This is the last poll question I have concerning abortion.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I must have missed the pole on whether or not making abortion should be a crime.
I always thought it was a womans choice.
Not saying I would ever consider it, but I think that it should be up to the woman & her circumstances.
I always thought it was a womans choice.
Not saying I would ever consider it, but I think that it should be up to the woman & her circumstances.
Another flawed poll <sigh>. Where are lynching, stoning, and torture?
quote:I must have missed the pole on whether or not making abortion should be a crime.
Sorry, Flo, I should have made this more clear. There is a poll that asks this question. It is located here:
Link
Same as any other murder.
Ron's reply is proof men cannot get abortions.
DF
DF
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
Ron's reply is proof men cannot get abortions.
DF
He is also proof that abortion should remain legal.
Touche'
DF
DF
quote:Originally posted by Ron Pheixising:
Same as any other murder.
Can you define murder as in any other murder?
Regards
Don't answer him.... He's gonna pull a wikipedia on ya!
quote:Originally posted by Ron Pheixising:
Same as any other murder.
Exactly right.And meanie,thanks again for showing the tolerance of the left.
Shouldn't you have to prove beyond a resonable doubt that a fetus is not a person? Shouldn't a fetus at least be given the same consideration as Charles Manson or Ted Bundy? All you can ever do is speculate as to whether it is a human being or not. Until you can prove it, I suggest you allow it to live. I also have another question. At what exact moment does a fetus become a person? Don't give me round answers such as 6 weeks or 3 months. I need to know the exact point in time the fetus becomes a person. If you cannot (and it is impossible to do so), then you must err on the side of life. Their are many of you who will come back with snappy or snide comments, but you can never escape the fact that you cannot prove what you say. You must admit that you give more consideration to a mass murderer or even a child molester than you do to a baby.
quote:Originally posted by Smooth operator:
Shouldn't you have to prove beyond a resonable doubt that a fetus is not a person? Shouldn't a fetus at least be given the same consideration as Charles Manson or Ted Bundy? All you can ever do is speculate as to whether it is a human being or not. Until you can prove it, I suggest you allow it to live. I also have another question. At what exact moment does a fetus become a person? Don't give me round answers such as 6 weeks or 3 months. I need to know the exact point in time the fetus becomes a person. If you cannot (and it is impossible to do so), then you must err on the side of life. Their are many of you who will come back with snappy or snide comments, but you can never escape the fact that you cannot prove what you say. You must admit that you give more consideration to a mass murderer or even a child molester than you do to a baby.
Exactly right.Most of the foaming "PRO CHOICERS" whine ***** piss and moan about the way we treat terrorist.But an innocent baby,"GIVE EM THE NEEDLE."What a crock.
S.O.,
Is an acorn an oak tree? At what point does it become one?
An acorn has all the chromosomal material necessary to become an oak, yet most of them don't. Were the acorns cheated?
You are right in saying we can honestly disagree about when a fetus becomes a human being with rights. That decision must be made with the rights of the fetus' mother in mind, though.
We cannot give a fetus every benefit of the doubt when a grown, fully formed woman claims competing rights. A balance must be struck.
As of now, the Supreme Court struck that balance at the end of the second trimester, that being the time when a naturally-born baby has a chance at living. Who knows but that arbitrary decision might change, but it strikes me as reasonable.
DF
Is an acorn an oak tree? At what point does it become one?
An acorn has all the chromosomal material necessary to become an oak, yet most of them don't. Were the acorns cheated?
You are right in saying we can honestly disagree about when a fetus becomes a human being with rights. That decision must be made with the rights of the fetus' mother in mind, though.
We cannot give a fetus every benefit of the doubt when a grown, fully formed woman claims competing rights. A balance must be struck.
As of now, the Supreme Court struck that balance at the end of the second trimester, that being the time when a naturally-born baby has a chance at living. Who knows but that arbitrary decision might change, but it strikes me as reasonable.
