What should abortion laws be?

[Bill O'Olberman]

love my child, and want another one,

Are you going to tell them you killed the first one so you could save up enough money for a new iPod?

The iPod Touch or Nano? I mean, id vehemently support my girlfriend having a 9th month abortion if I could 64 gigabit iPod Touch or a PS3 or a 40"+ inch Samsung 1080p 120Hz LCD TV. Seriously though, that all stuff is cooler than a baby.

I think the "Breath of Life" arguement advanced as the point where the baby becomes a human is inane. I think a better determining factor would be the point of viability and where a substantial majority of fetuses have the ability to survive outside the womb, which is around weeks 25 and 26. As the pregnancy progresses a woman should lose some autonomy when it comes to her abortion options unless her life is in danger due to complications.

Heres a scenario: a child is born premature at 25 weeks and his unable to breath on his own. Clearly, at this point the "my body my choice" argument goes out the window. So can a man actually have a "kill his premature baby thats 90 percent likely to survive but cant breath on its own" kind of abortion? I mean its out but it can only survive if its hooked up to machines. I think its a tradgedy if I couldnt because I have it on good authority from the fetus itself that it would rather die than be hooked up to life support.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I think the "Breath of Life" arguement advanced as the point where the baby becomes a human is inane. I think a better determining factor would be the point of viability and where a substantial majority of fetuses have the ability to survive outside the womb,

I disagree. Viability isn't really a set point or all that useful, as technological improvements allow us to save preemies that would have died ten or twenty years ago and there's always the possibility of a child developing slowly or having a medical condition that must be treated after birth to ensure survival. Thus,m I find the concept of 'viability' to be of limited usefulness. Additionally, a child with no midbrain or real head, but with a functioning brainstem can be 'viable' in that the brainstem can ensure that the heart and lungs function, yet we're dealing with a creature that has no consciousness- not only it effectively braindead, it never was and never will be aware of its own existence. This is why I think we should focus on consciousness and and the earliest point at which a conscious mind appears to develop.

Heres a scenario: a child is born premature at 25 weeks and his unable to breath on his own. Clearly, at this point the "my body my choice" argument goes out the window. So can a man actually have a "kill his premature baby thats 90 percent likely to survive but cant breath on its own" kind of abortion?

Or what of a child that can breathe but simply doesn't start of its own accord without some sort of stimulation of the lungs/diaphragm? Again, I've already shown how considering breathing as a necessary condition for personhood leads to absurdity.

 

[JD_2B]

love my child, and want another one,

Are you going to tell them you killed the first one so you could save up enough money for a new iPod?

The iPod Touch or Nano? I mean, id vehemently support my girlfriend having a 9th month abortion if I could 64 gigabit iPod Touch or a PS3 or a 40"+ inch Samsung 1080p 120Hz LCD TV. Seriously though, that all stuff is cooler than a baby.

Huh???
Who said anything about buying myself anything? This is about having money to buy food, clothing, and paying bills for his needs. I can't afford two kids.
And I do not have an iPod, or a fancy phone, or house, or anything like that. My van is 14 years old. My son gets plenty to eat, and we have a place to live, and adequate clothes to wear, along with proper medical and dental care.
If I had another kid, I would be on all kinds of welfare.. I just don't want that.. I want to wait until I am financially prepared for another munchkin.

I think the "Breath of Life" arguement advanced as the point where the baby becomes a human is inane. I think a better determining factor would be the point of viability and where a substantial majority of fetuses have the ability to survive outside the womb, which is around weeks 25 and 26. As the pregnancy progresses a woman should lose some autonomy when it comes to her abortion options unless her life is in danger due to complications.

So, she has autonomy as long as she is in grave danger... just not if she doesn't, based on some fetuses surviving for a certain amount of time, after a certain number of weeks gestation???

So, since my son was about to destroy me when I was actually IN LABOR, then I had the option, in your opinion, to abort???

