ABORTION

[dalegg 143]

It is simple, I don't care, It is murder. it is still living inside you. Also if you did not want it, give it up for adoption they are plently of couples who can't have kids would love to have it and give it a chance.

And that's fine for YOU....not everyone thinks in that way, including myself.

as, for everyone it's different to state when does 'life begin'.. for some, life doens't begin when the sperm and the egg fuse into one.. for some, it starts a couple of days after.. for some, it's just a cell for a couple of weeks.. would you call a living being a cell that still has no heart, brain or spine?.. the 'swimming trip' is not instantaneous nors occurs at light speed....

this is an issue of differences, not rights or wrongs.. and you think everybody's wrong cuz they don't agree with you, get off the holy than thou pedestal pliz

The controversy has nothing to do with that. People that are pro-choice don't generally take the question of whether its alive or not into account. Its not part of the equation. There is no way to argue that a fetus is alive at 2 months, but most pro-choice persons will not blink an eye at abortions being performed at 90 days gestation or less. Many will go into the second trimester before they become squeemish and for some only the question of late term abortions is controversial, and of course the real militant pro choice persons will argue until the day the cord is cut, the woman's right to do what she wants with her body supercedes the right of an unborn human to exist.

Pro choice people will never debate the question of life because they cannot win that argument, so their focus remains on painting pro lifers as bent on taking away women's rights.

"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world." Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado. (2002)

......

Personhood is attained at about 22 weeks gestation:

This argument is based on the definition of death.

Ethicist D.A. Jones has written:

"Death is not just another disease that can be specified, analyzed, and catalogued as viral or bacterial, infectious or auto-immune. Death is the final cessation of life. Thus defining death requires more than medical and technical expertise: It requires also some agreed understanding of what is constitutive of human life, and what it is that must be absent before the person can be said to be dead."

"Sometimes it will be obvious to any reasonable observer that someone is dead, or alternatively, that someone is still alive. Someone who is breathing [without a respirator] and talking and walking around is obviously alive. Someone whose body is rotting away and hanging off the bones is obviously dead. However there are some cases, perhaps many cases, where it will not be obvious to an unqualified layman whether someone is alive or dead. In these cases it is the decision of competent physicians that decides the issue."

1

Prior to about 1960, a person would be declared dead if both their heartbeat and breathing had ceased and could not be re-started. But newer technological developments made this definition invalid. Heart pacemakers can keep the heart beating indefinitely long after all other internal systems have wound down. Respirators can keep the person apparently breathing forever.

Death is generally defined in most U.S. states as a situation in which the brain "flat-lines." That is, there is no major central nervous system activity and there is no detectable electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex. At this point, the person may be declared dead in many jurisdictions. The patient may appear to be breathing, as a result of the action of a respirator. Her/his heart may still be beating, either on its own or as a result of a heart pacemaker. But he/she is judged to be dead. Unplugging the patient from life support systems at this point will not actually kill the patient; she/he is already considered to be dead.

The great rise of transplant medicine has, then, been wholly dependent upon organ harvesting from so called 'beating-heart cadavers', that is, patients who are determined to be dead on the basis of brain death criteria. ₁ But their hearts continue to beat (sometimes with external help), to keep the body's organs fresh for transplanting.

If the point of death is defined as a lack of electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex one might use the same criteria to define the start of human life. One might argue that fetal life becomes human person when electrical activity commences in the cerebral cortex. Human personhood, would then start when consciousness begins and ends when consciousness irrevocably ends. One could then argue that a fully-informed woman should have access to abortion at any point before the point that human personhood begins.

According to author Richard Carrier:

"

...

the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month (an event we call 'quickening.' This activity might only be a generative one, i.e. the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human -- in contrast with animal -- brains, begins to develop, and is typically complete, though still growing, by the sixth month. What is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a human mind to exist in at least a primitive state."

When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered:

"If we're talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that's one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn't happen with an embryo

.

