80 replies to this topic

[TakeAStepBack]

Sio, I was having this conversation the other day about abortion and pregnancy and i have a question. I know that many pro-choice woman believe that abortion at a certain point in the pregnancy is OK because the fetus isn't developed enough to be considered a human (a defense to anti-abortion proponents). I've also noticed through observation that my pro-choice (not all mind you, or anyone necessarily here) who become pregnant and choose to keep it, tend to immediately start treating the pregnancy as a baby to be.

So my question is, does the change come in the thought of keeping vs. aborting the child, or is the argument truly based on science?

[unbroken_chain]

plugs ears :la la la la la la:

(if it can feel..... )


la la la la la la la.

(poke it with a pin... does it flinch....)
la
la

la la la

[TEO]

People think what they must to justify their actions or inaction.

[Java Time]

I believe it's based on whether or not a sonogram will depict something ugly growing up all in there or not

[Indigo Adventurer]

No, I believe in this day and age you need to consider more factors than is it a person or not. This is not the same time as it was years ago when people wanted large families because the survival rate was so low that to carry on the family name and run the family farm you needed 10 kids. Those days are mostly gone unless you live like the Amish. Now if you are going to bring a child into the world you had better be ready for it or it's going to have a miserable life. Trust me I grew up being bounced from foster home to program to foster home, the child of a teenage mother. Now am I glad she didn't get rid of me? (granted she was going to but found out to late) Of course, but could she have been so much more if she hadn't kept me? yes. I would give my own life in a minute to know my mother was operating at her full potential and overcame her tough start to life. I had an exponentially harder life because she decided to keep me. So I am pro choice. I believe children should be wanted and only kept when they can be cared for. That being said you should have a good reason to abort. You should be limited on how many abortions you can have before you have to undergo therapies and such. I knew a girl who had 6 abortions. That is disgusting. That is a mockery of the miracle of life. There needs to be balance. You should have the freedom to make a informed choices but also have the respect for human life to take precautions and prevent the situation from happening. If it happens though people should have options. I don't want to pay for someone elses child their whole life and deal with their inability to function in society because they weren't cared for properly as a child because their parent should have made better choices and then felt stuck with the consequences of that choice. A child is not a consequence of a choice they are people that grow into adults and run the world some day. It is preserving our race and I don't want the human race to be run by a bunch of grown up kids that didn't get hugged enough. Now, the beginning is when all of the stuff happens that creates a feeling, being creature. I agree that developmentally a fetus can respond to stimuli fairly soon into the pregnancy, but much in the same way that a dead person still has nerve response for a bit. These are reflexes from nerve stimuli not reaction with conscious thought and feeling. Somewhere along the line it becomes a baby that responds to voice and recognizes familiar voices, responding to Mom and Dad. That is when it is not okay. I think the 12 week stipulation is well thought out. Around that time the fetus begins to feel more than reflex. I would say it is based on science.

[unbroken_chain]

glad to have you.

*I think.

[TakeAStepBack]

Is that one for it's not a medical/scientific argument, but instead simply a choice one wants to make based on what they can provide for the life in question?

[PeaceFrog]

people treat plants, pets, and stuffed animals as if they were human too, so that doesn't mean much.

what makes a person, anyway? I would say that it has a lot to do with that person's identity and connections they have with other people, not just the information stored in their DNA.

So, when is a fetus a person? I would say that as soon as it is loved and accepted by the mother as an extension of herself and not an unwanted parasite, then it is a person.

The medical/scientific definition is that the organism is not an individual until it can live and breathe on its own.

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, that is two for it is a choice based on want, not on science.

[Indigo Adventurer]

glad to have you.

*I think.

[PeaceFrog]

Well, scientifically, the soul doesn't enter the body of a fetus until 30 seconds after it is born. That way it gives you plenty of time to kill it if it's ugly.

[PeaceFrog]

and even more scientifically, even if you waited like 35 seconds, that soul would just find another fetus to occupy since it's hanging out in the maternity ward anyway.

Although, it might have to step to the back of the line... not sure on all the specifics.

[Indigo Adventurer]

and even more scientifically, even if you waited like 35 seconds, that soul would just find another fetus to occupy since it's hanging out in the maternity ward anyway.

Although, it might have to step to the back of the line... not sure on all the specifics.

I can just see the horrified faces on the maternity ward now....

[Indigo Adventurer]

"and it's an ugly baby boy!" "aw hell I'll try again next time, this one's no good see if anyone else wants this thing...."

[Tim the Beek]

This subject is one which has always confused me.

