Darth Tater Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Yomar, I'm sorry your short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 thats OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Code, ".....I just don't see a positive in making abortion illegal." Really? How about this as a potential positive? Or, maybe this? Or this? Yeah, Code. I see how you aren't a blind Pro Choice defender when you make statements like you can't see a positive that can come out of making abortion illegal. Good point man. Really. I don't know how much more clear you can be on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 I wanted to post on this one. I am hoping to get a few in before I can't sit any longer. In my opinion abortion is wrong no matter what the circumstances. And Yes I have a teenage daughter. Even if she was raped by a cyclops I would not allow her to have an abortion. My wife is a devout Catholic and I am a devout Greek Orthodox and it is against our moral fiber to have an abortion. Having said that, I don't believe it is our right to mandate and force everyone to live up to our moral standards. It is our job as christians to spread the word and try to convince someone to do as we do and allow them to make the right choice out of there own free will, not dictate it to them. This is why I have such a problem with this issue. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can be so cut and dry one way or the other on this issue when it comes to making it legal or illegal in the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Art, You make a case, one that has been argued for many years by many people much smarter than me. I should have limit my comments on this issue to my core belief that individuals are responsible for their own actions. Unfortunately I expressed my thoughts poorly so I feel I should clarify. Since creating a life takes two (assuming a male / female union) the decision to abort or not abort must be a joint one (assuming the male / female union was consensual). For a woman to assert the decision is hers and hers alone in this circumstance is false. I think we agree here. Turn it around. For the male to assert the decision is his and his alone in this circumstance is also false. If the male and female disagree on whither or not the pregnancy results in a birth, now is where the courts come into play. My position is ill regardless of the courts decision, I as a third party should not bear the financial responsibility of caring for the new life or destroying it. The abortion laws as written today are the law of the land no matter how I might feel about it on a moral plane. All males do indeed face this dilemma and perhaps will have to make a choice at some point in time. My choice would be life. Taking that decision to it's logical conclusion, given a choice of putting a guilty killer to death or serving life behind bars without parole I would again choose life. If forced to choose between an unborn life and it's mothers life I would choose to save the mothers life because the mother has survived life long enough to make the attempt to a create life whereas it is unknown if the unborn life will survive long enough to reproduce. I know these principles won't work for everybody and I don't wish to impose my values on anyone else. It's just how I see things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 I don't think anyone, including the very far religious right, would say a mother shouldn't be allowed an abortion in cases where HER life is in danger. For example, my wife is a Type 1 diabetic. Doctors will try to convince her, if she is pregnant with twins, that only one child is really safe, and she should consider aborting the other. Though, it's not such a danger that they will insist. However, my wife's doctor has already told her he will not allow her to take three babies, if she gets pregnant with triplets. He said he doesn't know a doctor that would, in her case, because it is something that is sure to cause great harm and likely death. Even the very far religious right would agree the mother has a right to life and I don't think you are going to get an argument from anyone on that issue. I do, however, think we are in general agreement. In fact, an abortion should not be a woman's choice in a consensual relationship because it takes two to tango and both parties should have a say. I would go so far as to say that we should err on the side of life as well. If the father wants the baby, but the mother doesn't, the father should win that argument. And vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Originally posted by tommy-the-greek Having said that, I don't believe it is our right to mandate and force everyone to live up to our moral standards. Yes, I think I'm going to kill my brother tonight and don't enforce your moral standards on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Is your brother pregnant?:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 As OPM states, it really could be a cut & dry issue if everyone saw it from this perspective: If a fetus can survive outside of a womb with the assistance of medical technology, and have some hope of living a life free of any afflictions due to its prematurity, then it must be considered a unique life form. If the fetus in not able to survive outside of the womb, then it is nothing more than a mass of cells that can NOT be considered a unique life form. Current neonatal technology is capable of keeping a 24 week old fetus alive. That timeline will be made shorter and shorter as technology progresses. Morally, I can not see abortion before 24 weeks as unethical. After 24 weeks, I could understand a case being made for it being murder. Considering that most women are aware that they are pregnant far earlier than 6 months into the gestation, I think they have plenty of time to decide whether or not they wish to allow the mass of cells within thier uteri to develop into unique lifeforms. Who said this was a difficult issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 I know some grown men that can't survive outside the womb... I don't really agree with that line of thinking. Like you said, the timeline for the point at which a fetus will be able to be kept alive outside the womb by modern medicine is not fixed, so it doesn't seem right to be able to classify a 20 week old fetus as morally abortable knowing that in 5 or 10 or however many years the classification will change and that which a few years earlier was ethical no longer is. Ethics shouldn't be that pliant. And in my opinion they particularly should not be based