Abortion thread

[WDWHound]

Our law says its wrong to murder human life but then we have the death penalty and wars. So we have different laws concerning the ending of human life in many situations. Even if we do come up to a standard of its a life from conception I would still argue in favor of it not being considered murder to end that life. It is not murder to kill during war or to put convicted criminals to death even though many innocents have died that way as well.

The key word here is murder, ie the taking of innocent human life. There is a difference between killing and murder.The death penalty is the taking of a live that commited a crime (ie not innocent). War could be argued, depending on who and why you are fighting. Either way, nothing is more innocent that a fetus. Comparing abortion to the death peanlty is appkles and oranges, another red herring.

 

[totalia]

Sorry I did not mean you. I'm tyring to not make this personal. My views don't have to make sense to you, they are the law and I will fight to keep it that way.

Well put. I'm very glad Canada has abortion laws and I hope it stays that way.

 

[WDWHound]

Sorry I did not mean you. I'm tyring to not make this personal. My views don't have to make sense to you, they are the law and I will fight to keep it that way.

The law doesn't have to make sense?

 

[auntpolly]

Again, there is no religious argument here. Thats a red herring. My test would be self awareness (I think therefore I am), but how do you prove that?

You keep raising questions that you can't even answer, and so I don't see them as logical. Since neither of us can answer the question of self-awareness, all we can do is go with what we believe to be true according to what science tells us today.

If you wanted to logically talk about self awareness and you had some informamation about a 4 week fetus being self aware, you'd see a bunch of us re-evaluating our positions real fast!

 

[auntpolly]

The law doesn't have to make sense?

Maybe it doesn't make sense to you - it does to many of us. We are in agreement with the science that is available to us today.

 

[WDWHound]

yes, I've noticed that.

Just because some previous arguments raised by others were invalid, that does not make my different arguments raised today invalid.

 

[chobie]

The key word here is murder, ie the taking of innocent human life. There is a difference between killing and murder.The death penalty is the taking of a live that commited a crime (ie not innocent). War could be argued, depending on who and why you are fighting. Either way, nothing is more innocent that a fetus. Comparing abortion to the death peanlty is appkles and oranges, another red herring.

Innocent people have been put to death and there is no way to be sure that everyone who is put to death is guilty, so as long as we have a death penalty we are risking putting Innocent people to death. I'm sure many pregnant woman have been caught in the line of fire during wars, but we would not put our soldiers on trial for that, nor should we.

 

[totalia]

The key word here is murder, ie the taking of innocent human life. There is a difference between killing and murder.The death penalty is the taking of a live that commited a crime (ie not innocent). War could be argued, depending on who and why you are fighting. Either way, nothing is more innocent that a fetus. Comparing abortion to the death peanlty is appkles and oranges, another red herring.

yes and killing can be argued too. Saving the mothers life is a valid argument.

 

[auntpolly]

The key word here is murder, ie the taking of innocent human life. There is a difference between killing and murder.The death penalty is the taking of a live that commited a crime (ie not innocent). War could be argued, depending on who and why you are fighting. Either way, nothing is more innocent that a fetus. Comparing abortion to the death peanlty is appkles and oranges, another red herring.

Thank God the Catholic Church does not make this distinction - You can make it if you like, I have huge respect for the church for at least being consistantly pro-life.

 

[chobie]

The law doesn't have to make sense?

If it did not would we still have it? Roe v Wade is going on 30 years now?

 

[totalia]

You keep raising questions that you can't even answer, and so I don't see them as logical. Since neither of us can answer the question of self-awareness, all we can do is go with what we believe to be true according to what science tells us today.

If you wanted to logically talk about self awareness and you had some informamation about a 4 week fetus being self aware, you'd see a bunch of us re-evaluating our positions real fast!

Well put. I agree.

 

[auntpolly]

Excuse me. I have never once presented a religious argument on this, nor have I ever shoved a picture in your face. Drop the stereotypes and assumtion please.If you can tell me when life begins and give evidence for why, I would love to hear your views, but the physical connection argument just makes no sense to me.

Why is the burden of proof up to us? At least for now, the law is on our side - and the scientific community for the most part.

 

[Immelman]

I remember when we went to have a cat spayed. we got a phone call from the vet saying he couldn't do it. our cat was pregnant, and too far along. he couldn't abort the kittens. I always found it ironic.

life begins when a cell divides. it then follows the DNA code onto whatever it's going to become. the only problem I have with my pro-choice stance is it's all up to the woman. even if the dad wants to raise the kid, tough. but on the flip side, if the woman wants to keep the kid and the father doesn't, tough. pay 20% of your income until the kid is 18.

I was lucky in my instance, because my girlfriend was determined to go to college, and her pregnancy was a problem that had to be dealt with. but she never said, I'm getting an abortion, like it or not. the first thing she asked me was 'what are we going to do about this'?

 

[WDWHound]

You keep raising questions that you can't even answer, and so I don't see them as logical. Since neither of us can answer the question of self-awareness, all we can do is go with what we believe to be true according to what science tells us today.

If you wanted to logically talk about self awareness and you had some informamation about a 4 week fetus being self aware, you'd see a bunch of us re-evaluating our positions real fast!

