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

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Dissident
It's really hard to say when an embryo is capable of feeling pain. But even simple creatures like fish can feel pain.

In an early stage of our development in the womb we are pretty much fish, we even have gills at a certain point, though we lose them soonafter when nature transforms us into evil humans

PS: Whatever you say to anti-abortion fundies: All your arguments won't help. Your will simply violate their 'a priori' premise, and they won't listen to anything you say.
After all that's why they're pathetic christian fundies. The word of teh church and the bible is truth. They don't understand that all that is to be interpreted instead of being taken literally

[Jon Miller]

whatever you say to proabortion fundies, they will ignore it based on their pseudoscience BS

ignoring real sceintific issues such as the existence of brainwaves

Jon Miller

[Joseph]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by imacowmoo 3-:-o
Wait.....what about the child?? You think the woman should have the RIGHT to kill an innoncent unborn child because her emotions towards the end of her pregnancy tell her to get rid of it?

It's not a child.

Then you tell me what it is.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Gamecube64
I have a feeling we are going to be seeing alot more orphans around.

Get it through your empty head bushy! We already have too many unadopted children, now we will get more from mothers who don't want their child, or from unmarried mothers who die giving birth when they could have been saved!

One thing is for sure, you are alive and you want to take life from another person. You want abortion, abort yourself.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Joseph
Then you tell me what it is.

An embryo is a few grams of tissue that doesn't think. And doesn't feel.
It's a tad less human than a few inches of your skin.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Joseph
Then you tell me what it is.

A child certainly needs a functioning brain, and in the first trimester embryos do not have them.

-Drachasor

[Patroklos]

You make the (insulting) assumption that Spiffor fools himself into thinking a fetus isn't human out of greed and selfishness, rather than accepting that Spiffor genuinely doesn't see a fetus as human and THEREFORE can contemplate abortion as a valid response to an unwanted pregnancy.

Do I honestly have to point out the groups of people that follow that logic, becuase I would rather not associate you with them, but if your hell bent on doing it yourself...

And believes is the point because all his rational for his position is just as arbitrary as any religionist. I don't find how I can insult him by binding his belief to the motivation he himself gave for believing that.

Great new target for mass murder though, blacks and jews were to hard because they fight back, definetly won't have any of those problems with this lot

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So just admit you value your own lives over someone you don't know, and are killing it out of convieniance. You position that "It's just a fetus" is based solely on your greed and selfishness. Like I said, revoking humanity form people for selfish gain is nothing new, and if your okay with that then fight for it all you want. But right now all of you are deluding yourself because you know if you were forced to integrate the reality of what your doing into you liberal ideology you would probobly have to commit suicide.

It is not out of greed that I consider embrioes (remember, I only support abortion on-demand up to the 3rd to 4th month, like most Europeans) non-human. It's because of what an emryo is: a thoughtless and feelingless piece of tissue, that is better terminated before it can experience a sucky life. It has the potential of being human. Just like in the future with the progresses of cloning, a few cells of your skin will have the potential of being a human.

Unlike you, I don't give the attributes of a thinking human to that piece of tissue, I don't antropomorphize it. And unlike you, I don't intend to force my morality on other people.

As for your comment about suicide: I have already been confronted to abortion in my life. I have already been confronted with the termination of an embryo. And the only reason why it was a big deal to me, is because of the angst (and the general unhealthiness of any abortion) suffered by the mother.

[Patroklos]

It doesn't change the fact that your opinion of 3-4 months is arbitrary. That and the primary motivation for the action is your self intrest. The fact that you don't even make it a set limit is disturbing. Are you saying it is possible it could be "human" in the third of the fourth month? So you are giving yourself a 50/50 chance of murdering a child and are okay with that?

Kill if before it has a ****ty life eh? Well what an enlightened and selfless act you are performing. Are all Frenchmen omnicient?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It doesn't change the fact that your opinion of 3-4 months is arbitrary.

Yes, I never claimed the opposite. It is the very reason why I avoid the "abortion" threads like the plague as soon as they descend into the hell of defining when offspring becomes human.

That and the primary motivation for the action is your self intrest.

No. My priorities for abortion are:
1. The current and future life of the mother
2. The future life of the kid
3. The current and future life of other relatives (father, siblings etc.)
Unwanted children will often suffer from a really bad childhood, for a variety of reasons. Sure, some unwanted children will grow up in a loving environment that can afford its presence. But such is far, very far from the majority.
As a male, I consider own my current and future well-being to be less important than the child-in-progress'. If I expect the mother and I can provide a good future to the kid, if I expect I'll be able to raise this kid as I imagine I want to, then I wouldn't support abortion. If the mother doesn't feel up to the task, then she'll decide.

The fact that you don't even make it a set limit is disturbing. Are you saying it is possible it could be "human" in the third of the fourth month? So you are giving yourself a 50/50 chance of murdering a child and are okay with that?

