What do you think about abortion

Post Reply New Topic

If that is your belief, then you might be interested to see this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3846525.stm

It is a scan of a 12 week old foetus walking around the womb.







http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3105580.stm



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9dS4ym2XXw

Straw man argument. BTW, I said I didn't LIKE abortion. That's a personal preference. I don't even like abortion in the case of rape, but so what? I can't change the fact that a woman's choice was taken away in the commission of a crime. So I think despite what I like or dislike, I don't see much of a choice in granting a woman justice by granting her a right to abortion in certain instances. It doesn't follow that a woman always WILL choose abortion after rape, just that it is an option.

And what does any of this have to do with right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence? A woman crying rape is an accusation and she bears the burden of proof. What exactly isn't fair here? Merely the fact that a man's defense against rape accusations are weak by default? Then it just means men bear the burden of getting to know a woman over a long enough period of time that he can accurately gauge her intentions. Just don't have sex, and you don't have to worry about trumped up allegations. There's nothing unfair here.



If there's no crime, then there's no evidence. If a woman has to prove she was raped, which is how it works already, and she can prove she was raped, the man is guilty in the eyes of the law. Bada boom. It is possible that one can become pregnant if she is raped. How exactly I'm comparing apples to oranges here is beyond me...looks like you're attacking a straw man again. Nobody is going to prison for crimes they didn't commit. They're going to prison for crimes they DID commit.


Not THAT private. I've been in apartments and even nice hotels with thin enough walls to hear entire phone conversations. If someone is screaming for help from an apartment, a hotel room, or even the next house over, there is the possibility that someone is close by enough to hear what's happening and try to intervene. A dark alley is not really a conventional place to have sex, so hearing a woman screaming from the street is a pretty safe bet that something awful is either happening or about to. If a man isolates a woman, whether in his apartment, her hotel room, undisclosed vacant trailer, where ever, it's reasonable to assume some kind of malicious intent.


Then time is of the essence, isn't it? If the crime is reported quickly when it can be determined she was violated not just with sexual contact but by taking drugs against her knowledge or will, then all of this is irrelevant.

Though this risks "blaming the victim," I'd say it is a good idea for EVERYONE to always be aware of their surroundings and who they're with and what's going on with their drinks at all times. This helps eliminate possible circumstances in which such crimes have an increased likelihood. I'm not just talking about date rape, I mean any crime. Don't want to fall victim to a drug deal going bad? Don't hang out where drug dealers congregate and frequently solve their differences with bullets. People who don't go on dates don't get date-raped, and depending on the bar/club/party one attends, things like that are more/less likely to happen. The kinds of people I generally hung out with when I was younger weren't into that whole scene, so I never knew anyone personally that fell victim to those kinds of circumstances. Quite simply, don't be sorry--be careful!

That's just being smart. And if I were making the mistake of calling girls who are into that kind of thing dumb, let it also be said that no one regardless of intelligence or lack thereof, deserves those kinds of things to happen.


It can be, sure. I can't make the claim that my idea constitutes a perfect system. If no one ever committed a crime, engaged in irresponsible behavior, or too stupid risks, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. All we can do is our best, and I certainly think we could do better than the status quo.


Exactly my point. It makes little sense to have sex if you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences. Honestly, I wasn't prepared for the consequence of fathering children, but I made the decision to learn a little more every day. But I didn't stop having protected sex thinking I'd slide on making babies for very long. It took about three months for the birth control to wash out of her system and things start working the way they're supposed to and that ball got rolling. That's, um, kinda what happens when you have unprotected sex, and the problem is exacerbated if you're TRYING to get pregnant. I'm wondering if people who "accidentally" get pregnant (non-rape cases) really don't know how all this works.


People who use contraceptives know (or ought to know) there's a risk involved. So if they engage in behavior that involves a chance of pregnancy no matter how slight, then planning an abortion is deliberate, unjustifiable homicide, also known as murder.


Why not? If you have to pass an exam or meet other licensing requirements, you have no excuse. If that were the case, abortion would be a non-issue.


