abortion

ixoy

While I'm with you in theory newband, I'm not sure what your point is here - a guy punches a woman then he can be done for battery/assault, no?

uberwolf

that is much is obvious. I think what he's getting at though is should the fact she was carrying an unborn child make any difference? If the child dies can he be charged or is he morally quilty of a further crime of taking that child's life?

Its like the Omagh bomb, one pregnant woman was killed and her unborn child is considered in the death toll. Should it be considered? And if it should that is an acknowledgement that an unborn child has the right to be considered an individual. And therefore afforded human rights like in this abortion debate - life.

Is that a reasonable interpretation NewBand?

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by ixoy
While I'm with you in theory newband, I'm not sure what your point is here - a guy punches a woman then he can be done for battery/assault, no?

indeed it is uberwolf, much appreciated;)

Rock Climber

Originally posted by amp

Men produce vast quanitities of sperm. Most of it gets expelled with urine. Yet each and every one of those sperm has the potential to create life. The same with periods in women. Every month the female body aborts it's own egg (unless a sperm happens to penetrate it) to prepare for the next egg.

Yes but in both cases life hasn't been created yet.
To carry that logic back further, each and every meeting of a fertile man and a fertile woman has the potential to create life, but a life hasn't been created yet unless their eggs and sperms meet and create that life.

Remember we are discussing abortion here and not the natural wastage of sperms and eggs before they meet.
And the definition of abortion from www.dictionary.com is:

Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.

And I see animals, and cockroaches mentioned...
As was asked earlier how come animals don't go about elective abortion to save themselves from the incovenience of having to rear their young then?
I've yet to hear of a case where any animal clubs herself to remove it's young.
would it be because it's not what nature intended ie un natural?

Lemming

Originally posted by Rock Climber

As was asked earlier how come animals don't go about elective abortion to save themselves from the incovenience of having to rear their young then?
I've yet to hear of a case where any animal clubs herself to remove it's young.

Higher brain functions.

would it be because it's not what nature intended ie un natural?

Abortion is as old as nature. Nature aborts when it has to. To say abortion is "unnatural" is, well, technically speaking, not a very accurate thing to say.

ixoy

Originally posted by Rock Climber
I've yet to hear of a case where any animal clubs herself to remove it's young.
would it be because it's not what nature intended ie un natural?

Well it's because:
1) They haven't got a society built up whose expectations/protocols they need to adhere to whereby they'd need to abort (e.g: unwed mothers years ago in backstreet abortion clinics)
2) They haven't the intelligence to recognise the mental capacity to diagnosis future potential harm if the birth was to occur to the mother.
3) They're not so base as to rape their females the way humans do.
4) Their lifestyles will never be affected in the same by a pregnancy as they have no lifestyles as such.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Lemming

Abortion is as old as nature. Nature aborts when it has to. To say abortion is "unnatural" is, well, technically speaking, not a very accurate thing to say.

I was referring to elective abortion as being not what nature intended.

amp

Originally posted by newband
answer the question, lets say that we dont know how far along the woman is thru the pregnancy, all we know is the quy hits her, causes a miscarriage.. should he not be punished for that? do u think the mother would care if the baby has developed much??

Ah so you will only respond by demanding that your points are debated and not the overall topic of abortion then?

The point you demand be answered is meaningless. You ask that a woman who we don't know what stage of pregnancy is at gets hit in the stomach and causes the fetus/babies death. Should he be held trial for murder?

We don't know if the mother wanted the baby or not, we don't know what her feelings on abortion are. In fact we know very little based on your postulation. The man should be punished for hitting the woman. As any person should be punished for hitting somebody else. Should he be held trial for murder? Well that depends on how developed the fetus was. An autopsy would be able to confirm the age of the fetus if the woman somehow forgot.

Regarding abortion in the wild I'd like to say that yes, animals do not fashion coat hangers out of twigs and self abort but some species do eat their own young if there is not enough food to sustain either it or the parents. You don't get much more elective than actually eating your own offspring.