"

8

Under this argument, some primitive neurological activity in the cerebral cortex begins during the fifth month, conceivably as early as the 22nd week of pregnancy. If we allow a two week safety factor, then society could set the gestation time limit at which abortions should not be freely available at 20 weeks. Abortions could then be requested up to the start of the 20th week for normal pregnancies, or at a later time if unusual conditions existed. Many state and provincial medical associations in North America have actually adopted this limit, probably using a different rationale.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_argu.htm

Thats all very nice. You argued whether or not the fetus was a "human", but not whether it is alive. As I said, the simple question of life is undeniable.

But it is relevant because the way we determine when someone is dead would logically apply to when we determine when someone is alive. If simple saying something is alive is the determining factor, then every wasted sperm and every unfertilized egg is ceasing to live and any form of birth control method contributes to the those living organisms dying. If you don't agree with the premise that life ceases when the brain flat lines, then when do you consider someone as dead?

"Life" has nothing to do with brainwaves. Maybe the concept of sentienceness does, but not life itself. Otherwise we wouldn't have to worry about the scientists at NASA having an orgasm over the idea of discovering 3 bacteria frozen under the polar ice caps of Mars.

Don't you find it ironic that we will spend billions of dollars to hopefully find nothing more than perhaps an ancient fossized sample of moss on Mars so we can say there was "LIFE" there, and yet a fetus pumping blood with five fingers and five toes on each limb is not granted the same definition?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

By definition it is a byproduct- similar to the way that when child protective services takes away your children due to neglect or abuse you could say it violates your parental rights, or when gang members' guns are taken away it voilates their right to bear arms. But none of the byproducts is actually the intent.

Can you say that people who want more restrictive gun control measures actually want people to be defenseless against bad guys? No, you can't, even though that is the end result. We don't go around saying that they are "anti-self defense"- well not all of us- because there intentions are to save lives, not restrict self defense.

The end result you're talking about is that a woman will be forced against her will to go through with a pregnancy she may not want - with little more than a finger wagging "you should have thought of that before".

That's not to say that the woman always has the best judgement, but she surely has some right to manage her own body. All that can reasonably be done is provide the information to allow her to make an informed choice.

So, how come I don't have the right to manage my own body? Seatbelt laws and helmet laws will fine you hundreds of dollars if you don't where these devices. The end result is that I am forced to put on a seatbelt I don't want, or put something on my head that I don't want. Heck, you can't even argue that I'm putting some less than 22 week unknown lifeform at risk with me. Its just me, but society has decided my life is more important than my choice.

Well if you're going to go down the road of remote analogies the argument might as well be that if you had a 6th finger on each hand, that someone else has the right to tell you that it shouldn't be removed.

Removing the finger from your hand does not result in the death of another human being (or human type embryo) or significantly increase the liklihood of putting your own life in peril.

You are right though, I cannot offer you any sort of analogy to that of abortion because nothing else society has ever accepted as a personal right has resulted in the extermination of what would undeniably be an innocent human life.

The fetus doesn't have the capacity to survive autonomously outside the mother's body until a particular stage of development.

If the pregnancy isn't wanted - the fetus becomes a parasite for all intents and purposes..

[dalegg 143]

By definition it is a byproduct- similar to the way that when child protective services takes away your children due to neglect or abuse you could say it violates your parental rights, or when gang members' guns are taken away it voilates their right to bear arms. But none of the byproducts is actually the intent.

Can you say that people who want more restrictive gun control measures actually want people to be defenseless against bad guys? No, you can't, even though that is the end result. We don't go around saying that they are "anti-self defense"- well not all of us- because there intentions are to save lives, not restrict self defense.

The end result you're talking about is that a woman will be forced against her will to go through with a pregnancy she may not want - with little more than a finger wagging "you should have thought of that before".

That's not to say that the woman always has the best judgement, but she surely has some right to manage her own body. All that can reasonably be done is provide the information to allow her to make an informed choice.

So, how come I don't have the right to manage my own body? Seatbelt laws and helmet laws will fine you hundreds of dollars if you don't where these devices. The end result is that I am forced to put on a seatbelt I don't want, or put something on my head that I don't want. Heck, you can't even argue that I'm putting some less than 22 week unknown lifeform at risk with me. Its just me, but society has decided my life is more important than my choice.

