Vatican says gays are undeserving of basic human rights.

[C0ckney]

i agree with felch here. i support legal abortion but i do wish people wouldn't lie about what it is. it's clear and obvious that a fetus is human and that it is a separate organism (albeit one dependant on its mother). to argue otherwise flies in the face of biology.

i think the UK has it about right, abortions are legal up to 24 weeks, and after that only in exceptional circumstances (mother's life in danger, serious medical condition etc.).

[MikeH]

ie:

The discussion has moved on. It's no longer about whether it's legal, it's just about what circumstances.

[Ming]

I'm not making light of it. I'm saying it's not a legal defense. People die in unexpected ways all the time, but using violence to defend yourself is only justified when you have a reasonable belief that you are in grave danger. You're the one twisting self-defense to mean whatever you want it to mean.

Hmmm... not a legal defense... big deal, it's LEGAL to have the choice of an abortion in this country...
You are the one doing the twisting... It is a FACT that woman can die giving birth... So it should be her choice on whether she want's to risk it or not. Again, it must be easy for you to decide that a woman should risk dying because you a male and never have to worry about giving birth.

So what species is it then?

Laugh all you want... people laugh at you for calling a fetus a person.

You want me to provide evidence that a fetus is alive? How about the fact that it metabolizes nutrients, grows, maintains homeostatis, and in all other ways exhibits signs of life?

But is it a person... and when does it become a "person"... that's the argument... and one that people and scientists disagree on.

Whoever told you that women have a body part called "a fetus" did you a disservice. It is clearly a distinct organism, with its own genetic code and rate of senescence. It is an other, in no uncertain terms.

Whoever told you that a fetus is not part of a woman's body did you a real disservice. Simply remove it and see how long it last's on it's own... It's attached to the woman... without that attachment, it can not exist. As long as it's attached, it's part of the woman.

I don't own a woman to order around, but passing laws doesn't imply that. You don't have to own me to tell me not to kill people. That's a patently absurd argument.

Own... your words, not mine. Feel free to attempt to dictate to your loved one what she can and can not do... And again, you keep coming back to the word "people"... and there is no universal consent that a fetus is "people".

And again... I'm going to support the right of "people"... the woman who is taking the risk... I won't dictate to her that she has to risk dying.

[Felch]

I'm willing to accept differing views on how society should handle abortion, as long as we can get our facts straight.

[MikeH]

I don't think it's got anything to do with potentially dying, a woman should be allowed to have an abortion for any private reason she wants, (before a certain date, 24 weeks is maybe too long). Mainly because there will be some reasons people shouldn't have to make public, or disclose to medical staff, if they don't want to.

It's never, ever going to be a casual decision and people absolutely should try and do everything they can to prevent being in that position.

[Felch]

Hmmm... not a legal defense... big deal, it's LEGAL to have the choice of an abortion in this country...
You are the one doing the twisting... It is a FACT that woman can die giving birth... So it should be her choice on whether she want's to risk it or not. Again, it must be easy for you to decide that a woman should risk dying because you a male and never have to worry about giving birth.

I think you missed my point there. I never said abortion was illegal, I was talking about a legal claim of self-defense.

Laugh all you want... people laugh at you for calling a fetus a person.

I just checked. I never said a fetus was a person in this thread. I advocate extending personhood to fetal humans, but I understand that person is a legal term. You're the one conflating it with the biological term "human being."

But is it a person... and when does it become a "person"... that's the argument... and one that people and scientists disagree on.

Politicians decide personhood. No serious biologist would deny that a human fetus is a human being or say that it isn't alive.

Whoever told you that a fetus is not part of a woman's body did you a real disservice. Simply remove it and see how long it last's on it's own... It's attached to the woman... without that attachment, it can not exist. As long as it's attached, it's part of the woman.

Attached and part of are different. Quick bio lesson: The egg and sperm meet, and the egg is fertilized. After it is fertilized, the egg attaches to the wall of the uterus. Then it grows and becomes a fetus. In other words, it is a separate organism which attaches itself. It is not a part of the woman. Just because it needs to be attached in order to survive doesn't mean that it is the same organism. That's just how the eutherian life cycle works.

Own... your words, not mine. Feel free to attempt to dictate to your loved one what she can and can not do... And again, you keep coming back to the word "people"... and there is no universal consent that a fetus is "people".

And again... I'm going to support the right of "people"... the woman who is taking the risk... I won't dictate to her that she has to risk dying.

Your words implied possession and I was saying that I don't possess a woman. That's all.

[Ming]

I don't think it's got anything to do with potentially dying,

I've known woman who have had that fear... and one did indeed have an early abortion for simply that reason...

a woman should be allowed to have an abortion for any private reason she wants

I agree... It's THEIR BODY AND LIFE!

(before a certain date, 24 weeks is maybe too long).

