|
On June 16 2013 03:52 Grumbels wrote:
Can someone explain why incest is separate? Certainly virtually all instances of incest fall under rape?
And while I would agree to adding exceptions, I do not think this is internally consistent or principled. If you think a foetus is a person then there should be no exceptions.
Do you honestly believe consensual incest can't happen?
|
On June 16 2013 03:53 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:50 dotHead wrote:
I don't see how being pregnant by rape, or incest makes it any better reason for a late term abortion when you had sufficient enough time to decide. I understand acting irrational because of trauma, but this is kind of ridiculous. Also, not to sound like a total asshole, but how do you "prove" you were raped, or "incest"... Are they doing DNA tests, or just taking peoples word for it?
Pretty easy to prove the latter at least; not hard to tell who's related to you. The former, however, is more difficult but general trauma to the vagina is a usually telling mark of the rape; that being said you can't do this months later so it'd have to be reported sooner such that there is evidence. You'll notice, with cases of rape, it's generally guilty until proven innocent (in terms of it definitely did happen, some fucker raped her) rather then the opposite and I'd go as far as to agree with that system because it's, in my opinion, better to have a few fake rape abortions slide through rather then have no rape abortions occur. It's all about which side of the bridge you'd rather. This is in terms of Canada, I don't know how rape victims are handled in the US.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is, does the rape have to be documented at time of conception to make the late term abortion possible? Is there a time limit on when they will allow the "rape" to be attached the pregnancy? Would it be possible to be pregnant for 8 months, and then just come out and say "I was raped!, I don't want this baby"?
|
On June 16 2013 03:59 dotHead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:53 Hitch-22 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:50 dotHead wrote:
I don't see how being pregnant by rape, or incest makes it any better reason for a late term abortion when you had sufficient enough time to decide. I understand acting irrational because of trauma, but this is kind of ridiculous. Also, not to sound like a total asshole, but how do you "prove" you were raped, or "incest"... Are they doing DNA tests, or just taking peoples word for it?
Pretty easy to prove the latter at least; not hard to tell who's related to you. The former, however, is more difficult but general trauma to the vagina is a usually telling mark of the rape; that being said you can't do this months later so it'd have to be reported sooner such that there is evidence. You'll notice, with cases of rape, it's generally guilty until proven innocent (in terms of it definitely did happen, some fucker raped her) rather then the opposite and I'd go as far as to agree with that system because it's, in my opinion, better to have a few fake rape abortions slide through rather then have no rape abortions occur. It's all about which side of the bridge you'd rather. This is in terms of Canada, I don't know how rape victims are handled in the US. I guess what I'm really trying to say is, does the rape have to be documented at time of conception to make the late term abortion possible? Is there a time limit on when they will allow the "rape" to be attached the pregnancy? Would it be possible to be pregnant for 8 months, and then just come out and say "I was raped!, I don't want this baby"?
indeed and I made note of that position that I believe there will be far fewer cases of that occuring rather then real rape victims coming in. Whether I'm right or not, is a speculative statement, but I still feel rather confident that it is true and even if only 1 out of 10 were really raped I'd much prefer that outcome then the latter of a rape victim forced to have her child.
|
On June 16 2013 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm all for abortion options for rape victims (and I'm pro-choice in general), but why would a rape victim wait until the third trimester to destroy the fetus? Surely more people would have more problems with an abortion carried out that late, and it's not like a rape victim won't be just as scarred during the first few months. I feel like it's harder to justify abortion as the months go on, unless something new or unforeseen occurs that changes your ability to have the child.
For example, I could see a pregnant woman changing her mind if complications in the pregnancy arise (as those may emerge later without earlier notice). If the woman's life is in danger at any time, I absolutely think it's reasonable to save her life over that of a fetus (and then she'd be able to try again at a later time if she wants). But I feel that this is in contrast to a rape victim who wishes to abort due to being raped... I don't see why someone wouldn't (nearly) immediately abort, as opposed to wait seven or so months. Possibly her views on the rape changed or something?
