:rofl [sorry...] you'll see that's not exactly so....but anyway...no one's standing there looking at you like your crazy and there's no fear of someone socking you in the chops....(although--that fear may make a few consider their words more carefullythatguymd said:I am hoping maybe a message board gives people more of a chance to think and calmly respond
That's not necessarily so...Technochratic Utilitarian subscribes to the views of Peter Sanger who believes you should have two months after birth to kill your baby.I start with the baseline assumption that everyone agrees that infantcide is wrong.
You'll find all different views. Personally, I think the line is drawn at conception.From here I am mostly curious where the line is drawn for those that are pro-choice. When you work backwards, is it okay right after the child is born? While in the birth canal? While the mom is in labor? Right before labor starts? etc, etc.
I have the same questions, but it's hard to get a clear answer because there is disagreement from the various points of view. That proves to me it's an arbitrary, subjective functionality that determines the pro-choice POV.Once the line is drawn, why is it drawn in that place? What is different right after that line is crossed? Also, keep in mind that however you answer will be compared to killing regular people (i.e. if you determine that you can't kill the baby once it can feel pain, it will be pointed out that anyone can be killed in a manner so that they won't feel pain).
Most often they argue "liberty" of the woman to control her own body---the "thing" in the womb (they say) has no sentience thus the mother's decision outweighs the "potential" of the life in the womb (that is--for those who consider the "thing" life...)Most arguments I hear against prolife are the extreme cases. Such as what about rape cases and when the mother's life is in danger?
In the case of rape, I think that it abortion should still not be an option (I would still want to live if I was the product of my mother being raped) and that adoption should be the option given. Also, any court cases involving rape would include awarding the mother to be all the costs of carrying the child.
Sounds like you and I are on the same page.In the case of the mother's life being in danger, this is the only time when abortion is an option. You are weighing one life against another and you don't have any choice. If I only had time to rescue one of two people from a burning building it doesn't mean I advocate people dieing in burning buildings.
Welcome. Lets have a look.thatguymd said:I am new and wanted to get some opposing viewpoints on this topic. I myself am prolife. I haven't had too much of a chance to try to see how another side might address this issue because in person debates appear to get heated very quickly and everyone talks past each other. I am hoping maybe a message board gives people more of a chance to think and calmly respond (don't feel put on the spot right away). Hopefully, we can give each other something to consider and think on and respond a few days later.
be careful with that. Infants are not embryos or fetuses. To many prolifers seek to be dishonest bout the distinction.Anyway, here is my prolife argument:
I start with the baseline assumption that everyone agrees that infantcide is wrong.
For some of us at whether or not the woman is providing off her bodily resources or not. For others. it is sentience, brain function or whatnot.From here I am mostly curious where the line is drawn for those that are pro-choice.
After birth, abortion is not physically possible. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.When you work backwards, is it okay right after the child is born?
At the time of birth, induction of labor or normal labor is the only way to do it anyway. It merely results in a lie birth. Don't forget that the vast majority of all abortions happens in 1st trimesterWhile in the birth canal? While the mom is in labor? Right before labor starts? etc, etc.
A person's subjective view as well as varions legal, medical and physiological differences.Once the line is drawn, why is it drawn in that place? What is different right after that line is crossed?
Note that "baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth.Also, keep in mind that however you answer will be compared to killing regular people (i.e. if you determine that you can't kill the baby once it can feel pain, it will be pointed out that anyone can be killed in a manner so that they won't feel pain).
And also most prolife arguments are about the extremes, just like your example about an abortion right at birth. :2wave:Most arguments I hear against prolife are the extreme cases. Such as what about rape cases and when the mother's life is in danger?
until you have sentience, you are not in a position to 'want" anything. If the mebryo or fetus is aborted before then, it is none the wiser, not knowing that it even existed.In the case of rape, I think that it abortion should still not be an option (I would still want to live if I was the product of my mother being raped)
Adoption is a parenting decision, not a pregnancy decision.and that adoption should be the option given.
Irrelevant. That argument is not about money, but rather about about continuing an ongoing emotional and physical rape for 9 months.Also, any court cases involving rape would include awarding the mother to be all the costs of carrying the child.
So we agree that for medical reasons, there should be no question or restriction, leaving this medical decision to the physician?In the case of the mother's life being in danger, this is the only time when abortion is an option. You are weighing one life against another and you don't have any choice. If I only had time to rescue one of two people from a burning building it doesn't mean I advocate people dieing in burning buildings.
Thank you. It was interesting to hear some new viewpoints.So that's my complete argument for now. At least until I'm given something else to consider.
Correct.thatguymd said:Let me see if I have the major points of your argument straight (I'm sure you'll let me know if I miss any).
- It's the women's decision because she must donate her bodily resources.
Actually, i don't draw the line anywhere. I see it as a decision between a woman and her physician, not anybody else.- You appear to draw the line at sentience because the fetus will be none the wiser.