DF
quote:We cannot give a fetus every benefit of the doubt when a grown, fully formed woman claims competing rights. A balance must be struck.
As of now, the Supreme Court struck that balance at the end of the second trimester, that being the time when a naturally-born baby has a chance at living. Who knows but that arbitrary decision might change, but it strikes me as reasonable.
I agree.
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
S.O.,
Is an acorn an oak tree? At what point does it become one?
An acorn has all the chromosomal material necessary to become an oak, yet most of them don't. Were the acorns cheated?
You are right in saying we can honestly disagree about when a fetus becomes a human being with rights. That decision must be made with the rights of the fetus' mother in mind, though.
We cannot give a fetus every benefit of the doubt when a grown, fully formed woman claims competing rights. A balance must be struck.
As of now, the Supreme Court struck that balance at the end of the second trimester, that being the time when a naturally-born baby has a chance at living. Who knows but that arbitrary decision might change, but it strikes me as reasonable.
DF
Fat, we're not talking about trees here. We're talking about human beings! I think babies are a little more important than acorns! I also never said that "we can honestly disagree" There is no honest disagreement here. The murder of children in this country must stop! There is no balance - only death. Again, until you can show at exactly the precise moment the embryo becomes a viable human, you MUST err on the side of life. Remember, a baby is not a choice. It is a person.
Alright, S.O.,
In that case, a fetus becomes a human at the precise moment it enters into the third trimester of pregnancy.
If there's no honest disagreement possible, then you're being dishonest. The world is not waiting on your pronouncement of the truth in all matters.
A zygote is not a human, far from one. As far as an acorn is from an oak tree.
Do you honestly believe that a woman abrogates all her rights the moment she becomes pregnant? If you want to discuss when a fetus becomes human, and are so concerned about humanity, why does a woman cease to be a human being with human rights the instant she becomes pregnant?
No balance--only death. Sounds so very conscientious. And so very nitwitted. There is balance to all aspects of humanity, except for the unbalanced.
DF
In that case, a fetus becomes a human at the precise moment it enters into the third trimester of pregnancy.
If there's no honest disagreement possible, then you're being dishonest. The world is not waiting on your pronouncement of the truth in all matters.
A zygote is not a human, far from one. As far as an acorn is from an oak tree.
Do you honestly believe that a woman abrogates all her rights the moment she becomes pregnant? If you want to discuss when a fetus becomes human, and are so concerned about humanity, why does a woman cease to be a human being with human rights the instant she becomes pregnant?
No balance--only death. Sounds so very conscientious. And so very nitwitted. There is balance to all aspects of humanity, except for the unbalanced.
DF
Deep, the woman is not the fetus. She's not giving up HER rights. However, by our laws, the child in the womb abrogates all his/her rights from the moment he or she has the unfortunate fate of residing within the womb of someone with intent to end his or her life. That doesn't seem fair, does it? That's because it's not.
Again, I am aware the law is not likely to change.
Why do we have so many threads on abortion? Geez.
Again, I am aware the law is not likely to change.
Why do we have so many threads on abortion? Geez.
Joy,
If you are saying that a fetus of any age, however young, has every right to a full gestation and birth, then you must, necessarily, deprive the mother of her right to decide whether to endure that process.
But, if you think that a woman has certain rights over the use of her own body, then you cannot give every benefit of the doubt and every right to the fetus. I don't want to live in a society that treats women like brood cows, forcing them to reproduce against their wills.
The balance must be made. The line must be drawn somewhere. We draw lines all the time, you can't drive before you're 16, can't vote until you're 21, etc.
Right now the line for the endowment of the right to life is at the third trimester. We can wobble the line about, but pushing it either to Day 1 of pregnancy or 2 years after birth are both equally asinine.
DF
If you are saying that a fetus of any age, however young, has every right to a full gestation and birth, then you must, necessarily, deprive the mother of her right to decide whether to endure that process.
