aldo wrote:For some reason I feel obliged to respond, although I'm not sure why, seeing as I'm not 'worse than a nazi'.

Never said you were. I only said that abortions, as a whole, have killed forty million people and are therefore worse than Nazi-ism, as a whole, which only killed six million people.

If I had to make a comparison, it would be with the people who echoed the Nazi philosophy simply because it was the popular view in Germany at the time. I'm sure many of those people would change their tune if they had to operate a death camp personally, just as I'm sure you would change your tune if you had to do an abortion personally.

Firstly, having unique DNA as constituting life. That's clearly not a scientific basis for life - for several reasons...

...Just thought I'd reiterate that.

Again, you're incorrectly applying what I've said. I've been saying all along that the definition of life, or a living person, requires two parts: 1) the organism is a human, and 2) the organism is alive. Those two parts are necessary and sufficient to define a person, from a scientific point of view. It must be genetically human, and it must be biologically alive. Neither one by itself is sufficient, as you've acknowledged by mentioning the "death test", "identical twins", the C program, etc.

Now if you want to use a different definition of "person", that's a perfectly valid alternative. But the scientific definition has two and only two requirements: genetically human, biologically alive. If you establish both of those scientifically, then you establish that the embryo is a person.

If you want to propose a different scientific definition, we can certainly take a look at it. But it must be scientific, not philosophical, if we're arguing based on science. I'm certainly willing to argue philosophy, if you want to go along that route. But if you want to argue science, stick to science.

I think there's no argument that the developing fetus is genetically human. Now as for biologically alive...

...we have a problem here. The issue of whether a foetus, especially at the early stages, reacts to stimuli is rather more debatable than you state. Most EEG scans indicate, IIRC, that the foetus is just making random acts (misfiring developing neurons) rather than reacting to actual stimuli. Most definately a foetus is not responsive to stimuli immmediately from the point of conception (remember, this is why there are legal limits upon abortion).

The zygote must be able to respond to stimuli to some extent, or else it would not be able to implant in the uterus. So at the very least you have a record of stimulus response at three days.

I would further argue that since both the sperm and egg can be established to be biologically alive, then the fertilized egg (being nothing more, scientifically, than the sum of its parts) is therefore alive as well. But note that the sperm and egg individually do not make up a person: the person is formed only when the two combine to form a complete genetic code.

Also, a foetus cannot survive independent of the mother at theses points... AFAIK most definitions of life tend to emphasise the organism can survive independently, even if only to find a new host

Nothing can survive outside of its specific environment, though. A fire can't survive without oxygen; a human can't survive in deep space, and a fetus can't survive outside a uterus.

Note, however, that a fetus can survive in a different uterus - women have been successfully able to play host to children conceived in vitro or in a different mother. So a fetus is a separate organism, distinct from its biological mother.

And it's not just 'alive', is it? Because we don't - excluding vegetarians - wail and howl over killing cattle for beef. So why is taking a human life so wrong?

But that's philosophy, not science. As you said, vegetarians don't eat beef, but they have philosophical, not scientific, reasons for doing so. The value of a human life hinges on morality. One could say that the zygote/embryo/fetus/infant is indisputably a person and yet that his moral code has no issue with abortions, and that's his right to say so. A despot's moral code imposes no restriction on doing to his subjects whatever he wishes. A cannibal's moral code imposes no restrictions on eating other human beings.

But a foetus, in the stages that abortion is allowed within, is neither self-aware nor sentient (again back to EEG). If you 'kill' it, it's not taking away a sentient being as that sentience has not yet developed; it's somewhat akin to just never being born at all.

EEG isn't really relevant, though. Amoebas don't have brains, but they're still alive. People have different brain activity when they're asleep vs. awake, and people in comas can have very little or no brain activity at all. They're still alive, though, and they're still human, therefore they're still people.

All I'm trying to do here is establish that the developing embryo is scientifically (therefore legally) a person. If it is a person, it is entitled to all the legal protections bestowed on persons.

Therefore if there's a law against murder of persons, then it applies equally to persons inside as well as outside the womb. If murder was legal, then obviously there'd be no legal basis for making abortion illegal. But having murder illegal and abortion legal is inconsistent.

Unless you believe in a soul, of course, but you can't use a theological basis to legislate across a heterogenous population unless you're (and here's where they come in) the Taliban.

But nowhere in this entire debate have I argued from a theological point of view. Humans could be mindless automatons and the same scientific principles would still apply. There'd be an entirely different theological framework (or none at all) but the science would be the same.

As for the idea that xx% of babies will grow to term, etc, the whole point is that's not a guarentee. You can't legislate based on what might happen

We do that all the time. In the justice system, guilt has to be established "beyond a reasonable doubt". There's a possibility the jury could be wrong, but if they did their job right, and it can be reasonably assumed that the crime was committed as alleged, then the defendant is legally guilty. You can raise an "unreasonable" doubt and it won't legally affect the outcome of the trial.