I follow the European laws, which have an arbitrary set limit. In France, the set limit is 3 monthes. In other European countries, it's 4. I don't support one version over another, both are arbitrary set limits with which I agree. Hence the "3-4".
Besides, should my gf descoverbecome pregnant, she'd have an abortion as soon as possible. To avoid the risk as much as possible, to have the embryo develop an ability to suffer.

[Patroklos]

1. The current and future life of the mother
2. The future life of the kid
3. The current and future life of other relatives (father, siblings etc.)

1.) At the expence of the child, Selfish.
3.) If this is valid reason, I guess I off some homeless folks on the way home. Maybe they have a wonderful life after childhood? This is a rationalization to justify Selfish #1 and Selfish#3.
3.) Selfish, Selfish, and more Selfish

[Arrian]

Do I honestly have to point out the groups of people that follow that logic, becuase I would rather not associate you with them, but if your hell bent on doing it yourself...

And believes is the point because all his rational for his position is just as arbitrary as any religionist. I don't find how I can insult him by binding his belief to the motivation he himself gave for believing that.

Great new target for mass murder though, blacks and jews were to hard because they fight back, definetly won't have any of those problems with this lot

I think anyone who is serious about debating abortion has to accept that no one has a definative answer as to when a fetus becomes a person. Some go with conception, and I'm sure not all of those are religious people - heck, that has the advantage of a simple starting point. The pro-choice people typically have some sort of arbitrary point as well. I'm sure there are studies about when the brain activity kicks in or something, but at the end of the day, there isn't a rock solid answer.

I don't know exactly where to draw the line, but I do feel (yes, feel, as in believe) that conception is too early. Thus I have zero objection to things like the morning after pill. So when, exactly, do I start having a problem with terminating a pregnacy? I'm not really sure.

Given that, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of legislating away someone else's right to decide the answer to that question for themselves. Thus, I remain pro-choice. When in doubt, I err on the side of "leave the government out of it."

That's MY position on the matter, which may be (and likely is) somewhat different from Spiffor's.

-Arrian

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Patroklos
1.) At the expence of the child, Selfish.
3.) If this is valid reason, I guess I off some homeless folks on the way home. Maybe they have a wonderful life after childhood? This is a rationalization to justify Selfish #1 and Selfish#3.
3.) Selfish, Selfish, and more Selfish

If you do not accept that the embryo has the rights of an infant or other human with a functioning brain in the first 3 months, then I do not see how any of this is a bad kind of selfishness.

If you got to a pound and see a dog there, should you have to adopt it because it is selfish not to? Should everyone have to adopt orphans? Thinking about yourself is not always bad.

Anyhow, it isn't like you have presented any good arguements to consider the early embryo as a person, and hence your view of it as "murder" is wholly arbitrary. IMHO, personhood is more than having some cells and human dna.

-Drachasor

Edit: oops, left out a negation, dangit!

[Patroklos]

I don't know exactly where to draw the line, but I do feel (yes, feel, as in believe) that conception is too early. Thus I have zero objection to things like the morning after pill. So when, exactly, do I start having a problem with terminating a pregnacy? I'm not really sure.

Anyhow, it is like you have presented any good arguements to consider the early embryo as a person, and hence your view of it as "murder" is wholly arbitrary. IMHO, personhood is more than having some cells and human dna.

I understand my line is completely arbitrary, but my position has the bonus of having no chance of murdering innocent children. If we are headed in the direction of giving murderers on death row this much benefit of the doubt, then the unborn should most definetly get it.

If you got to a pound and see a dog there, should you have to adopt it because it is selfish not to? Should everyone have to adopt orphans? Thinking about yourself is not always bad.

I am pretty sure most agree dogs are not humans. However if you saw and abandoned baby in an alley somewhere, then yes, you could at least save its life.

And it isn't like I am even advocating that you keep the child, give it up for adoption. And boo hoo about how horrible it is to do so, but it is better than a death sentance. We don't have gas chambers and crematoriums in the orphanages do we?

Abortion, plain and simple, is about the convienance of the born.

[Arrian]

my position has the bonus of having no chance of murdering innocent children.

...

I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of legislating away someone else's right to decide the answer to that question for themselves. Thus, I remain pro-choice. When in doubt, I err on the side of "leave the government out of it."

You err on the side of caution w/respect to the rights of the human-to-be. I err on the side of caution w/respect to the rights of the human (or, to use your term, the born).

I'd like to try and reduce the # of abortions by reducing the # of unwanted pregnacies - via education, birth control & abstinence (this, IMO, should be a part of the education. Not just "here is how to put a condom on" but also the responsibility that comes with having sex).

I am against outlawing it precisely because I agree that people's positions on the issue are based on arbitrary assumptions.

-Arrian