But this is merely professing my puzzlement. I don't know why a rape victim would want to keep being pregnant until the third trimester, hold on to the fetus for months, and then later get rid of the fetus for no other reason. I'd like to think that if I were a pregnant female via rape, I'd know quite soon that I didn't want to have the baby. But I'm not, and I certainly wouldn't try pushing my inexperienced opinions on anyone else, let alone try making laws or policy about it.
I was fixing the bed but I had to reply.
Best post of the thread. Direct, clear, and on topic.
Like I said DPB, you are one of the best poster in General.
|
On June 16 2013 03:52 mihajovics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:32 edlover420 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
I don't think your memory is serving you right... His memory is indeed serving him right, I remember from my psychology classes that a child doesn't develop an abstract thinking until age of 5-8 and a lot of similar stuff but can't remember it right now. you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay in the dark... first you have to define what you mean by cognitive function. if by cognitive function you mean the ability to react to stimuli, like being able to process sound, well they can do that by the 24th week. some scientists say that by 27th week babies can dream. it's a process that starts surprisingly early (neurons start to fire randomly at around the 16th week) and lasts well into your late teens and even adulthood
Well to clear up what I meant, the way I learnt it in school was that cognitive functions encompasses memory, imagination, rational/logical thinking and language. So basic sensory functions and perception don't really fall into this category.
But unlike edlover420 I haven't studied psychology extensively by any stretch of the imagination, so I'll leave it up to him to elaborate an argument here.
|
On June 16 2013 04:03 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:52 mihajovics wrote:On June 16 2013 03:32 edlover420 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
I don't think your memory is serving you right... His memory is indeed serving him right, I remember from my psychology classes that a child doesn't develop an abstract thinking until age of 5-8 and a lot of similar stuff but can't remember it right now. you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay in the dark... first you have to define what you mean by cognitive function. if by cognitive function you mean the ability to react to stimuli, like being able to process sound, well they can do that by the 24th week. some scientists say that by 27th week babies can dream. it's a process that starts surprisingly early (neurons start to fire randomly at around the 16th week) and lasts well into your late teens and even adulthood Well to clear up what I meant, the way I learnt it in school was that cognitive functions encompasses memory, imagination, rational/logical thinking and language. So basic sensory functions and perception don't really fall into this category. But unlike edlover420 I haven't studied psychology extensively by any stretch of the imagination, so I'll leave it up to him to elaborate an argument here.
Perception is cognition by definition. Sensation and perception are two halves of the whole, and one may not be necessary for the other at times.
|
i have no idea why abortion should be illegal, the world contains more humans than it can support already, we dont need a larger population, all we need is to have enough children so the human race does not die out
Anyone who doesnt see this needs to get their heads out of their asses and smell the reality
If you want children there are plenty of starving and homeless/orhpan children in 3rd world countries that you can adopt and give a better life instead of bringing another child into this world when there are thousands dying each day
|
On June 16 2013 04:06 Pulimuli wrote:
i have no idea why abortion should be illegal, the world contains more humans than it can support already, we dont need a larger population, all we need is to have enough children so the human race does not die out
Anyone who doesnt see this needs to get their heads out of their asses and smell the reality
If you want children there are plenty of starving and homeless/orhpan children in 3rd world countries that you can adopt and give a better life instead of bringing another child into this world
You know the rate of population growth has been slowing for decades, right? Your country doesn't even make enough children to sustain its own population without relying on immigration. Interesting that there are still Malthusians decades after it was discredited.
|
On June 16 2013 04:05 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 04:03 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On June 16 2013 03:52 mihajovics wrote:On June 16 2013 03:32 edlover420 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
I don't think your memory is serving you right... His memory is indeed serving him right, I remember from my psychology classes that a child doesn't develop an abstract thinking until age of 5-8 and a lot of similar stuff but can't remember it right now. you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay in the dark... first you have to define what you mean by cognitive function. if by cognitive function you mean the ability to react to stimuli, like being able to process sound, well they can do that by the 24th week. some scientists say that by 27th week babies can dream. it's a process that starts surprisingly early (neurons start to fire randomly at around the 16th week) and lasts well into your late teens and even adulthood Well to clear up what I meant, the way I learnt it in school was that cognitive functions encompasses memory, imagination, rational/logical thinking and language. So basic sensory functions and perception don't really fall into this category. But unlike edlover420 I haven't studied psychology extensively by any stretch of the imagination, so I'll leave it up to him to elaborate an argument here. Perception is cognition by definition. Sensation and perception are two halves of the whole, and one may not be necessary for the other at times.
