Baby born at 21 weeks survives-should we revisit abortion laws?

metrovelvet

When you are pregnant and go for your viability test with the doctor they test for a heartbeat, not "conciousness."

When you are at 21 weeks and want an abortion, they induce labour and suffocate the baby.

Abortion existed before feminism. You can be a feminist and also find abortion to be a barbarian act. Feminism began with seeking the right to vote and to emanicipate women from the political theory [John Locke] that they couldnt own property because they were property and therefore couldnt vote - same reason slaves couldnt.

Abortion rights in the US centre on the body as property. Just as you have the right to take a gun and shoot a stranger on your land, you can get rid of an unwanted tenant. That is how abortion rights evolved through and by feminism - the relationship between property and gender.

This is why a woman cant be charged with homicide for an abortion but anyone who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with double homicide.

This baby vs society argument is ridiculous. That is the same argument china uses and look what they do - kill little girls.

Dontico

The-Rigger wrote:

Clearly you are an idiot, I think you should get banned for this type of crap, though I'm probably not arsed contacting a mod.

Hitler would agree with me? murder all handicapped people? Aligning me with Hitler? This is an outrageous and stupid comment to post, I did not say anything of this nature or even anything that could be misconstrued as this! You are a clown.
...........................................
Having a baby that was conceived because of a rape is punishment to the baby in my opinion.

thanks for calling me an idiot. very good point you make there.:rolleyes:
do you know what inflaming is?

you say its ok to kill an unborn cause you dont think there life is worth living. hitler thought it was ok to kill jews and the handicaped cause he didnt think thier lives were worth living.
know see the connection?

i think it would suck to be a very ugly person, but i wouldnt suggest killing them.

Bradidup

Wicknight wrote:

Or in the dirty tissues of teenage boys up and down the country.

Millions die each night in bedrooms around the world.

Theres some stark contrast between what goes on in teenage boys bedrooms and to what is carried out by mature adults in abortion death camps.......try another one.

Cantab.

Thaedydal wrote:

Do you really think there was no abortion before feminism ?

I'm sure the psyche of rebellion into which you have entrenched yourself in to appears perfectly rational to someone who does not know God - you have after all invested a lot in your construed identity which is ultimately based on rebellious, anti-Catholic, neo-1960s thinking. It is understandable that someone in your position, where all morality is relative, can be so flippant about abortion: especially when life has no meaning, no context, and is accidental by its very nature. I sympathise with you and your misguided attitude towards the morality of abortion.

However, the immoral thinking in which you engage in is an attack on God Himself as man was created in the image of God. To kill a baby at its most perfect, vulnerable and innocent stage, is one of the most despicable acts that man can do.

Get over the seige mentality of your false convictions and see abortion for what it really is: plainly wrong and immoral. I pray for people like you.

JC 2K3

Did you mean to quote me?

Cantab.

JC 2K3 wrote:

:rolleyes:

I'm afraid I can't continue to argue with you due to A)You bringing religion into it, and B)You're laughable idea that Liberalism is a conspiracy.

Eh how can you possibly have a discussion on abortion ethics without instigating a moral authority? As far as I'm concerned, my moral authority is the CC, and if you don't like that, you can shove it up your *ss for all I care.

:cool:

Jesus Wept

Dontico wrote:

thanks for calling me an idiot. very good point you make there.:rolleyes:
do you know what inflaming is?

you say its ok to kill an unborn cause you dont think there life is worth living. hitler thought it was ok to kill jews and the handicaped cause he didnt think thier lives were worth living.
know see the connection?

i think it would suck to be a very ugly person, but i wouldnt suggest killing them.

lol, don't take the moral high ground with me, you compared me to Hitler. You have also written 'you say', Don't say 'you say', quote me (accurately), and don't imply that you are doing so.

Honestly you should get warned or banned by the mods, but I haven't been arsed to do so.




It is not for me to decide whose life is or isn't worth living, and I've never suggested so.