But, if you think that a woman has certain rights over the use of her own body, then you cannot give every benefit of the doubt and every right to the fetus. I don't want to live in a society that treats women like brood cows, forcing them to reproduce against their wills.
The balance must be made. The line must be drawn somewhere. We draw lines all the time, you can't drive before you're 16, can't vote until you're 21, etc.
Right now the line for the endowment of the right to life is at the third trimester. We can wobble the line about, but pushing it either to Day 1 of pregnancy or 2 years after birth are both equally asinine.
DF
Balance? How is living in a society that treats the unborn as worthless balanced? There is no balance. We've declared the rights of the woman worthy of recognition and taken away all rights of the fetus. This unborn child doesn't cease to exist just because we focus really really hard on the woman.
I think that many of those that want abortion to remain legal are in doubt about where to draw the line. The humane thing to do is to err on the side of the fetus.
JMHO
I think that many of those that want abortion to remain legal are in doubt about where to draw the line. The humane thing to do is to err on the side of the fetus.
JMHO
No, Joy, we haven't "taken away all rights of the fetus". After a certain time, and months before it is born, it has full human rights.
The woman certainly does have rights, too, though. Bestowing rights onto a zygote is unreasonable in that light.
DF
The woman certainly does have rights, too, though. Bestowing rights onto a zygote is unreasonable in that light.
DF
I'm talking about the ones you can legally kill, Deep. They have no rights.
To me, if a human within the womb can feel pain and in order to kill it, you cause it pain, that's really sick. I just cannot believe we allow this in a civilized society. Yet here we are.
Again, if nobody knows for certain where the line should humanely be drawn, you should err on the side of the child in the womb. JMHO
To me, if a human within the womb can feel pain and in order to kill it, you cause it pain, that's really sick. I just cannot believe we allow this in a civilized society. Yet here we are.
Again, if nobody knows for certain where the line should humanely be drawn, you should err on the side of the child in the womb. JMHO
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
Alright, S.O.,
In that case, a fetus becomes a human at the precise moment it enters into the third trimester of pregnancy.
If there's no honest disagreement possible, then you're being dishonest. The world is not waiting on your pronouncement of the truth in all matters.
A zygote is not a human, far from one. As far as an acorn is from an oak tree.
Do you honestly believe that a woman abrogates all her rights the moment she becomes pregnant? If you want to discuss when a fetus becomes human, and are so concerned about humanity, why does a woman cease to be a human being with human rights the instant she becomes pregnant?
No balance--only death. Sounds so very conscientious. And so very nitwitted. There is balance to all aspects of humanity, except for the unbalanced.
DF
Every time you reply to my post, you either misquote me, or you make an argument completely off base as to my original words. This is a cheap attempt to misdirect a discussion. People usually do this when they have no real answer to a question. Your problem is that you have no real substance to your position. You pat yourself on the back, thinking you are soooooo intelligent to be able to use such a tactic, then you have the gall to call me nitwitted and unbalanced. Ha!
I would like to ask you as well - what is so magical about the third tri-mester? Try to answer honestly, without using misdirection. If there is some point in which a fetus becomes "human" tell me down to the nano-second what it is. As you try to do this, remember not to sound so simple minded, because not only did the Nazis abort babies, they also destroyed those they perceived to be of "lesser intellegence".
S.O
I've neither misquoted you nor bent the topic. I just have a different opinion than you do. You are not entitled to claim that there is your way and the wrong way. Your way or the inconceivable way.
To put it mildly, it ain't necessarily so.
Nice red herring you have there, insisting that a concrete, definite answer be given to an abstract question whose answer is arbitrary at best. And until you get that impossible concrete answer, you want things your way. That's poor form and not terribly honest. Once again the world refuses to exist in terms of black and white and society must (gasp!) settle on an answer that seems reasonable to most people, or at least the people who have to make those choices.
What is special about the third trimester is that is when a baby has a chance of living if naturally born.