Nope. Sex is not consent to pregnancy. The resources are donated on her own accord if she so wants. Otherwise, they are not.As for the first point, the resources are donated of the women's own accord with the exception of rape.
And one consequence is that if you have an unwanted pregnancy, you might have to undergo an abortion if you don't want to remain pregnant. The "consequences" argument is an old one. It would also require people who smoked to not get treatment for their lung cancer or people who drove and was in an accident to not get treatment for their injuries. "Consequences" is a bogus argument; it doesn't stand up to logic.Once that decision is made you should have to live with the consequences.
Non-sentient, non-sensate tissue "life". No different in that respect than the lung tumor in the smoker.A new life now has to be factored in.
Well, the life of the tumor certainly is extinguished under treatment for lung cancer. Should that be prohibited?Should people be allowed to get out of their consequences if getting out of it would terminate a life?
Nope. It is life. Any cell is life. the sperm is life. The egg is life. The zygote, embryo, fetus and senior citizen are all life. The hair cell at the end of my hair that I pulled out in frustration is life. So is the cow and the tomato in your burger. "life" is a lot of things. Life is very vague.So that leads to the real point of contention - that you don't believe that it is a life unless it has sentience.
Life began a bit less than 4 bill years ago.At what point in life is this acheived?
Sentience is not the same as memory. Sentience is the capacity for the brain's cortex to be able to evaluate stimulus.Do we really have sentience after we are born? I don't know anyone with two month old memories.
I find "life" to be an irrelevant point, as all cells are 'life."If you believe it starts elsewhere let me know but I didn't get a clear understand as to where else you drew the line. Maybe we just need to be more clear on when you think life begins.
It is not mine or your line to draw. It is a medical decision. It no more is your business than it is whether your neighbor is on blood pressure medication or not.thatguymd said:So, you don't draw the line anywhere?
AH, you have slipped back into hyperbole. Abortion is the termination of pregnancy. IF there is an abortion at term, it is by induction. If the fetus is viable, then the result generally is a live birth. Please don't fall back on prolife hyperbole based on outright false claims. beware of where you get your info. Many prolife sites are outright lying about a whole bunch of things.My whole point was to differeniate why it is okay to kill up to the very end of pregnancy (if left up to a woman and her physician) and not okay once it is born.
No, whether it is a burden on the woman's body that she can not avoid. F.ex. after birth, she can set the neonate up for abortion, and thus her body is no longer forced to be involved.Does this mean your only basis is whether it is a burden to the mother?
But at that time, she has chosen to take on the duties of meeting this person's needs by not setting up the baby for adoption. She has a CHOICE!!!Even after the child is born it is still a burden - perhaps more of one.
Because at that time she is no longer forced to give of her bodily resources.So why can't the mother kill after it is born?
What utter nonsense is this?You may say she can more readily get rid of the child without terminatation but this may not be a swift enough process if not set up during the pregnancy.
AH, but we are left with the CHOICE of caring, not the duty or unavoidable ability. Do you GET at all that Pro-choice is about CHOICE?Moreover, you are only moving the burden to someone else not getting rid of it
Sure, when you want to wander into metaphysical sophistry, we can have that discussion. It has no relevance whatsoever on the individual.and with overpopulation coming into question for some people it could still be considered a burden to all.
Utterly irrelevant. We are talking about whether somebody can be forced to give of their bodily resources against their will. You are wandering into bad analogies here, nothing else.Not to mention anyone that has been murdered by someone with a motive was a burden to someone else.
Good. That puts you ahead of quite a few prolifers.thatguymd said:I realize that abortion cannot take place once a child is born.
"just before" labor, there is no killing of a child (other than that it isn't a "child" until it is born); rather, there would be early labor induction and a live birth. So it frankly is emotional hyperbole. I have NEVER actually heard of an abortion at 37-38 weeks, f.ex., and certainly not that any such abortions resulted in death or dismemberment of the fetus. The oldest I have ever personally knowledge off was at 27 weeks, because the woman was dying.The problem I am presenting is this: why is it not okay to kill a child after it is born but okay to abort a pregnancy that for all anyone knows is just before the woman goes into labor? The only difference in the child between those two points is location.
Kind off. There is no unavoidable burden on bodily resources, there is no voluntary act.Then your answer appears simply be that the former has no forced burden whereas the latter does.
No, it doesn't mean that. For one, it is not just "burden," and secondly, the fetus certainly is NOT a person regardless.This means that it is then okay to end a human life as long as it was putting a burden on another person against their will.
It is not a matter of "decision" any more than a lung tumor "decides" to develop in a smoker's lung.Since you mentioned having sex doesn't count as consent and it is still forced upon them - it just has to be a complusively made desicion (no real choice in the matter) that forces the burden.