What I have said is that if a mother does not 100% want/is ready for the baby, then she shouldn't have it, she certainly shouldn't be forced too by law.


Also I don't believe it was only Handicapped people that Hitler had killed, and by comparing me to him you are embarrassing yourself and negating your already highly fragile arguments.




You lost this argument the moment you invoked Hitler, please take a look at Godwins Law.

Cantab. wrote:

It appears to me that Godwin's Law is more prevalent in abortion debates.

(P.S, THAT'S how you take the moral high ground).

Jesus Wept

Cantab. wrote:

Eh how can you possibly have a discussion on abortion ethics without instigating a moral authority? As far as I'm concerned, my moral authority is the CC, and if you don't like that, you can shove it up your *ss for all I care.

:cool:

what is the cc

Bradidup

The-Rigger wrote:

what is the cc

The Roman Catholic Religion

Moriarty

Cantab. wrote:

Eh how can you possibly have a discussion on abortion ethics without instigating a moral authority? As far as I'm concerned, my moral authority is the CC, and if you don't like that, you can shove it up your *ss for all I care.

:cool:

I find the idea of exemplifying the catholic church as a (- sorry, The) moral authority on our little rock pretty staggering, considering the many wholly immoral actions it has carried out by all levels of it's organisation at the express orders of it's most senior members over many hundreds of years.

Then again, it's usually easier to see such things when you're able to look in from outside with objectivity.

Nevyn

Cantab. wrote:

I'm sure the psyche of rebellion into which you have entrenched yourself in to appears perfectly rational to someone who does not know God - you have after all invested a lot in your construed identity which is ultimately based on rebellious, anti-Catholic, neo-1960s thinking. It is understandable that someone in your position, where all morality is relative, can be so flippant about abortion: especially when life has no meaning, no context, and is accidental by its very nature. I sympathise with you and your misguided attitude towards the morality of abortion.

Ok so you have an opinion of me, /shrug.
That and wether if is correct or not has no bearing on what you were asked by me.

You still did not answer the question.
I will state it again.

Do you really think there was no abortion before feminism ?

Cantab. wrote:

However, the immoral thinking in which you engage in is an attack on God Himself as man was created in the image of God. To kill a baby at its most perfect, vulnerable and innocent stage, is one of the most despicable acts that man can do.

Get over the seige mentality of your false convictions and see abortion for what it really is: plainly wrong and immoral. I pray for people like you.

Again nothing to do with what I asked, full of presumptions and personal attacks.

That catholic churches stance on abortion at any stage is rather new in it's long history.

Pope Pius IX reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869.
Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 and to refer simply to "the fetus." The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended. The church requires excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

You many find more information the history of the cathoilc churches views here http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

Dontico

The-Rigger wrote:

Honestly you should get warned or banned by the mods, but I haven't been arsed to do so.

It is not for me to decide whose life is or isn't worth living, and I've never suggested so.

What I have said is that if a mother does not 100% want/is ready for the baby, then she shouldn't have it, she certainly shouldn't be forced too by law.

You lost this argument the moment you invoked Hitler, please take a look at Godwins Law.

(P.S, THAT'S how you take the moral high ground).

banned for what excactly?

your right it isnt up to to decide whose life isnt worth living. but saying "she shouldnt have" suggests you have an opinion whos lives are worth or not worth living.

Its generally a good idea to compare people to hitlers negative traits when posible, inorder to prevent another hitler. not that i think you are threat though.

i am well aware of gowins law. hitler was the most influential person in the past 100 years. of course conversations will eventually lead to mentioning him. 50+ million dead is fairly important.

metrovelvet

It may interest people here to know that I have recently discovered that the first trimester limit on abortions in the US is a myth and a women can get one at anytime during her pregnancy.

