ABORTION - Why we know what we're doing is wrong.

[lebe0024]

AGodspeed. Thank you. If you're not sure if it can be considered a human or not, why gamble?

But, I would argue that the genetic code of a one-celled human being is very distict from any other species, and is perfectly and completely human.

 

[lebe0024]

Here are some topics in the link above.

3. Size Is Irrelevant in Determining Personhood

4. Developed Reasoning Powers Are Irrelevant for Determining Personhood

5. Location or Envionment Are Irrelevant for Determining Personhood

6. Dependency on Another Is Irrelevant for Determining Personhood

7. The Genetic Make Up of Humans Is Unique

 

[Cattlegod]

just remember one thing lebe

you would be saying the exact opposite if she was pregnant and you DIDn't use the pill.


moral of the story : pull it before you blow it.

there is nothing wrong with abortion.

 

[abaez]

I personally believe that a woman has a right to choose no matter what. As for being a human at conception, does the sperm and egg after conception have a realization that they are alive? Do they live, breath and eat like other living things do? Virus's are often noted as the most primitive of living things, and have very little living capabilities and resources. (I'm not sure but they don't excrete, eat, or breath ?) Does a sperm and an egg, ONE second after they meet have any type of living capabilities or characteristics of being alive? I don't think it does, and yes it does eventually become a human being, so do the most basic of anything ever created in this world. When one celled organisms were first on the planet, do people characterize them as human simply because millions of years later they evolve into one?

 

[xirtam]

It goes even further than that. Is human life sacred? If so, you can't justify killing it. If not, who cares when you kill it? If humans are just animals in a sophisticated form, it's perfectly ethical to hunt them for sport. And if we have a problem with overpopulation, take the problem, unwanted children to the child-pound, where they'll keep them awhile before putting them to sleep. After all, unwanted children will never amount to anything. They'll just grow up to cause problems. I can sure look a kid in the eye and say, "Sorry. You have no potential. You'll never amount to anything because of the circumstances of your birth."

It just comes down to the questions of:

1) whether or not there is any such thing as morality?

and

2) can this morality be simplified to convenience?

and

3) What role does the government have in this situation?

 

[Nefrodite]

lol, you should see some of the pro life nutz, if you ask em if they would choose the life of their wife over the baby they would choose the baby love it!

 

[Entity]

<< She took the pills, and killed anything that might have conceived the night before. I killed any human that could have already started to develop. Some freedom. U2 once said in a song "What you thought was freedom, ended up to be bondage." I think that's often true.
>>



I generally stay out of abortion debates. However, I have to ask: do you even know how the morning after pill works?

Rob

 

[Jagoff]

Well, I'm pro-choice. I belive it's wrong but everyone has the right to there own decision.

 

[lebe0024]

<< you would be saying the exact opposite if she was pregnant and you DIDn't use the pill. >>


Why?


<< Virus's are often noted as the most primitive of living things, and have very little living capabilities and resources. >>


A virus is a virus. A human fetus is a human. A developing human cell is alive.


<< lol, you should see some of the pro life nutz, if you ask em if they would choose the life of their wife over the baby they would choose the baby love it! >>


Open your eyes. You can no longer object to Pro-Lifers not being Pro-Woman. There are organizations all over the place that exist to care for pregnant woman. My best friend is the founder of one. I would never create a law that would force a woman to die for her baby. That's weighing death for death. That is a horribly sensitive subject, and I am greatly disturbed that you joke about it. I knew a woman who made that choice. She chose her child over the kemo-theropy that would have saved her life from cancer. Have some dignity for once, Nephrodite.

 

[xirtam]

<< lol, you should see some of the pro life nutz, if you ask em if they would choose the life of their wife over the baby they would choose the baby love it! >>



Now you're assuming that ethics are dictated by the end result rather than the means by which we achieve those ends. By "choosing the wife over the baby" or "the baby over the wife," as long as you're not actively killing anything, you're not ethically responsible. If nature takes the baby, nature takes the baby. That doesn't give us the right to actively kill it. I'm not responsible for some poor lithuanian dude that gets run over by a car -- even if I could have been in lithuania at precisely the right time to push said guy out of the way.

