Should we legalise abortion?

Originally posted by bonkey

So its more correct for me to treat you as a non-life, rather than a life, because by your logic, its what you end up as if left alone long enough thats important, not what you are at any given point.
jc

perhaps, but only if you had no respect for human life.
After all you are factoring in an unknown existence after death as opposed to a known existence which is life.
It is known that human life exists(obviously) and that the foetus becomes that human life when left alone in most cases.
[a] who is anyone to choose who goes on from a foetus to a human being and if you can reduce it to the human form is doomed to more time dead than alive then how can you have any respect for life at all considering life ends ...
Theres no reconciliation, that I can see between that position and having respect for human life, it would apparently not matter from that standpoint, a case of ah lets get on with it,it will be good while it lasts...

So Bonkey could I ask you to help me reconcile the two then within the parameters of a respect for life?
How can you convince me that if I were to abort a child, that I am beyond reasonable doubt not killing something that if left alone will be like you or I?
Saying that the foetus only had a 70% chance of being that life won't do it.
I don't want to be going around saying I disregarded someones life because it only had a 70% or greater chance of surviving to term and I suspect the percentages are probably much more in favour of an undisturbed foetus than that...

Is he proposing that when a foetus is lost (i.e. not successfully brought to term) there should be a full investigation to determine if it was murdered (albeit accidentally)?

That one made me laugh to be honest(on a side note) given the vigour with which the difference between manslaughter and murder was debated in the McCabe thread a few weeks back.

I can only imagine how difficult, it would be to sustain a position of having to treat a miscarriage as murder untill proven otherwise.
Besides,what percentage of women( in the western world) who have miscarriages would not be attending a doctor during pregnancy? small enough I'd say and the percentage that wouldn't have immediate medical care afterwards, would be even smaller still.

On your central question of whether I'd regard a deliberate mis carriage as murder...
Yeah I would tend towards that, with the tendency being a conviction, if that event was carried out while the lady had a visible "bump"
And in all cases I would consider it wrong, very wrong as again I couldn't reconcile it with , that foetus's potentiality

As far as I can recall, and it was mentioned , both in a previous thread here and in humanities, some states in the U.S can try a person for the murder of an unborn child if it's mother is attacked by that person resulting in the death of the unborn child.
I've no doubt that a court would take into account in some manner at least the death of an unborn child as a result of an assualt where the assault came to trial.

I do know that it would most certainly be possible to accuse mallace if there was suffecient evidence where a deliberate abortion was carried out , outside the conditions of it's availability in a given jurisdiction.
But there is a difference between that deliberate event and a recorded medical event such as a natural miscarriage.
The difference is the intent of the parent.
One is caring and nurturing, with fatal results, the other has a clear and callous disregard for the foetus's potentiality with fatal results.

I doubt that a mis carriage due to an accident brought about by a mothers unintentional carelessness( eg tiredness prior to that fall down the stairs) could ever reasonably be looked at as deliberate and therefore it's not a deliberate killing and certainly not murder or manslaughter.

monument

Originally posted by Moriarty
Is a cancerous growth in somones stomach a human? No. Is a foetus in early pregnancy human? I don't think so. Whether it might become one if left alone is irrelevant.

Society kills people all the time. Every time a life support machine is turned off, every time war is declared, every time safety measures aren't enacted because they would cost too much.

I wouldn’t have thought a foetus would be generally compared to a “cancerous growth”.

If you’re going to support abortion in early pregnancy, could you possible define ‘early pregnancy’, and define when something human is actually A HUMAN?

War and bad safety – Oh, so two wrongs do make something right? A support machine being turned off is usual because the person can no longer survive, and has no chance of doing so.

Originally posted by Moriarty
No it wouldn't. It would prove that it is human tissue. Just like any other part of your body, or any other unwanted growth on your body for that matter.

Would a DNA test not prove it is not the same DNA as the mother?

“Unwanted growth” could you clarify when humans become something other then a growth?

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
perhaps, but only if you had no respect for human life.

I do respect human life. But your argument is that once something is going to become something else, it counts as that something else.

You count as dead. Therefore, there's nothing to respect.

After all you are factoring in an unknown existence after death as opposed to a known existence which is life.

Actually, thats not true. We're not sure what existence is, nor conscious thought, nor most of the things that you will use to define humanity.

We don't know these things at all, not to any quantifiable, definable degree.