http://www.harpers.org/GamblingWithAbortion.html

4. The late-abortion language about the definition of “health” was left intact in Casey. That means Supreme Court doctrine still requires states to permit any abortion, even if the fetus is developed enough to survive on its own, once the doctor pronounces the abortion necessary to protect the woman's physical or psychological health. Abortion opponents like to sum up this standard as “legal at any time, for any reason, all the way through the ninth month of pregnancy.” In practice, there are very few physicians in the United States who perform abortions after the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy—a majority of states still have third-trimester prohibitions on the books, in fact, even though those laws would appear to be unconstitutional under both Roe and Casey. The data on late abortions doesn't provide much reliable detailed information about why women obtain them, or how they're done. The New York-based Alan Guttmacher Institute, which keeps the best abortion statistics in the country, has estimated about 10,300 per year at twenty-one to twenty-two weeks; 5,000 per year at twenty-three to twenty-four weeks; 850 per year at twenty-five to twenty-six weeks; and from 320 to 600 per year at twenty-six weeks and beyond.[2] Some of these are fetal-anomaly abortions, requested because a problem has turned up late in pregnancy, but many are not. American law doesn't require specific reasons.

The strategies for abortion if you examine through the trimesters vary in thier gruesomeness. At second trimester [from above link also]

The process takes several days, he wrote, starting with the sequential insertion of numerous dilators to open the patient's cervix. The patient is sent home, or to a motel, overnight. On the third day, using ultrasound for guidance, “the surgeon,” as Haskell referred to himself, uses forceps and his fingers to pull the whole fetus through the vagina.

The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up. . . .
The surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.

As I understand it with the partial birth abortion ban, it is no longer acceptable to dismember the feteos piece by piece in the womb and pull it out member by member but it must be "evacuated" intact and whole before they proceed with the scissors into the back of the neck.

Anyone else want to inform us of first and third trimester abortions feel free.

Nevyn

That proceedure would be to the latter end of a second trimester pregancy.

First trimester abortions are either medical or vacum, they happen between 6 to 12 weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone

Medical one is the prescription of a pill to induce a miscarriage.
It may be taken up to 63 days of gestation.
The remants of the pregancy will then pass from the body with in 24 to 72 hours from taking the pill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suction-aspiration_abortion

Electric vacuum aspiration (EVA) uses an electric pump that creates suction.

EVA is typically used for pregnancies between 6 and 12 weeks, and is the most common abortion procedure performed during the first trimester. It is an outpatient procedure that generally takes 10 minutes.

In this method, the clinician, usually a physician, may first use a local anesthetic called a "paracervical block" to numb the cervix. Then, the clinician may use instruments called "dilators" to open the cervix, or sometimes medically induce dilation with drugs. After cervical dilation, a sterile cannula is inserted into the uterus and attached via tubing to an electric pump. The pump creates a gentle vacuum which empties uterine contents.

The contents include the embryo or fetus as well as the decidua, chorionic villi, amniotic fluid, amniotic membrane and other tissue. A clinician may utilize a curette to ensure that all tissue was removed. Post-abortion care includes brief observation in a recovery area and a follow-up appointment approximately two weeks later.

Cantab.

Thaedydal wrote:

That proceedure would be to the latter end of a second trimester pregancy.

First trimester abortions are either medical or vacum, they happen between 6 to 12 weeks.

Medical one is the prescription of a pill to induce a miscarriage.
It may be taken up to 63 days of gestation. The remants of the pregancy will then pass from the body with in 24 to 72 hours from taking the pill.

Electric vacuum aspiration (EVA) uses an electric pump that creates suction.

EVA is typically used for pregnancies between 6 and 12 weeks, and is the most common abortion procedure performed during the first trimester. It is an outpatient procedure that generally takes 10 minutes.

In this method, the clinician, usually a physician, may first use a local anesthetic called a "paracervical block" to numb the cervix. Then, the clinician may use instruments called "dilators" to open the cervix, or sometimes medically induce dilation with drugs. After cervical dilation, a sterile cannula is inserted into the uterus and attached via tubing to an electric pump. The pump creates a gentle vacuum which empties uterine contents.

The contents include the embryo or fetus as well as the decidua, chorionic villi, amniotic fluid, amniotic membrane and other tissue. A clinician may utilize a curette to ensure that all tissue was removed. Post-abortion care includes brief observation in a recovery area and a follow-up appointment approximately two weeks later.

