Abortion to be outlawed by Bush in this term...

[Ben Kenobi]

Sure, enjoy it for a year or two, and then move out as fast as you can. Otherwise youll have to pay direly for all those 16-18 year old single mothers who will never get an education wich also probably will happen for their children, but then again - it can be solved by hiring more police to shoot them down when they have joined some crimnal organisation.

So you believe that only the unwashed masses will have children, and that all these children will grow up to become criminals?

That's a rather aristocratic, and conservative perspective.

Why not shoot all the infants too?

Yup, just look at the advertisements from the abortion industry where they try to persuade women to get pregnant so the can get an abortion at their local clinic.

Planned Parenthood advertises everywhere. In the US they are the largest abortion provider. Abortion is an industry in the US, regardless of what you believe, they do try to persuade pregnant women to have abortion, through a variety of means. Their primary method is to offer counselling with the nod and wink that we also refer for abortions. Call it a loss leader if you will, like gas at a gas station.

And no, legal abortion don't hurt the country, on the contrary it probably makes it better. If you think that more people are better, then just take a look at china or india - they would be much better off if their population was less.

So why don't you advocate nuking India and China to speed up their depopulation, if you believe that fewer people is always beneficial?

No state can prosper without people.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, abortion clinics doesn't profit from killing children, the are earning their money from removing fetuses,

'Removing fetuses'?

That's like saying one secures a target.

If all you are doing is 'removing' the fetus, why do the abortionists rip the child to shreds?

and no, your long term economic prosperity aren't reduced, it's quite opposite, it's not the number that make prosperity, it's quality.

And you can sort the good from the bad?

What decrease ? You would be right if nothing new was invented, but since that is not true, then there are no problem.

No Western nation has ever experienced a decline in population, except through war. This is an unprecedented phenomenon, for these nations to face a sustained decrease in population.

So the question remains, whether these nations can sustain an increase in prosperity with less people who will be willing to buy goods.

Look at Russia. Their population implodes, and their state is gradually collapsing. According to your theories, the more people they lose, the better off they will be. How do you explain the plight of Russia? Why are they not improving for killing off their weak and burdensome parasites?

Yoyu are right, human life, but not human conciousness, and it's that that counts.

Okay. So when does a child attain human consciousness?

[Ben Kenobi]

The antiabortionists want people to abandon sex in general and use no-sex-before-marriage as contraceptive wich is totally ridiculous.

Why would they want people to abandon sex? Surely, you see them arguing that an increase in population would be beneficial to the state. Therefore, it makes sense for them to favour policies that would increase the number of children born.

Now, why do you believe abstinence before marriage to be totally ridiculous? Do you believe such conduct to be impossible to acheive?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


use the same deffinition as when life ends

the existence of brainwaves

very simple and would place the limit roughly at the end of the first trimester, which I am confortable

Jon Miller

Good idea Jon

[Ben Kenobi]

What is the anti-abortion stand anyway on few issues like when the life of the mother is in danger, and what about in case of rape? And where does the timelimit go when they see the abortion should not be allowed anymore, is it 1 day, 2 weeks, what? Do they accept the morning after pills?

The most consistent position places personhood at conception. So the morning after pills are just another abortifacient, that procures an early abortion.

Secondly, for the case of rape, it works like this. The child is an innocent bystander. The child is not responsible for the actions of the father, and the rape of the mother. So why should the child pay with his life?

Finally, as for the life of the mother, in most cases, one can save both the mother and the child since most of the complications arise after viability.

There is one common complication that arises earlier in the term, called an ectopic pregnancy, where the child forms in the fallopian tubes of the mother. If the child is allowed to grow here, the tubes will burst and both the child and mother die. What they do in this situation, is to cut a section of the fallopian tubes so that the child can be safely removed from the mother.

The intent in this case, rather than to kill a child, is to save the life of the mother. It is unfortunate at this point in time, that there is no way to preserve the life of the child.

I mean, religionistas should join, it's not like obesity was ever a good thing in the bible.

A little fasting never hurt anyone.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I came home 30 minutes ago after a threesome and a lot of weed

Is that supposed to earn you some cool points or something?

[Ben Kenobi]

So whatever happened to this ingenious architectural device?

Where have all the convents gone?

Anyway, we're going to get to a point where conservatives will start realizing the costs of having poorly raised children, while liberals will realize the costs of not having children at all.

True, but the excuse shouldn't be to kill the kids before they are born, but to improve their lot after they are born.

[Ben Kenobi]

So the decision for or against abortion should be taken on the ground of economics?

No. But if the pro-aborts claim economic benefits, then their claims need to be refuted.

Well in economic terms, maintaining an immigrant until they can work and pay taxes is cheaper than a child. A weak argument, after the usual crap has fallen.

Assumes one will always have an immigrant pool. That is by no means certain. World population is estimated to decline by 2050.

Bull, we can debate because we have a position of wildcarded-subjectivity to this. On the abortion issue, we men are merely outsiders.

Au revoir Whaleboy.

The pro-choice argument rests on the assumption that the embryo is not a being, and is in terms of existence and essense nothing more than any other group of cells. If you hold that assumption, then it is not murder to abort that embryo.

What makes a clump of cells a being, Whaleboy? Are we not merely larger clumps of these same cells?

[Ben Kenobi]

Elok:

The question of when human life begins is too...existential to be scientifically answered.

Sure it can.

Pick up an embryology textbook Elok. Human life begins at conception.

Now, whether one is a person, is an entirely different point to which science says nothing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Humanity is a state of being. It's your memories and desires and thoughts and emotions all wrapped up.

What makes you St. Leo? Do you not continue to accumulate desires and thought and emotions, and do these not vary over time? Do you stop being St. Leo when you are angry, or do you become St. Leo when you are happy?