What, you mean like requiring licenses to operate motor vehicles? To practice law? To practice medicine? To in public and private schools? No, licensing doesn't work...[/sarc]


I get that a lot. Angels in the Bible are always referred to as masculine beings, not feminine. I picked up on that early on in childhood and never understood why angels were always depicted as feminine.

Fairies, on the other hand, more often fit the artistic depiction of angels, not to mention lesser deities in certain mythologies. I will confess to having a fairy fetish. I just can't quite convince my wife to dress like Tinker Bell, and that might actually be for the best.


It's a license to do a lot of things, procreation being one of them. And, actually, you've got it wrong. The main point of marriage licenses in American society is to serve as a contract that protects both parties in the even something goes wrong. If, for example, you just "shack up" with someone for an extended length of time, you have no legal standing to divide assets. You're on your own and at the mercy of civil courts. In marriage, you have property in common, so it's up to a judge to decide how to split joint assets, child custody agreements, who pays how much spousal/child support, etc., of course, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage is dissolved.

Marriage laws generally assume that both partners expect things like children and intimacy. So if a partner decides after marriage he or she doesn't want children, that is grounds for forfeiting the contract. If one of the partners becomes infertile before producing children or is impotent, that is also grounds for divorce. Heck, if one of the partners goes insane, those are perfectly acceptable grounds for divorce. Personally, I'd never screw someone over like that when they need my support and a sense of dignity, but certain things are held to be binding in the marriage contract. HOW a couple proceeds in times of trouble is another thing, but being legally married affords certain privileges that can't be had otherwise.


WILL result?


Not necessarily


We already can't reproduce with our partner of choice. We only have the OPPORTUNITY to reproduce with a partner who agrees to have sex with us. People already have to live with a "severe restriction of liberty" because they can't be with any random person they "fall in love with." And yes, being rejected causes a great deal of unhappiness. You know what people do about it? They get over it and move on!

And that has NOTHING to do with genetic testing. I say people have the right to be with an agreeable partner they want to reproduce with. I also say people have the right to reject any partner for any reason at any time. If you KNOW there is a potential issue for passing along "bad" genes, you are merely informed of the risk and can decide to be with someone else, take the risk, or perhaps even go through sterilization together with your partner. Nobody is saying you can't get married on the basis of genetic testing. All genetic testing is help two people be informed of where they stand.


Which is kinda what I already said, right? I could have have sex with my wife when she doesn't want to have sex but is merely complicit, but I don't really find that very satisfying. Consent is still consent whether you enjoy it or not. My whole point is that two people who get married ought to have enough sense to know that one won't put unreasonable expectations on the other. As we've gotten older, my approach has become to just let her make the first move. If two people get married and already are on the same page when it comes to how intimacy is handled in the relationship, you're not going to have problems like marital rape or infidelity. The unfortunate reality is people don't REALLY understand what they're getting into when they're married and divorce is too often an easy way out. The vows we typically take go something like "in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer." When money gets tight, many of us suddenly forget about that part. If marriage is entered into fraudulently, then I understand that, but I'm convinced most young couples really have no idea what being married means.

An Alzheimer's patient exhibits greater awareness than an embryo. Additionally, an Alzheimer's patient, like a baby or severely disabled child, has instrumental value- it is well loved by other humans who meet it, including family and friends. An embryo is often not known about to anyone other than the mother, and other people don't have the same relationship with it that they can do with a human being. The sadness when you hear a friend has had a miscarriage is not comparable to the sadness when you hear your friend's mother or son has died.


It's not a straw man. You said rape was easy to prove. You said you didn't mind men being found guilty of rape based on a woman's word alone. That is not proof. If you were prepared to take that as proof, then you are throwing out the core of our justice system- innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Having sex is not a crime.

You may as well say that people should always remain within the sight of two people they don't know, so that they can't be falsely accused of committing theft. If you don't want to be accused of theft, then don't leave a stranger's sight.

I was working on the basis that you said "the woman has to prove she was raped" and "rape is easy to prove" and "I don't mind he-said-she-said when it comes to rape because it allows women to have power over men".

Erm, no, a man and a woman having sex alone in an apartment or hotel room is not enough to "assume some kind of malicious intent". People voluntarily do that all the time.