What a deathly cold and disgusting post. Your carefree indifference is sickening.

In your signature, you demand human rights. Yet it seems this is only when it suits you.

Nevyn

Cantab. wrote:

What a deathly cold and disgusting post. Your carefree indifference is sickening.

:rolleyes:

The post contains the medical terminology of the proceedures.
Again you are making personal assumptions about me.

Again you failed to answer the question that I asked of you in my first post in this thread.

Let me refresh your memory.

me wrote:

Do you really think there was no abortion before feminism ?

Cantab. wrote:

In your signature, you demand human rights. Yet it seems this is only when it suits you.

Again you are making assumptions.

InFront

Thaedydal wrote:

Again you are making assumptions.

In fairness, you did claim the baby has no rights before birth earlier in this thread

Nevyn

InFront wrote:

In fairness, you did claim the baby has no rights before birth earlier in this thread

Please point to were I personally said that in this thread, should not be that hard as this is only my 5th post in this thread.

The assumption is that I am indifferent.

InFront

Originally posted by Thaedydal

Originally Posted by Cantab.
In your signature, you demand human rights. Yet it seems this is only when it suits you.

Again you are making assumptions.

Nobody mentioned being indifferent, but picking and choosing human rights. From the second page of this thread:

There has been of later the arguement from the point of view of property law and body modifaction.

That a woman's womb is her property and what she decides to do with it and have done to it is her choice the same as the rest of her body.

Should preganty drug addict be locked away and kept clean for the good of thier baby ? should pregant women who eat unpasturised cheese be charged with atempted murder ?

A baby has not rights until it is born.

Nevyn

/me tracks back.

Oh right this is still THAT thread.
All the finger pointing and banding about of certain christin view points made me think it was a different thread.

Well it is true that a baby has no formal legal rights until it is born.
Hence a expecant mother can do all those and more.

InFront

I'm not aware of any country where the unborn child has zero rights. There must be some cases, but certainly not in the UK or Ireland.

Dontico

gandhi said something along the lines of,
"A civilisation should be judged on how they treat thier weakest members".
Something like that anyway.

the unborn are very weak.

Instant Karma

It's depressing to read all the comments defending abortion in this thread. Is this the height of our 'civilized' society? Ripping an unborn child from a womb is murder, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with feminism or religion, but it cannot be morally justified.

Nevyn

The unborn exsist in potentail from conception onwards.
We respect that potentail but there are time that the mother is put first before the potentail child, ie a woman a handful of weeks ending her her pregnancy to under go chemo.

The reasons and restrictions on when this is allowed can depend on the mother and the guidlines for the medical professionals in the country in which she resides.

Ideally no child ever concieved would be aborted.
Ideally every child could be gestated to term and if the mother was then to give that child up to a couple who can not have children of thier own it would be a wonderful and honourible thing.

Unfortunatly this is not the way of the world.

metrovelvet

Instant Karma wrote:

It's depressing to read all the comments defending abortion in this thread. Is this the height of our 'civilized' society? Ripping an unborn child from a womb is murder, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with feminism or religion, but it cannot be morally justified.

I would certainly agree with this. You dont need religion to demand your faith when you have science to provide the evidence. The CC can achilnd should keep their mouths shut until they start making ammends for their child trafficking and consipiracy to protect child rapists. They can also put some pressure on the men to step up and take care of their children and respect and support the mother of those children.

It is human life, and the methods to end it, from throwing chemicals at it to ripping it limb from limb, is barbaric.

People accept the 3 month limit because they think its more digestable, but really its like saying killing a two year old is is ok but killing an eight year old isnt.

Nevyn

A lot of the issues surroundng adoption revovle around the mother's family.
Often the grandparents to be will not want to have the child adopted to the point of waiting at the end of the bed in the labour ward and taking the child home to be reared even under the same roof of the mother despite her wishes.

