|
I don't find the law that terrible. I don't particularly find a meaningful difference between a 6 month old fetus and a newly born baby. Being inside of a body is fairly irrelevant to me; governments give orders to people regulated use of their body all the time.
|
On April 28 2011 12:05 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:00 Harrow wrote:
What would you think if you were forced by law to provide a kidney transplant to someone you didn't know, despite all of the risks involved? What if you were forced by law to run into a burning building to save someone?
Both of those should be choices for individuals to make. Same with carrying a pregnancy to term - pregnancy carries risks of significant injury or even death, a pregnant person should be able to make the choice for themselves. If your kidney was stolen, are you allowed to kill the person that got the transplant to get your kidney back? (even if they weren't the one that stole it) If I see a starving person in my kitchen, can I kill them to get my food back? (I CAN kick them out... but I can't try to get my food back by killing them)
You seem to think it's actually more humane to induce an extremely early labor, somehow try and coax the fetus to birth, then either watch it die or try and put it up for adoption. SPOILER ALERT: the chances of a baby that premature surviving without brain damage or other defects are pretty low and the chances of that baby being adopted are tiny. Hell, American non-White babies have a hard enough time being paired with adoptive parents.
|
On April 28 2011 11:31 Echo515 wrote:Google image search 20 week fetus. Here I did it for you. How can anyone think it's ok to throw something like that in the garbage? Just as a side note I'm not religious at all but that just seems wrong to me.
That fetus is so human it disgusts me to "kill" it.
I think a large part of abortion is whether you consider an unborn child "alive"
the fact that it would have become a human with thoughts, feelings, and a life that was thrown away because of some a) irresponsibility of the womens sex life and/or b)insecure feelings of weakness and "I'm not ready" also disgusts me.
EDIT: If they really "are not ready", then its probably fine because it would give both child and parent a shitty life
a) fuck you
b) Bullshit, unless you took a huge financial tank, then you have every responsibility and duty to care for that child, and you probably ARE ready, you're just too insecure and timid to go through, and because of this, you do not have my respect nor does your baby live, though it would have done perfectly fine in
UNLESS some disease takes you and your baby will have it, then it's usually terrible to abort. Also fine to abort if the world hits apocalypse and you don't want them to have that kind of life. But still, isn't a life better than none.
regardless the line is VERY blurry for some people, and there ARE some extraneous situations that it's acceptable. But for most people? Oh hell naw.
|
Anyone who wants an abortion should be getting one well before 20 weeks anyway.
If this law was banning them entirely that would be a different thing but I see nothing unreasonable about this law at all regardless of what side of the abortion debate you are on.
|
On April 28 2011 12:06 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? They were before they were in a goddamned COMA. Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep) They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
few hours v. a few weeks (or a few years... is a 1 year old "self-aware" yet?)
|
On April 28 2011 12:06 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? They were before they were in a goddamned COMA. Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep) They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours.
Your reasoning is circular. Time is relative, what is the difference between a few hours/few months/few years when deciding to end the life? By your reasoning a 9 month pregnant mother should be able to abort the child because it hasn't been "self-aware" yet.
This is not a black and white issue. It is definitely a moral issue and I know where I stand.
|
On April 28 2011 12:15 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:06 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? They were before they were in a goddamned COMA. On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep) They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours. few hours v. a few weeks (or a few years... is a 1 year old "self-aware" yet?)
Difference is someone sleeping or in a coma WAS a fully functioning human fucking being, a fetus never was.
On April 28 2011 12:16 maliceee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:06 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? They were before they were in a goddamned COMA. On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep) They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours. Your reasoning is circular. Time is relative, what is the difference between a few hours/few months/few years when deciding to end the life? By your reasoning a 9 month pregnant mother should be able to abort the child because it hasn't been "self-aware" yet.This is not a black and white issue. It is definitely a moral issue and I know where I stand.
