Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vendetagainst]

Actually back in seventh or eighth grade my teacher apparently told her son (my best friend at the time) that masturbation was wrong because all those sperm died. I made the same point you did, but the bastard child of religion and politics isn't about to think rationally, how dare you suggest it change to meet YOUR expectations! 

And yeah, I went to a Catholic school, if you were wondering about the teacher

[muteKi]

okaynegativenellyhere technically both sperm and eggs have only half the chromosomes needed to become a baby, so not even under this ridiculousness would it count as abortion. I would hope the conservatives wouldn't slide THAT far down the slippery slope.

And some forms of birth control (see: morning after pill, IUDs I think?) could be seen as aborticajfeiajfel, but it would depend on if your definition of when life starts is at conception, implantation, or somewhere else. So for someone who sees life starting at conception (I personally don't), I guess anything preventing implantation would be an abortion under their mindset.

Yeah, that's the point, really -- it's the implantation of an already fertilized egg in the uterus. From what I read in my more informative than misinformative health class, most contraceptives that aren't barriers do that.
From what it sounds like though, condoms are still on the list. I personally would like to see more groups in favor of rhythm-method styled family planning to also accept condoms as a safe and healthy form of family planning, but I suspect they fear that it would be equated with an OK on adultery.

[RedLion]

To me there's a difference between the death of a sentient and non-sentient being. That's why I largely have no problem with abortions during the first trimester, let alone with contraceptives. During that stage it's really not developed to the point where it can be scientifically described as a sentient being.

[Tom]

But it has fingernails!!!

[ruyi]

To me there's a difference between the death of a sentient and non-sentient being. That's why I largely have no problem with abortions during the first trimester, let alone with contraceptives. During that stage it's really not developed to the point where it can be scientifically described as a sentient being.

Where do you draw the line for the mentally handicapped?

[Hat]

Hey lets not drag grey areas into this, we are talking about abortion here people

[Barmymoo]

Legally (at least as far as the UK is concerned), it isn´t murder until it has emerged from the uterus. Getting rid of a fetus after (I think) 24 weeks is called child destruction, and that´s a whole different ball park of prison. We had the same sentient-being argument in Law and a pair of twins who take philosophy informed us that a prominent 20th century philosophy whose name they had forgotten said that only those beings who can think and act for themselves can be classed as people, and it can only be murder when it´s a person who was killed.

We suggested that maybe the philosopher in question was Hitler. I don´t think that´s a good definition at all.

[Lines]

If someone takes my birth control pills away from me, there will be hell to pay.

[Johnny C]

Hey!

Recently this dude got the Order of Canada, and a bunch of former recipients are giving theirs back, and a bunch of people are protesting, all because he performed abortions and helped make them legal!

I am personally not a big abortion fan but that seems pretty childish to me!

[morca007]

Hey!

Recently this dude got the Order of Canada, and a bunch of former recipients are giving theirs back, and a bunch of people are protesting, all because he performed abortions and helped make them legal!

I am personally not a big abortion fan but that seems pretty childish to me!

I am a pretty big abortion fan.
"Upon graduation Morgentaler refused to go to Israel because he strongly opposed Zionism."
That guy rules so much.

[Nodaisho]

okaynegativenellyhere technically both sperm and eggs have only half the chromosomes needed to become a baby, so not even under this ridiculousness would it count as abortion. I would hope the conservatives wouldn't slide THAT far down the slippery slope.

The argument could be made for it being abortion for a couple capable of having children to not do so, though, they have both the sources of chromosones at the ready, they are having sex, but not having babies. However, I am pretty sure that nobody is going to be that stupid. Well, I am sure some people are stupid enough, but they would be shouted down by their associates.

[Vendetagainst]

To me there's a difference between the death of a sentient and non-sentient being. That's why I largely have no problem with abortions during the first trimester, let alone with contraceptives. During that stage it's really not developed to the point where it can be scientifically described as a sentient being.

Where do you draw the line for the mentally handicapped?

you may be confusing sentience with sapience

[ruyi]

To me there's a difference between the death of a sentient and non-sentient being. That's why I largely have no problem with abortions during the first trimester, let alone with contraceptives. During that stage it's really not developed to the point where it can be scientifically described as a sentient being.

Where do you draw the line for the mentally handicapped?

you may be confusing sentience with sapience

You're right, I was. In that case, RedLion's stance sounds like a vegetarian's.

[RedLion]

Hey man. I like eating other animals. And I have no moral qualms with it, so long as I don't have to do the killing. I can justify it by saying that it's natural to eat other species. If, however, I had to kill the cow, or the pig, or even the chicken, I wouldn't be able to.

[ruyi]

Does that mean you are okay with abortions in the second and third trimesters then? I mean, you are not the one having them.

