Abortion

[jravnsbo]

zYou seem up on this, how then is partial birth abortion even remotely considered legal then?  It happens right near the moment of brth as I understand it in the 9th month?

Please explain.

Well, clearly the fetus is not a viable human being on its own, since it can't survive outside the human body. The record for the earliest that a fetus has ever been born and survived outside the body is at about 6 months, hence the concept of "trimesters" for abortions. The reason that it is ok to regulate abortions in the 3rd trimester is because at that point, the fetus gains the ability to theoretically survive outside the womb (even though at 6 months it would be extremely unlikely, but it has been proven to be possible). So as to the question of whether or not a recently conceived zygote is a viable human being, the answer is clearly no. So why should a zygote have rights? Well, you might say because it is potential human life, but every single cell in your body is potential human life, as well. When you scrach an itch on your skin, you kill thousands of cells that could potentially become a human life. Obviously no one thinks that this should be illegal. Obviously those cells are a part of your body and thus you have the right to do with them as you please, and they have no rights on their own.
Now, one could raise a religious objection to abortion, and argue that when two people have sexual intercourse, God decides whether or not the sperm and egg will come together to form a human being, and thus humans have no right to interfere with that. That's fine, but it creates a problem. If so, then how can there be an exception for rape and incest? Does it say somewhere in the Bible that God only guides the sperm and egg together in consensual, nonincestous sex, but otherwise it's just random? That doesn't make any sense. If one is raising a religious objection to abortion, it would seem that one would also have to oppose it in cases of rape and incest as well. Likewise, even if you believe that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder, you'd have to still oppose it in rape and incest cases for the same reason; it's still murder even then. Only to save the life of the mother (not even the health, just the life) could abortion thus be justified. And even in those instances, one could argue that it is still being guided by God's will, as to who dies and who lives.
So, as I see it, there is no scientific basis for making abortion illegal in the first 6 months of pregnancy, as the fetus would have to be defined as a part of the mother's body and not as its own organism during this time, there are only religious reasons, and thus as I believe there should be a seperation of church and state, I think that abortion should be legal in the first 6 months. During the last trimester, however, once the fetus has achieved theoretical viability, I think that it should be legal to ban abortion except in cases in which the life or health of the mother is at risk. I do believe that at that point the fetus should have some rights, since it could live on its own outside the mother's body, and thus its right to stay alive should supercede the mother's whims.

[Gustaf]

Well, clearly the fetus is not a viable human being on its own, since it can't survive outside the human body. The record for the earliest that a fetus has ever been born and survived outside the body is at about 6 months, hence the concept of "trimesters" for abortions. The reason that it is ok to regulate abortions in the 3rd trimester is because at that point, the fetus gains the ability to theoretically survive outside the womb (even though at 6 months it would be extremely unlikely, but it has been proven to be possible). So as to the question of whether or not a recently conceived zygote is a viable human being, the answer is clearly no. So why should a zygote have rights? Well, you might say because it is potential human life, but every single cell in your body is potential human life, as well. When you scrach an itch on your skin, you kill thousands of cells that could potentially become a human life. Obviously no one thinks that this should be illegal. Obviously those cells are a part of your body and thus you have the right to do with them as you please, and they have no rights on their own.
Now, one could raise a religious objection to abortion, and argue that when two people have sexual intercourse, God decides whether or not the sperm and egg will come together to form a human being, and thus humans have no right to interfere with that. That's fine, but it creates a problem. If so, then how can there be an exception for rape and incest? Does it say somewhere in the Bible that God only guides the sperm and egg together in consensual, nonincestous sex, but otherwise it's just random? That doesn't make any sense. If one is raising a religious objection to abortion, it would seem that one would also have to oppose it in cases of rape and incest as well. Likewise, even if you believe that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder, you'd have to still oppose it in rape and incest cases for the same reason; it's still murder even then. Only to save the life of the mother (not even the health, just the life) could abortion thus be justified. And even in those instances, one could argue that it is still being guided by God's will, as to who dies and who lives.
So, as I see it, there is no scientific basis for making abortion illegal in the first 6 months of pregnancy, as the fetus would have to be defined as a part of the mother's body and not as its own organism during this time, there are only religious reasons, and thus as I believe there should be a seperation of church and state, I think that abortion should be legal in the first 6 months. During the last trimester, however, once the fetus has achieved theoretical viability, I think that it should be legal to ban abortion except in cases in which the life or health of the mother is at risk. I do believe that at that point the fetus should have some rights, since it could live on its own outside the mother's body, and thus its right to stay alive should supercede the mother's whims.

That is a matter of definition is it not? Handicapped or new-born babies cannot survive on their own, just like a fetus. But they are still viewed as human beings.

