Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Limits on Abortion
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 230 (387804)
03-02-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by iano
03-02-2007 6:58 PM


Oh, and I should add....
quote:
...the fact that the vast majority of abortions are merely self-serving lifestyle choices....
Whether this is true or not, there is nothing wrong with self-serving lifestyle choices when there is no harm done to another person.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by iano, posted 03-02-2007 6:58 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 03-02-2007 7:37 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5975 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 107 of 230 (387807)
03-02-2007 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by NosyNed
03-02-2007 6:37 PM


Re: Start of personhood
NosyNed writes:
She told me then that a new born is not given a name or considered a part of the family in a real way until they are a year old.
Actually, there are wide-spread traditions which remember a day when infant mortality was so low that a one-year birthday was a bigger event than a birth, and you don't have to go to the jungle to find them. I recently was told the same story by a friend from Ukraine.
It is similar to the way pregnant mothers traditionally keep the 'secret' until after the first trimester; the chances of survival till birth are much greater after that milestone. But this tradition doesn't mean anyone considers the 3rd trimester the beginning of conception and growth.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by NosyNed, posted 03-02-2007 6:37 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5975 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 108 of 230 (387809)
03-02-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by docpotato
03-02-2007 4:57 PM


docpotato writes:
appreciate how those aligned with the Pro-Life movement are always concerned about the all-too real dangers of human extinction...
Funny, in my experience here at EvC, it is the atheist evos who are extremely concerned with applying 'survival tactics' to any and all moral behaviours, including abortion.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by docpotato, posted 03-02-2007 4:57 PM docpotato has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5975 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 109 of 230 (387811)
03-02-2007 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by crashfrog
03-02-2007 5:49 PM


I think that you were mentioning harlequinism. It may be a mercy to spare these children from a life with disease, but eventually we will be able to foresee many diseases, as well as genetic predispositions to disease. As there are great advances already in treating harlequinism, and cures almost in sight, isn't the fact that people have allowed these children to live worth something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2007 5:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2007 2:31 PM anastasia has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1963 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 110 of 230 (387813)
03-02-2007 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Chiroptera
03-02-2007 7:05 PM


Re: Oh, and I should add....
Whether this is true or not, there is nothing wrong with self-serving lifestyle choices when there is no harm done to another person.
Absolutely.
Which is not something we can speak of when it comes to defining personhood. Let's agree that the harm part of the proceedings is established in any case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Chiroptera, posted 03-02-2007 7:05 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by kuresu, posted 03-02-2007 7:45 PM iano has not replied
 Message 112 by Chiroptera, posted 03-02-2007 8:19 PM iano has not replied
 Message 115 by nator, posted 03-02-2007 11:58 PM iano has not replied
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2007 9:21 AM iano has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2535 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 111 of 230 (387816)
03-02-2007 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by iano
03-02-2007 7:37 PM


Re: Oh, and I should add....
welcome back, ian.
first I've seen you since around last november.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 03-02-2007 7:37 PM iano has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 230 (387821)
03-02-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by iano
03-02-2007 7:37 PM


Re: Oh, and I should add....
quote:
Which is not something we can speak of when it comes to defining personhood.
Sure we can. We do it all the time.
People eat beef because cows are defined to be not "persons".
Conservatives advocate capital punishment because, even though they acknowledge that murders are people, they nonetheless have forfeited the rights of "personhood".
On another thread, Tal acknowledge that innocent civilians killed in US military actions in Iraq are "persons" who have the rights of "personhood", but nonetheless we shouldn't feel guilty about their deaths while waging a "just war".
We make judgements about "personhood" and their rights all the time.
Why on earth should cancer tumors, tapeworms, and fetuses be any different?
-
quote:
Let's agree that the harm part of the proceedings is established in any case.
So you think we should just agree that you are right? Why should I be surprised to see you suggest this?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 03-02-2007 7:37 PM iano has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 113 of 230 (387825)
03-02-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Hyroglyphx
03-01-2007 9:55 PM


