all for it. i think the decision rests ultimately with the mother.

FairwoodKing;502484 wrote:I am strongly pro-abortion. There are way too many people on this planet. Most scientists agree that the planet can only hold about two billion people. We already have almost seven billion with no end in sight. Scrooge once commented on cutting down on the surplus population. We are all surplus population from the planet's point of view. You are, I am, we all are. If it takes abortion to get rid of some of the excess people, then so be it.

I'm pretty sure that the planet can hold more than two billion people. Considering it's been doing it for a while now.

It's also pretty crazy to be "pro-abortion". I mean, I'm pretty "leave it up to the woman" and all but I'd rather see them take other steps than abortion (put it up for adoption, man up and raise it yourself, etc).

fan_from_texas;502494 wrote:What about in a situation where the mother and baby will both die, absent intervention? I'm okay with saying that we don't need to kill both of them just to make a point. Short of that, however, I think I'm anti-abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

This blows my mind. I don't know if you'd have that same viewpoint if you knew anyone who has been raped.

I Wear Pants;502506 wrote:This blows my mind. I don't know if you'd have that same viewpoint if you knew anyone who has been raped.

I've known people who have been raped, but never someone who became pregnant as a result (to my knowledge). FWIW, I think that's a terrible, tragic, mind-blowingly awful situation. But if we really believe that the baby is a life (which I do), and that killing for convenience is wrong (which I do), then it would be hypocritical to suggest that killing in cases where it would be really, really convenient would be okay. I hope I never have to be in that situation.

fan_from_texas;502511 wrote: But if we really believe that the baby is a life (which I do), and that killing for convenience is wrong (which I do), then it would be hypocritical to suggest that killing in cases where it would be really, really convenient would be okay.

I get what you're saying. If a baby is life, then why should the baby be punished for how it was conceived?

I Wear Pants;502501 wrote:I'm pretty sure that the planet can hold more than two billion people. Considering it's been doing it for a while now.

It's also pretty crazy to be "pro-abortion". I mean, I'm pretty "leave it up to the woman" and all but I'd rather see them take other steps than abortion (put it up for adoption, man up and raise it yourself, etc).

I think this just Fairwood trying to mix up the pot....that wasn't a serious post.

Back to the point, it is an issue that will likely go away in the next few years. It is nothing like the hotbed issue it was in the past when there wasn't as much info re how babies are made. With the information age up to the point that I get tweeted (or twitted, or whatever) by my fifth cousin, fourth removed about his tooth filling, unplanned pregnancies shouldn't occur, and even when they do occur there are plenty of couples willing to accept the responsibility.

fan_from_texas;502511 wrote:I've known people who have been raped, but never someone who became pregnant as a result (to my knowledge). FWIW, I think that's a terrible, tragic, mind-blowingly awful situation. But if we really believe that the baby is a life (which I do), and that killing for convenience is wrong (which I do), then it would be hypocritical to suggest that killing in cases where it would be really, really convenient would be okay. I hope I never have to be in that situation.

Here's my problem. How can we in good conscience load up tons of guilt and social stigma on rape victims who become pregnant and want an abortion? They went through a terrible ordeal and (many of them not saying all) want nothing at all to do with a child from their attacker. We then as a society say "if you get an abortion you're killing a child, same as murder". So this person then has to choose between having a reminder of this tragic, terrible ordeal everyday for the rest of their lives or being considered a killer by much of society. This is an unfair thing to do (I know life isn't fair but this is something we can control) and it's why I mostly have no opinion in regards to abortion or my opinion is that it needs to be up to the persons involved (especially in cases of rape).

Pants, upon getting pregnant, that knowledge will be with you the rest of your life.
Whether you abort or adopt out, that knowledge will also be with you the rest of your life.
There's no escaping lifelong feelings.
.........................

For those of you who say the decision to terminate a pregnancy, and basically keep the father/sperm donor out of it:

Is it alright if the woman decides to keep the baby if the father decides to keep his money out of it?