So if you make a "reasonable" assumption that a given child will develop normally, you're very likely to be right.

Ok, now we have the problem of 'science is wrong'; the only way you can really justify attacking the scientific and medical definitions of life here are to claim that either a) the mass of opinion (and learning) is wrong and you are right or b)they're all in a conspiracy to kill babies.

I never said science is wrong and I never said medicine is wrong. I'm not attacking scientific and medical definitions; I'm using them in my arguments. I am taking great pains to frame my entire position in this debate from a purely scientific basis.

Additionally, you can cite post-abortion depression in a goggle search, but what are the sources? christianethicstoday.com? All the ones that cite a positive accumulation vs post-natal depression from an unwanted pregnancy, seem to be biased somewhat, I'd say. In any case, it's never been a denial that this exists, but a contention that it has to be weighed against post-natal depression from unwanted pregnancy.

There has indeed been a denial; you denied it youself when you posted "there is absolutely no evidence to support increased depression post abortion", and I called you on it. To refute your statement it merely suffices to point out that there is evidence, whether it's biased or not. In my cursory Google search, I found a variety of sources, many from personal websites. I can post a list of links if you wish.

And it is relevant, unless you want to be a right dick and assume depression doesn't matter - one of the main reasons for permitting abortion is psychological damage.

It's actually completely irrelevant from a scientific point of view. Abortion could make one euphoric and it wouldn't change the fact that one is ending the life of an organism scientifically defined as a person. Emotion, psychology, morality, etc. only come into play when you're discussing philosophy or religion or ethics.

You again show some arrogance that "I'm sure many of these mothers went underground to have abortions because they felt they had no other option - regardless of whether this was in fact the case."; what, so you can claim to prejudge hundreds of thousands of womens actions based on your personal moral compass?

That's an extraordinary misinterpretation. Read over that paragraph of my post again and you'll see that the sentence you quoted was an expression of compassion. The same moral code that motivates me to oppose abortion also motivates me to have compassion on those affected by it.

We all live in democracies. In democracies, we give people a choice what to believe, and what we legislate, we legistlate using good old tested, tried and theology neutral science.

Which is what I've been basing my argument on. You have a choice as to what you believe and what base your morality on. At the same time, if you use science as the basis for law, then legislation that applies to an arbitrary person applies equally to a fetus as well.

And that's all I have to say on the matter.

Suit yourself.

Goober5000 wrote:

aldo wrote:For some reason I feel obliged to respond, although I'm not sure why, seeing as I'm not 'worse than a nazi'.

Never said you were. I only said that abortions, as a whole, have killed forty million people and are therefore worse than Nazi-ism, as a whole, which only killed six million people.

If I had to make a comparison, it would be with the people who echoed the Nazi philosophy simply because it was the popular view in Germany at the time. I'm sure many of those people would change their tune if they had to operate a death camp personally, just as I'm sure you would change your tune if you had to do an abortion personally.

Dude, I seriously doubt if abortion can be compaired with what the Nazis did. There is such as a thing as intent, and the reasoms behind those intentions. You can't just say "it's murder", it's not that simple.

Are you ignoring me now goob?

I'm sure many of those people would change their tune if they had to operate a death camp personally, just as I'm sure you would change your tune if you had to do an abortion personally.

Have you been personally involved in some way with someone facing or considering the decision of abortion?
What I am saying is that you can't apply a rule of thumb to a thing that has hundreds of different situations and backstory.

I've been personally involved, to some extent, when someone was considering that option.

You can't just say murder is wrong across the board, then support capital punishment, then support a war in other countries, then support a legislation of guns and other weapons. To each circumstance there is different considerations.
It may be a "abort the child and save your wife, or risk both lives and continue" decision, it may be a "I was raped and don't want this child" decision, it may be a "if I have this child I will be outcast from society and will have a hard life trying to fend for the child and myself". Each possible situation needs to be considered and examined by a health proffessional, the parents, and supported by family, friends, and society.


You go on about depression for woman who have abortions. What about woman who are forced to have the child?
I know a few domestic cases where a woman has fallen pregnant, and then under guidence of a catholic church, moved from her home town to another while she gave birth to the child. Only to find little to no support from family or friends. Most turning a blind eye to the individual. She has had a hard time in life since then, and children and birth is often a soft point whenever mentioned around her.


In the eyes of science, for the first few weeks of pregnancy, the fetus has not yet developed a brain that is self aware. The fetus is still developing and growing.
I've already stated my views on it, that at this point in time, if extreme circumstances persist, the mother should have the choice to terminate.