I would agree that it is quite damning if you have sex in the street, but some people do do it, and the man will just try and claim they had sex somewhere else. If no holes can be picked in his claim, he must be presumed innocent.

I agree with some of the things you say, but for example, "people who don't go on dates don't get date raped"... well, people who don't go outside don't get hit by cars. An element of risk is inherent in life, and going on dates is a perfectly reasonable activity.

People should be aware of their surroundings to reduce the risk of anything bad happening, but people aren't perfect. They will make mistakes, lose their concentration, maybe stop paying as much attention after their second drink... If a woman takes a guy home whilst quite intoxicated, he manages to drug her, and she wakes up the next morning without much memory, then she could easily be unaware that she's been raped at all until she misses a second period, or has to go to hospital...

I don't really see any improvement on the status quo in what you are proposing. It would be easier to just allow women to have abortions without needing to "prove" that they were raped.

A rape trial is very distressing and it is hard to get a conviction (justly IMO, even if it means some guilty people get off). If a woman wants an abortion and claims to have been raped, it is better to say "fine, we believe you, here's some tablets" then say "hmm, give us a suspect, we'll spend a few weeks collecting evidence and trying him, and if he's guilty then we'll cut your foetus into pieces and remove it using a vacuum. If like 90% of rapists he gets off then you'll just have to carry it to term".

Contraceptives can fail, and the size of the population means that they'll fail quite often.

Even if someone does have totally unprotected sex, what are you going to do, say "tough cookies, your life is over, raise this baby even if you don't know how"? Or "tough cookies, carry this embryo for 9 months, then we're putting it in a home with all the other babies who weren't aborted"? Or "okay, you made a mistake. You have a choice between giving birth, or you can have an invasive and gruesome procedure".

But it isn't homicide. An embryo is not legally a human. I would also dispute your "unjustifiable".


Because how on Earth are you going to stop people?

In China they abort the baby.

The only alternative I can think of that is remotely viable is providing some kind of disincentive. If you withdraw child benefit, then children will die. If you imprison the parents, children will be raised without parents.


My mistake. I thought you were planning on making genetic testing compulsory and not allowing people to have children that might

If you discourage sex before marriage, then you will encourage people to get married prematurely. That will raise divorce rates.

I gotta say, you are living in a dreamland. All your talking about is simply non affecting theory of a fantasyland.

You are always talking about the prevention of abortion. But preventing LEGAL abortion, does not prevent the abortion, its only preventing the legal abortion.

I dont like abortions myself, but could we talk in a thread that is about abortion, about how it can be prevented in reality, not in a fantasyland where an abortion is prevented, when there is no longer a possibility to legally abort?

Ok, lets go into fantasyland, where woman have to prove to have a cause, to have the right to have a legal abortion. So what people tell here, that it would help so much. Now we invent a girl named Sandy, that lives in that fantasy land. Sandy is pregnant and doesnt want her babie. So she goes to the hospital and as you demand they want a cause, for the abortion or they refuse to do it. Sandy has no legal cause...so she simply walks out of the hospital and goes to an illegal doctor.

Please, at least stay in reality. Thats the problem we have to face, when we are against abortion. Forbidding official abortions isnt helping anything, because thats the only thing you can prevent, but that doesnt decrease the absolute number of abortions in any way. If you want to decrease the nomber of abortion (the real number of abortion, not the number of official abortions, the last one is only for dreamers) in reality, not in dreamland, you need to decrease the number of woman that get pregnatn without wanting so, increase the acception of motherhood outside marriage and so on. But no abortion is prevented, only because a woman going to an illegal doctor instead of an hospital. Thats still one dead baby.

So...a human life only has value if more than one person has interacted with it? Suppose an Alzheimer's patient was an elderly person whose close friends and relatives had already died. Is he less human? Shouldn't somebody go ahead and put him down since he's now a burden on society?


That's not what I said. I said I had no problem with a woman's word over a man's word on rape charges. Of COURSE there has to be evidence in our justice system. And we have the means to collect the required evidence. And if evidence is falsified and THAT can be proven, then charges can be brought against the woman in that case.


