Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

http://mattbors.com/blog/2012/02/01/rape-l...-baby-lemonade/

 

Sigh. Really? Even rape victims and minors? Mr. Santorum has some issues here.

Wouldn't be surprised if Santorum said something like that. Look up Santorum. wink.gif

 

Don't worry. He isn't getting the Republican nomination. Even if he did, barring an event that slams Obama's numbers, he can't win a general election. He's too polarizing with his social conservative rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post

You are right! The Government will say how everyone has thier own freedom and rights but then if you chose a choice then you get judged. I belive that Abortion is a great Idea. Their is Teenage girls out their that SHOULD NOT have any childern yet.

 

Their are people out there that do not and should not have kids. Would you rather there be a child with a disorder or a horrible life instead of not even creating a child in that sitchuation?

 

Why not dispose of the horrible life befor a child has to suffer from it? I would like to hear other's response to my opinion.

i was only part against the gov though people need to see that its not the gov that's doing all these things its them. they chose the people for the position, they made the votes to or for. its hard to ex. though i can try.

 

i see it that abortion and things like that should not have to be banned because it goes against the original document. without the gov. we would have more than a few problems like monopoly business. the gov is supposed to answer our needs though people are trying to make it answer there wants. the system in whole is correct though its the people we chose for the positions that make these problems. it is a fact that the person with the most votes gets the position.

 

because of this if person A got 60% of votes and person B got 40% of votes then we still have a problem because almost half the people are against person A for reasons, logical or not logical. this would not mater to much if the fact that most of the people we voted in were truthful. what most people don't underestand that the people they vote for are not this flowery made up back story that warms the heart over half the time. they appeal to peoples wants like there this religion, there against abortion, their against gays, they will do this and that. if someone whats power enough they will appeal to the most common religion.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m127...33/ai_n7577979/ this should be a reliable artical.

 

most people consider these people prophets or something because they said they 'have seen the great collapse', no censorkip.gif, i could tell them the same thing and there are probably people that have for seen it more than 7 or so years back.

 

but really does that really matter as a need for being against someone else bedtime games with the person they love or something that will help with population or showing mercy to fetuses that have a very low chance of making it in the world that is already self exploitation? they when they state they are against abortion and gay rights and will fight to have those things banned they state they are fully constitutional when they go against it. that can do no more than harm and aid in the 'Great collapse'.

 

but the main point is that people do want they want and not what is needed. its like if you made a chore list and never did anything on it and your house looks like the bottom of a trashcan and you claim you have chores. in america we need abortions because of rape, tamper birth control, and overpopulation so putting them in a home is a far worse fate than death. we should not vote for someone that claims to be this or that religion, they will ban this or that when its against the constitution, or something that is so destructive it will be harder than anything for the next person to fix. the only way they will be legally able to ban abortion is if they go in and change the Constitution.

 

but ya its not right or even fair what they do, they should reap what they have sewn.

 

yes there are people that don't need children and they know they can't support them or they will not make a good parent, that those parents over half the time seek abortion, they don't want the child till they can be better parents and support the things but this is only one reason for abortion. i personally would not want a child with a disorder to have to go threw what the ones now face like abuse and a system.

 

there are people that would rather have the child live to birth just so they can claim 'O i'm a good person because i did not let so and so kill there unborn child, i will get into heaven or so and so because i did what was right because abortion could hardly be suffering for the mother and child' but most of those people don't want anything to do with the child after they are out of the womb. not there might be other types of people that would not say that that are for saving the fetus though those are mainly the only ones i have seen with my own eyes.

 

 

Kestra15: Best of luck to your sister, she should not have to worry about that type of ignorance. their is no greater shame than to protest against someone else's rights if it will help them and be merciful on both the child and family.

Edited by xhunter

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that abortion does boil down to the question: "Is the fetus really a person?" This is one of the main reasons I am pro-life.

First of all, we can't really define when a person comes into existence, but a fetus does have the DNA of a human, which IMHO, is enough to give it the rights of a person. Secondly, since we can't really know when life begins and, religiously speaking, when the soul enters the body, why take a chance? If life doesn't begin till after a baby has drawn it's first breath, then excellent, but what if it begins at conception? Technically, aborting it would fall under the deffinition of murder.

