|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5115 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abortion questions...? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
I am advocating that we should encourage a solid moral foundations, which I think is christianity, in which the illegal aspect of abortion would be a natural outflow, as would the joyful aspect of giving life, even if not in the best circumstances. But how can you force your moral compass on all via law? Who is the person that is pregnant? Why should you, or anyone else, get to decide for her what her moral compass should be? The point remains that it is the woman carrying this fetus who is ultimately responsible for the well being of this set of cells, at least until the time comes that said set of cells can survive without it's host. Sure, you can encourage a certain set of moral standards: for those who are willing to listen, not the rest of society. THAT is why it is called PRO-CHOICE and not pro-abortion. "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9208 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
slevesque writes:
Now the abortions are obviously done before that, but intrinsically, there is nothing legally speaking that would be charged against a doctor who would kill the baby right before the birth. I was pretty sure it was about the same issue in the US. After all, up until 2002, babies who would survive abortions would be left somewhere to die. And I also remember an interview from a doctor here talking about a case in the US where the mother actually shot here baby when only his head was outside, and the doctors pursued here for murder but she was found non-guilty for this very reason: if it wasn't born, it wasn't a human. The doctor's point was actually to defend the view that it wasn't murder, in reaction to comments from a well know pro-abortionist in europe who had claimed that according to him, abortions at such a stage was murder. Can you provide any evidence for any of this? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9208 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
And it is great that you help support a home made for young women so they can keep their children. And it almost got shut down by pro-abortionists lobbying who bashed it in the news. I'm not saying all pro-choice are against places like these, but to me it is surprising that some would want a place like that to close. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9208 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
But after the article, a political party wanted the government to impse a pro-choice certification, that would mean that you cannot counsel a pregnant woman if the organism isn't pro-choice. Do you have any evidence for any of your anecdotes? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Buz, we've had this discussion before.
The father and the mother are the one's doing the sex thing; the primary function being propagating the species. Absolutely, completely false. The primary function is mutually enjoying sex with a loved mate, as responsible adults. This includes using birth control for those that do not want to have children as a result. If this were not the case then the market for birth control would be very insignificant: it isn't. I do not know anyone who has not employed birth control.
LOL, RAZD. Defining the term person is another ongoing debate topic between ideological counterparts. It's been ongoing for decades. Not all philosophers and scientists agree. But without an understanding of that term, the we are talking at cross purposes. If it is not a human life, then it is not murder. If it is not a person, then it is not murder. This is the heart of the debate, yes? So let's start with the lesser criteria: when does life qualify as being human life? First, we can look at the legal definition of when human life ceases - we already have a culturally accepted legal definition of human death, where it is legally permissible to discontinue life support of a person in a coma and declining health - from Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion Message 1:
Legal Death The first legal standard of death is very clear -- from the Legal Definition of Death (click): UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT 1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulator and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards. That's the legal nuts and bolts of it: either failure of {heart\lung} system or total brain failure. Any person with either of these failures is universally and legally considered to be dead.The word "irreversible" is used to refer to common medical practical limits to resuscitation. The people involved in the decision to terminate life support for people where this applies are the immediate family in consultation with the doctors, once the doctors have determined that the legal conditions apply. From this we can determine a definition of human life as the point where the conditions for human death do not apply. Again, from Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion Message 1:
Legal Life When considering this in terms of beginning rather than end, the same conditions should apply. Where the irreversible failure of either system qualified for death, the irreversible instigation of both is logically necessary for life. Likewise "all functions" would become "any functions" of the brain. This could be reworded in a format similar to the death act above as follows:
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF LIFE 1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who has sustained either: (1) irreversible instigation of circulator and respiratory functions, and (2) irreversible instigation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive. A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards. Note that this is derived logically from the legal definition of {death} to the form of the legal definition of {NOT death = life}, and thus it is legally applicable and morally, culturally as acceptable as the universal definition of death. Usually, I believe, the heart and circulatory system develop first, followed by rudimentary activity in the brain stem, then upper brain areas, followed last by the development of the respiratory systems. Typically the limit to saving premature babies depends on the level of development of the lungs -- before a certain point the lungs just cannot be made to function. This point would have to be determined by professionals in each case, based on the actual level of development the fetus has reached. Once the stage has been reached where there is a functioning heart and circulatory system, a functioning brain, and functioning lungs - or at least the point where these systems would operate autonomously if life support were removed - we have human life, according to the culturally acceptable conditions used to determine human death. I think everyone would agree that this stage is not reached until late, in the third trimester, of pregnancy.
