»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Abortion
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Abortion |
|
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
All this talk about the right to life has me thinking about the "A" word....touchy subject for some. My question is, Are you for or against abortions? Are you PRO-LIFE or PRO-CHOICE?...and why? I'm a pro-choicer myself...especially since the population boom in the last century. There are so many reasons why I think it's the parents choice....rape victims, pre-birth disabilities diagnosed....I however hate to see such a system abused and treated like a birth control method....that it should not be. I also feel it should be a consentual choice made by both the parents....unless a sperm donor was used  If both parents can be held responsible for the life of an infant then both should be responsible for the death of an infant. I think it's a little unfair that the woman have all the power deciding the fate of a fetus....if she decides to keep it then the man, under law, is also responsible, but what if she wants to abort and the man wants to raise the child? Say it might be the man's last chance to be a father? I know the woman has to carry the child until birth, and honestly I feel for you ladies, I'm sure it's a very difficult task deserving a lot of admiration, but it takes two in order to create a life and therefore it should be the decision of both parties to destroy such a creation. That's my opinion at least.So lets hear what ya'll have to say about such matters. Take care everyone, Trevor |
||
| © Copyright 1999 Trevor Davis - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Trevor: Are you trying to start a riot or something? Anyway, I see the question as a life vs. liberty question. I, personally, would have no problem with the termination of a pregnancy if I could be convinced that it did not involve the taking of a human life. When does life begin? Does it begin with conception or with fetal viability or with birth? If it begins at birth, how are pre-mature babies born alive different from babies aborted in the latter months of the mother's pregancy? If it begins at viability, what happens when science is capable of growing a baby from conception, or shortly thereafter, to viability outside of a mother's uterus without artificial aid? If life begins at conception, then I believe the unborn would be entitled to the same unalienable rights of life and liberty as we all enjoy. To terminate its life would be to violate its rights and, arguably, to commit homicide. I do see some frightening parallels between the dehumanization of the unborn and the dehumanization of those persecuted in history (the Jews by the Germans during WWII, the Irish by the English during the Elizabethan and Cromwellian Settlements, etc.). In some states a fetus, capable of living independantly outside of the womb, is abortable at the mother's whim, without regard to its ability to survive if delivered. I believe, in this instance if not in all instances of abortion, the "it's my body" argument begs the question of the fetus' independence and humanity. For those and other reasons, therefore, I must remain Anti-Choice/Pro-Life (whatever) until my reservations can be quieted. ------------------ Jim "If I rest, I rust." -Martin Luther |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Abortions... what a difficult subject to discuss. To be honest this is a subject on which I find it difficult to destinguish between morality and ethics. They say that before brain-functions set in, the "baby-to-be" is part of the womans body and she may, and this is vexingly cruel, get rid of it like of an cancerous growth. They say potential for life is not life yet. But then if left alone it would BE life and never anything else. Yet on the other hand there was a case in Ireland that I found very shocking. A 13 year old girl was raped and got pregnant. She wanted to abort the child of her raper and went as far as the courts to have them let her have the abortion or let her leave to England. Ireland of course is Catholic and therefore the answer was no. She (or rather her parents for her) fought and fought but the answer was no and no again. In the end cause of the protest of the public they let her leave to England where she had the abortion. I think it is to much to ask to have to give birth to the baby of your rapist, especially for someone that young. I also support women who abort a baby cause they found out it has a (serious) "birth" deficiency. So I guess I have mixed feeling on this. I would say pro choice, but I choose to never ever have one. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Trevor, Gee, I'm so glad you've decided to talk about something easy for a change. In any heated debate such as this, I immediately try to get away from the main battle lines of the debate and try to look at it in a different way. Perhaps I'm not always successful but that's what I try to do. Many people have brought up valid points already but what indeed is the core issue? In many ways, it's similar to the euthanasia issue. If the person involved (the fetus) cannot make the decision, then who decides? Some government proclamation or law that determines the 'right' and 'wrong' of any situation (that's not what really happens but people seem so desperate for such quick fixes) or the person who is in legal custody of the fetus. The fact is the fetus (or baby if you think I'm playing semantic games here) cannot decide either way; someone must make the choice for he or she. Certainly, there are times where we've read or heard that a person wished that they had never been born. The fetus does not have that choice. In such a situation, it seems practical to give that choice (let's not call it a 'right to choose') to the woman. She ultimately will determine how that baby will live/develop for those nine or so months. She's making the choice anyway. On the other hand, if a person feels that a baby should have the 'right to live'(regardless of any poetential preferences on the part of that baby), they should be able to try to convince that woman to conceive the child through non-violent means (freedom of conversation). It makes no sense to me to stop people from protesting at abortion clinics because it makes people feel bad. Of course, that still means they can't actually bar the entrance to an abortion clinic which thereby obstructs her ability to choose but they should be able to speak to her. Anything less, seems to me to be trying to 'cover up' the very real difficulties involved here. What other problems are involved here? Well, some people have pointed out that if the responsibility is with the woman, then is she also legally allowed to kill the baby after he/she has been born? Of course, she can make that choice. Should she be punished for such a decision? Who is willing to take responsibility for the child if she chooses not to? If there are options (and there are: I'm adopted) and she does not utilize them, then perhaps the answer is yes (although one can imagine 'incompetence' and/or insanity as the legal defense here). Should minors be given the responsibility for this choice? Well, we don't give them the right to vote so how in the world do you think a minor should be allowed to make this decision? The parents of the minor should make the choice and take the responsibility for the upbringing and indeed the care of the mother. If they don't, then of course, they should choose to abort. Just an opinion, Brad |
||
|
Robin Goodfellow Junior Member
since 1999-06-29
Posts 26 |
Ok, Im going to be very breif because I dont have mucgh else to say that you havent already said. But one point that you all missed is if its a pro-life world someday then your forcing the child into a world he isnt welcome in. Sure he'll live but in what sort of quality? If you have no means to support the child and he'll only die later of a more tortureous*sp* death then why not spare him? Related Quotes: "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" ~Unknown "Pro-choice is for abortion, Pro-life is against it, and ProCreation causes the problem to begin with." ~Me |
||
|
Athas Junior Member
since 1999-12-04
Posts 24Edinburgh, Scotland |
Okay I'm sorry because this always rubs people up the wrong way. However I feel that I have to say what I have to say. Firstly I'm totally anti abortion. I suppose that, that could just be an emotional thing using the old form of imagineing that I was a foetus to be aborted. The thing that I have the problem with however is that people always use these things to put a value on human life. They say things like how hard it is for the mother of the child to afford bringing it up. Whats social welfare for? It really appals me people who get abortions because they don't want the expense of bringing up a child if those people are reasionable well off. Surely there is nothing more vaulable then human life. Surely we can't put a value on it. How can people now a days feel that abortion is right and yet feel so strongly about murder and other moral issues. Surely the takeing of a human life is the takeing of a human life no matter what point in its life it is took. I would also like to mention that I'm form Ireland since Ireland already came up in the discussion but I'm not a Catholic. In my experiance most people under say 30 are pro choice in the country. It won't be long before I imagine the law will be changed so that there is not horrible cases like the one mentioned above. |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Well I guess I should comment on the topic I posted.....ugggg....such a muddled issue, who is right, who is wrong, is there a right and wrong or only choices? JBOUDER: "I, personally, would have no problem with the