PDA

View Full Version : Abortion


Max_Tab
07-05-2004, 18:30
I was reading an article about Kerry and it said he believes that life begins at conception, but he's still pro choice. So that got me thinking, what do people on here believe.

I personally think that life begins at conception, and if you follow that thought, then abortion should technically be murder. I hesitatingly say it's ok in cases where the mother's life is in danger but that's the only case.

Team Sergeant
07-05-2004, 18:38
Max,

You do realize there’s more to the issue than the black and white topic you posted?

Is this your conscience talking or your religion?

TS

Max_Tab
07-05-2004, 18:48
A little bit of both. I understand from my religious background why I think it's wrong, but now since I've become a father I can't imagine not having her in my life. And the thought that she, or any child could be killed and not allowed to live there life to fruition just seems like such a horrible crime and such a waste.
I know everyone person on this board would take offense at someone abusing or killing an infant. And in my opinion this is the same thing.

Fetus's just arent as cute and cuddly as a baby :)

Plus I put the "other" button up there so people could explain.

Denny
07-05-2004, 20:02
I believe that life begins at conception. If you did it, well then you have to take the consequences. If you cant afford a child, there are plenty of people out there that cant have kids that are willing to adopt. I think it is wrong to use science to kill the miracle of life.

Kyobanim
07-05-2004, 20:08
I voted other.

Do I approve of abortion? No. But I don't think that I have the right to force my beliefs on the subject on others. This is a personal choice between the man and woman or in some cases, just the woman.

My first boy was almost aborted. His mother and I weren't old enough to have a kid. I was 20 and she was 19. Our whole lives were ahead of us. At the time we both were for it but the doc made us wait and talk it over. We had a bad time of it from day one, but I don't regret the decision. I now have a granddaughter and another something on the way.

That's me. Everyone has there own thoughts/beliefs on the subject.

This isn't something that should be legislated other than the fact that you can't use it as birth control or in the third trimester when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

Roguish Lawyer
07-05-2004, 21:19
Seems to me the analysis is:

1. Is abortion murder? At what point?

2. If it is murder, is it ever justifiable? Under what circumstances?

:munchin

brewmonkey
07-05-2004, 21:32
Originally posted by Max_Tab
I was reading an article about Kerry and it said he believes that life begins at conception, but he's still pro choice. So that got me thinking, what do people on here believe.

I personally think that life begins at conception, and if you follow that thought, then abortion should technically be murder. I hesitatingly say it's ok in cases where the mother's life is in danger but that's the only case.

I agree with you so far but I would have to add pregnancies in the case of rapes. That would be a very tough place for the mother to be in. Do you have the abortion and deal with it? Do you carry to term and give the baby up for adoption, or do you keep it? No matter how you slice that one up the scars from the rape are bad enough but add an unwanted child to it.

Sacamuelas
07-05-2004, 21:36
Pro choice.

my background-
I have kids, and I have never been involved in an abortion.


Obviously, I do not believe that conception should be used as legal definition for when a fetus is a living/independant life deserving "government" rights and protections.

For me, the debate is in "when" gestationally to draw the line for removal of the termination option except in life-threatening circumstances.

Pandora
07-05-2004, 22:01
I voted pro choice.

All arguments and opinions are valid, right and very personal, thus, all choices are valid, right and very personal.

quid pro quo

Roguish Lawyer
07-05-2004, 22:12
Originally posted by Pandora
I voted pro choice.

All arguments and opinions are valid, right and very personal, thus, all choices are valid, right and very personal.

quid pro quo

I have to ask.

Is it a valid argument or opinion to support killing a newborn infant because you don't like the gender and can only have one?

Team Sergeant
07-05-2004, 22:19
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I have to ask.

Is it a valid argument or opinion to support killing a newborn infant because you don't like the gender and can only have one?

Wasn't there a book based on this premise?

Slick
07-05-2004, 22:22
I voted Pro-life on the basis that the process to have an abortion is in essance shaking up the fetus like a milkshake then extracting it. This is from the purely scientific side of me which believes that shaking up body material is like breaking the bonds of human cells. Human Cells are living from the moment they are created. Thus it is murder.

Religion and science, for me, remain separate.

Rape is something that is exempt from the above statement. At that instance I'm clueless, and defer to the woman.

Max_Tab
07-06-2004, 00:36
Originally posted by Pandora
I voted pro choice.