[a] who is anyone to choose who goes on from a foetus to a human being

I'm not arguing that point.

I'm asking who can specify when it becomes a human being that is entitled to the rights that we extend to human beings?

If you can reduce it to the human form is doomed to more time dead than alive then how can you have any respect for life at all considering life ends ...

Thats the flaw in your logic I was trying to point out

The "it will become" argument suffers exactly that flaw, and I'm deligted that you've seen it. I'm just not sure that you realise it applies to yours as well.

So Bonkey could I ask you to help me reconcile the two then within the parameters of a respect for life?

You can, but its a seperate point.

I am trying to illustrate that anyone who claims that they are definitively correct in where they say life begins is kidding themselves. Somehow this seems to have been misconstrued to mean that I support one side or the other.

I'm saying that neither side can know the truth.

Why is this important? Because once you recognise that you cannot know that you are correct, you're halfway to realising that the very moral grounds on which you put your belief over someone else's is highly shaky.

How can you convince me that if I were to abort a child, that I am beyond reasonable doubt not killing something that if left alone will be like you or I?

I can't. But I wouldn't try to. As long as you didn't try telling me that the truth or the fact was that this was unquestionably a human life already, I'd have no problems with what you're saying.

I don't want to be going around saying I disregarded someones life because it only had a 70% or greater chance of surviving to term and I suspect the percentages are probably much more in favour of an undisturbed foetus than that...

Then don't. Just don't insist that its a fact that this is a human life which must be entitled to the right of life, because thats just not the case - its not a fact.

I can only imagine how difficult, it would be to sustain a position of having to treat a miscarriage as murder untill proven otherwise.

Isn't that disrespecting life?

You want a foetus to be considered as a human life until proven otherwise, but they're not entitled to the same treatment as you or I would get were we to die?

I don't see what difficulty has to do with it.

Besides,what percentage of women( in the western world) who have miscarriages would not be attending a doctor during pregnancy?

Does it matter? Surely its not okay because its only a few lives we're talking about here?

On your central question of whether I'd regard a deliberate mis carriage as murder...

Not deliberate. Negligent.

I know people who smoked throughout pregnancy against medial advice. I know one chain-smoker who lost her child during pregnancy.

Are you not outraged that people like this can firstly recklessly endanger life through smoking, and then get our sympathy when it goes wrong, rather than an ingvestigation to determine if they killed a human?

if that event was carried out while the lady had a visible "bump"

Why would that matter. Thats saying the stage of development is in some way significant, which undermines your entire "it will become, so it should be" line of reasoning.

As far as I can recall, and it was mentioned , both in a previous thread here and in humanities, some states in the U.S can try a person for the murder of an unborn child if it's mother is attacked by that person resulting in the death of the unborn child.

But will they investigate and prosecute the mother for negligent homicide?

Again, there seems to be this dichotomy, where life is precious if someone else takes it, but if the mother is to blame...well...hey....thats just a shame. And you don't seem outraged by this at all?

But there is a difference between that deliberate event and a recorded medical event such as a natural miscarriage.
The difference is the intent of the parent.

Hey...drunk drivers kill people all the time. They don't intend to do it. But if a mother-to-be causes a miscarriage by excessive drink/smoke/drug abuse/malnourishment, or anything else equally as stupidly negligent, should they not be treated in the same manner?

One is caring and nurturing, with fatal results, the other has a clear and callous disregard for the foetus's potentiality with fatal results.

I'm still talking about the third case - negligent homicide. Just like drunk-driving can lead to.

I doubt that a mis carriage due to an accident brought about by a mothers unintentional carelessness( eg tiredness prior to that fall down the stairs) could ever reasonably be looked at as deliberate and therefore it's not a deliberate killing and certainly not murder or manslaughter.

If a mother gets pissed out of her head, and drops her newborn child from out of a window, she is culpable. If she gets pissed out of her head prior to birth and has a miscarriage, why is she not equally as culpable?

jc

Moriarty

Originally posted by monument
I wouldn’t have thought a foetus would be generally compared to a “cancerous growth”.

Generally it isn't, because people naturally have some sort of an emotional attachment to the unborn. That doesn't take away from the fact that during the first few weeks of a pregnancy there may not be that much to differentiate between the two.