Also, I agree that a human's body is their own. However, if that is the case and if the fetus is a person, then that means that the fetus, also, has a right to life. This is one reason that I stand against abortion. The mother has a voice and a method of defense, but the fetus doesn't. Besides, while most mothers will survive the pregnancy, abortion is a gauranteed death for the fetus.

Share this post


Link to post

A fetus is not a person to me until they are detached from the woman and draws it's first breath. And on that note, the 'rights' of the unborn should never trump the rights of the would-be mother. If they did, you (general) are basically condemning the woman to 9-months of slavery carrying that fetus to term, a fetus the mother never wanted (especially if she was using BC/protection and it failed).

 

And last I checked, slavery is illegal.

Share this post


Link to post

Seems a little silly to consider a fetus a person before it's born anyway, imo, because nothing is going to happen until after it's born. There's no point. Besides, bunch of other stuff has human DNA too, and those don't get treated specially. It also doesn't make sense at all for a fetus to be ensoulled at conception anyway, religiously speaking or not. *shrug*

 

Share this post


Link to post

snip

Ah, you do know that the word 'ageist' means 'someone who discriminates based on age' right?

Edited by TikindiDragon

Share this post


Link to post

Did anybody hear about the amendment State Sen. Janet Howell attached to the bill that would require women to get an ultrasound before an abortion? XD

 

Unsurprising that it didn't pass and unsurprising that the bill's sponsor voted against it, but serious win.

Share this post


Link to post

Please don't feel as if I'm attacking you, Zephyrgirl, butI'm going to address your points one by one.

 

but a fetus does have the DNA of a human, which IMHO, is enough to give it the rights of a person.

 

By this definition, is a tumor a person? After all, a tumor has human DNA that is different from it's host. By that logic, all surgeries to remove tumors are murder.

 

Secondly, since we can't really know when life begins and, religiously speaking, when the soul enters the body, why take a chance?

 

I don't know bout Christianity, but the Torah and Talmud are very clear that the fetus is not ensouled. In fact, the bible clearly states that if a man causes a woman to miscarry on purpose it is not murder.

 

Also in the Bible is a judgement by trial that a man could force his wife to endure which would cause an abortion if she had been unfaithful and cheated on him.

 

If life doesn't begin till after a baby has drawn it's first breath, then excellent, but what if it begins at conception? Technically, aborting it would fall under the deffinition of murder.

 

If a zygote is ensouled at conception, than what happens if it turns into a parasitic mass or a tumor? Do you then have a parasitic mass or a tumor with a soul? In both cases, the zygote is still alive and has it's own DNA.

 

if a zygote is ensouled at conception, then identical twins can only have one soul between them. Do you feel this is the case? Does one twin then keep the soul or is it split between them?

 

If the zygote is ensouled at conception, why?

 

Why would G-d, in his infinite wisdom, ensoul a zygote which won't implant, when the mother wouldn't even know she was pregnant?

 

Why would he ensoul a ecotopic pregnancy which can't survive and would kill the mother? He knows nothing could be done to save it.

 

Why would he ensoul a zygote if he knows the woman will miscarry?

 

The only way ensoulment makes sense at conception is if you believe G-d isn't all-knowing.

 

Also, I agree that a human's body is their own. However, if that is the case and if the fetus is a person, then that means that the fetus, also, has a right to life.

 

Why? Le's say someone needs a kidney transplant, and they are in serious condition, and without it they will die. They have a right to life. Do they then have the right to your kidney? After all, they have a right to life, and you can survive with one.

 

If "right to life" was enough, every person could be forced into any medical situation that they could survive to save another person, even if they didn't want it.

 

The mother has a voice and a method of defense, but the fetus doesn't.

 

Your saying, after conception, the mother has no method of defense against the fetus though. You're saying that a woman should be forced to carry a fetus for nine months, with no way to protect herself from the fetus.