All arguments and opinions are valid, right and very personal, thus, all choices are valid, right and very personal.

quid pro quo

What about the babies choice. ;)

I'm not one of those nuts who protest, but I do like to argue.

colt1911fan
07-06-2004, 02:40
I think abortion is wrong, but that we are given the choice to do wrong in this world. I can't judge too many people, because I have spent time nailing Jesus to that cross. So I do know sin has a price. Abortion is a sin, I believe. But in this world we are certainly allowed to sin. There are certain things I believe are wrong, even some things I have done myself, but people are allowed to do wrong things.

Kyobanim
07-06-2004, 04:30
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I have to ask.

Is it a valid argument or opinion to support killing a newborn infant because you don't like the gender and can only have one?

Of course it's wrong. But obviously it's not wrong in Chinese culture.

TS, the Bear and the Dragon

My voit should probably be Pro Choice since that's essencially what I stated.

What about the babies choice.

My answer to that is at what point can the fetus live outside the womb without life support? Third Trimester? maybe second in rare occassions.

Pandora
07-06-2004, 06:21
Of course it's wrong. But obviously it's not wrong in Chinese culture.

Beat me to the only answer I could come up with to the well posed question. (DA does stand for Devil's Advocate afterall, doesn't it?) ;)

What about the babies choice.

Takes us back to the next argument, at what point does a fetus become concious and self-aware?

Airbornelawyer
07-06-2004, 13:59
A couple of initial points, some of which might sound like nitpicking, but are intended to clarify the issues.

The taking of the life of another human being is homicide. Murder belongs to the category of homicides conventionally called criminal homicides (manslaughter is the other member of this category). Murder is, to use the common law definition, the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. The other categories of homicide are usually called justifiable or excusable homicides (though the practical distinction between the two categories is murky).

Justifications or excuses which may apply to homicides include self-defense, defense of others and prevention of certain dangerous felonies. Certain other justifications, such as necessity (justifying an otherwise criminal act to prevent an even worse act), duress (an otherwise criminal act committed under threat) or defense of property, cannot be used for homicides. There is also a catchall category called "public policy" which covers, among other things, soldiers and executioners (though one might call these necessity, but with an added requirement of a government sanction).

So the first question is: (1) is abortion homicide? That is, is it the taking of a human life?

The second question, then, is, (2) is it murder? That is, is it criminal homicide (it wouldn't be manslaughter because the abortion we are talking about is an intentional act, not the product of the heat of passion or criminally negligent behavior).

If it is homicide, but not murder, then (3) what is the justification/excuse? Saving the life of the mother would fit the category of self-defense/defense of others, but no other category of abortion commonly cited - rape, incest, congenital infirmity of the fetus, health of the mother - would conventionally justify a homicide.

If you accept that the fetus is a human life, and thus abortion is a homicide, what it seems to come down to is public policy - abortion isn't murder because the government says it's not murder. If you do not accept that the fetus is a human life, then the categories of homicide don't apply.

Regarding "health of the mother", this is a broad catchall, and the one cited by Pres. Clinton in vetoing a partial-birth abortion bill. "Health" includes mental health, and according to pro-choice groups must be (and according to most case law is) is solely at the doctor's discretion. Effectively, this means a "health of the mother" exception means one could have an abortion for almost any reason.

But much of this debate over grounds for abortion is irrelevant. No reputable study that I have ever seen places rape and incest at greater than 1-2% of reasons for abortions. The vast majority of abortions are simply unwanted pregnancies. And the internal logic of Roe recognizes this - Justice Blackmun didn't say anything about rape or incest as justifications. He said "Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." That, not specific physical conditions, is generally what pro-choice advocates mean by "health of the mother."

Jumping back to whether a fetus is a human life for a second - this is commonly phrased as "life begins at conception." But of course gametes - eggs and sperm - are alive. The issue is not whether the zygote - the fertilized egg - is alive; it is whether it is a distinct human life. As a matter of genetics it is. Sperm carry the father's DNA, eggs the mother's, but the zygote carries its own DNA. But while some pro-choice persons have said in unguarded moments that excising a fetus is no different than excising a cyst or scab, the debate for most seems to have shifted away from whether the fetus is a human life to viability. But despite the Supreme Court's Solomonic attempt to cut the baby into trimesters, and despite the concept in some traditions of the "quickening," there is no simple test of when viability occurs. Some viable births occur at 5-6 months (though almost invariably with medical or mental problems due to underdeveloped organs). And setting viablity as the main measure would justify killing almost everyone on life support.