Don't call choosing life murder, even if your choice results in the passive death of another entity.

 

[Nefrodite]

just showing how extreme some people take their defense of the unborn. i've heard people take that stance, i'm not just making it up, and i'm sure many others also have the same opinion. but it just goes to show how twisted their views have become that you could even consider choosing the unborn baby over your wifes life.

 

[uncouth]

it sounds like someone needs to see "The Cider House Rules"...

<an amazing comment that didn't really come together, ah well>

 

[lebe0024]

<< However, I have to ask: do you even know how the morning after pill works? >>


I just assumed they prevented the fertalized egg from developing. I didn't know for sure, so I looked it up.

UofFlorida
Depending on the time during the menstrual cycle they are taken, ECP may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of the egg or sperm, interfere with fertilization, or alter the endometrium (the lining of the uterus) thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg.

I disagree with their answer to the question: Is it abortion? If it kills the human cell, it kills the human cell. If it aborts the birth of the child, it aborts the birth of the child.

 

[Entity]

<< I just assumed they prevented the fertalized egg from developing. I didn't know for sure, so I looked it up.

<a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.health.ufl.edu/shcc/map.htm#Does%20the%20use%20of%20ECPs%20cause%20an" target=new><FONT face=Tahoma color=#000080>UofFlorida</FONT></A>
Depending on the time during the menstrual cycle they are taken, ECP may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of the egg or sperm, interfere with fertilization, or alter the endometrium (the lining of the uterus) thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg.

I disagree with their answer to the question: Is it abortion? If it kills the human cell, it kills the human cell. If it aborts the birth of the child, it aborts the birth of the child. >>



I'll try to look up the stats on this issue if I remember, but here is the problem with your assumption; you assume that it aborts the birth of the child. More often than not (and this is much higher than 50%), the implantation is what is prevented. Consequently, your worries that you have aborted your own child in your past may be warranted, but are not scientifically grounded. What you most likely did was just prevent the fertilization of the egg. That doesn't make your viewpoint any less valid, but it does make you seem a bit uninformed on the issue. Simply put, the morning after pill is not abortion, by any stretch of the imagination. The risk involved of an actual "abortion" as you understand it coming from the morning after pill are extremely small. In addition, taking birth control when one does not realize one has become pregnant poses a nearly equivalent risk of "aborting" the fetus.

Rob

 

[Mookow]

<--- playing with Zippo, but expects the flame from that wont compare to the flames from this thread.

 

[lebe0024]

It is designed in part to prevent the fertalized egg from attaching to the uterus and be nurished. It instead will pass out of the mother. I understand it doesn't always work that way. And I thank you for caring about my possibly un-warrented guilt. But that's not the point of the story. The point of the story is the selfish fear that drives people to commit abortions. Whether or not I actually killed a baby is important, but it's my selfish fear that's the issue. If there were no such thing as morning after pills, that fear would have surely driven me to clinicly abort the baby.

 

[tcsenter]

A lot of people, I think, miss a crucial point. I have NEVER actually met anyone who thought that abortion was an 'A-OK' thing to do from a moral stand-point. "Oops, that darn baby going to be an inconvenience? A professional obstacle? A serious drain on your disposable income? A big cramp on your style? Well, just kill it!"

I believe abortion for such frivolous reasons is morally repugnant, and I would drop my wife or girlfriend like a bad habit if she had an abortion for such reasons. But, as long as that fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it, resides dependently within a body that is NOT MY OWN, its NONE OF MY BEEZWAX, no more than its anyone's business if I want to have my penis cut-off because I was convinced I should have been born without one (not that I'm going to).

Everything that is immoral shouldn't also be illegal.