Bradidup

My first cousin from Vancouver BC came over to Ireland around 1991 for a collage break, about 18yo at the time, was hanging around with my younger sister and other cousins. She met a guy from Dunlaoghaire who got her pregnant after a short while. He insisted she travelled over to the UK on the boat to have an abortion operation in a death camp. She refused and was badly beaten up by him. They split up almost immediately after that. All he was concerned about was himself being exposed and the prospect of having to support the child in the future. She travelled back to Vancouver and had the child adopted into a caring home. The child is now in high school.

Despite any weakness, hypocrisy or scandal that goes on in any religious organisation, it dose not justify anyone to carry out murderous barbaric acts. There are plenty of good adoption agencies, councelling & support out there, more so than ever now with the Internet available .

JC 2K3

Parents killing babies they don't want can make life easier for them. For the sake of making life easier why not just allow abortion? You don't have to apply this to people who have been born and say, "well why don't we just kill anyone we don't like". It would just be a man made deadline for killing unwanted babies simply to make life easier for the parents.

Instant Karma

JC 2K3 wrote:

Parents killing babies they don't want can make life easier for them. For the sake of making life easier why not just allow abortion?

Normally I don't even reply to most threads on the boards, mostly I just shake my head and let them pass by but I couldn't help myself with this corker.

To make life easier? .....are you having a laugh? is this the pinnacle of todays consumerist world where the burden of life can be made that little bit easier by knocking off a few unwanted unborn children? Certainly makes one proud to be human doesn't it. It's not like there are other issues out there that could be put higher on the list to make life easier.

Other cultures in the past performed infanticide of that there is no doubt, but we can look at these episodes and tell ourselves, that was in the past and we have evolved beyond that, but have we really?

I was involved with a woman once who had had an abortion. I never had the heart to tell her I didn't agree with it, but I knew she would never be able forgive herself.

Bradidup

JC 2K3 wrote:

Parents killing babies they don't want can make life easier for them. For the sake of making life easier why not just allow abortion? You don't have to apply this to people who have been born and say, "well why don't we just kill anyone we don't like". It would just be a man made deadline for killing unwanted babies simply to make life easier for the parents.

Say no more........
Who commits infanticide? Infanticide is multifaceted. In rats, the infanticidal animal may be the mother, a strange male, a father, or a strange female. Each of these may commit infanticide for different reasons under different circumstances.

Description of infanticide. Weanling rats are more likely to be killed by predatory attack. The adult pounces on the young rat, the adult's head repeatedly lunges downward and bites the young animal on the back and neck, especially the base of the neck, severing the spinal cord (Paul and Kupferschmidt 1975). This attack is the same one rats use to kill mice.

JC 2K3

Instant Karma wrote:

To make life easier? .....are you having a laugh? is this the pinnacle of todays consumerist world where the burden of life can be made that little bit easier by knocking off a few unwanted unborn children? Certainly makes one proud to be human doesn't it. It's not like there are other issues out there that could be put higher on the list to make life easier.

Well, firstly, this has nothing to do with consumerism. And secondly, life can be made easier by knocking off a few unwanted children, and it makes no difference to us that they never have the chance to live, so unless one's faith tells them otherwise, they shouldn't care. No unnecessary(from a health point of view) abortion has ever been consented to for any reason apart from that it will make life easier for the parents, I'm just telling it like it is.

Instant Karma wrote:

Other cultures in the past performed infanticide of that there is no doubt, but we can look at these episodes and tell ourselves, that was in the past and we have evolved beyond that, but have we really?

Nope, we haven't, and I see no reason personally that we should if it makes our lives easier. Less burdens and less consequences is a good thing.

Instant Karma wrote:

I was involved with a woman once who had had an abortion. I never had the heart to tell her I didn't agree with it, but I knew she would never be able forgive herself.

And why wouldn't she be able to forgive herself? No, it's not something inherently built into our emotional psyche that we must feel guilt for abortion, it's simply a societal state of mind. In the past people felt no remorse for killing people of a "lesser race" because it was societally accepted, if abortion was societally accepted then there'd be no remorse by those who chose to have one.

