Abortion [Archive] - JREF Forum

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 06:47 AM

Okay. I'll spend my rant here.

A couple of people have said that pro-lifers want to enslave women. This has been chafing me ever since I heard it. Just burning away inside me. It has polarized me like never before.

First, I'd like to hear them say that to these women (http://www.sba-list.org/realwomensvoices/).

Or perhaps they need to read this (http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-kond22.html).

The same poll showed that only 38 percent of American adults favor making abortion laws stricter, while 20 percent want them made less strict, and 39 percent favor retaining current laws. Fifty-three percent told Gallup they consider themselves ''pro-choice,'' while 42 percent said they are ''pro-life.''

Or this (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22793).

Of the 16 women in the South Dakota House and Senate, 11 voted in February for a bill that would ban all abortions in the state, unless it's necessary to save the mother's life.

That's a lot of women who are pro-life. That alone is enough to blow the "pro-lifers want to enslave women" argument clean out of the water.

Does anyone who thinks pro-lifers want to enslave women want to persist in their analogy and call these pro-life women "Uncle Toms" or "house ni**ers"?

Go ahead, cut your own throat.

But let's play with this stupidity a little more.

During the time of slavery in America, there was a vocal minority fighting to have a group of people recognized as human beings entitled to human rights. Abolitionists. They were opposed by those who claimed blacks aren't like us.

"Hell, boy, you can tell just by looking at them they aren't like us. Therefore, they aren't human."

"You don't want to own slaves, fine, but don't tell me what I can and can't do with my property!"

They must be white to be human; they must be "viable outside the mother's body" to be human.

Course, that eliminates everyone in a coma as human, too.

They have to look human to be human. Blacks don't look human, fetuses are just blobs of tissue. It's so much easier to kill them if they aren't recognized as human.

See how much fun equating abortion to slavery can be?

Like it or not, abortion isn't about slavery. Anyone who says it is comes across as a complete idiot.

Rant done. Fever gone. Feel better now.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 06:55 AM

HarryKeogh

22nd March 2006, 07:06 AM

wunky

22nd March 2006, 07:24 AM

I remember in elementary school that a classmate became pregnant, stupidity not rape. She did not want to keep it, the prospective father felt the same way. However, the parents of both felt differently. She did not have an abortion, had to go to a special school for teenagers with children, ran away from there. At that point we all lost track of her.
How different would her life be now if she had been allowed to have the abortion???
How come the mothers mental health/state never seems to come into play?

The Central Scrutinizer

22nd March 2006, 07:39 AM

The Central Scrutinizer

22nd March 2006, 07:41 AM

How different would her life be now if she had been allowed to have the abortion???
How come the mothers mental health/state never seems to come into play?

Because Baby Jeebus made that precious fetus, so it is automatically more important than the mother or her life.

Charlie Monoxide

22nd March 2006, 07:41 AM

My view on abortion in one concise paragraph:

When does a human become a human? What separates us from an embryo or a fetus? It's not when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg. It's not when you can see recognizable body parts in a sonogram. It's the ability to think. During those first two trimesters the brain is barely developed, certainly not enough to allow thinking as we think of it. Therefore I have no problem with abortion in the first two trimesters. In the case of risk to the woman's health I am in favor of allowing abortions in the third trimester. Why? The woman was here first...she's got dibs on living.

and as an aside...when I once presented this view to friends they objected..."but you could see the baby's hands!". True, but we could also see Terry Schiavo's hands. She was fully developed but all of us who were discussing it were in favor of pulling the plug on her. Why? No brain activity.Good one Harry. I agree.

I prefer the logic that we shouldn't be legislating women's bodies just because they have a parasite growing in them ....

Charlie (keep abortion legal) Monoxide

JamesDillon

22nd March 2006, 07:52 AM

Having addressed this issue in the Roe v. Wade thread, I'll paste my relevant comments here:

Whatever position you take on the abortion issue, I find it hard to fathom the idea that a fetus is anything but a member of the human species. You can argue about whether it is a "person," since that word has a somewhat more metaphysical connotation, but how can an organism with human DNA be anything but a member of the species homo sapiens?... Pro-choice advocates often hide behind the euphemism that a fetus is not a human being. As I noted above, I think that's a cop-out to shield one's conscience from the full implications of legalized abortion. Personally, I favor legalized abortion because I don't believe there's anything sacred about human life, and that society runs more smoothly if adults have some freedom of choice about whether or not to bring a child into the world. But I don't kid myself that abortion is anything other than the termination of a human life.

Luke, as you'll see if you've read the Roe v. Wade thread pages 6-9, not all pro-choice advocates would equate prohibition of abortion with slavery. I agree with you that such a comparison cannot legitimately be made in good faith.

Mark

22nd March 2006, 08:02 AM

Okay. I'll spend my rant here.

A couple of people have said that pro-lifers want to enslave women. This has been chafing me ever since I heard it. Just burning away inside me. It has polarized me like never before.

Chafe all you want. Most of the people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control and sex education. What else do you need to know?

22nd March 2006, 08:06 AM

Having addressed this issue in the Roe v. Wade thread, I'll paste my relevant comments here:

Luke, as you'll see if you've read the Roe v. Wade thread pages 6-9, not all pro-choice advocates would equate prohibition of abortion with slavery. I agree with you that such a comparison cannot legitimately be made in good faith.

I tend to agree with you. I don't think that anyone is in a position better than I to understand the particular issues that I face vis a vis an unwanted pregnancy. I would dearly love to know how many anti abortion advocates have adopted.

JamesDillon

22nd March 2006, 08:12 AM

Chafe all you want. Most of the people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control and sex education. What else do you need to know?
1. I'm not sure that this is statistically true, and would like to see some kind of evidence beyond the fact that "everyone knows it."
2. Even if it is true, how is anyone benefitted by the escalation of hyperbolic rhetoric that further polarizes the debate and makes objective discussion all the more difficult?

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 08:13 AM

Chafe all you want. Most of the people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control and sex education. What else do you need to know?

Certainly some pro-lifers are opposed to birth control and sex ed. I'll even grant that an awful lot of the vocal ones are, and some of them are in high places. But do you have anything to support your claim that most pro-lifers overall are opposed to these things?

Mark

22nd March 2006, 08:16 AM

Certainly some pro-lifers are opposed to birth control and sex ed. I'll even grant that an awful lot of the vocal ones are, and some of them are in high places. But do you have anything to support your claim that most pro-lifers overall are opposed to these things?

Only that the same names and groups keep popping up whenever someone wants to ban sex education or birth control programs.

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 08:19 AM

They have to look human to be human. Blacks don't look human, fetuses are just blobs of tissue. It's so much easier to kill them if they aren't recognized as human.

Luke, while I respect your position overall, and I agree with a lot of what you say, I think you're oversimplifying matters here. The issue with whether to consider a fetus as a person has nothing to do with what it looks like. It's about the fact that, in the first trimester at least, it has the brain of a lizard. Without invoking the idea of a soul, it's very difficult to make a case for the personhood of an early embryo/fetus without also arguing for vegetarianism.

No arguments later in pregnancy, though.

pgwenthold

22nd March 2006, 08:19 AM

According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.

Something doesn't make sense. 55% of Americans in 1999 believe abortion should be legal ONLY to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

OTOH, 48% in 2001 consider themselves pro-choice. Since the point of the statement is that the pro-choice are dropping, we can assume the number was at least 48% in 1999,

So how can you have 55% insist on abortion ONLY in special cases, but have 52% not pro-choice? Are there seriously people who consider "abortion only in the case of mother health, rape, or incest" to be a pro-choice position? That is not pro-choice in the least.

Something doesn't make sense.

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 08:20 AM

Only that the same names and groups keep popping up whenever someone wants to ban sex education or birth control programs.

I'm not sure I understand. If the same names keep popping up, doesn't that support the "vocal minority" idea? If it were really widespread, you'd expect to see lots and lots of different names.

Mark

22nd March 2006, 08:22 AM

I'm not sure I understand. If the same names keep popping up, doesn't that support the "vocal minority" idea? If it were really widespread, you'd expect to see lots and lots of different names.

From conservative pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control pills to abstinence-only programs and anti-condom campaigns, access to contraception is facing tough challenges from the right. The strategy is similar to one that conservatives have used for abortion: Since overturning Roe vs. Wade looks unlikely in the near term, opponents have turned their sights on limiting access to the procedure. Now members of the religious and political right -- including the Bush administration -- are focusing on contraception, raising concern that they will succeed in curbing women's birth control choices and the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/women_birth_control_salon_apr27_05.htm

mumblethrax

22nd March 2006, 08:29 AM

A couple of people have said that pro-lifers want to enslave women. This has been chafing me ever since I heard it. Just burning away inside me. It has polarized me like never before.
You probably shouldn't let it get to you too much. This accusation came from the same person who associates anyone who believes that the moral sphere might extend beyond the boundary of species with eugenicists (failing to realize, I assume, that he sweeps up several prominent skeptics and rationalists with this charge).

But that having been said, that some women oppose abortion is not a particularly good refutation of the charge; some slaves also supported slavery. It would be much better to point out that his assertion is not consistent with the common understanding of slavery, and that he's simply being a provocateur.

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 08:30 AM

Now members of the religious and political right -- including the Bush administration -- are focusing on contraception, raising concern that they will succeed in curbing women's birth control choices and the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I'm not disagreeing that there is an organized effort to limit access to contraception. I'm asking you to support your assertion that most pro-lifers support that effort.

22nd March 2006, 08:34 AM

I'm not disagreeing that there is an organized effort to limit access to contraception. I'm asking you to support your assertion that most pro-lifers support that effort.

Practicing Catholics and Orthodox Jews that observe religious teaching would oppose both. In practice, who knows?

Magyar

22nd March 2006, 08:51 AM

Okay. I'll spend my rant here.

But let's play with this stupidity a little more.

.

OK, I'll play! I venture to guess that there are AT LEAST 3 times as many women who believe that Sharia laws are a good idea as there are pro-life women. So Luke when ARE we going to pass laws to require all women to walk around in burkas in the US because brainwashed ignorants believe it's a good idea?

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 08:54 AM

Chafe all you want. Most of the people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control and sex education. What else do you need to know?

Please provide evidence that MOST of the people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control and sex education.

Also, do you think pro-life women want to force women into slavery, or could it be, for them, it is about saving human beings from being killed? Is that concept within your capacity of understanding?

Mark

22nd March 2006, 08:54 AM

I'm not disagreeing that there is an organized effort to limit access to contraception. I'm asking you to support your assertion that most pro-lifers support that effort.

Asked and answered. I have not conducted a study...but with the major Christian sects opposed to both it is an educated guess. Certainly groups like Operations Rescue and their ilk have come out against both. Some of them even oppose a vaccine for cervical cancer...fearing it will increase promiscuity. It is---at the very least---a huge percentage.

A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000747.html

So, again, you and Luke can chafe all you want. Controlling women is a large motivation for MANY of these people.

alock

22nd March 2006, 08:56 AM

The problem with the pro-life message that rarely even gets talked about is that if you treat a fetus with full human rights, you have to treat it with full human rights.

Yes, that sentance doesn't make much sense, but read it again. It implies that all miscarriages MUST be treated exactly the same as an infant death. I have a friend who didn't know whe was pregnant (she was ill which made the pill less effective). She went out one night and got very drunk and the next day had a miscarriage.

Should she be charged with the fetus's death? Maybe even a murder charge? Should she have to go through the stress of a police investigation?

Mark

22nd March 2006, 08:56 AM

Please provide evidence that MOST of the people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control and sex education.

Also, do you think pro-life women want to force women into slavery?

Please justify your "chafing" given that some of these people even oppose a cervical cancer vaccine.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 08:57 AM

Please justify your "chafing" given that some of these people even oppose a cervical cancer vaccine.
Please provide evidence that MOST of the people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control and sex education.

Mark

22nd March 2006, 08:59 AM

Please provide evidence that MOST of the people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control and sex education.

See my posts above.

You didn't answer my question.

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 09:05 AM

Asked and answered. I have not conducted a study...but with the major Christian sects opposed to both it is an educated guess.

Heh...obviously you don't know many Catholics if you think that most of them really do follow the party line about birth control. At best, they grudgingly pay lip service to Rome's official position, while secretly (or overtly) wishing it were different. And I doubt very much that many of them want to make it unavailable to others.

What other "major Christian sects" oppose contraception? I think we can agree that the number of Orthodox Jews in the U.S. is small enough to be disregarded.

JamesDillon

22nd March 2006, 09:06 AM

Why is it that the people who appear to share my pro-choice policy preferences are the less reasonable ones in both threads of this debate?

Asked and answered. I have not conducted a study...but with the major Christian sects opposed to both it is an educated guess.

Asked and answered, indeed-- you have no basis for your assertion that most pro-life advocates oppose sex education. Got it. (I might add that, whatever the "sects" say, I know plenty of practicing Catholics and Protestants who support abortion rights and sex education, so I don't think you can legitimately use the doctrine of the churches as a proxy for individual opinion here).

Certainly groups like Operations Rescue and their ilk have come out against both. Some of them even oppose a vaccine for cervical cancer...fearing it will increase promiscuity.
Does the membership of Operation Rescue comprise 50.1% of the American population? If not, the fact that some people hold this views proves nothing about whether most people do.

It is---at the very least---a huge percentage.
"Huge" is a relative, squishy term. The question was whether you can defend your assertion that "most", i.e., a majority, of pro-life advocates also oppose sex education.

So, again, you and Luke can chafe all you want. Controlling women is a large motivation for MANY of these people.
1. So we're down from "most" to "many" now?
2. Does "controlling women" in all instances equate to "slavery"? I would submit that only absolute control, stripping women of all personal autonomy, could be justifiably compared to slavery.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 09:09 AM

See my posts above.

You didn't answer my question.

Nowhere to any of your posts support that "MOST of the people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control and sex education."

No Conflict Between Abstinence, Birth Control

Debates over sex education in schools often pit abstinence instruction against providing students information on birth control methods. But the public sees no conflict in pursuing both of these approaches: 78% favor allowing public schools to provide students with birth control information; nearly as many (76%) believe schools should teach teenagers to abstain from sex until marriage.

Solid majorities in every major religious group say schools should be allowed to provide students with information on birth control methods. But a sizable minority of white evangelical Protestants (30%) are opposed.

Link (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=253)

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 09:11 AM

OK, I'll play! I venture to guess that there are AT LEAST 3 times as many women who believe that Sharia laws are a good idea as there are pro-life women. So Luke when ARE we going to pass laws to require all women to walk around in burkas in the US because brainwashed ignorants believe it's a good idea?

Please back up your "guess" before asking me to fulfill your demented fantasy.

Manny

22nd March 2006, 09:13 AM

My view on abortion in one concise paragraph:

When does a human become a human? What separates us from an embryo or a fetus? It's not when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg. It's not when you can see recognizable body parts in a sonogram. It's the ability to think. During those first two trimesters the brain is barely developed, certainly not enough to allow thinking as we think of it. Therefore I have no problem with abortion in the first two trimesters. In the case of risk to the woman's health I am in favor of allowing abortions in the third trimester. Why? The woman was here first...she's got dibs on living.This is a thoughtful, mature position on the issue. My evidence for that is that it pretty closely mirrors my own. :D

That said, "barely developed" is an overstatement. It's true that at 16 weeks the brain is significantly less developed than it is at, say, 38 weeks. However, it is in a sufficient state of development that at least sometimes normal further brain development can continue outside the womb. As something to think about, meet a cute pair of 17-week-premature babies (http://www.healthcharities.org/pubs-stories2766/pubs-stories_show.htm?doc_id=291414). Just something to think about -- it's entirely possible that in some senses brain viability actually precedes body viability. As medical breakthroughs continue to occur, there may arise perfectly legitimate challenges to the "second trimester" as a cutoff and that the "right" cutoff will be seen to occur sometime earlier.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 09:14 AM

Asked and answered. I have not conducted a study...but with the major Christian sects opposed to both it is an educated guess.

An ignorant guess based on your biases. You have got to be kidding. And from this completely erroneous guess, you extrapolated that pro-lifers want to enslave women.

Keep digging.

It is---at the very least---a huge percentage.

You are---at the very least---completely talking out of your ass.

Your "slavery" belief has no fact behind it.

So, again, you and Luke can chafe all you want. Controlling women is a large motivation for MANY of these people.

Here we see the shifting goal posts. MOST becomes "some" and "many".

The "slavery" assertion is MOSTLY bullsh*t.

Mark

22nd March 2006, 09:17 AM

Nowhere to any of your posts support that "MOST of the people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control and sex education."

Link (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=253)

Since I backed down on that and ammended it to MANY your point is, shall we say, dated.

Explain your position is light of the fact that groups have come out opposing abortion AND cervical cancer vaccine. Stop evading, Luke.