on something as impersonal as the current capabilities of technology. Unfortunately, I don't have any better idea of applying some sort of universal rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Yomar, The ethical line I draw is NOT pliant at all. That line is chiseled in stone: If it can survive outside the womb, then it MUST be considered a unique life form. Just because the age of the viable fetus grows younger and younger with every progress of medical technology does not shift the ethical basis of my statement. A large percentage of embryos and fetuses spontaneously abort due the vast numbers of things that can go wrong on a biomolecular level. Eventually, there will be a point beyond which we will be forced to say that the stats are in the favor of survival and we will draw the line there. Unfortunately, it seems to be very difficult for people to see this issue in such a pragmatic way. Its too emotionally charged. But I figure as someone who was adopted from birth, that if I can see this issue in such a way, then anyone can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Blade, I'm completely with you. Abortion in this country would have a lot less heat to it if people stating things as you have, and as I had earlier, got together and wrote the laws appropriately. If it can survive outside the womb, it can't be aborted. If it can't, then it can. I would still not want to encourage abortion as a form of birth control, but it would be a compromise that the PEOPLE by in large would agree to since it seems to allow both freedom of choice and Pro Life beliefs. The problem, as you said, is that the people on both sides are nuts and any adjustment is seen as a terrible thing. You get people who want to make a parental notification/consent law find themselves attacked for taking away a woman's right to choose. You have cases where a woman is gang raped and gets pregnant and wants an abortion, and is attacked for being a murderer. Neither side sees it clearly. It's too bad. Because, it's really not that hard an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 I'm trying to reason this out for myself and I have a couple of questions: Is the ability to survive outside the womb (with medical assistance) the definition of life? Is that what makes us human? What about prior to the point when a fetus is viable outside the womb, and its just a mass of cells, don't those cells comprise a living organism of some sort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Originally posted by Yomar I'm trying to reason this out for myself and I have a couple of questions: Is the ability to survive outside the womb (with medical assistance) the definition of life? Is that what makes us human? Anything with DNA that replicates must be considered 'alive'. However, that does not mean that we have any moral obligation to keep it alive. The ability to survive outside of the womb is essential in declaring something a unique living organism IMHO. Now, regarding "what makes us human", the scientific answer would be 46 chromosomes (or 47 if you have Downs Syndrome and a few other rare trisomys) with the proper genetic footprints found only in our species. Originally posted by Yomar What about prior to the point when a fetus is viable outside the womb, and its just a mass of cells, don't those cells comprise a living organism of some sort? There are such things as tumors which arise from the cells that become sperm and egg. These tumors are called germ-cell tumors and can develop teeth, bone, muscle, neural tissue, or any other tissue type found in a unique organism. But they dont constitute a unique life form that can survive outside of the genetic creator of the tissue. These cells live because they are parasitising nutrients and if they are removed from the body they will not be viable unless we keep it alive. These are genetically unique cells that arise from sperm and ova... but certainly no one would say that these constitute a unique living organism worthy of keeping alive. To imply that a fetus is like a tumor may sound cold, harsh, and sadistic. I am not stating that at all. However, from a immunological stance, that is exactly what it is. The body sees fetal tissue as being "not-self" because it is different DNA and different antigens on the cell surfaces. The only difference (and a big difference it is) between an embryo/fetus and a tumor is that one can eventually survive outside of the host and become a unique, reproducing organism. But lets remember that every sperm and every ovum has the potential to become a unique individual. Same goes for every embryo and every fetus. The point I keep getting back to is that only the ones that have developed to the point that they can survive outside of the womb SHOULD be considered a unique individual. ONLY at that point, should an abortion constitute killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 that really great information. I don't know if I see it the same way you do, I still need to digest it, but its certainly interesting and good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 25, 2003 Author Share Posted January 25, 2003 great question Yomar...I have thinking along the same lines. Good response Blade & Art. it will always be a *allbuster of a question because it often pits self interest/consequentialist thinking against universal abstractions of right/wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 I was hoping this issue would never hit the boards.... Uhhh, this tears us all apart.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Art.... In my opinion, the reason that most people are against abortion is because they feel that if they have a daughter and they say that abortion is ok, than their daughter will arrive at the opinion that it's ok to have sex and not be careful because if something happens, they can just get an abortion. On the contrary, if a parent is against abortion, they can tell their daughter, if you make a mistake and get pregnant, than you have to live with the consequences. I have said all along, I don't agree with those who use abortion as birth control, there are other means if a mistake happens, like the morning after pill. But if I had a daughter and the reality was that she were 14 and pregnant, I don't know that I would be in favor of her having a baby at that age.... at least if abortion is legal, than there is another option. The argument that it is murder is no argument in my opinion UNLESS you say that you are against abortion in ALL cases including rape and incest. Murder is murder if that is what you believe.. Sure Art, those are nice pictures of kids... How many of them have you adopted? How many of them do you support so I don't have to in my taxes?? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 27, 2003 Author Share Posted January 27, 2003 code....40 million potential people......and you haven't addressed some sticky questions... - does your 14 year old get an abortion in the 3rd trimester? - per Art's thread, why is the law inconsistent? (i.e., murder a pregnant woman and it is a double murder) - essentially, your argument pits the possible future for your 14 year old against the possible future of an unborn fetus.....ignoring the whole "what is life" argument for a moment...how do you measure one possible future against another? - what happens as scieince progressively improves the probability that extra-womb fetuses/babies will survive? is the decision simply based on where the fetus is housed? location, location, location?!!! take it out of the womb and put a fetus on support equipment is it then murder to abort? - how does one address competing rights? (i.e., women's property rights vs some concept of right to life?) or does a fetus have no rights at all? so a pregnant mom doing crack cocaine, for instance, has no culpability whatsoever..... too often, the arguments for pro-choice seem to boil down to teleological reasoning about what is best for the mother. the problem is that no one has factored the "utility value" of 40 million terminations into the moral calculus. btw....I have adopted..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Code, I don't know that I've ever clearly made the argument that abortion is murder. Aborting a child that can live outside the womb is clearly murder, sure. But, even if I do agree that all abortions are murder, that doesn't mean I'd have to be against abortion in the case of rape or incest, because, simply put, murder is acceptable to me in many cases. I've already broken that down for you. As I've said, my belief is not that abortion is murder -- until the obvious cases where it is late in the term and the child is clearly viable outside the womb. For true Pro Life people abortion is murder in all cases, including in cases of rape and incest. I do not fall into that group, so your continued mention of "murder is murder" is not a compelling argument with me, because, A: no it's not, and B: that's not my point. You have now reached the point of inanity on your, "Well, you don't want a baby aborted, and you're against welfare, how can that be?" ludicrousness. It is never my responsiblility to rescue someone from one of their mistakes. Ever. If I am inclined to be charitable with a foundation or church or organization that helps people, and children in need, then that is another choice I have, rather than forced, taxable charity the government uses. I believe this country was better off when the government let the community handle the needs of the people in it. When churches and other organizations were out in the community assisting the poor and the needy. But, as government has replaced community by taxation, things have, indeed, changed. The issue here is that you have written you just don't see a positive out of making abortion illegal. The positive is a child, Code. It can't be spelled out more clearly. If you don't get it, then you are absolutely the blind apologist for "Pro Choice" you say you are not. For the record, I have nothing to do with your taxes. You don't have to support anyone else's child with your taxes. You are forced to. You should write to your elected representative to let him know you want and end to programs that serve as forced charity on your part so you can direct your largess as you see fit. As for adoption, perhaps you are simply unaware of how that works. My wife may or may not be able to carry her own children. We have already begun the process of signing up for adoption. The wait is several years. We are precisely the couple right now that if beautiful positive children were born we would have adopted more than one by now. Unfortunately, none are available for us at present. We've considered altering our choice to a black baby, or a child of another race, but, in this country even that is years to accomplish. We may end up breaking down and brokering a child in Russia where the wait isn't nearly so long. But, sadly, you have no real idea what the adoption industry is like. If you did, and you started the process of adoption, as I already have, you'd agree abortion should be illegal because the pool of waiting, wanting, parents is out there. All of the kids are dying before they can become a positive unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Art, I'm only calling them as I see them... I feel for you and your wife, I hope that you are successful in what ever your choice is... My wife and I are having the same problem, my wife does not ovulate regularly, we have just begun down the infertility trail.. I can't speak for your experiences... however in mine, I see within the city that I live MANY children that could be adopted but are not because of either their age, color or background. I deal with these children on a daily basis through my job and it is sad... Sure, an infant has a pretty good chance to be adopted in many cases, but not all people are as open minded as you and would adopt a baby of another race, and as Navy Dave pointed out, many in the black community are against whites adopting black children... so my point is, you make a great argument, but your are only covering those cases that suit your side. Welfare is part of our taxes. I, like you, would rather choose where my money goes, to a church, the spca, or what ever else I choose. We don't get to choose how it is divided up in terms of welfare... In my city, a foster parent is paid 1,800 dollars a month per child for giving care to unwanted children. I personally have to deal with several individuals who have 6-10 children that they take care of for the money, because they do not invest this money towards these children....( I know there are probably many who do), but that money is coming out of my pocket, your pocket, other people's pocket. I see it everyday. I see the grandmothers that are trying to take care of their teenage daughter's children while the mother is in school... In short, there are many reasons to be in favor of the right to abortion or the right to life. I think it is an individual's choice to decide if abortion is wright or wrong... it is a moral judgement (except when the fetus can live outside the womb... I actually agree with you there). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.