Re: Who is ...
Please quote correctly:
The issue is that you claimed a fetus "forces" itself inside its mother.
is NOT the same as
quote:
An unwanted fetus forces itself upon the woman, and rather relentlessly.
The fetus is a product of cell division that occurs rather relentlessly whether the woman wants it to or not.
And perhaps its escaped your attention that this is how you got your start in life.
You are comparing a caring and wanting family making a decision to have children with a woman that does not want to have a child - especially one that did not engage in sex for the purpose of having a child, and most especially one that did not willingly engage in sex.
Remember I said an "unwanted fetus". This is rather like the difference between having a chosen life partner live with you and having a stranger move in and take over, asking you to cloth and feed them and pay their living expenses while they sit around and watch tv.
One is wanted the other has forced itself on you.
The original comparison was between the forced participation in sex with an unwanted partner - rape - and the forced participation in the growth of the unwanted fetus.
Seriously, what in the world are you talking about?
The fact that the fetus grows whether the woman wants it to or not, and in the process it changes the hormones and other chemicals in her body and robbing her of nutrients and energy, and that this and the increased size and weight impinges on her ability to carry on life in a way that she desires to live.
Lets see, I believe that upon conception that a brand new human being is procreated.
That's great IF that is what you want to accomplish, but you are asking someone to accept your definitions whether they want that result or not.
You must realize that no life was "created" - two living elements sometimes combine (when an egg is fertilized) following sex, but they were not "dead" before. All that has happened is that some DNA has combined. DNA is not a person.
The probability that the result will be a healthy (breathing, functioning heart, functioning brain) baby is small. Often there is no contact between sperm and egg or sperm fails to penetrate the egg. Even after forming a zygote (the combined egg and sperm) most do not attach to the wall of the uterus but pass out to expire - naturally, and functionally no different than single - or even groups of - cells lost from the surface of your skin.
Of the 45% of the zygotes that form and then choose to stay - the zygote chooses whether to attach to the uterus or not - some 15% expire or are rejected by the woman's body leaving only a 33% success rate of zygotes becoming a fetus.
From Message 45:
quote:
Notice that technically "fetus" refers to the last 6-7 months of development, preceded by the zygote to embryo stages (Human Development Chart), and that this is about where the life\death line is crossed as well. The chart also says (bold mine for emphasis):
day 7 - 9: Blastocyst implants in wall of uterus (55% of Zygotes never reach this stage.)
{and further down:} 15 % of pregnancies miscarry during weeks 4-12
With just those two figures you are down to 75% of 45% = 33.75%, or a 1/3rd natural "success" to that point: 65% of zygotes never make it to week 12 normally.
By the time you've reached full term the percentage is down even more, and then there is the success rate of births that result in healthy (breathing, functioning heart, functioning brain) babies. You're probably into low single digits percentage wise of results in a healthy baby due to having sex.
This fetus, the product of a zygote that chooses to stay, grows relentlessly, whether the woman wants it to or not. It forces changes in hormones and dimensions and health on the woman whether she wants it to or not: while this may be tolerated by a woman that wants a child, an unwanted fetus forces itself on the woman, forces her to participate in it's continued growth and domination of her body.
Lastly: "If its not a baby, then you aren't pregnant."
If it's a baby and it's still in the womb then it is dead.
Babies require access to atmosphere to breath - that is one of the things that makes a baby fundamentally different from a fetus.
quote:
WordNet
baby - noun
1. a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk; "isn't she too young to have a baby?"
2. (slang) sometimes used as a term of address for attractive young women
3. a very young mammal; "baby rabbits"
4. the youngest member of a group (not necessarily young); "the baby of the family"; "the baby of the Supreme Court"
5. an immature childish person; "he remained a child in practical matters as long as he lived"; "stop being a baby!" [syn: child]
6. a project of personal concern to someone; "this project is his baby"
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary
ba·by - noun
Inflected Form: plural babies
1 : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT ”see BLUE BABY
2 : an extremely young animal ”baby adjective ”ba·by·hood /-bE-"hud/ noun
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary
ba·by - n.
A very young child; an infant.
Even after being born - becoming a baby - one can argue that it is still not a fully functioning human being:
http://www.genefaith.org/...bases/resources/humdevchart.html
quote:
child 8 - 11 yrs Capable of independent survival
And you would be closer to the truth than calling a zygote a baby - or a human being.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : partner

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2007 9:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 12:25 PM RAZD has replied

  
tudwell
Member (Idle past 6001 days)
Posts: 172
From: KCMO
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 114 of 230 (387826)
03-02-2007 9:49 PM


Proactive solution...
It's been asked before, but it's been largely ignored. NJ, iano, petrophysics, etc., this one is for you.
We've already established some of the possible ways to retroactively stop abortion (legal prosecution), but what are ways to proactively stop abortion? What would you have kids learn about sex, and from whom? Would it be the birds and the bees from Mom and Dad, or Sex Ed in Health class? How widely available would contraceptives be?

