Journal ellem's Journal: Abortion - What I think and why you should flame me 248
I have been engaged in a 2 day (or so) discussion with Pudge & nandorman on the topic of South Dakota's attempt to ban abortion. The conversation twisted and pudge & nandorman seem quite concerned that I am for some abortions and that I do not have an exact date where upon abortions can be performed. They cite logic flaws but the real issue as I perceive it is that pudge & nandorman are fairly religious and believe that life begins at the moment a sperm gets into an egg. Pudge hasn't mentioned religion at all, I simply suspect that is where this comes from. He cites the Civil Rights of the baby.
So my basic thoughts are as follows:
Abortion is the last in a string of bad decisions. While I'd never recommend an abortion - except in the cases of death to the mother, imminent death of the child, rape, and incest - I have no right to tell anyone else not to have an abortion. Lot's of things can be black and white, good and evil, this isn't one of them.
However, that said, partial birth abortions, late term abortions are absolutely positively out. That's murder. You are taking a baby and killing it. Sorry. That's what I think.
OK so when do I think abortion is OK? I'll be the first to admit I have a lot of trouble with this one. Without specifying an exact moment (and I will sort of later) I think when a baby is in the womb and cannot survive on its own outside the womb then it's sort of OK. I'm not really OK with it, but if this must be the decision made then make it when the baby stands no chance without the mother.
So technically I think we can go to about 16 weeks? I was hovering around 8 weeks in the above discussion and said 20-24 weeks but that number is far too high... that's totally a baby. You must remember I am not really for abortion, I just see that making it illegal is worse than making it safe.
My problems with the inception gang (I'm in the first trimester-ish gang) is that they reduce women to vessels for sperm. Walking incubators. Oh we mustn't touch the precious cargo therein. And IT IS precious...
And this is why you should flame me.
I'm on both sides of this issue.
I'm on the side that people need to be able to have abortion (EARLY TERM) on the table as a safe choice for the mother. AND I'm on the side that no one should EVER get an abortion because life and babies are terribly important and amazingly perfect and about the most human thing we can do... making more.
So yeah... I'm on the fence.
I think early term abortions are tragic but should remain legal. I think later term abortions should be banned.
no flame (Score:2)
My problems with the inception gang (I'm in the first trimester-ish gang) is that they reduce women to vessels for sperm. Walking incubators.
I don't get that. I don't see why one follows the other.
Now my disclaimer-- I usually avoid discussing this topic because there is so little discourse and so much yelling, etc. I know what I think, and there are tons of people out their fighting for that position, so I focus on other things.
I also tend to find myself t
Re:no flame (Score:2)
Raped? Too bad, it's life it cannot be terminated that's murder.
Mother may die? Too bad, it's life it cannot be terminated that's murder.
Baby horribly deformed [google.com] with little chance to live? Too bad, it's life it cannot be terminated that's murder.
Mother is a hardcore drug addict claiming intent to harm the baby to terminate the p
Re:no flame (Score:2)
Re:no flame (Score:2)
The problem is, that's a reducto ad absurdum viewpoint. I'm sorry but my purpose as a conscious individual is NOT simply to spray my seed all over the planet. If it were, there'd be little point in monogamy, right?
Re:no flame (Score:2)
Depends on the climate. In some areas, there is no point to monogamy- and in those areas, polygamous (Semitic and Pacific Islander cultures spring to mind, but I'm willing to bet just about any native culture in the tropics) or even incestuous (Inuit tribes) sexual groupings are common. The po
Re:no flame (Score:2)
Yeah (Score:2)
Before that, it should be legal but discouraged except in the cases you listed above, rape, incest, etc.
Since I've been told this is both hypocritical and a cop-out, I'll join you in the flamefest. Apparently the only two valid views are "no limits on abortions" and "no
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
One of the most interesting arguments I've heard to be pro-choice and yet support a life begins at conception doctrine is thus:
Axiom: Self-ownership is a natural right for all individuals, including the baby|fetus|embryo and the mother.