At 9 months I think it qualifies as a person and can feel something or other whether it's fully aware of the fact or not. When it's an undeveloped fetus, it's not really a person yet and never will be if terminated at that point.
|
On April 28 2011 11:41 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:34 gogogadgetflow 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. I have to disagree with your approach - the fetus is not invading the person's property - it is invading the person. The woman's right of self-ownership gives her authority over her body and everything within it. By your logic, a woman being raped has no right to kill her assailant because her life is probably not in danger. Not that it matters, but an unwanted pregnancy/birth when summed over 38 weeks could easily be as psychologically damaging and physically uncomfortable as a rape. The woman has a right to intervene forcefully. If the only option is to kill she may do so. Notice I used the word threat. If you feel your life is threatened, then yes you have the right to defend yourself with all the force which you view is necessary. However, a fetus is not a threat to her life, and she made the decision to have sex which has the possibility of incurring a new human life. She has no choice in a matter of rape. Equivocation is unwarranted as the two scenarios are completely different. Now, if the woman's life is in danger, then yes, she has every right to kill the fetus. Natural Law stipulates that your body is your own property, just as the fruit of your body (labor) is your property. They are one and the same. If the woman has the right to kill because someone happens to be on her property, the equivocation is that anyone who steps on anothers property, but yet, does not put anyone in any danger or is no threat (like for example a child walking onto your front lawn to grab a football) you may kill. Liberty entails mutual rights. The fetus has every right to life as does the Mother.
First of all, unwelcome sex is no more likely to cause death than pregnancy, so my comparison between rape and pregnancy as far as what right the woman has to intervene is valid.
Secondly, the woman's decision to have sex does not contract her carry a fetus. Not only is the notion nonsensical because an embryo cannot voluntarily become a valid contracting entity, but any contract which enslaves the woman into carrying and having a baby against her will is unenforceable.
Moving on, it is true that property rights derive from the rights to one's own body, but by logic it does not work the other way around. Not everything that is true of the rights of a person stepping on your property is true of the rights of a person invading your body.
Finally, I am not debating whether or not the fetus has a right to life. The right to life is not a legal claim on other persons to provide the minimum requirements for life. If I require the use of your body to survive you have no legal or moral obligation to provide it to me just as if I required a ten thousand dollar treatment to survive, it is not forfeit from the nearest person with ten thousand dollars to spare.
|
the op is obviously trying to incite a debate between abortion and non abortion. from his last comment it's obviously he's pro-choice. 5months is more than enough time to decide if you want to kill your baby or not, why the hell should women be allowed to abort a child up to nine months in just because she changes her mind? this thread is dumb. i think saying 20 weeks is a little misleading as, at least to me, it sounded at first as if it was semi early into the pregnancy, which it's not.
|
To weigh in on the abortion debate, this is a matter of logic and not emotion.
In any debate, when one side of the argument is arguing to force people into one course of action (not being allowed to have abortions, ever) and the other side is arguing for choice (have an abortion if you want, don't have one if you don't want), it should be a no-brainer which one is the morally acceptable choice.
There is a reason those arguing in favour of legal abortions are called "pro-choice". They are about letting people make the choice themselves. If you think abortions are wrong, thats perfectly fine, don't have one!
But don't go forcing your beliefs on those who do not share them.
(Then again, I suppose "not forcing your beliefs on people" is something that a lot of religions tend to have trouble doing)
EDIT: to forestall the inevitable argument of "I believe its okay to murder, you can't force me into not doing that because its my belief", I refer to the axiom that a generally reliable way of determining the objective morality of an action is to imagine what the world would be like if everyone did things a certain way. Thieving and murdering are obviously objectively immoral because if everyone stole and killed as much as they wanted, society would degenerate.
|
On April 28 2011 12:17 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:15 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2011 12:06 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? They were before they were in a goddamned COMA. On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep) They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours. few hours v. a few weeks (or a few years... is a 1 year old "self-aware" yet?) Difference is someone sleeping or in a coma WAS a fully functioning human fucking being, a fetus never was. Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:16 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 12:06 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? They were before they were in a goddamned COMA. On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep) They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours. Your reasoning is circular. Time is relative, what is the difference between a few hours/few months/few years when deciding to end the life? By your reasoning a 9 month pregnant mother should be able to abort the child because it hasn't been "self-aware" yet.This is not a black and white issue. It is definitely a moral issue and I know where I stand. At 9 months I think it qualifies as a person and can feel something or other whether it's fully aware of the fact or not. When it's an undeveloped fetus, it's not really a person yet and never will be if terminated at that point.
So what is the cut off point?
|
On April 28 2011 12:21 Dhalphir wrote:
To weigh in on the abortion debate, this is a matter of logic and not emotion.
