Anti-life crowd outraged that the unborn are cared for.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Personally, I just think it's awfully discriminatory to allow the deaths of haploid human beings. If I were to kill a distinct human with 47 chromosomes it's murder, but if it's distinctly human with 23 chromosomes, it's perfectly fine for it to die? That's just ploidist.

Haven't seen too many haploid humans walking around. Have you Gibsie? I bet the Enquirer would love to get their hands on that scoop.

[Gibsie]

What, so now you're saying the basis for humanity is having 46 chromosomes and a pair of legs?

Kind of a stupid response, considering not even a several week-old baby walks around either...

[CyberGnu]

Yes, I'm in favor of abortion up until the third trimester, at which point I'm opposed to it. The biological definition of when a new human life begins does not answer the question of when a new human "being" begins--until there is brain activity, the zygote/embryo/fetus is not ethically a human being. The only reason that the biological definition is an issue is because it can be (and has been) used to impede the ethical definition--people have argued that the unborn child is not biologically a human until it is born, and in doing so they implicitly deny that the third trimester fetus could ever be ethically treated as a human.

We are saying the exact same thing, just in different words.

A fetus is only a human being after it achieves sentience. Before that is is human, but merely as a classification.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
We are saying the exact same thing, just in different words.

Ah, good. That simplifies things quite a bit...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As far as I'm concerned, once the fetus has the ability to survive outside the womb, if a woman really wants to be rid of the child, she should undergo surgery to have it removed in a fashion that it still has a chance to live.

I love moving targets.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Gibsie

Kind of a stupid response, considering not even a several week-old baby walks around either...

Only a stupid response if you didn't get what I was geting at. So Gibs WAS it stupid?

[November Adam]

Let me ask some of the pro-choice people... are you okay with killing a human in its earliest developmental stages?

I know loin is, how about you others.

[Boris Godunov]

At which point is the earliest developmental stage? If you assert that the fetus isn't truly "human" until it has acheived brain functionality in the third trimester, then no, it's not okay after that point, at least not as an elective procedure.

Before then, it is not human, but proto-human, and it is the choice of the mother, and it is okay for her to choose to end the pregnancy.

I don't like the fact abortion exists, I'd like to see a day where it vanishes. But that should be done through education and prevention, not a ban that would drive women to back alleys.

[November Adam]

The earliest devlopmental stage is the zygote. There is no such thing as a proto-human, unless you talk to an anthropologist. The definition of a human doesn't change.

What loin is refering to is a "person". The definition he gives is one I can agree with as well.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lincoln
How are you doing in the job search btw?

Well, I have more or less decided to expand my search to the whole US and Canada. I'd much rather stay here in Florida, the sunshine makes me kinda blissful. Hell, just being in Florida does that, but the part of the state I'm in is a dead end for IT work, and I don't have the money saved up to move to where the IT jobs are. But I just found out that unemployment compensation extensions are virtually automatic, so that means I have 'till the end of March to find web design work before I go get a job at the supermarket.

I've probably sent out about 60 resumes in the last three months, half of those last week when I expanded my search.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let me ask some of the pro-choice people... are you okay with killing a human in its earliest developmental stages?

It depends how you view the situation. I view it as a consent issue. The child does not have consent of the mother to live within her. Just as there is no duty for a homeowner to require a homeless person to stay inside his house to prevent him from dying, there is no duty (IMHO) for the mother to keep the child inside her without her consent. There is an inviolability of the person's body.

Of course after the birth there is a different situation. The idea of inviolability of the body does not apply.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just as there is no duty for a homeowner to require a homeless person to stay inside his house to prevent him from dying, there is no duty (IMHO) for the mother to keep the child inside her without her consent.

I'm assuming that you're considering the zygote to be ethically equivalent to the third trimester fetus, since you made no distinction.

There are two problems with your analogy:

1. The mother implicitly gives consent to carry a sentient fetus by virtue of the fact that she chose to have unprotected intercourse (assuming that her pregnancy wasn't the result of failed contraception, which is a fair assumption IMO), and she also chose to carry the unborn child for six months until it gained sentience. Barring unexpected complications to the pregnancy, there is no reason why she couldn't have had her abortion prior to her fetus gaining sentience.

2. If a homeowner finds a homeless person on his/her property, then he/she does not have the right to remove the homeless person through the act of killing them. This would be murder, plain and simple.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by November Adam
Let me ask some of the pro-choice people... are you okay with killing a human in its earliest developmental stages?

I know loin is, how about you others.

My line is sentience. If something is not sentient, it's fine with me to kill it.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You foget Q3: Is abortion safer than child birth?
A3: Yes. It's better not to get pregnant, but an abotion is still safer and healthier than having a baby. Q3 negates any point Q2 has.

che: Given that you admit "it's better not to get pregnant" and there are ways to prevent pregnancy both before intercourse and immediately after intercourse, why should abortion continue to exist as a viable option?

Also, did you read my earlier post responding to this objection as you raised it before? If so, why do you deny the validity of my arguments at that stage?

To restate that previous post:

Your statement is inaccurate in the sense that the risks of bringing a baby to term are, in Western society, miniscule and certainly not as far-ranging as the risks posed by abortion. With abortion, a woman faces increased probabilities of cancer and infertility as well as well-documented psychological problems (including problems totally unrelated to irresponsible pro-life rhetoric). With bringing a baby to term, a woman faces none of these risks. The only significant risk of which I am aware is of course death in the event of a complicated pregnancy but such complications can be predicted with considerable accuracy in advance (via ultrasound) and abortion is a viable alternative when the life of the mother is at risk. The only other significant problem is post-partum depression, which can also affect the woman who has an abortion.

So, in sum, I did not forget your third question. Your answer is inaccurate and so it does not negate my Q&As.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by loinburger
That's how it should be used,

I'm glad we agree.

Originally posted by loinburger
but I don't consider it the duty of the law to regulate potentially self-destructive behavior.

Society always regulates potentially self-destructive behaviour! There are fines, restrictions, and regulations for all sorts of dangerous activities.

Originally posted by loinburger
Women undergo risks when they have abortions (heck, they undergo risks when they have intercourse), but so long as they understand these risks then it's their call as to whether they want the procedure performed, so long as they aren't harming somebody else (like a sentient fetus) by their actions.

The problem, at least as far as I understand it, is that abortion clinics are notorious in not informing women of the risks of abortion (i.e. some of Lincoln's quotes, which even come from pro-choice advocates). That's part of the problem!

Originally posted by loinburger
I'm not in favor of "abortion as a procedure that everybody hops right in to," I'm in favor of "abortion as a legal alternative until the third trimester."

I would support such a law--if only to curb the number of abortions--, especially in Canada where no restrictions presently exist against abortion. However, I would also want to see a law that requires women to be read (not just read) a release form that clearly lays out the risks involved in having an abortion and would require them to sign it. In addition, minors should not be permitted to have abortions without the consent of their parents (except, of course, in situations where incest is an issue).