D!ve^Bomb!

lemming would u be so kind to answer my original question cos it seems to me that you have ignored it for some reason...


is it ok to kill a new born baby? just because a baby is not technically 'alive' in the womb is irrelevant, the baby WILL become alive,
if i was to hit a pregnant woman in the belly and in turn kill the baby, would i not be tried for murder, of course i would, but why?? if the baby is not alive then how is it murder??


an honest

yes he should be punished
no he shouldn't

would surfice

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by amp
Ah so you will only respond by demanding that your points are debated and not the overall topic of abortion then?

this does debate on the overall topic as uberwolf so kindly explained the reasoning behind my question..

Originally posted by amp
We don't know if the mother wanted the baby or not, we don't know what her feelings on abortion are. In fact we know very little based on your postulation. The man should be punished for hitting the woman. As any person should be punished for hitting somebody else. Should he be held trial for murder? Well that depends on how developed the fetus was. An autopsy would be able to confirm the age of the fetus if the woman somehow forgot.

lets say the woman is pro choice but in this case wants the baby and is in the second month of pregnancy, she has known since the first month that she is pregnant and has been preparing for it like anyone would,, then all of a sudden its gone, she miscarriages as a result of being hit.. her life is ruined, her unborn baby is dead and will never be born... so now u know the ins and outs, should he be punished??

uberwolf

Originally posted by amp

We don't know if the mother wanted the baby or not,

so if she didn't want it he gets a civil merit award and if she did he gets done for murder?

Originally posted by amp
we don't know what her feelings on abortion are.

so if she's pro choice its ok for him to do it? and if she's not he's in trouble? What if she's pro choice and wanted the kid, is it out of her hands - nature intervened?

whats more say she was on her way to get the foetus aborted, and someone stabbed her in the stomach (bear with me here) and the kid died does where she was going make any difference?

Originally posted by amp

In fact we know very little based on your postulation.[/B]

indeed, I'm not sure where this is going. If abortion is ok does the life of an unborn count for nothing in any circumstance? thats the point (of this tangent).

I think there is nothing to be gained from debating that nature allows it so should we. If we were thorough with this approach we would have no medicine, etc. Also as nature starts fires, pryomaniacs would be acceptable, and so on.

It has been accepted that humans have arisen above the whim of nature. We control our own fate more than any other species. Consequently the debate on abortion, GM, cloning, etc. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. Just because some animals eat their young doesn't make it acceptable for a self aware species like ourselves.

We have decided as a society that murder is unacceptable. Consequently this argument must hinge on when life begins, and if there is more than one form of human life isone more expendable than the next? and why?

Shanka

u are REALLY showing your immaturity with this gem, so i take it u know cliff richard personnally then?

I love the way you pick the most bewildering bits of argument (which was me attempting to lighten the subject a little by taking the mick out of Cliff) and completely ignore the actual point... AND THEN you repeatedly re-post earlier posts from your self with righteous indignation...

No I don't personally know Cliff - But that still doesn't change the fact that I think he's a freak - not least because he's a self confessed 60+ year old virgin (can't even believe I'm having to make this clear - we were talking about abortion ffs) but because he's the maker of so much terrible music... I think Brittany is a freak too and for the same reasons...

Your condescending tones will not work on me young man...

Why is it that pro-lifers are always the first to resort to personal attacks when talking to people who don't agree with them? Since being on this thread I've been called selfish (because my girlfriend decided to have an abortion - which was incredibly hurtful btw - I decided that the best thing to do there was to ignore it - otherwise I'd be allowing my feelings get the better of me) I've had factual comments dismissed as 'rubbish' and now I'm being called immature - because I called Cliff Richard a freak... And thats just me.

Its all very well having a discussion on this subject but whats the point when people can't state their argument without being personally insulted.

There are others ways of making your point without pure mud slinging... Nothing of what Newband and Rockclimber have said has made the slightest bit of sense to me - someone who has had personal experience of this type of crisis. They have never had to deal with this (and I really hope they don't - I wouldn't wish it on anyone) But if you had - I doubt you could say any of the things they've said so far...

Reading what you say is like reading someone's list of reasons why cars should be banned - even though they've never been in an actual car. They can never know what they are talking about as they've never had the experience. I'm sorry but that's just the way it is.

This is my last post on this. Enough already.

Lemming

Originally posted by newband
lemming would u be so kind to answer my original question cos it seems to me that you have ignored it for some reason...

like you conveniently ignored some of my points/questions ...

is it ok to kill a new born baby?