Originally posted by monument
If you’re going to support abortion in early pregnancy, could you possible define ‘early pregnancy’, and define when something human is actually A HUMAN?

I was under the impression that most people understood the term early pregnancy refered to the embryo (which is defined as being from conception to 8 weeks, after which it is a foetus until birth).

<edit>Oops, forgot the second part to that. I can't tell you when a human is actually a human. I just don't know. It may be very early in pregnancy, or it may not be until a number of months after birth. As long as we can't decide what makes a grown human being human, we can't answer your question.</edit>

Originally posted by monument
War and bad safety – Oh, so two wrongs do make something right?

No, I'm just demonstrating that society today doesn't value life as priceless, but only valuable at best. It should also be recognised that an individual life is more valued in western society today than at probably any other time in human civilisation.

Originally posted by monument
A support machine being turned off is usual because the person can no longer survive, and has no chance of doing so.

And an embryo has how much greater a chance of surviving if it's life support machine (the mother) was 'turned off'?

Originally posted by monument
Would a DNA test not prove it is not the same DNA as the mother?

Sure it would, but that's not what was stated originally.

Originally posted by monument
“Unwanted growth” could you clarify when humans become something other then a growth?

If you want to get into technicalitys, humans are never a growth. Throughout pregnancy (from conception to birth) they're a parasite.

A growth is defined as "An abnormal mass of tissue, such as a tumor, growing in or on a living organism."

Earthhorse

Actually bonkey, I wouldn't class the idea that life begins at conception as a belief so much as an assumption based on reason, at least for some of us. That is, in the absence of an agreeable definition of what a human is and, by virtue of this, a test for said humanity, it is reasonable to assume that a life begins at the soonest opportunity available.

It's akin to the principle of the assumption of innocence whereby, even if the whole world believes a person to be guilty of a crime, there is a burden of proof attached to the claim. I don't think anyone would say that we "believe" in this principle but rather than we have reasoned it out.

Any point beyond conception would appear to be more arbitrary a place at which to assume life begins. Some have cited brain activity arguing that until this point the embryo or foetus is simply a "collection of cells", but can the brain not similarly be reduced to a series of electrical impulses and chemical reactions?

Trebor

Originally posted by Earthhorse

It's akin to the principle of the assumption of innocence whereby, even if the whole world believes a person to be guilty of a crime, there is a burden of proof attached to the claim. I don't think anyone would say that we "believe" in this principle but rather than we have reasoned it out.

that system is only in use because the majority of people want that system. if a political party put on it's manifesto that it wanted to change from "innocent until proved guilty" to the other way round and they were voted into power they would change the law to this. so if the majority of people assume that it's ok to kill a foetus or embryo then thats all that matters. facts are meaningless when it comes to issues like this, all that matters is what the majority think is right.

keu

facts are meaningless when it comes to issues like this, all that matters is what the majority think is right.

personally, I don't see why Governments or even society in general should have an opinion on this count, I think its purely a matter of personal value.
It seems more of a moral or ethical issue and surely that should be up to the person to decide for themselves, (in the same way we no longer allow govts to determine our faith.)

I wonder how many guys out there could imagine being raped (a vicious crime in itself) and then carry the child of somone who has carried out the assault.
Would you do it?
Not only are there life long psychological repercussions, but there is also the issues of financing the lives of both mother and child.
I'd rather jump off a cliff.

Let the women choose.

Originally posted by bonkey
I do respect human life.

I know you do, and of course you do.I understand your approach to my argument as being to forensically examine it.

But your argument is that once something is going to become something else, it counts as that something else.
You count as dead. Therefore, there's nothing to respect.

No. au contraire, I hold that the foetus is that something else, ie human by virtue of what it becomes in all probablity if left alone.
It's not dead untill it dies and neither are you or I.
There fore , much as you or I must be respected so should the foetus,unless you can tell me with reasonable certainty that it has no respectable chance of getting to the stage we are at.

The "it will become" argument suffers exactly that flaw, and I'm deligted that you've seen it. I'm just not sure that you realise it applies to yours as well.

But does it? as per my last point there, I don't see where, considering that the foetus is alive while something that is dead is exactly that... dead
I see what you are driving at, but to fully come to that position, you must disregard the potential stage of independent living that every foetus may have if it survives undisturbed.
Theres no other way that I can see to reconcile the way you are putting it with abortion and thats a reconciliation that I cannot do because of the knowledge that I would have to disregard the unborns potential.
I'll expand that a bit later in this post as it is relevant to another related point.