FairwoodKing;502484 wrote:If it takes abortion to get rid of some of the excess people, then so be it.

Let's make murder legal then. Personally your ultra-leftist politics is an inconvenience to me. If I kill you I would be ridding society of one more "the government owes me a living" socialist leech...and it might even save a tree!

CenterBHSFan;502388 wrote:Speaking at a scientific level, an embryo or a fetus is "life". A stick of chewing gum is not "life".

Is it life? Detach the fetus from its mother, and see how long it lasts LOL

"Life" and "Alive" are two different things.

For something to be a living organism or to have "life" means that the object in question has a metabolism, has the capacity grow, maintains homeostasis, being structurally composed of cells (at least one), etc. An embryo shares all of these characteristics with Sperm and unfertilized eggs. All of these things are "living organisms"

Nonetheless, none of these things, if we saw them sitting on a park bench, would we consider to be "alive" as we consider our other fellow flesh and blodd human beings moving about throughout the day. Being as we understand it includes some kind of conscious awareness of the world.

Consequently, since in some way or another consciousness is related to our brains (exactly how is not known and perhaps the greatest mystery of our times), and fetus' do not develop the minimally required neurological structures required for conscious experience until at the very earliest, week 20 of the pregnancy (but probably couldn't experience any ounce of the world until around week 30).

Therefore, even if we say it's a human being that would be terminated during an abortion and it has "life," it certainly is not "alive" and I'm therefore ok with a woman terminating her pregnancy for any and all reasons up until about week 30 (when perception probably could start to happen). But, I could live with legislation that limited until week 20 when the most basic structures for conscious experience begin to form. Fwiw, this isn't "speculation" as HitsRus might suggest. It is a concrete fact that it is impossible for a fetus to be "alive" in the same way we understand what "alive" to mean before the thalamacordical connections form.

fan_from_texas;502511 wrote:I've known people who have been raped, but never someone who became pregnant as a result (to my knowledge). FWIW, I think that's a terrible, tragic, mind-blowingly awful situation. But if we really believe that the baby is a life (which I do), and that killing for convenience is wrong (which I do), then it would be hypocritical to suggest that killing in cases where it would be really, really convenient would be okay. I hope I never have to be in that situation.

Do you think that there is a great moral difference between;

A. Actively taking an innocent life in the name of convenience

as opposed to.

B. Allowing an innocent life to die in the name of convenience

It might be imagined like so;

A man who doesn't want to work for his own money attacks and kills a rich man so that he may conveniently take his money

vs.

A man who doesn't want to work for his own money sees a rich man experiencing a heart attack and rather than help him, he takes the mans wallet and lets him die.

Do you think that there is a great moral difference between this men? Even if there is, would you still think the second man, if not as bad as the first, to be a good man? In any event, do you think it'd be fair to say that the second man values life?

fan_from_texas;502511 wrote:I've known people who have been raped, but never someone who became pregnant as a result (to my knowledge). FWIW, I think that's a terrible, tragic, mind-blowingly awful situation. But if we really believe that the baby is a life (which I do), and that killing for convenience is wrong (which I do), then it would be hypocritical to suggest that killing in cases where it would be really, really convenient would be okay. I hope I never have to be in that situation.

This is interesting to me also because you've suggested that you're a retributavist in regards to the philosophy of punishment. Although you've said that other interests such as not becoming a degraded society, might balance against this interest in retribution, you've nonetheless admitted an openness to the painless (or near painless) killing of despicable criminals as their just penance. Might not some retributavists argue that it is justified to disallow a rapist to replicate his DNA? Is it not a great injustice to allow a rapist to have his spawn roam the earth when created through the most horrifying means; Even if it was no fault of the childs?

I'm not saying this is my view...but I think that's a fair argument to make....if we think it justified to painlessly kill violent murderers...might it not be similarly justified to painlessly kill the bastard unborn children of rapists?

