dwccrew;503181 wrote: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.

24?, what about 22 or 23. Maybe it should be 25 or 26...................... Unless raped, the woman already excercised her "right" to make the "Choice" on day one.

HitsRus;503132 wrote:boatshoes posted:


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.

A fact is something that is objectively verifiable.

It is objectively verifiable that a human being cannot feel pain nor consciously experience the world without a brain. We don't consider human beings without a working brain to be alive. I once created a thread on JJHuddle and asked when someone isn't alive anymore...and even you chimed in and said "brain dead" if I remember correctly.

I accepted that life begins at conception; the life of the gamete as opposed to two separate cells but that does not necessitate that this new life has any more special meaning than the thousands of sperm that didn't make it to the egg in time or the eggs that we soaked up by a tampon...there is nothing radically different about these organisms at a biological level they share the same traits as blades of grass....Now, a fetus at week 32 that might begin to experience the world....now you're on to something.

A fetus has no part of a brain before 20 weeks of gestation.

It is not morally wrong to kill living organisms without brains (according to most moral philosophies...if it were, how would you eat?)....like mowing your lawn for instance. You wouldn't run a lawn mower over a sea of bunny rabbits? Both grass and bunny rabbits are living. But there is a difference...the Bunny Rabbits experience the world.

"assuage the guilt" of my politics...sheesh, give it a rest guy. If you can find me a life sized living organism replicating a human being in every way that has no brain or other neurological structures...I would feel no guilt whatsoever ending that living organism's life sustaining processes such as metabolism, homeostasis, etc. Maybe Belly might lend me one of his socialist made weapons???

I've acknowledged that current science is not sure when consciousness begins...hence I've chosen that the cutoff be before brain structures even form...to cut out any possibility of terminating a conscious human being...if anything to appease anti-abortion folks to see if there might not be a potential compromise. But alas, the political philosophy of shedding tears for those who feel no suffering and scoffing at the pain of real flesh and blood human beings who actually feel pain and plight hardens like the Pharaoh's heart.

Again...a fact is objectively verifiable....if you ripped my brain out but plugged me into a machine so that my body still carried out basic biological functions like metabolism, homeostasis, etc. I would not be alive...no one here would think that boatshoes was still alive yet I would share everything in common with a pre-20 week fetus.

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.

This is possible in BGFalcon's world;

A 15 year old girl gang raped by say, terrorists, who want to impregnate infidels in hopes of spreading their cause. They give her multiple creampies to make sure she gets knocked up...if she decides to go and decide whether or not to have the spawn of the scum of the earth grow inside her private property against her will...she must face either 1. eliminating the child of her rapist and never have children again....2. Care and nurture the child of her rapist for 9 months.

A just world it would be no less.

But yeah, this is much more likely to pass than legislating it as a crime........

fan_from_texas;502720 wrote: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.

So, I can't imagine if we saw the second man at a dinner party and we asked him, "Sir, what is it that you really value in this world?" and his reply was something along the lines of "I value human life and I think each and every one is truly prescious...well at least the unspoiled innocent ones like children," that we'd take him very seriously. We'd say "But sir, we saw you let a seemingly innocent man die so you could take your girl out to the movies or buy a new television or pay off a nagging bill, how can this be true?"

I suppose the point is, that on some small level, we all indeed think life is a good and special thing...When asked whether we'd hold off our dinner reservations to save a child we see drowning people of all types always say "yes, indeed we would."

But in reality, in our own personal busy lives this is not how we carry out our day. Last week I bought a brand new Panasonic Plasma T.V. I have desired this consumer item for quite awhile. I was at a loss as to whether I should get LCD, LED, Plasma...what brand I should get...and finally I was convinced to go with the Panasonic Plasma. This item cost me a pretty penny all while I already had a perfectly good LG flat screen from a few years back. I made this purchase knowing full well that there is a child out there somewhere in this world, a child I'll never know....that will undoubtedly die and suffer...at the very least suffer that I could have prevented if I would not have chosen this convenience instead.

It is the reality of the world. The $4 starbucks I bought...the splurge on a piece of chocolate cheese cake...the $50 dinner date with my gf at Nauti Mermaid (fabulous fish tacos btw)....all these things I did not need and were mere conveniences....and each one, could have been shunned so that I may stop an innocent life from suffering.