There is a big difference between Nazi genocide and a woman deciding, early in a pregnancy, that she does not want to continue it. I would have hoped this would be apparent to you.
When all abortion is illegal, women die getting them illegally. It is a monstrous and uncivilized state of affairs, and we suffered under it more than long enough. Doctors and patients, not preachers, should make these decisions.
DF
I've neither misquoted you nor bent the topic. I just have a different opinion than you do. You are not entitled to claim that there is your way and the wrong way. Your way or the inconceivable way.
To put it mildly, it ain't necessarily so.
Nice red herring you have there, insisting that a concrete, definite answer be given to an abstract question whose answer is arbitrary at best. And until you get that impossible concrete answer, you want things your way. That's poor form and not terribly honest. Once again the world refuses to exist in terms of black and white and society must (gasp!) settle on an answer that seems reasonable to most people, or at least the people who have to make those choices.
What is special about the third trimester is that is when a baby has a chance of living if naturally born.
There is a big difference between Nazi genocide and a woman deciding, early in a pregnancy, that she does not want to continue it. I would have hoped this would be apparent to you.
When all abortion is illegal, women die getting them illegally. It is a monstrous and uncivilized state of affairs, and we suffered under it more than long enough. Doctors and patients, not preachers, should make these decisions.
DF
quote:what is so magical about the third tri-mester? Try to answer honestly, without using misdirection.
May I interject? If we are forced to choose a point where abortion should be restricted (but never "illegal"), then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible.
The third trimester (or there abouts) is when the cerebral cortex develops and becomes active.
I am convinced that the well-developed human cerebellum is the only thing that separates us from "lower" life forms - the only thing that makes us "human" and, thus, worthy of legal protection.
All other arguments that I have seen, including those from my more rational-thinking friends, seem to fall short. If we use "ability to sustain itself" as a measure, then that can take us down a slippery slope ending in 100% ban of abortion as medical science develops.
The original Roe v. Wade decision permitted abortion at the request of the woman without restriction in the first trimester and, with some restrictions intended to protect her health, in the second trimester. It allows states to forbid abortion in the third trimester, except when there's a serious threat to the life or health of the woman. (the Supremes later adjusted that ruling by, in effect, leaving those finer points up to the states).
If I were ruler of the world, I would but the force of law behind the original R v. W ruling.
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
S.O
I've neither misquoted you nor bent the topic. I just have a different opinion than you do. You are not entitled to claim that there is your way and the wrong way. Your way or the inconceivable way.
To put it mildly, it ain't necessarily so.
Nice red herring you have there, insisting that a concrete, definite answer be given to an abstract question whose answer is arbitrary at best. And until you get that impossible concrete answer, you want things your way. That's poor form and not terribly honest. Once again the world refuses to exist in terms of black and white and society must (gasp!) settle on an answer that seems reasonable to most people, or at least the people who have to make those choices.
What is special about the third trimester is that is when a baby has a chance of living if naturally born.
When all abortion is illegal, women die getting them illegally. It is a monstrous and uncivilized state of affairs, and we suffered under it more than long enough. Doctors and patients, not preachers, should make these decisions.
DF
Red herring??? You, my friend, are the king of red herring.
"There is a big difference between Nazi genocide and a woman deciding, early in a pregnancy, that she does not want to continue it. I would have hoped this would be apparent to you."
So tell me, what is the diffence? Either way, you are getting rid of a person who is inconvenient, or doesn't make your list of standards. My point was who are you to make the decision. Is that person too old, too sick, mentally retarted, bi-racial, too young etc.? The very things you accuse me of are exactly the things you are most guilty of. You want things your way, even when it may cost the life of someone else. How arrogant of you to claim you know when life begins. I now know why you are an atheist. You believe you are God, and only you can make the decision whether someone lives or dies. The fact remains (and you have yet to dispute it) you cannot know when life begins. Until you do, to destroy it, is the highest level of immorality. There is nothing "abstract" about the question.
quote:Originally posted by Skeptik:quote:what is so magical about the third tri-mester? Try to answer honestly, without using misdirection.