What the bloody fuck is that all about. So subjective.. Anyone this subjective about this topic is clearly speaking in terms of their own emotional kneejerk response to the issue, rather than using logic and actually being objective about it. I meant no offense by that, either.

Heres a scenario: a child is born premature at 25 weeks and his unable to breath on his own. Clearly, at this point the "my body my choice" argument goes out the window. So can a man actually have a "kill his premature baby thats 90 percent likely to survive but cant breath on its own" kind of abortion? I mean its out but it can only survive if its hooked up to machines. I think its a tradgedy if I couldnt because I have it on good authority from the fetus itself that it would rather die than be hooked up to life support.

If it is not in her body anymore, then no- there is no property right being infringed upon, anymore.

But, having life support is everyone's personal option.. It is not a requirement, and for a woman who has a life inside of her, I think she has the right to decide whether or not to "pull the plug", on her biological "life support" so to speak- which, in my fact based opinion is really only growth support until the fetus is born, and becomes an infant.

So, in your scenario, if the premature baby is born and cannot breathe on it's own, then yes it is both of the parent's decision on whether they allow it to even BEGIN life support treatment. And, just like our currently failing baby boomer population has it, they can also decide to take that baby off of life support, too. Those are just the facts of life.

Scuse the pun.

 

[Father Time]

I support abortion up to 6 weeks after conception. This is based on the evidence I've seen which suggests that the regions of the brain which give rise to sentience develop possibly as early as 7 weeks after conception. Once this occurs, we are dealing with a sentient mind- a true person. Prior o the emergence of the mind capable of perceiving its own existence and/or the world around it , we are dealing with a living entity that possesses no selfhood. Thus, ending the life of such a creature is fundamentally the same as letting the body of the braindead die- the individual does not exist as such and the tissue itself possesses only sentimental value in its association in our minds with the individual.

This being said, finding information on fetal brain development has been difficult and I remain open to evidence indicating a different timeline.

I can't believe that's your position after the heated argument you had with JD in the fetus in a box thread, although I was only skimming it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I don't see why you're confused, FT. JD was lying and denying fundamental biological facts. Of course I'm not going to agree with the idiot.

 

[Samson]

This is the real question that needs to be answered, is abortion killing for the greater good or not?

Frogen, I'm astonished you haven't drawn the same parallel I have between Prohibition of Alcohol and Prohibition of Abortion.

I had a very close friend in college who had a one night stand with a chix that showed up at his place about 6 weeks later, pregnant, and in need of funds for an abortion. Being the honerable, enlightened, and perhaps a tad naive fellow that he was, he wrote out a check for $90.00, and never heard from the girl again......erm......at least to my knowledge.

The irresponsible past behaviour was water under the bridge: The question was what to do PRESENTLY about the Future: The girl didn't want to marry (niether did he). She didn't want to give birth.......without the option of Legal Abortion, then there is only the Black Market.

Which brings me to the Alcohol Analogy: We can no more expect people to not have abortions than we can expect people not to drink. The fact that both have historical cultural contexts makes this even more true.

So is Alcohol for the Greater Good? Apparently. Therefore, Abortion is for the Greater Good.

I'm sure Socrates would agree.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Samson, you're arguing for legalized rape, murder, and theft on the grounds that we can't prevent all of it. Yours is a fool's argument.

 

[Big Black Dog]

What should abortion laws be?

First they should invent some sort of a test to determine if an unborn baby will be a liberal democrat. If the test is positive and proves the baby will be a liberal democrat, then they should just automatically abort the fetus. This would solve a lot of problems down the road.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

well, this used to be a serious thread...

 

[Samson]

Samson, you're arguing for legalized rape, murder, and theft on the grounds that we can't prevent all of it. Yours is a fool's argument.

No, its just poorly presented arguement.

The reason Black Market's thrive is government regulation: Prohibiting Alcohol and Abortion is Government Regulation.....(nothing to do with rape, murder and theft)

Why would you allow a Black Market for Abortion, but not for Alcohol???