The mother, being an individual and having the right of self-ownership, has the right to remove a trespasser from her property, which includes herself. The doctrine of minimal force applies here, so in much the same way you don't have the right to shoot someone the mome
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
Yup, the argument came from a Christian conservative who in fact, opposes the draft on the same principle.
Get this! (Score:2)
I don't know if many people know this, but basically as soon as a woman can find out if she's pregnant (i.e., about a week or so after she's missed her period) -- there's already a heartbeat. There's life there. It's tenuous -- but it's life.
That said, I believe that abortion should be legal. Period.
The thing is, any wom
Re:Get this! (Score:2)
Yeah, Em Emalb's clone army comes to mind...
wow (Score:2)
I can understand your position, since I feel pretty much the same way. I finally decided that even though my feelings on abortion are mixed, I don't feel that I should force my beliefs on anyone else, so regardless of how I might feel personally about abortion, I think the mother (and frankly, no one else) should ultimately b
Re:wow (Score:2)
That ain't gonna work down here.
Hell, I was in a rest room last week where they had a condom dispenser mounted on the wall. On the face was a big sticker saying that while condoms may help prevent pregnancies and STDs, the only way to avoid STDs was to be in a married, monogamous, relationship.
WTF?
Before that I had no idea my wedding ring cured AIDS.
Re:wow (Score:2)
Re:wow (Score:2)
Be careful though, you may want to consider abstinence as advocated by the wise TCVM. After all, Condoms may (or may not) prevent STDs, apparently science on the issue isn't clear.
Re:wow (Score:2)
Second, how does marriage help avoid AIDS if one party has already contracted the HIV virus?
If the sticker actually was about health, it would stress safe sex and possibly abstinence (Which it did, abstinence on a condom machine, hah! I love the U.S), it wouldn't stress marriage.
The only way that marriage would change anything would be if it would actually cure the disease.
Re:wow (Score:3, Funny)
That's awesome, I thought it was me who read it.
Tell me, who's middle finger am I holding up, mine or yours?
Re:wow (Score:2)
Really Brent, you realize you're defending the wisdom expressed by The Condom Vending Machine above the urinal in the mens room of a gas station, right? You didn't read the sticker, so why are you trying to inform me of what the implication was?
Which begs the question, why do you feel the need to defend The Condom Vending Machine without actually knowing what i
Re:wow (Score:2)
"Are you like a knight in glistening rubbery armor, standing up for Condom Vending Machines everywhere?"
Oh, my God, you are so sigged.
Re:wow (Score:2)
Actually, I think this one is pretty easy. Do we grant rights to "aliens" from outside the USA? Is a fetus in the mother's womb a citizen? I'd argue that you can't be a citizen until birth. After all, that's the word they use in the definition of citizen!
And ok, I'll concede that I'm playing a little loose. There are some basic human rights that transcend our constitution. But the pudge argument
Re:wow (Score:2)
I can see a whole new boink-on-american-soil-industry forming!
Re:wow (Score:2)
I bet you came in with that load of Swedish boat people that slipped through the Coast Guard.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re:wow (Score:2)
Re:wow (Score:2)
Absolutely spot on. I'm glad at least someone can see that.
My take is likely to get me flamed, but what the hell. I was discussing this with a friend of mine the other day, and she was shocked by my viewpoint. Anyway, I believe:
Re:wow (Score:2)
A human life begins at birth.
Prove it.
Human life has no intrinsic value, and there's nothing immoral about killing a foetus.
So therefore it should be legal for me to kill you, then?
I don't think you're very good at thinking.
Re:wow (Score:2)
No, I'm very good at thinking. I just think differently to you. I could expand on this at length, and perhaps I will do at some point. But for now, it's late and tomorrow is the first day at my new job, so I'm going to bed.
Re:wow (Score:2)
The fact that you said there is nothing immoral about killing a fetus simply because human life has no intrinsic value, and that this must necessarily apply to people who are born, does support the latter contention, but not the former.
