(May 22, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(May 22, 2013 at 4:13 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote:
This is not a human in any sense of the word.

Only in the sense that this is a moth:

There, fixed that for ya!

---

(May 22, 2013 at 3:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(May 22, 2013 at 2:34 pm)pocaracas Wrote: You know Tib, sometimes the babies are really unwanted and remain unwanted after birth... sometimes, having a child can mean losing a job and any way of supporting both the mother and child.... sometimes, having a child means that the grandparents have to take monetary care of both the mother and the child, and sometimes, they're not very willing to do so.
Sometimes, the mother's life just becomes unbearable, if she haves that child.

I never denied that sometimes babies are unwanted and remain unwanted. All I did was argue against the apparent assumption that all of them fall into that group. I asked for evidence! Even if this happens "sometimes", it is not grounds for allowing abortion.

So you think that a woman who aborts should be fined or sentenced to jail or something like that?
In such a legal system, on those "sometimes", she would be at a crossroads and none of the two paths ahead lead to something positive, at least, as far as the eye can see. Either have the child and suffer the consequences, or abort and suffer the consequences.

Adoption is not a very viable option, given that, as it is, there are many children who don't get to be adopted... do you think these children are happy? would you prefer to condemn a child to foster care, when its undesired existence could have been avoided?

So, what would be the realistic option, in this world where abortion is illegal?

(May 22, 2013 at 3:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Sometimes, children grow up into murderers, but we don't go around locking up children because they might kill someone else. That isn't fair on the child, and it isn't fair on the child in this situation either. Yes, maybe they will grow up having a hard life, but we have no way of knowing that before the fact.

Indeed we don't, but there is an increased likelihood of having a hard life and, therefore, of becoming a criminal... thus becoming a burden on society.

(May 22, 2013 at 3:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

Quote:And I think anyone should be allowed to judge their own lives and deal with the consequences of sex in their own way... within a reasonable time-frame.

The problem is, there are (at least) two lives involved in abortion, and one of them doesn't get a say.

Don't grieve, Admiral (J.Tiberius K.). It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh...
...the needs of the few...
...Or the one.

The best examination of the subject of abortion I've ever read is chapter 15 of Carl Sagan's last book, "Billions & Billions." It's called "Abortion: Is It Possible to be Both 'Pro-Life' and 'Pro-Choice?'" I highly recommend it, and there's no point in me trying to re-phrase what was already said so well: http://2think.org/abortion.shtml

My own thoughts on the matter, that it should be permitted to a point and restricted after said point---and that when it's a medical issue moral issues take a back seat---are not groundbreaking or radical. As a personal matter, though, I do find casual abortion distasteful as a birth control method, and don't associate in an intimate way with women who are likely to use it as such. I take my stand on the morality of legal abortion, to whatever degree I take one, in this manner.

(May 22, 2013 at 4:13 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: No. I'm comparing an STI to an unwanted, parasitic foetus. STIs are living things, too you know. Most STIs aren't fatal, so why should we kill them just because they're unwanted? Hmm?

That "unwanted, parasitic foetus" is still human. Animals and plants are living things, yet we kill them and eat them to survive. Likewise, we try to get rid of STI's to survive. If a foetus is killing the mother, then I'm ok with it being aborted. Other than that (and rape), there is no justifiable reason to kill another human.

Quote:The only person involved in an abortion is a pregnant woman. A foetus isn't a person, it can't do anything a person can do. Why can a person be treated for a broken leg they knew was a risk when they jumped out of a plane, but a woman has to have her whole life ruined because of a risk she took, or an accident she had?

How are we defining personhood here, because that definition is important. A mentally disabled person may not be able to do everything a "normal" person can do, but we still don't strip them of their personhood (at least, I don't think we should...maybe you feel differently). So what is your definition of personhood?

Also, pregnancy =/= whole life ruined. Again, if it did mean that, nobody would ever want to get pregnant. What kind of person actively wants to ruin their life? Accidental pregnancies are not the end of the world; you can accept them and change the direction of your life, or give the baby up for adoption.

Quote:
This is not a human in any sense of the word.

It is in a couple of them though: Deoxyribonucleic acid.

Quote:So you think that a woman who aborts should be fined or sentenced to jail or something like that?
In such a legal system, on those "sometimes", she would be at a crossroads and none of the two paths ahead lead to something positive, at least, as far as the eye can see. Either have the child and suffer the consequences, or abort and suffer the consequences.

So many situations can boil down to two paths, neither or which is positive. We don't change the law based on those situations. I'm not really interested in what the punishment should be; it depends on the situation. This discussion is more about the act of abortion.