It COULD be. Rape is a form of sex and it is a crime. Statutory rape is often consensual and it's a prosecutable offense. So, YES, in some cases having sex IS a crime.

Heck, even if you're of a legal age and you're still in high school, your teacher can go to jail if you're having sex with her (or him).


Or travel in groups. I'm rarely out of the sight of at least three people at any given time. I've known conscientious men who will call their wives if they HAVE to be on an errand with another woman, explaining why they're alone with another woman, what they're doing, where they're going, and what time they can expect to be back home or back at the office. That's in case someone tells the wife she saw her husband with another woman, the wife can say she already knew about it and can tell exactly what was going on. If you want to stay out of trouble, always have witnesses. If you do too much in private, you're more likely going to be in need of an alibi even if you're innocent of any wrongdoing. Having people look after you (and you looking out for other people as well) is a good thing.


I understand. And I'm not a feminist in the radical sense of thinking women should necessarily always have leverage over men and creating just another inequitable institution. I dislike the term because of what it represents in the minds of most people. However, historically women have been at a distinct disadvantage which I believe has been unfair. Also, while I'm aware this is an unpopular view and I risk being called sexist for saying it, I do believe that natural order favors male dominance rather than it being simply a matter of social constructs. If society traditionally elevates the status of men over that of women, then women cannot possibly be fairly represented in the justice system. Something's gotta give. If a man commits a crime against a woman by violating her body, he deserves (and she deserves) to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Just for ONCE if we're going to take sides, just ONCE let it be on this issue. If a woman says she's been raped, give her the benefit of the doubt. Examine the evidence. Bring in a suspect. And if we find him guilty in court, fit him with chains and hang him from the ceiling until he rots.


Sure, and they're asking for trouble. If you make the conscious decision to isolate yourself from other people, you limit yourself as to what you can do if you ever need help. What MOST people do is have sex with people they at least trust. If a woman meets a man at a hotel, it can be reasonably assumed what their intentions are. If you don't want to have sex with someone, it makes sense not to isolate yourself with him. However, if a woman is tricked into that situation and she is unable to get help, it makes sense to assume the possibility that she's telling the truth. And even if she's not, it still raises the question of what the man was doing there.


Sure, but that's really irrelevant. Presumption of innocence only goes so far as the conviction.

Judicial "proof" is not the same kind of proof as "scientific" proof, btw. It's only something that exists in the minds of judges and juries. If you can prove in the mind of jurors that someone is guilty of a crime, that's enough. All you have to do is accuse someone of a crime and then convince someone else that the crime actually happened. Sure, there is forensic evidence, but all of that can possibly have multiple interpretations. A couple of high profile cases in recent years have been won on circumstantial evidence alone. It's not that difficult to fake a convincing rape. Semen from a used condom, for instance. Semen from consensual sex could technically be circumstantial, but I suppose a man would be in idiot if he can't judge the character of a woman well enough to predict her intentions before he slept with her.

I mean, it's not really about the law at all. There's no law against stupidity that I'm aware of. Given that the laws already do favor women in many ways, they send a strong message to men to just not be stupid.

You mentioned earlier that it's no crime to have sex. In some cases, yes it is, and we're talking about one right now. But given that we tend to think that ordinarily sex isn't legally a crime, it is an act that has the potential to leave evidence. And that evidence can be used against the one who left it.

Abstaining from sex and only engaging in it within the confines of a committed, monogamous relationship leave no construable evidence behind in the former and mostly ensure relations with those you can trust to neither abuse you nor accuse you of something you didn't do. There is nothing illegal about abstention from sexual intercourse.


People who get hit by cars, just like rape victims, have legal recourse.


Well, I'm surprised you don't see what's wrong with that. If a woman doesn't provide evidence of rape, then she is tacitly abetting a criminal. Rapists often are repeat offenders. If a man can get away with rape with one woman, perhaps he'll make the mistake of thinking he can get away with it multiple times. You're actually encouraging rapists on the basis that women can kill babies if they have a problem with it. Sorry, but that's not how it works. Aiding a criminal is also considered criminal behavior. So technically a rape victim is aiding her rapist by not reporting him.