In any debate, when one side of the argument is arguing to force people into one course of action (not being allowed to have abortions, ever) and the other side is arguing for choice (have an abortion if you want, don't have one if you don't want), it should be a no-brainer which one is the morally acceptable choice.
There is a reason those arguing in favour of legal abortions are called "pro-choice". They are about letting people make the choice themselves. If you think abortions are wrong, thats perfectly fine, don't have one!
But don't go forcing your beliefs on those who do not share them.
(Then again, I suppose "not forcing your beliefs on people" is something that a lot of religions tend to have trouble doing)
If you think fetuses at various points of development are a life worth protecting then obviously you'd want legislation protecting them...
To take an extreme example, you wouldn't go around saying, "Killing your two-year-old is just a personal choice" etc.
Prochoice people see the fetus as valuable, like we'd all see a two year old, so sure they want the law passed. They'd probably think your idea of choice in a matter of killing a developing human was pretty strange.
|
On April 28 2011 12:24 maliceee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:17 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 12:15 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2011 12:06 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? They were before they were in a goddamned COMA. On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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:
[quote]
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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep) They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours. few hours v. a few weeks (or a few years... is a 1 year old "self-aware" yet?) Difference is someone sleeping or in a coma WAS a fully functioning human fucking being, a fetus never was. On April 28 2011 12:16 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 12:06 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? They were before they were in a goddamned COMA. On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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:
[quote]
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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep) They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours. Your reasoning is circular. Time is relative, what is the difference between a few hours/few months/few years when deciding to end the life? By your reasoning a 9 month pregnant mother should be able to abort the child because it hasn't been "self-aware" yet.This is not a black and white issue. It is definitely a moral issue and I know where I stand. At 9 months I think it qualifies as a person and can feel something or other whether it's fully aware of the fact or not. When it's an undeveloped fetus, it's not really a person yet and never will be if terminated at that point. So what is the cut off point?
What am I a doctor? Whenever it's no longer considered a fetus.
|
On April 28 2011 11:53 eshlow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:44 Krehlmar wrote:On April 28 2011 11:08 Indrium wrote:
I'm not worried unless they do what they did is South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up. Wow.. that's fucked up... get raped and filled with hormones (you get programmed to love and protect your offspring above all else), want to remove the rapist child and yet have to view it as it is still inside of one and a part of oneself. Lobbyists are ruining USA  On April 28 2011 11:32 Wegandi wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Imres wrote:
So you don't see the difference between an human being and an human... and you think that a women hasn't the right to control her body, congrats! Um what? Liberty is a mutual philosophy. Perhaps you should review Natural Law. No one has a right to kill another individual who is not a threat to your life or your property. Just because a woman doesn't want to be responsible, doesn't give her a right to extinguish anothers life. Sure, she has a right to evict and put the baby up for adoption, but not to kill. Definition of individual : 1. a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness. b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion. 2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain. That "baby" isn't anymore a human individual than a cancer tumor and even less so than a cow, pig, or even a chicken. 1. That's like saying it's your genetics fault that you're obese when it's likely only <1% of the population that's the case. Exceptions are never a good case to argue against something. 2. Again, fetuses can survive outside the womb at around 22+ weeks. Cancer tumor? seriously?
No it isn't, what are you talking about?
Yes, cancer tumor, a fetus without brain activity is just dead weight cells just like a cancer tumor.
Sure, it has the potential to become a full grown human being and so does the 10 000 children who die to starvation every day aswell as the sperm in my testicles. But the sperm I have are not individuals, they're merely cells with a purpose.
In response to "2", yes I know. And if possible there is reason to save the possibility of life whenever we can. We must not, however, ever push that possibility on raped, abused and tortured woman who want nothing more than their own right to their own body. The rights of a full grown individual must always come before any mere cells, regardless of their potential.
(Unless the woman wants the opposite, as when some woman know they might die when giving birth but does it anyway due to love for the child etc)
Let's not discuss this any further in this topic lest it turn into a shitstorm... use PM if anybody wants to chat that much.
|
But don't go forcing your beliefs on those who do not share them.
I don't think most people are just saying abortion is wrong because they wouldn't get one, but because they believe that the fetus is a precious, living thing, that deserves to live. So in essence, they believe that the mother is forcing her belief that the fetus should not live onto the fetus, who they believe doesn't want to die.