From conservative pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control pills to abstinence-only programs and anti-condom campaigns, access to contraception is facing tough challenges from the right. The strategy is similar to one that conservatives have used for abortion: Since overturning Roe vs. Wade looks unlikely in the near term, opponents have turned their sights on limiting access to the procedure. Now members of the religious and political right -- including the Bush administration -- are focusing on contraception, raising concern that they will succeed in curbing women's birth control choices and the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

"I am deeply concerned that they have gone further than I have ever seen them. This is far past a woman's right to make decisions regarding abortion to the point now that it's about their right to make decisions on contraception," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., told Salon. Murray and her Senate colleague Hillary Clinton have blocked President Bush's nominee to head the FDA, Lester Crawford, over his inaction as acting director of the agency to approve the morning-after pill for over-the-counter sale. An FDA advisory committee has given the drug overwhelming support as safe and effective, and Canada approved its nonprescription status last week. Publicly, Crawford says his indecision on the drug has nothing to do with ideology, but privately he told Murray it raises his concerns about "behavior," apparently alluding to arguments that the pill will encourage promiscuity.

There are also indications Crawford sides with those that equate Plan B with "chemical abortion." During his confirmation hearing two weeks ago, Clinton asked Crawford: "Would you clarify for the committee that emergency contraception is a method for prevention of pregnancy, not the termination of pregnancy?" Crawford responded: "I may need to confer with the experts in the FDA about exactly what the physiology of it is." Labels on Plan B, the name that its maker, Barr Laboratories, has given it, say "for the prevention of pregnancy."
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/27/birth_control/index.html

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 09:36 AM

Since I backed down on that and ammended it to MANY your point is, shall we say, dated.

Explain your position is light of the fact that groups have come out opposing abortion AND cervical cancer vaccine. Stop evading, Luke.

You are the one evading. To support the belief system that pro-lifers want to enslave women, you attempted to prove that belief by claiming that MOST opposed birth control and sex education. After which you said, "What else do you need to know?" As if that settled it, proved it.

So now that your evidence to support your belief system turns out to be false, you are evading. You constructed a straw man pro-lifer and it fell on you.

What else to you need to know?

There are reasonable arguments and opinions to support the pro-choice position. And there are reasonable arguments and opinions to support the pro-life position.

Opposing cervical cancer vaccines and saying pro-lifers want to enslave women are unreasonable positions. Fortunateley for everyone, the cervical cancer vaccine opponents and "pro-lifers want to enslave women" bozos are a MINORITY.

KingMerv00

22nd March 2006, 09:43 AM

My view on abortion in one concise paragraph:

When does a human become a human? What separates us from an embryo or a fetus? It's not when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg. It's not when you can see recognizable body parts in a sonogram. It's the ability to think. During those first two trimesters the brain is barely developed, certainly not enough to allow thinking as we think of it. Therefore I have no problem with abortion in the first two trimesters. In the case of risk to the woman's health I am in favor of allowing abortions in the third trimester. Why? The woman was here first...she's got dibs on living.

and as an aside...when I once presented this view to friends they objected..."but you could see the baby's hands!". True, but we could also see Terry Schiavo's hands. She was fully developed but all of us who were discussing it were in favor of pulling the plug on her. Why? No brain activity.

Just to expand:

This is the same reason people see humans as superior to animals. Our capacity to think abstractly is what separates us from bugs and cows. Anyone who eats meat implicitly accepts this.

But you never see a conservative with a sign that reads: "Chicken stir fry stops a beating heart." Why? Because the beating heart doesn't make an animal into a human. The brain does.

A fetus without a developed brain isn't human.

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 09:45 AM

But you never see a conservative with a sign that reads: "Chicken stir fry stops a beating heart." Why? Because the beating heart doesn't make an animal into a human. The brain does.

Well, I suspect they would say that it involves the soul, not the brain. Not that I disagree with your point; I just think that they would.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 10:08 AM

I think the entire spectrum is covered. From those who think it is human from the moment the sperm penetrates the egg to those who don't think it is human until it draws its first breath.

Somewhere in the second trimester, there may be an overlap between people who believe the same exact thing and yet some call themselves "pro-life" while others call themselves "pro-choice".

I have not settled on when I believe it is human. But even if I arbitrarily decided it isn't human until Day 90, and could be aborted prior to that, I would still call myself "pro-life" because that position is in opposition to Roe v. Wade.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 10:14 AM

Something doesn't make sense. 55% of Americans in 1999 believe abortion should be legal ONLY to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

OTOH, 48% in 2001 consider themselves pro-choice. Since the point of the statement is that the pro-choice are dropping, we can assume the number was at least 48% in 1999,

So how can you have 55% insist on abortion ONLY in special cases, but have 52% not pro-choice? Are there seriously people who consider "abortion only in the case of mother health, rape, or incest" to be a pro-choice position? That is not pro-choice in the least.

Something doesn't make sense.

This is why the way questions are worded on polls is so important. And it is why it is important that when poll results are discussed, that the questions that were asked be printed verbatim.

If what I stated above about "overlap" is true, it would explain the confusion. It is possible two people could hold the exact same belief about second trimester fetuses and one consider themselves "pro-choice" while the other considers themselves "pro-life."

pgwenthold

22nd March 2006, 10:23 AM

This is why the way questions are worded on polls is so important. And it is why it is important that when poll results are discussed, that the questions that were asked be printed verbatim.

If what I stated above about "overlap" is true, it would explain the confusion. It is possible two people could hold the exact same belief about second trimester fetuses and one consider themselves "pro-choice" while the other considers themselves "pro-life."

Your first statement didn't qualify anything about 2nd semester (at least in the part about the 55%). The statement is that 55% believe abortion should only be allowed when the health of the mother is in danger, or in the case of rape or incest. This applies to 3rd, 2nd, and EVEN 1st trimester! abortions.

I ask, are there really people who think that even 1st trimester abortions should only be allowed in these exceptional cases who consider themselves to be pro-choice? Exactly what _choice_ are they for?

Belz...

22nd March 2006, 10:30 AM

When does a human become a human? What separates us from an embryo or a fetus? It's not when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg. It's not when you can see recognizable body parts in a sonogram. It's the ability to think. During those first two trimesters the brain is barely developed, certainly not enough to allow thinking as we think of it. Therefore I have no problem with abortion in the first two trimesters. In the case of risk to the woman's health I am in favor of allowing abortions in the third trimester. Why? The woman was here first...she's got dibs on living.

and as an aside...when I once presented this view to friends they objected..."but you could see the baby's hands!". True, but we could also see Terry Schiavo's hands. She was fully developed but all of us who were discussing it were in favor of pulling the plug on her. Why? No brain activity.

I tend to agree, too, though I'm still fuzzy on the issue as a whole. One question, however: in the third trimester, the brain is more develloped... but is the baby sentient ? I doubt it. So, no harm done, right ? So, what's the argument against abortion in late-pregnancy ?

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 10:33 AM

I tend to agree, too, though I'm still fuzzy on the issue as a whole. One question, however: in the third trimester, the brain is more develloped... but is the baby sentient ? I doubt it. So, no harm done, right ? So, what's the argument against abortion in late-pregnancy ?

Erring on the side of caution, I'd say. It's a smooth transition from "blob of tissue" to "sentient adult." We have to draw the line somewhere, and we should do it reasonably conservatively.

KingMerv00

22nd March 2006, 10:34 AM

I tend to agree, too, though I'm still fuzzy on the issue as a whole. One question, however: in the third trimester, the brain is more develloped... but is the baby sentient ? I doubt it. So, no harm done, right ? So, what's the argument against abortion in late-pregnancy ?

Caution I suppose. A 6 month fetus may not be sentient but better safe than sorry. Best to figure out when the brain will develop and say that abortion should be illegal a little before that.

JamesDillon

22nd March 2006, 10:37 AM

I have not settled on when I believe it is human. But even if I arbitrarily decided it isn't human until Day 90, and could be aborted prior to that, I would still call myself "pro-life" because that position is in opposition to Roe v. Wade.

How so? Roe adopted a view very similar to that which you described in its trimester system.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 10:42 AM

The issue of consciousness is not resolved. 6 months is not a sure thing.

The impetus to ban the partial birth abortion procedure was triggered in large part by growing scientific evidence that the unborn child feels pain. Dr. K. S. Anand, the world’s foremost authority on research into pain perception in fetal and neonatal children testified as an expert witness at another Partial Birth Abortion trial in New York, saying that the fetus feels pain by 20 weeks, possibly even earlier, and that the pain endured by the child during a partial birth abortion would be “prolonged and excruciating.” “Such evidence is very damaging to the abortion industry,” Dr. Johnston noted.

Referring to the study itself, Dr. Johnston pointed out that this study did not involve any new research to assess fetal pain; rather, this study was an interpretation of the results of previous studies. “And a number of those interpretations are just not scientifically grounded,” Dr. Johnston said. The researchers refer to one study of 102 premature newborns which used an electrical recording method (evoked potentials) to record the brain’s responses to stimuli. That study found that signals are present at 29 weeks. “The researchers of this study use that as evidence to support their claim that pain is not felt until 29 weeks—yet they failed to inform the reader that that study of newborns involved only two who were under 29 weeks, but even they evoked a response, although slightly delayed compared to the rest.”

Another weakness involves interpretation of studies which used electroencephalography (EEG) to measure brain activity. The researchers refer to a study which found normal EEG signals appear at 24 weeks which they dismiss in favour of another study which found that EEG signals representing wakefulness appear around 30 weeks and conclude from this that pain is not felt until 30 weeks. “They are assuming wakefulness is needed before pain can be felt,” Dr. Johnston said “Wakefulness is a red herring. Preemies sleep a lot, and their EEG—like ours—is markedly different in the waking or sleeping state. But if I hurt someone while they’re asleep, they will immediately wake with pain. The key is that normal EEG waves were recorded as early as 24 weeks and this finding is discounted by the researchers.”

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/05082607.html

Belz...

22nd March 2006, 10:43 AM

Caution I suppose. A 6 month fetus may not be sentient but better safe than sorry. Best to figure out when the brain will develop and say that abortion should be illegal a little before that.

I guess so.

My father's pro-life; and the only argument he could come up with is viability of the foetus. I retorted that a separated egg and sperm still constitute a viable foetus by that definition. Then he caricatured the pro-choice camp by saying that abortion should be legal up until child birth...

Ah, the utter joy of arguing with people who don't understand their own position.

Mark

22nd March 2006, 10:43 AM

Opposing cervical cancer vaccines and saying pro-lifers want to enslave women are unreasonable positions. Fortunateley for everyone, the cervical cancer vaccine opponents and "pro-lifers want to enslave women" bozos are a MINORITY.

Minority? Please provide your evidence. Or am I to be held to a different standard?

Btw, the fact that I am willing to admit when I have overstated something is a good trait, Luke. Try it sometime.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 10:44 AM

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 10:48 AM

This debate is interesting. We have already used the EEG as a definition of "death" in the brain death statutes; if there is no EEG activity, then there is brain death. If we stay consistent, we should consider that a fetal EEG can be measured at about 8 weeks, and thus, the fetus is "brain alive" at that point.

But "brain alive" is irrelevant. A cow is "brain alive," but I'm eating a hamburger right now. While an EEG would definitely establish that the fetus is alive, that fact has never been in dispute. As far as I know, it does nothing to establish whether a fetus's brain is developed enough for it to be considered a person.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 10:49 AM

Minority? Please provide your evidence. Or am I to be held to a different standard?

Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public health tool but oppose making it mandatory.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000747_pf.html)

Btw, the fact that I am willing to admit when I have overstated something is a good trait, Luke. Try it sometime.

But do you still believe pro-lifers want to enslave women? And if so, why do you still believe it?

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 10:51 AM

But "brain alive" is irrelevant. A cow is "brain alive," but I'm eating a hamburger right now. While an EEG would definitely establish that the fetus is alive, that fact has never been in dispute. As far as I know, it does nothing to establish whether a fetus's brain is developed enough for it to be considered a person.

If any brain activity is good enough to prevent someone from being declared dead, and therefore still a human with human rights, then what does the amount of brain activity have to do with whether they are human?

strathmeyer

22nd March 2006, 10:52 AM

But do you still believe pro-lifers want to enslave women? And if so, why do you still believe it?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery

3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.

It's difficult to have a discussion with someone when they used words against their meaning. You keep pretending that what you think is true. It's obvious that you aren't listening to anyone but yourself.

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 10:54 AM

If any brain activity is good enough to prevent someone from being declared dead, and therefore still a human with human rights, then what does the amount of brain activity have to do with whether they are human?

Because a dying adult has the brain of, well, an adult, and we know that a functioning adult brain means it's a person. A first-trimester fetus has the brain of a lizard, so we have no basis for presuming personhood, even if the brain is functioning as it's supposed to.

ETA: In other words, the EEG doesn't show that it's a human life, it just shows that it's a life. The "human" part is deduced from other evidence -- evidence which doesn't exist in the case of the fetus.

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 10:59 AM

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery

3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.

It's difficult to have a discussion with someone when they used words against their meaning. You keep pretending that what you think is true. It's obvious that you aren't listening to anyone but yourself.

Come on, now. You deliberately chose the third listed definition, even though you know full well that's not what people mean by "slavery" in normal discourse.

"Subject or addicted to a specified influence?" Who the hell isn't "subject to a specified influence?"

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 11:00 AM

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery

3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.

It's difficult to have a discussion with someone when they used words against their meaning. You keep pretending that what you think is true. It's obvious that you aren't listening to anyone but yourself.

Are you enslaved by every law? You are subject to their influence. Is someone who wants you to wear a seatbelt seeking to enslave you?

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 11:02 AM

My point about slavery is that it is a presumption of the other guy's motives. And if you presume wrong (build a strawman), then you are barking up the wrong tree.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 11:05 AM

Why would someone oppose the cervical cancer vaccine? Is it because they wish to enslave women, or is their motive a belief that it would encourage promiscuity?

Why would someone oppose abortion? Is it because they wish to enslave women, or because they believe a human life is being killed?

How can you debate someone and try to reason with them when you are arguing the wrong point?

You want to debate with them and call them enslavers, fine. You'll get nowhere. You want to show them that a vaccine does not raise the number of teenage pregnancies (ETA: and simultaneously DOES save lives), you might get somewhere.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 11:12 AM

Because a dying adult has the brain of, well, an adult, and we know that a functioning adult brain means it's a person. A first-trimester fetus has the brain of a lizard, so we have no basis for presuming personhood, even if the brain is functioning as it's supposed to.

ETA: In other words, the EEG doesn't show that it's a human life, it just shows that it's a life. The "human" part is deduced from other evidence -- evidence which doesn't exist in the case of the fetus.

"Human" is arbitrarily defined. For one extreme of the pro-life position, it is human the second the sperm penetrates the egg.

So their "evidence" would be that the sperm has penetrated the egg.

That is what the abortion debate is about. That's what the "slavery" camp doesn't get.

ETA: The human rights of the fetus supercedes the mother's right to choose life or death for that fetus. It's that simple.

22nd March 2006, 11:20 AM

Why is it that the people who appear to share my pro-choice policy preferences are the less reasonable ones in both threads of this debate?

Well, one of the reasons you could be saying that (your saying it does not make it true, and you've already demonstrated your willingness to build straw men and put them at other people's feet over and over) is because you want to cast pro-choice people in a bad light.

No, beyond your own rather unusual actions I have no evidence, but you've shown more than one or two examples of creative rhetorical malpractice already.

Now, when do you think a human comes about in the process of human conception and gestation?

Let's start with that.

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 11:20 AM

"Human" is arbitrarily defined. For one extreme of the pro-life position, it is human the second the sperm penetrates the egg.

It's arbitrary, but not completely arbitrary. We can, for example, notice that nobody below a certain level of brain development exhibits behaviors or traits we associate with personhood.

Defining personhood involves a certain amount of judgement, but I think determining whether any given fetus matches the criteria we eventually settle on can be done empirically.

JamesDillon

22nd March 2006, 11:23 AM

ETA: The human rights of the fetus supercedes the mother's right to choose life or death for that fetus. It's that simple.

That, really, is the crux of this whole issue, and that's where I disagree with you. Even conceding that a developing embryo/fetus is "human" (and given the fact that it contains a full human genome, what else could you call it?), since when is every human's right to life absolutely inviolable? Whatever interest the developing child may have in its life must be pretty minimal at the stage before its body is even fully developed, whereas the mother of the child has a strong liberty/autonomy interest in her own body, and society has an interest in preventing unwanted children, for which it frequently ends up bearing all or part of the cost. These are the interests that must be balanced in deciding whether abortion should be legally permissible; the whole "is it a human?" issue is a smokescreen thrown up, unfortunately, by pro-choice advocates who get a bit squeamish when faced with the brute fact that abortion terminates a human life. Yes, it terminates a human life, but, on balance, I still think that legal abortion should be preserved.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 11:25 AM

It's arbitrary, but not completely arbitrary. We can, for example, notice that nobody below a certain level of brain development exhibits behaviors or traits we associate with personhood.

Defining personhood involves a certain amount of judgement, but I think determining whether any given fetus matches the criteria we eventually settle on can be done empirically.

Those who decide it is human from the moment of conception are basing their opinion on their personal philosophy. Not empirical evidence.

I started a topic yesterday about my coworker and his wife who lost their baby two months into the pregnancy. They are grieving the loss of that life the same as someone who has lost a birthed child grieves.

22nd March 2006, 11:26 AM

"Human" is arbitrarily defined. For one extreme of the pro-life position, it is human the second the sperm penetrates the egg.

Even though modern medicine understands that there is a lot of chemical interaction between mom and the fertilized egg that creates the chemical gradients that actually cause the fertilized egg to differentiate properly and become a fetus, and then a baby?

So their "evidence" would be that the sperm has penetrated the egg.