[PD]

ABORTION IS WRONG! IT IS EVIL AND IT IS MURDER! ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS AN ACCOMPLICE MURDERER AND ANYONE WHO PERFORMS IT OR HAS IT DONE IS A MURDERER!

[Gustaf]

ABORTION IS WRONG! IT IS EVIL AND IT IS MURDER! ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS AN ACCOMPLICE MURDERER AND ANYONE WHO PERFORMS IT OR HAS IT DONE IS A MURDERER!

Please...calm down.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Friend,

I respect your passion but I don't think that rhetoric and attitude is going to convince anyone of your position.  If you start using words like "murderer", you will throw off a lot of people who might otherwise listen to your position.

ABORTION IS WRONG! IT IS EVIL AND IT IS MURDER! ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS AN ACCOMPLICE MURDERER AND ANYONE WHO PERFORMS IT OR HAS IT DONE IS A MURDERER!

[Gustaf]

Friend,

I respect your passion but I don't think that rhetoric and attitude is going to convince anyone of your position.  If you start using words like "murderer", you will throw off a lot of people who might otherwise listen to your position.

ABORTION IS WRONG! IT IS EVIL AND IT IS MURDER! ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS AN ACCOMPLICE MURDERER AND ANYONE WHO PERFORMS IT OR HAS IT DONE IS A MURDERER!

Probably, yes. The guy has posted the same kind of posts in the other threads as well. I am glad most people on this board are more reasoning.

[© tweed]

ABORTION IS WRONG! IT IS EVIL AND IT IS MURDER! ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS AN ACCOMPLICE MURDERER AND ANYONE WHO PERFORMS IT OR HAS IT DONE IS A MURDERER!

See!  Paul Hill isn't dead.

[Demrepdan]

ABORTION IS WRONG! IT IS EVIL AND IT IS MURDER! ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS AN ACCOMPLICE MURDERER AND ANYONE WHO PERFORMS IT OR HAS IT DONE IS A MURDERER!

I support it...to a certain degree. So I'm a murderer eh? Well what if the mother's life is in danger? And the doctor's determine in the early stages of pregnancy that she can not have this baby and live, thus ending HER life AND the baby’s life. So you're against saving both of them eh? Wouldn't that make you a DOUBLE murderer then?

I support abortion...under these terms....

The mother's life is in danger

Incest

Rape

If the baby is in the early stages, if it gets to far along, it should NEVER be aborted no matter what the reason of abortion is.

And I think another reason might be, if the baby will have severe problems when it is born, and the doctor can determine this early in the pregnancy (e.g. deformation, etc.) There is no reason to have the baby suffer from severe problems, and then when born the parents can't afford to give the child the medical help it needs. Which would result in the baby either DYING, or going up for abortion and spending the rest of it’s life in a hospital with no one to love it. Again, I am sort of ambivalent about this.

What I HATE about abortion, is when the mother uses abortion as a "birth control". Some stupid little bitch (excuse me for saying that) who has a midnight fling with some boy of her dreams, and has sex without protection resulting in her becoming pregnant. She doesn't wanna have the baby, the parents can afford to get rid of it, and view it as an ABOMINATION that she is going to have the child in the first place at a young age. This makes me sick. If you're old enough to have sex, you're hold enough to face the results of sex, and the responsibilities that come from it (i.e. a child).

Although I times I don't agree with abortion, I think the good out-weighs the bad, therefore, I would ultimately support it.

You’re post, PD, is kinda insulting to me, and I’m sure it is to others. I would normally haul off on your for something like that, but I feel too tired to do that today. But next time.......next time....

If I were you, I’d watch what you say....

[© tweed]

Read my post!  I liked my post...

[jravnsbo]

Go back and read my posts, they are more reasonable and in line with yours, rather than the extreme one you responded to.

ABORTION IS WRONG! IT IS EVIL AND IT IS MURDER! ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS AN ACCOMPLICE MURDERER AND ANYONE WHO PERFORMS IT OR HAS IT DONE IS A MURDERER!

I support it...to a certain degree. So I'm a murderer eh? Well what if the mother's life is in danger? And the doctor's determine in the early stages of pregnancy that she can not have this baby and live, thus ending HER life AND the baby’s life. So you're against saving both of them eh? Wouldn't that make you a DOUBLE murderer then?

I support abortion...under these terms....

The mother's life is in danger

Incest

Rape

If the baby is in the early stages, if it gets to far along, it should NEVER be aborted no matter what the reason of abortion is.

And I think another reason might be, if the baby will have severe problems when it is born, and the doctor can determine this early in the pregnancy (e.g. deformation, etc.) There is no reason to have the baby suffer from severe problems, and then when born the parents can't afford to give the child the medical help it needs. Which would result in the baby either DYING, or going up for abortion and spending the rest of it’s life in a hospital with no one to love it. Again, I am sort of ambivalent about this.