To weigh in, I think that a fetus is going to develop into a human, so deserves to be given the same rights as a human.
|
On April 28 2011 12:24 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:21 Dhalphir wrote:
To weigh in on the abortion debate, this is a matter of logic and not emotion.
In any debate, when one side of the argument is arguing to force people into one course of action (not being allowed to have abortions, ever) and the other side is arguing for choice (have an abortion if you want, don't have one if you don't want), it should be a no-brainer which one is the morally acceptable choice.
There is a reason those arguing in favour of legal abortions are called "pro-choice". They are about letting people make the choice themselves. If you think abortions are wrong, thats perfectly fine, don't have one!
But don't go forcing your beliefs on those who do not share them.
(Then again, I suppose "not forcing your beliefs on people" is something that a lot of religions tend to have trouble doing) If you think fetuses at various points of development are a life worth protecting then obviously you'd want legislation protecting them... To take an extreme example, you wouldn't go around saying, "Killing your two-year-old is just a personal choice" etc. Prochoice people see the fetus as valuable, like we'd all see a two year old, so sure they want the law passed. They'd probably think your idea of choice in a matter of killing a developing human was pretty strange.
i totally agree that the stage of development the fetus is at matters. Quite apart from the moral issues, abortions at past 20 weeks are medically dangerous! I would even be quite happy with a law that said you had to have had the abortion by 5 weeks, provided the infrastructure is in place to allow any woman to get that abortion in a timely fashion.
|
On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:Show nested quote +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.
So what about killing mold growing in your bathroom? Where is the arbitrary line you draw?
On topic, the thread title is very misleading. Abortion isn't banned. 20 weeks is quite late.
|
On April 28 2011 12:27 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:24 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 12:17 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 12:15 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2011 12:06 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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:
[quote]
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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? They were before they were in a goddamned COMA. On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:
[quote]
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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep) They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours. few hours v. a few weeks (or a few years... is a 1 year old "self-aware" yet?) Difference is someone sleeping or in a coma WAS a fully functioning human fucking being, a fetus never was. On April 28 2011 12:16 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 12:06 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra 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:
[quote]
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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? They were before they were in a goddamned COMA. On April 28 2011 11:59 Krikkitone wrote:On April 28 2011 11:57 maliceee wrote:On April 28 2011 11:34 jello_biafra wrote:On April 28 2011 11:33 Essentia wrote:On April 28 2011 11:28 Mastermind wrote:
[quote]
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. Yes it's living but is it concious? self aware? capable of feeling ANYTHING? Is a coma patient? Or You in non-REM sleep (you are definitely not "self-aware" in non-REM sleep) They were before they went to sleep and will be when they wake in a few hours. Your reasoning is circular. Time is relative, what is the difference between a few hours/few months/few years when deciding to end the life? By your reasoning a 9 month pregnant mother should be able to abort the child because it hasn't been "self-aware" yet.This is not a black and white issue. It is definitely a moral issue and I know where I stand. At 9 months I think it qualifies as a person and can feel something or other whether it's fully aware of the fact or not. When it's an undeveloped fetus, it's not really a person yet and never will be if terminated at that point. So what is the cut off point? What am I a doctor? Whenever it's no longer considered a fetus.
Don't get defensive. The point is that it's a slippery slope and you give a very vague idea of what should be done or allowed, and you do it in a hostile manner.
So what about killing mold growing in your bathroom? Where is the arbitrary line you draw?
On topic, the thread title is very misleading. Abortion isn't banned. 20 weeks is quite late.
Um, I don't think mold has a heartbeat. And it's not human. There is no arbitrary line there.
|
Vatican City State2594 Posts
![[image loading]](http://critical-thinkers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/A-Flowchart-to-Help-You-Determine-if-Yoursquore-Having-a-Rational-Discussion.jpg)
Please take note of the first clause. This is why the OP asked for it to not be about abortion morality.
|
I'm all for abortions, but that is late enough in the pregnancy that I don't think it is really a factor. I think (hope) any woman would have decided by then whether or not they want to keep the baby and could abort sooner. I wouldn't mind seeing this law passed in other states because it really would affect a small percentage of (potential) abortions. Also, warning them about side effects doesn't really matter, if a woman is having a baby unplanned there are no side effects that aren't worth it unless they have the procedure done unprofessionally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