But modern science shows clearly that that, alone, is not enough to make a baby. Chemical developmental cues are a basic part of how a fetus is created from an undifferentiated cell. The totality of what it takes to become human is therefore not present in the fertilized ovum, it does appear.

That is what the abortion debate is about. That's what the "slavery" camp doesn't get.

That's exactly what the people who oppose a woman being forced to carry an unwanted child understand, Luke, the people who make this unreasonable, anti-scientific assertion are forcing a woman to risk health, life, and limb, and for something that is not yet even potentially a capable organism. There is more to fetal development than the genes in the fertilized ovum.

ETA: The human rights of the fetus supercedes the mother's right to choose life or death for that fetus. It's that simple.

In other words, you chose a definition of "human" that includes "potential human" since all of the organizational information is not yet present in the fertilized ovum, ergo you have to also be against birth control, etc. as murder.

Please be consistent.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 11:28 AM

That, really, is the crux of this whole issue, and that's where I disagree with you. Even conceding that a developing embryo/fetus is "human" (and given the fact that it contains a full human genome, what else could you call it?), since when is every human's right to life absolutely inviolable?

Since when is every woman's right to choose absolutely inviolable?

Whatever interest the developing child may have in its life must be pretty minimal at the stage before its body is even fully developed, whereas the mother of the child has a strong liberty/autonomy interest in her own body, and society has an interest in preventing unwanted children, for which it frequently ends up bearing all or part of the cost.

Shall we guillotine all the residents of orphanages then?

These are the interests that must be balanced in deciding whether abortion should be legally permissible; the whole "is it a human?" issue is a smokescreen thrown up, unfortunately, by pro-choice advocates who get a bit squeamish when faced with the brute fact that abortion terminates a human life. Yes, it terminates a human life, but, on balance, I still think that legal abortion should be preserved.

At what point would you draw the line for an abortion? Eight months? Seven months? Right up until the baby crowns?

JamesDillon

22nd March 2006, 11:29 AM

Now, when do you think a human comes about in the process of human conception and gestation?

Let's start with that.

jj,

I have already answered this question for you several times. What would you call a developing embryo/fetus that contains a full set of human DNA other than "human"? It's clearly not a duck. As I have said before, several times, including in response to one of your own posts in the Roe v. Wade thread, a legitimate argument might be made about whether a developing embryo is a "person," since that term has more of a metaphysical connotation, but I can't fathom any legitimate argument for the proposition that a developing embryo is anything other than a member of the human species.

22nd March 2006, 11:30 AM

Even conceding that a developing embryo/fetus is "human" (and given the fact that it contains a full human genome, what else could you call it?),

An ovum (fertilized, or not), with all the nutrients in the right places and proportions, can not become a human being, at least yet. There are a number of processes discovered that happen during implantation, etc, that trigger a variety of other processes that ensure (usually) proper tissue differentiation, etc. These processes would appear to be feedback-mediated at the cell level, and at least somewhat adaptive, which leaves us with a very interesting time if we try to do an external "gestation".

For more information on this, look for biochemical studies on fetal development, for discussions on the discoveries related to chemical gradients across cellls, intercellular chemical messaging, etc. The field is quite new, but some of the discoveries are very interesting indeed, and explain why mammals have generally different regrowth ability than, say, critters that come from eggs.

JamesDillon

22nd March 2006, 11:32 AM

Since when is every woman's right to choose absolutely inviolable?
It isn't, which is why we can proscribe late-term abortions, and prevent women from throwing their babies in trash cans after birth. We're talking about a balancing of interests here.

Shall we guillotine all the residents of orphanages then?
No. And please, after I've gone out of my way to criticize the folks on my side of this debate for indulging in absurd rhetorical hyperbole, don't start doing it yourself.

At what point would you draw the line for an abortion? Eight months? Seven months? Right up until the baby crowns?
I have no idea; I doubt there's a clear moment at which the balance of interests shifts. So the courts do the best they can in addressing a complex question. That doesn't undermine the fact that some balancing of interests is necessary.

22nd March 2006, 11:32 AM

It's clearly not a duck.

Nor, by itself (assuming all the nutrients in the right places at the right times, starving a person is not an acceptable proposal here), is it capable of organizing itself into the organs, limbs, etc, that usually constitute a human being until well after implantation, after limb buds, various tissue movements and differentiation, etc, have taken place.

So it's not a human either, it's a potential human. Of course, an egg and a sperm are also parts of a potential human. If you want to protect one, you have to protect the lot to be consistent, eh?

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 11:33 AM

They must be white to be human; they must be "viable outside the mother's body" to be human.

Course, that eliminates everyone in a coma as human, too.

I'm reading "Contemporary Cases in Women's Rights" by Leslie Friedman Goldstein, a professor of political science at the university of delaware. In her book, the most recent definition of "viability" was decided in a 1983 Planned Parenthood case- the Court ruled that the definition of viability was "when, in the judgement of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support" so yes, people on life-support or still viable human beings. I don't personally agree with this in the latter sense... but its a great arguement to use for the fact that a child born pre-mature from the 2nd trimester is viable in this sense, therefore, it must be viable if it is in the mother during the 2nd semester and through to a timely birth.

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 11:35 AM

Those who decide it is human from the moment of conception are basing their opinion on their personal philosophy. Not empirical evidence.

Yes, which is why I think they're being silly. Laws should not be put on the books based on irrational thinking.

I started a topic yesterday about my coworker and his wife who lost their baby two months into the pregnancy. They are grieving the loss of that life the same as someone who has lost a birthed child grieves.

I feel for them, but the fact that they're grieving doesn't mean they're right, it just means they're sincere, which I wouldn't doubt in most cases.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 11:37 AM

Even though modern medicine understands that there is a lot of chemical interaction between mom and the fertilized egg that creates the chemical gradients that actually cause the fertilized egg to differentiate properly and become a fetus, and then a baby?

Yes, jj. They still believe it is human.

But modern science shows clearly that that, alone, is not enough to make a baby. Chemical developmental cues are a basic part of how a fetus is created from an undifferentiated cell. The totality of what it takes to become human is therefore not present in the fertilized ovum, it does appear.

jj, you are not hearing me.

That's exactly what the people who oppose a woman being forced to carry an unwanted child understand, Luke, the people who make this unreasonable, anti-scientific assertion are forcing a woman to risk health, life, and limb, and for something that is not yet even potentially a capable organism. There is more to fetal development than the genes in the fertilized ovum.

jj, do you know what percentage of abortions are for the health, life, and limb of the mother? Somewhere around, or less than, one percent. Out of 1.3 million abortions (or thereabouts) annually.

In other words, you chose a definition of "human" that includes "potential human" since all of the organizational information is not yet present in the fertilized ovum, ergo you have to also be against birth control, etc. as murder.

No. At some point, I think both you and I would agree that what is inside the mother is a human being. Eight months, maybe? And would you not agree that at that point the baby's life supercedes the mother's desire to abort it for reasons other than her life?

Please be consistent.

I am being consistent. I think you are misunderstanding me. I have said that I am undecided when it is human. I have said that others believe it is human from the moment of conception.

Whenever anyone decides it is human, whatever point that is (which is the crux of the debate), then its life must supercede the mother's right to choose.

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 11:37 AM

It's the ability to think. You're thinking completely in philosophical terms, not biological. If you have any scientific evidence to prove your findings, please share them. The minute we stop philosophizing about the basis for the definition of human life and start looking at if from a biological and scientific approach, that's when we'll see the truth about human life (in my opinion).

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 11:39 AM

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 11:39 AM

Yes, which is why I think they're being silly. Laws should not be put on the books based on irrational thinking.

I feel for them, but the fact that they're grieving doesn't mean they're right, it just means they're sincere, which I wouldn't doubt in most cases.

No, it doesn't. I mention it because I want people to understand that this really is a life and death issue for pro-lifers. The saving of human life. Not slavery.

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 11:41 AM

No, it doesn't. I mention it because I want people to understand that this really is a life and death issue for pro-lifers. The saving of human life. Not slavery.

Oh, sorry. :) I've always been on your side with that one.

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 11:42 AM

I tend to agree with you. I don't think that anyone is in a position better than I to understand the particular issues that I face vis a vis an unwanted pregnancy. I would dearly love to know how many anti abortion advocates have adopted.I know this doesn't mean much in numbers, but my father is 50 and he just adopted a baby boy from a 14 year old rape victim.

HarryKeogh

22nd March 2006, 11:45 AM

You're thinking completely in philosophical terms, not biological. If you have any scientific evidence to prove your findings, please share them. The minute we stop philosophizing about the basis for the definition of human life and start looking at if from a biological and scientific approach, that's when we'll see the truth about human life (in my opinion).

I'm certainly not thinking entirely in philosophical terms. There is science involved.

Here's a great essay by Carl Sagan which greatly influenced my position on abortion:
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain--principally in the top layers of the convoluted "gray matter" called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn't begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy--the sixth month. By placing harmless electrodes on a subject's head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 11:47 AM

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 11:48 AM

Are there seriously people who consider "abortion only in the case of mother health, rape, or incest" to be a pro-choice position? That is not pro-choice in the least.
. Sure it is. It makes sense when you review definition of terms in each court case. "Health" isn't limited to physical health. Health is also subject to "emotional health". In other words- if a pregnant woman cites that continuing an abortion will be emotionally devistating, then that is groups for legal abortion- and since emotional health is far less tangable, I believe, than physical health... well, you know the rest, just look at the abortion statistics.

JamesDillon

22nd March 2006, 11:50 AM

So it's not a human either, it's a potential human. Of course, an egg and a sperm are also parts of a potential human. If you want to protect one, you have to protect the lot to be consistent, eh?

No, because neither a sperm nor egg by themselves contain a full human genome.

We seem to be disagreeing on the definition of the word "human," rather than whether a developing embryo really is one. I would submit that any biological entity with human DNA is a human in the biological sense. Whether it is a "person" or not is a trickier question with perhaps no clear answer.

KingMerv00

22nd March 2006, 11:51 AM

jj,

I have already answered this question for you several times. What would you call a developing embryo/fetus that contains a full set of human DNA other than "human"?

Zygote, embryo, fetus?

I do not categorize something as "human" simply because it has human DNA. Hell, a dead body has a human genome. Brain function is an absolute requirement to have rights.

JamesDillon

22nd March 2006, 11:54 AM

Zygote, embryo, fetus?

I do not categorize something as "human" simply because it has human DNA. Hell, a dead body has a human genome. Brain function is an absolute requirement to have rights.

And a dead body is a dead human, is it not? But, as I noted in my response to jj above, we seem to be arguing about two different things.

Would you accept the proposition that "any biological entity with human DNA is a member of the species homo sapiens"? If not, why not? This is a purely biological statement that has nothing to do with whether a biological entity with human DNA has "rights."

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 11:56 AM

And that's the brick wall in the debate right there.

Your own opinion is a philosophy. The fact we value a living breathing human being over a cow is a moral philosophy. You're using my attempt to shy away from absoluteness by saying "in my opinion" to side-step my support of objective scientific evidence.

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 12:01 PM

You know, I love eating eggs. Eggs and crispy bacon with some dark hashbrowns, sourdough toastand strawberry jam and a glass of oj and milk. Have you ever been cooking, and you break an egg and drop the insides into a frying pan and you see a little baby chicken fetus surrounded by blood. "Ewwwe" Why are you so grossed out? The chicken wasn't developed enough to think when it was alive in that egg- so its really not a chicken.....

Just food for thought *ooh, no pun intended, sheesh*

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 12:03 PM

You're using my attempt to shy away from absoluteness by saying "in my opinion" to side-step my support of objective scientific evidence.

I am not trying to side-step your support of objective scientific evidence. That is one of the arguments for determining when a fetus is human that I consider to be very reasonable. I just want it to be understood that there are other reasonable arguments which disagree with that method of determination.

Mark

22nd March 2006, 12:09 PM

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000747_pf.html)

But do you still believe pro-lifers want to enslave women? And if so, why do you still believe it?

I saw nothing in the article to justify the term "minority." Either provide the poll results or stop using the term...that's what you demanded of me; I am merely asking for the same.

And, yes, significant numbers (the word corrected to obey the standard you hold for me and not for yourself) of people in the anti-abortion movement have as their main agenda controlling the behavior of women. I never used the term "enslave." You did that.

KingMerv00

22nd March 2006, 12:09 PM

And a dead body is a dead human, is it not? But, as I noted in my response to jj above, we seem to be arguing about two different things.

Would you accept the proposition that "any biological entity with human DNA is a member of the species homo sapiens"? If not, why not?

I'll agree if you want. Words are just arbitrarily defined anyway. You say that:

Human = Human DNA
person = Human DNA + life + self-awareness

Is that correct? Now what?

Mark

22nd March 2006, 12:10 PM

And a dead body is a dead human, is it not? But, as I noted in my response to jj above, we seem to be arguing about two different things.

Would you accept the proposition that "any biological entity with human DNA is a member of the species homo sapiens"? If not, why not? This is a purely biological statement that has nothing to do with whether a biological entity with human DNA has "rights."

Sperm have human DNA. So does vomit. What's the point?

22nd March 2006, 12:39 PM

And that's the brick wall in the debate right there.

Your own opinion is a philosophy. The fact we value a living breathing human being over a cow is a moral philosophy.

Philosophy is abstract thought.

Science is testable and verifiable.

And science does read on what a "living, breathing human being" is, not just philosophy. I wouldn't include "breathing" in that, by the way.

22nd March 2006, 12:40 PM

We seem to be disagreeing on the definition of the word "human," rather than whether a developing embryo really is one. I would submit that any biological entity with human DNA is a human in the biological sense. Whether it is a "person" or not is a trickier question with perhaps no clear answer.

Then a corpse is human? And deserving of the same legal rights as any other human?

An embryo does NOT contain all the information required to become human. That's the point.

22nd March 2006, 12:42 PM

No, because neither a sperm nor egg by themselves contain a full human genome.

Why is a genome special? It, by itself, does not contain all the necessary information to become human, as it turns out. Mom is required, at least until we get to the point of understanding the process at the depth required to deal with the interactions that stimulate proper differentiation.

Jas

22nd March 2006, 12:45 PM

... and a glass of oj and milk.

You mix the two?

Blegh.

JamesDillon

22nd March 2006, 12:55 PM

Then a corpse is human?
Biologically speaking, of course a corpse is human. Does a stuffed deer cease being a deer? The American Museum of Natural History is going to be very upset to find out that all those bones it has painstakingly mounted aren't really dinosaurs.

And deserving of the same legal rights as any other human?
Therein lies the key distinction that I'm getting at: does being a member of the human species necessarily entitle one to inviolable legal rights? I think the answer here must be no (not least because no one has "inviolable" legal rights-- all rights are flexible to the extent that they may potentially come into conflict with the rights of others). Trying to avoid this uncomfortable balancing of the life of one human against the liberty interests of another by defining the unborn child out of the human species seems an implausible approach to me.

An embryo does NOT contain all the information required to become human. That's the point.
Can you elaborate on this? I understand that an embryo needs nourishment and hormonal stimuli from the mother in order to properly develop, but it is the case, is it not, that from the moment of conception, a zygote contains a full set of human genetic information?

To address your subsequent post: isn't the genome the most objective method we have of identifying species? We all seem to agree that a developing embryo is a separate biological entity from the mother-- this must be the case, if, as many pro-choice advocates claim, it is a "parasite." If it's a separate biological entity, it must be a member of some species, right? What species might that be if not homo sapiens?

strathmeyer

22nd March 2006, 01:13 PM

Are you enslaved by every law? You are subject to their influence. Is someone who wants you to wear a seatbelt seeking to enslave you?

Yes, I am. You are unable to have a logical conversation about abortion. You are unable to come up with logically consistant arguments.

I am a slave to the seatbelt laws. If I am in jail, I am a slave to the warden. Why can't you understand this. I posted the definition of the word for you, why don't you read it.

If abortion is immoral, how come you can't just explain why and change people's minds about it? Why can't you answer simple questions about it?

22nd March 2006, 01:27 PM

Can you elaborate on this? I understand that an embryo needs nourishment and hormonal stimuli from the mother in order to properly develop, but it is the case, is it not, that from the moment of conception, a zygote contains a full set of human genetic information?

I think that it's not quite correct to say it contains the full set of information. In cooperation with the various chemical influences (this goes way beyond hormones, to signalling between cells with some surprisingly simple chemicals, there is quite a bit of work on this, but I don't know any generally accessable references, they're mostly very specialized at the minute) there is enough to create a human being.

Of course, how mom makes those chemical influences is coded into the DNA and cellular structure, but having it present in would-be junior does not help here, it requires grown mom expressing this behavior.

So it's not that simple, really. The system is not designed, it evolved, and some of the ways it works do in fact look downright accidental.

22nd March 2006, 01:31 PM

If abortion is immoral, how come you can't just explain why and change people's minds about it? Why can't you answer simple questions about it?

Hold on, hold on. If it's a matter of faith for him, he doesn't have to explain. What he then has to explain is why he has the right to impose his faith on others. Different problem.

Charlie Monoxide

22nd March 2006, 01:32 PM

Wouldn't this whole issue be easy to deal with if we just make a law that it's illegal for a woman to have an abortion unless she is in danger?