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 3:37 PM tudwell has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 115 of 230 (387830)
03-02-2007 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by iano
03-02-2007 7:37 PM


Re: Oh, and I should add....
quote:
Which is not something we can speak of when it comes to defining personhood. Let's agree that the harm part of the proceedings is established in any case.
So, are the fertilized eggs that are flushed out of the body during menstruation, "persons"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 03-02-2007 7:37 PM iano has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 116 of 230 (387831)
03-03-2007 12:07 AM


hypocrites
I can't help but notice that none of the anti-choicers have addressed my post regarding the fact that making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of abortions.
The only thing it does is make abortions less safe and therefore, it puts more women's lives in danger.
I also can't help but notice that none of the pro-forced pregnancy and birth people in this thread have stepped forward and claimed that they strongly support the free and widespread availability of contraception to everyone, comprehensive sex education, free universal prenatal care for women, and universal healthcare for children for that matter, nor any other measure that is proven to reduce the incidence of abortion and/or improve the lives of the millions of America's children without health insurance.
Lastly, I also notice that there has been no response to my conclusion that all of the anti-choicers must be real broken up about all of those dead babies being flushed down the toilet along with used tampons.

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dr Jack, posted 03-03-2007 5:15 AM nator has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 230 (387837)
03-03-2007 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by AZPaul3
03-01-2007 7:52 PM


Re: What countries? U.S. history.
It has been a while, but, abortion has not always been legal in this country. The horrors of back-street abortions were one of the reasons most states liberalized their anti-abortion laws.
All of which was their choice in most cases, good sir. No one forced them to get pregnant and no one forced them to shove sharp objects inside their cervix. So if you don't mind, please spare me the sympathetic hyperbole of the "horrors" of back alley abortions as if it were justification for the horrors of abortion.
Every one can empathize with a scared young woman who has potentially hindered all of her plans. I get that part. The part that gets hazy for me is how someone can be so self-absorbed to actually murder their own child because of something that they are, at least in part, the causation for in the first place.
We like to think about sex as having no strings attached. Its enjoyable, so do it, kind of mentality. Morals aside, its history that tells us that sex has a tremendous responsibility. And should we view it flippantly, it proves that for every action, there is a reaction. Why are we surprised when the consequences come to light?
I've said it before in other threads, and I'll say it again in this one. Why not an adoption? I mean, that alleviates and absolves the mother of responsibility, yet she ends up doing the far more honorable, decent, and moral thing-- which is to allow an innocent the right to live as we do. This also gives a couple who can't conceive the chance to love a child the way the child deserves in a loving, symbiotic relationship the way families were designed to do. The birth mother is happy, the child will surely be happy, and the adopting parents are happy. In this scenario, its a win-win-win situation. With abortion, only the once prospective mother gets her way.
What say you?

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by AZPaul3, posted 03-01-2007 7:52 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Rahvin, posted 03-03-2007 4:39 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 121 by nator, posted 03-03-2007 7:10 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 222 by AZPaul3, posted 03-11-2007 7:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
kongstad
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 118 of 230 (387842)
03-03-2007 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by iano
03-02-2007 6:58 PM


Re: Greater hate has no woman than this, that she lay down her babies life for hersel
iano writes:
which serves to ill-disguise the fact that the vast majority of abortions are merely self-serving lifestyle choices
And what is wrong with being self serving?
Taking medication, like insulin, is a self-serving lifestyle choice. Eating food is self-serving lifestyle choice, getting married is self-serving lifestyle choice, going to church is a self-serving lifestyle choice.
We all do a lot of things for ourselves, that is not wrong in itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by iano, posted 03-02-2007 6:58 PM iano has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4040
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.1


Message 119 of 230 (387845)
03-03-2007 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Hyroglyphx
03-03-2007 2:41 AM