Buz to ringo writes: Message 103: The place to start is with those of mutual consent. The legality of exemption for others could be on a case by case basis. Why not decide each and every pregnancy on a case by case basis? Obviously if the immediate family wants to have a child it is nobody's business to interfere with that decision. If the immediate family has reasons for wanting to terminate a pregnancy then, just as they have the right to decide to terminate life support for a terminally dying child, just as they each have the right to decide to remove a tumor to save the life of the other, they should have the right to decide to terminate life support for a group of cells that have not reached the stage of qualifying as human life as long as the legal conditions were met. Use this method to determine your "case by case basis" and then make it the rule rather than the exception. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
You are trying to subdue natural, biological effects of puberty...that is to be laughed at. Every human pulsion has to be positively directed, just because these are sexual pulsions doesn't give them the green light.
Yeah, but you could care less about the child once it is born. It's ok to admit that, I openly admit it too. I don't care about other people's children to the point of wanting to involve myself in their lives to help them, no one does. Like with Haiti. Sure, I sent money after the earthquake, we all did. But no one ever gave a shit about Haiti a week before the earthquake, when they REALLY needed the money to build a normal society that wouldn't fall apart during a quake. How much did you send to Haiti before the earthquake? Zero. Sure, we can all get on our self-righteous high horse and show concern for Haiti after the quake, when it was trendy to do so. But if someone came to me/you/anyone 5 years ago asking for money to build an infrastructure in Haiti, we would have told them to fuck off. As we do for every other country. Some honesty, at least, and consistency, please, because we are all, for the most part, centered around our own lives. We are only concerned superficially. you haven't really read what I wrote in this thread, did you ? My christian community (less than a thousand people) had already invested over 1 million dollars in haiti well before the earthquake, in a span of ten years. We built a medical center over there, and are still working on multiple projects. I myself put all my money into it when I was 16, went there and helped the project. We sustain financially an orphanage, amongst other things. I care about human lives, don't try to apply your own selfishness on me. I have the same selfish human pulsions, but I subdue them for what I find to be the morally right thing to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
This is the article who caused the stir:
Rue Frontenac This is the political party asking for a pro-choice certification: Rue Frontenac It's all in french
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9208 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Rue Frontenac
Does not seem to say what you claim. They are calling for certification of all groups that provide pregnancy support. There does not seem to be a call that they all be certified "pro-choice". There is an attempt to get them certified so that they do not spread pro-life lies. The headline is misleading I think. I am going to do more research on this and contact the Party qubcois to get a clarification. I will also send these articles to some french speakers to get clearer translations than I can get with web tools. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
The province of Quebec is very biased towards pro-choice.
One of my childhood friend got pregnant, and the option of keeping the baby was never mentioned by here counselor at a governmental institution. In fact, when she mentioned she might want to keep it, she advised against it, giving reasons why she should not keep it. What they wanted, was that a pregnancy support center not be pro-life, in the sense that they could not give reasons not to abort. The article of course doesn'ta whole lot of detail, but it was talked a bit in the news for about two weeks and that was what it was about essentially.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Every human pulsion has to be positively directed, just because these are sexual pulsions doesn't give them the green light. But as you can see by the evidence, "directing" your sexual pulsions is not something the majority of humans can do. Behavior -vs- genetics: genetics always wins.
My christian community (less than a thousand people) had already invested over 1 million dollars in haiti well before the earthquake, in a span of ten years. We built a medical center over there, and are still working on multiple projects. I myself put all my money into it when I was 16, went there and helped the project. We sustain financially an orphanage, amongst other things.
