Lets find out where current members stand - public poll

[SmokeAndMirrors]

And if you were shot in the head today "you" wouldn't exist anymore, either. Should that homicide warrant the same apathetic non-response? You surely imply such.

The main difference is that I exist now, therefore I can express my will.

I never existed at the time when my mother may have theoretically aborted. I was no more "me" than my corpse will be after I die, or than my blood-infused meat sack would be if I were to become brain dead.

 

[JayDubya]

I never existed at the time when my mother may have theoretically aborted.

Bull****. If no you existed then, then no you would exist now.

We don't just magically become alive; your lifespan began at the exact same point every other sexually reproducing organism on the planet began.

 

[choiceone]

Bull****. If no you existed then, then no you would exist now.

We don't just magically become alive; your lifespan began at the exact same point every other sexually reproducing organism on the planet began.

You are assuming that having a biological form is necessary and sufficient for existence. How materialistic can you get?

 

[JayDubya]

You are assuming that having a biological form is necessary and sufficient for existence.

Again, this is just basic life science. We are one contiguous organism from conception until death, and we do not stop changing and aging until we die.

What you are arguing - having existence without material form - is the realm of religion or magic.

To the rational mind, the material world is existence. To state otherwise would require substantial proof.

 

[choiceone]

Again, this is just basic life science. We are one contiguous organism from conception until death, and we do not stop changing and aging until we die.

What you are arguing - having existence without material form - is the realm of religion or magic.

To the rational mind, the material world is existence. To state otherwise would require substantial proof.

To the rational mind, the mind is existence. To state otherwise would would require substantial proof.

 

[Ontologuy]

I voted option one in the poll as justified by the facts of the matter.

The ethics question regarding abortion exists solely because a prenatal (a ZEF) is a human: a unique differentiated living organism of the homo sapiens species at that human's very young age of existence.

Were that not the case, were the entity in question being aborted not a unique differentiated living organism or of the homo sapiens species, there would be no issue of ethics with abortion.

Abortion has at best approached ethicalness but has not objectively reached it from society's perspective as a whole.

Factors contributing to abortion moving toward being ethical are ignorance, denial, desensitization, politicking, population management concerns, dog-eat-dog socioeconomics, lack of sufficiently safe, convenient, and effective conception prevention pharmaceuticals, quick-fix mentality, epistemological sophistry, utilitarianism, lack of a belief in a rewarding afterlife, Roe v. Wade, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services ...

Factors contributing to abortion moving further away from being ethical are education, awareness, scientific discoveries, medical advancements in woman/prenatal care, politicking, development of new state-of-the-art safe, convenient, and effective conception prevention pharmaceuticals now in FDA testing, ontology, epistemological honesty, stoicism, belief in a rewarding afterlife, Roe v. Wade, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services ...

To say that there are circumstances at present where abortion is truly ethically acceptable is inaccurate. Circumstantially, abortion is ethically tolerable which does not really mean truly acceptable.

It is unethical to purposely terminate the life of any prenatal human (a ZEF) unless a justifying scenario exists.

If a real life-or-death struggle exists solely between the woman and the prenatal, then we tolerate abortion as a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest act. Diagnosis of such is ethically made by licensed medical professionals in the relevant field.

When a minor is raped and conception occurs, it is again generally considered tolerable to abort.

When an adult is raped and conception occurs, it is again generally considered tolerable to abort, though this instance is not without reasonable argumentation to the contrary.

Non life-or-death struggles between the woman and the prenatal in which the woman's life is not in danger but her health is jeopardized come in two general varieties: 1) serious and permanent, and 2) not serious or permanent. In the former 1), abortion is debatably considered tolerable/intolerable and the jury remains out; in the latter 2), completely intollerable. Regardless, diagnosis of such is ethically made by licensed medical professionals in the relevant field with respect to reasonable experiences common in pregnancy.

Abortion due to prenatal condition/defect is hotly debatable with regard to being ethically tolerable, depending on the very nature of the condition/defect.