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The reason Black Market's thrive is government regulation: Prohibiting Alcohol and Abortion is Government Regulation.....(nothing to do with rape, murder and theft)

It has everything to do with rape and murder, especially since abortion involves terminating a human life ans is therefore homicide by definition. To argue that one form of homicide should not be restricted because it cannot be stopped is to argue that all homicide- and all other acts- should be unrestricted because they too are impossible to stop in all instances.

It's a really stupid argument that only a retard or an anarchist (which may imply retardation) would ever forward in seriousness.

 

[Samson]

The reason Black Market's thrive is government regulation: Prohibiting Alcohol and Abortion is Government Regulation.....(nothing to do with rape, murder and theft)

It has everything to do with rape and murder, especially since abortion involves terminating a human life ans is therefore homicide by definition. To argue that one form of homicide should not be restricted because it cannot be stopped is to argue that all homicide- and all other acts- should be unrestricted because they too are impossible to stop in all instances.

It's a really stupid argument that only a retard or an anarchist (which may imply retardation) would ever forward in seriousness.

I thought I'd try to see the arguement from another angle.

You're one of the many whose minds have been set so concretly, that there can be no intelligent conversation with you about the subject: Abortion is Homocide. This absurd notion is ok, only if you ignore the fact that Homocide victims are not inside anyone else's womb.

****unsubscribe****

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You're one of the many whose minds have been set so concretly, that there can be no intelligent conversation with you about the subject: Abortion is Homocide. This absurd notion is ok, only if you ignore the fact that Homocide victims are not inside anyone else's womb.

Why do so many people who want to kill their unborn children refuse to open a dictionary?

 

[FA_Q2]

Gone for two days and look where my thread has gon

Samson
Frogen, I'm astonished you haven't drawn the same parallel I have between Prohibition of Alcohol and Prohibition of Abortion.

I had a very close friend in college who had a one night stand with a chix that showed up at his place about 6 weeks later, pregnant, and in need of funds for an abortion. Being the honerable, enlightened, and perhaps a tad naive fellow that he was, he wrote out a check for $90.00, and never heard from the girl again......erm......at least to my knowledge.

The irresponsible past behaviour was water under the bridge: The question was what to do PRESENTLY about the Future: The girl didn't want to marry (niether did he). She didn't want to give birth.......without the option of Legal Abortion, then there is only the Black Market.

Which brings me to the Alcohol Analogy: We can no more expect people to not have abortions than we can expect people not to drink. The fact that both have historical cultural contexts makes this even more true.

So is Alcohol for the Greater Good? Apparently. Therefore, Abortion is for the Greater Good.

I'm sure Socrates would agree.

This is the reason I said that abortion should be allowed in the first trimester and much of the poll voters seem to agree. For the greater good it should be allowed up to a certain point. Your friend would have been within that time frame.

I will go back to JD’s First post as the rest are a rehash of the same post.

So, my assertion that it is not a *person* until the moment it takes it's first breath makes you angry? Oh and please do not confuse "person" with "human". I do not claim that a fetus is not human. It most certainly is HUMAN, it simply is not A PERSON.

To say that a fetus is A PERSON, is to entitle it to rights that are impossible to enforce for it. The non-viable fetus is subjected to every danger that it's PERSON, THE WOMAN carrier is subjected to experiencing, including death, injury, and destruction by the organism's outside world. For a fetus, the outside world is everything beyond the uterus, and of course, everything that is introduced TO the uterus, which happens to be by the choice OF said carrier woman. So, if she smokes Crack, or has HIV, or even has a few drinks one night- the fetus is subjected to die as a result. If the woman is hit by a car, in a train, ship, or plane wreck, or is caught in a bad storm and electrocuted, even, that fetus is ABSOLUTELY not going to have any opportunity to get away. The FETUS does not have a livelihood to protect- there is nobody to hold it, to cuddle it, to talk to it, or to nurture it. All there is, is the woman who carries it. THIS is why the fetus is considered a part of the woman's body- because it is contained within it- and is also why a fetus will never have independent rights, because it IS CONTAINED IN SOMEONE'S BODY.
Before an egg hatches, it is NOT A CHICK. It is STILL an egg, dude. Got it?