Can you not agree that this is the hinge point of the debate?
Can you not agree that our views differ, and ultimately respect the different views (as I am trying to do, yet often find it difficult with people screaming "murder" to woman who make the decision to abort) as is?


May I just add to the original topic that the reason the government stepped in to take the decision out of the health ministers hands was because he was very clearly using his own religeon as a basis for trying to stop the drug, which by the way, is already widely in use around the world including the US.

Technically Australia has some of the strongest abortion laws in the world. We already have surgical abortion available, the drug however allows for abortions via a pill, which can be administered at home. To gain access to the pill, one has to go through the doctor, and he has to have written permission from the health minister before prescribing it.

Grug wrote:Are you ignoring me now goob?

No, but according to your previous post:

The fact of the matter is, I believe I've stated my opinion and viewpoint, I can only hope that you see my viewpoint and take it for what it is.

I think I understand yours as well; that at conception the potential child should be given its chance at a full life.

it seemed like we had reached an impasse. Particularly since your previous post said nothing that I hadn't already addressed.

I'm sure many of those people would change their tune if they had to operate a death camp personally, just as I'm sure you would change your tune if you had to do an abortion personally.

Have you been personally involved in some way with someone facing or considering the decision of abortion?

What I am saying is that you can't apply a rule of thumb to a thing that has hundreds of different situations and backstory.

I've been personally involved, to some extent, when someone was considering that option.

True; someone who has experienced something is more qualified to speak about it than someone who hasn't. So my statement "I'm sure you'd change your tune" is a prediction, not a statement of fact. But it's a prediction consistent with my previous experience, and anyway it doesn't affect the definition of abortion.

You can't just say murder is wrong across the board, then support capital punishment, then support a war in other countries, then support a legislation of guns and other weapons.

I don't support murder, capital punishment, the neoconservative invasion of the Middle East, or gun control, so you need to recheck your research there.

To each circumstance there is different considerations. It may be a "abort the child and save your wife, or risk both lives and continue" decision, it may be a "I was raped and don't want this child" decision, it may be a "if I have this child I will be outcast from society and will have a hard life trying to fend for the child and myself". Each possible situation needs to be considered and examined by a health proffessional, the parents, and supported by family, friends, and society.

You go on about depression for woman who have abortions. What about woman who are forced to have the child?

All are valid concerns. All of them deserve to be addressed. But all of these concerns need to take into account the life of the unborn child, who is a legal person by the scientific definition and is therefore entitled to legal protection. The problem here is that it can't speak for itself, so it needs others to speak for it.

I know a few domestic cases where a woman has fallen pregnant, and then under guidence of a catholic church, moved from her home town to another while she gave birth to the child. Only to find little to no support from family or friends. Most turning a blind eye to the individual. She has had a hard time in life since then, and children and birth is often a soft point whenever mentioned around her.

Absolutely valid, and absolutely tragic. Society, friends, and family have the duty to take care of her.

I'll give you another example from current events. During natural disasters, hospital staff are not allowed to evacuate unless and until all their patients are accounted for (either safe or dead). Yet during Hurricane Katrina, many hospital personnel killed their patients with lethal doses of medicine in order to give themselves more time to escape. Isn't it right that they be held accountable for that, even if saving their patients meant that they stood a greater chance of dying themselves? (Cases against them are currently being prepared, by the way.)

In the eyes of science, for the first few weeks of pregnancy, the fetus has not yet developed a brain that is self aware. The fetus is still developing and growing.

True. And in the eyes of science, an amoeba never develops a brain. But both are alive.

I've already stated my views on it, that at this point in time, if extreme circumstances persist, the mother should have the choice to terminate.

Can you not agree that this is the hinge point of the debate?

I don't think that's the hinge point. Extreme circumstances only make the decision harder; they don't affect whether it's right or wrong. I think the hinge point is the question of whether the unborn child is entitled to legal protection.

Can you not agree that our views differ, and ultimately respect the different views (as I am trying to do, yet often find it difficult with people screaming "murder" to woman who make the decision to abort) as is?

I respect your viewpoint. You can respect something without agreeing with it. But your viewpoint is scientifically untenable.

On the other hand, I do not respect the people who protest at abortion clinics yet never lift a finger to help women who have the courage to refuse abortion. Those protestors are hypocrites of the vilest sort.

It's a difficult moral issue. Even if right and wrong are clear-cut and unambiguous, the consequences of either decision are enormously complicated.

May I just add to the original topic that the reason the government stepped in to take the decision out of the health ministers hands was because he was very clearly using his own religeon as a basis for trying to stop the drug, which by the way, is already widely in use around the world including the US.

What is his religion but what his conscience tells him is right? Your conscience tells you that abortion should be allowed in extreme circumstances. It is not wrong to argue from your conscience.