Ehh ... a "new born baby" yeah? Well, that's actually murder since you've just killed another citizen of the state in question. Obviously :rolleyes:

Come on, for f*cks sake. Ask a sensible question will you and stop being a pedantic idiot. You really are coming across just as dr_manhattan likened you. The 20 year old who knows nothing but is the worlds expert on everything.

just because a baby is not technically 'alive' in the womb is irrelevant, the baby WILL become alive,

Not guaruanteed. That baby may be aborted naturally, or it may be stillborn. Again, see my above comment on pedantiscm.

if i was to hit a pregnant woman in the belly and in turn kill the baby, would i not be tried for murder, of course i would, but why?? if the baby is not alive then how is it murder??

You would not be tried for murder or manslaughter, since you have not killed a citizen of the state. You would no doubt get a stiffer sentence of assault (and rightly so) if you did such an act knowingly.

By the way newband - your scenarios are utterly _F*CKING_ pedantic and idiocy-revealing.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Lemming

You would not be tried for murder or manslaughter, since you have not killed a citizen of the state. You would no doubt get a stiffer sentence of assault (and rightly so) if you did such an act knowingly.

By the way newband - your scenarios are utterly _F*CKING_ pedantic and idiocy-revealing.

Well actually if you live in Ohio you would indeed be charged with homicide of the unborn child if you attacked a pregnant woman carrying a viable foetus, resulting in the death of that foetus.




/oh the irony... me quoting from a catholic publication, when I'm not one...I blame google

amp

Originally posted by newband
this does debate on the overall topic as uberwolf so kindly explained the reasoning behind my question..



lets say the woman is pro choice but in this case wants the baby and is in the second month of pregnancy, she has known since the first month that she is pregnant and has been preparing for it like anyone would,, then all of a sudden its gone, she miscarriages as a result of being hit.. her life is ruined, her unborn baby is dead and will never be born... so now u know the ins and outs, should he be punished??

Of course. I suspose if I apply my reasoning to your argument then his sentence (if found guilty of course) should depend on the maturity of the fetus. If it had reached the stage were higher brain functions were present then he should be sentenced for murder. If it's pre-sentient then he should be sentenced for serious assaulting the woman.

ixoy

Originally posted by amp
Of course. I suspose if I apply my reasoning to your argument then his sentence (if found guilty of course) should depend on the maturity of the fetus. If it had reached the stage were higher brain functions were present then he should be sentenced for murder. If it's pre-sentient then he should be sentenced for serious assaulting the woman.

I can understand that point but isn't there a faint whiff of ridiculousness about that?

Judge: I sentence you to twenty years for the murder of the unborn child!
Criminal: Huh? But I thought I'd only get assault.
Judge: Hah! You should have stabbed the child last week, then it would have been different!
Criminal: But...

... See?

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Lemming
like you conveniently ignored some of my points/questions ...

Ehh ... a "new born baby" yeah? Well, that's actually murder since you've just killed another citizen of the state in question. Obviously :rolleyes:

if u read my posts correctly then u will realise i was making this comment in reply to someone else

Originally posted by Lemming
Come on, for f*cks sake. Ask a sensible question will you and stop being a pedantic idiot. You really are coming across just as dr_manhattan likened you. The 20 year old who knows nothing but is the worlds expert on everything.:

i, and others i believe, think it is a sensible question, yet u STILL have not answered it

Originally posted by Lemming
You would not be tried for murder or manslaughter, since you have not killed a citizen of the state. You would no doubt get a stiffer sentence of assault (and rightly so) if you did such an act knowingly.

By the way newband - your scenarios are utterly _F*CKING_ pedantic and idiocy-revealing.

answer the questinon, answer the question, i also think it is quite a reasonable scenario that happens in every day life, maybe not someone punching one in the belly, but maybe a car crash etc...

you STILL have answered the question, why is that??

secret_squirrel

Originally posted by newband
lets say the woman is pro choice but in this case wants the baby and is in the second month of pregnancy, she has known since the first month that she is pregnant and has been preparing for it like anyone would,, then all of a sudden its gone, she miscarriages as a result of being hit.. her life is ruined, her unborn baby is dead and will never be born... so now u know the ins and outs, should he be punished??