It's going to be some arbitrary date... As it is now... there are only two non arbitrary points, inception and birth. And if you allow abortion, inception doesn't work.

[MikeH]

Oh I know it's a genuine risk in many cases, and a genuine reason for others, but I don't think that's the reason it should be legal, was all I meant. Sorry if wasn't clear.

[Ming]

I think you missed my point there. I never said abortion was illegal, I was talking about a legal claim of self-defense.

No... you are missing the point. I'm saying a woman has the right to avoid something that could kill her.

I just checked. I never said a fetus was a person in this thread. I advocate extending personhood to fetal humans, but I understand that person is a legal term. You're the one conflating it with the biological term "human being."

No I'm not... I'm saying that a fetus is NOT a person, and should not have the same rights as "people". I'm saying that woman, who is a person or is "people" has rights. And she should be allowed to make her own choice.

Politicians decide personhood. No serious biologist would deny that a human fetus is a human being or say that it isn't alive.

But serious biologist can and have argued that a fetus is not a person or "people"
And right now... politicians and the majority of people have decided on this issue.

Attached and part of are different. Quick bio lesson: The egg and sperm meet, and the egg is fertilized. After it is fertilized, the egg attaches to the wall of the uterus. Then it grows and becomes a fetus. In other words, it is a separate organism which attaches itself. It is not a part of the woman. Just because it needs to be attached in order to survive doesn't mean that it is the same organism. That's just how the eutherian life cycle works.

I never said it wasn't the same "organism"... but it is a part of her. To say it isn't is silly.

Your words implied possession and I was saying that I don't possess a woman. That's all.

I implied nothing... you just saw it that way. Gee... I wonder why? Again, you have no problem telling half the world's population what they can and can't do with their bodies, when you personally will not have to go through it.

[Ming]

But maybe we should just start the normal/regular abortion thread for this discussion... since this thread was really about the Vatican bashing gays yet again.

[Asher]

So I can murder deaf-mutes now? I'll just tell the jury that they implicitly agreed to be killed by not saying anything. Hell, I can set myself up on the roof of a building, and shoot passersby. As long as none of them have said that they didn't want to be shot, I'm not violating their rights according to you.

I've always thought there were wayyy too many deaf-mutes around.

I love how you guys are so certain that you're correct, and your arguments are all so weak and poorly thought out. Face facts. Terminating a pregnancy for no good reason is a barbaric custom. Just because it's socially accepted doesn't make it right.

What makes it wrong? Without appealing to religious morality.

Again, let's face facts. You don't legalize abortion:
1) It'll happen still, but illegally in more dangerous circumstances
2) The already overburdened foster care system would be overwhelmed
3) You'd be inundated with a massive amount of unwanted children who will not get the attention and love that they need. These people tend not to turn out well for society as a whole.
4) The cost to the state would be absolutely massive.

Outside of the fact that you openly want to legislate religious morals, it's clearly fiscally irresponsible. It's nice in theory to just say "abortion is murder, stop mmkay". In reality, you've got a cluster**** of problems that'd stem from that feel-good decision.

I don't think the world is black and white. I think the rights of a sentient woman trumps the right of an non-sentient fetus. I think it's wrong for the government to tell a woman what she can do with her body.

I'd also be strongly against forced circumcision and other ridiculous practices I'm sure many religious factions would love.

[loinburger]

Again, let's face facts. You don't legalize abortion:
1) It'll happen still, but illegally in more dangerous circumstances

I've always disliked this argument, because it can be applied to pretty much any substance/practice. "If you don't legalize firearms then only the criminals will have AK-47's." "If you don't legalize nukes then only the rogue nations will have nukes." The fact that people may break a law is not a reason not to pass a law.

[Asher]

We've always been the pioneers. Don't worry, in a few generations Europe will catch up.

The trend is undeniably in the other direction.

Canada has only become more liberal in its abortion laws...

[Asher]

To me, murder implies killing a sentient human being. I don't consider condoms to be murder either, though both abortion and condoms clearly prevent the birth of a child. Which is what it all comes down to.

[Felch]

What makes it wrong? Without appealing to religious morality.

Are human rights derived from religious morality? Serious question, because I'm basing my rationale on a fetus being human and therefore deserving human rights. Whether they are a burden on society or not is irrelevant. We don't kill people just because they are burdensome. I am a Catholic, but I don't want the laws of the land to be based on religion. I want them based on reason and a respect for people's rights.

As far as sentience goes, I think you agree with loinburger. A fetus is potentially sentient if it can feel, perceive, or be conscious. Therefore brain activity would be the cutoff point for abortion, something which would be a good basis for restricting abortion.

As far as the trend goes in abortion law, nothing says that it won't swing the other way. After all, abortion and infanticide have existed for centuries. I see the world moving away from the idea of offspring being the possessions of the parents (as in the Roman custom of Pater familias) and towards one of universal rights for humans of all ages.