Abortion as a form of birth control when none of the aforementioned scenarios are in play and for any reason (convenience, economics, career, bio-father protestations, etc.) is completely intollerable ethically, and it doesn't matter the age of the prenatal.

Laws exist that provide for abortion in ethically tolerable situations, and laws exist that both prevent and provide for abortion in ethically intollerable situations. Sometimes the same law does both.

Regardless, the presense or absence of a specific law on abortion does not speak to the ethics of abortion, as such ethics are sociological in foundational nature, not legal. Law is frequently slow in catching up.

 

[Removable Mind]

I voted option one in the poll as justified by the facts of the matter.

The ethics question regarding abortion exists solely because a prenatal (a ZEF) is a human: a unique differentiated living organism of the homo sapiens species at that human's very young age of existence.

Were that not the case, were the entity in question being aborted not a unique differentiated living organism or of the homo sapiens species, there would be no issue of ethics with abortion.

Abortion has at best approached ethicalness but has not objectively reached it from society's perspective as a whole.

Factors contributing to abortion moving toward being ethical are ignorance, denial, desensitization, politicking, population management concerns, dog-eat-dog socioeconomics, lack of sufficiently safe, convenient, and effective conception prevention pharmaceuticals, quick-fix mentality, epistemological sophistry, utilitarianism, lack of a belief in a rewarding afterlife, Roe v. Wade, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services ...

Factors contributing to abortion moving further away from being ethical are education, awareness, scientific discoveries, medical advancements in woman/prenatal care, politicking, development of new state-of-the-art safe, convenient, and effective conception prevention pharmaceuticals now in FDA testing, ontology, epistemological honesty, stoicism, belief in a rewarding afterlife, Roe v. Wade, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services ...

To say that there are circumstances at present where abortion is truly ethically acceptable is inaccurate. Circumstantially, abortion is ethically tolerable which does not really mean truly acceptable.

It is unethical to purposely terminate the life of any prenatal human (a ZEF) unless a justifying scenario exists.

If a real life-or-death struggle exists solely between the woman and the prenatal, then we tolerate abortion as a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest act. Diagnosis of such is ethically made by licensed medical professionals in the relevant field.

When a minor is raped and conception occurs, it is again generally considered tolerable to abort.

When an adult is raped and conception occurs, it is again generally considered tolerable to abort, though this instance is not without reasonable argumentation to the contrary.

Non life-or-death struggles between the woman and the prenatal in which the woman's life is not in danger but her health is jeopardized come in two general varieties: 1) serious and permanent, and 2) not serious or permanent. In the former 1), abortion is debatably considered tolerable/intolerable and the jury remains out; in the latter 2), completely intollerable. Regardless, diagnosis of such is ethically made by licensed medical professionals in the relevant field with respect to reasonable experiences common in pregnancy.

Abortion due to prenatal condition/defect is hotly debatable with regard to being ethically tolerable, depending on the very nature of the condition/defect.

Abortion as a form of birth control when none of the aforementioned scenarios are in play and for any reason (convenience, economics, career, bio-father protestations, etc.) is completely intollerable ethically, and it doesn't matter the age of the prenatal.

Laws exist that provide for abortion in ethically tolerable situations, and laws exist that both prevent and provide for abortion in ethically intollerable situations. Sometimes the same law does both.

Regardless, the presense or absence of a specific law on abortion does not speak to the ethics of abortion, as such ethics are sociological in foundational nature, not legal. Law is frequently slow in catching up.

Hmmmm....really?

I vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE. The reason...is in my signature.

 

[MaggieD]

How can you have all those choices to choose from and not one that fits Maggie?

I'm fine with abortion through the third month. Ethically/morally acceptable to me. After three months, I have a problem with it. But that's on the person who chooses to do so, not on me.

 

[nathanjames1791]

Bull****. If no you existed then, then no you would exist now.

We don't just magically become alive; your lifespan began at the exact same point every other sexually reproducing organism on the planet began.

Thats crazy talk!!! Everyone knows a magical fairy comes and sprinkles magical dust on the mothers belly suddenly making the fetus in the womb a living human aka baby. Duh!

