so final where life, life is full of possibilities."
|
On April 29 2011 05:46 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 05:35 -Archangel- wrote:On April 29 2011 02:35 PolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2011 02:19 Patate wrote:On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill. Sure, but I dont view a fetus as being alive, so abortion isnt killing in my eyes. Yet even a fetus has a heartbeat, hard to deny it's a living thing. Animals are living things too, yet society doesn't have much trouble killing them (euthanasia). My neighbors decided to kill their dog because they didn't want it to hurt their newborn child. The difference between the fetus and the actual living being is awareness, not if it's living or not. And actually, awareness comes at around 1-2 years old. I would be in favor of euthanasia of young babies if they show a mental or physical disorder.By the way, first post :D What the fuck? You've got to be kidding me. Or at least I hope I am misunderstanding that statement of yours. I think he is serious. This is the kind of person that warrants what I always wanted, a psychological/intelligence test for all people before being allowed to vote no matter if they are 15 or 55. So only stable and smart people would be the ones deciding what happens to us all. OMG A guy who believes in magical cures for cancer using resonance are being hidden from us in a conspiracy by the evil drug companies just posted saying that dumb people shouldn't vote! I swear I saw it with my own eyes!
Hmm, personal attacks. On internet that is the next step after a persons arguments fail and he does not want to admit defeat. Other reason people become personal is when they get pissed which does not seem to be the case by your post. No, you are just clueless.
EDIT: By the way: Any technology that is not understood by others (or not wanted to be understood) is no different then magic. Just like in the Thor movie 
|
On April 29 2011 05:53 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 05:13 mister.bubbles wrote:The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to. I love this point because it is very true and relevant to the human condition. Allow me to explain myself further. I don't address the situation flippantly, moreover I also believe in ering on the side of caution. I personally would prefer to die unborn before I was even aware of myself over a life of misery. You could take that as proof that other people might feel the same and say "we need to abort all babies to save the ones that will have horrible lives." That would be just like the banning all abortion. My point is that in such a sensitive issue it is totally irresponsible to ignore such a giant factor as the wishes of the mother over those of lawmakers. We can't afford to make this into a black and white issue because it is unfare to both parent and child. Someone has to decide even if it is difficult and ruling out the mother under any circumstances is cruel and stupid. Are you living a life of misery? How do you know any of this? If you were killed before you were born you could not know if it would have been better to live. Rich and happy people die each day and poor and those that were miserable find happiness or richness. Who are you to claim they are better dead?! As Tyrion says in Game of Thrones: "Death is so final where life, life is full of possibilities."
Sorry for being unclear, I only brought in the extreme example to highlight the fact that there is a grey area and that banning abortion is just as stupid as making it mandatory.
I'm not claiming I know who is better off dead and who isn't, but the mother of a child has a much more informed and consequential say in the matter and my point is that the state regulating abortions is like turning a blind eye to the most important factor who can see the child's potential situation better than anyone. Ignoring facts, all though it may be more comfortable, is in it's ends cruel to all parties involved.
|
I think that a child/fetus deserves to be the one who chooses if he lives or dies. I guess that makes me pro-choice.
|
On April 29 2011 05:53 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 05:13 mister.bubbles wrote:The question to your position would be, what gives you the right to decide whether living is better for them than dying?
Also, as a general point, there are arguments about whether the fetus is alive or not. My question is, since it is clearly a debatable point, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not kill it? To me, defending a position that the fetus doesn't count as a person is not worth the risk of being guilty of supporting mass murder if I'm wrong. Even if I were 99% sure I would still not regard it as flippantly as many here seem to. I love this point because it is very true and relevant to the human condition. Allow me to explain myself further. I don't address the situation flippantly, moreover I also believe in ering on the side of caution. I personally would prefer to die unborn before I was even aware of myself over a life of misery. You could take that as proof that other people might feel the same and say "we need to abort all babies to save the ones that will have horrible lives." That would be just like the banning all abortion. My point is that in such a sensitive issue it is totally irresponsible to ignore such a giant factor as the wishes of the mother over those of lawmakers. We can't afford to make this into a black and white issue because it is unfare to both parent and child. Someone has to decide even if it is difficult and ruling out the mother under any circumstances is cruel and stupid. Are you living a life of misery? How do you know any of this? If you were killed before you were born you could not know if it would have been better to live. Rich and happy people die each day and poor and those that were miserable find happiness or richness. Who are you to claim they are better dead?! As Tyrion says in Game of Thrones: "Death is so final where life, life is full of possibilities."