Bradidup wrote:

Say no more........

Description of infanticide. Weanling rats are more likely to be killed by predatory attack. The adult pounces on the young rat, the adult's head repeatedly lunges downward and bites the young animal on the back and neck, especially the base of the neck, severing the spinal cord (Paul and Kupferschmidt 1975). This attack is the same one rats use to kill mice.

Am I supposed to feel somehow emotionally effected by that? Because all that does is shows that infantcide is natural. We are only animals at the end of the day.

Bradidup

JC 2K3 wrote:

Am I supposed to feel somehow emotionally effected by that? Because all that does is shows that infantcide is natural. We are only animals at the end of the day.

If you say your are only an animal at the end of the day, would you accept an electronic chip in your right hand like what they do to cats, dogs and horses etc? You may one day have to make that decision.

Instant Karma

So you can now dictate to me what I should and shouldn't care about? it's not a matter of faith, I'm not a religious man but I have a sense of right and wrong, its an ethical and moral objection I have.

Also, I actually stopped myself from raising the 'society dictates guilt' card in my previous post, shame now as I fully expected that response. I think deep down we all know that ending a human life is wrong, and no matter what you may have deluded yourself into believing we are much much more than mere animals.

Moriarty

Instant Karma wrote:

I think deep down we all know that ending a human life is wrong,

Factually wrong. Many people don't believe that. I for one don't believe that ending a human life is intrinsically wrong.

Instant Karma wrote:

and no matter what you may have deluded yourself into believing we are much much more than mere animals.

"Much much more" in what way exactly?

I think you may also find biologists and medical doctors would have something to say about us no longer being "mere animals".

JC 2K3

Bradidup wrote:

If you say your are only an animal at the end of the day, would you accept an electronic chip in your right hand like they do to cats, dogs and horses etc?

What reason would there be to do such a thing? Cats and dogs are chipped so they can be identified should they get lost. Humans do not "get lost" in such a manner. If there were a good reason for it then yes, I would accept it.

Instant Karma wrote:

So you can now dictate to me what I should and shouldn't care about?

Nope, you have full freedom of speech and thought. However, everyone else does too and many agree that abortion should be legal.

Instant Karma wrote:

Also, I actually stopped myself from raising the 'society dictates guilt' card in my previous post, shame now as I fully expected that response.

Are you trying to say society does not dictate guilt?

Instant Karma wrote:

I think deep down we all know that ending a human life is wrong

I don't believe that this can be used as an indisputable truth. This is simply one philosophy, and it's only very recently in history that it has become widely believed to be unacceptable to kill any human being. As Thaed said, in an ideal world there'd be no abortion and every conceived child would be born, but we don't live in an ideal world, accidents happen and children are mistakenly conceived. Abortion makes life easier and it has no detremental effect on society.

Instant Karma wrote:

no matter what you may have deluded yourself into believing we are much much more than mere animals.

It seems you are more religious than you say.

JC 2K3

Bradidup wrote:

The Good reason would be, Identification, passport, cash card, credit card, drivers licence all stored in the chip, etc. very convient?

Convenient for the government maybe, but people would see it as an invasion of privacy. You have no point and this in no way relates to abortion.

Bradidup wrote:

Anyway the subject is getting side tracked and theres no point talking to you anymore.

So the only people worth talking to are those of your own persuasion or those who wish to argue about "when life begins"?

Bradidup

JC 2K3 wrote:

Convenient for the government maybe, but people would see it as an invasion of privacy. You have no point and this in no way relates to abortion.
So the only people worth talking to are those of your own persuasion or those who wish to argue about "when life begins"?

The side tracking on subject came about when you admitted you would have no problemb accepting electronic tagging similar to what is carried out with some animals mentioned if there was a good reason to. You also admitted as having the same natural instincts yourself as an animal such as a rat that would kill its own offspring, which is commonly known as infanticide.