May I interject? If we are forced to choose a point where abortion should be restricted (but never "illegal"), then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible.
The third trimester (or there abouts) is when the cerebral cortex develops and becomes active.
I am convinced that the well-developed human cerebellum is the only thing that separates us from "lower" life forms - the only thing that makes us "human" and, thus, worthy of legal protection.
All other arguments that I have seen, including those from my more rational-thinking friends, seem to fall short. If we use "ability to sustain itself" as a measure, then that can take us down a slippery slope ending in 100% ban of abortion as medical science develops.
The original Roe v. Wade decision permitted abortion at the request of the woman without restriction in the first trimester and, with some restrictions intended to protect her health, in the second trimester. It allows states to forbid abortion in the third trimester, except when there's a serious threat to the life or health of the woman. (the Supremes later adjusted that ruling by, in effect, leaving those finer points up to the states).
If I were ruler of the world, I would but the force of law behind the original R v. W ruling.
Skeptik, there is something very haunting about your response.
If we use "ability to sustain itself" as a measure, then that can take us down a slippery slope ending in 100% ban of abortion as medical science develops
This is exactly why we must end abortion. These are people we are killing, and the most innnocent ones at that.
quote:This is exactly why we must end abortion. These are people we are killing, and the most innnocent ones at that.
I concede your point. I almost didn't say what I said because I knew if would add fuel to your fire. But the truth is what it is.
When I am determining the "right" and "wrong" of an issue, a common tactic I use it to look at the extremes of the issue and see if my logic still applies. If it does, then I am probably "right" on the issue. If my logic does ont apply, then I force myself to re-examine the issue to determine what is "most correct."
By that measure (and by your logic), anyone using birth control is a murderer. Example: Birth Control (BC) pills work because they prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus. They key words here are "fertilized egg." This fertilized egg is expelled by the body in what could be called a "natural abortion."
This happens ever day, as you can imagine.
At the other extreme, a woman who takes the life of her unborn child the day before it is born is most certainly guilty of murder (excluding extenuating circumstances). Somewhere in the middle is a point where the fertilized egg becomes fully human. You and I are searching for that exact point.
So, in that light, would you call anyone who takes BC a murderer? Of course not. But why not? By my reasoning, that fertilized egg is nothing more than a mass of dividing cells no different than a tumor.
By your reasoning, there is something very, very wrong about aborting a fetus at any point yet I think you and I would agree that, taken to extremes, that does not always apply.
So, my my reasoning (which seems "correct" to me (but I'm always open to persuasion) is it a slippery slope to claim that "survival outside the womb" is a measure of "human-ness." Soon enough, medical technology will allow fetuses to be grown in "aquariums" - sparing women the agony (and joy) of pregnancy.
quote:So tell me, what is the diffence?
You really don't know, do you? It's this. When someone else, like a Nazi or an anti-abortion zealot forces a woman to have, or not have, a baby, that is coercion. A woman making the choice for herself is freedom.
DF
quote:Originally posted by Skeptik:quote:This is exactly why we must end abortion. These are people we are killing, and the most innnocent ones at that.
I concede your point. I almost didn't say what I said because I knew if would add fuel to your fire. But the truth is what it is.
When I am determining the "right" and "wrong" of an issue, a common tactic I use it to look at the extremes of the issue and see if my logic still applies. If it does, then I am probably "right" on the issue. If my logic does ont apply, then I force myself to re-examine the issue to determine what is "most correct."
By that measure (and by your logic), anyone using birth control is a murderer. Example: Birth Control (BC) pills work because they prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus. They key words here are "fertilized egg." This fertilized egg is expelled by the body in what could be called a "natural abortion."
This happens ever day, as you can imagine.
At the other extreme, a woman who takes the life of her unborn child the day before it is born is most certainly guilty of murder (excluding extenuating circumstances). Somewhere in the middle is a point where the fertilized egg becomes fully human. You and I are searching for that exact point.
