Let us cut the crap.

[Az]

cinch:

Hey, he said to wait until the SECOND page to bring out the rolleyes!

That's what happens when you don't read the openning post.

Also, if you think abortion methods are bad, you should see a baby who's been needlessly brought to term, whose skull is full of fluid (where a brain should be) that needs to be "shunted" every once in a while. Not pleasant. But we're not supposed to get into procedures and stuff in this thread, so I'll drop it.

Believe it or not, sometimes there are things called "complications" which can arise, and sometimes, just sometimes, things will be missed in the early stages. Does that mean that the concerns are any less valid?

I have no problems with those. I am talking about "risk to the mother's health" which can be avoided by doing a caesarian.

And for the last time, the baby DOES NOT die from cranial evacuation

The method of life-stopping (sic) isn't the thing that bothers me. The thing that bothers me is aborting a baby so late, if there is another choice.

but its theoretically possible for a welfare recipient to survive outside of the welfare system, especially by relocating.

How about a handicapped, blind, deaf person? I guess it's ok to let him die, then.

Also, theres simply no way the public health, medical, and welfare infrastructure could handle all the babies being brought to term. The system already has enough problems with the existing birthrate among the poor and underserved.

If that's what bothers you, why not ban pregnancies for the poor, altogether? You know they won't be able to carry their own weight.

[Spec]

It is common sense. If giving an independant life to the '' fetus'' after nine months will screew it up for life (like a whore mom, mentaly retarded, no money to feed it, no ressources, baby from rape) I vote for abortion. Aside from these cases it should be illegal.

But anyway you cut it, it is impossible to judge this kind of situation by facts only. This is not a machine (you know what I mean) it cant think.

Being responsible for making someone elses life miserable for ever is not my thing. What I mean is that if I had been conceived in the cases I mentionned above I would have rather not live at all.

There.

Spec.

[Az]

It is common sense. If giving an independant life to the '' fetus'' after nine months will screew it up for life (like a whore mom, mentaly retarded, no money to feed it, no ressources, baby from rape) I vote for abortion. Aside from these cases it should be illegal.

for almost all of these you don't have to wait for the last months.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Azazel

It is common sense. If giving an independant life to the '' fetus'' after nine months will screew it up for life (like a whore mom, mentaly retarded, no money to feed it, no ressources, baby from rape) I vote for abortion. Aside from these cases it should be illegal.

for almost all of these you don't have to wait for the last months.

I know...how is that different? I thought it was abbortion all together...Oh well, that's what I think.
But if a woman is to stupid and waits til she is 4 months pregnant than I dont know. Kill a child before it lives a miserable life or let it be....Now I stumped...


Spec.

[Jac de Molay]

If that's what bothers you, why not ban pregnancies for the poor, altogether? You know they won't be able to carry their own weight.

A bit impractical..

I would rather see anti-abortion groups step up and offer practical birth control advice for high-risk groups. At least Planned Parenthood is more pragmatic about its approach to sex as a whole.

No one is pro-abortion, IMO. But if you want to really talk about all fetuses/babies being brought to term, you need to talk about a social structure that will support these families, AS WELL AS preventing the situations to begin with, without stigmatizing sex or people.

[Az]

I am all for such a social structure.

[MrBaggins]

And prior to such a utopia, you have to let women have choice over their parasites.

[Az]

I return to my blind handicapped person. Is it moral for you to stop feeding him?

[MrBaggins]

Morality is relative.

The question should be should modern society do that. The answer is yes, right now, because there are very few blind handicapped people.

If the number got so large as to overwhelm society (as allowing all currently arborted babies to live would,) then I'd say... no.

[el freako]

Life is a process, not a thing in of itself.
And in most processes (unlike objects) there is no clear defined boundary to it.

As such our legal systems (which have evolved to deal with things, mainly property rights) have trouble dealing with it.