 

[AGENT J]

I voted for:

to save life or serious health lose of mother
in the event of rape
in the event of incest
if the female is a child
if it becomes known the fetus is grossly malformed

these are all pretty common sense reasons

I support for the women to have the right and ablity to choose for any reason she wants up until 20-24 months or so.
After that it should be about life or death of the mother or something dramatically wrong with the child.

and again I support the RIGHT for them to have this choice.

Morals/'ethics are meaningless in this conversation. Because my morals/ethics may not be yours and vice versa so how you choose to conduct yourself is on you.

I support abortion because it supports womens rights, plain and simply. You can grant personhood at conception without giving the ZEF MORE rights than the woman and taking away her current rights, freedoms and liberties.

SO even if I think its morally or ethically wrong doesnt matter, I understand the country we live in and I have no business taking away this right from women.

Unless technology changes and foster care also changes the only grey area in womens rights and abortion is maybe putting a more solid GENERAL nation wide cap on abortion at say 18weeks? and then the same rules after that time that apply now. ANd of course improve education and access to more realiable and cheaper birth control.

The law is about as american and middle ground as you can get, dont want an abortion, dont have one and if a woman wants one she can with in reason. The law seems perfect to me. The situation may not be by the law is.

 

[cpwill]

If it's the mothers' life, then I would understand inducing birth and try to save the child in the ICU. If the child is dead, then I would understand. But defining "health" so vaguely as to include anything is, I think, a cop-out.

 

[kerussll]

If it's the mothers' life, then I would understand inducing birth and try to save the child in the ICU. If the child is dead, then I would understand. But defining "health" so vaguely as to include anything is, I think, a cop-out.

Sure, we'll just run every case by you then.

 

[RamFel]

Why no "when a woman decides she needs to end her pregnancy" option?

Funny, none of the options you give involve the woman's choice or opinion on the matter.

Of course, you've got the father's opinion in there...

BS poll.

I think you're right, but it would be a BS answer.

 

[Masada]

Abortion isn't a liberty issue. It's not a woman's right issue either.

I believe in liberty and rights, but we do not have the liberty, nor the right, to eliminate a potential human being's fundamental right to life. Liberty doesn't give men the ability to take it from others. We don't have a "right" to stop someone from being born. The pro-choice activists have perverted the words "freedom" and "right", and "choice" to the point people believe that preventing the life of a human being by ending that life in the womb, is their "right", and their "choice", and that they have every freedom to do it. This defies the meaning of freedom. It contradicts the philosophy of choice.

If your choice robs someone of their choice, you have dictatorship. A woman's choice to abort robs a human being of every choice. That's not freedom, and we don't have a "right" to do that.

We are intelligent creatures. We know what it is Inside a woman's womb. We all know it's a baby. It's a person. We all know that. Forget the arguments about when a baby actually becomes a baby. In all of our consciences, we know, from the moment of fertilization, what resides inside a woman's womb. We know it isn't a horse, or a television remote. It's a human being. And abortion destroys that, and we do it knowingly. God have mercy.

 

[Medusa]

acceptable in case of rape , incest or a serious problem....

 

[choiceone]

Abortion isn't a liberty issue. It's not a woman's right issue either.

I believe in liberty and rights, but we do not have the liberty, nor the right, to eliminate a potential human being's fundamental right to life. Liberty doesn't give men the ability to take it from others. We don't have a "right" to stop someone from being born. The pro-choice activists have perverted the words "freedom" and "right", and "choice" to the point people believe that preventing the life of a human being by ending that life in the womb, is their "right", and their "choice", and that they have every freedom to do it. This defies the meaning of freedom. It contradicts the philosophy of choice.

If your choice robs someone of their choice, you have dictatorship. A woman's choice to abort robs a human being of every choice. That's not freedom, and we don't have a "right" to do that.