If we base personhood upon memories and desires, how do you retain personal identity over time?

Seeing your mother's smile and smiling back makes you human.

Say I am blind. Am I not just as much of a person, as those who can see?

Learning to use the toilet makes you human.

What if where I live, there is no proper sanitation. Am I not a person just as much as those who do have toilets?

Saying your first word or making your first ASL sign makes you human.

What if I am mute, and no one has thought to teach me sign? Am I not still a person, just as much as those who can speak 5 languages fluently?

Kissing a boy or a girl makes you human.

What if I am a leper? Am I not as much of a person, as those who are attractive?

Licking frogs with friends and laughing about it afterwards makes you human.

What if I am a sick child, cooped up in a hospital, to frail to go outside? Am I not as much of a person, as the hale and hearty?

Going to a funeral makes you human.

What if I die first, and do not get that privilege?

Getting your first paycheque or panhandling enough for your first cup of coffee makes you human.

What if I am too ill to do either? Am I not as much of a person, as one man with millions of dollars?

Defending your thesis and receiving a PhD makes you human.

What if there is no such education where I live? Am I not as much of a person, as the Fellow of Cambridge?

It is because of those things that the braindead are no longer human. It is because of those things that the unborn are not human.

Why do you deny these children these privileges of life? Why do you cut them off before they bloom?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Secondly, for the case of rape, it works like this. The child is an innocent bystander. The child is not responsible for the actions of the father, and the rape of the mother. So why should the child pay with his life?

Finally, as for the life of the mother, in most cases, one can save both the mother and the child since most of the complications arise after viability.

Largely true, though there are some complications which may crop up so early that continuing the pregnancy to the point of viability sometimes isn't feasible. Certain valvular diseases make it difficult for the maternal heart to cope with the extra circulatory demands of pregnancy. Sometimes the mother's heart will start to decompensate at or before the 20th week. In such instances the infant has zero chances of surviving anyway. Terminating such a pregnancy is a case of saving the mother while recognizing the inevitable outcome of the fetus.

There is one common complication that arises earlier in the term, called an ectopic pregnancy, where the child forms in the fallopian tubes of the mother. If the child is allowed to grow here, the tubes will burst and both the child and mother die. What they do in this situation, is to cut a section of the fallopian tubes so that the child can be safely removed from the mother.

The intent in this case, rather than to kill a child, is to save the life of the mother. It is unfortunate at this point in time, that there is no way to preserve the life of the child.

Same situation as the case above.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is a difference between pro-lifers and being anti-abortion. Pro-lifers are that by definition, you can't kill anyone. Normally religious. Anti-abortionists are like me who believe it is unjustified murder to kill people out of convienience. I and most of my ilke don't use religious arguements at all.

Patroklos:

Yer prolife in my eyes.

'antiabortion' is just a tag by the media. It does not represent any hard and fast difference in the positions wrt the death penalty.

[Ben Kenobi]

Certain valvular diseases make it difficult for the maternal heart to cope with the extra circulatory demands of pregnancy. Sometimes the mother's heart will start to decompensate at or before the 20th week. In such instances the infant has zero chances of surviving anyway. Terminating such a pregnancy is a case of saving the mother while recognizing the inevitable outcome of the fetus.

That I did not know.

Thanks Dr. Strangelove.

[Ben Kenobi]

When you're 50, unemployed and only suited for manual labor your job prospects aren't very good, and a 50 year old having worked hard for 30 years often can't physically keep up with younger workers.

I have a friend's father who is in that boat. He's just turned 50, got divorced by his wife, and they split the kids, with him getting the two oldest, and his wife getting the two youngest.

He lost his job on top of everything, had to go back to work as a sheet metal labourer, a job that he hadn't done since he was young because of his back problems.

Needless to say, that didn't work out, but he's doing better now. Found a job as a salesman, and my friend, his oldest son, is doing really well.

Sorry about the "pathetic" remark.

Don't worry about that. I've heard worse here.

I'm really fed up with it all.

I don't blame you for that. Keep up the good work. I'm sure your patients appreciate what you do even if they don't say so.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Largely true, though there are some complications which may crop up so early that continuing the pregnancy to the point of viability sometimes isn't feasible. Certain valvular diseases make it difficult for the maternal heart to cope with the extra circulatory demands of pregnancy. Sometimes the mother's heart will start to decompensate at or before the 20th week. In such instances the infant has zero chances of surviving anyway. Terminating such a pregnancy is a case of saving the mother while recognizing the inevitable outcome of the fetus.

Is there much debate on abortion based on that rationale? If abortion is necessary to save the mother's life, and if there is no way to otherwise save the mother while keeping the fetus alive, then its hard to credibly agrue against that abortion.

I have problems with abortions on a whim, with no other justification than "I don't want to carry this child to term." I don't think that conception should be the absolute measuring point for the beginning of human life; its not unusual for fertilized eggs to naturally abort themselves. For the first few weeks, its impossible to tell if the egg will develop into a fetus. I think that its hard to make an argument that your "murdering" something that hasn't developed into anything yet. However, I think that after the fertilized egg has definately developed into a proto-human, with a developing brain/nervous system, then its too late to abort that fetus.

I support the morning after pill because:
-it comes into play during the earliest stages of uncertainty, when its unclear if the fertilized egg will develop at all
-it gives women who have been raped/ otherwise victimized to take a precaution against an unwanted pregnancy, so that they wouldn't need to get an abortion later in the pregnancy (if she is even pregnant when she first takes the pill)

Women who know that they've had sex and know that they don't want to be pregnant should be obliged to take the morning after pill. If they wait 4 months before they decide that they don't want it, its too late. The fetus has developed into enough of a person that it would be murder to abort it.