And the improvement in the status quo is that human life doesn't have to be needlessly destroyed, which is what happens if abortions can be had on demand without explanation for why it is needed.


Which is why time is of the essence here. And it would be important that a woman report the crime IMMEDIATELY and TELL THE TRUTH. If the rapist is found not guilty, that means the woman was lying in the first place. So she could potentially be tried for murder if she successfully obtains an abortion, which is what would have happened to her partner had he been convicted.

Let's say we allow abortions up to 20 weeks--that's 20 weeks IF the rape victim becomes pregnant. She makes her accusation, gets an abortion. If she has evidence that she was raped, it's an open and shut case.

If a woman was NOT raped but just doesn't want the kid AND she at least cares enough about her partner not to see him go to jail, then she shouldn't make any accusations. Just have the baby and take care of it or put it up for adoption.



If they engage in the behavior, they face the consequences. Tough cookies all the way. Drinking and driving doesn't bring auto accident victims back to life. It's unjust to withhold consequences of bad behavior from those who did those things. And you don't justify what you did by destroying a new human life.



I don't really care what the law says. You're committing a logical fallacy here. Laws can change. Remember, it used to be illegal to give or obtain abortions. If abortion was illegal, would you change your position just because the law says so?


Irrelevant.


Don't care.


Not necessarily...I mean, I see what you're saying, but having unwanted children by no means is a guarantee of a worst-case scenario. SOMEONE will take care of the children. And then it's up to the social welfare system in place as to the conditions the children are raised in...which at the moment is pretty dismal, but at least the children have a fighting chance.

I harbor a deep hatred for DHS/CPS, which I can't seem to repeat enough...but all that is irrelevant anyway.


I'd propose that at worst they'd be merely "advised against" having children. But if they are in a situation in which they have knowledge of a pre-existing condition but go through pregnancies anyway, intervention might be necessary. But that's a tough question to resolve.



Not necessarily.

And I'm a firm believer in marrying as young as possible. It's the best time to enjoy sex and childbearing/childrearing. What we lack in western society is a family-centric support system to help young couples get through those tough early years.

My wife and I married and started our family later rather than earlier (late 20s). We do have maturity going for us if nothing else. What we DON'T have is family living close by to help us care for our kids whenever we want to have a night alone. So we've incorporated our kids into pretty much ever aspect of work. Sense my work hours are sparse and few, my kids sometimes play a small part in my work. I teach piano lessons...so guess what? Like it or not, my 5-year old HAS to be good at playing piano. He isn't given a choice. His sister is a little bit ahead of him if you look at where he was at the same age, which would have been just getting started. However, I've started working with her at an earlier age and have taken more time with her. To keep my sanity, I delegated the responsibility of teaching her the 2nd beginner book to my 5-year old, which means he really does have to be a piano expert at his level. Eventually she'll have to teach her little brother. And whoever is left right before empty nest...well, we'll figure that out when we get there. Maybe our youngest will be told to hire himself (or herself if we have another daughter later on, who knows?) out to teach or tutor little kids. Maybe we'll have our own little Jackson 5 thing going on. Possibilities are limitless right now, but we take care of each other because we don't have anyone else to take care of us. That's a key difference between us and a lot of families. The irony is other families tend to be WAY screwed up and divided, and yet people think WE'RE weird.

Well, if that's true, I'd rather be weird than normal because normal SUCKS. Broken families. Custody battles. Overmedicated kids. Clueless or overprotective parents.

Screw that. I love being a husband and father! And our kids LOVE us. They're certainly a lot better behaved than "normal" private school kids.

Getting married prematurely, though? I'm not sure exactly what that even means. I'd say "premature" is before either of you have good work experience and prospects for providing for your family. And yes, education CAN be a part of this. I went to a university that provided childcare (which, coincidentally, just HAPPENED to be the "child development" department) and on-campus apartments for married couples. I even knew a young married lady whose husband was in the military and only got to be together one weekend a month--two if she went to visit him on base. They didn't have children, though, but they did have a good support system that helped them both meet their goals. As far as I know they turned out ok, though she seemed a little psychotic in my opinion. So, if that means you can get started as early as 14-16 years, fine. If that means 18-21, fine. My kid will be capable of teaching piano as well as if not better than I do before he's in high school and will likely know all his music theory and literature before college. He already has a better ear than I do and may have perfect pitch. And that's after a year and a half of piano training. If he were to be independently successful in an established music career by 13 or 14, he could conceivably care for a family at that age. Aside from what the law says, it's entirely possible that he could develop a matched intellectual and emotional maturity by that point he could handle it. He'd only be bound by what he could get a young girl's parents to agree to, and I just don't see something like that happening.