For the most part, viability is a question of timing, but it does address a legal issue - whether and when a fetus has rights. The abortion debate generally focuses on the rights of the pregnant woman and what can or cannot justify government intervention in or restrictions on those rights. If the fetus has legally recognized rights, then there is a government role - to balance the rights of the mother against the rights of the child. As a matter of public policy this may still come out in favor of a broad right to abortion (in the case of the death penalty, the right to life of the person to be executed is outweighed by the right of the state to protect the community), but the justification would have to be better enunciated.

Roe essentially dismissed this. In Part IX.A of the decision, Justice Blackmun held for the majority that the fetus was not a person within the meaning of the Constitution and thus lacked due process rights on its own behalf ("the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."). The Court relies on a textual analysis to say that where the Constitution uses the word "person," such as in the Apportionment Clause (Art. I, §2, cl. 3), the Emolument Clause (Art. I, §9, cl. 8), the Migration and Importation Clause* (Art. I, §9, cl. 1) and the Fugitive Slave Clause** (Art. IV, §2, cl. 3, nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment), it does not appear to apply prenatally.

This to me is one of the weakest parts of the ruling. The logic and textual analysis is almost exactly the same as that employed by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sanford to find that blacks, freedmen or slaves, were not Constitutionally-protected persons: "In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument." Taney specifically cites the Migration and Importation Clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause to support his argument: "these two provisions show, conclusively, that neither the description of persons therein referred to, nor their descendants, were embraced in any of the other provisions of the Constitution; for certainly these two clauses were not intended to confer on them or their posterity the blessings of liberty, or any of the personal rights so carefully provided for the citizen." Thus Taney held that slaves had no rights of their own under the Constitution. There is at least one distinction from Roe: slaves were "persons" - they just weren't in the category of persons to whom the Constitution applied. And even freedmen weren't citizens - what rights they enjoyed were utterly at the sufferance of their state and if they left the state they did not enjoy the protection of the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV (since that applies only to citizens of a state).

Chief Justice Taney's hubris was to think that he could take a political problem - slavery - and remove it from the realm of politics into that of law; that he by edict solve the dispute between pro- and anti-slavery forces. Justice Blackmun was infected by the same hubris, to which he added a dose of pseudo-science based on a fairly uniform trimester scheme.

____________________________________

* Migration and Importation Clause: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

** Fugitive Slave Clause: "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Roguish Lawyer
07-06-2004, 14:11
Oh fine, get all technical, why doncha? LOL

Nice post, AL.

The Reaper
07-06-2004, 17:03
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Oh fine, get all technical, why doncha? LOL

Nice post, AL.

What did you expect?

TR

Airbornelawyer
07-06-2004, 18:01
A more personal response?

When Blackmun wrote about saving a woman from being forced to endure the "distressful life and future" and "psychological harm" of having her "mental and physical health ... taxed by" caring for an "unwanted child," and about saving the woman from the "additional difficulties and stigma of unwed motherhood," he was talking about people like my mother. If Roe had been decided a few years earlier, and that other social "stigma" - abortion - had been removed, I would likely never have been born. Blackmun wanted me dead. I hope he is rotting in hell.

Maybe, on balance, the world and my family would have been better off had I never been born. Caring for my brother and I may have taken some years off of my mom's and dad's lives (my biological grandparents, who adopted my brother and me from my biological mother). Undoubtedly my dad would have lived longer, since he was killed in a car accident leaving an Army recruiting station where we had gone to get some pamphlets for my 6th grade report. But on the other hand, maybe one of those million plus babies killed since 1973 might have grown up to accomplish something truly great.

Max_Tab
07-06-2004, 19:11
AL- excellent post, probable one of the most intelligent responses i've ever seen. I learned a lot from it.

Thank You

The Reaper
07-06-2004, 19:16
Agreed.

Great story, AL, thanks for sharing a personal perspective.

TR

Pandora
07-06-2004, 21:51
I also agree both posts were extremely well presented. Sharing your own personal experience gave strong weight to your earlier facts and arguments.