I am trying to illustrate that anyone who claims that they are definitively correct in where they say life begins is kidding themselves. Somehow this seems to have been misconstrued to mean that I support one side or the other.

Ah no, as per my opening line in this reply,I see what you are attempting to do.I wouldn't have construed that as support for one side or the other.
Indeed I quite enjoy reading your interesting tack on various arguments and your analysis of them.
I do recall, your tack in the last abortion thread here was the same but could have been construed likewise as actually supporting a pro-life position.
I can come to that conclusion from being a regular reader of this forum over the past 3 years or so, newbies on the other hand may not.
Thats an aside however.

Are you not outraged that people like this can firstly recklessly endanger life through smoking, and then get our sympathy when it goes wrong, rather than an ingvestigation to determine if they killed a human?

many people would be outraged both in the smoking cause/case and many wouldn't.
But then in the case of a smoker, I know too many of them as do you and the adiction is such that, the blame there is or should be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the tobacco company.
In the case of the drunken woman , again there are many, possibly as many, who would have emphathy at the loss of the child but would have anger at the cause of the death.

Because once you recognise that you cannot know that you are correct, you're halfway to realising that the very moral grounds on which you put your belief over someone else's is highly shaky.

I've only posed the question , for which there is no answer.
I know there is no answer, and I suspect you do too.
In other words,I and many like me know that in all likelyhood the probablity that every foetus will have a high chance to become like you and I is so great that, it is beyond me to dismiss it's potentiality and that is for one very simple reason...
If I give my approval for abortion across the board of a foetus regardless of what stage of development,I know that I have with as near 100% certainty as I can get, given my approval to the killing of something in too many cases(one is too many) with as much potentiality (and in our case human actuality and ergo theirs) where they may have survived as you and I have.

Now clearly those that would support elective abortion haven't pondered what I have, or maybe they have and it just doesn't bother them.
and fair play to them if they can feel like that or rationally tothenmselves conclude that, I have seen nothing to bring me to their position, it's their choice.
For me it's a case of erring strongly on the side of caution and giving the foetus the benefit of the doubt, in the knowledge that doing so means that many human lives will exist that would otherwise have been snuffed out before they even had a chance.

Earthhorse

I think you've missed my point Trebor. All I was saying was that the position that life begins at conception could be defended logically and rationally and therefore was not always simply a "belief". Obviously both sides of the argument can be argued rationally; I wasn't saying I was right.

We could have a political party who promised to reduce crime by playing soothing music. The majority may well vote for them and I would have to accept that, but it wouldn't suddenly make any other stance on crime fighting an irrational belief.

monument

Originally posted by Moriarty
And an embryo has how much greater a chance of surviving if it's life support machine (the mother) was 'turned off'?

It is generally thought that the unborn human life has a good chance of surviving in the long term. While a life machine is usually not turned off when the person has a similar chance in the long term.

Trebor

Originally posted by Earthhorse
I think you've missed my point Trebor. All I was saying was that the position that life begins at conception could be defended logically and rationally and therefore was not always simply a "belief". Obviously both sides of the argument can be argued rationally; I wasn't saying I was right.

i think you might have missed my point
what i am trying to say is that in this issue it does not matter who is right and who is wrong all that matters is what the majority of people think is acceptable. if it was proved tomorrow that it's a human from conception nothing will change, people will still want abortions and as-long as the majority feel it's ok to have them no matter what/who they are destroying they will continue to do so. the only way i can see for people not to have abortions is for them to be able to remove the foetus and either raise it in a test tube (not sure if this is possible) or to impregnate someone else with it. To the person getting the abortion it's still only one visit to a clinic and their problems are solved.

if anti-abortion people then try to grant human rights upon the foetus then again like any law it will only succeed if the majority of people obey it.:

keu

right or wrong implies moral judgment. So if the majority vote for..that makes it morally correct?

To the person getting the abortion it's still only one visit to a clinic and their problems are solved.

Have you ever met anyone who has had an abortion?

Trebor

Originally posted by remote viewer
right or wrong implies moral judgment. So if the majority vote for..that makes it morally correct?

