Abortion

Its different when its concerning something that hasn't been conscious yet

Its different when its concerning something that hasn't been conscious yet

To some extent, I agree.  As soon as a heart starts beating, I think it's no longer just a thing, but a person.

Thats why I think if someone decides to have an abortion, they should decide as early on as possible. But its a difficult decision to make so it takes time.

Thats why I think if someone decides to have an abortion, they should decide as early on as possible. But its a difficult decision to make so it takes time.

Agreed.  But once you hit the second trimester I think it's time to look at alternate options.  By 3 months the baby is moving.  By 4 months you can begin to feel it. 

Definitely. I wouldn't agree with someone having a second trimester abortion unless its for medical reasons. I'm not sure if its even allowed here.

Definitely. I wouldn't agree with someone having a second trimester abortion unless its for medical reasons. I'm not sure if its even allowed here.

   It's nice having a healthy debate on here.  I wish this could happen more often.

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on December 18, 2008, 11:37:48 AM

Its different when its concerning something that hasn't been conscious yet

To some extent, I agree.  As soon as a heart starts beating, I think it's no longer just a thing, but a person.

This is the big dilemma, when exactly does a potential life become a life?  When does that life get rights equal to that of the mother?  This is an unanswerable question because it is a question of morality.  Some people believe it is the moment of conception, some believe it is when the fetus becomes viable (able to survive outside the womb) and others believe it starts at birth.  None of these people are right or wrong.  Moral judgment is decided by the people who are in power.

It is for this reason that I believe it should not be legislated.  However, natural checks and balances can be established without forceful regulation.  Morality should be taught by parents, community, religion, but never enforced by government in my opinion.

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on December 18, 2008, 12:21:25 PM

Definitely. I wouldn't agree with someone having a second trimester abortion unless its for medical reasons. I'm not sure if its even allowed here.

   It's nice having a healthy debate on here.  I wish this could happen more often.

Indeed 

Til ragnarr comes along and bores us all by stating the obvious. And the obviously overstated.

There's not enough angry ranting in this thread. RAWR.

I think that abortion is a private matter, and completely up to the woman.  As long as the abortion procedure is done early I don't see how it's anyone's business. A little lump of cells is no more a person than a wart is.

There's not enough angry ranting in this thread. RAWR.

I think that abortion is a private matter, and completely up to the woman.  As long as the abortion procedure is done early I don't see how it's anyone's business. A little lump of cells is no more a person than a wart is.

Hear hear.  Until it can be sustained outside of the mother's body, it's not a person, it's technically a parasite.

Using the term parasite is as annoying as pro-life people insisting that the foetus is a baby, not a foetus. No woman is going to refer to, or think of, the foetus in her as a parasite, and if she does then she's a bit fucked up and needs an abortion pronto.

Using the term parasite is as annoying as pro-life people insisting that the foetus is a baby, not a foetus. No woman is going to refer to, or think of, the foetus in her as a parasite, and if she does then she's a bit fucked up and needs an abortion pronto.

Lol.  I agree.

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on December 18, 2008, 09:52:28 PM

Using the term parasite is as annoying as pro-life people insisting that the foetus is a baby, not a foetus. No woman is going to refer to, or think of, the foetus in her as a parasite, and if she does then she's a bit fucked up and needs an abortion pronto.

Lol.  I agree.

x2

I support a woman's right to choose. However, I will say this much: anyone who denies that there is a human element to an unborn child or postulates that it is simply a growth on the woman's body does not deserve to hold a position on the matter.

I support a woman's right to choose. However, I will say this much: anyone who denies that there is a human element to an unborn child or postulates that it is simply a growth on the woman's body does not deserve to hold a position on the matter.

I am pro choice as well, but this implies a couple of things:
1. Your opinion is worth more than other people's opinions.
2. There exists a group of people who do deny a human element to a fetus. (I have yet to meet anyone here or elsewhere who do deny this)
3. A growth is less deserving of 'life' than anything else organic.

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on December 19, 2008, 04:11:06 PM

I support a woman's right to choose. However, I will say this much: anyone who denies that there is a human element to an unborn child or postulates that it is simply a growth on the woman's body does not deserve to hold a position on the matter.

I am pro choice as well, but this implies a couple of things:
1. Your opinion is worth more than other people's opinions.
2. There exists a group of people who do deny a human element to a fetus. (I have yet to meet anyone here or elsewhere who do deny this)
3. A growth is less deserving of 'life' than anything else organic.

At option 3, government funding for cancer research would say so.

Using the term parasite is as annoying as pro-life people insisting that the foetus is a baby, not a foetus. No woman is going to refer to, or think of, the foetus in her as a parasite, and if she does then she's a bit fucked up and needs an abortion pronto.

True, but that is what it is at that point.  Would I tell my sister that she has a parasite in her?  No.

"Biology:   An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

The first definition of the word in the American Heritage Dictionary.  A baby contributes nothing to it's host until it is viable.

I support a woman's right to choose. However, I will say this much: anyone who denies that there is a human element to an unborn child or postulates that it is simply a growth on the woman's body does not deserve to hold a position on the matter.

I do not deny there is a human element.  Obviously, the being, Parasite, Person, Fetus whatever is human genetically.  I don't believe it is a person however.  At that point, it is a mass of human genes and cells that have some potential to be human at some point in the future.

By the way... "simply a growth on the woman's body".  Anyone that doesn't know that a baby grows inside a woman doesn't deserve to hold a position on the matter.