That said, I feel the last line in this passage is a generalization that does not adequately address therapuetic abortions that are indeed required for the "health of the mother":

But much of this debate over grounds for abortion is irrelevant. No reputable study that I have ever seen places rape and incest at greater than 1-2% of reasons for abortions. The vast majority of abortions are simply unwanted pregnancies. And the internal logic of Roe recognizes this - Justice Blackmun didn't say anything about rape or incest as justifications. He said "Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." That, not specific physical conditions, is generally what pro-choice advocates mean by "health of the mother."

While that may be true for many Pro Choice advocates (those who argue the stance without personal experience or just to hitch a ride on a band wagon passing by), the last statement fails to take into consideration the frequent genuine need to make choices based on life or death for the mother. Where do ectopic pregnancies fit in the scheme of homicide/murder arguements? How does one weigh the choice to "murder" either the mother or the fetus?

Scenario (also personal experience): burst ectopic, with massive blood loss - doc says, "We're going in and pregnancy will be terminated - it is you or the Baby," and there is a 2 y/o in the ER waiting room with grandparents wondering where Mama is while Hubby holds weak hand. and contemplates the loss of his child, his wife and the potential to raise his other child alone if someone doesn't stem the blood flow fast enough.

Choice? And who makes the choice? The Mom drugged on demerol and dizzy from blood loss (is hers legal even at that point?), the distraught spouse, or the Doctor?

Debate.

Airbornelawyer
07-06-2004, 22:30
The life of the mother exception is generally pretty clear, as in the case you cite. The health of the mother exception, as I noted, has, however, been stretched so far as to have almost no meaning.

There are also certainly cases where, while it may be uncertain that the mother's life is clearly in danger, the carrying to term of the fetus may increase the risk considerably. Also, the later one waits to be sure of this, the riskier the abortion option becomes.

The first question then, is, can a definition of "health of the mother" be crafted that genuinely limits itself to the risk of death or serious physical harm, but is not so open as to extend to, to paraphrase Blackmun, the stresses of child care and the stigma of unwed motherhood?

The second question draws from the first: if such a distinction can be drawn, how does it accord with the traditional legal justifications for homicide? At common law, the use of lethal force in self-defense requires the threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. Psychological stresses, especially remote ones, can hardly justify homicide.

Max_Tab
07-06-2004, 22:42
Originally posted by Pandora


Choice? And who makes the choice? The Mom drugged on demerol and dizzy from blood loss (is hers legal even at that point?), the distraught spouse, or the Doctor?

Debate.

When people use the term Pro Choice what they really mean is Pro Women's Choice. what about the choice of the father, and the choice of the baby?

The Reaper
07-06-2004, 22:55
Originally posted by Max_Tab
When people use the term Pro Choice what they really mean is Pro Women's Choice. what about the choice of the father, and the choice of the baby?

And there is my argument.

Two make the baby, but all too frequently, only one makes the decision to keep it or not, and of course, the fetus gets no choice at all.

TR

Pandora
07-07-2004, 00:11
The first question then, is, can a definition of "health of the mother" be crafted that genuinely limits itself to the risk of death or serious physical harm, but is not so open as to extend to, to paraphrase Blackmun, the stresses of child care and the stigma of unwed motherhood?

I'd like to think such a definition could be drafted, it is needed. I fear it might go the way of the mental health act and the ICD-10. Do you start with the Doctors and have the Lawyers sit in on this on to look for loopholes in the process of drafting such a definition before it becomes a reference for law?

The second question draws from the first: if such a distinction can be drawn, how does it accord with the traditional legal justifications for homicide? At common law, the use of lethal force in self-defense requires the threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. Psychological stresses, especially remote ones, can hardly justify homicide.

If I understood the first question correctly, then an airtight definition would confine the "health of he mother" risk assessment to strictly physical criterion, if phrased/written correctly. Or did I misinterpret the goal?

When people use the term Pro Choice what they really mean is Pro Women's Choice.

Noted. I haver never thought about the terminology in that regard, but I believe you are correct. Pro choice to most probably does mean Pro Women's.

Gentlemen, I must state that the strongest case you have presented is the unspoken case:

Many responses to this thread have been from men who know the difference between self-defense and homicide and may have had to make the choice themselves. Having that experience reminds me that you may have a different level of real world wisdom to evaluate the gift and right to life than the majority of the population, including me.