Re:wow (Score:2)
The other side of this is that the only people who will be effected by this are the poor. The rich will wisk themselves away to Canada or Mexico where its still legal, have a holiday and get rid of th
Re:wow (Score:2)
You keep confusing me with someone who is confused.
They have the genes of a human, and the basic blueprints to make a human
Right.
but its still not a human.
Says you. I say differently.
Continuing to insult and speak down from the pulpit will not change my view other than making it more steadfast.
I was not speaking to you. I was speaking to someone who said that it is not immoral to kill people. He did not say "a fetus has no intrinsic value, so it is OK to kill a fet
Re:wow (Score:2)
Unfortunately, we can't know what the answer is. I believe one thing, you believe another, and we can't convince
Re:wow (Score:2)
Then either you believe as ellem does that personhood is dependent on other people, and thus there is no such thing as unalienable rights (rights man can grant, man can take away); or, you believe personhood is an unalienable trait, and that you know the moment at which it exists.
The former is nonsense. The latter is not possible.
Do you really want to be supporting all of these children on welfare?
This is, of course, the logical fallacy of begging the ques
One very wide fence - or no fence at all (Score:2)
Re:One very wide fence - or no fence at all (Score:2)
I'm still very pro-choice, we just choose not to consider it.
I'm with ya (Score:2)
late term abortions are absolutely positively out. That's murder. You are taking a baby and killing it.
How do you square this with "life of the mother"? Has anyone provided any statistics demonstrating that "partial birth abortions" occur in any circumstances OTHER than to protect the life of the mother? I haven't seen any if they have.
Aside from that, I agree completely.
Now for gratuitous TMI illustrating where I am personally on the issue:
Right now, we're trying to get pregnant again.
Re:I'm with ya (Score:2)
People have funny notions about what is, and what is not, God's domain. Their infertility is a Science problem, but having too many embryos to give any of them much of a chance is apparently a God problem.
Re:I'm with ya (Score:2)
No offense to those trying. I got lucky with my first, and got him right away. We're now trying to stay on track to make him an only child.
Re:I'm with ya (Score:2)
And instead of bringing yet another heart (or more) into the world that needs love, you rescue one that's already out here, lonely, waiting for someone to care.
Re:I'm with ya (Score:2)
1) flesh of my flesh is a powerful and IMO important connection.
2) US Adoption has become a nightmare of legal pitfalls, especially if you want to do "ethical" adoption where the adoptive status is not hidden from the child, nor is the child hidden from their bio parents.
3) International adoption is a different set of nightmares, though I have a friend who has availed herself of that option twice and has offered to hel
I'm with you (Score:2)
Re:I'm with you (Score:2)
Re:I'm with you (Score:2)
And a century and a half ago this would have been somewhere between a common opinion. Now that our society has grown and matured it is laughable to think that anyone other than the fringe elements would support slavery. I don't think you were intending to prove my po
Re:I'm with you (Score:2)
It was a common opinion, yes, among many Southerners, and Northerners like Stephen Douglas. We normally don't laud those people today. Instead, we look to people like John and Abigail Adams and Abe Lincoln, who were far more concerned with the rights of slaves than the relatively unimportant rights of the slaveowners, who were outspoken about the irreconciliable differences between Thomas Jefferson's declaration of equali
Three links from /.'ers journals and elsewhere... (Score:2)
http://www.womensservices.com/Information/tabid/61 /Default.aspx [womensservices.com]
http://www.alternet.org/rights/32369/ [alternet.org]
Re:Three links from /.'ers journals and elsewhere. (Score:2)
Re:Three links from /.'ers journals and elsewhere. (Score:2)
1) unique
{and/or/not}
2) universal
If this were the case most people would be defined as smart robots.
Re:Three links from /.'ers journals and elsewhere. (Score:2)
Sometimes murder is better than being thought a whore by your peers. If you've known a single holier-than-thou self-righteous Bible-thumper...you'd believe it. Because the preacher's daughter can't be pregnant at 16. A little D&C will make that little problem go away.