Do not try and argue semantics with me. It makes debate impossible. Replace each human with person and my statement still stands. The first breath is a ridiculous argument that you cannot uphold. There is no difference between an infant that is in the womb at 9 months and one that has been out of the womb for 10 seconds other than location. Partial birth abortions take a fetus that CAN survive completely outside the womb and kills them.

You really do not know what characteristics a fetus has before birth anyways. It is impossible for us to currently make any absolutes on what may or may not be going through a fetus' mind, if anything really does. We all know they have a nervous system, and once they have a cerebral cortex, we know that they certainly have the equipment available to think.. But just like having ovaries or testicles does not mean that the thing is capable of reproduction (as a fetus), we cannot say for certain that having any other equipment serves any actual purpose before birth.

We do know many of the characteristics of a fetus before birth (and asking for absolute is intellectually dishonest as there are VERY few absolutes in this world). If you cared to do a little research, we can and have recorded brain activity of fetuses before and it is surprising what you can deduct from many of the studies that has been conducted on fetuses. You would also be surprised at how well we can interpret brain activity. Do not use ambiguity to hide behind. Just because YOU don’t know what is going on does mean it is not happening.

FYI- I consider it to be at the point of taking it's first breath, because the bible defines it that way. Before it takes that essential first breath, it can feasibly go BACK INSIDE and still grow a little longer. Once it takes that breath, there is no possible way it can survive in the uterus. This is proof positive to me that breathing is the number one essential to life. When a person stops breathing, they die NOT because their heart stops. Their heart STOPS because there is no longer a FUNCTION for it. The heart is responsible for carrying oxygen to the various cells and tissues, using the component Blood to deliver that oxygen. This is health 101, man. I am not trying to demean you in any way, but I think that certain things need to be cleared up to you, before we can continue this conversation in an intelligent manner, when you discount breathing as though it is a non-issue to life. I find that pretty ridiculous, myself.

Read the statements I made again. I said that breathing was a non issue to the definition of what it is to be human. You do not consider a dog human yet it breaths. Your argument is way off base here. As pointed out by others, YOU need to take health 101 before preaching it here.

That is absolutely ridiculous. It takes TWO people to make a fucking baby. TWO people have to screw to get that sperm in there, to say hi there and hello to the Egg Flavor of the Month. I have more to say on this shit.. Because it is absolutely positively INANE.

NO, you are being ignorant. You argue for the woman’s side of choice because SHE does not need to take responsibility for the act of having a child and IGNORE the fact that the man is REQUIRED to take said responsibility if she does decide to have a child. What does the law say to a man if they want to keep a child and the man does not want it or to pay child support? They say tough shit you shouldn’t have been screwing around. Why do you continually bring the man into this when the man is already required to take the responsibility of his actions?

If you see someone without a helmet, riding a bike or a skateboard, do you tell them that a head injury would be something they just have to forego medical treatment for, and live with their risky behavior for the rest of their lives? No, you do not. Well. I hope not, anyways. ;-) Same goes with pregnancy. When something negatively affects your body that you could have probably controlled better, you might regret that you were careless.. but I promise you- you will not be regretting seeing a Doctor for treatment. Nope. No way..

WOW did you completely miss the mark here. I did not say you need to go without treatment. If you have a head injury of course you would get treatment. You would still have to live with the lost brain function as a consequence if it was a bad head injury. Same with pregnancy, you are offered many forms of care such as prenatal doctor visits and those wonderful vitamins everyone gets but you still have to live with the consequences of your actions, the child.