termination of a pregnancy if I could be convinced that it did not involve the taking of a human life. When does life begin? Does it begin with conception or with fetal viability or with birth?" Where does life begin for anything that lives? If human life begins at a cellular level, lets say conception, and not with the begin of conscious thought then shouldn't everything have the right to life and not just humans. That is to say if a cluster of cells, 1 month old, without thought, that may or may not live long enough to become a human, has the right to live even though on a conscious level it knows not life, then shouldn't a cluster of cells, that we call a tree, have the same rights? It may not know it's alive but it still is. Perhaps life is irrelevant to that which does not know it is alive. A tree doesn't care if it's cut down (or so we suspect) or if it grows in height to hit the heavens, basically we think of a tree as a rock because it lacks thought. The center point of humans is thought, we are beings of thought and our body is a tool for our senses, for our thoughts. If a person can not think then how can it be a person? If science is correct and says that up until the third month a fetus does not have conscience thoughts then how can this be considered a human instead of a gathering of cells that sort-of have a human appearance? Do cells have the right to life? Is there even a right to life? Should a brain dead person be kept alive....in my opinion no, a person without thought is not a person but rather a shell or a cellular group. I don't know where life starts but if we kill everything but humans for whatever reasons while proclaiming right to life (we play god to everything but ourselves) then I think we are hypocrites. If we are going to select what shall live and what shall die then it's only fair we sacrafice ourselves once in awhile....the world is crowded enough, there are only so much natural resources to go around...and a world with only humans is not much of a world to me. I don't want to start eating humans because all other food sources are exhausted "I do see some frightening parallels between the dehumanization of the unborn and the dehumanization of those persecuted in history (the Jews by the Germans during WWII, the Irish by the English during the Elizabethan and Cromwellian Settlements, etc.)." They are not even close to the same. But maybe I'm wrong...please elaborate if you have time so I can understand that train of thought. "In some states a fetus, capable of living independantly outside of the womb, is abortable at the mother's whim, without regard to its ability to survive if delivered. I believe, in this instance if not in all instances of abortion, the "it's my body" argument begs the question of the fetus' independence and humanity." In no way can any baby live but a day or two independantly without outside interference. The fetus is solely part of the mother until birth, it is attached and maybe one in the same entity, a fetus is specialized cellular growth within a female. However I feel it is wrong to abort a child other than medical reasons after a three month (maybe even two months) period for the fear that it might have brain activity and also because later into term it becomes a more difficult process. A couple of months is long enough for a person to decide if they will have or have not a child.....and no human at three months into life has a conscience conception of life. Should the "Day-After" pill banned as well if the right of life starts at conception. At what part in the creation of a human, does the human "know" it is alive, when does life matter to that which is being created? When is a human a human and when is it nothing more than cellular activity? If a situation directly affects you and maybe only you, then ultimately shouldn't you be the one to make the decision and not the law? "For those and other reasons, therefore, I must remain Anti-Choice/Pro-Life (whatever) until my reservations can be quieted." I do respect your opinions on the matter and your religious beliefs but will add that personally I think Religion in regards to its practises with anything that has to do with procreation/sex is usually ubsurd ....especially in Catholicism/Christianity. To tell me that having pre-marital sex carries the same eternal punishment as killing without cause is beyond any logic I've heard of. To say that both practising safe-sex and abortion is bad, seems ridiculous to me. It's crazy to say that without being baptised you will go to hell. In fact I will go as far as expressing that not many rules of religions seem to use logic. Anyways I hope that last little part didn't rub you the wrong way, I'm not saying I'm right and religion is wrong, maybe I just don't understand it. Thanks and take care. ANGEL: How would I have ever guessed you'd be pro choice? "They say that before brain-functions set in, the "baby-to-be" is part of the womans body and she may, and this is vexingly cruel, get rid of it like of an cancerous growth. " Is not a group of cells without thought just a group of cells? Without thought it is just a growth much like cancer. "Yet on the other hand there was a case in Ireland that I found very shocking. A 13 year old girl was raped and got pregnant. She wanted to abort the child of her raper and went as far as the courts to have them let her have the abortion or let her leave to England. Ireland of course is Catholic and therefore the answer was no. She (or rather her parents for her) fought and fought but the answer was no and no again. In the end cause of the protest of the public they let her leave to England where she had the abortion. I think it is to much to ask to have to give birth to the baby of your rapist, especially for someone that young." But what about the "potential" of that baby. Just because of the way it was created doesn't take away from the potential of the yet to be born baby, I only mention this because it kinda contridicts what you said earlier of why maybe a fetus should not be aborted and not because I disagree with the 13yr old's situation. ("They say potential for life is not life yet. But then if left alone it would BE life and never anything else.") ANyways thanks and I'm glad we couldn't agree on yet another subject  BRAD: "Gee, I'm so glad you've decided to talk about something easy for a change." Well I figured the pot must be stirred or the food will burn What that means??? I don't know....just sounded good.I really hate having to agree with you cause I'm always afraid of patronage. But you do make some valid points and raise some interesting questions. The two parts of your comment that really got me thinking were; "What other problems are involved here? Well, some people have pointed out that if the responsibility is with the woman, then is she also legally allowed to kill the baby after he/she has been born? Of course, she can make that choice. Should she be punished for such a decision? Who is willing to take responsibility for the child if she chooses not to? If there are options (and there are: I'm adopted) and she does not utilize them, then perhaps the answer is yes (although one can imagine 'incompetence' and/or insanity as the legal defense here)." It kind of ties in to the Socialism/Capitalism debate as well. If those who are against social programs force poverty striken parents to keep a child, how do they expect them to raise a child properly? And one might say that they should have practised birth control but it is not 100 percent effective for either the rich or the poor. If a mother can not provide for a child then who will? If she is forced to have the child shouldn't those who forced her be accountable for supporting the child? Why is it okay for society to force someone to keep a child but not okay for someone to force society to help financially to raise it? The next part of your comment that I found interesting was; "Should minors be given the responsibility for this choice? Well, we don't give them the right to vote so how in the world do you think a minor should be allowed to make this decision? The parents of the minor should make the choice and take the responsibility for the upbringing and indeed the care of the mother. If they don't, then of course, they should choose to abort." It got me thinking of when should a person be legally responsible for themselves? At eighteen you can help decide the fate of the country and go to war and kill but you can't have a drink afterwards. At sixteen you can drive 2 tons of steel at high speeds and risk killing pedestrians and yourself but you can't vote. At an earlier age in some places you can get a gun license but you can't drive or vote. At eighteen in the States you can fight in a war, vote, drive to see a movie with profanity/sex/and extreme violence in it but you can't drink. At twenty one you can kill/drink/vote/drive/watch sex/curse and effect all of society but you can't choose to give birth or not give birth to a child (in some places that is).... I guess it's always been up to the gov't who and what you can or can not kill. Thanks again Brad, take care. ROBIN: I agree with what you said and is the other side to the "potential" of the unborn arguement. What if the aborted fetus wasn't aborted, sure it might have been a Ghandi but then again it might have been a Hitler. Thanks for your comments and take care. ATHAS: "Firstly I'm totally anti abortion. I suppose that, that could just be an emotional thing using the old form of imagineing that I was a foetus to be aborted. The thing that I have the problem with however is that people always use these things to put a value on human life. They say things like how hard it is for the mother of the child to afford bringing it up. Whats social welfare for?" I personally have no problems