Roanoke wrote:Dude, I seriously doubt if abortion can be compaired with what the Nazis did. There is such as a thing as intent, and the reasoms behind those intentions. You can't just say "it's murder", it's not that simple.

I was making a numerical comparison, which is about the simplest kind you can make. Intent does not affect the number of people killed.

Goober5000 wrote:

Grug wrote:Are you ignoring me now goob?

No, but according to your previous post:

The fact of the matter is, I believe I've stated my opinion and viewpoint, I can only hope that you see my viewpoint and take it for what it is.

I think I understand yours as well; that at conception the potential child should be given its chance at a full life.

it seemed like we had reached an impasse. Particularly since your previous post said nothing that I hadn't already addressed.

You didn't seem to acknowledge that fact though, then you continued arguing with aldo's post, who ultimately shares the same views.

Goober5000 wrote:

I'm sure many of those people would change their tune if they had to operate a death camp personally, just as I'm sure you would change your tune if you had to do an abortion personally.

Have you been personally involved in some way with someone facing or considering the decision of abortion?

What I am saying is that you can't apply a rule of thumb to a thing that has hundreds of different situations and backstory.

I've been personally involved, to some extent, when someone was considering that option.

True; someone who has experienced something is more qualified to speak about it than someone who hasn't. So my statement "I'm sure you'd change your tune" is a prediction, not a statement of fact. But it's a prediction consistent with my previous experience, and anyway it doesn't affect the definition of abortion.

The point I was trying to make is that if people had to do an abortion personally, they'd still support the fact. I say this because anyone who has an abortion, does experience it personally.

Goober5000 wrote:

You can't just say murder is wrong across the board, then support capital punishment, then support a war in other countries, then support a legislation of guns and other weapons.

I don't support murder, capital punishment, the neoconservative invasion of the Middle East, or gun control, so you need to recheck your research there.

'Points' to you then. Many who are anti-abortion don't share your views though.

Goober5000 wrote:

To each circumstance there is different considerations. It may be a "abort the child and save your wife, or risk both lives and continue" decision, it may be a "I was raped and don't want this child" decision, it may be a "if I have this child I will be outcast from society and will have a hard life trying to fend for the child and myself". Each possible situation needs to be considered and examined by a health proffessional, the parents, and supported by family, friends, and society.

You go on about depression for woman who have abortions. What about woman who are forced to have the child?

All are valid concerns. All of them deserve to be addressed. But all of these concerns need to take into account the life of the unborn child, who is a legal person by the scientific definition and is therefore entitled to legal protection. The problem here is that it can't speak for itself, so it needs others to speak for it.

All these 'concerns' do take into the account of the potential life of the unborn child. Don't you think the woman especially, with something growing inside of them, would understand that better than any man could?
As for legal protection, if the government was to deal in absolute control over the potential life, that to me, would be a violation of the parent's rights.

Goober5000 wrote:

I know a few domestic cases where a woman has fallen pregnant, and then under guidence of a catholic church, moved from her home town to another while she gave birth to the child. Only to find little to no support from family or friends. Most turning a blind eye to the individual. She has had a hard time in life since then, and children and birth is often a soft point whenever mentioned around her.

Absolutely valid, and absolutely tragic. Society, friends, and family have the duty to take care of her.

I'll give you another example from current events. During natural disasters, hospital staff are not allowed to evacuate unless and until all their patients are accounted for (either safe or dead). Yet during Hurricane Katrina, many hospital personnel killed their patients with lethal doses of medicine in order to give themselves more time to escape. Isn't it right that they be held accountable for that, even if saving their patients meant that they stood a greater chance of dying themselves? (Cases against them are currently being prepared, by the way.)

Absolutely. Yet these are cases involving people who have already been born and have established themselves as part of society. We are discussing the relevant rights of a potential person, who by all means is not born, and has not yet developed a sense of being self aware.

Goober5000 wrote:

In the eyes of science, for the first few weeks of pregnancy, the fetus has not yet developed a brain that is self aware. The fetus is still developing and growing.

True. And in the eyes of science, an amoeba never develops a brain. But both are alive.

Alive yes, self aware? No.

Goober5000 wrote:

I've already stated my views on it, that at this point in time, if extreme circumstances persist, the mother should have the choice to terminate.

Can you not agree that this is the hinge point of the debate?

I don't think that's the hinge point. Extreme circumstances only make the decision harder; they don't affect whether it's right or wrong. I think the hinge point is the question of whether the unborn child is entitled to legal protection.

A quote occured to me at reading that. "Only the sith deal with absolutes" Not sure if its relevant or not...

The mother having the choice to terminate is ultimately the opposition to "whether the unborn child is entitled to legal protection".

Goober5000 wrote:

Can you not agree that our views differ, and ultimately respect the different views (as I am trying to do, yet often find it difficult with people screaming "murder" to woman who make the decision to abort) as is?