Well I may be wrong here, but again the way I was taught is that perception is defined as a complex process that offers information about objects beyond the simple size/shape/color/smell etc allowing identification between otherwise similar objects based on content, and that while it's a process that does involve cognitive functions to some degree, it remains a "basic" function since it relies heavily on the senses.
But again, I haven't studied psychology to any significant degree of depth so you may be right here.
|
On June 16 2013 04:06 Pulimuli wrote:
i have no idea why abortion should be illegal, the world contains more humans than it can support already, we dont need a larger population, all we need is to have enough children so the human race does not die out
Anyone who doesnt see this needs to get their heads out of their asses and smell the reality
If you want children there are plenty of starving and homeless/orhpan children in 3rd world countries that you can adopt and give a better life instead of bringing another child into this world when there are thousands dying each day
So why don't you jump out of the window if you are so concerned with overpopulation?
User was warned for this post
|
I don't really care what the justification for the abortion is, as long as it happens before a crucial point (I guess that's the 20th week).
After that I don't agree to it, unless the mothers life is threatened or something. Basically I'm pro-abortion but get it sorted out ASAP.
|
On June 16 2013 04:12 layingthelaw wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 04:06 Pulimuli wrote:
i have no idea why abortion should be illegal, the world contains more humans than it can support already, we dont need a larger population, all we need is to have enough children so the human race does not die out
Anyone who doesnt see this needs to get their heads out of their asses and smell the reality
If you want children there are plenty of starving and homeless/orhpan children in 3rd world countries that you can adopt and give a better life instead of bringing another child into this world when there are thousands dying each day So why don't you jump out of the window if you are so concerned with overpopulation?
This post... This post deserves so many memes... TL y u no like image mems in threads.
Waiting for the fireworks on your 2 post account.
|
What makes the 20th week so different that aborion is suddenly wrong? It is still the same organism.
|
On June 16 2013 04:15 layingthelaw wrote:
What makes the 20th week so different that aborion is suddenly wrong? It is still the same organism.
A fetus can survive outside the womb after ~20 weeks. At that point they will induce labor and put the baby up for adoption rather than performing an abortion.
|
On June 16 2013 04:15 layingthelaw wrote:
What makes the 20th week so different that aborion is suddenly wrong? It is still the same organism.
Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. And the procedure is probably much easier the earlier it is done.
|
If you don't abort it before 20th week it will be also able to survive outside the womb. What kind of stupid logic is that?
|
A very sensitive issue, so I'll just keep my opinion short. I think it is one of those issues where it is easy to have hold an opinion, until it happens to someone close to you. I think the victim's rights trump anything else. Anyone who says or thinks the victim doesn't have the right to make the decision without interference, might feel much differently if they were the victim or their sister, mother, or daughter was victimized.
|
So if it's rape, abortion is possible because the child would suffer.
If the mother made a mistake and got a child on accident, she should be forced to give birth, even if that child would still suffer because the parents don't have the means to support it? Or if contraception failed? Or it the mother found out that she had aids? etc?
It's so hard to draw a line it's silly.. I don't see why those two situations would be exceptions and not other, valid reasons. That said, progress is progressive.
|
On June 16 2013 04:16 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 04:15 layingthelaw wrote:
What makes the 20th week so different that aborion is suddenly wrong? It is still the same organism. A fetus can survive outside the womb after ~20 weeks. At that point they will induce labor and put the baby up for adoption rather than performing an abortion.
The survival chance of a 20 week fetus is less than 50%. The usual viability limit is around week 26. The 20 week limit for abortion was set due to the uncertainty of date of conception (as well as it was set somewhat arbitrarily).
EDIT: This wiki-link is actually rather precise - has the survival chance at week 20 at zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability
|
On June 16 2013 04:15 layingthelaw wrote:
What makes the 20th week so different that aborion is suddenly wrong? It is still the same organism.
It's arbitrary. You have to put the line somwhere. To draw an analogy, ice is cold and boiling water is hot, but at which temperature would you put the line between hot and cold?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