Charlie (in danger of having an unwanted birth) Monoxide

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 01:50 PM

I saw nothing in the article to justify the term "minority." Either provide the poll results or stop using the term...that's what you demanded of me; I am merely asking for the same.

Which you never provided. I did provide evidence to debunk your claim.

There are no poll results for the vaccine. Most likely because such an insignificant number of people are opposed to it that it isn't worth polling about.

And, yes, significant numbers (the word corrected to obey the standard you hold for me and not for yourself) of people in the anti-abortion movement have as their main agenda controlling the behavior of women. I never used the term "enslave." You did that.

No. jj did. And Art Vandelay. And you implied it.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 01:54 PM

If abortion is immoral, how come you can't just explain why and change people's minds about it? Why can't you answer simple questions about it?

I am being as simple as possible, and have answered simple questions.

Let me answer your question about morality with a question. Do you think an eight month fetus is human?

If so, it is immoral to kill it if the mother's life is not in danger?

If you can comprehend that, then you can comprehend that to some people, a one day old clump of cells is human and feel it is immoral to kill it.

I think you and jj are mistaking me for being one of the people who thinks it is human at conception. So let me say, again, very simply, that I am undecided when a fetus is human.

ETA: But I do feel that at whatever point a fetus is human, it is immoral to kill it after that point for the same reason it is immoral to kill any human.

Simple enough for you?

mumblethrax

22nd March 2006, 01:55 PM

The great success of the anti-abortion rights movement is in conflating disparate senses of the word human. That a zygote is both human (in the sense of species) and alive is uncontroversial; it's not at all clear why this matters.

This is fundamentally a moral question. To seek answers in biology is foolish. You might as well conduct a neurological inquiry into what 1 + 1 is. Trying to explain away moral questions in terms of biology is an example of what Dennett calls greedy reductionism.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 01:57 PM

Hold on, hold on. If it's a matter of faith for him, he doesn't have to explain. What he then has to explain is why he has the right to impose his faith on others. Different problem.

Did they have the necessary science to determine that slaves were human back then? Or was it more of a philosophical/religious belief?

Did abolitionists claim scientific evidence to support freeing the slaves?

Did they have the right to impose their beliefs on others?

If so, why?

toddjh

22nd March 2006, 02:00 PM

If you can comprehend that, then you can comprehend that to some people, a one day old clump of cells is human and feel it is immoral to kill it.

This is where you lose me. Sure, I can understand that, for those who think a one-day-old clump of cells is a person, abortion would be akin to murder.

What I don't understand is how anyone could believe a one-day-old clump of cells is a person without invoking a soul. What rational basis is there for such a claim?

It sounds reasonable to say you're undecided, but when it comes to questions of morality and legality, we're obligated to provide reasons for positions which might be used to restrict the freedom of others.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 02:05 PM

And, yes, significant numbers (the word corrected to obey the standard you hold for me and not for yourself) of people in the anti-abortion movement have as their main agenda controlling the behavior of women.

Is a seat belt advocate's "main agenda" controlling the behavior of drivers, or to save lives?

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 02:10 PM

This is where you lose me. Sure, I can understand that, for those who think a one-day-old clump of cells is a person, abortion would be akin to murder.

What I don't understand is how anyone could believe a one-day-old clump of cells is a person without invoking a soul. What rational basis is there for such a claim?

It could be based on a soul.

Aren't there laws against defiling the dead, though? Nobody thinks a dead person has a soul, and yet we wouldn't toss them in the ground without ceremony in the backyard like a dog's corpse.

Well, maybe some folks would. My best friend told me "wrap me up in tin foil and throw me out with the garbage."

It sounds reasonable to say you're undecided, but when it comes to questions of morality and legality, we're obligated to provide reasons for positions which might be used to restrict the freedom of others.

That is correct, which is why you don't hear me advocating making first term abortions illegal.

My temper was pretty spiked this morning over the "slavery" b.s., and I was sorely tempted, though.

22nd March 2006, 02:15 PM

Did they have the necessary science to determine that slaves were human back then? Or was it more of a philosophical/religious belief?

Indeed, that was part of the problem.

Did abolitionists claim scientific evidence to support freeing the slaves?

Actually, some made that argument, although the modern scientific method was not in place, so it wasn't "scientific" evidence by modern standards.

Did they have the right to impose their beliefs on others?

Did who have what right?

Science is not a belief system.

A belief comes from a faith perspective, rather than from a "best possible conclusion given the known facts" perspective.

Faith does not belong in law in the USA, although I concede that some people wish to change that radically as we speak.

If so, why?

Why what? I think your last question was flawed, and thus this one is meaningless.

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 02:16 PM

I am not trying to side-step your support of objective scientific evidence. That is one of the arguments for determining when a fetus is human that I consider to be very reasonable. I just want it to be understood that there are other reasonable arguments which disagree with that method of determination. All right, I forgive you- but just this once ;)

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 02:17 PM

Human = Human DNA
person = Human DNA + life + self-awareness

Is that correct? Now what? In the US, persons have rights, humans don't- essentially

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 02:18 PM

An embryo does NOT contain all the information required to become human. That's the point. That's false

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 02:19 PM

You mix the two?

Blegh. :D I knew someone was going to say something about that...I'm going to edit that now

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 02:20 PM

gnome

22nd March 2006, 02:21 PM

A proposal:

Since reducing abortions by reducing the demand is more effective than fighting for legislation outlawing it...

Instead of arguing about whether it should be legal and when, why not agree on an arbitrary deadline that is early in the pregnancy, but yet offers a reasonable amount of time to choose abortion, and then both sides give up the fighting and combine forces to rally for increased education about unwanted pregnancy, birth control, and abortion alternatives? I think we would see the number of abortions decline significantly--a strategy more effective at stopping abortions than all of the fighting over the law that has been done so far.

With fighting over abortion laws off the table, maybe our leaders will have to come up with some other things instead of using this point to play us off against each other.

22nd March 2006, 02:28 PM

That's false

Really, you have evidence to counter the discussion above?

Let's see it.

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 02:28 PM

A proposal:
why not agree on an arbitrary deadline that is early in the pregnancy, but yet offers a reasonable amount of time to choose abortion,

That would be nice, since the constitution allows for jurisprudence- but here's why its impracticle and impossible according to the Supreme Court

"The usual rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy must exist at stages of appellate...review... But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the... gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot...appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid....Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It could truly be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." (Roe, 410 U.S., at 125.)

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 02:31 PM

Really, you have evidence to counter the discussion above?

Let's see it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=IpUfBIujhUQC&dq=An+embryo+has+all+the+information+needed+to+bec ome+human&oi=print&pg=PA5&ots=rYC8tngZrR&sig=MhXboHOQtcO68GsQcrgOBYXbytQ&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DAn%2Bembryo%2Bhas%2Ball%2Bt he%2Binformation%2Bneeded%2Bto%2Bbecome%2Bhuman

hope you have glasses :)

People that are all about stem cell research could really contribute to this arguement.

22nd March 2006, 02:39 PM

http://books.google.com/books?id=IpUfBIujhUQC&dq=An+embryo+has+all+the+information+needed+to+bec ome+human&oi=print&pg=PA5&ots=rYC8tngZrR&sig=MhXboHOQtcO68GsQcrgOBYXbytQ&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DAn%2Bembryo%2Bhas%2Ball%2Bt he%2Binformation%2Bneeded%2Bto%2Bbecome%2Bhuman

hope you have glasses :)

Irrelevant.

The genome has all the information necessary, WITH THE HELP OF THE MOTHER'S BODY, to engage in proper development, etc, and IF THE BABY IS FEMALE, how to properly aid the development of the next generation.

It can not aid in its own development, that has to come from mom. Mom has the genes to help the NEXT generation, not her own fetal development. Do you see the difference?

This isn't speculation. Go a bit deeper than a puff-piece on stem cells next time.

(again, I don't mean simple nutrition, or even nutrition and hormones, there is a whole class of chemicals that mediate development that affect specific differentiations and so on. things like "how does the fetus know this is the end of the finger" vs. "this is part of the brain", etc.)

22nd March 2006, 02:40 PM

People that are all about stem cell research could really contribute to this arguement.

Very good idea. Ask them how it is that the stem cell figures out what to turn into. :D

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 02:43 PM

Irrelevant.

The genome has all the information necessary, WITH THE HELP OF THE MOTHER'S BODY, to engage in proper development, etc, and IF THE BABY IS FEMALE, how to properly aid the development of the next generation.

It can not aid in its own development, that has to come from mom. Mom has the genes to help the NEXT generation, not her own fetal development. Do you see the difference?

This isn't speculation. Go a bit deeper than a puff-piece on stem cells next time.

(again, I don't mean simple nutrition, or even nutrition and hormones, there is a whole class of chemicals that mediate development that affect specific differentiations and so on. things like "how does the fetus know this is the end of the finger" vs. "this is part of the brain", etc.) "The genome has all the information necessary" I thought so.... anyway...thank you for revising your claim, now we agree on that one. ;)

People seem to look past the fact that even the term "viability" is a penumbra. Viability, as I defined before, quoting from the Supreme Courts, is when a child can live on its own or with artificial life support. BUt that's rediculous because how does a child, living on natural life support (inside the mothers womb) make it any less viable than a child living on artificial life support.

Luke T.

22nd March 2006, 02:52 PM

Indeed, that was part of the problem.

Actually, some made that argument, although the modern scientific method was not in place, so it wasn't "scientific" evidence by modern standards.

So on what basis did abolitionists base their belief that slaves should be free?

Did who have what right?

Did abolitionists have the right to impose their beliefs on others?

If so, why?

Faith does not belong in law in the USA, although I concede that some people wish to change that radically as we speak.

Is the 13th amendment based on science?

gnome

22nd March 2006, 03:27 PM

That would be nice, since the constitution allows for jurisprudence- but here's why its impracticle and impossible according to the Supreme Court

"The usual rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy must exist at stages of appellate...review... But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the... gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot...appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid....Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It could truly be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." (Roe, 410 U.S., at 125.)

This seems to say that the question of legality can continue to be litigated on a case that has become moot. Not really inhibiting what I'm proposing--which is that activists make the choice to let go of the legal argument, and get to work actually preventing abortions. If done correctly, they can count on a lot of support from their former opponents.

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 04:09 PM

This seems to say that the question of legality can continue to be litigated on a case that has become moot. Not really inhibiting what I'm proposing--which is that activists make the choice to let go of the legal argument, and get to work actually preventing abortions. If done correctly, they can count on a lot of support from their former opponents. In arbitration I thought you meant taking someone to court that wants to have an abortion

22nd March 2006, 05:04 PM

"The genome has all the information necessary" I thought so.... anyway...thank you for revising your claim, now we agree on that one. ;)

I haven't revised my claim, and the genome still does not, in one individual alone, have all the necessary power to make a human being.

22nd March 2006, 05:05 PM

So on what basis did abolitionists base their belief that slaves should be free?

To what extent do you insist that their arguments are based on belief, rather than conclusion or deduction?

Did abolitionists have the right to impose their beliefs on others?

No more than anyone else.

If so, why?

The need to free slaves does not have to come from belief. So I'll head off that argument at the pass. Your question is flawed.

Is the 13th amendment based on science?

Does it matter?

Abbyas

22nd March 2006, 05:19 PM

I really don't like the abolitionist comparison.

No slave owner was forced to choose between owning a slave and going through a year long physical and emotional hardship. The loss of cheap labor does not equate.

Also, I do lean toward the idea that many (not all) pro-life advocates are "enslaving women" for this reason:

Power in societies are controlled through population. This is why the Catholic Church is anti-birth control and anti homosexuality. The more babies you have, the more powerful the people in charge become. (Yes, this is conjecture, but I think we can agree with the reasoning here.) And the catholic church is a huge force behind the pro-life movement. And while individual catholics might not be trying to increase the population with anti-abortion laws or abstinance-centered sex education, their leaders sure are.

To me, it's either "enslaving the fetus" to the medical choices of the mother or "enslaving the woman" to the medical choices of a zygote. And the woman comes first. (edited to add: at least to the point where the fetus stops being parasitic)

Mark

22nd March 2006, 05:22 PM

Is a seat belt advocate's "main agenda" controlling the behavior of drivers, or to save lives?

Irrelevant. Many of these people oppose birth control, and birth control helps prevent abortions. Or in your parlance, helps save lives.

Dcdrac

22nd March 2006, 06:46 PM

I am not female so what right do i have to order a female to hae my child for the sake of my beliefs and feelings?

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 06:58 PM

POST #91
An embryo does NOT contain all the information required to become human

post #116

The genome has all the information necessary, WITH THE HELP OF THE MOTHER, to engage in proper development
and finally
I haven't revised my claim, and the genome still does not, in one individual alone, have all the necessary power to make a human being.

could you please be more consistent :rolleyes:

chris epic

22nd March 2006, 07:08 PM

I am not female so what right do i have to order a female to hae my child for the sake of my beliefs and feelings? What if it was your child a woman was pregnant with and you wanted to be a father to that child...........oops, better go back to Roe v Wade for Men:boxedin:

I think its the same if a woman were to say, I'm not a man, so what right do I have to order a man not to be a father for the sake of my feelings and beliefs (one more important one) in favor for his biological obligation to protect his child

Charlie Monoxide

22nd March 2006, 09:19 PM

We do, its called Roe v Wade 1973The question was answered once. Why do we feel the feel the need to revisit it?
If I disagree with the Supreme Court, should the strategy be to keep re-visiting the same cause (until they see my point of view)?

Charlie (respect the court) Monoxide

23rd March 2006, 12:20 AM

POST #91

post #116

and finally

could you please be more consistent :rolleyes:

No, you need to read more on the subject, and you're engaging in constructive extraction from context, in a form that constitutes misrepresentation of my position.

Is this Christian of you?

KingMerv00

23rd March 2006, 12:30 PM

In the US, persons have rights, humans don't- essentially

Ok, I will agree with you on the definitions of "human" and "person".

Now why is a zygote, embryo, fetus a person?

chris epic

23rd March 2006, 12:40 PM

chris epic

23rd March 2006, 12:42 PM

Ok, I will agree with you on the definitions of "human" and "person".

Now why is a zygote, embryo, fetus a person? Its not a person, its a human- that's why feti aren't protected, per se, by the United States Constitution. I'm not clear on what a zygote is, but when an embryo is set into motion, the end result is human, then at birth, on US soil, it becomes a person. Just the same, when a baby is born, it's end result is an adult. Forgive me if this is a false analogy, but it makes sense to me.

JamesDillon

23rd March 2006, 01:13 PM

No, you need to read more on the subject, and you're engaging in constructive extraction from context, in a form that constitutes misrepresentation of my position.

Is this Christian of you?

Since I think I kicked off the whole genome debate, let me interject here for just a moment. The point I was making by reference to the genome was only that a developing embryo must be "human" in the biological sense only, simply because it is an independent biological entity and the most objective manner to classify any biological entity is by reference to its genetic makeup. Because a developing embryo contains identifiably human DNA, it must be classified as a member of the species homo sapiens. This has nothing to do with whether an embryo has the ability to develop into a child without assistance from the mother; of course it does not. But it does contain all of the genetic information needed to classify it as "human" from the moment of conception.

As I have said before, this does not answer the question whether a week-old fertilized egg can be considered a "person," with a legal or moral right to life. I tend to think not. But I also think it's something of a euphemism for pro-choice advocates to suggest that abortion is not the termination of a human life; I can't imagine what else it would be. Whether it is the death of a "person" is another matter entirely. I don't think that the concepts of "human" and "person" are necessarily coterminous.

23rd March 2006, 01:18 PM

The point I was making by reference to the genome was only that a developing embryo must be "human" in the biological sense only, simply because it is an independent biological entity and the most objective manner to classify any biological entity is by reference to its genetic makeup.

Hmm, well, I guess we could quibble about what "biological sense" might mean, but you're saying it's a more limited meaning than "human being" in the usual sense to which rights, etc, are accorded. I suppose I can accept this, but I do point out that this makes misinterpretation very, very easy for someone who wants to say: ABORTION KILLS HUMANS

And we all know people who do that, I think.

chris epic

23rd March 2006, 01:26 PM

I don't think that the concepts of "human" and "person" are necessarily coterminous. You're right, they aren't coterminous. They are clearly defined....well, "person" is clearly defined by the US Constitution, and its definately different from a human in that one has "all the protections" and the other "limited protections"

chris epic

23rd March 2006, 01:29 PM

ABORTION KILLS HUMANS
But that's exactly the truth. Abortion doesn't kill persons, it kills humans and its not misleading, either- there's no way around the words. And this is comming from a non-Christian, person with respect toward women that want to exercise their legal right to an abortion, potential-father that just wants the rights that women have, over his potential-children.

23rd March 2006, 01:33 PM

But that's exactly the truth. Abortion doesn't kill persons, it kills humans and its not misleading, either- there's no way around the words.

No, we don't agree on that. You must add the term "potential" at the very least, in the biological sense.

Dillon is not using quite the definition most people use, and that has to be clearly shown when the term is used.