I just mean if we look at it in terms of what kids that age COULD do if we let them, I'm convinced we never give kids nearly enough credit.

Speaking of my oldest, I had him come up with me when we closed our church service this morning and have him improvise with me at the piano. I've taught him a few simple improv tricks, so I'm confident with him next to me in front of a large church with a TV audience. If you can teach things like that to a 4-5 year old, you can certainly teach young couples how to be married. The problem is just like teaching kids from 3-5 years how to play piano, nobody teaches kids how to be married. The least I can do for my own kids is teach them things nobody taught me--because there WAS nobody to teach me, or help me, or support me. I learned to change diapers by changing diapers. I never held a child before I held my own. My 5-year old is able to hoist his baby brother into his crib safely. Heck, even my 1-year-old knows how to wiggle off an adult-sized bed at a height of about 3 feet, give or take, and not land on his feet. Kids will do what they're taught IF they're consistently taught, and if you care about them enough to not leave everything to chance, then DON'T leave everything to chance. If they don't HAVE to experience the ugliness of life in order to know how to navigate it, don't make them. I have no problem with helicopter parents who hover only to observe and make corrections when needed. I DO have a problem with helicopter parents who hover because they just can't let their kids go and grow up. I'm willing to bet that kids who are taught how to act independently of parents while having parents instill good values in them will grow up smarter and faster than their contemporaries.

Besides, parenting is not really that bad. All you really need is a positive attitude towards it. People who are afraid of being parents (like I was before I had children) really have no idea. You spend time with children, figure out how they "flow," and you go with that flow. If it cries, it's hungry. Change diapers at least every 2-3 hours and let your nose tell you any other time in between. With babies, if they get sick, there's not really much you can do, so just love on them until the fever breaks. A zinc topical will clear up diaper rash usually. They won't die if you turn around for 2 seconds and they suddenly have a cockroach sticking out of their mouths. My youngest likes to suck on baby wipes and has now discovered where we keep the bird feed (he likes to chew on sunflower seeds). OK, so you figure a few things out. They do things that freak you out, you move whatever it was one shelf higher, and move on with life, and be thankful the Drano has a childproof cap. Childproof if you think you need to...we taught ours how to do stairs safely so we wouldn't have to worry about falls. And that's only a tiny part of your day. The rest is life as normal. Night life is the same as before, just with extra little people (ok, so you can't go to bars, but you can go out to eat, see movies...it's all the same). They get older and start to join in with your video games. My 5 year old used to play Gears of War 2 with me. They're just awesome and don't care one bit about my personality quirks.

So having been a parent for nearly 6 years now, it's not all that bad. Being married isn't all that bad...it's kinda fun, actually, because we're tight friends more than anything else. I don't really feel any differently at 35 than I did as a teenager...I've just had time to figure out some things. So I can't imagine that if I was a teen dad with the ability to work and marry the mother of my children that things would really be that much different. I'd have probably gone the GED route and community college, but that'd be it. The kind of support I'd really need to do what I do now just doesn't exist in this society, and I think that's a shame. I really wouldn't know how to act if suddenly I didn't have my kids anymore. They're so much a part of my life that it's hard to remember what life was like before them. And life now is so much FUN!

I have a thought experiment for all people who are pro-choice, especially those who don't think a zef is anything more than a collection of cells

Let us assume a pill is invented that allows for an instant abortion on a zef, in a way that doesn't cause the mother any kind of physical harm whatsoever. With the existence of this magic pill, a woman would be able to have sex without contraception, get pregnant, and when she notices take it and instantly be, physically, as if nothing had ever happened. Some of them wouldn't suffer psychological damage either depending on their individual personalities. Would this be completely ethical, irresponsible but still ethical? Unethical?

