Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion

[Cliffy]

Perhaps Cliffy, I am not one who will judge if you are right or wrong..

For all I know you might be right on the mark.. But then again so could I or bluedog, gerryh, SJP, JLM or anyone else.

Of course in my world I am right. Everybody else is right in their world. That is the nature of the beast... in my world.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion

I'm probably the only one on this Thread without an opinion on abortion,
but only a question.

I'm implying that you decide when life begins for yourself. Scientists have philosophies, agendas, and opinions.

These are very complex issues alley, with no simple answer. I prefer to rely on experts in the field. After all, if I am ill and want to be treated, I don’t treat myself, I go to a doctor. It is always a good idea to consult the experts in any field. In the field of abortion, scientists, biologists, doctors are the experts, not Fundamentalist preachers or the Pope.

Quote:
Does the fetus have its own sex? YES!

Does the fetus have its own blood type? YES!

Does the fetus have its own DNA? YES!

And how does that prove that fetus is a human being? A dead body also has all this, its own sex, its own blood type, its own DNA. - SJP

You have got to be kidding me! Is the fetus not in a stage of growth at any given time? Why not try being honest with yourself. Its alive and you know it.

Alley, that is besides the point. You were advancing the three criteria (that fetus has its own sex, own blood type, own DNA) as proof that fetus is alive and a human being. To which I replied that it proves nothing of the sort, a dead body (human or non human) has all these things.

Now are you saying that because fetus is growing all the time that it is human? That doesn’t make sense.

I'm not trying to prove anything. You know the fetus is alive.

Sure I do, I have already said that life is a continuum, with no beginning or end. My question is, at what point is it human life? And if fetus is to be regarded as human being at conception, why not before the conception, why not show the same consideration to the sperm and the egg?

Life begins at stage 1 obviously, that's when growth and change starts.

There is no ‘obviously’ about it alley, life was present even before the stage 1. As I said, these are very complex and deep questions, with no simple answers.

An argument might be made that a Fetus isn't a person until a certain point
in its development, but is a Fetus "dead" until a certain point in its development?
I know this sounds like a horribly dumb question, but answer it (anyone) using the
criteria above.

If it's not alive, it can't be killed. If it's alive, then a life is taken with an abortion. I think
that's the real argument here...cutting to the chase....without religion. Again myself,
I don't have an opinion here either way. I've (surgically) removed myself from the gene
donation pool, so I'll never be directly involved in a decision to abort or not. I'm out of
this one, but wanted to put forth "an argument that couldn't be made about abortion
without religion," without religion as the premise for the argument.

I really don’t see how one can make a non religious argument against abortion.

Does the above argument work?

 

[Kreskin]

It's far too complicated to be legislated. The only person who knows whether it's right or not is the pregnant woman.

 

[Kreskin]

Where do you draw the line on the woman protecting the fetus? If you start legislating the fetal right to be protected then you'll need to monitor her diet, lifestyle, and you'll need a coroner to investigate every miscarriage. Forget the insanity and leave the decision where it should be.

 

[Cliffy]

Where do you draw the line on the woman protecting the fetus? If you start legislating the fetal right to be protected then you'll need to monitor her diet, lifestyle, and you'll need a coroner to investigate every miscarriage. Forget the insanity and leave the decision where it should be.

Ah, but some people have to have their noses in other people's business. It is a diversion because they can't handle their own business. So much easier to tell people how to live their lives than it is to live ones own life the way they think they should.

Abortion is a red herring. It is a very emotional subject for many and it is well known that when someone is emotionally attached to a subject, all logic and rational thought fly out the window. Politicians love it because people aren't paying attention to what they are doing. Priests and ministers love it cause it fills the coffers.

There is no right and wrong about it. It is all about choice based on the woman's needs, capabilities, security, maturity, stability (financially, mentally and emotionally). Is the child going to get a fair shake from an emotionally immature, unstable, drug addicted, violent parents, judgmental, unforgiving congregation... whatever. The factors involved in the decision are astronomical and are rarely taken lightly. More often than not, the girl or woman is weighing which decision will be less traumatic for her and her child.