I respect your viewpoint. You can respect something without agreeing with it. But your viewpoint is scientifically untenable.

I sighed at that last sentence. I think it contradicts the first sentence.
All I will retort with is: says you, when current law and the majority of the medical society says other wise.

Goober5000 wrote: On the other hand, I do not respect the people who protest at abortion clinics yet never lift a finger to help women who have the courage to refuse abortion. Those protestors are hypocrites of the vilest sort.

*Nods*

Goober5000 wrote: It's a difficult moral issue. Even if right and wrong are clear-cut and unambiguous, the consequences of either decision are enormously complicated.

It's a difficult moral issue, because there is a large grey area due to the multitudes of different ideal's, viewpoints, and moral codes.

My view:
Science ultimately depicts that a fetus at early stages is still developing and is not yet self aware. Human morality ultimately depicts the loss of a potential life just as wrong as killing your neighbour.
Life does not equal self aware.
Not self aware does not equal full rights of an already born human.

Goober5000 wrote:

May I just add to the original topic that the reason the government stepped in to take the decision out of the health ministers hands was because he was very clearly using his own religeon as a basis for trying to stop the drug, which by the way, is already widely in use around the world including the US.

What is his religion but what his conscience tells him is right? Your conscience tells you that abortion should be allowed in extreme circumstances. It is not wrong to argue from your conscience.

A strong majority from both parties voted for it to be decided by health professionals not politions. Many of those who voted for it, even said afterwards their opposition to abortion, and/or how such a thing should not be taken lightly.

The whole point was to whether to allow the drug into Australia from a medical point of view, not whether or not abortion should happen. This is why the minister of health was in the wrong, because he was arguing against a drug not because it was unsafe, but because he thought abortion was wrong. Which was the wrong place for that argument.

Hence my initial intention when I started this thread.

Grug wrote:I say this because anyone who has an abortion, does experience it personally.

True. But many (not all, nor necessarily most) who have abortions later regret it.

All these 'concerns' do take into the account of the potential life of the unborn child. Don't you think the woman especially, with something growing inside of them, would understand that better than any man could? As for legal protection, if the government was to deal in absolute control over the potential life, that to me, would be a violation of the parent's rights.

...

Yet these are cases involving people who have already been born and have established themselves as part of society. We are discussing the relevant rights of a potential person, who by all means is not born, and has not yet developed a sense of being self aware.

You keep saying "potential life". How do you distinguish between whether something is a life and whether it is a "potential" life? Being born? Being self-aware?

Again, this all hinges on the definition of a "person". If you define a person as 1) genetically human and 2) biologically alive, there's no doubt about its scientific meaning. If on the other hand you add conditions like "being born" (which is arbitrary) or "being self-aware" (which can't be determined scientifically) then your definition is no longer scientific.

A quote occured to me at reading that. "Only the sith deal with absolutes" Not sure if its relevant or not...

"2 + 2 = 4" is an absolute. "Human life is valuable" is an absolute. Heck, even "Avoid the Dark Side" is an absolute, so Obi-Wan wasn't really consistent there.

Science ultimately depicts that a fetus at early stages is still developing and is not yet self aware. Human morality ultimately depicts the loss of a potential life just as wrong as killing your neighbour.
Life does not equal self aware.
Not self aware does not equal full rights of an already born human.

So what does this say about the autistic, or the retarded, or the senile? They're not as self-aware as a healthy 20-30 year old. Are they any less human?

Goober5000 wrote:

A quote occured to me at reading that. "Only the sith deal with absolutes" Not sure if its relevant or not...

"2 + 2 = 4" is an absolute. "Human life is valuable" is an absolute. Heck, even "Avoid the Dark Side" is an absolute, so Obi-Wan wasn't really consistent there.

I think Obi-Wan just said that to be dramatic.......

Well then, he spoke the truth for the sake of drama.

Goober5000 wrote:

Grug wrote:I say this because anyone who has an abortion, does experience it personally.

True. But many (not all, nor necessarily most) who have abortions later regret it.

I'd say that near all would regret it. But they also know that they had no other choice at the time, and that they did the right thing for the sake of their particular circumstances.

Goober5000 wrote: You keep saying "potential life". How do you distinguish between whether something is a life and whether it is a "potential" life? Being born? Being self-aware?

Again, this all hinges on the definition of a "person". If you define a person as 1) genetically human and 2) biologically alive, there's no doubt about its scientific meaning. If on the other hand you add conditions like "being born" (which is arbitrary) or "being self-aware" (which can't be determined scientifically) then your definition is no longer scientific.

To me, its not about some definition, its not about words. Its about what is. In the very early stages of development we are talking about something smaller than a marble, and that thing is supposed to be protected by law to the extent it impedes the rights of the mother?
I don't think so.