What I HATE about abortion, is when the mother uses abortion as a "birth control". Some stupid little bitch (excuse me for saying that) who has a midnight fling with some boy of her dreams, and has sex without protection resulting in her becoming pregnant. She doesn't wanna have the baby, the parents can afford to get rid of it, and view it as an ABOMINATION that she is going to have the child in the first place at a young age. This makes me sick. If you're old enough to have sex, you're hold enough to face the results of sex, and the responsibilities that come from it (i.e. a child).

Although I times I don't agree with abortion, I think the good out-weighs the bad, therefore, I would ultimately support it.

You’re post, PD, is kinda insulting to me, and I’m sure it is to others. I would normally haul off on your for something like that, but I feel too tired to do that today. But next time.......next time....

If I were you, I’d watch what you say....

[© tweed]

Yes, you are more reasonable than PD.  But that isn't saying much, everybody is.

[migrendel]

Perhaps, Demrepdan, the reconceptualization of abortion as a contraceptive method is just part and parcel of the shift in a society's attitudes. Like you said, a girl may have sex because she wishes to attend to her desire. If she becomes pregnant, I don't see why she can't just end the pregnancy. It would allow women both autonomy over their bodily and economic affairs and allow them to just enjoy an affair when they have one. I believe this reflects a positive movement away from the notions of stodgy responsibility that have been the true villains in the debate over the politics of pleasure.

[jravnsbo]

Maybe because people should be responsible for the decisions they make.  If you have sex and get pregnant but didn't want to have a baby you shouldn't have had sex.

the politics of pleasure, oh boy!

Perhaps, Demrepdan, the reconceptualization of abortion as a contraceptive method is just part and parcel of the shift in a society's attitudes. Like you said, a girl may have sex because she wishes to attend to her desire. If she becomes pregnant, I don't see why she can't just end the pregnancy. It would allow women both autonomy over their bodily and economic affairs and allow them to just enjoy an affair when they have one. I believe this reflects a positive movement away from the notions of stodgy responsibility that have been the true villains in the debate over the politics of pleasure.

[migrendel]

I just see abortion as one method of resolution, like bearing the child or miscarrying, for example, would resolve the situation. I used that phrase to just find a nice, alliterative way of showing how even basic and primal aspects of everyday life are politicized.

[Gustaf]

I just see abortion as one method of resolution, like bearing the child or miscarrying, for example, would resolve the situation. I used that phrase to just find a nice, alliterative way of showing how even basic and primal aspects of everyday life are politicized.

Lack of moralt responsibility can be very damaging to a society. We're seeing that in Sweden and, believe me, it isn't nice.

[dazzleman]

I just see abortion as one method of resolution, like bearing the child or miscarrying, for example, would resolve the situation. I used that phrase to just find a nice, alliterative way of showing how even basic and primal aspects of everyday life are politicized.

Lack of moralt responsibility can be very damaging to a society. We're seeing that in Sweden and, believe me, it isn't nice.

Gustaf, you are so correct, and that's one of the reasons I am uncomfortable with abortion.  The whole philosophy behind it is one of evading responsibility for your actions by making somebody else pay for them.

It's very refreshing to hear a European talk that pay, because so many of our liberals look to Europe as an example of the direction we should move in.  I don't agree at all, and I hope to see the US resisting the push from the liberals to embrace ideas in vogue in Europe like moral relativism.

[Gustaf]

I just see abortion as one method of resolution, like bearing the child or miscarrying, for example, would resolve the situation. I used that phrase to just find a nice, alliterative way of showing how even basic and primal aspects of everyday life are politicized.

Lack of moralt responsibility can be very damaging to a society. We're seeing that in Sweden and, believe me, it isn't nice.

Gustaf, you are so correct, and that's one of the reasons I am uncomfortable with abortion.  The whole philosophy behind it is one of evading responsibility for your actions by making somebody else pay for them.

It's very refreshing to hear a European talk that pay, because so many of our liberals look to Europe as an example of the direction we should move in.  I don't agree at all, and I hope to see the US resisting the push from the liberals to embrace ideas in vogue in Europe like moral relativism.

Well, there is a middle way between, say, PD and Migrendel, I hope. A point that many people miss is that a liberal society (in the American sense) cannot exist without high moral standards. As soon as people start using the system to their own advantage it collapses. That is why Scandinavia, the most honest group of countries in the world, have such large welfare states. The problem is that nothing has been done to uphold morality and ethics in these societies, and thus the entire system is now endangered.

[dazzleman]

Well, there is a middle way between, say, PD and Migrendel, I hope. A point that many people miss is that a liberal society (in the American sense) cannot exist without high moral standards. As soon as people start using the system to their own advantage it collapses. That is why Scandinavia, the most honest group of countries in the world, have such large welfare states. The problem is that nothing has been done to uphold morality and ethics in these societies, and thus the entire system is now endangered.