I think most if not all of us would agree he should be punished - for the assault on the mother - if nothing else, however a quick search of some of the pro-life sites (shudder) on the internet would quickly show you that most Western countries - including France (example ), UK, Canada, Non-Bible Belt US states (now thats a shock) would not consider it Manslaughter or Murder. And the impression Im getting (from reading between the lines admittedly) is that its considered agravated assault at most - treating that unborn baby (your words)/growing blob of cells (my words) as merely an appendage of the mother, and NOT a human life.

So your example is intended to prove what point exactly???

And btw St. Cliffy admited years ago he's not a virgin, he shagged that tennis player bird....

grainne_mhaol

Pictures shown of an aborted foetus in demonstrations is bull**** in my opinion. I am a mother and have read all the baby books so here are some facts on a developing foetus.

1. A foetus at 12 weeks (the most common time to have an abortion) is only 4 cm. Most peoples little fingers are longer.

2. A woman can have an abortion up to 19 weeks where a foetus at this stage is 15 cm. Still tiny.

Am i starting to spread doubt about the photos?

I have read arguments about making the woman have the child and then giving it up for adoption

Giving birth the facts:

1 Get rulers out! To deliver a baby the entrance to a womb has to stretch to 10 cm in diameter (major ouch).

2 If thats not bad enough the average baby is 8lbs so you have to fit the equivalent of 4 pkts of sugar through that size hole. Everyone who said the woman should go through labour try it yourself first and if your not of the right gender then imagine pissing a golf ball.

As you've guessed I believe abortion should be legal and available to those who wish to go that route.

And before anyone says that I was forced to have my child I was not and I have no regrets about having kids, I would go through labour again any day it's the nine months of hell before hand is the problem.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by secret_squirrel
I think most if not all of us would agree he should be punished - for the assault on the mother - if nothing else, however a quick search of some of the pro-life sites (shudder) on the internet would quickly show you that most Western countries - including France (example ), UK, Canada, Non-Bible Belt US states (now thats a shock) would not consider it Manslaughter or Murder. And the impression Im getting (from reading between the lines admittedly) is that its considered agravated assault at most - treating that unborn baby (your words)/growing blob of cells (my words) as merely an appendage of the mother, and NOT a human life

So your example is intended to prove what point exactly???.

Fetal-murder laws have been passed in 29 states in America, and Congress is considering a federal law,, so if this situation were to happen then the perpatraitor WOULD be tried for murder/manslaughter

Originally posted by secret_squirrel
And btw St. Cliffy admited years ago he's not a virgin, he shagged that tennis player bird....

i never said he was a virgin now did i, i said he was celebate(sp), to prove a point that u dont ''need'' sex and ANYONE can go without it if they truely wanted to..

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by grainne_mhaol
1. A foetus at 12 weeks (the most common time to have an abortion) is only 4 cm. Most peoples little fingers are longer.

2. A woman can have an abortion up to 19 weeks where a foetus at this stage is 15 cm. Still tiny.

and the size of it means wot exactly, that the smaller it is the more justification behind aborting

Originally posted by grainne_mhaol
Giving birth the facts:

1 Get rulers out! To deliver a baby the entrance to a womb has to stretch to 10 cm in diameter (major ouch)..

so, this wouldn't stop ya havin one if u were gonna keep it, is this your idea of a good reason to abort, because its gonna hurt :rolleyes:

Originally posted by grainne_mhaol
2 If thats not bad enough the average baby is 8lbs so you have to fit the equivalent of 4 pkts of sugar through that size hole. Everyone who said the woman should go through labour try it yourself first and if your not of the right gender then imagine pissing a golf ball.)..

see above, pain is a VERY poor reason to abort and it seems to be your only reason so far

ixoy

Originally posted by grainne_mhaol
I would go through labour again any day it's the nine months of hell before hand is the problem.

See I can understand the point made by the women - we can't know what it's like. Therefore, I'd love if there was the medical option to let men get pregnant (or at least be burned with carrying the growing foetus). That way men could take equal share and responsibilty. I may be against abortion but I'm also for man taking every ounce of parental responsibility that they should and that they are entitled to.

So all us other pro-life people: do you agree we should also, hypothetically, carry the baby if the choice was there? And take equal responsibility?