Well if you're going to go down the road of remote analogies the argument might as well be that if you had a 6th finger on each hand, that someone else has the right to tell you that it shouldn't be removed.

Removing the finger from your hand does not result in the death of another human being (or human type embryo) or significantly increase the liklihood of putting your own life in peril.

You are right though, I cannot offer you any sort of analogy to that of abortion because nothing else society has ever accepted as a personal right has resulted in the extermination of what would undeniably be an innocent human life.

The fetus doesn't have the capacity to survive autonomously outside the mother's body until a particular stage of development.

If the pregnancy isn't wanted - the fetus becomes a parasite for all intents and purposes..

a parasite is still life, is it not?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thats all very nice. You argued whether or not the fetus was a "human", but not whether it is alive. As I said, the simple question of life is undeniable.

But it is relevant because the way we determine when someone is dead would logically apply to when we determine when someone is alive. If simple saying something is alive is the determining factor, then every wasted sperm and every unfertilized egg is ceasing to live and any form of birth control method contributes to the those living organisms dying. If you don't agree with the premise that life ceases when the brain flat lines, then when do you consider someone as dead?

"Life" has nothing to do with brainwaves. Maybe the concept of sentienceness does, but not life itself. Otherwise we wouldn't have to worry about the scientists at NASA having an orgasm over the idea of discovering 3 bacteria frozen under the polar ice caps of Mars.

Don't you find it ironic that we will spend billions of dollars to hopefully find nothing more than perhaps an ancient fossized sample of moss on Mars so we can say there was "LIFE" there, and yet a fetus pumping blood with five fingers and five toes on each limb is not granted the same definition?

We're talking about determining when a human is alive (human life) and when someone is determined to be dead. You can have a full grown human, whose heart continues to beat and the body organs continue to function, but they are brain dead...and in such a case, the surviving family may choose to pull the respirator plug without being charged with murder. At least, on a logical approach - the same could be said about a fetus that although may have some organs functioning, there is no brain activity. You might argue over whether that is sound approach to the dilemna of determining when someone is 'alive' but logically, it coincides with determining when a person is clinically dead.

[dalegg 143]

Thats all very nice. You argued whether or not the fetus was a "human", but not whether it is alive. As I said, the simple question of life is undeniable.

But it is relevant because the way we determine when someone is dead would logically apply to when we determine when someone is alive. If simple saying something is alive is the determining factor, then every wasted sperm and every unfertilized egg is ceasing to live and any form of birth control method contributes to the those living organisms dying. If you don't agree with the premise that life ceases when the brain flat lines, then when do you consider someone as dead?

"Life" has nothing to do with brainwaves. Maybe the concept of sentienceness does, but not life itself. Otherwise we wouldn't have to worry about the scientists at NASA having an orgasm over the idea of discovering 3 bacteria frozen under the polar ice caps of Mars.

Don't you find it ironic that we will spend billions of dollars to hopefully find nothing more than perhaps an ancient fossized sample of moss on Mars so we can say there was "LIFE" there, and yet a fetus pumping blood with five fingers and five toes on each limb is not granted the same definition?

We're talking about determining when a human is alive (human life) and when someone is determined to be dead. You can have a full grown human, whose heart continues to beat and the body organs continue to function, but they are brain dead...and in such a case, the surviving family may choose to pull the respirator plug without being charged with murder. At least, on a logical approach - the same could be said about a fetus that although may have some organs functioning, there is no brain activity. You might argue over whether that is sound approach to the dilemna of determining when someone is 'alive' but logically, it coincides with determining when a person is clinically dead.

Just to be clear, are you denying that a fetus is alive at all or are you just denying that it is human? Also, I don't agree that comparing a fetus to someone who is braindead is logical at all. The braindead human most likely has no chance of ever becoming conscious again, whereas with the fetus its only a few weeks away from being undesputable. Also, the person living on life support may very well have stated that they wish to be removed from life support at some point so at least they have a choice in the matter.

[Amby 490]

well we all know you're against abortion so I think you've made your point. thanks.

[dalegg 143]

well we all know you're against abortion so I think you've made your point. thanks.