I won't say I have suddenly abandoned my position, I've had this discussion with many over the years. The facts and arguments are not unique. The fact that as Warriors you have perhaps a better grasp of what it means to take a life and save many lives does encourage more thought.

pulque
07-07-2004, 00:14
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
Justifications or excuses which may apply to homicides include self-defense, defense of others and prevention of certain dangerous felonies. Certain other justifications, such as necessity (justifying an otherwise criminal act to prevent an even worse act), duress (an otherwise criminal act committed under threat) or defense of property, cannot be used for homicides. There is also a catchall category called "public policy" which covers, among other things, soldiers and executioners (though one might call these necessity, but with an added requirement of a government sanction).

So the first question is: (1) is abortion homicide? That is, is it the taking of a human life?


In this poll, I describe myself as pro-choice, with additional clarification on my position provided by your post. Abortion is justifiable homicide under the catchall category called "public policy" (government sanction). The government sanctions the use of force against unborn fetuses, no matter how unique they are.

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, as my knowledge in this area is very weak. I am under the impression that the constitution is not about rights (equality). Perhaps one should be able to read the Declaration of Independence in order for it to apply to oneself. I'm stretching it a little here.. just a thought.

/me puts on the kevlar

Galadriel
07-08-2004, 23:59
Different scenerios for each person -- the rights of abortion is totally subjective.
Many of you say that the "father" has no choice in making the decision in most cases. Why use the term "father"? A husband and wife shouldn't get abortions anyway -- they're married and traditionally its the intention to start a family when one marries. Think of all the single people out there that have sex?! There are a lot of men out there (at least that's what they're supposed to be) that have no intention of being a father. You've all met those kinds of men (and women for that matter). Yes, its the responsibility of both parties to protect themselves from contraception, but lets face it, not everyone is going to have a condom at hand, nor will they always make the effort to get one. All of a sudden, women are left in a predicament -- raising a child with no father, and possibly no prospective father (some women think that they'll be less attactive to the opposite sex if they have kids from a previous relationship). If the woman is young, its quite possible that she may just be starting a career or education -- which in turn could be put on halt while raising a child, thus not being able to provide for the child (diapers, baby food, and medicine is very expensive).
There are numerous women out there that have had several abortions. This in my opinion is wrong. They would rather get pregnant and abort the child than get on the pill or use a condom. Abortions should always be legal and available for rape victims. There is also a point within the pregnancy which it should be illegal to abort -- 3rd trimester is definately out of the question for abortions.
When facing the question of abortion (think of one of your flings you had in Cancun or something) and then think, who would raise the child? This is who has the choice to abort or not. If the guy isn't going to be involved in the upbringing -- he has NO choice. It really is the woman's choice at this point, unless the man or "father" would legally be willing to take full custody (that is if the mother didn't want it).
In other words, abortion is okay to do, but for the right reasons. It shouldn't be used as a method of birthcontrol, more of a "I fucked up, but it'll never happen again unless I'm ready to raise it".
PRO CHOICE

myclearcreek
07-09-2004, 15:17
1) You cannot legislate morality. However, you can legislate/ refuse to use public monies to fund private choices.

2) The only instance I can/do agree with abortion is with tubal pregnancy. Unfortunately, I have known a fine Christian woman who had a tubal pregnancy. The trauma of knowing how show would be viewed by others caused her to tell only a handful of people of her distress and need of emotional support. Adoption is available to all those who feel incapable of following through with what they started.

3) I know a woman who raised a child born of her brutal rape. She and her son are normal, well-adjusted individuals and I admire her fortitude more than most. Women and children are resilient. If the woman cannot adjust to the future of raising the child, adoption is available.

4) While I have never considered having and never had an abortion, I was taken to an abortion clinic while pregnant under the guise of obtaining "medical information." The subterfuge of all involved still amazes me to this day.

5) The underlying reason behind most abortions, in my opinion, is selfishness. Having babies is seen by many as simply inconvenient or untimely or the circumstances wrong.

My blood pressure is climbing, so I will stop here.

Max_Tab
07-09-2004, 16:36
Originally posted by Galadriel

Many of you say that the "father" has no choice in making the decision in most cases. Why use the term "father"?

Because whether they are married or not, the man is still the father of that child, just not husband to mother.

Originally posted by Galadriel

A husband and wife shouldn't get abortions anyway -- they're married and traditionally its the intention to start a family when one marries.