Abortion is such a big issue in the US (as opposed to most european countries) because of your legal system - which has to decide if all abortion is either right or wrong.
Most people (zealot's on both sides of the argument aside) would agree that a foetus that is 3 month's into development is 'less' of a human being (in relation to the mother) than one that is 6 month's along.
Here in europe most abortions are available untill you get to the age that most premature babies would survive - then they become increasingly difficult to get - this seems to me like a sensible solution, however as it is neither black or white (much like life and death are fuzzy processes) is does not appeal to those who wish to see the world in those terms.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
When people finally realise that women should be seen as mindless baby incubators you will not need to debate this anymore

You would seem like less of a mindless baby incubator if you would give the appearance of having actually read the first post. This thread is for actual arguments. Take the histrionics elsewhere.

Thank you, Jac, for acknowledging that there are more solutions to overpopulation than just abortion. I agree that we need to take care of problem pregnancies better. The first step IMO should be to outlaw IVF. There are enough children being aborted already without people custom-making kids for the sake of their own vanity and flushing all but one or two down the toilet. That's what adoption is for.

I'm too lazy to quote again, but in response to cinch, why does the presence or absence of pain or other faculties determine humanity? Is this not comparable to pulling the plug on a comatose person who's only been under for two months? Worse, actually, because you know that the subject in question is essentially GOING to attain normal human function in nine months or less, end of story. The difference is pretty much academic from where I'm standing.

I don't take a "holistic approach" here because I think that, when choosing between the importance of two or more concerns, the first consequence to be weighed should be the most serious. If a fetus is human, it's a question of human life, which would seem to vastly outweigh questions of rights or happiness. Decide that first.

Spec: that's your personal decision. How do you know that such would be the choice of all aborted people? What distinction makes it acceptable to kill a fetus conceived of a prostitute, but not the child of a prostitute?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Elok
Take the histrionics elsewhere.

Hystrinonics, from the same root as hysteria, which comes from the Latin word for the womb.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hence the word Hysterectomy.

Elok:

I waited to see what bait people would give you after his first post. My argument without emotional appeals amounts to this:

1. Abortion kills an unborn child.
2. An unborn child is a living human person.
3. Killing persons is wrong.

4. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

For premise 1, the terminology need not be 'unborn child', it can simply be the entity in the womb. All I need to say here is that abortion kills something.

For premise 3, I assume that human persons have intrinsic worth and value.

For premise 2, then becomes the heart of this debate.

What makes an unborn child living? He or she, gender being determined at conception, is living because living things can only come from other living things. An infant is alive, and so is sperm. Therefore the unborn child must also be alive.

Secondly, humans can only come from other humans. The parents of the unborn child are human, and so is the infant. Therefore the unborn child must also be a human being.

Finally, we have personhood. What makes a person? I would say that to have the intrinsic capacity for sentience makes a person, and this we can see in an infant without the current capacity to reason. We also see this in the unborn child, who at conception, recieves the instructions necessary to grow and develop as a human person. Therefore, from conception onwards, the unborn child is not a potential person, her or she is a person.

[MrBaggins]

Secondly, humans can only come from other humans. The parents of the unborn child are human, and so is the infant. Therefore the unborn child must also be a human being.

Nope. Sorry.

A 2 cell zygote doesn't classify as being a human being... takes more than those two cells to become a viable human being.

Also... I'd say the ability to function outside the womb is an important indicator as to a human being.

Finally, we have personhood. What makes a person? I would say that to have the intrinsic capacity for sentience makes a person, and this we can see in an infant without the current capacity to reason. We also see this in the unborn child, who at conception, recieves the instructions necessary to grow and develop as a human person. Therefore, from conception onwards, the unborn child is not a potential person, her or she is a person.

Again... 2 cell argument. Not sentient. Not by a long shot.

[MOBIUS]

Whilst abortion isn't necessarily a good thing, sometimes it is the right thing to do.

For a start there are too many people on this planet in the first place, so getting rid of a few unwanted ones is a step in the right direction if you ask me.