Fair enough, I'll take your word for it, but this is not the norm. The norm is to allow Haiti to become what Haiti was and is currently today. Along with Haiti, many other countries suffer the same conditions, and very little concern is ever given. Because, we just can't. There is a reality that somethings are just not do-able. Given these conditions throughout the world, why bring unwanted children, or children that can't be taken care of, financially or otherwise, to this planet?
I care about human lives, don't try to apply your own selfishness on me. We are all selfish, some just pretend not to be to please the sky daddy. But I wonder if you didn't believe he was up there, would you still behave the same? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Are you saying all these deaths are ok ? I don't know... Western society, by its actions, says that they are ok. Your contributions in Haiti are admirable, but fall pathetically short of what you would do for your immediate loved ones should they find themselves in that situation. You will only do so much to inconvenience yourself. As do we all, so I am not accusing you nor condemning/belittling your actions in anyway. What you really need to ask yourself is why are you against abortion? It is simply because you are following orders. You feel that it comes from "you shall not kill", and therefore you must follow that instruction. It is not from any concern over the unborn "child"... Let us say that the foetus is a human with a soul. If it is aborted, then from a basic evangelical Christian theology, the human child either has its name written in the book of life, or it does not. If it doesn't and is consigned to hell (fiery pit, whatever, etc), then you are worshipping a monster and the rest of us can laugh about it. If it does, then it has already achieved the goal of its human life anyway, and will only ever experience the bliss of heaven (new earth, whatever, etc). If it is born, then on simplistic probablity, the chances are it will not receive Jesus as its saviour, will die still in sin, and will end up in hell (fiery pit, whatever, etc.) So from what exactly are you saving this unborn "child"? Why is it such a tragedy that it is not born? Is there anything beyond your attempts to follow your own interpretation of "you shall not kill"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
Good. Denying people a choice is very bad.
The province of Quebec is very biased towards pro-choice. One of my childhood friend got pregnant, and the option of keeping the baby was never mentioned by here counselor at a governmental institution. In fact, when she mentioned she might want to keep it, she advised against it, giving reasons why she should not keep it.
And without you giving out more information on the situation, that could've been very sound advice.
What they wanted, was that a pregnancy support center not be pro-life, in the sense that they could not give reasons not to abort.
This cannot be concluded from the information you gave. All we know is that a woman went to this centre and was adivsed to have the baby aborted. Further, this is anecdotal, and therefore not very compelling evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But as you can see by the evidence, "directing" your sexual pulsions is not something the majority of humans can do. Look up the medical definition of pulsions. I would say that pregnancies are a pretty good indication that pulsions do get directed. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9208 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Theodoric writes: slevesque writes:
Now the abortions are obviously done before that, but intrinsically, there is nothing legally speaking that would be charged against a doctor who would kill the baby right before the birth. I was pretty sure it was about the same issue in the US. After all, up until 2002, babies who would survive abortions would be left somewhere to die. And I also remember an interview from a doctor here talking about a case in the US where the mother actually shot here baby when only his head was outside, and the doctors pursued here for murder but she was found non-guilty for this very reason: if it wasn't born, it wasn't a human. The doctor's point was actually to defend the view that it wasn't murder, in reaction to comments from a well know pro-abortionist in europe who had claimed that according to him, abortions at such a stage was murder. Can you provide any evidence for any of this? Still waiting for support for these anecdotes. Or is this just pro-life propaganda? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9208 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
The article also destroys your argument that pro-choice=pro-abortion.
Pro-choice would prefer there is a way to bring the baby to term, but they also acknowledge and understand that the "choice" of what to do is the woman's.To the pro-life crowd the woman does not have any choices. She must bring the baby to term no matter what the circumstances. Also to destroy your argument. I am pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion. Personally, I feel abortion is a last resort option. Then again I have never had and never will have an unplanned pregnancy. How about you? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024