[Jimmy the Squid]

I think eating the flesh of a creature that is no longer using it is a little bit different to giving birth to a living being capable of complex thought that shares DNA with you.

That said, I am totally for abortion up to any point, so long as the mother/carrier/surrogate/whatever term you want to use is not going to be harmed. My own beliefs on morality place the life of the already alive over that of the pre-born.

[Lines]

I don't really see the connection between eating meat and abortions. I'm sure if I had to kill a chicken to eat it, I probably could, but I would not, however, be able to have an abortion. I am pro-choice as I believe that people should be able to have a choice, but personally, no, I don't think I could do it. Especially not after the first trimester. (Note, I do not consider the morning after pill abortion and that is something I would take in case of an emergency.) Partial-birth abortions are the only ones I really have problems with people doing.

[Johnny C]

What about eggs? They'd grow up into chickens at some point.

[Liz]

Just the fertilized ones, Johnny. If you have a chicken coop full of only hens, they will still lay eggs but those eggs won't be fertilized and won't become little chickens someday.

[Oli]

My opinion regarding abortion is that it is really none of my business except in the event that I accidentally impregnate a lady. In that situation I think I would be okay with an abortion at any point, but I'd probably go with what the lady wanted. Honestly I don't think that anything has a right to life (in the sense of being an independent and sentient being, not in the sense of existence because saying something has the right to exist is positively absurd) that exceeds the right of what someone does to their own body.

I expect a fair few people will disagree with me on this one though but that's okay, I have some odd views on morality.

Oh and for the record I eat meat because I'm a dirty great hypocrit and I'm more or less okay with that.

[tania]

if you have a chicken coop full of only hens, they will still lay eggs but those eggs won't be fertilized and won't become little chickens someday.

chicken menstruation.
man eggs are delicious though.

[Johnny C]

Just the fertilized ones, Johnny. If you have a chicken coop full of only hens, they will still lay eggs but those eggs won't be fertilized and won't become little chickens someday.

The point still stands that it is a baby chicken that ain't had the chance to be a baby chicken ever because humans intervened.

I'm going to kind of ping-pong to a bunch of different thoughts here, occasionally at the same time, so bear with me, I've been thinking about this most of today.

Honestly I don't think that anything has a right to life (in the sense of being an independent and sentient being, not in the sense of existence because saying something has the right to exist is positively absurd) that exceeds the right of what someone does to their own body.

I'm a little in need of clarification. Why is suggesting that a fetus has a right to exist - or that anything that has a right to exist - absurd? Especially since it already does exist in the case of said fetus.

As for the latter part, I've finally figured out what my main issues are in terms of making abortion about the right to choose. Calling it an issue of choice regarding your body is putting it on the same level as deciding whether you want a McGriddle or some fresh fruit for breakfast.* There is also the fact that while choice might be a firm legal ground it is a tremendous grey area from a philosophical and a logical standpoint - try defending the idea of abortion being a "choice" without making an appeal to emotion. You can do it about as easily as defending the notion of free will with the same condition. Finally, suggesting that choice overrides the right to exist severely trivializes the decision to get an abortion and does no real service to anyone considering it. You will be ending a human life. That is a huge decision to make. Sometimes it is the right decision, but it is even then an incredibly tough decision, and should be one because otherwise we have a bit of a problem.

That kind of brings me around to the original post on this topic. What I realized today makes me uncomfortable about equating birth control with abortion is that it, at least at some level, equates abortion with birth control. No way. Two totally separate things. It is one thing to decide "I want to have sex and not have consequences," which is even something you can do without physical contraception, and another thing to say "I do not want this baby which is currently inside of me to emerge living from my vagina."**

Even if you have unprotected sex there is still a chance that a fetus won't get born. Once there is the fetus inside of you it's a totally different scenario - even with Chuck Klosterman odds*** it's either gonna be a baby or you're gonna miscarry. Birth control and abortion are two very different decisions with two very different sets of conditions and consequences (and they don't even necessarily share the same results as birth control generally has a failure rate - yes, even vasectomies have a tiny failure rate). Trivializing the latter by equating it with the former is, I feel, very dangerous thinking, especially considering that the Western world doesn't have a very good track record with sexual education at the moment.

Reading this post, I come across as kind of anti-abortion, I think. To clarify, while I do think an abortion is something that by and large should be reserved for when it's necessary, I don't think it should be made illegal or considered immoral. And actually in terms of birth control, I'm okay with that, too.


*Rereading this, I appear to be fixated on breakfast foods.
**EDIT: Honestly, the more I think about it the more I think that the reason I'm so stunned this is even an issue is because never in my wildest dreams would I imagine someone to connect the two and go "Hey, these are the same thing!" It's so stupid that it beggars belief.
***50/50: "Either something will happen, or it won't."