I guess, maybe I'm not sympathetic enough to the point of view and I suppose maybe moreso than in other topics....but to me, when a person thinks that a close loved one like a person's wife may not be saved in order to save the life of the child of say, that woman's rapist....because life is so precious that we can't kill this innocent child....

But I guess it just seems to ring hollow....and please, don't take that as me saying you're insincere or something. I mean no ill will. I'm positive you are a good and decent man. I'm just merely laying it out and in no way intend to indict you in anyway. I am the one with the strange views and you are the one with the more mainstream. But what I'm saying is....we make choices all of the time, literally multiple times every day that cost the lives of innocent children stuck in places through no choice of their own and yet not a tear is shed for this loss of life that didn't have to be lost...and these children felt the pain...every step of the way. Great, great pain. I mean hunger is still the world's greatest threat affecting 1 and 6 people on the planet. That feeling you get when you missed lunch and don't eat until supper time...that feeling all the time and never being satisfied and eventually causing your death...

I mean, I guess it just seems to me, if we are anti-abortion it just cannot be that it's because we find life so special and precious... I personally have seen how un-special and un-precious life was...how many innocent lives were truly not cared about and cast aside...when the gleaming lights of cruise ships float by in the distance all while human beings gaze upon them while hoping for one morsel of food.

I don't know I guess it just seems to me that if I thought life was so special that I was willing to let my wife die to preserve the life of her rapist's unborn child who feels no pain for the first 30 weeks of pregnancy...I don't know if I would spend money on nearly any of the things that I currently do and wouldn't live a life in any way resembling the average, normal American.

It appears to me most americans make effectively the same choice multiple times everyday that the lonely, scared pregnant girl terminating her pregnancy does.

Ghmothwdwhso;503178 wrote:It's too bad that your parents didn't "call the clinic".

Ah the "value life" person who contempts people. Hilarious.

sleeper;502642 wrote:Is it life? Detach the fetus from its mother, and see how long it lasts LOL

It would be the same as detaching you from air and food. Humans cannot do it. We also don't run around naked.

Just because a human life cannot dress itself or feed itself or breath for itself, doesn't mean that it's not alive, no?

It is objectively verifiable that a human being cannot feel pain nor consciously experience the world without a brain. We don't consider human beings without a working brain to be alive. I once created a thread on JJHuddle and asked when someone isn't alive anymore...and even you chimed in and said "brain dead" if I remember correctly.

I accepted that life begins at conception; the life of the gamete as opposed to two separate cells but that does not necessitate that this new life has any more special meaning than the thousands of sperm that didn't make it to the egg in time or the eggs that we soaked up by a tampon...there is nothing radically different about these organisms at a biological level they share the same traits as blades of grass....Now, a fetus at week 32 that might begin to experience the world....now you're on to something.

There is a huge difference between a once functioning brain that is dead, and a brain that is in the process of forming. I think that is 'objectively verifiable' on a microscopic level... and it doesn't require the nebulous cocept of making a judgement of when someone begins to 'experience the world' or the moment of consciousness.
Moreover, we don't actively terminate 'brain dead' people...we may remove artifiial life support and let nature take it's course. The natural course of a zygote in it's mother's womb is to develop into a human being. The use of vacuum's or other means to remove this is an active termination.

Let me ask this again, maybe somebody will venture an answer?

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

Is it alright if the woman decides to keep the baby and the father decides to keep his money out of it? With no legal ramifications

I mean we've got laws in place that legislate that if a woman decides to keep the baby, no matter if the father wants it or not, that the father has to give the mother money for 18 years. I know alot of guys don't bother following the law, but still... it is a law.

I suspect that the numbers of women getting pregnant as the result of rape are VASTLY lower than the numbers of women getting pregnant as the result of carelessness and whoreish behavior. In fact I would guess that the number of abortions as the result of medical events and rape combined are VASTLY smaller than the number of abortions as the result of carelessness and indescriminate behavior. In either case, the law does not support the role/complicitness of the father, biologically or emotionally, having any voice in whether the baby lives or not.
But yet if the woman wants to keep that baby, the law believes that the man should fork over money against his will, wanting the child or not.

As a woman, I have a huge problem with that.

I Wear Pants;503103 wrote: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?

I am the fuck that says aborting babies is a heinous act and it should be restricted as much as possible. In today's world, I don't think it can be made a criminal offense, so the only way to protect the innocent babies is to make it impossible to repeat the act.

Who represents the baby in the womb?.....so I am the fuck that is sticking up for them.