with helping out in tax dollars to the single parents or impoverished families that need support to raise a healthy child... but there are many who don't want to and also if all children who were born, lived, and all those aborted lived as well, we would soon find ourselves out of supplies. I do have a problem with abortion when it is used as a lazy persons form of birth control, when there is a condom beside the bed but they don't bother to use it. Nothing should be abused or taken for granted and that goes doublely for abortion in my opinion. "It really appals me people who get abortions because they don't want the expense of bringing up a child if those people are reasionable well off." If money shouldn't be the issue in abortion then the rich should have the same right to abort a fetus as a poor person. "Surely there is nothing more vaulable then human life. Surely we can't put a value on it." There is something more valuble than human life... and that is ALL LIFE. We can not as creatures effecting this planet drastically, keep up with our current reproduction practises. It will mean the eventual death of almost everything on this planet, if not the whole planet itself. So as equals to all living things we should respect everything's "right" to life and let some of our population numbers dwindle to a more reasonable/harmonic level while taking only that which we need from our environment. People always talk about saving the world but they only seem to think of humans and not every other creature we are supposed to be sharing this globe with(that last part wasn't directed at you but rather just in general). "How can people now a days feel that abortion is right and yet feel so strongly about murder and other moral issues. Surely the takeing of a human life is the takeing of a human life no matter what point in its life it is took." It is my opinion that at an early stage in a fetus's life it has no thoughts but is rather just a forming of cells, it is much like a clinically brain dead human, and if it has no thoughts on life than it knows not of pain or pleasure nor of being or not being and the relevancy of life to it is probably nil. I don't think too many people think that murder is a good thing and I think pro-choice people do not believe an abortion is murder....otherwise they would call it murder. Who should have the right to "pull the plug" on a brain dead person? That is to say, who should decide the fate of a person who can not think....is that even a person? Are not humans essentially thought based animals? Should it be the incapacitated person's choice or the ones who have to look after and pay for their upkeep? To me there is no difference between a 3 mnth old fetus with no thoughts or an eighty year old person with no thoughts, both do not even know they are alive and both their survival solely depends on someone else. So to me killing something that in essence isn't really "alive" yet (alive only on a cellular level), is not murder but rather just another difficult decision. That may sound cold hearted but I am not a cold hearted person....nor am I right or wrong about this issue, just opinionated. "In my experiance most people under say 30 are pro choice in the country. It won't be long before I imagine the law will be changed so that there is not horrible cases like the one mentioned above." I find it odd that you said there is nothing more valuable then human life and take a pro-life stance yet you say that it is okay to abort a fetus (which you believe is a human life), that was created by rape, even though it is not the fetus's fault nor will it's method of creation effect the potential of the child (unless the mother treats the child as if it were the rapist). It kind of sounds like you said every life is precious except the innocent fetus created by the sperm of a rapist (the unborn child had nothing to do with the rape). Now I think the 13yr old girl should have the choice to abort but I just thought it was a bit of a contridiction to say that fetuses are human life, all human life is precious and therefore should not be aborted and then go on to essentially say that, the fetus of a rape victim is human life, all human life is precious except it's okay to kill the fetus of a rape victim. Where should the line be drawn? Should a woman be forced to carry the child of a man who she doesn't know and was no more than the result of a drunken one night stand? Obviously it would have been difficult for the 13yr old to raise the child without being reminded of the rape and how the child came to be, this might make her a very bad mother to this child, but in a similar line of thinking, why should a woman who knows she doesn't currently posess the skills or money needed to raise a child properly be forced to birth a child? She may resent the child and this might make her a bad mother as well. Anyways, I'm exhausted, thank you for your comments and take care. AND THANKS AGAIN TO ALL WHO HAVE RESPONDED SO FAR TO THIS THREAD. --------- Trevor " ", a quote from a very interesting and philosophical tree that lives in the forest next to my house. |
||
|
BlOoD TiEs Junior Member
since 1999-10-02
Posts 30New York City |
im only seventeen so i hope i dont have to make a desision about something like this in the near future I wouldnt have my wife or girlfriend have an abortion but then again if somebody else wanted to thats there problem ------------------ Dont bet on fast horses, bet on slow rabits. |
||
|
Robin Goodfellow Junior Member
since 1999-06-29
Posts 26 |
Something just occured to me. Its in extreme bad taste at the time but I have to say it. "Who cares?" I mean everyone has views on a topic such as this but do any of you honestly lose sleep at night knowing there is a life not existing? Is there anyone who isn't so self-absorbed that they worry over whether or not this collection of nearly innanimate cells doesn't progress? Sure they're potential life forms but the fact remains they are still only potential. Oh and just to introduce another perspective. ALmost all of the pro-lifers have made the same point. "Who is so powerful as to deny life?" Well my question to you is "Who is so powerful as to give it?" |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Trevor I agree with you on most of these points, that is why I call myself a pro-choicer. But what I really have problems with, is judging if I could ever have an abortion. The answer is NO cause even before the third month of pregnancy it would be MY child growing inside of me- thoughts or no thoughts. To me it would never be less, I would always see it as my baby and not just "the potential" of becoming my baby. But I do know that it can be viewed from a coldly objective angle too and that makes me pro-choice. That is why I said I am pro choice but I choose to never have one. Except if the baby was badly damaged one way or another or I had been the victim of a rape. Then it would not be my baby that I see but the rapist leaving a permanent claim on my body, kinda. Yes those are just my feelings and many will say but it is part of my gens too. But it is my perrogative how to view what grows in my body. Hence, again, pro choice. Anyway this is how I feel and why I have mixed feelings on it. Angel |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello everyone, ROBIN: Not to sound like an aurgumentative arse or anything but I care, I care about every tiny little thing that I may know or not know of that goes on in existence. When taking the stance of "who cares" you must remember that can be used for any discussion. Oh, there is a war, "Who cares?", oh there was another murder, "Who cares?", oh there is some starving children, "Who cares?". I personally believe that everything needs to be explored in order to see how things effect us and to help humans come to grip on being human. What would happen if everytime you tried to have a conversation the person you were speaking to replied, "Who cares?". The exchanging of ideas, thoughts, feelings and knowledge would cease. "Who cares?" always sounds to me like a defeatest slogan. Even the most mundane conversations has some knowledge to gain from listening to it. "Who cares?", I guess if you have no intrest in how the world works, how the universe works and human relation to all of it, then you're right, "who cares?". Well I guess I've just about finished my rant. There's a quote about potential, "Born again with every child is the potential of the human race." Now I've already stated that I'm a pro-choicer but that still doesn't give me the right to dismiss everyone elses thoughts on the subject, I'd be a fool to anyways, there is still a lot to be learned about people, abortion, human nature and myself. I believe it's important to see the different sides to every argument, it's very crucial in the discovery of truth or for arriving at a stable opinion. In theory if one could look at one point from every direction at once, one could see where one is. Anyways I hope I didn't come off sounding like a S**Thead or anything, I'm just getting tired of hearing, "Whatever"'s and "Who Cares?". BTW I really liked the last part of your response, ...."ALmost all of the pro-lifers have made the same point. "Who is so powerful as to deny life?" Well my question to you is "Who is so powerful as to give it?"" ...So true, it reminded me of all the genetic experiments that go on and how scientists are slowly becoming gods. I'm fascinated, curious and thrilled about this but at the same time I'm also scared S**TLESS...thanks again for your comments, take care. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