Quote:Adoption is not a very viable option, given that, as it is, there are many children who don't get to be adopted... do you think these children are happy? would you prefer to condemn a child to foster care, when its undesired existence could have been avoided?

Are you honestly comparing foster care to non-existence in a negative light? True, some children have it tough; heck, some children don't even get into the foster care system and end up on the streets. This is not a problem that abortion solves, but it is one that should be focused on. More of our tax money should go to helping people like this instead of wasting it on wars. There is no reason why any first world country could not solve this problem.

(May 22, 2013 at 3:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Indeed we don't, but there is an increased likelihood of having a hard life and, therefore, of becoming a criminal... thus becoming a burden on society.

It's up to the child to make that decision. It's not up to us to weigh the odds and decide for it.

(May 22, 2013 at 5:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

Quote:So you think that a woman who aborts should be fined or sentenced to jail or something like that?
In such a legal system, on those "sometimes", she would be at a crossroads and none of the two paths ahead lead to something positive, at least, as far as the eye can see. Either have the child and suffer the consequences, or abort and suffer the consequences.

So many situations can boil down to two paths, neither or which is positive. We don't change the law based on those situations. I'm not really interested in what the punishment should be; it depends on the situation. This discussion is more about the act of abortion.

Interesting...
You just think it's wrong and shouldn't be done, because it's the killing of a human being. I'm with you on that.
I think it's wrong too.
But laws are what shape society.
Should there be a law that prohibits abortion? If there is such a law, then there must be a punishment for disobeying it. What would that be?

A few years ago, in my country in south western tip of the old continent, it was forbidden to have an abortion, except in the cases you mention: medical problems or declared rape with a police report.
The politicians didn't want to get their hands bloodied, so they had a referendum. pro-choice won it and now women have the ability to abort up to the 10th week of gestation.

Before that, the statistics pointed to some 10 thousand illegal abortion per year. Now, we have some 8 thousand legal ones per year... and the illegals became negligible.
Which world do you prefer?

EDIT: ok, I was talking out of memory and got wrong numbers... it seems the legal ones stand at ~15k a year. No one knows the illegal ones prior nor after the legalization, but they know that there are much less women being admitted to hospitals due to illegal abortion complications... although I can find numbers for that either.
EDIT2: Found an estimate for illegal abortions between 20 and 40 thousand in 2003, prior to the new law... it seems they extrapolated this from having about 1000 women admitted into the hospitals for complications in that year.

(May 22, 2013 at 5:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: That "unwanted, parasitic foetus" is still human. Animals and plants are living things, yet we kill them and eat them to survive. Likewise, we try to get rid of STI's to survive. If a foetus is killing the mother, then I'm ok with it being aborted. Other than that (and rape), there is no justifiable reason to kill another human.

So what if it's human? What's so special about that? It's not an individual person, so why does it have more rights than the mother, who is a living individual person? Why is it suddenly OK to kill it if the mother was raped? Does that make the foetus less human to you?

(May 22, 2013 at 5:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: How are we defining personhood here, because that definition is important. A mentally disabled person may not be able to do everything a "normal" person can do, but we still don't strip them of their personhood (at least, I don't think we should...maybe you feel differently). So what is your definition of personhood?

A born human being, for a start. With certain abilities. Disabled people keep their personhood because their inability to do certain things is due to a disability, not because they aren't people.

(May 22, 2013 at 5:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Also, pregnancy =/= whole life ruined. Again, if it did mean that, nobody would ever want to get pregnant. What kind of person actively wants to ruin their life? Accidental pregnancies are not the end of the world; you can accept them and change the direction of your life, or give the baby up for adoption.

Wanted pregnancies are usually wonderful things, wanted children are a wonderful gift to the parent(s). But unwanted? That's where it becomes life-ruining. Having a child changes your whole life forever. It changes your body forever. It changes the way your mind works forever. Those all become incredibly negative changes if they were not welcome ones. Nobody should be forced into that.

(May 22, 2013 at 5:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It is in a couple of them though: Deoxyribonucleic acid.

Still nope. Does it look remotely like a person to you?

(May 22, 2013 at 5:40 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Should there be a law that prohibits abortion? If there is such a law, then there must be a punishment for disobeying it. What would that be?

Like I said before, I'm not interested in the logistics of punishments.

Quote:Before that, the statistics pointed to some 10 thousand illegal abortion per year. Now, we have some 8 thousand legal ones per year... and the illegals became negligible.
Which world do you prefer?

Obviously I'd prefer neither. The fact remains that the abortions were illegal. Just because many people do illegal things doesn't make it right.

