Obama and Abortion

[Maniac]

There is no 'natural' or 'scientific' definition of life. A definition is just a sometimes rather arbitrary convention.

Edit: Lots of lifeforms don't have a brain. There goes your definition.

[Jon Miller]

At a time, it was legal to kill a black person, who was yours. You could do to them as you wanted. And if it improved your economic situation, or pleased you in any way, you could have them killed.

But just because it was legal, didn't stop it from being murder.

The difference between murder and non-murder is whether it is part of the individuals relation with the state for the protection of society.

A police officer will kill, not murder, someone to protect others. A soldier will kill, not murder, to protect the state.e These are of course if things are done properly, there are many many examples of abuse for both of these groups. Otherwise, killing without consent of the person being killed (assisted suicide also isn't murder) is murder.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Maniac
There is no 'natural' or 'scientific' definition of life. A definition is just a sometimes rather arbitrary convention.

Edit: Lots of lifeforms don't have a brain. There goes your definition.

Human life?

By any purely scientific definition, the fetus is alive. The issue that idiots who defend abortion argue is that it isn't human.

Anything that is living, and has human DNA, and has brainwaves, is a human. It is the definition that we use at all other times. If you end the brainwaves of someone else, you murdered them, even if their body is kept alive by machines.

JM

[Maniac]

All the same, it's arbitrary.

Following the position that the brain is impotyant, you might as well argue the defining quality of human life, is not brain waves but consciousness. In that case you wouldn't be alive until you were two years old. :shrug:

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Maniac
All the same, it's arbitrary.

You might as well say the defining quality of human life, is not brain waves but consciousness. In that case you wouldn't be alive until you were two years old. :shrug:

Except that isn't the definition that we use at other places. Someone in a coma is still classified as alive and a human.

And there is disagreement about whether one year olds are conscious or not. The brain is undergoing rapid development and learning during that time frame.

The lengths that people will go to excuse the murder of millions to make life better for themselves is sickening.

JM

[Zevico]

Abortions are going to happen whether you want them to or not. They are either going to happen secretly and dangerously, as they were in the past, or they are going to happen legally and safely.
Abortion was banned in the Soviet Union--people still got 'em. It was the same backyard abortion phenomenon you saw in the US and likely most other countries that took a while to recognise them. Since abortions were possible, they have been widespread, if hushed up at times when illegal (and not). The choice is between people having legal abortions and people having illegal (unsafe) abortions; not between people having abortions and people not having abortions.
If you want to change the way people behave, and encourage them to keep their unborn children, that's your right. But on the societal level, I don't view it as a question of morality. I view it as a question of public safety.

[Heraclitus]

I think that Human DNA and brainwaves is a logical benchmark to hold.



I think there was a time for abortion, but that time has passed with the advent of modern contraception and the increased chances of survival of prematurely born babies. Except in cases of severe disability.


Contraception is reliable and easy to use. If I was a bit totalitarian inclined I would argue that we should institute a law enforcing contraception on everyone (recent advances have made "the pill" available for men as well) except people who sing that they are off the pill because they want to get pregnant. Doing that and outlawing abortion seems the best possible solution.

It doesn't infringe on reproductive rights, since everyone can sign that statement if they want them. It would also prevent unplanned pregnancies, and no humans are killed in the process. It also helps poor couples since the state covers the cost of universal contraception eliminating the associated with it.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Zevico
Abortions are going to happen whether you want them to or not. They are either going to happen secretly and dangerously, as they were in the past, or they are going to happen legally and safely.
Abortion was banned in the Soviet Union--people still got 'em. It was the same backyard abortion phenomenon you saw in the US and likely most other countries that took a while to recognise them. Since abortions were possible, they have been widespread, if hushed up at times when illegal (and not). The choice is between people having legal abortions and people having illegal (unsafe) abortions; not between people having abortions and people not having abortions.
If you want to change the way people behave, and encourage them to keep their unborn children, that's your right. But on the societal level, I don't view it as a question of morality. I view it as a question of public safety.

Universal contraception solves the problem.



It would allow us to eat the cake and keep it.

[Jon Miller]

Contraception being the standard instead of the exception could be part of the cultural change that needs to happen.

JM

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Contraception being the standard instead of the exception could be part of the cultural change that needs to happen.

JM

Over here most (~60%) adult women use contraception unless they are trying to get pregnant or would have no trouble keeping the kid.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Zevico
Abortions are going to happen whether you want them to or not. They are either going to happen secretly and dangerously, as they were in the past, or they are going to happen legally and safely.
Abortion was banned in Ireland--people still got 'em. It was the same backyard abortion phenomenon you saw in the US and likely most other countries that took a while to recognise them. Since abortions were possible, they have been widespread, if hushed up at times when illegal (and not). The choice is between people having legal abortions and people having illegal (unsafe) abortions; not between people having abortions and people not having abortions.
If you want to change the way people behave, and encourage them to keep their unborn children, that's your right. But on the societal level, I don't view it as a question of morality. I view it as a question of public safety.

Fixed that for you. I nearly got very legally aborted.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
A police officer will kill, not murder, someone to protect others. A soldier will kill, not murder, to protect the state.e These are of course if things are done properly, there are many many examples of abuse for both of these groups. Otherwise, killing without consent of the person being killed (assisted suicide also isn't murder) is murder.

Nope, murder is intentional and unlawful killing. In the examples you gave the policeman and the soldier are not included in the legal def of murder, so they are out. It's not as if they ask around for "consent" before they'd kill someone (if they have to).

A soldier can as well be a murderer (warcrimes), but the difference between this and his non-murderer status as long as he kills in war, and is not violating any legally binding rules of warfare is just the legal def, which makes him a murderer in one case, but not one in the other.

"Killing without consent" fits to a lot of stuff. People dieing in a plane crash do hardly consent to that, but it's (for example in case of pilot errors etc.) usually not murder, cause in those cases there's no intent to kill. Your def tieing murder only to the consent thing is useless in praxis.

[Zevico]

Originally posted by onodera

Fixed that for you. I nearly got very legally aborted.

Sorry-quite right. Until 1968, abortions--except for medical reasons (i.e. mother's life in danger)--were illegal. This was introduced by Stalin in the 40's. But hey, Ireland works too.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by dannubis


LEGAL ABORTION IS NOT MURDER. And keep on saying it for a 1000 times doesn't make it so.

A woman is allowed to choose over her own body. You have no say in that whatsover.

You have a right to disagree, but your right stops at what she wants to do with her own body (within the legal set time frame of course).

What about Gianna's question?

Ok, regarding a 'woman's right to choose' she asked something like "what about my rights?" You see, she got cerebral palsy from being aborted. Perhaps she considered that being aborted contravened her rights.

[Lancer]

You guys need to go to the OP and check out the videos to know what this discussion is about.

These babys are being aborted and surviving the process. They are then being either killed or allowed to die alone of neglect.

Gianna was just such a baby. Watch her interview, watch the O'Riely interview with the nurse in the first link.