TREVOR: Thanks for taking so much time in your analysis of my post. I have not been "rubbed the wrong way" nor do I get "rubbed the wrong way" by civil discourse. Now personal attacks are another matter, but you have been tactful and direct ... no complaints.  In am familiar with the "life starts with consciousness argument" and I agree that it seems to have at least some merit. I prefer, however, to err on the side of caution whenever possible. I am not personally able to verify the truth or falsehood of the lines drawn by the experts as to when "they think" conscious, independent thought processes begin. If it is possible for thought processes to begin in the second month (statistically one of the highest periods of time when abortions are performed) then how can we not be sure that at some, difficult to detect time prior to 2 months of fetal life that life does or does not begin. I think you and I both understand the gravity of making such distinctions ... What if we are wrong? How many "conscious" humans have been killed? I'm not sure if the tree analogy holds much water. Argumentation by Analogy is not necessarily a logical fallacy but it often is. Don't have time to disect it right now but maybe later if you would like. As to your question regarding my Hitler's Germany and Ireland under the Cromwellian Settlement, here goes. Hitler justified the slaying of Jews by questioning their humanity. Cromwell did the same to the Irish when he rallied his troops to kill thousand of men, women and children during his Ulster campaign. Slavery in America was justified by some by suggesting that those of African decent were not really human. I hear much of the same rhetoric when it comes to the unborn. You yourself suggested that it is possible that life begins at 3 or even 2 months. How many abortions take place after this time? Most of them, I think. And we help ourselves deal with it by suggesting that the life is not human life. We are assuming a great deal when we assume this to be true and, with life at stake, I, personally, as I said before will err on the side of caution. "In no way can any baby live but a day or two independantly without outside interference. The fetus is solely part of the mother until birth, it is attached and maybe one in the same entity, a fetus is specialized cellular growth within a female." I am afraid that science and medicine both refute you here, my friend. As soon as the placenta begins to form on the uterine wall the fetus is distinct from its mother. It eventually develops its own circulatory, respatory, and nervous systems and merely gains sustainance from the mother (oxygen, nutrients, etc.). If you think I am wrong about this (and I may be, but I don't think so, you may want to ask Ruth, an RN, who should know better than I do). I just remember this from childbirth classes I attended with my wife ... twice.  "If a situation directly affects you and maybe only you, then ultimately shouldn't you be the one to make the decision and not the law?" I submit to you that almost all decisions affect more than just one person. If the fetus is a person at any time before birth than I think that it is the role of the government to consider that person a protected class just as it does any other person. "I do respect your opinions on the matter and your religious beliefs but will add that personally I think Religion in regards to its practises with anything that has to do with procreation/sex is usually ubsurd ....especially in Catholicism/Christianity. To tell me that having pre-marital sex carries the same eternal punishment as killing without cause is beyond any logic I've heard of. To say that both practising safe-sex and abortion is bad, seems ridiculous to me. It's crazy to say that without being baptised you will go to hell. In fact I will go as far as expressing that not many rules of religions seem to use logic." If you are looking for me to disagree with you here you are looking in the wrong place. Though I believe it to be unwise, if not wrong, I would never suggest that premarital sex was just as offensive to God as murder (any Christian who thinks so may want to let me know if they are reading the same Bible I am reading). Legalists, whether they be Christian, Moslem, neither, or whatever are never consistant and are oftentimes downright wacked out (just my opinion). I may be a Christian, Trevor, but I am also an incurable skeptic. I accept precious little as being true without it being demonstrated to me first. I am also a pretty nice guy (most of the time) and thoroughly enjoy a good chat. Thanks for engaging in one with me. Jim "If I rest, I rust." -Martin Luther |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello everyone, JBOUDER: "I am not personally able to verify the truth or falsehood of the lines drawn by the experts as to when "they think" conscious, independent thought processes begin. If it is possible for thought processes to begin in the second month (statistically one of the highest periods of time when abortions are performed) then how can we not be sure that at some, difficult to detect time prior to 2 months of fetal life that life does or does not begin." I believe that they have done studies on brain patterns, reflex, etc. on fetuses, though I can't give you a reference to this info. other than my vague memory ,and have concluded that with "x" amount of brain activity the chance of the fetus being a thought driven creature is very slim (though science has been known to make a mistake here and there)."I think you and I both understand the gravity of making such distinctions ... What if we are wrong? How many "conscious" humans have been killed?" Yes and that is the only reason I have a tiny bit of reservations about abortion ...what if we are wrong about when a fetus begins to think? And that is why we still must explore such issues both scientifically and morally until the answer is truly known, but until it is known we should take some sort of action based upon what we think is a viable course to follow, what that course is.... I believe it to be legalized abortion. "I'm not sure if the tree analogy holds much water. Argumentation by Analogy is not necessarily a logical fallacy but it often is. Don't have time to disect it right now but maybe later if you would like." A tree, not holding water, preposterous I guess it's just a matter of how you look at it. To me a human without thought, is not a human and something without thought does not care about life though it may be alive. It merely reacts instead of reacting and thinking about its reactions. That is however not to say that things without thought are expendable. I'm not trying to say we should cut down all the trees because they don't think, however I am trying to point out the difference between conscious things and non-conscious things that are alive and relate them to decision making on their futures. And the big question at hand is, does the fetus know it is alive and can it feel pain or will it be in pain if we abort it? My opinion is no, it does not know it is alive and it probably doesn't yet have the facilities for pain at an early stage, hence my tree analogy. It may sound cold, but, a fetus in my opinion, probably doesn't feel pain or know what is happening during abortion anymore than a tree does when it is being cut down. A fetus lives in a natural sensory deprevation tank. It has such limited sensory stimulation. It has very little to touch, it hears very little, if at all (perhaps just feels vibrations), it can not smell anything, does not see anything more than light or dark and probably doesn't taste anything. I don't think it can comprehend the little stimulus it recieves because with little or no stimulus the brain will not develop thought and it's actions are probably more a reaction than thought provoked. This sensory deprevation is probably in place for a good reason, no human would turn out sane if it knew and remembered being trapped in a tiny space for nine months Also the pain of actually being formed would probably be too emense to bear if a fetus had senses....think how painful it would be to grow from a cell to 5 billion times your original size in only nine months....think of the pain of wisdom teeth coming in and times that by a million Yeah I know it's a thin theory but why don't people remember being in the womb, why can't they remember nine months of their life? Or the very early stages of childhood? Probably because it is a necessity for us not to remember things from inside the womb. I think the thoughts and senses of a later stage fetus probably resembles a really, really, really, drunk adult. Unable to focus thoughts, numbed to pain and completely uncomprehensable. However I do believe that at some point in time the unborn child can feel physical pain and has begun to think and this should be respected, however I can't imagine at 2 mnths into term, the fetus feels anything.Personally I think humans consider themselves too important. Why else would we keep thousands of brain dead people alive and think little of destroying everything else? Hell we'll clothe, shelter, clean and feed a brain dead person but we'll leave a homeless person on the streets to freeze and starve(Sense make not we). We as a society, have no quams about putting to sleep an old, tired, sickly dog that definetely has more thoughts going on then a "vegetable" and a fetus and call this a "favour", why do we not extend such a "favour" to humans? Abortion is another form of population control, we control the population of every other animal on the planet so why don't we try using some of that quanity control on ourselves. It's unfortunate that we even have abortions but I do believe it is a necessary "evil". Abortions would and do still take place regardless of sanctioning laws but without proper facilites an abortion can be a very risky and dangerous procedure and even that fact is not enough of a deterant to a desperate woman who wants an abortion. That