Does it bother you that I am presenting an opposing viewpoint to Number 6 and Jabberwokky? When they make a statement am I not allowed to answer it, or are the rules of this discussion that the pro-choice crowd must have both the first and last word?

[Amby 490]

well we all know you're against abortion so I think you've made your point. thanks.

Does it bother you that I am presenting an opposing viewpoint to Number 6 and Jabberwokky? When they make a statement am I not allowed to answer it, or are the rules of this discussion that the pro-choice crowd must have both the first and last word?

you're just fighting really hard against abortion. lots of other people have stated they are against it but didn't continue to go on and on about it. obviously you're very passionate about it.

did someone abort "your" fetus without asking you first?

Edited August 16, 2008 by Amby

[JVKn'CVO 11]

(On the issue of Personhood )

22 weeks seems too long, IMO. I can't rationalize it, but it just looks too much like a little person to say that it is not a person.

Baby at 12 weeks yawning

Baby feet, 11 weeks

Brain development

Saludos,

Caro

Edited August 16, 2008 by JVKn'CVO

[dalegg 143]

well we all know you're against abortion so I think you've made your point. thanks.

Does it bother you that I am presenting an opposing viewpoint to Number 6 and Jabberwokky? When they make a statement am I not allowed to answer it, or are the rules of this discussion that the pro-choice crowd must have both the first and last word?

you're just fighting really hard against abortion. lots of other people have stated they are against it but didn't continue to go on and on about it. obviously you're very passionate about it.

did someone abort "your" fetus without asking you first?

I don't really feel that I'm fighting that hard against abortion honestly. I'm just debating a simple word. Did I even say it should be illegal or that women shouldn't get them "because" anything?

No, I did not. The actual point I'm was trying to debate wasn't even the question of life, but the statement that the debate itself is even about life. Me and a couple of my buddies are just having a nice healthy philisophical debate about one little point.

I don't think anybody ever aborted one of my fetuses without my knowing it. I doubt they'd ask me anyway because all the women I've have irresponsible unprotected sex with over the years knew my position on the matter and I'm quite certain they would have just gone and done it without telling me. Really, what would be the point there? I suppose I could ask my ex wife but she might just lie to me to make me feel sad so either way I don't trust her on that subject.

The thing is that I don't think its fair to say I've gone on and on about it either. I say something. Someone else says something in return. Then I say something in return to them, and then we repeat. You should be angry at them for answering me and keeping me going.

When I was in high school someone once accused me of going on and on about something and I cannot accept that because its just like me to do that. Once I make my point, I like to end the statement, and then thats that. Its just boring to keep on posting the same thing over and over again.

Other people have done that, but not me. Its just not fair that you would accuse me of that, cause I was just playing nice, and you didn't scold the other guys. Afterall they started it.

I knew this guy one time who felt really passionate about gun control and he just wouldn't shut up about it. Just kept going on and on and on about it, and I swear I would never be like that.

Nobody likes people like that so no sir. It won't be me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

By definition it is a byproduct- similar to the way that when child protective services takes away your children due to neglect or abuse you could say it violates your parental rights, or when gang members' guns are taken away it voilates their right to bear arms. But none of the byproducts is actually the intent.

Can you say that people who want more restrictive gun control measures actually want people to be defenseless against bad guys? No, you can't, even though that is the end result. We don't go around saying that they are "anti-self defense"- well not all of us- because there intentions are to save lives, not restrict self defense.

The end result you're talking about is that a woman will be forced against her will to go through with a pregnancy she may not want - with little more than a finger wagging "you should have thought of that before".

That's not to say that the woman always has the best judgement, but she surely has some right to manage her own body. All that can reasonably be done is provide the information to allow her to make an informed choice.

So, how come I don't have the right to manage my own body? Seatbelt laws and helmet laws will fine you hundreds of dollars if you don't where these devices. The end result is that I am forced to put on a seatbelt I don't want, or put something on my head that I don't want. Heck, you can't even argue that I'm putting some less than 22 week unknown lifeform at risk with me. Its just me, but society has decided my life is more important than my choice.

Well if you're going to go down the road of remote analogies the argument might as well be that if you had a 6th finger on each hand, that someone else has the right to tell you that it shouldn't be removed.