 

[Amused]

<< Amused One, do you see the schizophrenia in that? Why don't we start simply killing criminals? I bet that would help the crime rate A LOT! Or how about the systematic killing of poor people. I bet that would help the crime rates. Besides that, it assumes that the only people who get abortions are people who would have criminals for children. >>



The study does NOTHING of the kind. It assumes nothing, and only draws a correlation. But, it DOES draw on some facts. Fact number one being that unwanted children from broken families are more likely to commit crimes when they grow up. Now, before you start harping simplistically, note I said "more likely." I did not say "will."

And the VERY right wing organizations you subscribe to have been pointing out the correlation between unwanted children from broken families and crime for a LONG time now as part of their abstinence, virginity and monogamy campaigns.

So don't tell me there is no correlation, when you people are the same ones that have thrown it in everyone's face for so long.

Forcing a person to carry anything on or in their body amounts to slavery. A fetus is a growth on the mother's body until it can be removed, and live on it's own. Now, if you want to substitute premature removal and adoption in the last trimester, I'll agree (however, premature babies have a LOT of problems).

If I had Richard Simmonds attached to my body, and to remove him would cause his death, guess what I would do? Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is no less absurd. It is her body. She has every right to do with it as she pleases.

And don't give me that "she made her bed" BS. If I get warts, am I to live with them and not have them burned off?

 

[lebe0024]

Let's say I have a partially brain-dead paralytic brother who lives with me. I feed him, take care of him, and he is totally dependent on my care alone. What if one day I wake up and don't want to take care of him anymore, and I kill him and burry him in the back yard. Is it your business? I know there are differences between that person and an unborn baby, but Unborn babies are NOT simply part of someone elses body. They are dependent on someone else, but they are not simply an extension of someone else.

 

[Nefrodite]

it sounds like someone needs to see "The Cider House Rules"...


totally!, spiderman, charlize theron, what more can you ask for?

 

[Amused]

<< Let's say I have a partially brain-dead paralytic brother who lives with me. I feed him, take care of him, and he is totally dependent on my care alone. What if one day I wake up and don't want to take care of him anymore, and I kill him and burry him in the back yard. Is it your business? I know there are differences between that person and an unborn baby, but Unborn babies are NOT simply part of someone elses body. They are dependent on someone else, but they are not simply an extension of someone else. >>



Stupidity. If your brother was ATTACHED to you and BIOLOGICALLY dependant on you, that would be a different story. However, in this case you CAN stop caring for him, so long as you turn him over to someone else. In the mother's case, that cannot be done unless you start fetus transplants.

A fetus IS part of a woman's body, and is biologically dependant on her body. It remains a part of her body until born, or removed.

 

[lebe0024]

"And the VERY right wing organizations you subscribe to "

I would vote democrat for everything if democrats were pro-life.

"when you people are the same ones that have thrown it in everyone's face for so long."

I don't know what you're talking about. I just puke at the idea of abortion for being an evolutionary tool.

 

[lebe0024]

It's a human being! Don't get me wrong, a woman has a RIGHT NOT TO BE PREGNANT! An unborn baby HAS A RIGHT NOT TO BE KILLED. Two competing rights, what do you do? I think the life of one human being outweighs the right not to be pregnant.

 

[lebe0024]

Look, this is going where every other abortion thread goes. All I'm asking is to consider reading the artical. It's not long.

 

[tcsenter]

<< Let's say I have a partially brain-dead paralytic brother who lives with me. I feed him, take care of him, and he is totally dependent on my care alone. What if one day I wake up and don't want to take care of him anymore, and I kill him and burry him in the back yard. Is it your business? >>

Generally, no, its not my business nor anyone else's who has never had to bear such an incredible burden and thus could NEVER understand what it is like. But, it should morally and legally be your obligation to first attempt to find someone else who can care for him, the state, whatever, and if they won't care for him then break out the shovel.