Have you ever met anyone who has had an abortion?

what is morals if not what the majority feel is acceptable and what is not? so yes if the majority thinks it's acceptable to kill unborn babies then it is.

i have only ever met two people who have had an abortion and both have accepted the choice that they made. i feel however that you are misunderstanding what i am saying though. i ment problem solved in that they have decided to have a abortion so the go to a clinic to have one thus the problem of them getting the abortion is solved i did not mean to say that they do not feel guilt, etc. but that is another problem needing solving.
also the guilt would be lessened if what i proposed were possible/feasible as they would not be terminating the baby but rejecting responsibility for it.

keu

what is morals if not what the majority feel is acceptable and what is not? so yes if the majority thinks it's acceptable to kill unborn babies then it is.

I tend to disagree but I understand what you are saying.
I consider morals as personal values, so for instance, if the majority decide it is morally acceptable, than a woman should not suffer psychological pain after termination. This is never the case.

two true life examples (that I am aware of). Couple who conceived outside of marriage. She decides to terminate, but they get married anyway. Marriage disolves year later due to unrelenting psychological issues, she blames him for getting her preganant, he blames her for killing his child.

Second example: young teenager raped and impregnated, no income. Having an abortion will leave life long psychological repercussions, as will not having an abortion and having to deal with the consequences.

I do not believe that the govt will ever be able to resolve these issues, by making something acceptable on a majority vote.
The issue I am making is that these issues should be taken out of the hands of the government, and hand responsibility back to health authorities and the people who must deal with them.

This is a moral issue..not a legal one.
Morals:
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

so yes if the majority thinks it's acceptable to kill unborn babies then it is.

someone tell me what is wrong with that statement, why does it make me feel ill?

Trebor

Originally posted by remote viewer
I tend to disagree but I understand what you are saying.
I consider morals as personal values, so for instance, if the majority decide it is morally acceptable, than a woman should not suffer psychological pain after termination. This is never the case.

that makes no sense, just because something is acceptable does not automatically remove emotion from it. everybody regrets something that they have done at one time or another, but what they did was acceptable. i.e someone decides not to go to college then 10 years down the road feel regret at this decision because their life might have gone a different way had they gone to collage.

two true life examples (that I am aware of). Couple who conceived outside of marriage. She decides to terminate, but they get married anyway. Marriage dissolves year later due to unrelenting psychological issues, she blames him for getting her pregnant, he blames her for killing his child.

cause and effect, they chose abortion and now must deal with it, they did this by splitting up.

Second example: young teenager raped and impregnated, no income. Having an abortion will leave life long psychological repercussions, as will not having an abortion and having to deal with the consequences.

again it's her choice to chose but she cannot chose if the majority think abortion is "bad"

I do not believe that the govt will ever be able to resolve these issues, by making something acceptable on a majority vote.

i am pro-choice but the govt is suppose to represent the people if the people believe that abortion is "wrong" then the govt must enforce the will of the people, which is the majority.

This is a moral issue..not a legal one

i looked up the definition before posting myself, and what i said still stands if this is a moral issue then all that matters is what the majority feel is morally acceptable

someone tell me what is wrong with that statement, why does it make me feel ill?

sorry about that but i used an extreme case to get my point across. at the moment it is unacceptable to you but think back through history and at the crusades. it was morally acceptable and considered a good thing to do to go and kill "heathens"

keu

I think you are missing the point Trebor,

when you discuss what is acceptable (morally) I question whether if murder was deemed acceptable would everyone start running around killing everybody else? where do you draw the line, does everybody else saying it's ok, make it ok?
Or if you were a father and someone murdered your child, just because the majority has voted and accepted that it's ok, does that make it morally correct?
Or do you have a mind of your own (conscience) which helps you make those decisions.
In Texas corporal punishment is acceptable, does that make it right?
Don't confuse socially acceptable with morally correct.

I wonder if your opinion would be different if you had children, it seems to me that you have little regard or value for life. (which is not uncommon in these parts)

I'm going to leave it there, I just believe that no one other than the person involved should have to make these decisions (and determine if they are right or wrong), not bertie ahern or your next door neighbour.

ie: legality shouldn't be an issue-pro choice.