might be one of the reasons that legalized abortions came about, to protect those who would abort no matter what. To ensure that only the life of the fetus is terminated and not the woman's as well. "As to your question regarding my Hitler's Germany and Ireland under the Cromwellian Settlement, here goes. Hitler justified the slaying of Jews by questioning their humanity. Cromwell did the same to the Irish when he rallied his troops to kill thousand of men, women and children during his Ulster campaign. Slavery in America was justified by some by suggesting that those of African decent were not really human. I hear much of the same rhetoric when it comes to the unborn. You yourself suggested that it is possible that life begins at 3 or even 2 months. How many abortions take place after this time? Most of them, I think. And we help ourselves deal with it by suggesting that the life is not human life. We are assuming a great deal when we assume this to be true and, with life at stake, I, personally, as I said before will err on the side of caution." Point well taken, eyes open and lesson learned. I guess abortion does ring a lot like Hitler and CO., it's kind of scarey. But there are undeniable major differences between a 2mnth old fetus and a newborn baby, both physically and mentally, whereas there is no real difference between a newborn black or white or Jewish or German baby. But still your explaination of the Hitler thing really got the mind'a'working. I will have to think more about the de-humanization issue but for now I'll carry on with responding to the rest of your post. But it's gotten me thinking about population control. Without a choice of abortion we may end up having to force abortion or limit the number of children pre couple like they do in China. Imagine not having a choice to keep your child, that might be even worse than being forced to have your child because if you have a child you can still put it up for adoption if you feel you are not qualified to be a parent. I believe there is a possibility that a day will come when forced abortions could happen or a day when a child's chance of survival, due to food shortages and lack of resources, would decrease significantly if we do not begin to excercise population control. Think of a starving nation, should they not be allowed to practise abortions? In any country should one be forced to have a child if they live in poverty already? Some have said that money is no excuse to not have a child, I'm sorry to me, money equates into food. If you can barely feed yourself (and there are many in that situation) why should you be expected to be able to feed another. Say a homeless person becomes pregnant, then what, should they be forced to keep it? What about an alcoholic or a drug addict? If healthy people are forced to have their babies should we force unhealthy people to abort theirs? Population: 3-4 billion people since the beginning to 1900. Over seven billion in the year 2000. It's not hard to figure out that at the current growth rate of the population an overcrowding of the earth is inevitable. If birth control fails occasionally and a person decides they are an unfit parent, for whatever reasons, why should they be forced to participate in overpopulating the earth? Perhaps they are doing everyone a favor. If things aren't taken by the reigns there may be a more violent, sudden and drastic solution by nature or ourselves in solving the population problem. We need to trim the herd or it will be trimmed by nature eventually. We should be allowed to choose now before we have no choice. Personally I wish everyone would limit themselves to how many children they have. Less is more sometimes. Now I don't know how many other people are concerned about the world's population in relation to earth's resources but it frightens me and is a major factor in my decision to never have children. I don't want to raise a child so that they may be subjected to poor self management by humans and I don't want that child to be faced with the same delima as I am now and I don't think anyone should be forced into bringing a life onto this world until we resolve some major issues caused by overpopulation. "I am afraid that science and medicine both refute you here, my friend. As soon as the placenta begins to form on the uterine wall the fetus is distinct from its mother. It eventually develops its own circulatory, respatory, and nervous systems and merely gains sustainance from the mother (oxygen, nutrients, etc.). If you think I am wrong about this (and I may be, but I don't think so, you may want to ask Ruth, an RN, who should know better than I do). I just remember this from childbirth classes I attended with my wife ... twice." I agree with you for the most part but I was looking at it like a pregnant woman as a whole rather than a woman with a child inside her. A brain cell is different than a human but is a smaller part in a brain. The brain is different than a human but is a smaller part of a human. A fetus is different than it's mother but a smaller part of a pregnant woman. I know a bit about the development about a fetus and I'm not trying to rebute it but rather look at it from another direction. Perhaps a fetus can feel something seperate from the mother but it is still physically attached to the mother much like an organ. A cell is a lifeform within a lifeform...a fetus is a lifeform within a lifeform and if a fetus does not feel or think (which is still questionable) then to me there isn't much difference between a singular cell or a group of cells that we call a fetus, and if the fetus is attached physically to a woman and can not survive without this attachment then I consider it part of the woman, not an individual and therefore the decision of abortion should be left up to the host...However, when or if an unborn child is capable of thought and feeling it should be considered an individual entity and allowed to live if healthy. Personally I believe that if a fetus is found to have severe disabilities at a later stage in development, a woman should be allowed to abort after 2 mnths or the regular allowed time limit. I don't know if all I've written makes a lot of sense, I was just trying to get a broader look at the issue and I'm really tired right now so staying focused and organizing my thoughts is starting to become difficult. "I submit to you that almost all decisions affect more than just one person. If the fetus is a person at any time before birth than I think that it is the role of the government to consider that person a protected class just as it does any other person." I gotta agree with you....I'm a believer in the old "a pebble and ripples in a pond" thing. However, how close is everyone other than the mother and fetus to the drop zone of the pebble? Sometimes we have to let things happen to prevent more disturbing occurences from coming to light. I'd rather a teen age girl go to a clinic then to see her abuse herself until she aborted the baby. I'd rather have unborn children die now then later see neighbors kill each other over food and water. I'd rather have unborn children die now then pollute the air so no one can breath in the future....but I'd rather have people govern themselves appropriately when considering how many children to have and practise safe sex then to have them abort a child. I'd rather have the population thinned out by choice then by force. And I'd rather have Elle MacPherson naked on my bed then all of the above mentioned "I may be a Christian, Trevor, but I am also an incurable skeptic." And both God and I forgive you for that I don't know how much of this post has made sense, I am way too tired to reread, not an excuse...just a fact. BUt I'm sure there is a lot there you can rebute or discuss and I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on this subject. BTW I hope I'm not coming off like I know what I'm talking about. I'm always fearful that people will misinterpret my passion for communication with the idea of me thinking I am right. Anyways thanks for the discussion, I'm enjoying it very much. Take care, Trevor [This message has been edited by Trevor (edited 12-07-1999).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
TREVOR: "I believe that they have done studies on brain patterns, reflex, etc. on fetuses, though I can't give you a reference to this info. other than my vague memory, and have concluded that with "x" amount of brain activity the chance of the fetus being a thought driven creature is very slim (though science has been known to make a mistake here and there)." Though this doesn't answer my question it does give me a starting point. Thanks. Because of my limited knowledge of anatomy I find it difficult to comment on your "fetal pain argument". But that doesn't mean I am not going to look into it. I am afraid I have a hard time buying the population control theory, not in America at any rate. Maybe its because I am American, terribly ethnocentric and a real estate developer to boot. I see a tremendous amount of vacant, unimproved land out there. America is not over-populated. Some of her cities are conjected but for the most part overpopulation is not an American problem. Abortion as population control in America, therefore, is not anywhere near being a need. "Personally I think humans consider themselves too important." I, personally, think of all humans as being important. Whether this is a result of my religious convictions or my conscience, I can't be certain. Human life has value. Whether it has value because of human vanity or it has value because of its intrinsic worth, human life does have value. I happen to believe that human life has some intrinsic value. That is why I favor the death penalty for those who show a blatant disregard for another's human life