In the end, it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks. They are not the ones who have to live with the consequences. It is not their life. Your personal opinion on the subject is irrelevant to anyone but you.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Is physical reality real or a hologram? I believe it is a hologram, a Matrix. If I am right, this whole issue is moot.

You may be right, Cliffy. As Lewis Carroll said in Through the Looking Glass, may be the Red King is dreaming it all up, maybe we are all part of Red King’s dream. One of these days he will wake up and poof! no more universe.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If it's not alive, it can't be killed. If it's alive, then a life is taken with an abortion. I think
that's the real argument here...cutting to the chase....without religion. Again myself,
I don't have an opinion here either way.

Precisely Ron, you summed up my argument nicely. The question is, is the fetus alive, is it human life? And if so, at what point human life begins?

These are deep scientific and philosophical questions with no easy, simple answers. Anti-abortionists want you to believe that they know the answers (mainly because their religious book says so), but at the end of the day, it is only their religious belief.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Does the above argument work?

What you have give is not an argument Ron, you have simply summarized the problem (though you have done such a good job of it). And nobody really has an answer to this question.

When does human life begin, at what stage? And if fetus is to be considered human life, why not sperm and egg? We cannot even define what ‘life’ is, it is very difficult to do. Any definition of life includes some inanimate objects and leaves out some living beings. And from life to human life is a quantum leap, with still more problems involved.

Since we don’t know the answers to these questions, we are all free to formulate our own answers.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It's far too complicated to be legislated. The only person who knows whether it's right or not is the pregnant woman.

Bang on, Kreskin. It is a very complicated issue with no quick and easy answers.

 

[AnnaG]

Well. as a woman and a mother who loves all kids almost as much as my own, I view fetuses and babies in the same light. They are precious little people. However, if one was to threaten my life, however horrid and sad I would feel about doing it, I think I would choose to abort if the baby would be other than healthy and have a chance at a normal life. If the baby were the product of rape? IDK, but my worry would be whether I could care for it as I would one of my previous kids. I think I would carry the baby to term, but give a childless couple a chance to have a child. But I can't say for sure, we women can change our minds, you know. lol

 

[Cannuck]

Again myself,
I don't have an opinion here either way. I've (surgically) removed myself from the gene
donation pool, so I'll never be directly involved in a decision to abort or not. I'm out of
this one, but wanted to put forth "an argument that couldn't be made about abortion
without religion," without religion as the premise for the argument.

I have never owned a cotton plantation but I have an opinion on slavery. I don't own a shoe factory in Vietnam but I have an opinion on child labour. I have never taken a human life (or even seriously considered it) but I have an opinion on murder....and none of these opinions are based on the Bible or any other religious books.

Of course discussion about abortion can happen without bringing religion into it. Those that can't (on both sides of the issue) use it as a crutch to prop up their failed arguments.

Years ago, blacks and women weren't considered "human beings" with all the rights and protections guaranteed under the law. To suggest that was a religious issue is just silly.

 

[gerryh]

These are deep scientific and philosophical questions with no easy, simple answers. Anti-abortionists want you to believe that they know the answers (mainly because their religious book says so), but at the end of the day, it is only their religious belief.

Ah, but some people have to have their noses in other people's business. It is a diversion because they can't handle their own business. So much easier to tell people how to live their lives than it is to live ones own life the way they think they should.

Abortion is a red herring. It is a very emotional subject for many and it is well known that when someone is emotionally attached to a subject, all logic and rational thought fly out the window. Politicians love it because people aren't paying attention to what they are doing. Priests and ministers love it cause it fills the coffers.

There is no right and wrong about it. It is all about choice based on the woman's needs, capabilities, security, maturity, stability (financially, mentally and emotionally). Is the child going to get a fair shake from an emotionally immature, unstable, drug addicted, violent parents, judgmental, unforgiving congregation... whatever. The factors involved in the decision are astronomical and are rarely taken lightly. More often than not, the girl or woman is weighing which decision will be less traumatic for her and her child.

In the end, it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks. They are not the ones who have to live with the consequences. It is not their life. Your personal opinion on the subject is irrelevant to anyone but you.

I see neither one of you can discuss this without brining up religion.