 

You're saying a women should be forced through what many consider torture, and given no recourse except suicide. Over 2,500 people last year in the US alone, killed themselves because they couldn't deal with pregnancy as the only reason for the suicide. If abortion were illegal, how much higher do you think that would be, if you took away the only legal defense against the fetus?

 

Besides, while most mothers will survive the pregnancy, abortion is a gauranteed death for the fetus.

 

So is unplugging life support from someone. Let's say a woman has a child on life support. Do you think she shouldn't have the right to take her child off the machines keeping it alive?

 

And so what most mother's survive? Survive as what? Why is life more important than quality of life? What about the dozens of children who hate their parents for not aborting them?

 

A fetus can't choose to be born or not. The parents have to make the first in a long line of decisions and decide whether or not to force a child into this world or not.

 

is a fact that the person with the most votes gets the position.

 

Uh, no. Not in the US. A person can win the most votes and lose the election. It happens. Taking the presidents for example:

 

John Quincy Adams who lost by 44,804 votes to Andrew Jackson in 1824

Rutherford B. Hayes who lost by 264,292 votes to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876

Benjamin Harrison who lost by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland in 1888

George W. Bush who lost by 543,816 votes to Al Gore in the 2000 election.

Edited by NobleOwl

Share this post


Link to post
Ah, you do know that the word 'ageist' means 'someone who discriminates based on age' right?

LOL sorry must have been typing too fast at once at the time or the computer changed it again, my computer needs to stop guessing. i will go in and fix it thank you for pointing it out.

 

NobleOwl: your last statement can you explain, why they lost because the books at my school had stated over and over the the one with the most won, i can't find anything on google where i'm at about that being legell and all.

 

to me if there is a all mighty G-d then over so long you would think that he had the sense not to place a soul in a body that is fated just to be taken out before it is born because of any reason and maybe up to a few days after birth.

 

i know that fate might be a lacking point but if a mother had a blood type that was not competable with her mate, like my mom, then the body tries to remove the offspring because it did not work out that is fate. though i know there are other that are mad that they were not aborted but for me i'm not mad at my mom, i'm made that her choice which was to get these shots that would 'Save' my husk from getting reabsorbed back into her body, that to me is going against fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Seems a little silly to consider a fetus a person before it's born anyway, imo, because nothing is going to happen until after it's born. There's no point. Besides, bunch of other stuff has human DNA too, and those don't get treated specially. It also doesn't make sense at all for a fetus to be ensoulled at conception anyway, religiously speaking or not. *shrug*

Because you then get to the moral quandary of whether a child at 37wks is considered alive; after all by that point it can exist without interventions outside of the womb. For all we know by that point it really is as aware of it's surroundings as the moment it pops out of the womb.

 

If we could demonstrate, beyond a doubt, when a baby is sentient and aware of it's surroundings that may help the debate a little.

Share this post


Link to post

Your last statement can you explain, why they lost because the books at my school had stated over and over the the one with the most won, i can't find anything on google where i'm at about that being legell and all.

 

It's a matter of being a constitutional republic. We , no matter what people think, are not a democracy. We elect people to represent us in our government. Once they are elected, what we think kind of goes out the window.

 

Let's take the 2000 case, since it was the most recent. Were we a democracy, Al Gore would have been president because he had the most votes.

 

But, because we are a republic, we have a system known as the electoral college, which is laid out in the constitution.

 

When you're voting for president, you're actually voting for an elector. Each state has a set number of electors, based on population. For example, California has 55 electors and Alaska has only 3.

 

What happens is that when a candidate "wins" that state by getting the majority of the votes, that state's electors (generally) vote for that candidate. Whoever wins the electoral college vote, wins the presidency, regardless of how the people voted.

 

So while more people voted for Al Gore, meaning more of the American people wanted him to be president, George Bush won states with bigger populations, giving him more electors.

 

So, say Al Gore (let's pretend, even though it didn't happen that way,) had 59% of the vote in California and George Bush had 60%. George Bush would get 55 votes from California in the election because he won the state. Even though he only won by 1%, he still gets all of the votes.