BoatShoes;503254 wrote:This is possible in BGFalcon's world;

A 15 year old girl gang raped by say, terrorists, who want to impregnate infidels in hopes of spreading their cause. They give her multiple creampies to make sure she gets knocked up...if she decides to go and decide whether or not to have the spawn of the scum of the earth grow inside her private property against her will...she must face either 1. eliminating the child of her rapist and never have children again....2. Care and nurture the child of her rapist for 9 months.

A just world it would be no less.

But yeah, this is much more likely to pass than legislating it as a crime........

Once again, you are advocating to extinguish the life of the child as it was not conceived properly. Who speaks for the child? Or is your point..."hey, it shouldn't have been conceived in the first place, so let's have a do-over." While your story is compelling, and makes me think why I believe what I believe, the child's life is at stake. Who said she had to raise it? There are plenty of ways to allow others to raise the child. Hell...ask Fairwoodking...I bet he knows lots of LGBT couples who would love the opportunity to raise a child.

CenterBHSFan;503306 wrote:Let me ask this again, maybe somebody will venture an answer?

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

Is it alright if the woman decides to keep the baby and the father decides to keep his money out of it? With no legal ramifications

I mean we've got laws in place that legislate that if a woman decides to keep the baby, no matter if the father wants it or not, that the father has to give the mother money for 18 years. I know alot of guys don't bother following the law, but still... it is a law.

I suspect that the numbers of women getting pregnant as the result of rape are VASTLY lower than the numbers of women getting pregnant as the result of carelessness and whoreish behavior. In fact I would guess that the number of abortions as the result of medical events and rape combined are VASTLY smaller than the number of abortions as the result of carelessness and indescriminate behavior. In either case, the law does not support the role/complicitness of the father, biologically or emotionally, having any voice in whether the baby lives or not.
But yet if the woman wants to keep that baby, the law believes that the man should fork over money against his will, wanting the child or not.

As a woman, I have a huge problem with that.

I have always had a problem with this as well. Why should the Father not have a say in what happens to his child? I know that it is the woman's body and all, but she made the decision to be with this guy and this is a by product of what they did consentually. They should both have to agree as to what happens.

It's murder
period

HitsRus;503299 wrote:There is a huge difference between a once functioning brain that is dead, and a brain that is in the process of forming. I think that is 'objectively verifiable' on a microscopic level... and it doesn't require the nebulous cocept of making a judgement of when someone begins to 'experience the world' or the moment of consciousness.
Moreover, we don't actively terminate 'brain dead' people...we may remove artifiial life support and let nature take it's course. The natural course of a zygote in it's mother's womb is to develop into a human being. The use of vacuum's or other means to remove this is an active termination.

Now I think you mischaracterized what I said...I agree that there is a difference between a neonatal brain beginning to form at 20 weeks and inanimate grey matter in a corpse.

What isn't fundamentally different is a fetus with no neurological structures formed that yet has cells undergoing metabolism, etc. and a once alive human being who's brain has been removed and is connected to enough machines that it still is performing these same basic functions consistent with all living organisms. If I pumped that former person full of lead, I may be guilty of some crimes but few, if any, people would think that I killed him; even though his body was still performing functions consistent with other living organisms like grass.

You suggest that if nature were to take its proper course that this fetus would develop into a human being and therefore it should be spared....well the same could be said for the non-fertilized egg soaked up by a tampex. If it is immoral to allow for the destruction of a fertilized egg merely because of it's potential to one day be a person experiencing the world; as this would be the proper course of nature....it is immoral for a woman to have her period for the same reasons.

It does not necessarily follow that any fertilized egg will become a walking sentient being....the same with an unfertilized egg....if we are to preserve a fertilized egg merely because of its potential then there is no reason not to go one step backward and preserve all of the unfertilized eggs that may be fertilized by the plethora of sperm out there so that we may allow life to take its natural course.

BGFalcons82;503321 wrote:Once again, you are advocating to extinguish the life of the child as it was not conceived properly. Who speaks for the child? Or is your point..."hey, it shouldn't have been conceived in the first place, so let's have a do-over." While your story is compelling, and makes me think why I believe what I believe, the child's life is at stake. Who said she had to raise it? There are plenty of ways to allow others to raise the child. Hell...ask Fairwoodking...I bet he knows lots of LGBT couples who would love the opportunity to raise a child.