Half of those possibilities are misery.
Imagine a family, who are poor and can barely live like they are (a man and a woman) and it so happens that the women gets pregnant. Should they keep the baby? es, they can always win the lottary and make their lifes better, but why would want to have the baby, it will most likely live in poverty.
I remember when I ask my mom to have another brother and she said "if I had enough money to provide 10 more children with good lives, then you would have had 10 more brothers and sisters, but sadly I don't, I have enough for you and your brother."
Most of the women who have abortions are young and their husband or boyfriend doesn't have a stable job to support a whole family. I cannot imagine anybody willing to put somebody through a life of misery.
|
On April 29 2011 05:55 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 05:46 VIB wrote:On April 29 2011 05:35 -Archangel- wrote:
I think he is serious. This is the kind of person that warrants what I always wanted, a psychological/intelligence test for all people before being allowed to vote no matter if they are 15 or 55. So only stable and smart people would be the ones deciding what happens to us all. OMG A guy who believes in magical cures for cancer using resonance are being hidden from us in a conspiracy by the evil drug companies just posted saying that dumb people shouldn't vote! I swear I saw it with my own eyes! Hmm, personal attacks. On internet that is the next step after a persons arguments fail and he does not want to admit defeat. Other reason people become personal is when they get pissed which does not seem to be the case by your post. No, you are just clueless.
I agree with your second post in principle... but did you seriously post that *after* resorting to a personal attack against him?
|
On April 29 2011 05:24 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 17:27 Jibba wrote:On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote:There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false. There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy. This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below. + Show Spoiler +On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill. It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned. In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade. This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition. As a Hoosier, I'm concerned. As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus. This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew. What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness? You can never be past "initial moral arguments." The heart, not the feet, or hands, or face, of the matter, is a moral one. Science cannot answer the question of what is right or wrong in this case. Science can only answer what happens in week 20, in week 19, week 10, week 1, day 1, conception, preconception. Science can answer when the egg is fertilized, when the 'baby' starts to look like a baby, when the heart starts beating, when the brain starts functioning. It cannot answer at which point the baby is a baby, to be cared for, to be loved, or not a baby, to be discarded, like any other trash or inconvenience. Science is neutral. On every issue. Science merely explains the physical; it can never explain the moral. So, do not presuppose your opinion and try to get science to back it up. You are not standing on science, then, you are standing on your own wisdom, and claiming the former! If we are all just an accidental chemical reaction, then none of this relativistic moral poop means anything, and abortion is not only not wrong, it's inconsequential; let these people do what they want to do, for there is no right or wrong. If there is a truth, however, and we are searching for it, even on this forum, the truth must reside outside of us or else we create the truth ourselves and it is not truth, but perception. And if there is a truth that is outside of us, a real truth, for what else can truth be, then it must come from something, and if truth comes from something, you must ask yourself what that something is because, as we see, it is not something produced within. The very fact that so many are arguing their side so zealously indicates this very thing. Otherwise, who would care? Whether you believe in the Bible or not, this is what it says, and this is what I choose to believe, since I believe the source of morality, God, made Himself known this way. Exodus 21:22-23 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life... This verse says that if a woman's child is hurt while in the womb, even on accident, and there is 'no serious injury' to the child, then it's up to the woman's husband and the court to decide the fine. But, if the child is killed, the offender shall be as well, even if it is an accident. Clearly, a baby, even unborn, is of great value to God. Jeremiah 1:5a "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..." This verse is not speaking directly to abortion, but it is clear that we were known of God before we were born. So, what day, what hour, and what minute, are we finally a baby? A human worth saving? I'm not sure that is the point. But, there is strong evidence in the Bible for conception. And anyway, erasing someone else's life on earth is not a line I want to come close to.
Ok, this is going to be crude but the point has to be made.
Why should any of this matter to me? I don't believe in a god, I don't hold the bible in any higher regard then the average text written by Homer (not the guy from the simpsons) and I certainly don't believe it applies to life in the 21st century.
Next step, what gives you the right to impose your morality on the rest of the a country? What is this obsession with demanding everyone lives by your rules? In a century marked by diminishing numbers of religious people, what could be more crucial then allowing everyone to live their life the way they want it? By assuring I can live by my own morality, you're also assuring you can live by yours. You can live by your thruth, I get to live by mine.
For all I know, the bible held the best of humanity's knowledge at the time, and I understand that it can help people in search of moral guidance/ a sense of purpose even today. But large parts of it (especially the old testament) are simply not applicable to the modern world anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