I agree completely.  A free and (classically) liberal society depends upon a certain level of moral standards, and the expectation that the vast majority of people will support themselves, and take responsibility for their actions.

As appealing as the welfare state sounds in theory -- nobody in want, nobody in need, all needs met -- in practice it is morally corrosive because needs cannot be met unless somebody is there to meet them.  If everybody decides that they will excercise their entitlement to have their fellow citizens support them, the whole thing will collapse because there will be nobody there to provide the needed support.

The whole "privacy" and "rights" argument behind the abortion movement is a facade in my opinion.  It's really about convenience.  Abortion is a necessary accompaniment to the to casual sex, since pregnancy is often an undesirable by-product of this type of sex.  The philosophy is, do what you feel like, and get rid of the unpleasant consequences.  It's a lot like slavery; all the arguments and justifications and rationalizations in the world can't make it right.

[Gustaf]

Well, there is a middle way between, say, PD and Migrendel, I hope. A point that many people miss is that a liberal society (in the American sense) cannot exist without high moral standards. As soon as people start using the system to their own advantage it collapses. That is why Scandinavia, the most honest group of countries in the world, have such large welfare states. The problem is that nothing has been done to uphold morality and ethics in these societies, and thus the entire system is now endangered.

I agree completely.  A free and (classically) liberal society depends upon a certain level of moral standards, and the expectation that the vast majority of people will support themselves, and take responsibility for their actions.

As appealing as the welfare state sounds in theory -- nobody in want, nobody in need, all needs met -- in practice it is morally corrosive because needs cannot be met unless somebody is there to meet them.  If everybody decides that they will excercise their entitlement to have their fellow citizens support them, the whole thing will collapse because there will be nobody there to provide the needed support.

The whole "privacy" and "rights" argument behind the abortion movement is a facade in my opinion.  It's really about convenience.  Abortion is a necessary accompaniment to the to casual sex, since pregnancy is often an undesirable by-product of this type of sex.  The philosophy is, do what you feel like, and get rid of the unpleasant consequences.  It's a lot like slavery; all the arguments and justifications and rationalizations in the world can't make it right.

What you are saying is true, though I was actually making another point...

In a classic liberal laissez-faire society, those who don't take responsibility for their own lives will probably just die, and thus society will work, at least fot the others. In a leftist society, they will be living on other people's money, and thus undnermine the society as a whole. In Sweden the increasing problems with tax evasion, people taking advantage of social services and so on, has raised doubts about whether the current system is possible to maintain. If you increase the social responsibilities of the state while removing moral standards, you're headed for disaster.

[Nym90]

jravnsbo,

Roe Vs. Wade said that restrictions may be placed on abortion in the 3rd trimester, but it did not ban it. I agree that it should be allowed by law unless the life or health of the mother is at risk.

Gustaf,

When I say "survive on their own" I mean the physical ability to survive. New born babies, even those who are handicapped, can eat food and breath air, but fetuses before the 6th month cannot do these things, they must get all of their life sustaining processes directly from the mother. Fetuses at this stage would die instantly if they were removed from the womb, as would all of the other cells in your body if they were removed from your body. Near the end of the pregnancy, even though the fetus is still in the womb, it could survive outside the mother's womb if it was born prematurely.

[Gustaf]

jravnsbo,

Roe Vs. Wade said that restrictions may be placed on abortion in the 3rd trimester, but it did not ban it. I agree that it should be allowed by law unless the life or health of the mother is at risk.

Gustaf,

When I say "survive on their own" I mean the physical ability to survive. New born babies, even those who are handicapped, can eat food and breath air, but fetuses before the 6th month cannot do these things, they must get all of their life sustaining processes directly from the mother. Fetuses at this stage would die instantly if they were removed from the womb, as would all of the other cells in your body if they were removed from your body. Near the end of the pregnancy, even though the fetus is still in the womb, it could survive outside the mother's womb if it was born prematurely.

Yes, I realized that, that's why I said it was a matter of definition [of "survive on their own"]. I'm just saying...

Siamese twins is another example. At least in certain cases they can't survive on their own, would die if separated. But they are still regarded as humans!  

[Nym90]

Good point with siamese twins, I would say that it is legally debateable whether they are one person or two. Perhaps a better definition than survive on their own would be to say that one individual is completely dependent on the life processes of another, but not the other way around.

Yes, you are right that it is a matter of definiton, and obviously it would have to be well defined to make sure that there are as few grey areas as possible.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What about Zaphod Beeblebrox?

[© tweed]

What about Zaphod Beeblebrox?

Who?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A charactor in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, which was a radio comedy by Douglas Adams(who later wrote it down as a "trilogy in 5 part's")
He has two heads, three arms and an ego larger than the universe.