I take the position that life begins at viability.  According to this:  http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/156236/worlds_youngest_premature_baby_survives.html

The youngest age at which a baby can be supported outside its mother's body is 21 weeks.  Therefore, I think what the woman does with the B/P/F/whatever before 20 weeks is a matter for her, her SO and her higher power.

as I said when i joined, it does center around the definition of "person." It is clear that, as the OP illustrated, abortion at time of birth is ghastly....but why? I didn't bother reading the rest of the posts, and don't intend to because I'm now bored of this debate, but has anyone given a comprehensive definition of person yet?

Would describing personage phenomenologically be acceptable to you?

Whether the fetus is a person or not does not matter in the abortion debate is what he was saying. Basing a debate over which terms define what is pointless. That'd be like in a debate saying a tomato is less nutritious than a pepper, because it is a fruit.

Not true, most debates are over word definitions. I was at a serious former debate on the words of Thomas Gray "Ignorance is bliss, and to be wise is folly" or something, and it all descended to insults because the proposition defined ignorance as ignorance of both problem and solution and bliss as a state of personal happiness, while the opposition decided that ignorance was only of a solution and bliss was synonymous with cultural advancement for some reason. They were the ones who were flinging insults too, so they lost. That's how you all look, pro-lifers.

Not true, most debates are over word definitions. I was at a serious former debate on the words of Thomas Gray "Ignorance is bliss, and to be wise is folly" or something, and it all descended to insults because the proposition defined ignorance as ignorance of both problem and solution and bliss as a state of personal happiness, while the opposition decided that ignorance was only of a solution and bliss was synonymous with cultural advancement for some reason. They were the ones who were flinging insults too, so they lost. That's how you all look, pro-lifers.

It is a debate ON WORDS, yes word definitions are important there. I am speaking of a political issue, not an academic one.

At option 3, government funding for cancer research would say so.

That's a subjective equation:
Something organic > Something else organic

Government funding is appeal to authority, but I don't think you were actually trying to make a case as much as a point.

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on December 18, 2008, 09:52:28 PM

Using the term parasite is as annoying as pro-life people insisting that the foetus is a baby, not a foetus. No woman is going to refer to, or think of, the foetus in her as a parasite, and if she does then she's a bit fucked up and needs an abortion pronto.

True, but that is what it is at that point.  Would I tell my sister that she has a parasite in her?  No.

"Biology:   An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

The first definition of the word in the American Heritage Dictionary.  A baby contributes nothing to it's host until it is viable.

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on December 19, 2008, 04:11:06 PM

I support a woman's right to choose. However, I will say this much: anyone who denies that there is a human element to an unborn child or postulates that it is simply a growth on the woman's body does not deserve to hold a position on the matter.

I do not deny there is a human element.  Obviously, the being, Parasite, Person, Fetus whatever is human genetically.  I don't believe it is a person however.  At that point, it is a mass of human genes and cells that have some potential to be human at some point in the future.

By the way... "simply a growth on the woman's body".  Anyone that doesn't know that a baby grows inside a woman doesn't deserve to hold a position on the matter.

I take the position that life begins at viability.  According to this:  http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/156236/worlds_youngest_premature_baby_survives.html

The youngest age at which a baby can be supported outside its mother's body is 21 weeks.  Therefore, I think what the woman does with the B/P/F/whatever before 20 weeks is a matter for her, her SO and her higher power.

A foetus is a foetus. It doesn't need any othe definition, we all know what a foetus is. Calling it a parasite is as much an appeal to emotion as calling it a baby.

Whether the fetus is a person or not does not matter in the abortion debate is what he was saying. Basing a debate over which terms define what is pointless. That'd be like in a debate saying a tomato is less nutritious than a pepper, because it is a fruit.

It is important because we grant political right to "persons" and not simply organic life. The personhood of a thing is what makes it human, and a human cannot be rightly killed out of pure convenience. I don't see how else this can be debated.

Thought Experiment from Jullian Baggini's "The Pig That Wants to be Eaten":

Joe worked downstairs in the administration area in the hospital, and was celebrating his new promotion with a few buddies. Joe was drinking, but nothing too much. Just enough to accidentally take the elevator to the wrong floor and pass out on the first empty bed.
On waking, Joe realized that he had passed out on one the organ donor beds! He was already hooked up to a 20 year old violinist who was in deep need of his kidneys, and other vital organs.
There was no need to operate to remove Joe's parts, the process merely keeps Joe alive until a useable organ is found for the violinist. Joe exclaims in dismay that he cannot remain here, he has a job to do! He cant just drop his life for someone else that he doesnt even know and came to on accident!
The doctor understands, but tells Joe that if he were to discontinue the procedure it would most certainly kill the young violinist...

What does Joe do?
I like the thought experiment because it takes alot of moral "walls" out of the issue.

Well, imo, if you're so against abortion, you can have the baby when it's out.

Not aimed at anyone specific, just in general.

Well, imo, if you're so against abortion, you can have the baby when it's out.

Not aimed at anyone specific, just in general.

After the mother dies of childbirth complications.

Well, imo, if you're so against abortion, you can have the baby when it's out.

Not aimed at anyone specific, just in general.

Do me a favor and contact these sites with your offer.  I bet you would have plenty of takers.

http://www.americanadoptions.com/

http://adoptionnetwork.com/

http://www.adopthelp.com/

http://www.adoption.com/

http://www.adopting.org/

http://www.adoptuskids.org/

http://www.adopt.org/assembled/home.html

Sites willing to help adopt children does not mean that capable parents are using those sites to obtain children. I have found sites completely dedicated to finding you a hook-up in your local area. I'm willing to bet there are about 2 real women on the whole site.