So, in that light, would you call anyone who takes BC a murderer? Of course not. But why not? By my reasoning, that fertilized egg is nothing more than a mass of dividing cells no different than a tumor.
By your reasoning, there is something very, very wrong about aborting a fetus at any point yet I think you and I would agree that, taken to extremes, that does not always apply.
So, my my reasoning (which seems "correct" to me (but I'm always open to persuasion) is it a slippery slope to claim that "survival outside the womb" is a measure of "human-ness." Soon enough, medical technology will allow fetuses to be grown in "aquariums" - sparing women the agony (and joy) of pregnancy.
I can see your point Skeptic, and I applaud your honesty and logic. I'm just not sure when life occurs. Deep said that a zygote is not a human life. I tend to agree, but I also do not agree that life begins with the 3rd trimester. I do know one thing for sure. The life begins sometime between conception and birth. Too many very premature babies are born perfectly healthy. The only thing that made it illegal to kill them was the fact that they were outside their mother's bodies. Otherwise, it would have been perfectly legal. I do tend to get fired up about this issue, because I get sick to death when I think about all the innocent children who have been killed in this country. Something has to change. I do not accept the Bill Clinton philosophy of "legal but rare". If it is legal, it will never be rare. There should at least be much tighter restrictions on the procedure. It is just too easy for a woman to use it as birth control. That by any stretch is immoral.
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:quote:So tell me, what is the diffence?
You really don't know, do you? It's this. When someone else, like a Nazi or an anti-abortion zealot forces a woman to have, or not have, a baby, that is coercion. A woman making the choice for herself is freedom.
DF
Why can't the baby have a choice?
You're free to ask it. If it doesn't answer, personally, then we revert to the wishes of the woman.
DF
DF
The baby answers everytime it's heart beats!
quote:A woman making the choice for herself is freedom.
What about the choice she has already exercised to have unprotected sex when she knows she don't want a baby.If you chose to get married,then 2 months into it,decide you made the wrong "choice",is it okay to kill your spouse?After all,allowing that spouse to live even though it will impede your life is a violation of freedom of "choice."
quote:What about the choice she has already exercised to have unprotected sex when she knows she don't want a baby.
In that case, you can carry the baby for her.
quote:If you chose to get married,then 2 months into it,decide you made the wrong "choice",is it okay to kill your spouse?After all,allowing that spouse to live even though it will impede your life is a violation of freedom of "choice."
I don't think there's a jury in the state that would convict your wife.
DF
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:quote:What about the choice she has already exercised to have unprotected sex when she knows she don't want a baby.
In that case, you can carry the baby for her.
quote:If you chose to get married,then 2 months into it,decide you made the wrong "choice",is it okay to kill your spouse?After all,allowing that spouse to live even though it will impede your life is a violation of freedom of "choice."
I don't there there's a jury in the state that would convict your wife.
DF
I love the way you answered the questions without answering them.On your last point though,you're probably right.
Thimk!
DF
DF
Back,
It just doesn't matter why a woman wants a legal abortion. She does not need to answer to us or anyone else.
DF
It just doesn't matter why a woman wants a legal abortion. She does not need to answer to us or anyone else.
DF
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
You're free to ask it. If it doesn't answer, personally, then we revert to the wishes of the woman.
DF
He does answer. How does a fetus react to abortion? Does he embrace death or fight to live?
I thought this was an interesting article & thought I'd share it here...
From Psychology Today..."Fetal Psychology - Your baby can feel, dream and even listen to Mozart in the womb."
Joy,
Even that article supports the notion that a fetus' nervous system is poorly developed until the third trimester. Some things take time.
Did you send this cold weather out here? brrrrrrrrrr
DF
Even that article supports the notion that a fetus' nervous system is poorly developed until the third trimester. Some things take time.
Did you send this cold weather out here? brrrrrrrrrr
DF