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by ixoy
So all us other pro-life people: do you agree we should also, hypothetically, carry the baby if the choice was there? And take equal responsibility?

mmm, that is a very wierd situation to try and understand, but if the ONLY way to have a child was to carry it myself then i would.... but to be totally honest, if the pain etc bothered me that much then i would adopt instead,,, i have said this to my gf that if she thought that she couldn't go thru with a pregnancy because of the pain then i would happily adopt,,, i dont think it matters if your the biological father as long as you love and support etc etc, i'm just babbling now,,,

put in simpler terms, yes i would carry a child if i HAD too, but if i don't have to, then i aint complainin:D

amp

Originally posted by newband
and the size of it means wot exactly, that the smaller it is the more justification behind aborting

Yes, as the smaller a foetus would have a tiny brain that has yet to function therefore not actually a self-aware being but still a collection of cells. But you've danced around this particular point for some reason.

Here's some questions for you newband:

At what stage does the fusion of sperm and egg become a baby?
At the exact moment the sperm penetrates the outer shell of and egg, is that a human being at that exact stage?
Do those two cells have the same rights as new born baby?
Given that if they do have the same rights, and that if we slip time back a little before they fused, does that mean sperm and eggs should have rights too?
If they do, are you not commiting murder when you take a piss?

I demand you answer all these questions as I am sick to death of you shouting "answer the question!".

Carpo

Newband,

Originally posted by newband
just because a baby is not technically 'alive' in the womb is irrelevant, the baby WILL become alive

I will assume you mean here that the baby is not yet a 'human life' rather than you are inferring that it is a lump of dead matter which it obviously isnt. So you are saying that the baby at this stage of development is not yet a human life, just has the potential to become one.

You also say that you use contraceptives when having sex with your girlfriend. In this situation you have both the sperm, which is alive, and the egg, also alive, and which may produce a human life.

Now obviously both the situations have a disparate chance of producing a human life, nevertheless both situations have the potential to do so.

So... Both are alive, both have the potential to produce a human life but one situation is acceptable and the other is not. Why is this?

(I dont mean to second guess your reply but...if you are going to say that there is a diffence between a seperate sperm and egg and the intial stage of the pregnancy where they have been combined, could you please explain in your reply what the difference is and also why this is where the line between acceptable/unacceptable is drawn?)

Edit: Oops..Amp beat me to a couple of those questions

amp

Originally posted by ixoy
I can understand that point but isn't there a faint whiff of ridiculousness about that?

Judge: I sentence you to twenty years for the murder of the unborn child!
Criminal: Huh? But I thought I'd only get assault.
Judge: Hah! You should have stabbed the child last week, then it would have been different!
Criminal: But...

... See?

Judge: I sentence you to death for the murder of that murder of that child!
Criminal: Huh, but I thought I'd get sentenced to twenty years?
Judge: You should have murdered them in a country that hasn't got the death penalty, then it would be different!
Criminal: But..

Or:

Judge: I sentence you to death for the murder of that murder of that child!
Black Criminal: Huh, but I thought I'd get sentenced to twenty years?
Judge: You should have murdered the child in a country that isn't South Africa when it still had aparteid, or you were white, then it would be different!
Black Criminal: But..

So what? There are a lot of laws that have a faint whiff of ridiculousness about them. I hear about towns in the US that have laws against ducks driving cars and other laws that literally shit solid bricks of ridiculousness.

.. See?

ixoy

Originally posted by amp
At what stage does the fusion of sperm and egg become a baby?
At the exact moment the sperm penetrates the outer shell of and egg, is that a human being at that exact stage?
Do those two cells have the same rights as new born baby?
Given that if they do have the same rights, and that if we slip time back a little before they fused, does that mean sperm and eggs should have rights too?
If they do, are you not commiting murder when you take a piss?

Of course you're comitting murder when taking a piss - IIRC those sperm never would have done anything anyway. Although the image is somewhat amusing.

I think the key is potentiality. Once fertilisation has occured and the cellular process begun it's genetic destiny to become a foetus - that's the point I assume newband is talking about. Give Mother Nature's fickleness the chances are... what? 70%ish of producing a living child? So essentially, I guess, you'd have to classify those conceived cells as a child once all that DNA gets up to its evolutionary goodness.