BoatShoes;502687 wrote:Do you think that there is a great moral difference between this men? Even if there is, would you still think the second man, if not as bad as the first, to be a good man? In any event, do you think it'd be fair to say that the second man values life?

There is, of course, a moral difference between the two. How "great" it is, is tough to say because that's not something that lends itself well to quantification. I don't think I'd rate the second man to be a "good man," though that obviously depends on many other factors. Generally, allowing someone to die would put you pretty low on the list, but I'm not willing to write those people off entirely (e.g., "angel of mercy" situations). I have no idea if the second man values life. He likely values it more than the first man but less than someone who didn't do either.

BoatShoes;502700 wrote:Might not some retributavists argue that it is justified to disallow a rapist to replicate his DNA? Is it not a great injustice to allow a rapist to have his spawn roam the earth when created through the most horrifying means; Even if it was no fault of the childs?

Sure, some might make that argument. I think the innocent child's right to life tends to trump society's right to indirectly punish the offender, though (relatively) reasonable minds may differ.

Don't have the hard facts...but I've also heard that it is very improbable to conceive from rape. Has something to do with less body fluid deep in the uterus and the fear hormones wreaking havoc.

My opinion is that abortion is in fact murder. A strong choice of words, but that's what I believe. Also, the masturbating analogy to murder is absolutely nonsense. For another analogy...probably just as lame...you take part A of an epoxy coating and mix it with part B, a chemical reaction takes place with a completely different animal as a result.

In most cases, a part A (resin) and a part B (hardener) are both toxic materials that cannot be disposed of without EPA's guidelines being adhered to.

Conversely, after A and B are thoroughly mixed and the product allowed to cure, that new polymer can be thrown into the trash for Monday morning pickup.

fan_from_texas;502726 wrote:Sure, some might make that argument. I think the innocent child's right to life tends to trump society's right to indirectly punish the offender, though (relatively) reasonable minds may differ.

Put yourself in the shoes of an 17 year old girl that has been impregnated through a violent act that carries a sentence of 20 to 40 years. I would actually encourage my daughter to find an abortionist if this happened to her.

Choices are choices...forced rape is not a choice.

In following with fan from texas, why is murdering an innocent baby OK if it was conceived out of a crime? Was the baby part of the crime? What act did the baby perform to deserve to die? I flat out don't understand the argument that the life of the innocent baby is determined by how it was created.

My solution for abortion is rather simple, but effective. I don't think we, as a country, can legislate it into a crime. This would lead to where we were before Roe v Wade, with thousands of mothers dying at their own hands. I say that a pregnant mother can have an abortion in the first trimester only. If she elects to have one, then she is taken out of the reproductive pool. In other words, when the abortionist removes the fetus, he takes the uterus along with it. No more abortion mills. No more repeat murderers. No more. Maybe this would allow more pregnant women to think twice about the heinous act they are about to have performed. It would end it as a form of birth control as well.

It seems like a contradiction in our legal systerm that abortion is legal, but someone killing a pregnant woman can be charged with double homicide.

BGFalcons82;503052 wrote:In following with fan from texas, why is murdering an innocent baby OK if it was conceived out of a crime? Was the baby part of the crime? What act did the baby perform to deserve to die? I flat out don't understand the argument that the life of the innocent baby is determined by how it was created.

My solution for abortion is rather simple, but effective. I don't think we, as a country, can legislate it into a crime. This would lead to where we were before Roe v Wade, with thousands of mothers dying at their own hands. I say that a pregnant mother can have an abortion in the first trimester only. If she elects to have one, then she is taken out of the reproductive pool. In other words, when the abortionist removes the fetus, he takes the uterus along with it. No more abortion mills. No more repeat murderers. No more. Maybe this would allow more pregnant women to think twice about the heinous act they are about to have performed. It would end it as a form of birth control as well.