[Oli]

I'm a little in need of clarification. Why is suggesting that a fetus has a right to exist - or that anything that has a right to exist - absurd? Especially since it already does exist in the case of said fetus.

Firstly I'd like to say that I think this point is mostly a difference in definition and largely peripheral to the discussion at hand, but then it is interesting I suppose.

It is hard to word exactly why I think this so I'll try to put it in the form of a step by step argument.

Part of the defintion of a right is that it must be something that can be violated. (E.g The right to life can be violated by a murder.)

To hold rights P must exist.

If P had the right to exist then P's right to exist must be able to be violated.

To violate P's right to exist then P must be made non-existent.

If P is made non-existent then P cannot have any rights.

Therefore P cannot have the right to exist.

This depends entirely on your definition of existence. I view existence as something that starts as soon as anything is created in any form, for example the thought I had when I woke up this morning came into existence as I had it, and as something that is never ending. That's a bit of a trickier one but basically the thought I had this morning still exists despite it not being in my head at the moment, it didn't cease to exist simply because I stopped thinking it as we will not cease to exist when we die. It is hard for me to think of a really good way to put exactly why I think this across and I don't want to litter the thread with inane babbling. I guess if anyone really wants to discuss this with me they can PM or gabble with me or something.

Finally, suggesting that choice overrides the right to exist severely trivializes the decision to get an abortion and does no real service to anyone considering it.

I believe that giving any right a weighting in any situation is wrong as giving rights weighting suggests that it would be okay to remove one in protection of another and I think that the removal of a right is a violation of rights. Incidentally I do not believe that rights begin at implantation.

To clarify I didn't mean to suggest that the right to choose what one does to their own body overrides the right to life, but merely that the right to life doesn't override the right to choose what one does to their own body. I can see how it could be easily be confused because of the wording on my part though.

Also I am really not expecting what I am writing to be useful for anyone making a decision over an abortion. As I've said before it's really none of my business. I am simply saying that it is my belief that any attempt to make abortions illegal creates a confliction with rights.

I have written rights so many times now I think I am going to explode.

[Thlayli]

What about eggs? They'd grow up into chickens at some point.

If you catch them at just the right point in gestation, you have a wonderful Filipino delicacy.

[RedLion]

I guess what it boils down to is I value a living, thinking, feeling, sentient, human being more than a blob that will eventually become a human being.

I don't enjoy or support the loss of any life, whatever animal it may be, human or otherwise. But death happens. Animals eat other animals for food, so I'm comfortable with eating other animals. But as an individual, I can't and couldn't bring myself to kill almost any living being, the exceptions being insects and spiders, mostly, and then only if they're wandering about my bathroom/kitchen/bedroom. But that's just me. I cherish life in all its forms including plants and such. I can't contemplate killing something. The only time I could really see myself doing so is if I was about to me mauled to death by a bear, and I happened to have something that would kill it and spare me my life, and that would just be instincts driving that. I think I'm too sensitive in many regards. Now, regarding humans, and fetuses, the question is a bit trickier. The world is already far over-populated. Fetuses shouldn't be punished for that, but if every potential baby came to be born and there weren't some termination, the current energy, resource and food problems that the world has would only be magnified unknowably, and war would intensify and grow as resources became mor eand more scarce. I'm sure that sounds callous, but it's a practical and realistic way of looking at it.

Now, using abortion as a form of birth control (as in "oops, I messed up..now I'm going to wait a few weeks/months agonizing over what to do until I abort it"), is something that I have large moral qualms about, as I do with partial-birth abortions. However, I think people should have the right to have a safe, legal abortion, if only for the fact that if it isn't legal and safe, it will be illegal and unsafe. In numerous cases, the woman simply wouldn't be a competent mother either, and the child wouldn't have much of a life. The ghettos of America and the world do not need more children born to single, poor, un-partnered mothers. To be honest, the life that they would be born into makes me feel that perhaps it would be better for them to not be born into that endless cycle of poverty, crime, suffering and death at all. Of course I'm uncomfortable with, and don't like the idea of, snuffing out a potential life. But I try to look at it through an objective, neutral view: The fact is , many of the women who get abortions just couldn't' handle having a child--financially, emotionally, etc. Yes, there's adoption, but orphanages across the country and globe are already over-crowded and are not a happy, fulfilling place to live, generally speaking. As cold as this will sound, not every fetus can be born, or should be allowed to be born. The world just can't handle it. I know that sounds horrible, but it's how I legitimately see the issue. Some of you may say "why stop there? Why not just kill people who are already alive?" And that's the point--they're already alive, they have lives. A fetus in the early stages of development doesn't; they don't know they're 'alive' in the sense that an amoeba doesn't know it's alive.