and that is why I believe that, if a fetus is a human life, an unborn child should be protected. I know my own children have tremendous value to me. This value may only be a "felt" value but it is just a real to me as though it were intrinsic. Am I making any sense? "It's unfortunate that we even have abortions but I do believe it is a necessary "evil". Abortions would and do still take place regardless of sanctioning laws but without proper facilites an abortion can be a very risky and dangerous procedure and even that fact is not enough of a deterant to a desperate woman who wants an abortion." I have my doubts that illegal abortions would ever be a dangerous as they were before Roe v. Wade if, some time in the future, Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. I do think that it is interesting that the Supreme Court majority opinion writer believed that Roe v. Wade was bad law but, because of a doctrine in American jurisprudence call "stare decisis" (let the decision stand), the law was upheld anyway. I am a firm believer in the end never justifying the means. I believe the means always polute (or vindicate) the end. You do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and you live with the possible negative consequences. This, I think, is a good definition of integrity. Doing the right thing dispite the possible negative consequences. "Point well taken, eyes open and lesson learned. I guess abortion does ring a lot like Hitler and CO., it's kind of scarey. But there are undeniable major differences between a 2mnth old fetus and a newborn baby, both physically and mentally, whereas there is no real difference between a newborn black or white or Jewish or German baby. But still your explaination of the Hitler thing really got the mind'a'working. I will have to think more about the de-humanization issue but for now I'll carry on with responding to the rest of your post." You are right ... it is kinda scarey because there are parallels. I am not going to gloss over the differences (because there are some differences). The question is whether or not those differences are material. If a two month old fetus is a human being then it is just as wrong to kill a two month old fetus as it is a newborn as it is a 30 year old beer drinking Lutheran or a balding, Socialist, visiting professor in Korea. "But it's gotten me thinking about population control. Without a choice of abortion we may end up having to force abortion or limit the number of children pre couple like they do in China." That is a horrifying thought, Trevor. Aren't the Chinese Socialists? Sorry, wrong thread. "In any country should one be forced to have a child if they live in poverty already?" Adoption is always an option, Trevor. There are waiting lists ump-teen miles long for willing and able parents to adopt. Those parents usually undergo a very thorough screening. "Some have said that money is no excuse to not have a child, I'm sorry to me, money equates into food." In America, money equates into a second car, a big screen TV, a DVD player, a healthclub membership, and a boob job for the wife (no offense intended, ladies). I have two children and my wife is staying home and raising them. I do not have a big screen TV, DVD player, healthclub membership, and my wife has not had a boob job. I do have a second car (an '83 rusty Toyota pickup) but it is nothing special. But our needs (food, water, clothing, shelter) are met. "What about an alcoholic or a drug addict? If healthy people are forced to have their babies should we force unhealthy people to abort theirs?" If we have forced abortions, why not forced adoptions? Would that not be the lesser of two necessary evils? "A brain cell is different than a human but is a smaller part in a brain. The brain is different than a human but is a smaller part of a human. A fetus is different than it's mother but a smaller part of a pregnant woman." This line, I think, breaks down when you recognize that, unlike the brain cell:brain, brain:human body relationships, the fetus is genetically distinct from the mother. It shares 50% of her genetic make-up but only 50%. "... if the fetus is attached physically to a woman and can not survive without this attachment then I consider it part of the woman, not an individual and therefore the decision of abortion should be left up to the host..." This brings me back to my initial statement way, way long ago: "I, personally, would have no problem with the termination of a pregnancy if I could be convinced that it did not involve the taking of a human life." If a growing fetus could be detached from the mother's womb and be incubated to survive to full term independent of the mother, would it not be an individual at the time of detachment? In this instance an pregnancy would be terminated and there would be no resulting loss of human life. This is a medical possibility (and not just the subject of an Alduous Huxley novel -- that is, "Brave New World" for those of you who attended public school ). Just a thought."However, when or if an unborn child is capable of thought and feeling it should be considered an individual entity and allowed to live if healthy." I agree, of course. "And I'd rather have Elle MacPherson naked on my bed then all of the above mentioned." I personally prefer Eva Herzigova or Laetitia Casta. Rebecca Romjin Stamos, I think is a bit over-rated, but you cannot go wrong with Sarah O'Hare (SI Swimsuit '99). Imagine if all of them were aborted! What kinda world would we be living in then! Hillary Clinton might be in the Victoria's Secret catelog! AHHHHHH!!!! Hold on ... I have collected myself again ... man was that a frightening thought or what!?! As long as you and I both recognize that we haven't figured it all out already, then I think we'll get along fine. And check out my new sonnet in in CA if you have a chance (I would hate for you to think I was one dimensional). So what if you think I am a shameless self-promoter! Thanks for the talk. < !signature--> Jim "If I rest, I rust." -Martin Luther [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 12-07-1999).] |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello, ahh....where to begin. Jbouder, "I am afraid I have a hard time buying the population control theory, not in America at any rate. Maybe its because I am American, terribly ethnocentric and a real estate developer to boot. I see a tremendous amount of vacant, unimproved land out there. America is not over-populated. Some of her cities are conjected but for the most part overpopulation is not an American problem. Abortion as population control in America, therefore, is not anywhere near being a need." Overpopulation just about literal space. The earth could probably fit 100 billion people quite comfortably, and with their own parcel of land, however it does not take people jammed together like canned sardines to have an overpopulation of humans. The greater the population, the higher the enviromental damage, the higher the pollution and the greater the consumption of natural resources. This is what I was referring to by overpopulation and not actual living space. I don't know about you but I've noticed a drastic change in the environment from when I was a child. It's December and there hasn't even been snow yet....and I live in Canada....I remember when I was a child there would already be snow above my head by this time of year. The places I used to fish at as a child have no fish in them, we are warned to not breath our air or swim in our lakes and I don't believe this is because of the lack of population (nor is it totally the fault of overpopulation though I think it is a major factor). 7 billion people have more wants and needs than the natural resources can provide and we pollute more than the earth can absorb effeciently. "I, personally, think of all humans as being important. Whether this is a result of my religious convictions or my conscience, I can't be certain. Human life has value. Whether it has value because of human vanity or it has value because of its intrinsic worth, human life does have value. I happen to believe that human life has some intrinsic value. That is why I favor the death penalty for those who show a blatant disregard for another's human life and that is why I believe that, if a fetus is a human life, an unborn child should be protected. I know my own children have tremendous value to me. This value may only be a "felt" value but it is just a real to me as though it were intrinsic. Am I making any sense?" I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say (or I didn't express myself well enough), I do not think we have no value, we are important but not as important as we think. We are not better than flies but flies are not better than us.... I believe we are equal to our environment and not better, can't have one without the other ..... what would happen if all the flies disappeared?, it would be disasterous for the food chain, so many other animals would die and we would also feel it's effect. Everything is important otherwise it wouldn't exist. Trees are needed to clean carbon monoxide from the air and to provide homes for animals, flies feed the animals which in turn feed other animals, why are humans important? Don't get me wrong, if I had the choice of saving a dog or a human I'd pick the human but not because I think humans are more valuable, they're just more valuble to me (one is a reality and the other an opinion) and also because I can more easily empathise with a human. To a mechanic a wrench is more valuble than a cooking knife and to a chef a cooking knife is more valuble than a wrench but both a wrench and a cooking knife are as valuble as one another, just more useful and valuble to different people.... I guess what I'm trying to say is that things of