I would also call into question any statistic which hopes to accurately count illegal abortions, which are by their nature kept off the books. I would very much like to see how the counting (or more likely, the estimation) was done.

(May 22, 2013 at 5:45 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: So what if it's human? What's so special about that?

We generally protect the lives of humans with laws. That's what's special.

Quote:It's not an individual person, so why does it have more rights than the mother, who is a living individual person?

Interesting that you include the word "living" to describe the mother. Embryos are also alive.

Quote:Why is it suddenly OK to kill it if the mother was raped? Does that make the foetus less human to you?

No, and it's a hard scenario which I've struggled with for a long time. I'm still not happy, but given that the embryo was forced onto the mother unwillingly in an attack; possibly one of the worst attacks that can happen to a person, I do not believe she should be forced (again) to carry the result to birth. If she wants to, that is great, but I do not hold it against anyone who decides to get rid of a horrible reminder of an assault.

Quote:A born human being, for a start. With certain abilities. Disabled people keep their personhood because their inability to do certain things is due to a disability, not because they aren't people.

One could argue that embryos are at a disability because of their position in the womb. Given that you use the word "born" in your definition, there is no point in continuing the discussion of personhood, because that is the key thing that separates both our definitions. I doubt we'll ever agree on this.

Quote:But unwanted? That's where it becomes life-ruining. Having a child changes your whole life forever. It changes your body forever. It changes the way your mind works forever. Those all become incredibly negative changes if they were not welcome ones. Nobody should be forced into that.

Nobody is forced into it. Consensual sex has its consequences.

(May 22, 2013 at 5:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Still nope. Does it look remotely like a person to you?

It looks like a human embryo, which is what matters to me. It's a human. It has human DNA. Not only that, but it has its own individual DNA, and it's alive.

(May 22, 2013 at 5:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

Quote:Before that, the statistics pointed to some 10 thousand illegal abortion per year. Now, we have some 8 thousand legal ones per year... and the illegals became negligible.
Which world do you prefer?

Obviously I'd prefer neither. The fact remains that the abortions were illegal. Just because many people do illegal things doesn't make it right.

I agree.
But, to me, it doesn't seem like something that should lead to imprisonment, nor fines... I don't think many women abort for the fun of it...

(May 22, 2013 at 5:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I would also call into question any statistic which hopes to accurately count illegal abortions, which are by their nature kept off the books. I would very much like to see how the counting (or more likely, the estimation) was done.

Aye, I then added the EDITs... I guess you missed them.
Here's the second one:
EDIT2: Found an estimate for illegal abortions between 20 and 40 thousand in 2003, prior to the new law... it seems they extrapolated this from having about 1000 women admitted into the hospitals for complications in that year.


yeah... it comes from a blog, so meh... but it matches with the estimates I'd heard on the news at the time... of course, with time, my memory become crappier and crappier on the actual numbers...

(May 22, 2013 at 5:56 pm)Tiberius Wrote: We generally protect the lives of humans with laws. That's what's special.

Ones that have actually been born, yeah. Because they have thoughts and feelings.

(May 22, 2013 at 5:56 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Interesting that you include the word "living" to describe the mother. Embryos are also alive.

Only in the same sense as a bacterium or a louse.

(May 22, 2013 at 5:56 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No, and it's a hard scenario which I've struggled with for a long time. I'm still not happy, but given that the embryo was forced onto the mother unwillingly in an attack; possibly one of the worst attacks that can happen to a person, I do not believe she should be forced (again) to carry the result to birth. If she wants to, that is great, but I do not hold it against anyone who decides to get rid of a horrible reminder of an assault.

So forcing something horrible is fine if she wasn't raped? Brilliant.

(May 22, 2013 at 5:56 pm)Tiberius Wrote: One could argue that embryos are at a disability because of their position in the womb. Given that you use the word "born" in your definition, there is no point in continuing the discussion of personhood, because that is the key thing that separates both our definitions. I doubt we'll ever agree on this.

lol! Being a foetus is a disability? I'm writing that one down for future giggles. Lol

(May 22, 2013 at 5:56 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Nobody is forced into it. Consensual sex has its consequences.

So? Abortion is one way of dealing with those consequences.

(May 22, 2013 at 5:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It looks like a human embryo, which is what matters to me. It's a human. It has human DNA. Not only that, but it has its own individual DNA, and it's alive.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you it's not a human or a person. It's a fucking ELEPHANT!

I don't know how many times I have to tell you it's not a human or a person. It's a fucking ELEPHANT!
[/quote]
Didn't some guys around here say that it was a fish?

Catfish, it's your queue!! come on!