Furthermore, it STILL takes two to tango. Don't want kids? Dont have sex with a woman who is not ready to have a baby. Don't want to pay child support? Dont have sex until you have enough money to support those munchkins. PERSONAL FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY DOES GO BOTH WAYS. We are NOT your SEXUAL GATEKEEPERS.

As I said before, NO IT DOES NOT. Currently it only goes ONE way, as in I am required to care for a baby I do not want but you can just kill it off if you do not want to care for it.

Oh noooo.. We do not need anyone EDUCATING us on abortion or what is happening inside of our bodies. Good grief. Will Big Brother EVER take a LOAD OFF??? Hey as long as you are advocating for the babysitting of adult citizens, why not force all moms and dads to take a 100 hour course in parenting and healthy relationships, child bonding, etc. That would certainly help to cure the current child ABUSE trend.. ONE IN FIVE. YES.
A huge number, compared to the number of abortions every year. I digress though.. We don't need to be fucking SCHOOLED. We KNOW we don't want the fucking baby, and all you would be doing is delaying us in getting it. That paired with your First Trimester rule, and nobody would ever get to the clinics in time. So how, then, DO you actually SUPPORT first trimester abortion, in the first place???? I don't buy it. I think you are just saying that to make yourself look a little better. Read the children's book "The Wolf and the Kids". It is about a wolf who dresses in sheeps clothing, and then eats an entire family of goats. The mom goat comes home, finds the wolf asleep, and slices his stomach open, freeing her still alive "kids", and then shoves rocks in his tummy and sews him back up. Good versus Evil. Good RULES. ALWAYS.

Hmmmm…. Absolute drivel. Do you have a point or do you simply want to insult me?

I really don't understand where you got this from. The bible does not say anywhere within it, that life begins while we are in the uterus. That is just something I like to call a LEAP, like most false religious teachings tend to be. Also, it works into the whole circular logic issue, but I will save that argument for later in the discussion.

That does not change what I said.

Ohhhh So all we have to do is get hooked on CRACK or something, and we are in the clear, because we are SUCH WEAK LITTLE BITCHES and only the DUMBEST MOST FUCKED UP BITCHES should be allowed to avoid prosecution for "killing" their "protected" offspring??

You are a TOTAL misogynist. Did you know that???

Again, that has nothing to do with what I said. This is a continuous habit with you. If you are to quote me, please make your statement pertain to what I said. It seems that all you are trying to do is demise people that place an argument against what you belive.
You are a TOTAL misanthropist. Did YOU know that???
As far as I can tell your argument is that women should have control over their bodies and that personal responsibility should have no bearing on the choices we make. Fetuses are not people and can be discarded at will based on the fact they do not breath! Is that it!

 

[Contumacious]

THIS is why the fetus is considered a part of the woman's body- because it is contained within it- and is also why a fetus will never have independent rights, because it IS CONTAINED IN SOMEONE'S BODY.

Bingo.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

JD and CuminmyTum know nothing of biology.

Being inside another body doesn't make you a part of that body.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is more than that. It is taking another life that is totally independent of you and throwing it away because of inconvenience. That is the crux of the issue. The true scary part is many of those are willing to brutally kill a child by chopping them up into pieces at birth out of that inconvenience of putting them up for adoption. The fact there are people that defend that position really shows the depths of depravity of this society and the unwillingness to accept the consequences of the lives we lead.

 

[Contumacious]

JD and CuminmyTum know nothing of biology.

Being inside another body doesn't make you a part of that body.

HUH?

Have you been dipping into the eggnog already?

.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So cumisdelicious thinks a roundworm is part of cummy's own anatomy?

Go join JD is remedial biology.

 

[Contumacious]

So cumisdelicious thinks a roundworm is part of cummy's own anatomy?

Go join JD is remedial biology.

HUH?

They are both parasites and subjected to be removed by the host organism at any time.

.