Personally I'm not a real big fan of abortion at all, especially for later stages. These days, I think they can remove a fetus sometime after 20 weeks and it has a chance to survive on its own with medical assistance.

If someone finds out they're pregnant at <10 weeks development, then I concede they should definitly have a choice. This is rare however, some people not realizing they are not pregnant until later on. There is a big grey area at which point brain activity begins (which I would use as an assumption to be 'alive' and at least partially 'self aware').

Human's attach emotional and ethical implications to everything. It is difficult to say a clear cut "that's wrong". You can argue from your conscience, but what about from logic. It's easy to sit back and say something is bad when you've never been involved with a situation, it is only human to pass judgement.

The thing is, men cannot ever possibly fully understand something only woman can go through. You can't look at an early fetus as a seperate entity, as it is part of the mother. For someone else to step in and tell another that they have to let something grow inside of them for 6 months. It's outright mind boggling. That's why I find it upsetting when people try and force other people to do something they think is right, with little regard to the mother.

Yes everything needs to be considered and well thought over. But you can't force an ideal on someone else and claim its the right thing to do. It goes against everything we supposedly stand for in todays western society.

Goober5000 wrote: So what does this say about the autistic, or the retarded, or the senile? They're not as self-aware as a healthy 20-30 year old. Are they any less human?

You can't compare the two. Once someone is born, they deserve all the rights of any other person in society. It's when you start extending those rights to an unborn child. When you extend those rights back to the very begining. You might as well start pushing for no safe sex saying that every time someone has intercourse, life deserves a chance.

While that child is in the womb, it is the responsibility of the mother. More so in the earlier stages, when a woman isn't even gaining weight, or might not even know she's pregnant yet.

You can't just flatly say "no abortion ever", it's a downright violation of a woman's rights and insulting to say the least.

Grug wrote:
You can't compare the two. Once someone is born, they deserve all the rights of any other person in society. It's when you start extending those rights to an unborn child. When you extend those rights back to the very begining. You might as well start pushing for no safe sex saying that every time someone has intercourse, life deserves a chance.

Well, if you're gonna make that argument, then No masturbation. That just kills potential potential babies.


But alas, we sound like the Catholic church now.

It's interesting, as an aside, that human evolutionary psychology appears to be strongly influenced by non reproductive sex as a method of establishing procreational suitability; for example, females hide ovulation (and thus ability to conceive at that point in time) far more than other primates, and the intelligence standard for both males and females (i.e. regarding procreational suitablity of a mate) increases the more sexual a relationship becomes; the male (in particular) standards for a one-night stand are, in contrast, markedly lower. So whether sex as an individual act is simply (psychologically) performed for procreational purposes is more debatable than it would immediately seem; it could in fact be a key 'ritual' in the process establishing who an ideal partner is.

Grug wrote:I'd say that near all would regret it. But they also know that they had no other choice at the time, and that they did the right thing for the sake of their particular circumstances.

But pro-choice is all about choice, isn't it?

Anyway, they did have other options. Hard options, yes, but they were there.

To me, its not about some definition, its not about words. Its about what is.

This is not a question of semantics. This is not "bending the language" to create some convoluted loophole (at least, that's not what I'm doing). This is about clear-cut concepts.

In the very early stages of development we are talking about something smaller than a marble, and that thing is supposed to be protected by law to the extent it impedes the rights of the mother?
I don't think so.

It's not an infringement; it's a boundary. Her rights end where her child's rights begin.

You have the right to own a kitchen knife. You have the right to cut up whatever you want with it. But you do not have a right to dismember your friend with it. That's not an infringement of your right to cut up things; it's a boundary.

You can argue from your conscience, but what about from logic.

Are my arguments illogical?

The thing is, men cannot ever possibly fully understand something only woman can go through.

This is true. Since I cannot become pregnant, I cannot fully understand the physical and mental changes that happen, nor can I fully grasp the weight of such a decision.

But I am a human being, and therefore I understand what it is like to live and have opportunities. I appreciate it when others fight for my rights, so I return the favor by fighting for others' rights. If nobody did that, we would lose those rights (and are losing them) very quickly. It's like the old saying:

"They came for the Jews, and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew.

"They came for the gypsies, and I did not speak up because I was not a gypsy.

"They came for the blacks, and I did not speak up because I was not a black.

"Then they came for me, and there was nobody to speak up for me."

Abortions have been legal for over 30 years in this country. Euthanasia is starting to become more widely accepted. How long until forced euthanasia - for the sick, the elderly, etc. - becomes accepted?

Goober5000 wrote:So what does this say about the autistic, or the retarded, or the senile? They're not as self-aware as a healthy 20-30 year old. Are they any less human?

You can't compare the two. Once someone is born, they deserve all the rights of any other person in society.