N.B. What term people commonly use is in fact vague and hard to pin down, and as such "abortion kills humans" becomes a very destructive, misleading slogan that is in my opinion willfully misleading and emotionally bankrupt.

chris epic

23rd March 2006, 01:55 PM

N.B. What term people commonly use is in fact vague and hard to pin down, and as such "abortion kills humans" becomes a very destructive, misleading slogan that is in my opinion willfully misleading and emotionally bankrupt. But tell me you can't see the flip-side of that. Feeling as I do about the fact that even "potential-humanity" is precious, I find that defining abortion as a termination of something less than human promotes apathy which I find equally destructive and misleading as the truth is "vague and hard to pin down".

23rd March 2006, 06:12 PM

chris epic

23rd March 2006, 06:39 PM

I see. So I have to see it your way, or be lumped in, at least via insinuation, with the "equally destructive and misleading".

Nah.Now you're just being a drama queen. I was asking you a question, I wasn't forcing you to "lump" yourself in, nor was I forcing you to see it my way. I asked you a question, now can you answer with sincerity or are you just going to keep being definsive? I was just saying that the justifications and feelings are felt on both side either way your spin it and I was ASKING if you could see that too. So can you? By the way, is it just coincidence that it says "grumpy old skeptic" beneath your name ;)

Euromutt

24th March 2006, 05:44 AM

Has anyone noticed that literally one person who actually has a damn uterus has weighed in on this thread, to wit Jas, and then only to ask about the mixing of milk and orange juice?

Somebody PM me when an actual female weighs in on the issues here. Call me weird, but my attitude towards men having an opinion on abortion is much the same as my attitude towards women having an opinion on circumcision. (I.e. if you don't have the bits, it's not your call.)

24th March 2006, 11:32 AM

Now you're just being a drama queen. I was asking you a question, I wasn't forcing you to "lump" yourself in, nor was I forcing you to see it my way. I asked you a question, now can you answer with sincerity or are you just going to keep being definsive?

Ble ble ble blah ble blah "I asked you a question" ble ble ble blah when did you stop beating your wife, ble ble ble blah...

Failed question, assuming facts not in evidence, introducing emotionally loaded terms, grandstanding, straw man ...

Man, y'all into them there rhetorical fallacies, ain't you? Yee haaa! Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!

JamesDillon

24th March 2006, 11:37 AM

Abbyas

24th March 2006, 11:42 AM

But tell me you can't see the flip-side of that. Feeling as I do about the fact that even "potential-humanity" is precious, I find that defining abortion as a termination of something less than human promotes apathy which I find equally destructive and misleading as the truth is "vague and hard to pin down".

First of all, I'd like to thank you for trying to approach this issue with common understanding. Although, I wouldn't go so far as to call the pro-choice mindset apathetic, I do understand where you are coming from here.

The thing is, I also believe that "potential life" is precious. I applaud women that have the generosity to carry a baby to term and give it up for adoption. I also hope to pop one of my own out someday. And if pregnancy caused no wear and tear on the mother, I would be anti-abortion in a heartbeat.

However, I don't believe that this "potential life" outweighs my right to not go through over a year at least of physical and emotional hardship.

I'd also like to see some more uterus owners piping in here.

24th March 2006, 11:43 AM

jj,
Do you always collapse into unintelligible gibberish when someone asks you to defend your opinions?

It's quite unsurprising that you would engage in this kind of behavior, given your own willingness to make up straw men and then ask your victim to defend them.

Chris,
Unfortunately jj does not deal well with having his views challenged, or the suggestion that those whose opinions differ from his may have valid points (or even be arguing in good faith). Take a look at pages 7-9 of the Roe v. Wade thread for further evidence of this.

The evidence is clear, I refuse to "support" others' illicit straw men. Given your "slick" behavior in the thread you point to, I'm not surprised that you chime in here.

Now, can you, like the other fellow, attempt a discussion in which you actually discuss the other person's position, rather than make one up that you can figure out how to attack?

Let's see. Give it a try, be a mensch.

chris epic

24th March 2006, 11:49 AM

Somebody PM me when an actual female weighs in on the issues here. Call me weird, but my attitude towards men having an opinion on abortion is much the same as my attitude towards women having an opinion on circumcision. (I.e. if you don't have the bits, it's not your call.) Your concern is founded- but this thread sprang from a thread about fathers rights so although its not my body its my child, 50% of me is inside that body so that's where we will disagree on the issue

JamesDillon

24th March 2006, 11:51 AM

It's quite unsurprising that you would engage in this kind of behavior, given your own willingness to make up straw men and then ask your victim to defend them.
It looks to me like Chris was only asking you to concede that some pro-life advocates hold their views in good faith, and can articulate plausible defenses of the pro-life position. Your response to that?
Ble ble ble blah ble blah "I asked you a question" ble ble ble blah when did you stop beating your wife, ble ble ble blah...

Now, can you, like the other fellow, attempt a discussion in which you actually discuss the other person's position, rather than make one up that you can figure out how to attack?

Let's see. Give it a try, be a mensch.

I really haven't the slightest desire to engage in any further discussion of this or any other issue with you, jj. As for your personal comments, I invite anyone who cares to form an opinion on the matter to read our previous discussion that I cited above, pages 7-9 in the Roe v. Wade thread, and decide for themselves who was being unreasonable. I'm quite content to let our previous exchange speak for itself.

chris epic

24th March 2006, 11:55 AM

Ble ble ble blah ble blah "I asked you a question" ble ble ble blah when did you stop beating your wife, ble ble ble blah...

Failed question, assuming facts not in evidence, introducing emotionally loaded terms, grandstanding, straw man ...

Man, y'all into them there rhetorical fallacies, ain't you? Yee haaa! Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!Actually, its my first year in school. I'm learning about fallacies and being here on the forum helps me even further, just be patient, I'm not a decrep....I mean old and wise as you are yet. But be patient, I know you don't have a whole lot of time left- but in the mean time maybe you can model some cochlear and masking thresholds, stereo imaging models and stereo imaging sensitivity models, methods of reproducing soundfields literally and perceptually, capture some more microphone and soundfield actively steered and time-invariants, and code some speech and audio methods, Mr. Ad Hominem.... see, told ya I'm learning. Of coarse, I'll be the first to admit I'm doing it to, I'm just probably not taking it as seriously as you are :P

That being said I will sincerely appologizing for resourting to my fallacies and immaturity as it is not conducive to a productive dialogue. So cheers to you JJ, I wish you the best.

Abbyas

24th March 2006, 11:57 AM

Your concern is founded- but this thread sprang from a thread about fathers rights so although its not my body its my child, 50% of me is inside that body so that's where we will disagree on the issue

I understand what you mean. And I can understand you feeling at a loss when it comes to control of your potential offspring, (I don't necessarily believe that a father should automatically owe child support. In fact I did know one case where the father declined to pay child support by signing away his parental rights.) but I think calling the fetus part you is pushing it a little.

If I have an abortion, it does not physically hurt you. If I carry a baby to term it does physically hurt me. That's the important difference.

Alliebubs

24th March 2006, 11:57 AM

*raises hand* I own a uterus. I've sort of chimed in under the "Roe v. Wade" thread a few days ago, and I do see abortion as killing a human life. I am, however, pro-choice.

That's all for now; I shudder to throw myself into this discussion, lest I be crucified.

Carry on. :)

24th March 2006, 11:58 AM

It looks to me like Chris was only asking you to concede that some pro-life advocates hold their views in good faith, and can articulate plausible defenses of the pro-life position. Your response to that?

Doesn't read that way to me, and I've never really suggested that even most of the extreme anti-woman's-rights people did not believe that their views were held in good faith. So I'm not sure why someone would ask.

I really haven't the slightest desire to engage in any further discussion of this or any other issue with you, jj.

Of course not, you don't want to discuss my positions, you want to discuss your straw men, and it's not very interesting for you to have them rejected outright as the constructs they are.

As for your personal comments, I invite anyone who cares to form an opinion on the matter to read our previous discussion that I cited above, pages 7-9 in the Roe v. Wade thread, and decide for themselves who was being unreasonable.

Pointing out your egregious rhetorical misconduct is not a "personal comment" except in that you engaged in that behavior.

I'm quite content to let our previous exchange speak for itself.

Then why are you showing up here to defend someone else's rhetorical malpractice?

Abbyas

24th March 2006, 12:00 PM

jj does not speak for all pro-choice activists.

I am very curious to discuss this further with the pro-life supporters on this board.

24th March 2006, 12:01 PM

just be patient, I'm not a decrep....I mean old and wise as you are yet.

Yeah, yeah, what was that you said later, um "ad hominem"? Besides, oh, wait while I take my mid-morning nap here, ok?

zzzzzzz

Mr. Ad Hominem.... see, told ya I'm learning.

Not clear, pointing out your rhetorical misadventures is not ad-hominem. I am attacking your message, just not the way you want me to attack it.

An example of ad-hominem would be along the order of

YOU EAT FISH THEREFORE YOUR IDEAS ARE WRONG... N.B. yes, that's a preposterous example, and offered only for example.

Of coarse, I'll be the first to admit I'm doing it to, I'm just probably not taking it as seriously as you are :P

Well, one might then question the issue of "good faith", eh?

24th March 2006, 12:03 PM

If I have an abortion, it does not physically hurt you. If I carry a baby to term it does physically hurt me. That's the important difference.

That's a very nice, clear statement, and one that I think summarizes one of the most basic points involved. It's the woman who has necessarily to place life and limb at risk.

24th March 2006, 12:07 PM

jj does not speak for all pro-choice activists.

Indeed, and I've never claimed otherwise.

Please do tell me, by the way, what position I take that you disagree with?

(I would make a prediction here, but it wouldn't qualify for the prize, as it's based on a lifetime of experience, not any kind of prescience)

I am very curious to discuss this further with the pro-life supporters on this board.

Hm. I don't see many people who avow to be such.

I do see some folks who use what I would personally regard as an anti-choice argument but who none the less state a pro-choice stance. While that is indeed odd, one can not require others to use the same decision methods, or accept the same ethical paramaters. (Note, that's not accusing anyone of "bad" ethics, so don't go there.)

Abbyas

24th March 2006, 12:11 PM

jj, the reason I posted that statement is for this reason. In many cases (especially in this one for me), I think it's more important to have the other side understand you versus win the arguement.

I genuinely think that the other poster was trying to reach some common understanding and you overreacted. And the more snarky posts back and forth, the more people will just dodge the thread. And I'd like to see more people at this one.

This is why I didn't say, "If I carry a baby to term, the pregnancy hurts me. Jerk! Creepo!" Just wouldn't get a lot across that way.

elaine

24th March 2006, 12:24 PM

JamesDillon

24th March 2006, 12:25 PM

I do see some folks who use what I would personally regard as an anti-choice argument but who none the less state a pro-choice stance. While that is indeed odd, one can not require others to use the same decision methods, or accept the same ethical paramaters.
Yes, jj, it is possible to hold a pro-choice position while agreeing that some pro-life arguments make valid points, such as the observation that abortion is, in fact, the termination of a human life, and that a legal prohibition of abortion would not violate the Thirteenth Amendment. This is called being "reasonable."

(Note, that's not accusing anyone of "bad" ethics, so don't go there.)

Maybe not this time, but you've already done that:

One might even suggest that you are a stealth propagandist.

As such, I've marked you as a person of questionable rhetoric, and whose ethics should be watched as well.

Take it or leave it, that's what I think.

24th March 2006, 12:35 PM

Maybe not this time, but you've already done that:

Indeed, am I supposed to presume innocence on your part, after you repeat (and more than once) your demands for me to address your own straw-man version of my position? After you evade the issue of the straw man you created entirely?

Sorry, that's how I see it.

24th March 2006, 12:36 PM

Yes, jj, it is possible to hold a pro-choice position while agreeing that some pro-life arguments make valid points, such as the observation that abortion is, in fact, the termination of a human life, and that a legal prohibition of abortion would not violate the Thirteenth Amendment. This is called being "reasonable."

Except that it is entirely debatable that a human life is being ended, and as such, the entire position rests on an unsupported premise.

Alliebubs

24th March 2006, 02:17 PM

Except that it is entirely debatable that a human life is being ended, and as such, the entire position rests on an unsupported premise.

Sigh. I think the splitting of hairs occurred when arguments were being made that a fetus isn't a "person", whatever moral/philosophical connotations are made with that statement. A fetus is a human life. Its DNA is human and, thus, characterised as a part of the human species. Let's not quibble over whether a "human life is being ended", since it is. Whether a "person" is being killed is, again, another type of argument. It is not an unsupported premise, since the fundamentals of procreation are pretty absolute, in that when a spermatozoa from a human male comes together with an ovum from a human female, another human organism is created. It is separate and distinct from both the mother and the father.

If we want to have a discussion on whether a person is being murdered, then let's do so. But to nitpick at biological absolutes and call them unsupported does nothing to help reconcile our differing viewpoints.

24th March 2006, 04:42 PM

A fetus is a human life. Its DNA is human and, thus, characterised as a part of the human species. Let's not quibble over whether a "human life is being ended", since it is.

No, you don't get away with proof by assertion. Saying something emphatically does not make it so. As it happens, I do not agree with you. The potential for a human being is there, but it takes a combination of mom and the fetus to make something into a human being. Remember, we're talking 1st trimester here, not 3rd trimester. I think I've made it clear already that 3rd trimester abortions are not for elective purposes in my book.

But rhetoric like yours attempts to bully me into accepting your definition. I don't. I'm not the only one who doesn't. The question is far from simple, and it absolutely not clear that A fetus is a human life.

Since the debate is about that, no, you don't get to take that as a presumption. sorry.

JamesDillon

24th March 2006, 04:49 PM

No, you don't get away with proof by assertion. Saying something emphatically does not make it so. As it happens, I do not agree with you.

jj,
Since you have appear to have forgotten, let me remind you that you have conceded yourself that a fetus is a "human" in the biological sense of the word.

Hmm, well, I guess we could quibble about what "biological sense" might mean, but you're saying it's a more limited meaning than "human being" in the usual sense to which rights, etc, are accorded. I suppose I can accept this, but I do point out that this makes misinterpretation very, very easy for someone who wants to say: ABORTION KILLS HUMANS

But rhetoric like yours attempts to bully me into accepting your definition. I don't. I'm not the only one who doesn't. The question is far from simple, and it absolutely not clear that
Is there anyone with whom you disagree who doesn't employ "bullying rhetoric"? This seems to be your favorite way of avoiding the substance of a post.

Since the debate is about that, no, you don't get to take that as a presumption. sorry.
It doesn't appear to me that the post was "presuming" anything; rather, it seemed to be making an argument for a position that you yourself have already conceded.

24th March 2006, 04:55 PM

jj,
Since you have appear to have forgotten, let me remind you that you have conceded yourself that a fetus is a "human" in the biological sense of the word.

Fine, let's look at my quote again, shall we?

Hmm, well, I guess we could quibble about what "biological sense" might mean, but you're saying it's a more limited meaning than "human being" in the usual sense to which rights, etc, are accorded. I suppose I can accept this, but I do point out that this makes misinterpretation very, very easy for someone who wants to say: ABORTION KILLS HUMANS

Is there some part of "more limited meaning" that wasn't clear the first time? I think that was pretty clear.

Is there anyone with whom you disagree who doesn't employ "bullying rhetoric"? This seems to be your favorite way of avoiding the substance of a post.

Let's see, somebody says, oh, let's say, hypothetically:

Black IS white.

And then goes on to say "so let's accept that and move on, if you don't you're being unreasonable".

Yeah. Right.

Another try from you at taking statements out of context is noted.

JamesDillon

24th March 2006, 05:00 PM

jj,

How was I taking your quote out of context? In the language I quoted, you agreed with my assertion

that a developing embryo must be "human" in the biological sense only, simply because it is an independent biological entity and the most objective manner to classify any biological entity is by reference to its genetic makeup.

Alliebubs's argument was that
A fetus is a human life. Its DNA is human and, thus, characterised as a part of the human species.

She further conceded that
Whether a "person" is being killed is, again, another type of argument.

thereby making clear that the biological status of the fetus does not determine the question of its legal or moral rights. In other words, it appears that she was reiterating the "more limited meaning" of the term that I proposed earlier, and to which you agreed.

Can you now explain how your response to Alliebubs is not inconsistent with your response to me?

24th March 2006, 05:05 PM

jj,

How was I taking your quote out of context? In the language I quoted, you agreed with my assertion

I guess you're down to repetitive evasion. What part of "more limited meaning" do you not grasp, please.

thereby making clear that the biological status of the fetus does not determine the question of its legal or moral rights.

Why does this matter? Hint: It doesn't matter. It's a straw man in this context even though it's an issue in another context in this thread. You're confuting two issues here.

In other words, it appears that she was reiterating the "more limited meaning" of the term that I proposed earlier, and to which you agreed.

Straw man, extraction from context. Is there some reason that you have such a need to presume what I mean when I say something?

Can you now explain how your response to Alliebubs is not inconsistent with your response to me?

I don't have to. The inconsistancy is your own invention.

Stop inventing problems for other people to solve.

And go burn down your own straw men the next time.

JamesDillon

24th March 2006, 05:12 PM

I guess you're down to repetitive evasion. What part of "more limited meaning" do you not grasp, please.

As I have pointed out above, you have conceded that a fetus is a human in the "limited [biological] meaning" in which it is a member of the species homo sapiens. We have mutually agreed that this does not end the inquiry into whether a fetus can claim the legal and moral rights enjoyed by an adult human being.