I'm generally pro-choice, I believe that an adult woman's right to self-determination trumps a human-to-be future right to life, and although I recognize a zef's potential to become a sentient being, at its earliest stages of development I don't think much of them. If I approach the previous thought experiment logically, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it as there is no harm done if the "magic pill" is taken earlier. Nevertheless, it feels wrong to me for someone to be so nonchalant about abortions, so it feels like I'm missing something. So what do other people think about this?

That pill already kind of exists in a limited way. But anyway, I don't see anything wrong with it. Am I sick in the head or psycho, or something?

Not in my book, I don't expect other people to feel the way I do about things, and I find no logical holes on that stance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... laims.html

Nope, there is nothing wrong with you about that, because what some lunatic dumbheads call stupidly an abortion pill is simply a pill, that prevents that the female egg cell can nist inside her, and prevents by that way, that an embryo exists. As long as the female egg cell is not nisting, the sperm cant connect with it, so not egg cell and sperm connecting -> no abortion. Nothing else like a hormone condom. Because of that, this pill is only functioning maximum after 48 hours afterward and should be taken as fast as possible if it is needed. The more time you wait, the greater the risk that according to your menstruation rythm, the egg is already nisting in you and so being able to connect with sperm. If that already had happened, then this pill doesnt work anymore, because of it only being able to prevent the female eggcell from nisting, it is not able to abort an already nisting eggcell that has already linked with sperm.

So absolutely nothing morally bad about that pill, but its not fitting as a normal form of contraceptive, because you simply disturb the normal nisting of the female egg, buy bombing the female cyclus with a ton of "wrong hormones", so the female body is no longer able to recognize that, according to its own hormones and cyclus, it now should normally nist the eggcell, and instead dumps it because of the wrong hormon information. But being bombed with a ton of hormones shall be no fun either and is no good for the female body, so it is good to have that pill in case of emergency, when the condom failed or whatever, but it does not fit as a normal form of contraceptive.

I wasn't referring to the 'morning-after' pill as it's called; I meant things like medical abortion, that use abortion causing drugs. I don't see anything wrong with that in the first trimester (which is where their use is limited to,) either.

I'm not sure I really agree with your logic...To answer your first question, I'd say "unethical."

I'd agree that there might be a strong argument that "an adult woman's right to self-determination trumps a human-to-be future right to life." Sure, a zef has the potential to become a sentient being. But what I take issue with is the idea of a zef being a "human-to-be." It's already human the moment it's conceived. The pro-baby-murder position only works if "it" somehow magically "turns into" a human at some point and was not human to begin with. I'd argue that sentience is not necessary for humanity.

A disturbing historical trend is that any time human beings want to get rid of other human beings, they strip the other human beings of their humanity. If we can arbitrarily decide a "clump of cells" of human origin to not be human and disposable at-will, then we can arbitrarily decide the same for any other "clump of cells" at any time for any reason. Down's syndrome kids could be declared subhuman. Germans. Jews. Japanese. Autistics. Sub-Saharan Nubians. We could just enslave the lot of them if we don't want to go to the trouble to exterminate them.

If infanticide "feels" wrong to you, it's not because you're thinking logically. You're an emotional being as well who places value in human life. You intrinsically know something isn't right with non-chalant destruction of human beings. If you can rationalize something human isn't human, you'll feel justified in treating it however you want. Abortion, like many evils in the world, isn't really the disease. It's just one symptom of the backwardness of western society.

Not that western society is all bad. We have wonderful freedoms that we take for granted that our forbears didn't have. It's just that when we screw up, we believe in screwing up BIG.

The "responsible thing" to do when having sex is to use contraception. This pill you talk about is just that, contraception. Any woman doing this would be having responsible sex.