I think there is an increasing openness to the idea that sometimes c
Re:Three links from /.'ers journals and elsewhere. (Score:2)
If you're an evil bitch, yes, it could be. For people with sanity and a conscience, no.
no flames from me (Score:2)
Actually my opinion on the matter is that we all have souls. The question for me is, is it at inception? is it at 2 weeks gestation? 16 weeks? I don't know. Because of this I can't support it, because to me, that is taking the life of an innocent soul.
I used to support younger than 3 months because of, get this, the baby wouldn't feel any pain because that's when i thought the nerves were developed. I now know it is something closer to 8 weeks. I'm sorry, but if somet
Re:no flames from me (Score:2, Insightful)
Then the baby can feed and nurture its own body.
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
Except that almost every abortion performed in this country is on a woman who got pregnant by her own choice. Almost none (statistically) are because of rape, where a D&C is usually performed and there never is any implantation (and without getting into an argument about it, let's assume that abortions happen after implantation).
So, stop your whining. Seriously. Take some responsibility for yourself. If you are going to have sex, knowing you might get
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
If you thought about it for half a second, you would see how obviously wrong you are. We have no idea what a soul really is, we have no idea in what way it is connected to a physical form, we have no idea how much of a person is in the soul as compared with the body. We know almost nothing. And yet you boldly say that there it is not even *possible*?
There are some things most Christians, Jews, Muslims, and so on can say with some confidence. The soul is a metaphysica
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
The idea of a soul is inherently tied to religion. Those of us similarly unburdoned have no problems with this definition of life, as it frees us to kill wontonly without any consequence.
In order to define life, you need a measurable amount of status. Egg meeting sperm does not a human make. If that was the case, there would be mass genocide committed every time a batch of fertilized eggs goes past their 'expiration date' and is destroyed.
Should we be buryi
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
Yes, and how about the possibility that men have no unalienable rights and there's nothing wrong with me going around killing anyone I want to kill?
The idea of a soul is inherently tied to religion.
Not unless you define "religion" so broadly as to include pretty much any possible system of belief about how life works and what it means. There's nothing about the possible existence of a soul that requires someone to believe in God, for example. You do have to
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
The difference is that the unalienable rights is defined in the Constitution. The rights of a cluster of cells is not.
Not unless you define "religion" so broadly as to include pretty much any possible system of belief about how life works and what it means. There's nothing about the possible existence of a soul that requires someone to believe in God, for examp
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
Uh
As to the second part: the Declaration says "all men are created equal and
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
So yes, if the soul is metaphysical, there is no possibility of a person having one, unless the person also is metaphysical. I have yet to meet any such person, and neither have you - it would be physically impossible to, by definition.
Thats why I can s
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
No. The belief of all major monotheistic religions is that the soul IS the person. It's not merely that my soul interacts with me, it IS me. Where did you come up with the idea that "by definition" something metaphysical cannot interact with the physical
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
No, I'm not "making it up as I go along - everything I've stated as far as the human brain is based on reproducible experiments.
As for religion and metaphysics, please look up the definition of the word metaphysical - anything that is "metaphysical", such as your posited soul, can NOT, by definition, have anything to do with any physical object, including a human being, since it is outside the realm of physical interaction. If it were able to interact with physical objects, we COULD measure it, hence it
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
Wow. You just can't stop making stuff up. You're pathological. This is some of what you said regarding the brain:
No brain == no possibility of a soul
Your brain reorders the events so that you have the impression that you decided, but that's not the case.
Show me one reproducible experiment that proves either of these. Heck, just make up an experiment that's never been done that
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
I can't decide if this is a cop-out, horribly nihilistic or just evil. Original Sin is right up there with tithes as bullshit created in the name of God.
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
Sequitur?
I was not arguing that abortion from the point of conception on should be illegal. I was specifically arguing against Some Woman, who said that she has the right to abort the child at any point, because it is her body.
Nothing in the first trimester comes close to qualifying as a person on that grounds.