Alliebubs then articulated the same argument, using "human" in the same sense of "a member of the human species" to which you had already agreed, to which you responded by accusing her of "bullying rhetoric." If Alliebubs and I are proposing to apply the same definition of "human" to a developing fetus, how is it consistent for you to accept my usage of that definition but reject hers?

Another try from you at taking statements out of context is noted.
Don't forget that I'm also "attempt[ing] the fallacy of trying to reduce an implication to an equivelence,[sic]" even after my "shift of antecedant [sic]."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1503729&postcount=268

24th March 2006, 05:16 PM

Don't forget that I'm also "attempt[ing] the fallacy of trying to reduce an implication to an equivelence," even after my "shift of antecedant [sic]."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1503729&postcount=268

Oooh, he can do a spelling flame.

Pure, smelly, troll. Go back under the bridge.

JamesDillon

24th March 2006, 05:17 PM

Oooh, he can do a spelling flame.

Pure, smelly, troll. Go back under the bridge.
I would call that more of a spelling-grammar-and-logic flame, but we needn't be picky.

So you have no explanation of your apparent inconsistency, then?

Alliebubs

24th March 2006, 05:31 PM

No, you don't get away with proof by assertion. Saying something emphatically does not make it so. As it happens, I do not agree with you. The potential for a human being is there, but it takes a combination of mom and the fetus to make something into a human being. Remember, we're talking 1st trimester here, not 3rd trimester. I think I've made it clear already that 3rd trimester abortions are not for elective purposes in my book.

But rhetoric like yours attempts to bully me into accepting your definition. I don't. I'm not the only one who doesn't. The question is far from simple, and it absolutely not clear that

Since the debate is about that, no, you don't get to take that as a presumption. sorry.

How am I "bullying" my assertion? You happened to agree with JamesDillon regarding this organism belonging to the human species. I even articulated that there is a marked difference between said member of the human species and a "person", since that brings in all sorts of philosophical context into this argument. It is a simple case *when discussing whether the organism is a member of the human species*, but not so when discussing whether it's a person. Firstly, how is my argument rhetoric, if you've acknowledged this very argument as valid when JamesDillon articulates it? Or do you take an offended and contrary position for the sake of novelty?

Secondly, I am trying to discuss this matter in a way that allows us to see each other's point of view, insomuch as we can agree on certain things. There really is no need to be so dismissive, since, being one of the only one with an actual uterus discussing this thread, I think my opinion doesn't have to be automatically agreed on, certainly, but please refrain from labelling my arguments rhetorical, when I was actually articulating the same argument some other posters have made before me.

Thirdly, you've demonstrated a propensity to go on the defensive if we don't agree with you wholeheartedly:

Oooh, he can do a spelling flame.

Pure, smelly, troll. Go back under the bridge.

'Tis a shame. I'm sure you won't lose sleep over this, but I am disappointed. Even if we don't agree with one another, I really had expected more than grade-school trifling insults. Oh well. :confused:

24th March 2006, 05:31 PM

I would call that more of a spelling-grammar-and-logic flame, but we needn't be picky.

So you have no explanation of your apparent inconsistency, then?

There isn't any. You made it up.

Now go troll somewhere else.

Abbyas

24th March 2006, 05:34 PM

It's jj, bringing the pro-choice and the pro-life together.

JJ, all animal beings can be classified into species. What else is a fetus/zygote if not human? It's a fetus, yes, but a human one.

JamesDillon

24th March 2006, 05:36 PM

There isn't any. You made it up.

Please address the following post, which you ignored the first time:

As I have pointed out above, you have conceded that a fetus is a human in the "limited [biological] meaning" in which it is a member of the species homo sapiens. We have mutually agreed that this does not end the inquiry into whether a fetus can claim the legal and moral rights enjoyed by an adult human being.

Alliebubs then articulated the same argument, using "human" in the same sense of "a member of the human species" to which you had already agreed, to which you responded by accusing her of "bullying rhetoric." If Alliebubs and I are proposing to apply the same definition of "human" to a developing fetus, how is it consistent for you to accept my usage of that definition but reject hers?

24th March 2006, 05:47 PM

Please address the following post, which you ignored the first time:

I ignored nothing. Your attempt to cast a position on me that I do not hold is evident.

Stop stalking me with this foolishness.

24th March 2006, 05:49 PM

It's jj, bringing the pro-choice and the pro-life together.

Ad-hominem. Imagine my surprise.

JJ, all animal beings can be classified into species. What else is a fetus/zygote if not human? It's a fetus, yes, but a human one.

A fetus that can/may become a human, like you just said.

What does "human" mean? That's a question for a thread where people aren't trying to make things up.

Alliebubs

24th March 2006, 05:52 PM

I ignored nothing. Your attempt to cast a position on me that I do not hold is evident.

Stop stalking me with this foolishness.

LOL, stalking you? That's great *sarcastic tone*. Alright, we will. Any one that wants to have a logical, cogent, and non-hostile discussion, let me know. This has degenerated into something ridiculous.

24th March 2006, 05:55 PM

LOL, stalking you? That's great *sarcastic tone*. Alright, we will. Any one that wants to have a logical, cogent, and non-hostile discussion, let me know. This has degenerated into something ridiculous.

If you learn how to represent your own position, rather than misrepresent mine in order to dispute it, get back to me.

Alliebubs

24th March 2006, 05:55 PM

Ad-hominem. Imagine my surprise.

A fetus that can/may become a human, like you just said.

What does "human" mean? That's a question for a thread where people aren't trying to make things up.

Don't you get it? That IS the question I'm getting at! A "person" is what you want to discuss. But, you cannot deny the fact that a fetus *belongs to the human species*. How can anyone deny that an organism comprised solely of human DNA is anything but human?

JamesDillon

24th March 2006, 05:56 PM

I ignored nothing.
Then where is your response to the two-paragraph post that I have now posted twice?

Your attempt to cast a position on me that I do not hold is evident.
Can you make it evident to the rest of us?

Alliebubs

24th March 2006, 06:14 PM

If you learn how to represent your own position, rather than misrepresent mine in order to dispute it, get back to me.

Being condescending doesn't strengthen your position. Evidence and reasonable discussion does. I have been reasonable and, in fact, haven't disputed anything you haven't already agreed upon.

I don't think it's possible to debate with you without it getting personal on your end, for some reason. So, I will be the first and bow out of discussion with you.

Thank you.

delphi_ote

24th March 2006, 06:18 PM

You are all stupid. A fetus is a person, and abortion is murder. It says so in the Bible. You godless heathen should accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior and repent your abortion supporting ways. It is a scientific fact that abortion is the cause of homosexuality, murder, and poverty. John Edwards has detected psychic powers coming from babies, so it is true that they have souls. If you kill something with a soul, you are a murderer. Mozart and Einstein would have been aborted if their countries had allowed it.

Everyone here is a bunch of stupid airheads who don't know the first thing about this subject. You all immoral and support the Nazis and the Holocaust. Your racism is also obvious.

*This is an example of trolling.*

24th March 2006, 06:19 PM

Then where is your response to the two-paragraph post that I have now posted twice?

Can you make it evident to the rest of us?

Asked and answered. Repeatedly.

JamesDillon

24th March 2006, 06:23 PM

Asked and answered. Repeatedly.
Can you please cite to the post number in which you responded to the argument I made in post 168, and repeated in post 174? Thanks.

Abbyas

24th March 2006, 07:20 PM

Ad-hominem. Imagine my surprise.

If that was ad-hominem what was your post saying "blehblebleble bleh"?

What frustrates me here, is that comments like the above seem to me like you hold others to a higher standard. I know you'd be very upset if someone responded like that. This isn't the first time I've seen you, instead of debate things and try to get people to understand your point of you, you turn an important discussion into a snark fest.

What aggravates me here is that this is extremely serious, especially for me and my young women friends. I consider skeptics to be brighter than the average person, and I genuinely want them to understand my position. When you post things like "blewblehebleh" and call people essentially ethically suspicious, they go away and don't want to come back. Can you understand why this is so important? And if so, why I'd hope people wouldn't be so nasty?

24th March 2006, 08:03 PM

What frustrates me here, is that comments like the above seem to me like you hold others to a higher standard.

So, how would you respond to someone who's invented 3 dozen different (ok, I'm exagerating, it's not 3 dozen, I think) positions and claimed you held them?

How do you respond to people who demand that you hold a disputed axiom as revealed truth?

I know you'd be very upset if someone responded like that.

Apply for the prize then, you're both predicting the future and suggesting you read minds.

What aggravates me here is that this is extremely serious, especially for me and my young women friends.

Yes, it certainly is a serious discussion, yet somehow extraction from context, straw men, misleading attribution, instance on misleading attribution, and the like are ok for some to do, but somehow it's "snarky" for me to treat those behaviors like the craven avoidance they are?

I consider skeptics to be brighter than the average person, and I genuinely want them to understand my position. When you post things like "blewblehebleh" and call people essentially ethically suspicious, they go away and don't want to come back. Can you understand why this is so important? And if so, why I'd hope people wouldn't be so nasty?

I'm not being nasty. I'm simply disgusted, this is like the Monty Python sketch they never did on burning straw men.

delphi_ote

24th March 2006, 08:06 PM

So, how would you respond to someone who's invented 3 dozen different (ok, I'm exagerating, it's not 3 dozen, I think) positions and claimed you held them?
If that's how you feel, I can't suggest how you to respond.

*Because I'd suggest not responding at all.*

chris epic

24th March 2006, 11:54 PM

but I think calling the fetus part you is pushing it a little. the fetus is part dad by 50% and part mom 50%

If I have an abortion, it does not physically hurt you. If I carry a baby to term it does physically hurt me. That's the important difference. If you read what the supreme court defines as lawful or permitable abortion, you will see that they allow it if continuance of pregnancy will physically OR psychologically/emotionally hurt the woman. The abortion of a child can emotionally hurt a man, big time- because to a father that wants to see that child born, wants to protect that child (even in the mother) when he experiences an abortion, its similar to losing a born child at any age.

JamesDillon

25th March 2006, 12:04 AM

the fetus is part dad by 50% and part mom 50%
That's really not literally true, is it? 50% of the genetic makeup of the fetus is contributed by the father, but the actual raw materials that go into constructing it come almost 100% from the mother, aside from the single sperm cell that initially fertilizes the egg.

If you read what the supreme court defines as lawful or permitable abortion, you will see that they allow it if continuance of pregnancy will physically OR psychologically/emotionally hurt the woman.
I believe that current law permits abortion for any reason up to the point of fetal viability; beyond that, abortion must (I think; I haven't read Planned Parenthood v. Casey in a while) be permitted where the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother's life of physical health; I'm not sure there's an exception for psychological health past the point of viability.

The abortion of a child can emotionally hurt a man, big time- because to a father that wants to see that child born, wants to protect that child (even in the mother) when he experiences an abortion, its similar to losing a born child at any age.
Sure, but is there really a direct comparison between an emotional injury to the father and a serious physical injury (or death) to the mother? Not to say that emotional injuries are not serious or legitimate, but it doesn't seem to rise to quite the same level of risk as that faced by the pregnant woman. I think Abbyas is right that there is a qualitative distinction here.

chris epic

25th March 2006, 12:05 AM

Yeah, yeah, what was that you said later, um "ad hominem"? Besides, oh, wait while I take my mid-morning nap here, ok?

zzzzzzz

Not clear, pointing out your rhetorical misadventures is not ad-hominem. I am attacking your message, just not the way you want me to attack it.

An example of ad-hominem would be along the order of

YOU EAT FISH THEREFORE YOUR IDEAS ARE WRONG... N.B. yes, that's a preposterous example, and offered only for example.

Well, one might then question the issue of "good faith", eh?wow..........................you just didn't have anything productive to say AT ALL this time did you. My ad hominum was only refering to me teasing you, although playful. That's all. Listin grandpa, we've obviously gotten off track and niether of us are improving the situation. So anyway, it is fact that because you (at your age) came from a 20 year old, that 20 year old was a potential you. Because that 20 year old came from an 11 year old boy, that 11 year old boy was a potential twenty year old you. Because that 11 year old boy came from a 4 year old toddler, that 4 year old toddler was a potential 11 year old boy. Because that 4 year old toddler came from a new born baby, that new born baby was a potential 4 year old toddler. Because that new born baby came from a fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy, that third trimester fetus was a potential new born baby. Because that third trimester fetus came from a fetus began at the moment of conception, that fetus that began at the moment of conception was a potential sisty-something year old YOU and therefore just as human, with the potential to be just as grumpy, and therefore, just as precious. And if your mom wanted to abort you and your dad didn't, then I think your dad would be pretty sad and feel pretty powerless. If you disagree with that, if all this is too anti-stoic of me, then obviously (of course its been obviouse all this time) we're simply waiting our times talking, or bickering about it, JJ. I don't believe you can see the value in a fetus that I do, and that's cool- I don't think you cruel or anything. And if you're taken aback by my emotional drive, its not a crime, a sin, or even anti human to emote so I guess thats all I have to say right now about that.

chris epic

25th March 2006, 12:08 AM

That's a very nice, clear statement, and one that I think summarizes one of the most basic points involved. It's the woman who has necessarily to place life and limb at risk.You still can't see it. Its right there in your statement. I'm risking my unborn child's life and limb.

25th March 2006, 12:11 AM

You still can't see it. Its right there in your statement. I'm risking my unborn child's life and limb.

You're right, since I don't accept your position a-priori, I don't "see" what I don't agree with.

We're not going to agree on this, I suspect.

chris epic

25th March 2006, 12:13 AM

Except that it is entirely debatable that a human life is being ended, and as such, the entire position rests on an unsupported premise.
I might have to back track to cut and past your post, but I'm pretty sure you agreed that abortion was terminating a life. And I think we all agreed that a human isn't protected, only a "person born", in the US.

chris epic

25th March 2006, 12:17 AM

Is there anyone with whom you disagree who doesn't employ "bullying rhetoric"? This seems to be your favorite way of avoiding the substance of a post.

Actually, it looks to me like JJ is more concerned with coining specific fallacies than actually getting down to brass taxes, which I might add is a fallacy in itself ;)

25th March 2006, 12:19 AM

Actually, it looks to me like JJ is more concerned with coining specific fallacies than actually getting down to brass taxes, which I might add is a fallacy in itself ;)

No, I just won't bother with replying to fallacious replies. It's not ultimately worth the time.

chris epic

25th March 2006, 12:25 AM

chris epic

25th March 2006, 12:36 AM

That's really not literally true, is it? 50% of the genetic makeup of the fetus is contributed by the father, but the actual raw materials that go into constructing it come almost 100% from the mother, aside from the single sperm cell that initially fertilizes the egg.

I believe that current law permits abortion for any reason up to the point of fetal viability; beyond that, abortion must (I think; I haven't read Planned Parenthood v. Casey in a while) be permitted where the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother's life of physical health; I'm not sure there's an exception for psychological health past the point of viability.

Sure, but is there really a direct comparison between an emotional injury to the father and a serious physical injury (or death) to the mother? Not to say that emotional injuries are not serious or legitimate, but it doesn't seem to rise to quite the same level of risk as that faced by the pregnant woman. I think Abbyas is right that there is a qualitative distinction here.That's what I meant- 50% dna.
Man, I thought I'd sneak by with my mouth while you were too buisy with JJ ;) But yes psychological health as well......well, yeah, past the point of viability....so in the third trimester? I'm not sure. I've pulled directly from the cases in prior threads, I'll go back into my handy little book here- but don't take my word for it.

chris epic

25th March 2006, 12:38 AM

No, I just won't bother with replying to fallacious replies. It's not ultimately worth the time.Whoa, hold on a sec. It just a hunch, but I detect you're lightening up a bit, jj, ol pal

meg

25th March 2006, 06:28 AM

Whether we consider a fetus a human life or not only matters if we are in a society that considers human life sacrosanct. It is my contention that we, as a society, do not.

We live in a society that sends its young men and women into war, knowing full well that many will be killed, tortured or maimed.

We live in a society that feels that the death penalty is acceptable.

We live in a society that's most popular movies, books, and entertainment includes stories about people killing other people. We consider it a "happy ending" and cheer when the good guy kills the bad guy.

Our laws and statutes consider it acceptable to kill someone if they threaten your life or property.

So we do not consider all human life to be sacrosanct. We consider murder to be an acceptable action under certain circumstances.

And its not just a matter of innocent vs guilty.

In order to end world war II, our society dropped nuclear bombs which killed over 120,000 innocent civilians immediately and twice that number over time.

In all wars we know that innocent people have been killed, and while tragic, most consider it an acceptable consequence of war. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country , more civilians were killed (30 million) than soldiers (20 million) during World War II.

Our own troops now in Iraq have orders when travelling in convoy that if any person steps in front of the trucks, even if they are children, to run them over. Do not stop the convoy.

And, its by not only our actions, but our lack of action that even more people die each year.

According to http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm :

15 million children die of hunger EVERY YEAR.

Every 3.6 seconds, someone dies of hunger.

It would cost our society 13 billion dollars to satisfy all the worlds sanitation and food requirements. Which is approximately the same amount of money people in the US and European union spend each year on perfume. Which is approximately the same amount of money Americans spend on porn. Which is about 1 tenth of what Americans spend on videos and movie entertainment. Which is about 1 third of what Americans spend on our pets...