Whatever your philosophical or religious views of the world....the purpose of life that allowed life to get where it is today is to survive and replicate one's dna. In our civilized world it ought not to be the case imo that a person should be able to procreate and achieve life's most basic purpose through the most execrable means.

I'm not concerned about any rights of the fetus...even if it has a right to life guaranteed by natural law; in nearly all circumstances it will experience no pain. If God exists and his notions of justice in any way are anthropromorphic (which, imo, may be questionable) and he has a paradise in the afterlife I'm confident the unborn child goes there if it has a soul and have yet to meet a sincere believer who believes otherwise in her heart; (but who knows I suppose). Either way I believe the state's interest in not rewarding rapists with offspring from their vile act is compelling enough to outweigh any fundamental right to life had by the child.

Even if we accept that it has a right to life, and is awarded an advocate in court and we attach the name child to it....I still believe the mother has a more inviolable right to terminate her pregnancy.

HitsRus;503299 wrote: Moreover, we don't actively terminate 'brain dead' people...we may remove artifiial life support and let nature take it's course. The natural course of a zygote in it's mother's womb is to develop into a human being. The use of vacuum's or other means to remove this is an active termination.

Suppose we could carefully and pristinely remove the fetus from its mother and set it in a petri dish...we simply unplugged it from its life support machine just like unplugging a man with no brain is unplugged from its life support machine....how is that any different; and if the net effect is the same shouldn't substance control over form? Is that really any different on a moral level if we watch the fetus' basic life functions stop as opposed to stopping them? If there is a difference it's not that much of one.

martyirish;503474 wrote:It's murderand if you take birth control pills it's murder in your
period

Fixed

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.

lol, the radical "overpopulation" stance, why doesn't that surprise me from FWK.

Get rid of some of the "excess people" and kill yourself then if you are that into the "overpopulation" left wing BS.


On topic...

On a personal level I am against abortion in all cases. Modern medicine basically has reduced the "it will kill the mother" BS down to zero with c-sections and other in-utero surgeries.

On a "law" level I'm against it as any form of birth control. I can "concede" the rape/incest etc cases to being lawful abortions, if I could rewrite the laws these would be lawful, birth control reasons would not.

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 know someone really close to me that has been raped, and even she has said, that she is against abortion even in the case of rape.

She said if she had got pregnant from the rape, she would have put it up for adoption.

Its not that crazy of a stance really.

I Wear Pants;502526 wrote: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).

Here's the other thing, if someone is raped and they go to the hospital for it, the "rape kit" cleans out all "stuff" in there and its impossible to get pregnant after a rape kit is done. Just FYI.

sleeper;502642 wrote:Is it life? Detach the fetus from its mother, and see how long it lasts LOL

Your logic sucks, every doctor/biologist/scientist would say a 1 month old is life, but you take a 1 month old way from its mother/parent, it dies too.

Al Bundy;503086 wrote: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.

Exactly correct.

Matter of fact, a woman pulling into an abortion clinic with the purpose of killing the baby, if she gets killed or assaulted and the result is the baby dies, the perpetrator can be charged with homicide for the baby's life. A baby that 10 minutes later was going to be killed by the mother/doctor anyway.

I don't get how some people believe the decision of whether or not you abort a baby should solely be with the mother. Why wouldn't the father have a say in the matter?

I am personally against it but I recognize other's right to have access to it. I am against some of the gun ownership issues but I also recognize other peoples rights to bear arms. Should it be limited to a front loading muzzle or opened up to automatic armor piercing guns is another question that should be answered with answer poll.

Thread Bomber;503706 wrote:Fixed

Thread bomber,
I would agree with you but then we would both be wrong

posted by boatshoes:

Suppose we could carefully and pristinely remove the fetus from its mother and set it in a petri dish...we simply unplugged it from its life support machine just like unplugging a man with no brain is unplugged from its life support machine....how is that any different; and if the net effect is the same shouldn't substance control over form? Is that really any different on a moral level if we watch the fetus' basic life functions stop as opposed to stopping them? If there is a difference it's not that much of one.

Seriously, if you cannot accept a priori that a mother's body is different than an artificial life support device, there is little point in further discussion. If current ethical standards cannot be accepted as a valid premise in this arguement...if you are going to engage in hypotheticals worthy of Huxley....what's the point? I mean, do I really have to explain that a mother's body is different than an artificial life support device? Do I really have to explain that "pristinely removing" a fetus represents an active attack?.