the same value can be more valuable at certain times. If someone right now offered you the choice of either a house worth a million dollars or a boat worth 50 000 dollars, which one would you choose? The house of course, it is more "valuable", but what if someone offered you the same choice when you were afloat in the middle of the ocean? You'd take the boat of course, a million dollar house doesn't do you good if you're dead, therfore the boat is more valuable. The relation of this to my aurgument is that we do not understand the delicate balance of nature and therefore we do not truly know the value of things within it. We might be choosing the million dollar house when we are in the ocean and fully expecting it to float.... we might be choosing for every human to live at the expense of everything else, not realizing that everything else is what makes us live. I would rather kill 1 billion people with my own bare hands than cut down all the trees, why?, because I know that if I were to cut down all the trees then a lot more than one billion would die, and that's not even counting other species. I do believe if we continue without population control there may be a time when out of necessity we cut down all the last trees and unless we trim the herd, the whole herd may die. Humans don't have a lot of natural enemies anymore so we must be our own enemy in order to achieve a balance with the environment. I'm not saying we should all wear Birkenstocks and live in hammocks while eating roots but I am saying in order to survive we must come to grips with the sobering fact that we must limit the size of our population. "I have my doubts that illegal abortions would ever be a dangerous as they were before Roe v. Wade if, some time in the future, Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. I do think that it is interesting that the Supreme Court majority opinion writer believed that Roe v. Wade was bad law but, because of a doctrine in American jurisprudence call "stare decisis" (let the decision stand), the law was upheld anyway." I'm not very familiar with the Roe vs. Wade case though I have heard it briefly mentioned before. There are still dangerous practises of abortion here in Canada even though I believe it is legal across the country. In Ontario (where it is definately legal) a teenage woman aborted the child herself because of the embarresment she'd thought she'd face if she went to a clinic. A person shouldn't feel so ashamed of making such a tough decision and I believe that if it were to become illegal cases like this would become more common. It would turn otherwise lawbiding citizens into criminals. Also the price of an illegal abortion would be much higher than that of a legalized abortion. How would a poor person be able to abort a child "properly" if affordable clinics were not available? "I am a firm believer in the end never justifying the means. I believe the means always polute (or vindicate) the end. You do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and you live with the possible negative consequences. This, I think, is a good definition of integrity. Doing the right thing dispite the possible negative consequences." I am in agreement with you on that issue. I too believe one should always try and do the right thing. However what is your definition of right in comparison to someone else's? Even if everyone wanted the same thing in life (which essentially I believe they do...happiness) there would still be everyone aurguing over which is the most righteous path to proceed on. There are clear cut issues that most agree on, murder without cause is wrong, stealing without need is wrong, spitting in your boss's coffee cup is right just had to add a little humour into this discussion but what about the grey areas? Like when is murder justified and when does one need to steal and how often should you spit in your boss's coffee cup : This is why we should discuss abortion and what path to proceed on.... is abortion justifiable and is it necessary? What would make it justifiable and what would make it necessary?"You are right ... it is kinda scarey because there are parallels. I am not going to gloss over the differences (because there are some differences). The question is whether or not those differences are material. If a two month old fetus is a human being then it is just as wrong to kill a two month old fetus as it is a newborn as it is a 30 year old beer drinking Lutheran or a balding, Socialist, visiting professor in Korea." Actually in Canada we have hunting seasons for both Lutherans and American professors teaching in Korea....however the limit is two of each.... got to keep their numbers down some how :0 Yes I do agree that if we come to the conclusion that a fetus is a human then it's wrong to kill it and should be compared to killing an adult. However if faced with a choice by necessity (because of overcrowding)of killing a fetus, which one would you choose? Would you rather kill Ghandi or a fetus with the potential to be Ghandi? "That is a horrifying thought, Trevor. Aren't the Chinese Socialists? Sorry, wrong thread."No it's not Socialism, the Chinese gov't is currently practising a loose form of Moronalism And Yes, it's a horrifying thought to me as well. Pro-life would then be Pro-Abortion for abortion would be needed to sustain the human race. If we want to maintain the existence of everything on this planet we can not hold on to the illusion that we can keep breeding like rabbits without a negetive consequence. We need everything to live so that we may live. Trees would still live if all humans died but would humans still live if all the trees died? So what is really more important?"Adoption is always an option, Trevor. There are waiting lists ump-teen miles long for willing and able parents to adopt. Those parents usually undergo a very thorough screening." You're thinking only in terms of America, what about in a coutry where poverty is even more widespread. You can't ask the poor to adopt if they can't feed their own children. "In America, money equates into a second car, a big screen TV, a DVD player, a healthclub membership, and a boob job for the wife (no offense intended, ladies). I have two children and my wife is staying home and raising them. I do not have a big screen TV, DVD player, healthclub membership, and my wife has not had a boob job. I do have a second car (an '83 rusty Toyota pickup) but it is nothing special. But our needs (food, water, clothing, shelter) are met." And that is what money equates to you, but take a drive around America...and any country for that matter. Go out and meet the lady who had to decide if she should pay the electric bill or buy bread and sliced bologna for her children. I'm sure you'd be surprised to discover the amount of people that do worry about having enough to feed their kids. Some people don't have cars and don't have DVD's and their main concern is feeding, sheltering and clothing their family. Quick question, it's off topic but I just thought of it, if you can not afford to clothe yourself and no one will give you clothes, should public nudity still be illegal for you? "If we have forced abortions, why not forced adoptions? Would that not be the lesser of two necessary evils?" Then should we start forcing people to take in homeless as well? They need a home as well How would we dedide who should be forced to take care of a child? Would forcing someone to raise a child make them a better parent or a worse one? "This line, I think, breaks down when you recognize that, unlike the brain cell:brain, brain:human body relationships, the fetus is genetically distinct from the mother. It shares 50% of her genetic make-up but only 50%." Good point, I can do nothing other than agree with you. "This brings me back to my initial statement way, way long ago: "I, personally, would have no problem with the termination of a pregnancy if I could be convinced that it did not involve the taking of a human life." Same here and for the moment I do believe that a fetus is not "human" yet. I'd much rather see people practise safe sex and restraint on the number of children they have then have abortion. Choosing not to have a child is always preventing the inevitable death of at least one person, so in a quirky way, not having a child is the same as saving a life....and maybe in an overpopulation scenario, saving everyone's life. I will say for the record that if I knew a fetus had thought or feeling and felt pain and pleasure, that I personally would never ask a girlfriend or wife to abort and would try to convince her otherwise if she wanted to....unless of course we were faced with the overpopulation scenario, then a difficult decision would have to be made. "If a growing fetus could be detached from the mother's womb and be incubated to survive to full term independent of the mother, would it not be an individual at the time of detachment? In this instance an pregnancy would be terminated and there would be no resulting loss of human life." I think there was a Jean Claude VanDamme movie resembling this "I personally prefer Eva Herzigova or Laetitia Casta. Rebecca Romjin Stamos, I think is a bit over-rated, but you cannot go wrong with Sarah O'Hare (SI Swimsuit '99). Imagine if all of them were aborted! What kinda world would we be living in then! Hillary Clinton might be in the Victoria's Secret catelog! AHHHHHH!!!! Hold on ... I have collected myself again ... man was that a frightening thought or what!?!" Yes but if none of them were ever born we would never know the difference because the peak would have been set at a different level. A large hill is impressive if you've never seen a mountain. ... but then again in any world Hillary Clinton in lingerie would be scary Anyways, there is still a lot of fat to chew on about this subject and I will try and take a look at your sonnet when I have a chance Mr. Don King....I mean Jbouder, I always get self-promoters mixed up with boxing promoters Take care. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