You are wrong. Detectable brain waves and nerves exist at six weeks. Please stop making things up without researching them first.
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
The first trimester isn't complex at all. There is no "person" there. Even a collection of nerves, or a living brain, of sufficient complexity, by itself, is not a person. It may be a human, but there is a big difference between being human and being a person. My finger is human, but it certainly isn't a person. My retina and optic nerve has much more complexity than a fetus brain at 12 weeks, and is capable of a LOT mor processing, but it is not a person.
I'm not saying there isn't a cutoff point, but I
Re:no flames from me (Score:2)
Prove it.
Even a collection of nerves, or a living brain, of sufficient complexity, by itself, is not a person. It may be a human, but there is a big difference between being human and being a person.
What's the difference?
My finger is human
Wow. Um. Your finger is not a human being. The child in the womb is a human being. It is a complete living organism with entirely unique DNA.
That has to be the dumbest thing I've read all week. It'll
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm a total idiot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm a total idiot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm a total idiot (Score:2)
No, I don't.
and I'm supposed to magically know what it is that you're trying to say?
I don't consider standard levels of intelligence to be magic, but to someone looking in from the outside, I guess it might appear as such.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm a total idiot (Score:2)
Heh. Anyone who thinks the analogy between slavery and abortion is irrelevant simply knows nothing about the issue. You don't have to agree with the analogy to recognize that it demonstrates almost perfectly why so many people are against abortion: because it denies the unalienable rights of a whole class of people, just as slavery did.
But hey, you started this by saying you're an idiot who doesn't really know much about these things, so I guess I should have taken you at your word on that
Re:I'm a total idiot (Score:2)
Re:I'm a total idiot (Score:2)
Re:I'm a total idiot (Score:2)
Re:I'm a total idiot (Score:2)
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.
But OK, you only _said_ you could say it.
Re:I'm a total idiot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm a total idiot (Score:2)
No. An ad hominem is when you attack the man for the purpose of winning the argument. For example: "SamTheButcher is wrong because he's an idiot." Mere name-calling is not ad hominem. Read a book.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm a total idiot (Score:2)
Flame hell. (Score:2)
You're right on. I totally concur.
Abortion stills a beating heart. Yep. Abortion kills. Yep. Abortion should be safe and legal. Mostly, yeah. As you say, it's the last choice in a string of bad decisions (or circumstances). It's a tragic choice, and no one should deny that. But it is not my choice to make... it's the mother's.
Few laws are sufficient to cover all circumstances. Some theft is justifiable, some homicide is justifiable, and some abortions are
Re:Flame hell. (Score:2)
If the fetus is past the point of medical viability, and, therefore, not abortable, should the woman be allowed to induce labor or otherwise have it removed and relinquish her rights to the baby?
Re:Flame hell. (Score:2)
If there's a bright line between viability and non-viability, then yes for sure. (Who would pay for the neonatal care is another matter entirely, of course.) But every week in the womb is precious... the difference in likely medical outcomes between a 24 weeker and a 34 weeker is huge. There is no easy way to say that a fetus of this gestational age is viable and one of that gestational age is not. The bright line doesn't really exist.
My proposal above just shifts the ground to
Re:Flame hell. (Score:2)
Re:Flame hell. (Score:2)
My Take on This Issue (Score:2)
friends/foes (Score:2)
Re:friends/foes (Score:2)
I agree with you, mostly (Score:2)
I think therefore I am.
Re:I agree with you, mostly (Score:2)
You are doing better than I am at least; I only know I exist on the weekends [slashdot.org].
Re:I agree with you, mostly (Score:2)
Reunite Pangea!
Never!
Re:I agree with you, mostly (Score:2)
Abortion (Score:2)
The main character states at one point that abortion is the issue that the left relies on to keep the freedom movement divided. And that makes a whole lot of sense... if you take a look at the people out there who are really in support of smaller government (not what calls itself the Republican party, let's look at people who actually SUPPORT the
Re:my stance (Score:2)
Re:I am PRO ABORTION DAMNIT (Score:2)