But what if it interferes with their career, social life, financial situation?

Originally posted by Galadriel

Think of all the single people out there that have sex?! There are a lot of men out there (at least that's what they're supposed to be) that have no intention of being a father. You've all met those kinds of men (and women for that matter). Yes, its the responsibility of both parties to protect themselves from contraception, but lets face it, not everyone is going to have a condom at hand, nor will they always make the effort to get one. All of a sudden, women are left in a predicament -- raising a child with no father, and possibly no prospective father (some women think that they'll be less attactive to the opposite sex if they have kids from a previous relationship). If the woman is young, its quite possible that she may just be starting a career or education -- which in turn could be put on halt while raising a child, thus not being able to provide for the child (diapers, baby food, and medicine is very expensive).


Two words, Responsibility, and Adoption. They don't have to keep the baby, but should they be allowed to kill the baby, because it's a giant inconenience. What if there father or mother became terminally ill and they had to take care of them. Should they be allowed to "dispatch" them because it doesn't fit into there schedule?

Originally posted by Galadriel

There are numerous women out there that have had several abortions. This in my opinion is wrong.


I'm not sure I understand this. Why is this wrong, and having just one is ok? Is it the number's? 1 is ok, but 3 is bad? How about 2 times?

I respect your opinions, I just don't agree with them. When do you think life is created? Does life just suddenly happen in the third trimester?

Here is another question. Lets say a man kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach and she is in the second trimester. Because of the kick she looses the baby. Should that man be charged with assault, or manslaughter/murder?

Roguish Lawyer
07-09-2004, 16:42
The best part of the abortion debate, by far in my opinion, was when a 20-year-old kid (or maybe 17 if this was a while ago) sued the state he lived in, arguing that he should be able to drink legally because his life started at conception, not birth.

myclearcreek
07-09-2004, 17:13
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
The best part of the abortion debate, by far in my opinion, was when a 20-year-old kid (or maybe 17 if this was a while ago) sued the state he lived in, arguing that he should be able to drink legally because his life started at conception, not birth.


I may be remembering or have been told incorrectly, but do the Chinese begin counting age one at birth? I remember the discussion of the dichotomy between that practice and the routine abortions for limited household size and gender requirements. This conversation happened over a decade ago, so...

Galadriel
07-10-2004, 18:35
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Max_Tab
[B]Because whether they are married or not, the man is still the father of that child, just not husband to mother.

--What I meant by this was; some men are just sperm donors, they have no intention of fathering a child (ie, are unconcerned with thier upbringing). If the guy wants nothing to do with the child, he should have no say in anything regarding it.


But what if it interferes with their career, social life, financial situation?

--I see the point you are making here. Marriage is an institution and it stands for something -- family. Yes, its the new millenium, views have changed, but aborting a child within a marriage goes against what marriage stands for. This is where getting your tubes tied comes into play if you don't want to have kids. If you can plan a wedding, you can plan surgery too.

Two words, Responsibility, and Adoption. They don't have to keep the baby, but should they be allowed to kill the baby, because it's a giant inconenience. What if there father or mother became terminally ill and they had to take care of them. Should they be allowed to "dispatch" them because it doesn't fit into there schedule?

--I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but if I became terminally ill, personally I would want someone to help me die (if I wasn't capable of doing it myself). Adoption? Yes, I think its an amazing option, and I give a lot of appreciation to women who have done this. Put yourself in our shoes for a minute though -- think of yourself as a young person, you got pregnant from a one night stand. You're teachers see that your belly is growing, so you tell everyone that you're pregnant. OH THE SHAME AND STIGMA. Lets face it. Its a man's world. All of a sudden your marked as a whore and your parents didn't bring you up right. Then you give the child up for adoption. Everyone asks about the child, you tell them. OH THE SHAME, you couldn't raise the child. You're weak. So women face all of this trauma. The Scarlet Letter. Yes, we are sexually liberated, but not much. As women we are still marked in so many ways. Its difficult for men to see these issues because they've never been on the recieving end, NEVER! Riddle me this? A man has 20 sex partners and a woman has 20 sex partners. The man is labeled as a stud and the woman a slut. Why?

I'm not sure I understand this. Why is this wrong, and having just one is ok? Is it the number's? 1 is ok, but 3 is bad? How about 2 times?

