The abortion debate

Post Reply New Topic

About a million Iraqi civilians have been killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, a condition known as collateral damage and apparently accepted without comment by many anti-abortionists. This excuse is apparently accepted as valid for killing many fully conscious and undeniable humans because our society accepts that as practical under the actions of our social conditions. Fully conscious people are killed incessantly as the result of medical stupidity, correctable traffic conditions, poor supervision of health and food, and many other correctable living conditions with little or no outcry from anti-abortionists. That a few unconscious cells are wiped out because their ultimate caretakers have determined it is the best solution for living their future sensible lives has raised disproportional outcries that can only be viewed as totally beyond sanity within the margins that society exists.

It's an odd correlation, that the same people often consider life sacred in ambiguous cases, and not sacred in clear cases.

Sand - well written and aptly observed.


M.

I am pro-choice (or pro-abortion if you will) and I consider collateral damage is just tough luck. One of the infellicities of modern war. Sh*t happens and it flows downhill. Compassion is a disease, not a virtue.

ruveyn

I think you should experience some of the weapons you helped create.

I think you should experience some of the weapons you helped create.[/quote]

I am not going to apologize for defending my values against aggressors who wish to destroy them. Life is struggle. The Last One Standing is The Winner.

ruveyn

I am not going to apologize for defending my values against aggressors who wish to destroy them. Life is struggle. The Last One Standing is The Winner.

ruveyn[/quote]

The last one standing may suddenly realize he cannot survive in the world alone.

I'm pro life, except when the baby will kill the mom due to a rare pregnancy problem.
The number of babies in the USA up for adoption is extremely low compared the the number of families willing to adopt.
And I don't think it is funny at all that a rapist won't get the death penalty when the baby, who had no say in its existence, is sentenced to death. At only a few weeks there are brain waves. Brain means central nervous system CNS means Nervous System. Nervous system means pain.
And Partial Birth Abortion is about the most diesgusting thing in the universe.
Partially deliver the baby. Now cut open the back of its head and suck out the brains with a vaccuum cleaner. Seriously, if that's what's happening, who would care if the delivered baby was thrown into the dumpster like that highly covered case?

Saying that a Human Fetus is like a growth, organ, or tumor is like saying you could put a fetus into a Gorilla and it'll be delivered.

What is going on right now is the definition of a Holocaust. That's a big word for me cuz I'm Jewish.

A holocaust is when a group of humans is dehumanized and slaughtered.

And saying nasty and mean things about me won't make me change my viewpoint.

Pain, pain, pain. Why does it matter if the fetus is capable of feeling pain? That bears no significance in determining whether it is a person or not. Many animals feel pain, yet that doesn't qualify them as people; and also, some people feel no pain, yet they are people nonetheless.



Except those that died in the Holocaust were people. They were capable of surviving independently. They were sentient beings -- had intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness. They had memories, personalities, and felt rather strongly that they should continue living.

None of which is true for a fetus.

"Pro-life", as used by those who claim the title, is a gross misnomer.

All fallacious arguments aside, no one, and I do mean NO ONE has the right to tell any person what they can or cannot do with their body. This is an absolutely inalienable personal right that every human being gains once they have been born (while inside womb, baby is part of woman's body, and does not yet have any personal rights, regardless of any granted it currently).

It matters because it is a human being. Many animals feel pain but they are not human.

It is not a human being anymore than four tires are an automobile.

Most of the pro-lifers I've run into very much lack compassion, and this consists primarily of self-proclaimed Christians. Not true of all of them, certainly, but many pro-lifers do seem apathetic to the plight of the mother.

I see people are debating the relevant point here (when a developing fetus should or should not be considered human). Unfortunately, people seem to be starting with the end in mind, if you know what I mean- they have chosen their stance on abortion, and so are performing elaborate intellectual acrobatics to ensure that the definitions they choose will lend support to the policies they endorse. This approach is backwards- decide which definitions make the most sense, and then look at what those definitions imply from a policy perspective.

Common consensus seems to be that a freshly fertilized egg is not a human- so the morning-after pill is OK. Now, what about an 8.5 month fetus? That's pretty much a fully developed infant, and it has a central nervous system. I'm guessing a lot more people would have qualms about terminating that pregnancy. So, basically, what it comes down to is that if abortion is going to be tolerated, the earlier it is the better people will feel about it. Where do we draw the arbitrary cut-off line? Or should we draw one? At the moment, I think allowing first trimester abortions is a decent compromise, meaning basically keep Roe v Wade but ban late-term abortions. Exceptions to a late-term abortion ban could be made under extenuating circumstances for medical reasons.

Prove it. I'm saying a living creature that is biologically of the human species with its own unique DNA is a human being. Unlike your position, I have biology and science to back up my statement.

At some point in the development of a fetus considerations may arrive as why and how to proceed. Any artificial intervention in the process can be extremely traumatic to all the participants and even if the pregnancy is aborted at an early stage it most likely has very large psychological repercussions. The problems can involve the health of both the mother and the unborn child and they are all strong considerations. If a child is totally unwanted or unaffordable the child may grow up in a very negative atmosphere and this can produce a highly unsocial individual. The law is an extremely blunt instrument and it is quite evident that legal solutions to complex problems such as this can be devastating to all participants. In my view it should be up to the parents but I understand the general concern. The problem is not simple.

A removed appendix of a human being has all the DNA of a human but it is not human. It is not a question of yes or no. How much tissue is required for human classification? I leave my DNA on the floor when I pluck an eyebrow.