Trebor

Originally posted by remote viewer

I'm going to leave it there, I just believe that no one other than the person involved should have to make these decisions (and determine if they are right or wrong), not bertie ahern or your next door neighbour.

ie: legality shouldn't be an issue-pro choice.

i agree with you, legality should not be an issue but unfortunatly we live in a world were other peoples opinions effect the idividual so in order to free up the individuals right to chose we must first get the majority to agree. i will leave the other points as they are more fitting to the philosophy board but just in case you feel like adding more who decides what is morally correct?

keu

tbh trebor, if your going to argue pro choice, you might make more headway by exluding statements such as

so yes if the majority thinks it's acceptable to kill unborn babies then it is.

and

To the person getting the abortion it's still only one visit to a clinic and their problems are solved.

...doesn't work.

Trebor

Originally posted by remote viewer
tbh trebor, if your going to argue pro choice, you might make more headway by exluding statements such as

and
...doesn't work.

but that is what it is, to call it anything else is just semantics, people trying to justify want they are doing by calling it a bunch of cells. but yet they have the guilt associated with an abortion. as was already said why would they feel guilty of getting rid of a bunch of cells. i am not trying to convince other people i am just letting people know of my opinion on the subject if a woman wants an abortion then she should have the option but she should also have to deal with the consequances of that action. but we must first get the go ahead from the majority in order to do this.

the other quote is taken out of context. i said that in relation to my idea about instead of abortions people go into a clinic and the foetus is removed and then developed either in a test tube (if possible) or else implanted into a willing woman. so they will not have to feel guilty over killing a bunch of cells. thus one visit to the clinic eases whatever situation they were in that resulted in them having to get rid of the baby without the associated guilt of ending a life.

keu

i am just letting people know of my opinion on the subject

here's the thing..pro choice takes that opinion away from people like you and hands it back to the people that matter.
If you consider an embryo as cells thats great an all ..but no one should give a f*k what you think..thats the point. Its not about killing babies..its about allowing the person making the decision..make their own decision. Guilty or not.

understand?
its a shame your mother didn't consider you just a bunch of cells though..

isolde

Hmm.

Originally posted by monument
It is human.

What do you think it is dog? Cat? Monkey? Bird?

No, I don't think it's a dog/cat/monkey/bird/alien/whatever else you like. I think it's clear that I meant that I believe that is a foetus.. or embryo.. not a child, i.e. not a human being from conception. Semantics.

Originally posted by Zulu
Isolde - you brought that factor into this debate - you alone

Actually no. The comment that angered me initially was posted by Gurgle..

Any silly slapper who gets knocked up through stupidity should be made to carry the baby to term, might teach her a lesson.

Now I apologise if I took you up wrongly but comments such as:

- IMO, contraception is there - and lots of it. If it fails, there's the morning after pill.
- I said nothing of slappers - thats mearly your own insecurities.
- Unfortunatly it does matter how you feel. If you don't already have the vote, I imagine you will soon (god help us)

... comments such as these gave the impression that you were playing the young/foolish/easy-girls-get-pregnant-and-have-abortions card. As already said, the latter two are offensive and unnecessary. So maybe you can understand why I got that impression from you.

Moving on..

Don't ignore kill - because thats what is happening. I understand that you find "terminate" or "abort" more sanitary, but at least recognise the truth.

The truth according to who? You? You choose to believe it's human, I choose to believe it's not. Therefore you use "kill" and I use "terminate". Seems pretty clear-cut to me. So as neither of us know its real status at conception, neither of us can say, therefore you cannot tell me what you say is the truth. The truth in your eyes maybe. Not in mine. It's relative.

As for your whole girlfriend argument, yes I would encourage her to go through with it. I tend to take responsibility for my actions, it's a quality I look for in others.

And if she really didn't want to, if it was the last thing in the world she felt she could cope with?

again with the aliens - whats your problem - it's evidently human!

Again, Zulu, that's your belief.. it's not proven fact either way.
Like the Hitler comment by the way. Nice.

Originally posted by bonkey
And thats what gets me -either side of the abortion debate insisting that their view of when human life begins (in the sense of life that we hold sacrosanct) is the "truth".. neither of you are presenting the truth. Your presenting a belief, no more and no less.

I agree and appreciate that. I'm not claiming to be presenting the truth. I know I can't prove it's not a human being from birth, just as no-one can prove it is. As stated, I believe it's not a human being from conception, but I don't know.

Originally posted by remote viewer
It seems more of a moral or ethical issue and surely that should be up to the person to decide for themselves..
Let the women choose.
.....
I wonder if your opinion would be different if you had children, it seems to me that you have little regard or value for life. (which is not uncommon in these parts)

Remote viewer, you confuse me. I'm really not sure what your stance on the issue is??