Well I would consider myself totally seperate from you. I am human being with Christian morals, self respect and dignity. A child is brought into this world on conception and the termination of that life from then on is murder. As I already said, abortion is an abominable holocaust of epic proportions and is compared to that of the Jewish holocaust. ie, a mountain of 46,000,000 dead babies a year world wide

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Rock Climber wrote:

Tiny little thing and she lives In my opinion hoovering a baby like that out of it's mothers body would be murder.

It's time abortion wasn't allowed beyond 10 weeks as you now run the risk of killing a viable human being.

this is Ireland, its not allowed at all
or are you saying we should introduce it for babies under 10 weeks

i think its fine the way it is and that's illegal

Cantab.

Thaedydal wrote:

/me tracks back.

Oh right this is still THAT thread.
All the finger pointing and banding about of certain christin view points made me think it was a different thread.

Well it is true that a baby has no formal legal rights until it is born.
Hence a expecant mother can do all those and more.

Hence nothing, because a baby has legal rights before it leaves the womb.

Also, do you really think I believe that there is a 100% correlation between abortion and feminism?

It's just when I hear the slogan "a woman's right to choose", it reminds me of some crusty remnant from the feminist era. These mares need to get over their rebellious college days and realise that they would have been far happier getting married and having a family.

Cantab.

Moriarty wrote:

Factually wrong. Many people don't believe that. I for one don't believe that ending a human life is intrinsically wrong.

Well at least you are being honest. The only way that someone can have a pro-abortion viewpoint (as far as I can see), is if they don't believe ending a human life (i.e. killing) is wrong. How you come to this state of mind is another matter.

Moriarty wrote:

I think you may also find biologists and medical doctors would have something to say about us no longer being "mere animals".

Well if we were animals, and animal behaviour was accepted in society, we could all go around killing and raping one another to our hearts content. Looking to the animal world in order to justify classic thorny issues such as abortion, homosexuality, paedophilia, polygamy, etc. is fundamentally flawed: exceptional animal behaviour is reflected as acceptable human behaviour, yet normal animal behaviour (such as killing, raping and cannibalism) is conveniently blacked-out.

Nevyn

Cantab. wrote:

Also, do you really think I believe that there is a 100% correlation between abortion and feminism?

I have no idea hence I asked instead of making assumptions.

I

Cantab. wrote:

t's just when I hear the slogan "a woman's right to choose", it reminds me of some crusty remnant from the feminist era. These mares need to get over their rebellious college days and realise that they would have been far happier getting married and having a family.

Right so all women should not have jobs or careers and should resign themsleves to getting married, having kids and staying at home. :rolleyes:

Cantab.

Thaedydal wrote:

I have no idea hence I asked instead of making assumptions.

Well how about we make it a little easier: how probable is it that there is a 100% correlation between feminism and abortion?

Thaedydal wrote:

Right so all women should not have jobs or careers and should resign themsleves to getting married, having kids and staying at home. :rolleyes:

Sigh. Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

And on careers: since when is having a career the most important thing in one's life? I guess I have a "career", but I would quit tomorrow if I had to support my child. Would you do the same for your child? Or maybe you could tell me if your career would be more important?

Nevyn

Cantab. wrote:

Well how about we make it a little easier: how probable is it that there is a 100% correlation between feminism and abortion?

How about as long as there have been men and women there have been unwanted pregancies and was to end them.

Egyptian medical scrolls tell of various medical proceedure showed how to preform an abortion, and Chinese folk lore tells of using mercury
So abortion has been around for at least 5,000 year and feminism and women's sufferage is not yet a 100 year old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Cantab. wrote:

And on careers: since when is having a career the most important thing in one's life?

Not everyone wants to have children.
Many men and many women do not want to have a family.

Cantab. wrote:

I guess I have a "career", but I would quit tomorrow if I had to support my child. Would you do the same for your child? Or maybe you could tell me if your career would be more important?

I am currently a stay at home mother to my two children.
That reflects some of the choices I have made in my life.

Feminism is about choice and the freedom to choose for ones self a a person who happens to be female what you want to do with your life.
Self determination.