 

[gerryh]

Abortion is murder because one is extinguishing a human life. Your "scientific" argument supporting abortion is bogus and a non starter. Scientists themselves can not and have not ever agreed on when life "begins". At one time in our history a baby was not considered "human" untill it had reached one year of age. Later it was at birth, after the baby took that first breath and wailed. Now, there are those that say it is human at viability, and here's the kicker, 50 years ago viability was somewhere around 34 - 36 weeks gestation. It has now slowly edged down to around 22 - 24 weeks.

Now, if the baby isn't "human", isn't really "alive" untill it is born, then why are we, as a society, spending all this money on new medical techniques to lower the age of viability? Why spend money on trying to ensure the viability of something that isn't human? Something that has been refered to as being no more than a "parasite"?

I'll repost this, and maybe someone will try to answer it this time. If not, then I can only assume that those that support abortion can not answer and have conceded the argument.

 

[JLM]

I'll repost this, and maybe someone will try to answer it this time. If not, then I can only assume that those that support abortion can not answer and have conceded the argument.

One thing for sure, nothing that is dead will ever come alive.

 

[Cliffy]

I'll repost this, and maybe someone will try to answer it this time. If not, then I can only assume that those that support abortion can not answer and have conceded the argument.

We spend money on experimenting with cloning, trips to the moon, testing the viscosity of ketchup. Science spends money on all sorts of stuff because it can, not because it is moral or right. Singling out one topic in thousands to prove whether or not a fetus is fully human is is a straw man argument. It is fishing in the dark. Nobody has come up with that answer because nobody can say what is right for anybody else but themselves. That question will never be answered to everybody's satisfaction and this debate will still be raging long after we are all dead and forgotten.

 

[Cannuck]

Nobody has come up with that answer because nobody can say what is right for anybody else but themselves.

Really? Raping women, molesting kids, beating up little old ladies is "right for me" as is stealing money from my employer. Nobody can say it isn't right.

Do you think about what you write before you post it?

 

[Cliffy]

Really? Raping women, molesting kids, beating up little old ladies is "right for me" as is stealing money from my employer. Nobody can say it isn't right.

Do you think about what you write before you post it?

I guess in my world "Doing no harm" is a given. I suppose I could put in a qualifier with everything I write but I assume most people are civilized. I guess I'm wrong. If you have no problem raping, beating and molesting, who am I to judge you, but I'm sure someone will. I think personal responsibility and "you reap what you sow" will eventually catch up to us all.

The only real influence we have is within the realm of our daily experience. If we see someone committing an act of violence, we can act upon it. Being concerned with what goes on beyond our realm of influence is a diversion. Besides that, I was talking about the issue of whether a fetus is human. That is a debate that will never be settled.

 

[gerryh]

I guess in my world "Doing no harm" is a given. I suppose I could put in a qualifier with everything I write but I assume most people are civilized. I guess I'm wrong. If you have no problem raping, beating and molesting, who am I to judge you, but I'm sure someone will. I think personal responsibility and "you reap what you sow" will eventually catch up to us all.

The only real influence we have is within the realm of our daily experience. If we see someone committing an act of violence, we can act upon it. Being concerned with what goes on beyond our realm of influence is a diversion. Besides that, I was talking about the issue of whether a fetus is human. That is a debate that will never be settled.

It is a debate that will never be settled for those that are unwilling to accept that "personal responsibility" that you threw out.

 

[Cliffy]

It is a debate that will never be settled for those that are unwilling to accept that "personal responsibility" that you threw out.

Personal responsibility is personal. I know right from wrong and I avoid doing what I know is wrong. Therefore I will not have an abortion, kill, beat or rob someone. As far as I'm concerned there is no debate because what others do is their responsibility. They are the ones who have to live with the consequences.

It is a fine line between minding my own business and having a social conscience. I haven't mastered that yet and I doubt very many have.

 

[petros]

It's not a religious debate, or a social debate, a legal debate or a moral debate. It is a personal debate that rests fully on the shoulders of the mother.

The reason abortions are legal is the very reason you are an unwitting slave. Until you register your baby it is a human after that point it becomes a PERSON which is a legal entity known as a corporation and is only then afforded rights and duties.

So until you unshackle your enslaved asses abortions will be the rule of the day.

Still think you are free? If they can kill the unborn what chance do the living have of freedom?