One thing I do know in my gut - if we were a culture which respected life more than we do, we'd be a lot better off.

[TakeAStepBack]

This subject is one which has always confused me.

One thing I do know in my gut - if we were a culture which respected life more than we do, we'd be a lot better off.

It confuses the shit out of me. The contradictions within the arguments have left me without a pposition except to say "doctor patient relationship."

I'm not pro-choice and I'm not anti-abortion.

[PeaceFrog]

I'm pro-abortion.

this world is too fucked up, and it's unfair to get innocent bystanders involved.

[PeaceFrog]

and scientifically, a life is a life whether it's human or a chimpanzee.

unless you're going to get religion involved -- you don't have much of an argument, because it isn't a scientific issue, it's a moral one.

I think it's immoral to bring unloved and unwanted humans onto an already overpopulated earth. That's just me. You have a right to produce larvae should you choose to do so.

[TakeAStepBack]

And yet you want more gun control?

See what i mean?
There are so many contradictions on both sides it's perplexing.

Anti-abortion crowd:
Pro death penalty (generally speaking)
Anti-welfare

Pro-choice crowd:
Anti-death penalty (generally speaking)
Pro gun control


I mean, wtf??

[TakeAStepBack]

It's like saying "some lives are more precious than others. I'll be the one deciding which ones are more important than others."

[PeaceFrog]

well yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying because I'm the one with the ability to use reason and logic in order to prepare for the future, not a gun or a fetus.

and when I say *I*, I don't mean I as in I'm a tyrant. I believe in true democracy. The will of the people is who should decide what is right and wrong.

If not the will of the people, then what? The bible? The constitution? what scroll will it be next year?

[PeaceFrog]

but also, I think abortion should be regulated and that is the common theme to all my thinking... regulation is not a bad thing, as long as it's good regulation.

regulation for abortion includes offering other options such as adoption, and counseling. I also think newborns and children should be better cared for by society as a whole which might reduce the number of abortions altogether, and that is really the most lofty goal in my opinion.

[syd_25]

and scientifically, a life is a life whether it's human or a chimpanzee.

unless you're going to get religion involved -- you don't have much of an argument, because it isn't a scientific issue, it's a moral one.

I think it's immoral to bring unloved and unwanted humans onto an already overpopulated earth. That's just me. You have a right to produce larvae should you choose to do so.

Its also a scientific issue to be able to avoid getting pregnant in the first place... But that never seems to enter the conversation.

[PeaceFrog]

there is no birth control that is 100% effective unless you resort to complete abstinence... you're not suggesting that those of us who are adults and are married but do not want children (or can not provide a decent life for that child for whatever reason) resort to complete abstinence, are you?

[TakeAStepBack]

Direct, or pure democracy ends extremely badly. Extremely. But that is not the question...

well yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying because I'm the one with the ability to use reason and logic in order to prepare for the future, not a gun or a fetus.

and when I say *I*, I don't mean I as in I'm a tyrant. I believe in true democracy. The will of the people is who should decide what is right and wrong.

If not the will of the people, then what? The bible? The constitution? what scroll will it be next year?

I believe the constitution was the law of the land in this country, therefore it is the "scroll" we base all our laws upon.

[Indigo Adventurer]

and scientifically, a life is a life whether it's human or a chimpanzee.

unless you're going to get religion involved -- you don't have much of an argument, because it isn't a scientific issue, it's a moral one.

I think it's immoral to bring unloved and unwanted humans onto an already overpopulated earth. That's just me. You have a right to produce larvae should you choose to do so.

YES YES YES!

[Tim the Beek]

Direct, or pure democracy ends extremely badly. Extremely. But that is not the question...



I believe the constitution was the law of the land in this country, therefore it is the "scroll" we base all our laws upon.

Step back from it, Breh, before you get riled up and yer head hurts.

[syd_25]

there is no birth control that is 100% effective unless you resort to complete abstinence... you're not suggesting that those of us who are adults and are married but do not want children (or can not provide a decent life for that child for whatever reason) resort to complete abstinence, are you?

Are you suggesting that the majority of abortions are the result of malfunctioning birth control?

[TakeAStepBack]

YES YES YES!

Is it then ok to remove unwanted or unloved life currently on the planet? How do we decide which ones should go and which ones shoudl stay? Direct democracy?

[JBetty]

Is it then ok to remove unwanted or unloved life currently on the planet? How do we decide which ones should go and which ones shoudl stay? Direct democracy?

PAY ATTENTION TASB!!!
It's PeaceFrog's call.