You are making an assumption that I think a 4 week old fetus merits protection. I have no clue if it does or doesnt. Again, I don't have the answers, I just think the stand we have chosen is arbitrary. I also think that anyone agaionst abortion automatically assumed to be so on religious grounds, and thats just not true.

Here is my view. At the point a baby is born, they have protection under the law. 1 hour earlier, the baby was esentially the same phsically. The only difference is that it was connect to and inside its mother. 1 week earlier it was not very different physically, but 6 months earlier the difference was huge.

My point is we are arguing the wrong things. Physical connection is irrelivant. Releigion is irrelivant. Until society logically defines life and determines a test for when it begins, we will have no answers. Givin this, I have a hard time seeing why both sides are so passionate in their views. Technically, neither side has a leg to stand on because we dont yet completely understand the problem.

 

[chobie]

I remember when we went to have a cat spayed. we got a phone call from the vet saying he couldn't do it. our cat was pregnant, and too far along. he couldn't abort the kittens. I always found it ironic.

life begins when a cell divides. it then follows the DNA code onto whatever it's going to become. the only problem I have with my pro-choice stance is it's all up to the woman. even if the dad wants to raise the kid, tough. but on the flip side, if the woman wants to keep the kid and the father doesn't, tough. pay 20% of your income until the kid is 18.

I was lucky in my instance, because my girlfriend was determined to go to college, and her pregnancy was a problem that had to be dealt with. but she never said, I'm getting an abortion, like it or not. the first thing she asked me was 'what are we going to do about this'?

I would be in favor a man being able to wave his parental rights within the time frame for an abortion to occur safely and legally. Then if the woman chooses to have the baby it is her financial responsibility.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I think this is just the latest "technique" by some in the anti-choice contingent. I believe they feel like they have gotten as much mileages as they are going to get from shoving pictures of fetuses in people faces so now they are going for the "it has nothing to do with religion or emotions. It's a logical argument".

Religions do a lot of things to protect people--and a lot of it though biblically based regarding "do unto others" and such....it is really logically based. Help your fellow man. Feed the homeless, assist the elderly. If a faith encourages its followers to do these things through volunteer drives, letter campaing, speaking with politicians--it all makes logical sense regardless if the bible says to do it anyway. With pro-life advocates...they are taking it a step further...b/c they don't overturn supreme court decisions or base law on what the bible says.

Establishing personhood is a govt problem at the moment--and I am glad it is getting headway. I'd like to know that if someone chooses to harm me or their actions result in harm when I am pregnant--that they are liable for the outcome of the pregnancy that I "chose" to have. When someone harms me--I didn't choose it....be it a car accident in which the other driver is found at fault, murder as in Laci Peterson, an abusive relationship--et cetera. The sticky thorn of giving rights to the unborn to protect them from criminal acts against mom and the unborn child--is that it does back down the abortion rights a bit. B/c say if personhood is established for a particular gestational age--then it would be legally murder then to abort the unborn baby for any reason other than deliver it to save mom. Not right away--but eventually.

I mean--it sucks for abortion rights/womens rights...but isn't it fair to say that if a woman has the right to choose to keep her embryo/fetus/baby--then her baby is legally protected just as mom is if someone decides to harm her or make decisions that result in harm to her?

 

[auntpolly]

Immelman - I'm going to ask you a question you don't have to answer. In fact, if you tell me to shut my pie hole, I'll apologize immediately for my nosiness! (shut your pie hole - don't you love that expression? )

Do you ever regret your choice? Do you ever wonder about the child that might have been and does it make you sad?

 

[WDWHound]

Why is the burden of proof up to us? At least for now, the law is on our side - and the scientific community for the most part.

The scientific community has never defined when life starts. They dont understand the criteria any more than you or I do.

 

[chobie]

You are making an assumption that I think a 4 week old fetus merits protection. I have no clue if it does or doesnt. Again, I don't have the answers, I just think the stand we have chosen is arbitrary. I also think that anyone agaionst abortion automatically assumed to be so on religious grounds, and thats just not true.

Here is my view. At the point a baby is born, they have protection under the law. 1 hour earlier, the baby was esentially the same phsically. The only difference is that it was connect to and inside its mother. 1 week earlier it was not very different physically, but 6 months earlier the difference was huge.

My point is we are arguing the wrong things. Physical connection is irrelivant. Releigion is irrelivant. Until society logically defines life and determines a test for when it begins, we will have no answers. Givin this, I have a hard time seeing why both sides are so passionate in their views. Technically, neither side has a leg to stand on because we dont yet completely understand the problem.

It's not just about physical attachment. Its about viability. If the fetus can be removed and survive by any means outside of the uterus it is viable an is a life and society can decide who will then care for the child. As long as its survival is based solely on the host's uterus then only one with the uterus being so used should be able to decide what happens. That's my argument.

 

[auntpolly]

Givin this, I have a hard time seeing why both sides are so passionate in their views. Technically, neither side has a leg to stand on because we dont yet completely understand the problem.

With all do respect (and I mean that sincerely) I don't believe a man can understand how horrifying it is for a pro-choice woman to be told by anyone, but especially a man, what they can do with their bodies. Much of the passion of we pro-choice women comes from this.