We are intelligent creatures. We know what it is Inside a woman's womb. We all know it's a baby. It's a person. We all know that. Forget the arguments about when a baby actually becomes a baby. In all of our consciences, we know, from the moment of fertilization, what resides inside a woman's womb. We know it isn't a horse, or a television remote. It's a human being. And abortion destroys that, and we do it knowingly. God have mercy.

Sorry, but I, for one, do not know that what is inside a pregnant woman's womb is a baby, a person, a human being. I do not think those are appropriate categorizations of a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or previable fetus according to many pro-choice people, and I myself do not think it is reasonable even for a viable fetus to be considered a person or human being until it comes out of the woman's body. I honestly believe that, as long as it is still inside the woman, creation is still going on and is not yet a finished process, so I think it has not yet reached the point of deserving such categorization. Furthermore, I do not believe that any potential human being has the right to live inside a person's body and be attached to that body for life-support without the consent of that person. I think that we receive a right to life when we are born, and that all the life we may have while in the womb of some woman belongs to that woman exclusively unless she freely gives it to us as a gift. I do not think even God has any right to force a woman to give some of her life to a potential human being without her consent.

 

[1751Texan]

When you speak of rights, only a person has rights. When you get the law changed to potential persons obtaining rights, then someone can advocate for them.

As of now you dont have a dog in the fight unless you are the pregnant woman. You as a bystander are not harmed(legal) by someone's preganancy or their wish to abort.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Abortion isn't a liberty issue. It's not a woman's right issue either.

I believe in liberty and rights, but we do not have the liberty, nor the right, to eliminate a potential human being's fundamental right to life. Liberty doesn't give men the ability to take it from others. We don't have a "right" to stop someone from being born. The pro-choice activists have perverted the words "freedom" and "right", and "choice" to the point people believe that preventing the life of a human being by ending that life in the womb, is their "right", and their "choice", and that they have every freedom to do it. This defies the meaning of freedom. It contradicts the philosophy of choice.

If your choice robs someone of their choice, you have dictatorship. A woman's choice to abort robs a human being of every choice. That's not freedom, and we don't have a "right" to do that.

We are intelligent creatures. We know what it is Inside a woman's womb. We all know it's a baby. It's a person. We all know that. Forget the arguments about when a baby actually becomes a baby. In all of our consciences, we know, from the moment of fertilization, what resides inside a woman's womb. We know it isn't a horse, or a television remote. It's a human being. And abortion destroys that, and we do it knowingly. God have mercy.

And tell me, if you're so concerned about the "consent" of a ZEF, at what point did it consent to being brought into the world to begin with?

 

[Anima]

This is a multiple choice (you can pick more than one), public poll. I leave out "outlawing" and only "ethical/moral" opposition. You can add you want abortion outlawed if your message. This is about your beliefs, not politics or laws.

I support abortion on demand until the point of viability. After this, I do think there are some reasons and situations which would justify a late term abortion, such as major disability in the the fetus or a significant decline in the mental or psychical health of the mother to the point where continuing the pregnancy is no longer wise or safe from a medical standpoint.

 

[Ikari]

This is a multiple choice (you can pick more than one), public poll. I leave out "outlawing" and only "ethical/moral" opposition. You can add you want abortion outlawed if your message. This is about your beliefs, not politics or laws.

Abortion is "moral" (I'm guessing you're looking for acceptable?) to save the life of the mother or if the child has severe birth defects. I'm not talking Downs Syndrome, more like their brain cannot work at all sort of thing.

 

[Ikari]

Sorry, but I, for one, do not know that what is inside a pregnant woman's womb is a baby, a person, a human being.

Are you human? Are you a person? You were once a collection of cells too. That was you. There's no alchemy, there's no magic, there's only science. You didn't magically become a person, you as you are now are the same organism which developed in your mother's womb. Exact same organism. You were not transmuted into a human at some point. You either are or you are not. Are you human?

 

[JayDubya]

Are you human? Are you a person? You were once a collection of cells too. That was you. There's no alchemy, there's no magic, there's only science. You didn't magically become a person, you as you are now are the same organism which developed in your mother's womb. Exact same organism. You were not transmuted into a human at some point. You either are or you are not. Are you human?