Our society does not value all human life. As a matter of fact, it pretty clearly values some lives more than others. We kill people to protect ourselves. We kill people to protect our property. We kill people to protect our "way of life". We kill people by ignoring their suffering.

Respect for human life is NOT the name of this game.

Meg

meg

25th March 2006, 10:05 AM

I'd also like to talk about the real reasons that women get abortions now.

From: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

74% said that having a baby would dramatically interfere with her work, education, or ability to care for her other dependents

73% said she could not afford a baby right now

48% said that she did not want to be a single mother, or was having relationship problems

Nearly 40% said she was finished having children

Nearly 33% said she was not ready to have a child.

13% cited problems affecting the health of the fetus.

12% cited problems affecting their own health.

Most women (89%) cited two or more reasons. 72% cited three or more.

Let's look at some more info.

The majority (59%) of women getting abortions already has one or more children.

The majority (60%) of women getting abortions had a family income of less that twice the federal poverty level. Which includes the 30% who were living UNDER the poverty level

Here is a link showing just what those numbers mean. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/04poverty.shtml

So here are the questions I have to those wanting to ban abortion.

If you really really really want to stop abortion, what are you doing to help these families get what they need in order to have these children?

What are the social programs that you support that are going to help with the costs of raising the child? What are the social programs that you support that are going to help a woman continue her education while pregnant or a mother? What are the social programs that you support that are going to help a woman continue working, or will help her to not be worried about losing her job because of her pregnancy? What are the social programs that you support that encourage couples to stick together, and that help them work through their relationship problems? What are the social programs that you support to help these women (and their partners) earn a family supporting wage?

10% of all ALL US families (7.6 million) were under the poverty level in 2003. The corresponding numbers for unrelated individuals in poverty in 2003 were 20.4% and 9.7 million.
(from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html )

What are the social programs that you support to get these families and individuals out of poverty? Considering 60% of all abortions are by people we consider "poor", don't you think there's a connection? I sure do.

Yet, our government, with our president declaring our "culture of life" passed this in the latest budget:

MEDICAID: cuts $4.8 billion
MEDICARE: cuts $6.4 billion
WELFARE AND CHILD SUPPORT: Cut $1.6 billion from welfare, child-support enforcement and other human services.
EDUCATION: Cuts $12.7 billion from education

(from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122100748.html )

Here's another thing to think about:

37-54% of the women getting abortions either did not use contraception, or the method failed (depending on which year surveyed). Before we start making alot of judgements about them, let's also consider this, also from the guttmacher institute:

from http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2005/02/22/index.html
"In 2002, 16.8 million women are estimated to have needed publicly supported contraceptive care, yet clinics were able to serve just 4 in 10, or 6.7 million women. As funding for programs dedicated to family planning--such as Title X of the Public Health Service Act--has decreased or leveled off, the burden of meeting women’s health care needs has shifted to Medicaid. Medicaid funding for contraceptive services has tripled since 1980, and the program now accounts for almost two-thirds of all federal and state family planning funding nationwide.

The budget President Bush presented to Congress in early February [2005] would drastically cut Medicaid as a whole, and the Administration is hoping to change the program’s rules to allow states to reduce benefits for some enrollees--possibly including eliminating the guarantee that family planning services are provided at no cost. Yet The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that every $1 spent on contraceptive services saves $3 for pregnancy-related and newborn care alone, and a government analysis shows that states that got federal approval to expand Medicaid coverage for family planning saved money while serving more women."

To recap:

Close to half of the women in abortion clinics are there because of lack of contraception, or that contraception failed.

The vast majority of women who choose abortion do so because of poverty and lack of support for them to raise the child, - financially, emotionally, and/or physically.

If you want to drastically cut the amount of abortions performed each year, fix the above two problems.

--------

Ok. I guess I'm done for now. Feel free to go back to arguing over the genetic makeup of fetuses now.

Meg

JamesDillon

25th March 2006, 10:09 AM

Whether we consider a fetus a human life or not only matters if we are in a society that considers human life sacrosanct. It is my contention that we, as a society, do not...

So we do not consider all human life to be sacrosanct...

Respect for human life is NOT the name of this game...

Meg

Well said, Meg. That's the distinction that many of us have been trying to get at here. While most of the examples you offered are negative or distasteful aspects of society, I think that a good argument can be made that not every human life should be viewed as sacred, nor the right to life absolute in all cases. Fetuses are the best example of this; while they are biologically human, I see no reason to view their lives as legally or morally equivalent to that of an adult human being. A reasonable argument can be made for the other side, though, and I think this issue is the most potentially fruitful ground for compromise or mutual understanding.

Abbyas

25th March 2006, 11:05 AM

delphi_ote

25th March 2006, 12:29 PM

To recap:

Close to half of the women in abortion clinics are there because of lack of contraception, or that contraception failed.

The vast majority of women who choose abortion do so because of poverty and lack of support for them to raise the child, - financially, emotionally, and/or physically.

If you want to drastically cut the amount of abortions performed each year, fix the above two problems.
Wow. Nice!

chris epic

25th March 2006, 02:50 PM

Respect for human life is NOT the name of this game.

MegI totally agree with you- I realize this, I've known this. I'm not sure what your intentions were with your post, but I think its a very poor justification (I'm not saying you are poorly justifying, I'm saying our country is) That's why we need to talk about this stuff so things can change, right?

chris epic

25th March 2006, 02:55 PM

Ok. I guess I'm done for now. Feel free to go back to arguing over the genetic makeup of fetuses now.
I know I never said on this thread that I had anything against women exercizing their legal right to choose- not once, andf I don't think very many people on here, if any did either. However, I have a solution for some, if not more than some of the reasons up top- a willing father. If he wanted to assume responsibility for the child, he could take the child off of her hands- but unfortunately, if a father wanted that, he couldn't do anything about it.

chris epic

25th March 2006, 03:06 PM

Chris,

My point was this. Yes, I can see how if you wanted a child and couldn't convince her to carry the baby, it might be frustrating. But the decision is mine for this reason: carrying a baby causes you no physical changes, no throwing up, no organs smashed, no extreme emotional changes, no risk of damage to your reproductive organs, diabetes, etc, etc. This is why the decision is mine. I shouldn't be forced to go through that unless I want to.

It always frustrates me when I hear people say the phrase "abortion for convenience" because a pregnancy is not merely inconvenient.Pregnancy is not inconvenience, generally, but sometimes it is and sometimes that inconvenience is met with abortion. As far as me feeling "frustrated" that's where we are completely misunderstood- its alot more than frustrating, its spirit shattering- as though I lost a child and I was comepletely powerless over that. The feelings go way beyond "frustration". Hey, this might be petty but male preganancy "sympathy pains" are legitimate, psychological, but legitimate- yeah, guys going through this get moring sickness, too. And no emotional changes? THEY'RE GOING TO BE A FATHER! No emotional changes? Are guys just completely apathetic while their spouses or lovers are pregnat with their children? I'll agree with you that guys don't have a problem when their partners abort their potential-children- but thats only in the case where the father doesn't want anything to do with "it" either. What about when a father DOES? And nobody tell me "tough" because that's just a nonsense response.

Abbyas

25th March 2006, 03:51 PM

Pregnancy is not inconvenience, generally, but sometimes it is and sometimes that inconvenience is met with abortion.

Sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you meant by that. Did you mean that women generally do want to be pregnant, so it's not inconvenient? Not sure I'm reading you right.

I meant that pregnancy is always more than an inconvenience. Like chronic fatigue syndrome is more than an inconvenience.

And yes, there are sympathy pains, but I really don't think we can equate them with what the mother goes through. I think we can agree that the risks and the damage is much, much greater. I'd love to see some stats on how many men go through morning sickness vs. how many women do.

Also, when I was saying "emotionally", I was talking bio-chemical/hormonal reactions. True, having a baby is a huge emotional weight on a dad, but he doesn't go through the hormonal stuff that a women does, and he has options that she doesn't (i.e. medications).

And if someone (the father) wants the baby, I could easily see how an abortion could be likened to a miscarriage and includes all the grief that goes along with that. However, I don't think that a man's right to avoid that grief outweighs a woman's right to not have to go through the hardships of a pregnancy.

Abbyas

25th March 2006, 03:54 PM

I know I never said on this thread that I had anything against women exercizing their legal right to choose- not once, andf I don't think very many people on here, if any did either. However, I have a solution for some, if not more than some of the reasons up top- a willing father. If he wanted to assume responsibility for the child, he could take the child off of her hands- but unfortunately, if a father wanted that, he couldn't do anything about it.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you're thoughts on legal abortion.

The willing father solves the problem of an unwanted child, but what about an unwanted pregnancy?

25th March 2006, 11:20 PM

...
We kill people by ignoring their suffering.

Respect for human life is NOT the name of this game.

Meg

I personally find these two statements very interesting, being as they were in adjacent paragraphs.

What is the life of an unwanted child? I didn't say "what should it be", I said "what is it".

Yes, that's ugly, and I don't like the answer, either.

JM85

26th March 2006, 12:26 AM

meg

26th March 2006, 07:37 AM

I have a question for those of you that are anti-abortion.

Pretend you or your wife is pregnant.

Everything seems normal and fine until somewhere around the 5th month. At the routine sonogram, doctors see something quite troubling. There are strange deposits on the brain and many organs. The liver and spleen are enlarged. The head and brain are too small.

Your fetus has some serious problems. It has been infected by a virus.

Here is what they tell you:

If your child lives to be born it will probably be severely retarded.
It will likely by deaf. Even if it is born not deaf, there is a good chance it will become deaf later.
It will also likely be blind.

This child will probably never be able to walk or talk or feed itself.
It will be prone to many serious medical problems, like pneumonia, liver disease, microcephaly (a problem where the head is smaller than normal because the brain stops growing) and numerous others.
It may be subject to seizures.

There is no cure for this disease. Many of the problems this child has might just get worse as it gets older.

The damage apparent of this fetus is such that they tell you it probably will need to spend a great deal of its early life in ICU. It will be prone to many many infections during its life and will go to hospital often. It will require round the clock care for most of its life. It will need alot of prescription medications for the rest of its life.

You might want to consider institutionalizing the child, because the two of you will probably not be able to care for this child yourselves.

You also have your other children (2 and 4yrs old) to think about.

What would you do?

Meg

chris epic

26th March 2006, 03:01 PM

Sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you meant by that. I'm saying that, yes, sometimes abortion is the proceedure used to aleviate a pregnancy if the pregnancy is an inconvenience to the mother's life. i.e. because it would interfere with her career, i.e., they just flat out don't want a kid right now,

chris epic

26th March 2006, 03:10 PM

The willing father solves the problem of an unwanted child, but what about an unwanted pregnancy? It WOULD solve that, too- but unfortunately....no, tragically, a father can't stop a woman from terminting the pregnancy of their human/potential person/child- even if he wants his child, even if he wants to protect his child.

Abbyas

26th March 2006, 04:52 PM

It WOULD solve that, too- but unfortunately....no, tragically, a father can't stop a woman from terminting the pregnancy of their human/potential person/child- even if he wants his child, even if he wants to protect his child.

How would that solve it? You can't be pregnant for me.

Abbyas

26th March 2006, 04:55 PM

I'm saying that, yes, sometimes abortion is the proceedure used to aleviate a pregnancy if the pregnancy is an inconvenience to the mother's life. i.e. because it would interfere with her career, i.e., they just flat out don't want a kid right now,

Right, and I'm saying it's more than that. If it was just a matter of them not wanting a kid, then they could give it up for adoption. But they don't want to go through a pregnancy and everything that goes with that in order to produce a child that they would give up. I applaud those that do give children up for adoption, but that's a generosity (going through the pregnancy not just giving up the kid) that we can't demand from someone. I wouldn't want to do it.

The pregnancy itself is not merely an inconvenience. It is much more than that.

chris epic

27th March 2006, 11:28 AM

How would that solve it? You can't be pregnant for me.if she wants to terminate the pregnancy because she doesn't want to take care of the child, or can't take care of the child she could give the child to the biological father if he wanted to take care of that child.

chris epic

27th March 2006, 11:32 AM

Right, and I'm saying it's more than that. If it was just a matter of them not wanting a kid, then they could give it up for adoption. But they don't want to go through a pregnancy and everything that goes with that in order to produce a child that they would give up. I applaud those that do give children up for adoption, but that's a generosity (going through the pregnancy not just giving up the kid) that we can't demand from someone. I wouldn't want to do it.

The pregnancy itself is not merely an inconvenience. It is much more than that.
Again, I'm not defining abortions as a result of inconvenience, I'm defining a specific reason, out of many reasons, abortions happen- one of which is "inconvenience." I would rather be "inconvenienced" with the burden of raising my child than I would being restricted from protecting my child. I'm sorry but if adoption was chosen over abortion in the event of an inconvenient pregnancy, there would be far less abortions.

chris epic

27th March 2006, 11:37 AM

Abbyas
74% said that having a baby would dramatically interfere with her work, education, or ability to care for her other dependents

73% said she could not afford a baby right now

Nearly 40% said she was finished having children

Nearly 33% said she was not ready to have a child.

13% cited problems affecting the health of the fetus.

12% cited problems affecting their own health.

Most women (89%) cited two or more reasons. 72% cited three or more.

Let's look at some more info.

The majority (59%) of women getting abortions already has one or more children.

Abbyas- I'm going to reference Meg's statistics. From what I see, and I hope I'm not reading it wrong or making a hasty generalization- but these facts look like pretty concise definitions of an inconvenient pregnancy- THE MAJORITY. Only a small percentage cites physical health reasons.

meg

27th March 2006, 11:51 AM

"Most women (89%) cited two or more reasons. 72% cited three or more."

The average woman surveyed cited 3.7 reasons.

I think it's important to note that.

Abbyas

27th March 2006, 12:32 PM

if she wants to terminate the pregnancy because she doesn't want to take care of the child, or can't take care of the child she could give the child to the biological father if he wanted to take care of that child.

Right, but i was asking about an unwanted pregnancy. What if she doesn't want to be pregnant?

Abbyas- I'm going to reference Meg's statistics. From what I see, and I hope I'm not reading it wrong or making a hasty generalization- but these facts look like pretty concise definitions of an inconvenient pregnancy- THE MAJORITY. Only a small percentage cites physical health reasons.

Meg's reply confirms my suspicions. If it were just a matter of an unwanted child, it's one thing. But ALL pregnancies affect the mother's health. Some more than others. Pregnancy itself is more than an inconvenience.

gnome

27th March 2006, 02:49 PM

Again, I'm not defining abortions as a result of inconvenience, I'm defining a specific reason, out of many reasons, abortions happen- one of which is "inconvenience." I would rather be "inconvenienced" with the burden of raising my child than I would being restricted from protecting my child. I'm sorry but if adoption was chosen over abortion in the event of an inconvenient pregnancy, there would be far less abortions.
Most people would happily support (or at least, not object to) any initiative to convince women to choose adoption over abortion. But the question of "inconvenience" vs. "need" is not easily decided by someone other than the mother. But, it doesn't matter, IMO, because it is more effective (i.e., more abortions prevented) to convince than to try to legally force in any case.

chris epic

27th March 2006, 05:10 PM

Right, but i was asking about an unwanted pregnancy. What if she doesn't want to be pregnant? if she doesn't want to be pregnant and the biological father isn't around, and she doesn't want to give the child up for adoption there's really nothing I can say against that, its her legal right to make that decision. This thread prouted off a fathers' Rights thread- I created the Abortion thread because over in the "Roe v Wade for Men" thread, we started arguing about the humanity and personhood of a fetus- therefore I felt like we were getting off topic. One more time: I respect that women are able to have that choice as legislated by the Supreme Court. Do I agree with abortion? In some cases no and in some cases yes. And I especially don't agree with abortion if the father wants the child. But the abortion practiced today is not the abortion that Roe v Wade implemented thirty years ago anyway and I don't think too many people are aware of that- but the philosophical interpretation of the amendments that back them up and the circumstances which justify them are so ambiguous anymore its rediculous.

Meg's reply confirms my suspicions. Which are? If it were just a matter of an unwanted child, it's one thing. But ALL pregnancies affect the mother's health. Some more than others. Of coarse they do, from morning sickness and hormone dynamics to psychosis and sometimes even death and in the extreme circumstances of permanent physical damage or death I could see that as a good reason to terminate a pregnancy- but "health" is another one of those penumbras- "health" can be psychological health which can be defined as in terms of mental stress and anxiety which can be reason alone to terminate a pregnancy as pertaining to the health of the mother. Pregnancy itself is more than an inconvenience.I am not saying that pregnancy is an inconvenience, why do you keep thinking that that is what I'm saying? I'm saying that a large part of the reasons that a woman gets an abortion is because she feels that having that child will inconvenience her life and I feel that even the statistics that meg introduced to the thread is evidence to support that.

chris epic

27th March 2006, 05:12 PM

"Most women (89%) cited two or more reasons. 72% cited three or more."

The average woman surveyed cited 3.7 reasons.

I think it's important to note that.Meg, there are 7 statistics that you give before you give the percentages of the number of reasons listed. Of those 7, 5 indicate some sort of inconvenience: having the child, as challenging as it would be, would still be possible without a great risk of physical detriment. I mean, let’s face it, (no I don’t know from experience, but I was a child once) its no picnic weather you’re “ready and willing” or not. Therefore, statistically- if the majority cited an average of almost 4 of those reasons “chances are” the majority of those 3.7 reasons were from the 5 that identified some sort of inconvenience not detrimental to the health of the mother or the fetus, that’s why I didn’t feel the need to reiterate that, all someone has to do is go back to your original post and do the math.