TREVOR: Hello again. We have to stop meeting like this! "You're thinking only in terms of America, what about in a country where poverty is even more widespread. You can't ask the poor to adopt if they can't feed their own children." You are right that I am thinking in terms of America where poverty is not so widespread. There are many opportunities for adoption available here and there is no real need for abortion on demand. The "need" Americans often think is there is actually a "convenience" in many cases. This may sound cold but, for crying out loud, when you do something and, as a result of whatever you did, you complicate your life the right thing to do is not always the most expedient or convenient thing. Me, me, me ... is it just in the USA or is selfishness a virtue in Canada too? (This wasn't a personal shot, Trevor, I just get frustrated with my fellow countrymen sometimes). "Quick question, it's off topic but I just thought of it, if you can not afford to clothe yourself and no one will give you clothes, should public nudity still be illegal for you?" Believe me, it should ALWAYS be illegal for me to be seen nude in public. I asked: "If we have forced abortions, why not forced adoptions? Would that not be the lesser of two necessary evils?" Then you: "Then should we start forcing people to take in homeless as well? They need a home as well How would we dedide who should be forced to take care of a child? Would forcing someone to raise a child make them a better parent or a worse one?" I did not mean forcing a child into a home. I meant removing a child from a potentially dangerous home and placing them in the care of people who are more likely to responsibly care for that child. They actually do that now with children already born. Social Services removes the child from the custody of a neglectful or abusive parent and places that child in the foster custody of another family. Oftentimes the foster parent ends up adopting the child. I think the "happy endings" outweigh the "sad" in these cases. "Choosing not to have a child is always preventing the inevitable death of at least one person, so in a quirky way, not having a child is the same as saving a life....and maybe in an overpopulation scenario, saving everyone's life." Truly you have a dizzying intellect! One could also say that choosing to kill the child before he or she is born is preventing its eventual death anyway. Sooner's better than later, right? Again, the overpopulation problem is not an American (or Canadian) problem, aye? I've been to Winnepeg and, geeze, during the summer there are grain fields that stretch as far as the eye can see for miles surrounding the city. North Dakota is the same in the US (or isn't North Dakota a part of Canada? Can't remember )."I will say for the record that if I knew a fetus had thought or feeling and felt pain and pleasure, that I personally would never ask a girlfriend or wife to abort and would try to convince her otherwise if she wanted to....unless of course we were faced with the overpopulation scenario, then a difficult decision would have to be made." This is commendable. I believe you would do just that too. Anyway, we seem to be beating this one to death. Its alot of fun, though. Its encouraging to see that there is intelligent life in Canada (you would never know it by their government ... ). Take it easy. Again, good talk.P.S. It is okay for you to call be Jim. < !signature--> Jim "If I rest, I rust." -Martin Luther [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 12-08-1999).] |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello AGAIN Jbouder, "This may sound cold but, for crying out loud, when you do something and, as a result of whatever you did, you complicate your life the right thing to do is not always the most expedient or convenient thing. Me, me, me ... is it just in the USA or is selfishness a virtue in Canada too? (This wasn't a personal shot, Trevor, I just get frustrated with my fellow countrymen sometimes)." Yes the trend is showing in Canada too. Western society and dare I say a capitalist society (Canada is beginning to lean more and more to the right, occasionally talks about private healthcare system come up within the gov't) is a me, me, me, based society. I find it surprising that you seem a little shocked about the emergance or re-emergance of a me, me, me society considering your stance on socialism vs. capitalism for I believe that capitalism helps perpetuate the ME society. Sorry for entwining 2 diff. posts and I know your belief in capitalism doesn't equate to a non-humanitarian stance and I think I could safely say that I would have no problem with capitalism if it was practised by consciencious people....man why can't I ever just stay on topic. To many things co-relate not to wander a bit. "I did not mean forcing a child into a home. I meant removing a child from a potentially dangerous home and placing them in the care of people who are more likely to responsibly care for that child. They actually do that now with children already born. Social Services removes the child from the custody of a neglectful or abusive parent and places that child in the foster custody of another family. Oftentimes the foster parent ends up adopting the child. I think the "happy endings" outweigh the "sad" in these cases." A little miscommunication, I agree with you. I'm for adoption over abortion. I'm for preserving ALL life if possible, sadly though it isn't possible. "Truly you have a dizzying intellect!" Yeah I'm dizzy that's for sure : "Again, the overpopulation problem is not an American (or Canadian) problem, aye? I've been to Winnepeg and, geeze, during the summer there are grain fields that stretch as far as the eye can see for miles surrounding the city. North Dakota is the same in the US (or isn't North Dakota a part of Canada? Can't remember)." It seems I'm having trouble convincing you that overpopulation doesn't necessarily equate to living space. A billion people producing waste on 3 billion acres of land is still an overpopulation problem. Eventually you will run into environmental problems before you run out of land. It's not that there isn't enough land or water, the problem could be there isn't enough unpolluted land or water. 100 years ago you could drink directly out of almost every lake in Canada, now, you can't even swim in a high percentage of them. You either have to chalk it up to overpopulation or poor waste management (though poor waste management can also be due to overpopulation).....and yes North Dakota is now part of Canada, we traded Bryan Adams and Jim Carrey for it ...plus we threw in Celine Dion for free."Anyway, we seem to be beating this one to death. Its alot of fun, though. Its encouraging to see that there is intelligent life in Canada (you would never know it by their government ... )" Yes a lot of whipped horses on this topic.... BTW I thought intelligent life in every country was its gov't, thanks for setting me straight before I voted again Take care, Trevor |
||
|
Tara Simms Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 1244Honea Path, SC USA |
I believe in the right to choose. I also think that abortions should not be allowed after the first trimester. Premature babies are being delivered, and surviving, at an earlier stage all the time. When I was pregnant with my second child, the city I lived in had places that would do abortions up to 5 months. A woman in a nearby city delivered prematurely at 20 weeks and the baby lived. Sad to think that while her baby was being born at that stage in its development, another was being aborted somewhere. Do fathers have a say in abortions? I think their feelings should be taken into consideration. Women want men to step up to the plate, take responsibility for the children, be involved in the decision making, etc. How can they whine and moan about a father's lack of involvement in his child's life and then turn around and not allow him to be in on the most important decision of all: whether or not the child will have a life? I'm not saying that a woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy if the man wants it to continue. Ultimately, the decision is hers, if for no other reason than the fact that it IS her body, her health, her welfare. But she should at least consider his feelings and allow him to help make the choice. Should minors have to have parental permission prior to an abortion? No. Again, it is their bodies. I shudder to think how many children would be forced to have children because of this. I am a believer in parental notification. Pregnancy and abortion are a big deal. Teen girls should not have to go it alone. They need to have a support network, someone to turn to when they want to talk about it. It could help to open the lines of communication within the family. Would I ever have an abortion? No. Not under any circumstance. As someone else had previously stated, it is my child. Does that mean it's wrong for someone else? No. Abortions have happened for a long time. They will continue to happen, even if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned. I think it's important for women to be able to have a safe, effective abortion, thereby increasing their chances of future pregnancies, if they so desire. If abortions were illegal, many women would be getting back alley abortions once again. It matters not how strait the gate; How charged with punishments the scroll; I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul. --W.E. Henley |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