But, I don't know why I feel worse, I feel sadder, about animals being abused or treated cruelly or killed than I do about fetuses being aborted. Again, maybe it's because it's already alive, born and here in the world. When I see an animal that's been abused, I almost invariably cry and blubber like a baby. When I see photos of aborted fetuses, I cringe and feel a sense of repugnance, but it doesn't affect me in the way that the prior situation does.

Partial birth abortions are different, in my view. I don't think they should be allowed, unless the mother will die if the procedure isn't carried out. Why? For semantic reasons, mostly. If the abortion was going to take place, there's absolutely no reason for the woman to wait that long to do it.

Sorry, this post was kind of me thinking out loud. However, I'd like to hear your take on what I've said, if anyone has anything to say.

[Johnny C]

I don't feel comfortable saying that this child or that child shouldn't have been born at all because then we get a step closer to Gattaca.

[RedLion]

I'm not saying that particular children should or shouldn't be born. I'm saying that, generally speaking, all babies just can't be born. It's not scientifically possible, for one, but it's also in some cases just not responsible. Yeah--I think that in some cases it's more responsible to have an abortion than to bring a child into a horrific situation that won't allow it to have a "life" in any sense of the word other than physically existing.

[ruyi]

The thing is, the decisions people will make in the real world will necessarily be about particular children. In the end, does anyone really have the authority to judge that a person's life is so worthless that it would have been better that they were aborted?

I believe fetuses should not be aborted unless the mother's life is in danger. However, I also don't think I have the authority to force any woman to endure pregnancy and childbirth and all the social/emotional/financial consequences of it.

Of course we don't want women to have abortions as a form of birth control. Of course we don't want women to have to resort to unsafe, illegal abortions. We all want fewer abortions in the world, and making abortion illegal is not the way to do it. Instead, we should strive to facilitate options that prevent abortions - namely, contraception and adoption.

[waterloosunset]

Welcome to the Republican Express! Next stop, the Stone Age!

[IronOxide]

The thought of abortion leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It is a very invasive procedure that some people have taken to using instead of practicing safe sex. However, it has become a valuable tool in emergency family planning. This is largely fault of the medical "establishment" and the pressure from the "pro-life" lobby. In fact, actions like these will and do greatly increase the amount of abortions carried out in this country.

Perhaps the more important question to ask is why would we be allowed a hack system of right wing wingnuts tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies? Why are our moral decisions being made by groups that are twice as conservative as most of the nation? The answer is that our health care system is broken. We are constantly at the will of a writhing, disgusting mass of lobbyists and "scientists" that can halt the progress of any major development. In fact, the pro-life lobby shares many views (and members) with organizations that have constantly stalled the development of effective HPV and HIV treatments, contributing to the deaths of literally millions of people. All of this under the guise that if sex is safer, people won't be safe during it. It is roughly on the same level of logic of those who say that having seatbelts in cars make people drive unsafely. The FDA does not reject drugs because they are unsafe. They reject drugs with either not enough money backing them or where somebody says the treatment is immoral. The result is that we are denied essential treatment, leaving us to inferior and less safe methods.

And that's what Abortion is, an inferior and unsafe method. We have scheduled birth control that is 99% effective, on top of that, we have emergency contraception that can be very effective, but the main problem is that if we run out of these treatments, we will have to go back to an outdated, dangerous procedure. It is like saying that people should know not to get too close to people with meningitis, so instead of providing antibiotics to the people who have it, they should just drill a hole or two in their head to relieve the pressure. It's your fault, so safety be damned. I am sick of cases of our personal health being ruled by unqualified imbeciles that cannot protect us, so they choose instead to restrict us.

Come on, we're better than this. We just have to be.

[Cam]

I have absolutely no problems with abortion.  At the same time, I don't have a problem with restricting the late term abortions.  It seems like six to seven months should be enough time to make up your mind.  As far as the abortions infringing on the right of a child to exist, well, I consider that child a possibility.  It's like the old saying, "Don't count your eggs until they pop out and you are legally responsible for them for eighteen years."

If you dislike abortions, the best thing you can do is to help provide increased sex education and access to birth control. 11% of sexually active women don't use contraception and from this 11% comes 50% of the nation's abortions. 

So, let's get people using as many birth control pills, condoms, and diaphragms as possible.  If we can get that 11% using birth control, then, abortions should drop drastically.  Then, every one is happier (though the far right will still condemn people for boinking out side of marriage).

Also, I would like to point out that the whole argument about last trimester abortions is mainly semantics.  98.9% of abortions in 2004 were performed with in 20 weeks on the pregnancy.