Now wearing a contraceptive device is somewhat different: On one hand we're reducing an actual potentiality of 70%. On the other situation, we're ensuring there never exists the potentiality in the first place. 70% vs 0%.

The rights of sperm? It's humorously phrased but the chance of an individual sperm causing conception is, as I'm sure you know, pretty intifismal. It's the point of conception where we know the point of possible "no return" has been breached.

So what? There are a lot of laws that have a faint whiff of ridiculousness about them. I hear about towns in the US that have laws against ducks driving cars and other laws that literally **** solid bricks of ridiculousness.

So you admit the ridiculous nature of it? I'm perfectly capable of understanding the scientific argument about being an independent creature but I still am incapable of fitting it into a morale framework that decries the needless destruction of potentiality. I believe in everyone having a chance to prove themselves and that's what bugs me about elective abortion.

Unfortunately, this thread is becoming a circular dance. We've all got our viewpoints and it's now more interesting to ask: has anyone shifted theirs? Has anyone re-evaluated their moral outlook, their code of ethics? I'm willing to concede that I'm not necessarily right but I'm still sticking by my viewpoint of it being incompatible with my own outlook on humanity. I'm also willing to concede that certain situations have their own set of exegent circumstances but, on the other hand, many do not. Now that's where I stand currently and undoubtedly will five years from now...

Carpo

Originally posted by ixoy

Now wearing a contraceptive device is somewhat different: On one hand we're reducing an actual potentiality of 70%. On the other situation, we're ensuring there never exists the potentiality in the first place. 70% vs 0%.

You are comparing dissimilar situations. I could make the exact opposite comparison: The potential of an aborted pregnancy is 0% and the protential of a sex act where contraception is not used is (whatever)%. Clearly its an unfair comparrison.

However, since youre talking about potentials here, how does interfering with a sexual act (by using contraception) which has the potential to produce a human, differ with interfering with a pregnancy (by abortion) which has the potential to produce a human?

The rights of sperm? It's humorously phrased but the chance of an individual sperm causing conception is, as I'm sure you know, pretty intifismal

So are you saying that the only difference between a sperm and a clump of replicating cells is the odds of fulfilling their potential? Its ok to stop one becasue it has a low chance of giving rise to a human but its not ok to stop another because it has a better chance? But you then say..

I still am incapable of fitting it into a morale framework that decries the needless destruction of potentiality

Which is precisly what a person is doing when using a contraceptive. Without it, the sex act has a chance of prodcing a human, with it, that potential is 'destroyed'.

ixoy

Originally posted by Carpo
However, since youre talking about potentials here, how does interfering with a sexual act (by using contraception) which has the potential to produce a human, differ with interfering with a pregnancy (by abortion) which has the potential to produce a human?

I already explained this. It's a case of by degree. A pregnancy is very very likely to result in a child. The act of sex is far less likely to. A pregnancy has already established a child in the womb. Using a condom does not. An abortion is far more likely to kill off a child who could be born. A condom is far less likely. What's so difficult about this? Obviously, a line has to be drawn at some point and contraceptives are needed to halt disease, etc. I'm drawing the line between improbable and probable.

I've also already said that these arguments are going nowhere really. I'll respect that other people have their views but aren't we all descending into rhetoric here somewhat? It's why I asked if anyone's shifted their viewpoint since the thread began.

uberwolf

Originally posted by ixoy
It's why I asked if anyone's shifted their viewpoint since the thread began.

In answer I think I have somewhat. I certainly wouldn't be as flippant on the topic anymore, although I still don't think I would never speak to someone again kinda thing. I just sincerely hope I never find myself in the position where these kind of decisions have to be considered, however briefly.

Here's something I'll prob get flamed for, relating to something a few pages back on responsibilty. Rape and incest and abuse aside. I'd be interested to see how many women who have abortions properly used a contraceptive. One of my mates has had dozens of one night stands and never uses a condom. He's a fool, but so are the girls, especially as has been highlighted so vociferously here - they have to deal with it. Because with the number of illeduacted people on the topic. Jordan and her "he told me he'd pull out" kinda thing. How many women use abortion as a contraceptive... intentionally or otherwise