Like everyone else, she still is.

There's nothing inherently special about having trillions of cells vs. having a few; you're still describing all of the cells that comprise the body of an organism.


And the organism in question is rather special, rather extraordinary indeed.

 

[Masada]

And tell me, if you're so concerned about the "consent" of a ZEF, at what point did it consent to being brought into the world to begin with?

Life is a "natural law", it's not something that has to be consented to.

Wait, don't try to respond to that, for I'm sure that's far above your pay grade in understanding.

I'll say this. We are intelligent creatures with the ability to reason. I don't care what you call a fetus at 3 week stage, at 3 month stage, at conception, at birth. It doesn't matter. WE, as intelligent, reasoning creatures, have the ability to fully understand that if a fetus comes to term, what it becomes. It becomes a living, breathing human being. Whether you believe you are literally ending a life by aborting it or not, you cannot dispute the fact that you are terminating a "potential life".

"Choice", and "personal freedom" do not trump the natural law of life. Natural law is that when a woman becomes pregnant, that that seed will flourish into a human being BY NATURE. That's a natural law. Do you understand the word "law"? Laws are concrete, yet laws can be broken cant they? Yes they can. Abortion defies natural law. The law of nature, is that when a woman becomes pregnant, she delivers a child. That's the law of nature. Abortion defies that law.

You should try thinking for yourself. Problem is, people have hidden behind the philosophy of "freedom of choice" in order to line up behind abortion rights. The very nature of the freedom of choice is also defied by abortion. You are robbing choice by giving choice to another. That is not freedom, nor does it express the philosophy of freedom. For it is not freedom if it is attained at the expense of another's freedom. You rob one's freedom to satisfy another's. Can you tell me what that is? Slavery traveled the very same road. Slavery was robbing one person's freedom to satisfy another's lifestyle. Are you also pro-slavery? Do you not have the gift of reasoning? Are you not educated in matters such as "law", "liberty", and "life"? Men were enslaved for the sake of another person's "convenience". In the same fashion, "potential human beings" are aborted for the sake of another person's convenience. Yet one, you deem evil, while the other you deem satisfactory. How did you get there? Rationalization.

You can't have a real debate about abortion in this country, because those supporting it aren't honest. Either that, or they are simply ignorant to things like "natural laws", and the consequences of manipulating them. All they are interested in is total freedom, without repurcussion. A hall pass to have permiscuous sex without having to deal with the consequences. That is anarchy. So it makes perfect sense why liberals tend to be anarchists, and pro-abortion. It's about rebellion. I don't expect you to grasp any of this though, but it's ok.

 

[marduc]

Whether you believe you are literally ending a life by aborting it or not, you cannot dispute the fact that you are terminating a "potential life".

Your dickish condescending tone. and the fact that this is an abortion thread which I typically avoid like the plague aside, I feel compelled to ask a couple of questions (rhetorical no need for you to answer).

1) Is every time I masturbate not also terminating "potential lives"?
2) Is a woman failing to copulate copiously when she is fertile not also terminating a "potential life"?

 

[Masada]

Your dickish condescending tone. and the fact that this is an abortion thread which I typically avoid like the plague aside, I feel compelled to ask a couple of questions (rhetorical no need for you to answer).

1) Is every time I masturbate not also terminating "potential lives"?
2) Is a woman failing to copulate copiously when she is fertile not also terminating a "potential life"?

You feel "compelled" to ask a rhetorical question? lol....

The answer to BOTH of your questions is no, of course not. It may not be obvious to you why, so I'll tell you. Everytime you masturbate, you are terminating sperm, not a fertilized egg. You can't have a baby with sperm alone, nor an egg alone. Therefore, your answer to question 2 is also "no". You aren't terminating "life" by masturbating, because no "life" has been created. Not even "potential life". Sperm alone can never become a person.

Age old argument, that is easily dismissed with a little simple reasoning. This is what I mean. Have people lost their ability to reason? That's not a rhetorical question btw.....