--Let me explain... Remember youth and all its feelings of immortality and indestructability? You always thought -- it would never happen to me.... Think of all the times you've driven drunk (or one of your friends if you indeed had your head screwed on tight). Once you get that DWI, you're going to say "shit! I would do anything to take that back". You need one time to learn your lesson the hard way. After that, you're an idiot for making the mistake more than once.

I respect your opinions, I just don't agree with them. When do you think life is created? Does life just suddenly happen in the third trimester?

--No, God chooses who lives, who dies, and what will be. Sometimes we just intervene. Personally, I've never had an abortion. If I were to get pregnant now, with no one to act as father, I would most likely have it. No, I'm not financially cut out to provide everything I would want to give the child, but I've experienced enough death to want to give life. But that is me. Right now, I'd be okay with sacrifice and obligation. If I were to get pregnant 10 years ago, almost with certainty I would have had an abortion (that is if I actually had sex 10 years ago). I have had friends who've had abortions, and I have had friends who had children at extremely young ages and out of wedlock. I have a huge amount of respect for those women who decide to have the child and raise it on thier own. It is an enormous amount of responsibility and sacrifice. But if you know you aren't willing to be responsible, then you shouldn't have kids.

Here is another question. Lets say a man kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach and she is in the second trimester. Because of the kick she looses the baby. Should that man be charged with assault, or manslaughter/murder?

--I'm not savvy on law. Personally I think he should have his nuts removed and shoved down his throat, but that's me. Murder in the 3rd or attempted manslaughter I guess, but I'm talking out of my ass. I would really have to know more about law to even answer this question.

Galadriel
07-10-2004, 19:09
Just wanted to add to the latter part of the discussion...
The man should be punished according to the potential life of the now dead child. 2nd trimester? Is the mother intending to have the child? There's also the possibility that if the mother intended to have the child, it could be still-born, or she could miscarry naturally. God decides whether the child is born and lives in this situation. Therefore, we can't say that he outright killed someone. Hence attempted manslaughter.

All in all, what sets us apart from man and beast is choice and reason. Yes, there are other matters, ethics, and morals that surround choice, but the bottom line is that our lives are always based on our own choices and God's will.

Max_Tab
07-10-2004, 19:48
Originally posted by Galadriel
Just wanted to add to the latter part of the discussion...
The man should be punished according to the potential life of the now dead child. 2nd trimester? Is the mother intending to have the child? There's also the possibility that if the mother intended to have the child, it could be still-born, or she could miscarry naturally. God decides whether the child is born and lives in this situation. Therefore, we can't say that he outright killed someone. Hence attempted manslaughter.



I'm not sure I understand? Why the question on whether the mother intends to keep it? What does that have to do with whether it is a crime or not? If the mother wants to abort it then it would be ok? But if she wanted to keep it, it would be bad? In theory it should be black or white, no matter what the mother wanted. manslaughter or assault (on the mother, not the child).

AL could you help us out on the legality of all this, I'm curious about what someone smarter than me has to say about this.

myclearcreek
07-11-2004, 16:28
There have been situations where a married/engaged woman decides to have an abortion, in spite of her husband/fiancee's objections. Usually, it is done without his knowledge, then the apology or explanation. "It's done, so there is nothing you can do about it." Besides taking issue with abortion in general, I have a very difficult time with this and have wondered if there was legislation protecting the father's rights to the unborn child...i.e., intention to raise/provide for, etc.

Razor
07-12-2004, 16:08
Since I can't pass up an opportunity to stir the pot here in a 'when does life begin' discussion, what are folks' feelings on embryonic stem cell research?

Max_Tab
07-12-2004, 17:07
I don't know a whole lot about it

myclearcreek
07-12-2004, 18:56
Originally posted by Razor
Since I can't pass up an opportunity to stir the pot here in a 'when does life begin' discussion, what are folks' feelings on embryonic stem cell research?

Using umbilical cord fluid for medical research/disease treatment does not bother me as far as the source goes. Not authoritative sites, but here is some quick fuel for the debate:

Pro:
http://www.cordblood.com/index.asp

Con:
http://www.cord-blood.org/id4.htm

Looking forward to reading the learned opinions of Doc T and others. :)

pulque
07-12-2004, 19:57
Originally posted by Razor
Since I can't pass up an opportunity to stir the pot here in a 'when does life begin' discussion, what are folks' feelings on embryonic stem cell research?