[TEO]

Is it then ok to remove unwanted or unloved life currently on the planet? How do we decide which ones should go and which ones shoudl stay? Direct democracy?

Isn't that what reality tv shows such as Survivor are teaching us, preparing us for?

[TakeAStepBack]

PAY ATTENTION TASB!!!
It's PeaceFrog's call.

My mistake.

[TakeAStepBack]

Isn't that what reality tv shows such as Survivor are teaching us, preparing us for?

[hoagie]

The fetus that is left to live eventually will die anyway.

Life is a death sentence. People seem to forget this.

[TEO]

To remove, unwanted or unloved, or not good enough, or not popular enough...

[TakeAStepBack]

Thanks, Prof. Obv....I mean, Hoag.

[hoagie]

In a long view, the debate is moot. Killing it as a fetus vs letting it die in its own way...there is no difference.

[Tim the Beek]

In a long view, the debate is moot. Killing it as a fetus vs letting it die in its own way...there is no difference.

Well yeah, I think there kinda is...ending it now, or depriving the "organism" of the the chance to experience the many forms of "being."

[TakeAStepBack]

In a long view, the debate is moot. Killing it as a fetus vs letting it die in its own way...there is no difference.

Dude, that is the difference. The difference between not killing life and killing life. Are you always this unclever?

[Indigo Adventurer]

Not my view point on the situation but still found this amusing when it went around on FB for a while.

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: "Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even one year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together."

The doctor said: "Ok, and what do you want me to do?"

She said: "I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this."

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady:

"I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you, too." She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: "You see, in order for you not to have to take care of two babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the second one is born. If we're going to kill one of them anyway, it really doesn't matter which one it is, does it? There would be no risk for your body if you chose to kill the one in your arms."

The woman was horrified and said: "No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!"

"I agree", the doctor replied. "But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that might be the best solution."

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, Indi Adventurer, that is kind of the crux of the whole argument. But some say it is scientific. I actually know pro-choice mothers who would argue that the growing life does not count until it hits a certain stage, but then during their wanted pregnancy, the "baby" to be was a baby to be once she found out she was pregnant. Just a few weeks into gestation.

So I'm asking if this is really an argument of science, or one of want and opinion.

[Indigo Adventurer]

Well, Indi Adventurer, that is kind of the crux of the whole argument. But some say it is scientific. I actually know pro-choice mothers who would argue that the growing life does not count until it hits a certain stage, but then during their wanted pregnancy, the "baby" to be was a baby to be once she found out she was pregnant. Just a few weeks into gestation.

So I'm asking if this is really an argument of science, or one of want and opinion.

Well then yes there is science behind it because guidelines needed to be set. Like I said earlier when does the fetus stop responding out of reflex and start responding out of will? That begins to happen after the 12 week mark although much later into the pregnancy before it is indisputable that the baby is responding to the mother's voice as a preference rather than responding to auditory stimuli. But after 12 weeks the fetus begins to gain some control over their body and therefore after that point it seems inhumane to kill it- it is in the latter part of the transition from not 100% a being to becoming a human being. That being said, a wanted child or unwanted child is a matter of opinion. For some, the child exists before it is even conceived, for others it is the second the find out because in their mind they are seeing what the fetus will become after that "point or no return" shall we call it. So yes there is science to it as to set standards but some people choose to ignore that science because they know it will not apply to them.

[TakeAStepBack]

So yes, but no, and then *depends on applicability?

[TEO]

Want and opinion. If our society were programmed differently abortions could be more acceptable that natural births.

[Indigo Adventurer]

Want and opinion. If our society were programmed differently abortions could be more acceptable that natural births.

in some places it seems to be... come to inner urban Haverhill, Ma....

[Indigo Adventurer]

ps I grew up there and it's disgusting hence the puke-icon

[hoagie]

Kill them all; let God sort it out

- US Army Rangers

[Wende]

how did I get in this thread? Did i post about monogamy in here? Man, I'm confused.

[Indigo Adventurer]

how did I get in this thread? Did i post about monogamy in here? Man, I'm confused.

This one is a spin off that TASB started. Similar title to my monogamy post.

[PeaceFrog]

Are you suggesting that the majority of abortions are the result of malfunctioning birth control?

actually, yes. Some people consider coitus interruptus a form of birth control. Other people time their ovulation, or some such thing. Some people are just irresponsible and forget to use any birth control at all (they'd be such good parents too after such a responsible start, don't you think?) So, yeah... I can't imagine anyone actually trying to get pregnant and then aborting it. That would be insane.