Obama and Abortion

[Arrian]

Aaaaaand Elok hits the wide open receiver for a first down.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Elok
Ah well, better throw in my opinion on the actual subject. Massive contraceptive initiatives, abortion remains illegal under most circumstances. I don't buy the "woman's body" crap any more than I buy Sloww telling us he's got a right to shoot burglars. Almost all personal sovereignty can be overridden by a sufficiently urgent greater good.

This is more or less my opinion as well, but I imagine we arrived at similar conclusions by very different methods.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
1. Medical research is not in any way comparable to discussing the legality of abortion, specially since its not even a legal issue to begin with.

No, abortion is a moral issue, and both genders have the same rights and abilities to have moral concerns.

2. Men should be adult and rational enough to acknowledge the fact that abortion is an issue that affects women far more than them, and thus defer to them on this issue as much as they can within their own moral guidelines. That most adults are far from rational isn't my issue.

The idea that someone should defer to those who is most affected on an issue that deals with fundamental morality is, IMO, insane. It's like saying let's defer to the murderer on Death Row as to the decision making regarding capital punishment.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's like saying let's defer to the murderer on Death Row as to the decision making regarding capital punishment.

He's already murdered, so already made that choice, silly. KILL HIM ALREADY.

Death row needs to go. 1 appeal, be cooking their final meal while the verdict is read. If he's found innocent, at least he'll go free with a full belly. If guilty, it's all in place to get it over with.

We need MORE capitol punishment to solve the whole prison overcrowding issue.

[Lorizael]

Seems to me we should defer to those that know best with regards to abortion, like say doctors and scientists perhaps.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx

Death row needs to go.

I agree, abort the DP

[Aeson]

It's hard to say when a bunch of cells becomes human deserving of rights. It does happen at some point inside the womb. A glob of cells gains feeling, the ability to react to inputs, and perhaps even consciousness. It's not possible to determine when consciousness actually begins until we can actually describe what it is in regards to physical interactions. But everything science tells us about consciousness is that it's linked to activity in the brain. AFAIK brain activity begins in ~8th week, and that's where I think the line should be drawn (except in cases where the mother's life is at risk), moving it if we learn differently.

As for the video Lancer posted, it just raises more questions about what the bill actually was, and what the Illinois law already was.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Aeson
It's hard to say when a bunch of cells becomes human deserving of rights. It does happen at some point inside the womb. A glob of cells gains feeling, the ability to react to inputs, and perhaps even consciousness. It's not possible to determine when consciousness actually begins until we can actually describe what it is in regards to physical interactions. But everything science tells us about consciousness is that it's linked to activity in the brain. AFAIK brain activity begins in ~8th week, and that's where I think the line should be drawn (except in cases where the mother's life is at risk), moving it if we learn differently.

Heart beat starts at 8th week. Don't know about brain activity.

All's I know is that what came out when my wife miscarried at 12 weeks was more glob of cells than it was person.

[Lancer]

Zkrib, thank you for the clarification of Obama's viewpoint.

Originally posted by Aeson


As for the video Lancer posted, it just raises more questions about what the bill actually was, and what the Illinois law already was.

I'm very curious about this too.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The idea that someone should defer to those who is most affected on an issue that deals with fundamental morality is, IMO, insane. It's like saying let's defer to the murderer on Death Row as to the decision making regarding capital punishment.

Anyone can be executed if found guilty of a capital crime, and thus everyone's input is equally valid. Only women can get abortions.

[Jon Miller]

From my casual reading when I should be working, it seems like what we would call brain activity begins at about the beginning of the second trimester (has been observed in an aborted 133 day old baby, for example).

I think that legal abortions in the first trimester, and illegal afterwards (excepting special circumstances) is the way to go.

That is with increased contraception support and everything else.

JM

[GePap]

Personally speaking (since I haven't made my personal views clear on this), I would say that a fetus should be considered to have the possibility of legal rights only after it becomes fully viable if removed from the womb (which is some time in the third trimester). Abortions up until then should be completely legal. After that, I have no problem placing restrictions, as longs the health of the woman remains paramount.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
Anyone can be executed if found guilty of a capital crime, and thus everyone's input is equally valid. Only women can get abortions.

The equivocation here is ridiculous. Guess what, most people aren't found guilty of a capital crime and especially not the Senators and Representatives articulating on that policy (who was last Sen/Rep on Death Row?)

It seems to me you are starting from the position that women should have a greater say on abortion and trying to create an arguement from there... that is the only reason you are seperating out criminal vs. civil being completely different.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The equivocation here is ridiculous. Guess what, most people aren't found guilty of a capital crime and especially not the Senators and Representatives articulating on that policy (who was last Sen/Rep on Death Row?)

Not all women get abortions, not all women get pregant. ANYONE can be found guilty of a capital crime and thus ANYONE can be executed. ONLY women can get abortions, ONLY women can get pregant. Is the difference between having the ability to something and not that difficult to grasp?

It seems to me you are starting from the position that women should have a greater say on abortion and trying to create an arguement from there... that is the only reason you are seperating out criminal vs. civil being completely different.

No, my view is rejecting non-existant "equality" on the issue of pregnancy and accepting that only one sex can get pregnant. Only one sex gets the benfits and must burden the huge risks of being pregnant. That sex should have the main say about an activity only they can engage in. Both sexes can be parents (and thus have to pay child support), but until men start getting pregnant and thus have to deal with the consquences, I reject false claims of equality on the issue. When a man can die from childbirth or from complications relating to a pregnancy, then you can claim equality on this.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Aeson
It's hard to say when a bunch of cells becomes human deserving of rights.

It's not hard at all.

Consider a lab buring down. There are 100 million zigots in that lab and there is a 110 year old man who lives in chronic pain who has no family and is an ******* to everyone he meets. You can only save either the old bastard or 100 million zigots, not both. Either you are a complete idiot or you save the the old man, even if you are a religious nutcase.