Re: What countries? U.S. history.
No one forced them to get pregnant and no one forced them to shove sharp objects inside their cervix. So if you don't mind, please spare me the sympathetic hyperbole of the "horrors" of back alley abortions as if it were justification for the horrors of abortion.
...which totally ignores the possibility of rape.
Let's play a little game, shall we, NJ? Let's pretend you're a woman. In fact, let's pretend you're an innocent 14-year old girl.
Now let's imagine some monster, statistically likely to be a family member or at least someone you know and trust, rapes you. It's horrible, unimaginably frightening, and a dozen other things that essentially make it the absolute worst experience of your life, and an event that will traumatize you until the day you die.
And now you're pregnant. You can't possibly take care of the baby, and you would choose an abortion, but the new law makes that first degree murder - so that option is out.
For the next nine months, the child gestates. But that's not all that happens. Your body changes in response to the pregnancy, until you have to drop out of (at least regular) school to carry to term. Your educational future has now been significantly damaged, though it's still recoverable. You begin to experience morning sickness, which for many women essentially means 3-6 months of constantly being violently ill.
Keep in mind that every time you feel sick, every time the baby kicks, every time you are reminded that you are pregnant (which basically means "constantly"), you are also reminded of the event that caused all of this. The rape. The absolute worst experience of your young life.
Because your body was still undeveloped in the first place, a normal birth is impossible. A cesarian section is going to be necessary to remove the baby "safely." Because of the new law, you are now forced to undergo a major operation against your will. Being only 15 now, you are terrified of the procedure itself. The doctors prep you for surgery, and cut open your abdomen - a scary prospect even for more mature mothers who actually WANT their babies. As an added bonus, you get a scar for the rest of your life for an additional reminder.
This, of course, is all assuming everything goes well.
I don't know about you, but I find anyone who would force that on a rape victim to be a monster almost as bad as the rapist. Why, exactly, do you have the right to force someone under the knife over your personal beliefs, beliefs that are completely unsubstantiated by any form of evidence whatsoever? If you believe it's wrong...fine. If your wife agrees, she can feel free to not have an abortion. That does not give you the right to force others to fall in line with your unsupported beliefs.
The part that gets hazy for me is how someone can be so self-absorbed to actually murder their own child because of something that they are, at least in part, the causation for in the first place.
We like to think about sex as having no strings attached. Its enjoyable, so do it, kind of mentality. Morals aside, its history that tells us that sex has a tremendous responsibility. And should we view it flippantly, it proves that for every action, there is a reaction. Why are we surprised when the consequences come to light?
I'm disturbed by your outlook, NJ. The way you respond with this "you do the crime, you do the time" bullshit not only bypasses instances where there IS no choice involved, it ALSO treats pregnancy as a punishment for a crime. This is what Crash has been berating you over "slut-bashing" for. Pregnancy and childbirth SHOULD be celebrated, revered events. This is the case when pregnancy is actually desired. When it is not, and a person is forced to go through with a highly disruptive, painful, and often psychologically and physically harmful process just becasue they had sex and had some bad luck, or were raped...
Regarding the shoving of sharp implements into cervixes...you mean to tell me you have no sympathy for all of the women and girls who died because of these crazy procedures? You honestly think that by making abortion illegal again, forcing women desperate to abort to turn to butchers and coat hangers, is a good idea? The "baby," if you insist on calling it that, still dies, as does the mother. You don't save life at all. You kill more people with such an insane policy.
I've said it before in other threads, and I'll say it again in this one. Why not an adoption? I mean, that alleviates and absolves the mother of responsibility, yet she ends up doing the far more honorable, decent, and moral thing-- which is to allow an innocent the right to live as we do. This also gives a couple who can't conceive the chance to love a child the way the child deserves in a loving, symbiotic relationship the way families were designed to do. The birth mother is happy, the child will surely be happy, and the adopting parents are happy. In this scenario, its a win-win-win situation. With abortion, only the once prospective mother gets her way.
What say you?
Remember the game we just played? That's why. Even if we assume you give the rape-child up for adoption and don't have your life compeltely taken over by the unwanted child, even if we erase the rape part and just make this a normal, unwanted teen pregnancy, the process of pregnancy and childbirth can be extremely traumatic and invasive. You don't just squirt out the kid and hand it off.
And what about severe disabilities, NJ? Lets say that early in the pregnancy it is discovered that the baby has a severe genetic disorder. The child will never be capable of normal brain function. It can survice, but it will essentially be a vegetable for its entire life. In this case, forcing the pregnancy is a life sentence for the parents, and the child. The child has to "live" a miserable half-existance, and the parents are forced to devote their entire lives to caring for something that is incabable of loving them back. Caring for a disabled child can be very rewarding, if the choice is made voluntarily, but forcing such a thing is monstrous to all parties involved.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-03-2007 2:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 9:14 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 120 of 230 (387846)
03-03-2007 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by nator
03-03-2007 12:07 AM


Re: hypocrites
I can't help but notice that none of the anti-choicers have addressed my post regarding the fact that making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of abortions.
Is it actually a fact? I mean, the levels of abortion estimated in the UK before it was legal is much lower than the current level of abortions carried out. I believe a similar situation exists in the US.
Do you have any statistics from countries which have gone backwards from a state of legal abortion to a state of illegal abortion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by nator, posted 03-03-2007 12:07 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by nator, posted 03-03-2007 7:38 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024