Originally posted by Earthman
On your central question of whether I'd regard a deliberate mis carriage as murder...
Yeah I would tend towards that, with the tendency being a conviction, if that event was carried out while the lady had a visible "bump"

Earthman - with regards to the "bump".. people show at different times throughout the pregnancy. For example, my mother is very thin and when she had my little sister some years ago you wouldn't have known she was 8 months pregnant unless she told you. She only started showing a little in the last few weeks..

Now clearly those that would support elective abortion haven't pondered what I have, or maybe they have and it just doesn't bother them.
and fair play to them if they can feel like that or rationally tothenmselves conclude that, I have seen nothing to bring me to their position, it's their choice.

That's what it's all about, isn't it? The right to choose. Some people choose to go against abortion. I genuinely respect that wholeheartedly. That's their choice, and I feel they're entitled to it. I choose to keep abortion an option. That's mine. So, we're all happy?

keu

Remote viewer, you confuse me. I'm really not sure what your stance on the issue is??

Ok. I can understand. I am pro life..yet pro choice. Will explain.
If the truth be told, there’s an awful lot of male opinion regarding the sanctity of the embryo. Lets put this into perspective. Men, (especially post pubescent males) are quite used to discarding their gooey “cellular structure” via tissue into the bin on a daily basis. I can only gather that this mentality places the embryo in the same category, as something easily dismissible and therefore, there should be no question with discarding it as a non life form.
I do not believe this is true.
From the heart, I knew the morning after conception, that I was carrying a life. When I considered abortion it was impossible, I tried very hard to go through with it, but I suppose my conscience won out. I was facing an impossible task bringing a life into this world but I could not terminate it.
I’m quite glad I didn’t, my daughter is the love of my life and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Anyone who considers the embryo as nothing more than a cellular structure just has no comprehension of what it is like to carry life. (it’s usually men who do this)
And they can argue this point til the cows come home, but it doesn’t change a thing.

Now..if this is a free society, than why should my opinion weigh on another making that decision? (this applies in the opposite too, why should someone convince another that the embryo is not a life form and therefore no need to feel guilty about it) Surely that is something someone must decide for themselves. Should I go around walking the moral highground, judging and condemning because of how I feel?

To offer choice and remove the legal issue, makes this an individual responsibility. I do not believe this will increase the instances of abortion, but it may increase awareness surrounding the issues of termination and I personally think that’s something that will be more helpful in the long run.

People make that flight to the UK without much consideration and once they are there, there’s not much counselling involved, its almost a case of ok I’m here..better go through with it now.
If there were proper guidance from the health authorities, there may be a possibility of greater options, less stress and trauma, better back up and support procedures and most of all more information available to the people who have to make these decisions and make them in the light of day, rather than in the heat of the moment.
There are so many reasons why women may require a termination, medical or traumatic instances which require a great deal of support, but I would think that 70% of terminations are carried out by women making a “life choice”.
Don’t let me make the choice for them (or let anyone else make it for them either), but give them the proper guidance and support they need and let them make their own decisions (with correct supervision and medical structures in place)

That's what it's all about, isn't it? The right to choose. Some people choose to go against abortion. I genuinely respect that wholeheartedly. That's their choice, and I feel they're entitled to it.

this is what it all comes down to....doesn't matter what you or I think at the end of the day... give them the choice.

Zulu

Originally posted by bonkey
And, as I've just said above...you'll die someday. Thats even more certain than the argument that a foetus will probably reach term if left alone.

So does this make you a corpse?

What you will become and what you are are clearly not the same thing.

Try again?

jc

Thats not my logic - thats yours.
...and where you get your counterargument from???
"Well you're gonna die someday, so you've no right to life" - nice but about as realistic as a successful software delivery (sorry nerd joke)

Earthhorse

No Trebor I'm pretty sure it is you who is missing the point. You see, the concept of democracy is not at issue here. It's quite clear we both understand the idea of majority rule. But the whole idea of having a discussion (like on a discussion board) is that people can present and reject various points of view. We could equally say on any issue, for instance citizenship, that a given person's viewpoint is not relevant because in the end the matter will be decided on by the majority. That does not mean that people should not think about the issue at hand before deciding which way to vote.