Abbyas

27th March 2006, 06:37 PM

Chris, the reason I keep pointing that out is because a willing father would not alone solve the problem. If that were true, all of the individuals who cited reasons why they did not want a child (not mentioning pregnancy) could simply give up children for adoption, white parents anyway.
Problem solved.

But there are other aspects to consider. Not one of the listed options was "I don't want to be pregnant." Not one was "I don't want to throw up, gain weight, avoid medications, go through mood swings, etc, etc."

Both of the above reasons makes me think that the longer answer is, "I don't want a child, and I don't want to go through a pregnancy and give it to someone else."

Abortion is not easy. It is painful and requires recovery time. For those who choose to have one, pregnancy is worse.

The reason I keep harping on the issue is that I don't think your proposition (a willing father) solves the problem that an abortion does.

meg

27th March 2006, 07:48 PM

I wish you would read the full report that I linked to, Chris. Here's one part (all typos are mine - can't cut and paste from a pdf file):

Number of reasons given. Of the 1,160 women who gave at least one reason, 89% gave at least two and 72% gave at least three; the median number of reasons given was four, and some women gave as many as eight reasons out of a possible 13 (not shown). Among women who gave at least two reasons, the most common pairs of reasons were inability to afford a baby and fear of single motherhood or relationship problems; and inability to afford a baby and having completed childbearing or having other people dependent on them.

In-depth interview respondents gave an average of five reasons (range 1-10) for why they were ending their pregnancy. However, women's responses often did not fit the categories of the structured survey; the reasons tended to overlap between the domains of unplanned pregnancy, financial instability, unemployment, single motherhood and current parenting responsibilities. For example, one 25-year-old woman, separated from her husband said:
"Neither one of us are really economically prepared. For myself, I've been out of work for almost two years now, I just started, you know, receiving benefits from DSS and stuff. And with my youngest child being three years old, and me... constantly applying for jobs for a while now,... if I got a job, I'm going to have to go on maternity leave. And with [the father]... let's just say, with four children, I don't think he needs another one." - Mother of two, below the povery line

Like Abbyas, I'm not too fond of the term "inconvenient" used as a descriptor of why women choose to abort, either.

It is inconvenient when my cell phone battery dies.
It is inconvenient when I have to wait in a long line at the post office.
It is inconvenient when my car breaks down and I have to get it towed.

Using the word "inconvenient" to describe the situation of a woman with two kids, who's been unemployed for two years, living below the poverty line, separated from her husband (who has four kids), who now finds herself pregnant....

I just don't think it's a useful word here.

You described yourself as a shattered spirit when your own child was aborted. I would venture to guess that that descriptor probably fits for these women too. At least it's better than "inconvenient".

Again, the two most commonly paired reasons:

Inability to afford a baby and fear of *single* motherhood.

and

Inability to afford a baby and having completed childbearing.

For what it's worth, I think in a way you are somewhat right. If there was actually a "willing father" in the picture, many of these women might choose to keep the child.

Meg

Luke T.

28th March 2006, 08:29 AM

I'm still not able to decide. I think both sides make valid points, and I'm not entirely sure if I agree with the abortion procedure or not but I don't think abortion should be illegal because I wouldn't want kids killing themselves with a hanger while trying to perform the abortion themselves or any unqualified person performing an abortion. Hopefully one day there will be a compromise on the abortion issue. Probably won't happen in any of our lifetimes though.

The back alley hangar abortion is all but myth. By the time of Roe v. Wade, such abortions were pretty much extinct. Illegal abortions were not much riskier than legal ones are today. And were Roe v. Wade overturned tomorrow, I seriously doubt there would be a rise in maternal mortality rates from illegal abortions.

I carefully documented all this in a topic on SC if anyone is interested.

To recap:

Close to half of the women in abortion clinics are there because of lack of contraception, or that contraception failed.

The vast majority of women who choose abortion do so because of poverty and lack of support for them to raise the child, - financially, emotionally, and/or physically.

If you want to drastically cut the amount of abortions performed each year, fix the above two problems.

As a pro-lifer, I have made these exact same points many times, mostly the first point. Starting in the same SC topic I mentioned above, in fact. Most everyone here who has heard me lecture/rant on abortion is familiar with my "nearly half" (46.7%) statements about the number of abortions which are the result of NO contraception.

I have a question for those of you that are anti-abortion.

Pretend you or your wife is pregnant.

Everything seems normal and fine until somewhere around the 5th month. At the routine sonogram, doctors see something quite troubling. There are strange deposits on the brain and many organs. The liver and spleen are enlarged. The head and brain are too small.

This is more fear-mongering on par with the "hangar abortions". Only a tiny percentage of the approximately 1.3 million annual abortions are health related.

If these concerns were really what being "pro-choice" was all about, then making abortions illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, or even for severe birth defects, would be all that was necessary for everyone who is "pro-choice" to get on the "pro-life" side of the argument.

I'd bet there are more "pro-life" people who would favor the above example than there are "pro-choice" people who would.

Luke T.

28th March 2006, 08:35 AM

This is the SC abortion topic (http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1669) I mentioned in my last topic. You can watch the evolution of my opinions about abortion change right before your eyes. :)

Here are reasons given for abortion (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html) from an objective source.

rape or incest 1 (0.4-1.3)
mother has health problems 3 (2.8)
possible fetal health problems 3 (3.3)

Luke T.

28th March 2006, 08:38 AM

In Aborting America (1979) Nathanson writes: "In NARAL we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always '5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.' I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the 'morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?"

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040528.html

You'll still see that 5,000 to 10,000 deaths figure quoted on some pro-choice sites to this day.

ETA: From the same source:

Self-induced and back-alley abortions were becoming a thing of the past long before Roe: sex researcher Alfred Kinsey estimated in the 1950s that around 85 percent of illegal abortions were performed by physicians, even if the physicians weren't all in good standing.

For 1972, the last full year before Roe, the federal Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died due to illegal abortion. (The death total for all abortions, including legal ones, was 88.)

Abbyas

28th March 2006, 09:27 AM

If these concerns were really what being "pro-choice" was all about, then making abortions illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, or even for severe birth defects, would be all that was necessary for everyone who is "pro-choice" to get on the "pro-life" side of the argument.

Not for me, and I'll explain why. I don't care why a woman doesn't want a child.

What matters to me is that she doesn't want to be pregnant. All pregnancies affect the health of the mother.

And to tell you the truth, I never really cared for the back alley argument myself. If we used that argument here, we could also use it to make female circumcision legal too.

Again, I just don't want a single person to be forced to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be.

Luke T.

28th March 2006, 09:37 AM

Not for me, and I'll explain why. I don't care why a woman doesn't want a child.

What matters to me is that she doesn't want to be pregnant. All pregnancies affect the health of the mother.

And to tell you the truth, I never really cared for the back alley argument myself. If we used that argument here, we could also use it to make female circumcision legal too.

Again, I just don't want a single person to be forced to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be.

And that's a straightforward, honest opinion.

Abbyas

28th March 2006, 10:05 AM

And that's a straightforward, honest opinion.

Thank you, Luke.

bluess

28th March 2006, 02:41 PM

meg

28th March 2006, 06:31 PM

The back alley hangar abortion is all but myth. By the time of Roe v. Wade, such abortions were pretty much extinct. Illegal abortions were not much riskier than legal ones are today. And were Roe v. Wade overturned tomorrow, I seriously doubt there would be a rise in maternal mortality rates from illegal abortions.

from the guttmacher institute again:

Does the rate of abortion-related deaths differ between developed and developing countries?

* In developed countries, where the procedure is usually legal, abortion mortality is low (0.2-1.2 deaths per 100,000 abortions). But in developing regions (excluding China), where abortion is often illegal or highly restricted, abortion mortality is hundreds of times higher (330 deaths per 100,000 abortions). [74]

So, I don't think the above says that your assumption is true. In other areas of the world where abortion is illegal, the mortality rate from abortions is over 300 times higher.

meg: Pretend you or your wife is pregnant...

Luke T: This is more fear-mongering on par with the "hangar abortions". Only a tiny percentage of the approximately 1.3 million annual abortions are health related.

Perhaps you are confusing "health related reasons" with "to save the life of the mother".

This "tiny percentage" is

13% cited problems affecting the health of the fetus.

12% cited problems affecting their own health.

13% + 12% = 25%, doesn't it? 1 in 4. I wouldn't exactly call that a "tiny percentage". Even if some of the women answered both answers, we're still talking about more than 12%. Again, not a "tiny percentage". Nor is it "fear mongering".

25% percent of all 1.3 million abortions would be about 325,000.

12% is still 156,000.

These are not tiny numbers of people, nor are they trifling amounts. To poo-poo them away as irrelevent tells me that you're not looking at the real picture.

The scenario I described is a real disease, called CMV, which affects over 56,000 babies/pregnancies per year. Not all in as severe a form as the one I described. The one I described was from my own memory of listening to a woman discuss this problem on a radio program. It was my attempt to recreate what she said the doctors told her.

The reason I posed that problem was because listening to that woman describe her situation crystalized in my mind that the ONLY ones that can make the heart wrenching decision of whether to keep or abort that baby is that family. NO ONE has the right to tell that family what they should do, or when they should do it. NO ONE has the right to demand they do one thing or another. NO ONE understands their situation like they do.

The point of that exercise was to say/show, if there is *any* reason that you can think of that might lead you to consider having an abortion, then you have no right to tell others what they may or may not decide. You and I don't know what's going on in any woman's mind at that time, let alone in her home or in her life. Perhaps she is unemployed and in bankruptcy, perhaps she is in a violent relationship, perhaps she already has a special needs child and doesn't have a moment to spare. Perhaps she is caring for a parent. No one but she knows what her breaking point is. No one but she can make this huge decision that will affect and hugely impact the rest of her life.

Meg

chris epic

28th March 2006, 06:31 PM

What matters to me is that she doesn't want to be pregnant. All pregnancies affect the health of the mother.
.All the health affects from a normal, run of the mill pregnancy are natural, but you're saying that if a woman doesn't want to experience that stuff then its okay to get an abortion?

chris epic

28th March 2006, 06:34 PM

rape or incest 1 (0.4-1.3)
mother has health problems 3 (2.8)
possible fetal health problems 3 (3.3)

These are Luke's stats and yours are higher, Meg- so which one is it? 6% or 25%?

28th March 2006, 06:51 PM

All the health affects from a normal, run of the mill pregnancy are natural, but you're saying that if a woman doesn't want to experience that stuff then its okay to get an abortion?

Death from smallpox is natural, too.

Your point?

Luke T.

28th March 2006, 07:03 PM

from the guttmacher institute again:Does the rate of abortion-related deaths differ between developed and developing countries?

* In developed countries, where the procedure is usually legal, abortion mortality is low (0.2-1.2 deaths per 100,000 abortions). But in developing regions (excluding China), where abortion is often illegal or highly restricted, abortion mortality is hundreds of times higher (330 deaths per 100,000 abortions). [74]

So, I don't think the above says that your assumption is true. In other areas of the world where abortion is illegal, the mortality rate from abortions is over 300 times higher.

And what is the difference between mortality rates for live births in the U.S. and those countries? Average life expectancies? General health care access? Quality of health care across the whole spectrum? Did you notice they said "developing" regions and not "developed"?

The reason I posed that problem was because listening to that woman describe her situation crystalized in my mind that the ONLY ones that can make the heart wrenching decision of whether to keep or abort that baby is that family.

And I recall NARAL's "we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics".

Luke T.

28th March 2006, 07:10 PM

This "tiny percentage" is

13% + 12% = 25%, doesn't it? 1 in 4. I wouldn't exactly call that a "tiny percentage". Even if some of the women answered both answers, we're still talking about more than 12%. Again, not a "tiny percentage". Nor is it "fear mongering".

25% percent of all 1.3 million abortions would be about 325,000.

12% is still 156,000.

You are quoting numbers from an unstructured survey in that report.

On page 5 of the survey is a table listing "their most important reason for having an abortion". In that table, "Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus" rings in at 3 percent. "Physical problems with my health" rings in at 4 percent. Rape comes in at less than one half of one percent.

meg

28th March 2006, 07:10 PM

These are Luke's stats and yours are higher, Meg- so which one is it? 6% or 25%?

Luke's link quotes some of the numbers from a 1987 study done by the Alan Guttmacher Institute. The link I posted (Alan Guttmacher institute) is a more recent study that includes numbers from other years studies as well.

editted to add:
Hmm further down in LukeT's link it quotes the 2004 agi study, which I gave the link to. The numbers quoted in LukeT's link are not the same numbers listed in the actual AGI report.

Luke T.

28th March 2006, 07:17 PM

Luke's link quotes some of the numbers from a 1987 study done by the Alan Guttmacher Institute. The link I posted (Alan Guttmacher institute) is a more recent study that includes numbers from other years studies as well.

editted to add:
Hmm further down in LukeT's link it quotes the 2004 agi study, which I gave the link to. The numbers quoted in LukeT's link are not the same numbers listed in the actual AGI report.

See my last post.

Luke T.

28th March 2006, 07:19 PM

Also, a link to the guttmacher quote about abortion mortality in developing countries would be helpful.

Luke T.

28th March 2006, 07:28 PM

I found a link (http://guttmacher.com/in-the-know/in-the-know.pdf) to the abortion mortality quote.

Interesting. In the same document:

How many women die each year from pregnancy-related causes?
* An estimated 529,000 women die from pregnancy-related causes worldwide each year; 13% of these deaths are related to unsafe abortion. (5)

How many U.S. women die each year from pregnancy-related causes?
* In 2000, a total of 396 women in the United States were reported to have died of maternal causes. The number of
maternal deaths does not include all deaths in pregnant women—only those in which the cause reported on the death certificate is related to or aggravated by pregnancy or pregnancy management. (73)

396 deaths in one year due to being pregnant. 1.3 million abortions in one year are somehow not justified by pregnancy supposedly being unsafe for the mother, eh?

And nowhere in the document do they say what the "developing regions" are or what their death rates are for pregnancies and other surgeries and so forth for comparison to the abortion mortality rate. It would be nice to know what countries they are talking about so we could check.

Abbyas

28th March 2006, 07:30 PM

All the health affects from a normal, run of the mill pregnancy are natural, but you're saying that if a woman doesn't want to experience that stuff then its okay to get an abortion?

That is 100% what I mean. And what I've been trying to get across with the discussion of "inconvenience".

It's normal, but it's painful and extreme. And I don't believe that anyone should be forced to go through it if they don't want to. And, yes, if a woman wants to have a biological child then she pretty much has to, and that's fine and great, but if she doesn't want to, she shouldn't have to.

Luke T.

28th March 2006, 07:30 PM

It is my understanding that Guttmacher and Planned Parenthood are closely allied with each other.

Luke T.

28th March 2006, 07:32 PM

A total of 39 deaths in the U.S. in 1972 from illegal abortions, Meg.

meg

28th March 2006, 07:32 PM

I see. I was quoting from page three where it says "Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively)"

And Table 2 on page 4, entitled "Percentage of women reporting that specified reasons contributed to their decision to have an abortion" which lists the 2004 results as 13% and 12%, and the 1987 results as 14% and 8%)

LukeT is quoting from table 3 on page 5 entitled "Percentage distribution of women having an abortion, by their most important reason for having the abortion."

So, I guess you just have to make your own mind up, Chris, as to how to weight either table.

Meg

meg

28th March 2006, 07:34 PM

Oops. Yes. Sorry, Luke. You already stated that. :o

Meg

meg

28th March 2006, 08:39 PM

LukeT: 396 deaths in one year due to being pregnant. 1.3 million abortions in one year are somehow not justified by pregnancy supposedly being unsafe for the mother, eh?

I don't understand what you're saying. I don't think anyone here has tried to say that women are getting abortions because to be pregnant will automatically kill them.

It is my understanding that Guttmacher and Planned Parenthood are closely allied with each other.

Alan Guttmacher was a former president of Planned Parenthood, I believe. They (AGI) are one of the most well respected and most cited sources of reproductive infomation in the world.

Luke T: A total of 39 deaths in the U.S. in 1972 from illegal abortions, Meg.

I don't know the validity of that number any more than I don't know the validity of the much larger numbers you were talking about.

I'm not particularly concerned with what might or might not have been the number of illegal abortion deaths 30 years ago. I am far more interested in what that number might be should abortion be made illegal.

I'm not sure what the point of even arguing about that would be. Are you saying that since illegal abortions don't kill very many women that it's ok? It would be better for women to get illegal abortions than to get legal ones performed in licensed facilities by licensed practitioners? Since they're getting a medical procedure that you don't approve of, it's ok if they go to unlicensed persons, or unsanitary facilities, since they probably won't die from it?

Making it illegal isn't going to stop abortions. Cheaper, better, more freely available contraception would drastically cut the amount of abortions, though. If we want to reduce the amount of abortions that happen in this country, that's where to start, I think. Not by attempting to decide and legislate whether women have good enough reasons to suit you.

It is my opinion that if a woman decides she needs to have an abortion, she has good reasons. It's not for you or me to say. Only her.