Removing the finger from your hand does not result in the death of another human being (or human type embryo) or significantly increase the liklihood of putting your own life in peril.

You are right though, I cannot offer you any sort of analogy to that of abortion because nothing else society has ever accepted as a personal right has resulted in the extermination of what would undeniably be an innocent human life.

The fetus doesn't have the capacity to survive autonomously outside the mother's body until a particular stage of development.

If the pregnancy isn't wanted - the fetus becomes a parasite for all intents and purposes..

a parasite is still life, is it not?

Sure. But then so is cancer or a virus.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thats all very nice. You argued whether or not the fetus was a "human", but not whether it is alive. As I said, the simple question of life is undeniable.

But it is relevant because the way we determine when someone is dead would logically apply to when we determine when someone is alive. If simple saying something is alive is the determining factor, then every wasted sperm and every unfertilized egg is ceasing to live and any form of birth control method contributes to the those living organisms dying. If you don't agree with the premise that life ceases when the brain flat lines, then when do you consider someone as dead?

"Life" has nothing to do with brainwaves. Maybe the concept of sentienceness does, but not life itself. Otherwise we wouldn't have to worry about the scientists at NASA having an orgasm over the idea of discovering 3 bacteria frozen under the polar ice caps of Mars.

Don't you find it ironic that we will spend billions of dollars to hopefully find nothing more than perhaps an ancient fossized sample of moss on Mars so we can say there was "LIFE" there, and yet a fetus pumping blood with five fingers and five toes on each limb is not granted the same definition?

We're talking about determining when a human is alive (human life) and when someone is determined to be dead. You can have a full grown human, whose heart continues to beat and the body organs continue to function, but they are brain dead...and in such a case, the surviving family may choose to pull the respirator plug without being charged with murder. At least, on a logical approach - the same could be said about a fetus that although may have some organs functioning, there is no brain activity. You might argue over whether that is sound approach to the dilemna of determining when someone is 'alive' but logically, it coincides with determining when a person is clinically dead.

Just to be clear, are you denying that a fetus is alive at all or are you just denying that it is human? Also, I don't agree that comparing a fetus to someone who is braindead is logical at all. The braindead human most likely has no chance of ever becoming conscious again, whereas with the fetus its only a few weeks away from being undesputable. Also, the person living on life support may very well have stated that they wish to be removed from life support at some point so at least they have a choice in the matter.

Sperm are also human and alive, are they not? Or do you define living human tissue through cell division? If so, then so is a cancerous tumor.

I personally feel that all life is precious and it would not be a decision that I think any woman could take lightly. I don't think anyone would feel proud or good about such a decision, but equating it to murder....I could not see it as such in the early stages of pregnancy, just I couldn't see pulling the plug on a respirator when a person on life support is in a vegetative state.

[Yiyi and Chris 0]

Sounds like a fight Dalegg, I agree with Amby... It's good that you have strong beliefs and noone here is trying to change the way think or the way u are

[Gemmie 142]

I'm not getting involved in the debate as I've heard it all so many times before.

I would just like to give my personal view.

I'm pro-abortion and I do think it should be legal... however, if I were to get pregnant myself, I would never have one.

The only instance I can think of where I would consider it is if I were raped. I look forward to planning and having a family with my fiancee so the thought of raising a "monster's" child isn't high on my list... I don't think I could do that. Though if my partner and I accidentally got pregnant, I would tell him and see what we could do if we weren't already financially ready for a baby.

Reasons being, I do want a baby in the future (after a while of marriage) and I personally wouldn't feel *right* getting rid of something inside me that myself and the hubby had created. Things would work themselves out with careful planning if we weren't ready for one at the time and I know I would never regret choosing to raise the baby; however, I think I would regret getting rid of it.

[b4byd09 0]

I am against it, but incase of Rape!!

Like The Game said:

Pac is gone, and Brenda still throwing babies in the garbage

I wanna know what's going on like I hear Marvin

No school books

They use their wood to build coffins

Whenever I'm in a booth

And I get exhausted

I think what if Marie Baker got that abortion

I love you Ma