But all that is totally irrelevant to the point I was originally making which is simply that the idea of life beginning at conception can be reasoned and not simply held as a belief, religious or otherwise.

I hope that clarifies my idea for you because I'm loath to keep backing and forthing on this. You'll note that I'm agreeing with you regarding the operation of democracies but I fail to see why you've singled out my viewpoint as irrelevant when everyone else involved in the discussion has as much, or rather as little, say in the matter as I.

bonkey

Originally posted by Zulu
Thats not my logic - thats yours.
...and where you get your counterargument from???
"Well you're gonna die someday, so you've no right to life" - nice but about as realistic as a successful software delivery (sorry nerd joke)

You're still not getting it.

Here, let me make it clearer.

You say :

Because something in StateA will more than likely become something in StateB, we must consider it to be in State B as soon as it is in StateA.

I say :

Because something in StateA will definitely become something in StateB, we must consider it to be in State B as soon as it is in StateA.

They're identical arguments, except that we differ in what we assign as StateA and StateB. If mine is nonsensical, then yours, logically, must be equally so.

If anything, my argument is stronger than yours because in my case, the state-change is definite.

jc

Trebor

Originally posted by Earthhorse

But all that is totally irrelevant to the point I was originally making which is simply that the idea of life beginning at conception can be reasoned and not simply held as a belief, religious or otherwise.

ok, i understand were your coming from. what i was just trying to argue was that even if tomorrow all the scientists agreed that it is human from conception nothing will change. people will still want abortions and will go to what ever lengths needed to get them and aslong as the majority feel it is acceptble then it doesn't matter if it is a human or not. so the issue to me is, does society think it's ok to offer abortions to women.

Zulu

Originally posted by bonkey
You're still not getting it.

Here, let me make it clearer.

You say :

Because something in StateA will more than likely become something in StateB, we must consider it to be in State B as soon as it is in StateA.

I say :

Because something in StateA will definitely become something in StateB, we must consider it to be in State B as soon as it is in StateA.

They're identical arguments, except that we differ in what we assign as StateA and StateB. If mine is nonsensical, then yours, logically, must be equally so.

If anything, my argument is stronger than yours because in my case, the state-change is definite.

jc

Well your argument MUST be stronger - I mean you've used some nice terminology. You've simplified it for dummies (thanks), and highlighted some excellent logic - I'm convinced.
....But there is one small problem. You are telling me that I am saying somthing I'm not saying.
This sentence, or jibberish, "something in StateA will more than likely become something in StateB, we must consider it to be in State B as soon as it is in StateA" iisn't my point at all. I am not breaking human life into "States". I am treating human existance as one single state, and I am stating that it is all equally important.

It appears by your logic that life isn't as important at certain stages. Nice. I just hope I'm in the correct stage when they come knocking at my door.

monument

Originally posted by isolde
No, I don't think it's a dog/cat/monkey/bird/alien/whatever else you like. I think it's clear that I meant that I believe that is a foetus.. or embryo.. not a child, i.e. not a human being from conception. Semantics.

Do you think it is human, or not?

Lets not go down the "lets not argue over semantics" road.

Zulu

Originally posted by isolde
Hmm.
No, I don't think it's a dog/cat/monkey/bird/alien/whatever else you like. I think it's clear that I meant that I believe that is a foetus.. or embryo.. not a child, i.e. not a human being from conception. Semantics.

Could you not say also say human foetus, human embryo, human child?

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Moriarty

No it wouldn't. It would prove that it is human tissue. Just like any other part of your body, or any other unwanted growth on your body for that matter.

yea right, that wart on my foot is gonna be a cute lil baby one day lol


the non human argument is total bull, if is not a human then you must believe there is some instantaneous transition from 'Tissue' to personhood, can u please tell me when this amazing transformation from non human to human occurs ?, when the child is born ? and what exactly occurs in this non time scale measurable period in the biological sense ? what suddenly occurs to turn a non human into a human,
if it is when the child is born what does born mean, when its head is out ? if so how much of its head is out blah blah blah, from conception to death is the sum of life,

what grates on me most is that the only reason all you pro abortionists are here to advocate it is because your mothers didn't have the same view as u, they thought you were human, not cells or tissue or 'non humans' so here you are now, having passed through your 'untermenschen' stage of life unscathed rallying to have those who haven't yet killed, nice one guys