That's arbitrary. You could just as easily say "once someone becomes mentally unaware, they are no longer a person and no longer deserve all the rights of any other person in society.

I'm not saying you're advocating this, mind. I'm just pointing out it's a way of thinking that is susceptible to being massaged into any number of viewpoints.

You can't just flatly say "no abortion ever", it's a downright violation of a woman's rights and insulting to say the least.

You can't just flatly say "abortions should be allowed". It's a downright violation of a child's rights and insulting to say the least.

aldo wrote:It's interesting, as an aside, that human evolutionary psychology appears to be strongly influenced by non reproductive sex as a method of establishing procreational suitability; for example, females hide ovulation (and thus ability to conceive at that point in time) far more than other primates, and the intelligence standard for both males and females (i.e. regarding procreational suitablity of a mate) increases the more sexual a relationship becomes; the male (in particular) standards for a one-night stand are, in contrast, markedly lower. So whether sex as an individual act is simply (psychologically) performed for procreational purposes is more debatable than it would immediately seem; it could in fact be a key 'ritual' in the process establishing who an ideal partner is.

That doesn't really seem relevant to the discussion at hand.

It's interesting though. But the fact that humans are sexually "primed" (not sure of the correct term) all year round would seem to be counterproductive to that aim.

Goober5000 wrote: But pro-choice is all about choice, isn't it?

Anyway, they did have other options. Hard options, yes, but they were there.

Options yes, and with all considerations they made their choice, to abort.

Goober5000 wrote: This is not a question of semantics. This is not "bending the language" to create some convoluted loophole (at least, that's not what I'm doing). This is about clear-cut concepts.

If they were so clear cut we and half the world wouldn't be arguing about it.

Goober5000 wrote: It's not an infringement; it's a boundary. Her rights end where her child's rights begin.

It's not a child yet.

Goober5000 wrote: You have the right to own a kitchen knife. You have the right to cut up whatever you want with it. But you do not have a right to dismember your friend with it. That's not an infringement of your right to cut up things; it's a boundary.

To use your metaphor, it's not cutting up your friend, its cutting up a part of herself.

Goober5000 wrote:

You can argue from your conscience, but what about from logic.

Are my arguments illogical?

That was more in reply to your "why can't you argue from your conscience" comments. Illogical? Perhaps, if you consider the facts we discuss. I think there are multiple logical outcomes however.

Goober5000 wrote: This is true. Since I cannot become pregnant, I cannot fully understand the physical and mental changes that happen, nor can I fully grasp the weight of such a decision.

But I am a human being, and therefore I understand what it is like to live and have opportunities. I appreciate it when others fight for my rights, so I return the favor by fighting for others' rights. If nobody did that, we would lose those rights (and are losing them) very quickly. It's like the old saying:

"They came for the Jews, and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew.

"They came for the gypsies, and I did not speak up because I was not a gypsy.

"They came for the blacks, and I did not speak up because I was not a black.

"Then they came for me, and there was nobody to speak up for me."

Abortions have been legal for over 30 years in this country. Euthanasia is starting to become more widely accepted. How long until forced euthanasia - for the sick, the elderly, etc. - becomes accepted?

And what about the mother, who speaks up for her?
Are you going to restrain a woman in an asylum for six months to prevent her from aborting?

Goober5000 wrote:

You can't compare the two. Once someone is born, they deserve all the rights of any other person in society.

That's arbitrary. You could just as easily say "once someone becomes mentally unaware, they are no longer a person and no longer deserve all the rights of any other person in society.

I'm not saying you're advocating this, mind. I'm just pointing out it's a way of thinking that is susceptible to being massaged into any number of viewpoints.

What I am saying is that at birth, its 'official' (icky term), the baby is a child and everyone accepts it. I agree that when a woman is clearly pregnant, big tummy and all, when you can feel the child kicking and moving, then it is a young but human baby and deserves life yes.

But if a woman sleeps with a man and finds out two weeks later that she's pregnant, at that point in time while the fetus is still very early in development the choice is hers to abort.
In the few cases where the mother doesn't want to go through the experience just yet, why should the law suddenly jump in and take control of her life when the pregnancy is only just begining?

Goober5000 wrote:

You can't just flatly say "no abortion ever", it's a downright violation of a woman's rights and insulting to say the least.

You can't just flatly say "abortions should be allowed". It's a downright violation of a child's rights and insulting to say the least.

It's not a child yet.

That doesn't really seem relevant to the discussion at hand.

It's interesting though. But the fact that humans are sexually "primed" (not sure of the correct term) all year round would seem to be counterproductive to that aim.