I'm okay with only allowing first trimester but you get into serious waters when saying that everyone who gets one gets their tubes tied. I mean, who the fuck are you/we to tell someone that they cannot have a child?

boatshoes posted:

Therefore, even if we say it's a human being that would be terminated during an abortion and it has "life," it certainly is not "alive" and I'm therefore ok with a woman terminating her pregnancy for any and all reasons up until about week 30 (when perception probably could start to happen). But, I could live with legislation that limited until week 20 when the most basic structures for conscious experience begin to form. Fwiw, this isn't "speculation" as HitsRus might suggest. It is a concrete fact that it is impossible for a fetus to be "alive" in the same way we understand what "alive" to mean before the thalamacordical connections form.

I've posted only part of what you wrote for brevity....but go back and read it and realize that yours is nothing more than opinion of when life begins.

I have no doubt that YOU accept your self defined, imprecise premises and see the 'logic' of your arguement..what is 'life' vs. 'alive'...when consciousness begins... or some other muddled conundrum meant to assuage the guilt of your politics.
So when again does it begin? At 20 weeks...or was it 141 days...or 138...or 148 days 6 hours, 12 minutes? Even more ridiculous...the beginning of conscousness....

"Hey Doc...before you take that fetus....do you detect a spark of consciousness?" LOL


No, the only line of demarcation that can be used is that of conception... The moment that 2 gametes join to form the entire genetic makeup of a HUMAN BEING.

It makes it so much easier to wipe out that human being when you use terms like fetus and 'ball of cells'. It makes it so much easier when you obfuscate the beginning of human existence. It makes it so much easier to obtain the voting loyalty of those who would rather not have to deal with the inconvienience of a baby. After all, fetuses don't vote for democrats and liberals. Just another vote purchased with public funds....but this at the cost of a human life.

I don't consider an early fetus to be a person so...?

I mean, I get that the point that it does become a person is quite subjective and changes from fetus to fetus as development times are different for each but I think there is a point where the unborn is no longer a fetus and is an unborn baby.

But of course I don't have to deal with these types of decisions as I'm not a female and I don't plan on involving myself in the situation (safe sex and personal responsibility ftw) so it's easy for me to make theoretical arguments. If I was directly in a situation maybe I'd be gung ho with "we can't afford this and aren't mature enough...call the clinic!!!" or perhaps I'd be more "don't even think of hurting my kid".

sleeper;502369 wrote:For. Pretty ridiculous that a human is NOT allowed to remove a parasite from its body. Now, as the baby surpasses a certain stage, say the 1st, then no abortions should be allowed. It's kind of a hard issue to legislate, but I'll take science over any of the crap religion is spewing these days.

You should have clarified, "self-inflicted" parasite. Another way to relieve yourself of that parasite, is to kill the host of the parasite. Then it's equal.

I Wear Pants;503154 wrote:I don't consider an early fetus to be a person so...?

I mean, I get that the point that it does become a person is quite subjective and changes from fetus to fetus as development times are different for each but I think there is a point where the unborn is no longer a fetus and is an unborn baby.

But of course I don't have to deal with these types of decisions as I'm not a female and I don't plan on involving myself in the situation (safe sex and personal responsibility ftw) so it's easy for me to make theoretical arguments. If I was directly in a situation maybe I'd be gung ho with "we can't afford this and aren't mature enough...call the clinic!!!" or perhaps I'd be more "don't even think of hurting my kid".

It's too bad that your parents didn't "call the clinic".

I'm against it morally, but I feel that it should remain legal. I don't think the government has or should have the power to legislate whether someone should abort a fetus (within the first 24 weeks) or not. I did a report in school on this many years ago. Countries in which abortion is illegal have back alley abortion clinics that result in high rates of death for the women. While I am against it, I do believe that a woman has a right to make the choice.

Morally though, as others have stated, I am against it unless it endangers the woman's life or is the result of rape. As a form of birth control it should not ever be used. I think we'd be better off sterilizing many, MANY people in this country that should not procreate, but that is just a personal opinion.