 

You can technically win an election by winning only eleven states: If one candidate were to take California (55 votes), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Illinois (20), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), and New Jersey (14) that ticket would have 270 votes, and in the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Because you then get to the moral quandary of whether a child at 37wks is considered alive; after all by that point it can exist without interventions outside of the womb. For all we know by that point it really is as aware of it's surroundings as the moment it pops out of the womb.

 

If we could demonstrate, beyond a doubt, when a baby is sentient and aware of it's surroundings that may help the debate a little.

This moral quandary can be somewhat more easily shifted then as to whether an underdeveloped human fetus's life can be considered more important than a woman who has already lived, gotten a family, job, etc.

 

Personally, I will always say a woman who already is living her life should be more important, it being her body. A dying man cannot snatch another of his kidney, a fetus shouldn't gnaw the nutrients of its mom without will.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I will always say a woman who already is living her life should be more important, it being her body. A dying man cannot snatch another of his kidney, a fetus shouldn't gnaw the nutrients of its mom without will.

Scenario: A heavily-pregnant woman has been brought into the Emergency Department with life-threatening injuries.

 

The baby, whilst injured in the accident, would survive if you initiated an emergency Cesarean, delivered it and immediately getting it into surgery, but will die if you don't take it out now. The mother is fatally wounded; even if you operate on her now and did your best she would still die within the week, and she would certainly die within minutes if you undertake the Cesarean first. You cannot save both tonight.

 

Without the father there to make the decision, and the mother's own wishes unknown, what is your decision?

 

(This is relevant to topic as it is an investigation into the absolute vs. relative morality when discussing abortion)

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post
Scenario: A heavily-pregnant woman has been brought into the Emergency Department with life-threatening injuries.

 

The baby, whilst injured in the accident, would survive if you initiated an emergency Cesarean, delivered it and immediately getting it into surgery, but will die if you don't take it out now. The mother is fatally wounded; even if you operate on her now and did your best she would still die within the week, and she would certainly die within minutes if you undertake the Cesarean first. You cannot save both tonight.

 

Without the father there to make the decision, and the mother's own wishes unknown, what is your decision?

Legally, you don't have a choice. The mother has to come first.

Share this post


Link to post

Scenario: A heavily-pregnant woman has been brought into the Emergency Department with life-threatening injuries.

 

The baby, whilst injured in the accident, would survive if you initiated an emergency Cesarean, delivered it and immediately getting it into surgery, but will die if you don't take it out now. The mother is fatally wounded; even if you operate on her now and did your best she would still die within the week, and she would certainly die within minutes if you undertake the Cesarean first. You cannot save both tonight.

 

Without the father there to make the decision, and the mother's own wishes unknown, what is your decision?

i don't think that is not what Soulless human meant and it is different.

 

if the spouse did make the decision they would have to cut into her womb to remove the Baby. of course if the child is that old and labor ready then they will not do a abortion. more than likely if the female carried the child so long she would want it to live so it probably would be her wish for the child to be removed sense she would death either way. though if that happens its the males choice to keep the child or toss it into a home or with relatives that will take it.

 

the difference is yes the mothers life is in the highest value but if she will die then there is no point of keeping the offspring in the womb any longer to let it meet the same fate as the mother. and even if the child had stayed in it would do no good to both, because of that the offspring becomes greater value because the mother will die either way. either way the offspring can't use its mothers body for any more nutrition because it is out. my point is that because the mother can't answer and she would die either way it would not be using the mother against her will unless she woke up and told them other.

 

and even if the father was not there to decide or even the dieing mother the doctors would deliver the baby assuming that it is the mothers wish for keeping her baby alive then they would call family or throw it into the system themselves.

Edited by xhunter

Share this post


Link to post

Scenario: A heavily-pregnant woman has been brought into the Emergency Department with life-threatening injuries.

 

The baby, whilst injured in the accident, would survive if you initiated an emergency Cesarean, delivered it and immediately getting it into surgery, but will die if you don't take it out now. The mother is fatally wounded; even if you operate on her now and did your best she would still die within the week, and she would certainly die within minutes if you undertake the Cesarean first. You cannot save both tonight.

