Abortion!

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, but the issue is, that is merely an undifferentiated cluster of cells, a precursor to life...there is no harm caused in aborting it...

To be fair, I'll restore my post from above, since I'm not sure if you were replying to what I posted.

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/week1.htm

The first week of human development begins with fertilization of the egg by sperm forming the zygote, followed by early cell division forming the blastocyst.

If differentiation is important, then would you ban all abortions done after differentiation?

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, just ignore me. Wouldn't be any different

[Gibsie]

Ben Kenobi, I find your thoughts on birth control quite interesting. Are you contending that it's okay for a couple to use "natural family planning", i.e. to have sex when the woman not going to conceive, but then that if they were to also use condoms whilst having sex at that time, then that would not be okay?

And what does it matter what the church says anyway? If the Pope or whatever mystic guru you follow) said he believes in evolution, I bet you wouldn't agree with that...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So there is no difference between abstinence and contraception?

Gosh, I wonder why contraception is so popular.

I'm surprised to hear you say this Ming, that there is no difference between being able to sleep with your wife, and not being able to sleep with your wife.

Silly boy... you are ignoring the "intent"...

A couple that abstains just during the fertile periods is practicing birth control. I'm surprised you don't think so

[Provost Harrison]

Ben, can you put your clothes on coathangers, you know, with all they symbolise?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Ming
The pro choice option is really the only way to go.

People who are against abortion for any reason can practice what they preach. Pro choice is just that... a choice, which can be dictated by a person's personal beliefs. Nobody is trying to tell them they have to abortions... it's just a matter of letting people make up their own minds.

The No Abortion postion is not a choice. It is one person cramming their views down somebody else's throat.

It should be left up to the individuals involved...

This is a typical weak argument based on definitions.

I could easily say that an unborn child is an individual. There's nothing stopping me from doing that. And then, with my definition, anyone getting an abortion is forcing her views ("you aren't an individual") on another individual.


As I said at the beginning of this thread, everyone who thinks they have some enlightened argument is basically just framing the "debate" with terms that are favorable to their opinion.

[Impaler[WrG]]

The main problem is that people are debating when a fictional event occures and they are unable to agree.

The fictional event is often called "when life begins" or "when a group of cells becomes a person", at this instant of creation said cells will be infused with full legal rights (well except for voting, drinking and smoking which will take a bit longer). The religios amoung us belive that the Carteshian ghost aka soal under the direct will of god takes up it haunting of the Body at that moment. Even the secular (though in reality closet carteshian dualists) also belive their must be some instantanious infusion if only for purposes of legality. So the struggle conters on ware to place this arbitrary point in time, conception? A particular Tri-mester? when the Fetus can survive outside the mother?

All such atempts are doomed to fail because no arbitary break exists in human physical and cognative development. The qualities of concience, self-awareness and inteligence ebe and flow through out our lives. We start with none of them, develop over the course of our entire life span to reach our peak and decline from their. Every individual is uquique so whatever time table is used it will be as arbitrary as Voting age, we all know individuals at 15 years of age who are more competent voters then people in their 30's. Arbitrary rules will always fail to recognize individual difference and shades of grey.

If society chosses for "personhood" to begin on a time table then it must recognize that this point will be something hashed out and compromised. It will not be a stable desision either. Societies throughout time have been moving it around constantly and we likly will again in the future as our medical tecnology and culture change.

[chequita guevara]

Illegal abortion on the rise in the U.S.

“Most commonly, they ingest a whole bottle of quinine pills, with castor oil...we try to get them to the ER before their cardiac rhythm is interrupted...Sometimes they douche with very caustic products like bleach. We had a patient, a teen, who burned herself so badly with bleach that we couldn’t even examine her, her vaginal tissue was so painful....”

“Our local hospital tells me they see 12-20 patients per year, who have already self-induced or had illegal abortions. Some make it, some don’t. They are underage or poor women mostly, and a few daughters of pro-life families...”

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20060123/reproductive_regression.php

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/01/30/illegal_abortion/index.html?sid=1430765

[CrONoS]

Even if the thread is about when we can define an human life, I want to add my little irrationnal point:

If my sister had never been born...
I would wish, to feel the lack of her...

[Ben Kenobi]

I find your thoughts on birth control quite interesting. Are you contending that it's okay for a couple to use "natural family planning", i.e. to have sex when the woman not going to conceive, but then that if they were to also use condoms whilst having sex at that time, then that would not be okay?

Sure. Why would it be wrong for a husband and wife to have sex with each other when she is not fertile? If you said this was wrong, then they could only have sex with each other during her fertile periods.

The difference between this and the condom, is that how would you know whether the woman was fertile or not, if you always used condoms? You would use them all the time, since you would have no clue as to when she was fertile.

And what does it matter what the church says anyway? If the Pope or whatever mystic guru you follow) said he believes in evolution, I bet you wouldn't agree with that...

It matters a great deal when you choose to become part of the Catholic church. You have to be willing to accept the teachings that are required as part of the Catholic faith. It's like your wedding vows, a promise that you make before you enter, and if you don't like making those promises, you should go elsewhere.

[Ben Kenobi]

Silly boy... you are ignoring the "intent"...

A couple that abstains just during the fertile periods is practicing birth control. I'm surprised you don't think so

True they are practicing birth control, in choosing not to have sex. The same way lots of other folks find themselves practicing birth control involuntarily.

[Tiamat]

You can't possibly know what decision you will make or what reasoning will form to help you make that decision until you are in that position. You can argue and debate about it until the cows come home, but until you are there and facing the decison, trust me, you never know.

[St Leo]

Re: Abortion!

Originally posted by mrmitchell
A newborn baby is pretty obviously human.

Obviously? We do call newborns "it". "It's a boy/girl." "It's so cute." "Aaaw, it's got its grandmother's eyes."

But newborns have lived. They have had an experience, and that experience is called birth. And so they have started on the journey to becoming well-rounded humans. They have declared sovereignity; they have been expelled from the body of mother.

Birth is a good dividing point between a deformed, cute, gunk-covered monster and a budding human. It provides for a mental disconnect. Abortion does not naturally liken itself to murder -- that is an intellectual stretch -- but infanticide certainly does. And though I may not feel more fellowship for a baby than for a puppy, I'd rather the line be drawn at the only place a sharp line can be drawn -- birth.

It's a conservative, safe position.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jaguar
You can make up whatever definition you want for "human" and you can make up whatever "rights" you personally think exist for all humans.

You can frame the entire argument in two terms that you can embellish to fit your own agenda. Which is why the "debate" is pointless.

Yes, no, maybe.

Being human is quite easily defined. As long as you have human DNA, you're human. Being a human being, OTOH, is extremely hard to define. Or rather, extremely hard to define in such a way that it can be measured easily.

As for rights, I reckon this is relative to the society in question, though I strongly doubt that rights do not cover the right to live...

[Jaguar]

Fair enough. Different term, same concept.