I have never worked with any stem-cells (embryonic or human), but I do not personally believe in pure genetic determinism in development. A few medical breakthroughs seem promising as of recently, including rat research with human stem cells to treat Parkinson's or other neurodegeneratives. Research in adult stem-cell is much behind the technologies developed in the 20 years of embryonic stem cell work. There are very few pluripotent cells in adults, and we dont really know where to look for them, or how long they can be cultured for.

The only three full-time biomedical research scientists on President Bush's bioethics committee were replaced. But anyways, science also exists in the private sector, and scientists often spend their own money to do their work. For example tthere are scientists who are still producing new lines of embryonic stem cells, and there are researchers still studying them, and they of course receive NO federal funding.

Pandora
07-12-2004, 23:03
The only three full-time biomedical research scientists on President Bush's bioethics committee were replaced.

Elaborate if you will? Is this a good ting or a bad thing? How do the new appointees differ from the previous psoition holders? I am stunned there would only be threee fulltime researchers.

I believe in stem cell research for medical cures, but not for cloning for physical/mental attributes.

(anyone else read Oryx & Crake? Topical and timely to discussion)

pulque
07-12-2004, 23:42
Originally posted by Pandora
Elaborate if you will? Is this a good ting or a bad thing? How do the new appointees differ from the previous psoition holders? I am stunned there would only be threee fulltime researchers.


The chairman of the Bioethics Committee sez: “[T]his change reflects the changing focus of the council's work, as we move away from issues of reproduction and genetics to focus on issues of neuroscience, brain and behavior.”

Blackburn and May were dimissed. Carter left. I should mention that I only found out that three of the members were full-time biomedical researchers by reading a New England Journal of Medicine article by Blackburn. I'm going to guess here that the other D.Sci (Rowley) is the other full-time biomedical researcher, and it looks like she is still in.

The appointed replacements were:
*Benjamin S. Carson, the director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at John Hopkins
*Peter A. Lawler, head of the Government and International Studies Department at Berry College in Georgia
*Diana J. Schaub, head of the Political Science Department at Loyola College in Maryland.

-----------------

Here was the old list:

*Elizabeth Blackburn, PhD, Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University California, San Francisco
*Stephen Carter, JD, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Yale Law School
*Rebecca Dresser, JD, MS, Daniel Noyes Kirby Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law
*Daniel Foster, MD, Donald W. Seldin Distinguished Chair in Internal Medicine and Chairman of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School
*Francis Fukuyama, PhD, Bernard Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University
*Michael Gazzaniga, PhD, Director, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Dartmouth College
*Robert P. George, JD, D Phil, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University, and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions
*Alfonso Gomez-Lobo, PhD, Ryan Family Professor of Metaphysics and Moral Philosophy, Georgetown University
*Mary Ann Glendon, JD, LLM, Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University
*William B. Hurlbut, MD, Consulting Professor in Human Biology, Stanford University
*Charles Krauthammer, MD, National Columnist, The Washington Post
*William F. May, PhD, Cary M. Maguire Professor of Ethics Emeritus, Southern Methodist University
*Paul McHugh, MD, Henry Phipps Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Psychiatrist-in-chief of the Johns Hopkins Hospital
*Gilbert Meilaender, PhD, Richard & Phyllis Duesenberg Professor of Christian Ethics at Valparaiso University
*Janet D. Rowley, MD, DSc, Blum-Riese Distinguished Service Professor of Medicine, Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, and Human Genetics, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago
*Michael J. Sandel, PhD, Professor of Government, Harvard University
*James Q. Wilson, PhD, The James A. Collins Professor of Management and Public Policy Emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles

Airbornelawyer
07-26-2004, 11:09
At your on-line neighborhood Yahoo! store: http://store.yahoo.com/ppfastore/ihadabt.html

They have finally arrived!

Planned Parenthood is proud to offer yet another t-shirt in our new social fashion line: "I Had an Abortion" fitted T-shirts are now available. These soft and comfortable fitted tees assert a powerful message in support of women's rights.

Order yours for $15 each.

The Reaper
07-26-2004, 11:19
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
At your on-line neighborhood Yahoo! store: http://store.yahoo.com/ppfastore/ihadabt.html

One of the first rules that we learn is to know your target audience, and tailor the message to the audience.

That shirt says several things to me, I seriously doubt that any of them are the message that they intended.

TR