 

Without the father there to make the decision, and the mother's own wishes unknown, what is your decision?

I, uh, have no idea how this applies to my statement. I said a baby shouldn't suck off its mother's nutrients without her consent. I never said if she were heavily pregnant and dying in a hospital and would die anyway would I rip out the kid. I have -no- idea what you're getting at here, and don't know how this applies to abortion. At all.

Edited by soullesshuman

Share this post


Link to post

Because you then get to the moral quandary of whether a child at 37wks is considered alive; after all by that point it can exist without interventions outside of the womb. For all we know by that point it really is as aware of it's surroundings as the moment it pops out of the womb.

 

Why retreat back into protecting fertilized eggs just because there’s a fine line? People aren't advocating the killing of newborns and toddlers. Well, maybe Steven Pinker.

 

You know how some say God was the great anesthesiologist? Well, he'd also be the biggest abortion doctor around!

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3073445

 

"The process of fertilization in humans, is remarkably inefficient. Spontaneous abortion is estimated to be between 15 and 20% of all clinical pregnancies, and the early spontaneous abortion rate is closer to 30-50% of fertilized ova."

 

Pro-lifers should make it illegal to have babies near menopause. The rate for spontaneous abortions goes up as you get older. Why risk someone's life?!

 

Scenario: A heavily-pregnant woman has been brought into the Emergency Department with life-threatening injuries. [snip]

 

You say she'll die a week later. Would they always get this right?

 

Riddle me this:

 

If a pregnant women is in need of an abortion because the pregnancy threatens her life, should she be able to get it?

 

The death of the woman is uncertain. The death of the baby is certain if abortion is chosen.

 

More food for thought:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

 

“In almost all cases, anencephalic infants are not aggressively resuscitated because there is no chance of the infant ever achieving a conscious existence.”

 

What's the best course of action? Terminate it. There's no reason to force a woman to carry it to term.

 

Likewise, if a woman has AIDS, no one should be able to tell her that she needs to carry the baby to term. That's wrong and abhorrent.

 

It's a matter of being a constitutional republic. We , no matter what people think, are not a democracy. We elect people to represent us in our government. Once they are elected, what we think kind of goes out the window.

 

The U.S. can be considered a representative democracy. They overlap.

 

We didn’t have direct elections for the U.S. Senate before. They were elected by state legislatures. The 17th Amendment changed this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

An HIV + woman shouldn't be pressured not to carry either, because there are ways to minimize chance of passing on the disease.

Share this post


Link to post

Legally, you don't have a choice. The mother has to come first.

Actually, it's triage - we save the child.

I, uh, have no idea how this applies to my statement. I said a baby shouldn't suck off its mother's nutrients without her consent. I never said if she were heavily pregnant and dying in a hospital and would die anyway would I rip out the kid. I have -no- idea what you're getting at here, and don't know how this applies to abortion. At all.

Absolute vs relative morality. You made it sound like a child would always come second regardless.

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, it's triage - we save the child.

Perhaps it varies by country/state? I was told that doing that would be illegal.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps it varies by country/state? I was told that doing that would be illegal.

Triage dictates that we save that one with the higher chance of surviving when faced with that kind of situation. Since Mom *will* die, but the kid will most likely survive, kid's survival will come first. It is (should) be standard no matter when you practise medicine and no matter what level.

 

Edit: I will however clarify that it is a time where you have the conflict of spirit vs. letter of the Law.

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, it's triage - we save the child.

 

Absolute vs relative morality. You made it sound like a child would always come second regardless.

Uhm... but we're not discussing abortion then, are we, but rather an extreme circumstance that vastly does not represent the majority of abortions performed? To be honest I'm no medical practitioner, and the situation gave me pretty much only said:

 

a. Mother is always gonna die

b. baby will live if you rip it out

c. You have no contact with any family

 

To be honest, this isn't an abortion question at all, and if the mother's life is going to end within a week anyways, there's little point in arguing this. It's an extreme circumstance that popped outta nowhere and I don't see what kind of point you're trying to make. You tell me that it's because of my view, but considering the topic is abortion, I was thinking of, well, the subject of a mother terminating the pregnancy early on her own free will. Taking my opinion and slamming it into a completely unrelated and rather extreme hypothetical situation kinda... doesn't help anyone.