WhY? humans are not a naturally monogamous species; whilst not as polygamous as, say, gorillas, we are naturally a multiple-partner species. Take any tribal culture; there will be an alpha male type hunter-gatherer, and you'll see him with 10-20 offspring spread across a number of partners (again, this does not entail all sex is reproductive in the mating-selection process). It's also a natural response to the male reproductive process lasting about 1 day, and the female about 3 years. Additionally, it's genetically coded as the most polygamous ancestors would have spread their genes - i.e. the ones coding for polygamy - the widest.

This is also evidenced by sexual dimorphism - the size of males in relation to females increases with the level of polygamy across a species. so you're making the mistake of assuming humans are naturally built to have a single monogamous relationship, when it's really culture and society that causes us to act that way. Not that I'm railing for mass orgies or anything, but that's the way we're 'built'.

In any case, it's to point out that the concept of 'sex for reproduction only' isn't entirely correct from either an evolutionary or psychological perspective. That means that not every sexual encounter not intended to result in pregnancy is a 'mistake'; it may simply be a result of the evolution of out brain, and we should consider that part of human nature when seeking to condemn it.

Oh, and you seem to either miss or ignore the point that being pro-choice entails that I or we do not consider a foetus a 'child' as it is not an individual, self aware or conscious entity (based upon EEG; which is of course the method used to determine human death). This is a fundamental point which is largely theological/philosophical; if there was any neutrally researched, scientific definition of human life which in any way included the developing (fertilised) egg or foetus (with certain time limits) as alive, then abortion would be illegal. To assume that abortion is legal because of some sort of societal callousness or desire to kill children would be not only wrong, but run straight against the same reproductive and psychological instincts as mentioned above.

The problem of prohobiting abortions is that we remove control of the maternal body from the mother, with the explicit risk of severe physical and mental damage, in favour of (the assumption of completed development of) a clump of cells that has none of the characteristics of self awarenesse, consciousness or base intelligence that define the mental concept of a 'human' (history shows we're not afraid of killing other organisms, or excising human dna tissue - i.e. as in tumours).

I'm always curious how I see these strange strawmen being built, actually. Like, euthanasia (the ability to choose when to die, under your own consent) somehow must entail state sponsored murder? Or stem cell reasearch leading to vast cloned baby embryo vats for harvesting (I believe that one was Liberators'). Is there some inherent distrust of the medical profession or something?

Also that not giving a human identity to a bunch of cells with no human consciousness somehow means you must automatically support removal of rights to the mentally damaged. That's a strange insinuation, that by not holding a foetus with no EEG, no brain activity, as being an conscious entity, we somehow also do not hold a person, fully grown, with an EEG scane and consciouness, in the same way?

You did say, to be fair, "it's a way of thinking that is susceptible to being massaged into any number of viewpoints.". Except that basically means any statement will be moved into the most appropriate death-of-society strawman, when in reality such a scenario is a completely different paradigm and rather astonishingly unlikely. It's not all that different from perhaps saying that the next step from banning abortion would be the government requiring regular period and ovulation checks, just to make sure none of that potentially-alive material is discarded. Or maybe on the other scale, that people who are brain dead must have their life support left eternally on, despite it powering a shallow husk with no hope of recovery or even sentience - families forced to watch their dead-but-artificially breathing son, father, cousin, mother, sister, daughter, etc in a hospital bed for 50 years or more, having regular transplants as things wear out, because having sentience and thought doesn't matter as to whether you are a person or not any more.

To me the anti-abortion viewpoint is always based in several areas that I find flawed;
1/That there is some soul - or soul analogue in the 'scientific' definition - created at conception and which defines a developing embryo as not as human or 'alive' (especially the latter, a rather loathed term), but as an individual with consciousness.
2/That supporting abortion is supporting murder, and that women who choose abortion are effectively lazy, self-serving baby killing sluts (to paraphrase) taking the 'easy way out'. To me that is the grossest form of insult and nothing more than vile slandering.
3/That abortion causes some form of mental damage and can be characterised as harmful; something that isn't supported by evidence from professional bodies, is usually only supported by selective individual quotes (and allowing something doesn't preclude people making mistakes), ignores the potential harmful effects of unwanted pregnancy, and which I think would in any case contradict 2/ and IMO is basically said as a desire to exact some form of 'revenge'.
4/That the people who make the scientific and legal determination of abortion as legal, and whom consent to perform the procedure, are all essentially evil and/or idiots

And 5, which is not directly related as 'grounds', that people who would not define abortion as inherently wrong, and would allow the choice of that to be left to the individual when there is no scientific / neutral basis for prohibition, and who often don't have a personal position beyond that, are somehow morally equivalent to the Nazis, the worst example of genocide in modern times. That saying 'give them a choice' makes you as bad as Rudolf Hess.

Albeit I said I wouldn't post any more, didn't I? Bugger.

Oh, and we really need wider reply-boxes IMO.

Well said.
=D>