You are talking about persons, you are talking about stuff not involving bodily resources under forced use.Also, please point out the error in my analogies instead of simply dismissing them. If they are wrong then they are wrong for a reason.
thatguymd said:I realize that abortion cannot take place once a child is born. The problem I am presenting is this: why is it not okay to kill a child after it is born but okay to abort a pregnancy that for all anyone knows is just before the woman goes into labor? The only difference in the child between those two points is location.
It is not OK...according to the Law to Kill a child "Just before a woman goes into labor". This is not an abortion. I dont think anyone here has said otherwise....other than yourself.
Then your answer appears simply be that the former has no forced burden whereas the latter does. This means that it is then okay to end a human life as long as it was putting a burden on another person against their will.
Your intention in this debate is obvious, and I suppose we might as well head it off now:
You have decided to use the common technique of extrapolation (putting words into the mouths of others), by taking statements and adding to them through your own imagination. This is the reason others might fight back....as I am sure you know full well. We have all seen this often from both sides of this debate.
It is not OK to end a human life due to some percieved burden placed upon another, as you attempt to insinuate was claimed. The use of adult humans in place of developing fetus is also quite common in these threads.....Might I suggest you read through a few dozen to get a taste of what can be expected.
Since you mentioned having sex doesn't count as consent and it is still forced upon them - it just has to be a complusively made desicion (no real choice in the matter) that forces the burden.
This....I assume you refer to rape...would be a thread unto itself...oh, wait....seems to me there are a few of those already.
Also, please point out the error in my analogies instead of simply dismissing them. If they are wrong then they are wrong for a reason.
tecoyah said:Quote:
It is not OK...according to the Law to Kill a child "Just before a woman goes into labor". This is not an abortion. I dont think anyone here has said otherwise....other than yourself.
ngdawg said:http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/alerts/03-10-97.html
Alan Guttmacher Institute.....
....It just seems logical to me that in order to debate a subject, the debators would actually try to look up what they want to say and do so without resorting to sites that only echo their own sentiments. ....
I have no idea if this site is pro-choice or anti-choice and it doesn't preach either way.
Felicity said:So why do they inject pottassium in to live fetuses that could be viable to KILL the fetus prior to the induction? THAT is what induction ABORTION is--it's not inducing labor early--the fetus is killed prior to delivery PURPOSFULLY. Even if the fetus would have little chance of survival--to actively do something to kill the fetus is what makes the procedure an abortion.
Actually--I was responding to steen's post--I should have quoted it...:3oops:tecoyah said:I would imagine the potasium is used to kill the life inside the womb before removal of the tissue. If I used the term Abortion incorrectly....my mistake.
Well--because I was responding to steen--it has to do with his sly characterization that late term abortion is actually an induction and not really an abortion. No--he doesn't actually say that, but the clarification is suspiciously missing. I feel obligated to make it clear in the interest of an honest debate.This really does not affect my statement. The use of extremes in this debate takes away from the underlying discussion in my opinion. Much as I could use them against the arguments you may put forward....but have tried to avoid doing so. Just as I will happily admit my opposition to late term abortion, I can also understand its use for a woman kept in a closet by a Rapist husband until the seventh month of gestation.....what does this have to do with the actual debate.
Felicity said:Actually--I was responding to steen's post--I should have quoted it...:3oops:
Well--because I was responding to steen--it has to do with his sly characterization that late term abortion is actually an induction and not really an abortion. No--he doesn't actually say that, but the clarification is suspiciously missing. I feel obligated to make it clear in the interest of an honest debate.
tecoyah said:Works for me....heh
tec kisses Fel on the cheek to make up
Felicity said::3oops: ...[Felicty giggles coyly]
BTW--I wasn't mad...why does everyone think I'm mad??? I may be "mad" like a hatter--but I'm not "angry!" Dammit----I SAID I'M NOT ANGRY! What--are you trying to insinuate that I have emotional "issues???" Well...WHATEVER!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:mrgreen:
tec said:....uh....yeah.....about that kiss.....heh
You sound jealous!:lol:ngdawg said:Well to quote:
Whatever :roll:
The sites also make mention of one of their own LYING about procedures,something (dare I say it), anti-choice sites never admit to.
Whether prochoice or antichoice, the point is, statistics are what they are and in this instance, make late-term abortions a big rarity and outline the conditions under which one might have to be done, but lately, they've been akin to arguing against amputation as the only cure for cancer.
Your June Cleaver outlook on life is well-established, and whether intentional or not, has insulted simply in its denial of today's realities. Don't suppose you got a new apron and a string of pearls for Christmas, eh?
Well, I have felicity on "ignore" for the peace of the forum, but once in awhile her post is mirrored in responders like the case here. And there obviously have been no change in felicity's outright willful lies. An induction as we have talked about here IS an abortion, and felicity's craptrap lying doesn't seem to have changed one bit.tecoyah said:Works for me....heh
tec kisses Fel on the cheek to make up
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?