WindSock

Killing is not bad when it is done for the greater good. Euthanasia is a fine example.
Bringing an unwanted child into the world is cruel.
The Only Person that is allowed to have a say on it is the holder of the foetus themselves.
I'm sorry for men that do not want their partners to make the final decision, they can say they will stick around, but talking and doing are two different things. The person who is left holding the baby has the say. Thats my bit.

the_syco

If you see abortion as murder, do you then consider a misscarraige manslaughter?

Sure, the thing may become a baby however many weeks into the pregnancy, but if the woman wants it or not is a different story. Some have said that they'd quit their job if they got pregnant. So you'd quit your job, go on the dole, sell your house (as I doubt your dole would pay your mortgage), for your baby? Some women wouldn't, prefering to bring their child into a more stable home. And some will consider it a inconvience. Some will quit college, and become a single mother, but some will see it as "just another hurdle".

The feminists got what they wanted.

Who cares if you disagree.

Its their body.

But if they decide to keep it, the man will have to cough up for the next 18 years.

metrovelvet

Cantab. wrote:

Hence nothing, because a baby has legal rights before it leaves the womb.

Also, do you really think I believe that there is a 100% correlation between abortion and feminism?

It's just when I hear the slogan "a woman's right to choose", it reminds me of some crusty remnant from the feminist era. These mares need to get over their rebellious college days and realise that they would have been far happier getting married and having a family.

Abortion has existed in various forms before feminism. However, legalised and regulated abortion was a huge part of the feminist platform with the argument "keep it legal, keep it safe."

Since the 1960w feminists such as Naomi Wolf have acknowledged that motherhood has been left out of the feminist vision and agenda and instead of demanding the mans world accomodate the female experience, that it has forced women to break their bones to adapt to the male model and that abortion has facilititated this demand that women adapt to the male dominated political and economic infrastructures.

the_syco

the_syco wrote:

If you see abortion as murder, do you then consider a misscarraige manslaughter?

Seen that said before and it's ridiculous as one is man/woman induced whereas a miscarriage is nature.
chalk and cheese in this debate.
Calling abortion murder is melodramatic anyway-It's not too far off it mind if done in the latter stages though.
I personally think abortion is wrong,I couldn't condone it in most circumstances.
Nor do I want to bother thinking of the few circumstances that a valid case in my opinion may be made for it as even then it seems to me like someone is being killed arising out of either the awfull circumstances of their creation or worse on a whim of the parent(s).
The kernal of it for me is not to mess with nature unless you really really have to.
I drew my line as to where messing with nature begins for me earlier in the thread-so if anyone wants reminding,they can read back.

To each their own I suppose.

Nevyn

Well what bout the context of involentary manslaughter or miscarriage ?

If a women is told or knows what certain behaviours may be dangerous to the contents of her womb and does them anyway and a miscarriage occurs would it be then involentary manslaugther ?

JC 2K3

Cantab. wrote:

Well if we were animals, and animal behaviour was accepted in society, we could all go around killing and raping one another to our hearts content. Looking to the animal world in order to justify classic thorny issues such as abortion, homosexuality, paedophilia, polygamy, etc. is fundamentally flawed: exceptional animal behaviour is reflected as acceptable human behaviour, yet normal animal behaviour (such as killing, raping and cannibalism) is conveniently blacked-out.

All animals aren't the same. You don't see elephants or giraffes going around killing other animals, and many animals aren't cannibals. Different animals act in different ways. There is no "normal animal behavior" as you put it. Our species, humans, acts in a certain way according to what we deem best for the survival of ourselves and our species. There is no intrinsic reason that "killing" is wrong. In the circumstances of abortion many would agree with it.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote:

Well what bout the context of involentary manslaughter or miscarriage ?

If a women is told or knows what certain behaviours may be dangerous to the contents of her womb and does them anyway and a miscarriage occurs would it be then involentary manslaugther ?

To the same extent that smoking and drug addiction could be considered chronic suicide.