Then I guess the fundamental point we'd differ in is that I am of the opinion that sentience is necessary for humanity. In fact,, if I remember right you stated earlier that an irreversibly brain-dead person could not be considered a human, if it isn't because they have stopped being sentient then why? I've been thinking on this issue, how people assign value to life, and my current explanation is that it comes from how sentient it is or appears to be, or how similar to human life it is (which could be considered as homocentric, now that I think about it. I may have to create a new topic on this soon) and thus people value animals more than plants (a troll argument of mine to vegetarians is why are they comfortable with murdering plants but from a certain point of view they *are* living beings too) and value vertebrates more than invertebrates, primates even more and human life is considered as sacred. And someone threw around the argument that adult pigs are more sentient than 1 year old babies, and there is a point of that, but why would be the baby be considered as valuable by most people? I'd say it is because the pig will stay a pig but the baby will grow up and become a fully rationally sentient human being, and thus the baby is not just valued *as is* but as what it could become. Perhaps I am rationalizing, but I got to start somewhere . Under this point of view an embryo could be considered more valuable than a brain-dead person because the first can become a sentient human later on, while the second is staying brain dead forever. But still, a potential is just that, a potential, and sacrificing the autonomy of a woman in the present for something that although it could be human it is not yet, or would ever be. (under the assumption consciousness comes strictly from brain activity, you are religious so perhaps you believe in the concept of a soul. If a zef is aborted before it has had the chance to have enough brain activity to be considered sentient then I'd say it never existed as a person in the first place)

@Vexcalibur: But contraception is by definition meant to avoid conception, in this example conception has already happened and using the pill would be more akin to abortion.

@puddingmouse (and perhaps Schneekugel): but the idea is not whether using this magical pill by itself is ethical or not; the issue is whether it would be ethical to use it instead of contraception. I made it with no drawbacks (to make it a bit more realistic, but still ideal because it is still a thought experiment after all, let's assume once taken the zef disappears and then the woman is left in the same hormonal state as right after menstruation, with her cycle going on normally from there). With such a pill available, a woman could, instead of using condoms or having to stick to the pill all the time or using any other of the available contraceptive methods, choose to just use the magical pill whenever she knows she's pregnant, if it is convenient to do so. It falls within her right of being autonomous over her own person, after all. Basically, I am taking the autonomy argument I also believe in to it's logical extreme, and seeing what happens. Right now I lean towards thinking although this isn't quite unethical, would be very irresponsible, which means I do put some value in zefs after all.

My stance on abortion is anti everything. It is just plain murder. And people can rationalize it any way they want, it is still murder. The arguments are ludicrous. Some say that the early fetus is not a human being. What is it then an alien? What people are insinuating is preposterous and makes absolutely no sense at all. Just pitiful excuses and rationalizations. Honestly I think the whole world has gone insane.

I am also pro-adoption because I actually am adopted myself. My biological parents did not have the means or the way to raise me so they gave me to someone who could. My "real" parents.

If I was aborted none of this would have happened and I never would of met the wonderful family that has shown me unconditional love and I can say I have been a handful and a half. So I would ask anyone to consider that maybe that fetus being aborted could of been any one of those who were given up to adoption instead.

This is for all the ones that did not make it. The fallen ones. The rejected. The lost, that were never found. Because my heart is with you and will always be, forever. Honestly this message is for anyone who feels they do not belong as well. We all belong here. And we need to make the best of the life we are given even when we want to give up. And I have definitely been there more than once. Remembering looking down a bottle and wishing I could just end it all. That I never existed. What was the point? Where did I go wrong? Why is this happening to me? I never got the answers but I am trying now to live; a choice I was not given, but if I was given a choice I would of chosen life.

I share your view in one way that I am pro-choice, especially because of what is at stake. However, I cannot state, that I am completely fine with the hypothetical you have created. There is a certain amount of respect you need for life, even life that is just beginning. Without a certain amount of respect for life, whether it be beginning, during or ending - in our species or others (one of the things I am so amused at is that most pro-lifers have no respect for anything that isn't their own species) - you pretty much manage to screw up the entire balance thing we have going on here. That's why I believe there is no qualitative ethical answer to such a question - because it entirely depends on the individual set of circumstances.

On the other hand - there have been things used for hundreds and thousands of years as contraceptives, to avoid implantation, and to end pregnancy or to stimulate menstruation before modern medicine decided to invent things to do so. One of the prime reasons the church was so against "witches" and many forms of herbal craft in general - it allowed some women some form of options in this regard.