Edited by soullesshuman

Share this post


Link to post

Uhm... but we're not discussing abortion then, are we, but rather an extreme circumstance that vastly does not represent the majority of abortions performed? To be honest I'm no medical practitioner, and the situation gave me pretty much only said:

 

a. Mother is always gonna die

b. baby will live if you rip it out

c. You have no contact with any family

 

To be honest, this isn't an abortion question at all, and if the mother's life is going to end within a week anyways, there's little point in arguing this. It's an extreme circumstance that popped outta nowhere and I don't see what kind of point you're trying to make. You tell me that it's because of my view, but considering the topic is abortion, I was thinking of, well, the subject of a mother terminating the pregnancy early on her own free will.

Again, absolute vs relative morality.

 

You said an unborn child always come second to a mother. That sounds like an absolute, that regardless of scenario you would rate the unborn child as lesser to the mother. Hence asking that scenario of you; I wanted to know if you were absolute (so regardless of scenario) or relative.

 

Now, from that response that means that your views of the sanctity of the mother's life over the sanctity of the child's life is relative; that means you do consider there to be scenarios where the unborn child is considered child. So it would be interesting to know what other circumstances there are where the child is more important.

 

Why is it relative to abortion? Because in abortion - especially late-stage abortion - the child is equally viable. It can survive, even if the mother chooses to end it. I wonder, then, what circumstances would bring about your mind changing from allowing the mother to take the abortion, to the child being considered as an equal life.

 

This is a philosophical debate as much as it is a real-life issue, hence why we sometimes have these kinds of side-scenarios. The decisions and rationalle behind your decision on one scenario can explain, reinforce or in some cases change your decision in another.

Riddle me this:

 

If a pregnant women is in need of an abortion because the pregnancy threatens her life, should she be able to get it?

 

The death of the woman is uncertain. The death of the baby is certain if abortion is chosen.

Yes, she should.

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post

Again, absolute vs relative morality.

 

You said an unborn child always come second to a mother. That sounds like an absolute, that regardless of scenario you would rate the unborn child as lesser to the mother. Hence asking that scenario of you; I wanted to know if you were absolute (so regardless of scenario) or relative.

 

Now, from that response that means that your views of the sanctity of the mother's life over the sanctity of the child's life is relative; that means you do consider there to be scenarios where the unborn child is considered child. So it would be interesting to know what other circumstances there are where the child is more important.

 

Why is it relative to abortion? Because in abortion - especially late-stage abortion - the child is equally viable. It can survive, even if the mother chooses to end it. I wonder, then, what circumstances would bring about your mind changing from allowing the mother to take the abortion, to the child being considered as an equal life.

 

This is a philosophical debate as much as it is a real-life issue, hence why we sometimes have these kinds of side-scenarios. The decisions and rationalle behind your decision on one scenario can explain, reinforce or in some cases change your decision in another.

Uh, okay. Let me clarify:

 

In willing abortions, I believe a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy whenever she chooses and have the fetus removed from her body, on the logic that, like a man who cannot force another person to give him their kidney, a fetus cannot force a woman to give it her nutrients.

 

Also, this is becoming very off-topic, as now we're talking about a lady that's going to die in a week vs her unborn brat, which is, y'know, kinda a non-question and doesn't have anything to do with the topic other than you trying to prove my morality is wrong in a completely different subject. It's like if I said 'you should use a bomb in Touhou' and someone else going 'BUT IT DOESN'T WORK IN COUNTERSTRIKE DOES IT?!' Of course not, because Touhou isn't counterstrike. You're applying my opinion on abortion to a random ER event you made up.

 

EDIT: I realize I probably came off as harsher than I should. Can we not continue this line of topic, since it's off-topic to the issue of abortion itself?

Edited by soullesshuman

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.