# When does "life" begin?



## Makalakumu (May 24, 2005)

I'm posting this poll to see where the majority of answers lie along this spectrum.  Alot of this question depends on how one sees "life" in relation to the choices given.  Please explain what you believe "life" is in relation to this question and the choices given.  

Thanks :asian: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 24, 2005)

How about an "I have no idea" option?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 24, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> How about an "I have no idea" option?


Shoot!  That would have been a good option, unfortuneately, I can't edit the poll.  It's okay, sometimes its good to have to MAKE a decision...


----------



## terryl965 (May 24, 2005)

Conception is where life begins that is when the human starts to grow. In a side note life also begins after death.


----------



## arnisador (May 24, 2005)

Is it a meaningful question? The sperm cells in your testicles are alive, aren't they?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 24, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Is it a meaningful question? The sperm cells in your testicles are alive, aren't they?


Certainly.  The ambiguity is what makes it interesting.  That is why "life" is in quotation marks.  

BTW - some old religions that I've read about believed that "life" began sometime after a child was born.  And I think that Old Christianity believe this too.  The "life at conception" is a new thing and it is a result of modern science.

Interesting implications...


----------



## The Kai (May 24, 2005)

I think in the days of old christianity the idea of a fetus was rather primitive.  While your swimmers are alive, when does that life become a sepaerat entity?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 24, 2005)

Millions of years ago...

 Since then it has continued.

 Although I think that was not what you meant


----------



## Gemini (May 24, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Is it a meaningful question? The sperm cells in your testicles are alive, aren't they?


Actually, from a technical term, I would think this is right, but from a "Human life" standpoint, I say from consciousness.

(Boy, does this put the old melon above radar.)


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 24, 2005)

No "when the fetus is viable" option, I note.

This question and topic of the thread of course leads us into the inevitable abortion issue, the context for which this question always appears in American culture.  Some background:

Abortion 200 years ago was not seen as a great moral issue.  It was performed primarily to hide the illicit sexual activity that led to its occasion.  It was usually done on women who were single.

The first abortion laws enacted in the US came about in the early 19th century. The first law against abortion took place in Connecticut in 1821, and merely outlawed the use of dangerous poisions to induce abortion.  By 1840 only eight states had any anti-abortion regulations.  

In the 1800's aborticants, whether effective or not, were advertised in the popular press.  One historian estimates one abortion was performed for every four live births, and the birth rate among white women in America fell by 50% during this time.

The anti abortion movement gained weight with the efforts of the fledgling AMA around 1857.  This was partly due to concerns over risks of abortion at the time (mortality was high) and partly due to increased awareness over fetal development and the ethics of taking a developing life.  

The Catholic Church didn't have a stance on abortion in the early 19th century, as the issue wasn't present in church dogma.  Theologians believed that "animation" or "ensoulment" occured at "the quickening" where their was noted movement in the uterus.  A male fetus was considered animated after forty days, a female after eighty days.  Abortion was not deemed a homicide prior to ensoulment.  In 1869 the church was influenced by new medical information concerning fetal development, and took its first strict anti-abortion stance.

Now on to the question "when does life begin?"  Further and more specifically, let's ask the questions this question in itself raises.  I offer no ready answers:

The term "life" could be applied to a zygote.  24 hours after the sperm enters the egg the genetic material is combined.  It takes that long for the process to occur.  Is it life then?  Some say no.  It is incapable of mitosis during that window of genetic intermixing.   

What if the zygote combines with another fertilized zygote and creates a totally new zygote?  This happens on occasion.  Did we have two "lives" collated into one?  Or is the new zygote two people in one?  

If we induce abortion after the 24 hour window on a soccer ball shaped zygote, is it murder?  Is it murder of one person, or should we anticipate that the zygote might have split into one or more twins/triplets/quadruplets and then call it a mass murder?  How do we scientifically determine this?

If we deem it murder to kill this "life," after conception as some of us do deem it, do we then charge the abortionist with murder?  Do we charge the mother as an accessory to murder, or as a principle defendant?  Do we jail/execute one or both?   Is there a statute of limitations on these murders?  Do we jail/execute past abortionists and women for having had abortions ten or twenty years ago?

If we state that life begins at conception and deem abortion murder do we make exceptions to abortion in the event of risk to the mother's life or health?  What if the conception were due to rape or incest?  What if the fetus is horribly disfigured and likely to die soon after birth?  I've heard pro-life advocates allow for these exceptions to varying degrees, yet still term abortion murder.  Is abortion in these cases then acceptable murder?

When doctors artificially fertilize eggs for implantation in a woman who is having difficulty in conceiving, do we then prosecute them for discarding those unused zygotes?  This happens frequently.  Are they murderers?  Do we use their efforts at providing the woman a chance at motherhood as mitigating factors during sentencing?

Is an IUD, which prevents implantation of a zygote on the uterine wall, a lethal weapon?  Should a woman using this be tried as a murderer?  How many murders should she be charged with?  How does one determine whether any zygote were killed, much less several or dozens?  Is the doctor prescribing it an accessory?

Given that 50% of all egg fertilizations spontaneously abort.  If technology were to become available that reduced these spontaneous abortions, should the state _compel _sexually active women to take these medications/procedures in order to save the life of the zygote/fetus?  If bringing these fetuses to a level of viability substantially increased their chances of being born deformed, is this state action moral?

Compounding this issue further:  What if fetal stem cell research itself leads to increased viability of fetuses that would otherwise spontaneously abort?  Do we use this research?  What if the research took place in another country?  Does their culpability erase ours, thereby allowing us to use the fruits of their research?

References:

http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/

Laurence H. Tribe, "Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes,"  W.W. Norton and Company, New York.  1990.



Regards,



Steve


----------



## ginshun (May 24, 2005)

I voted at conception.

 This however does not mean that I oppose abortion.  I personally don't think it is the right choice most of the time, but have no desire to make it against the law.


----------



## Ray (May 24, 2005)

Life begins when those little sperm cells move out and get a place of their own!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 24, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Life begins when those little sperm cells move out and get a place of their own!




Hmmm.  I went to a urologist and had locks put on the door.



Regards,



Steve


----------



## Rynocerous (May 24, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Hmmm. I went to a urologist and had locks put on the door.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This works just as well!!! :btg: :roflmao:


Cheers,

Rynocerous


----------



## Makalakumu (May 24, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Hmmm. I went to a urologist and had locks put on the door.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We have a Urologist who does that in my hometown, his name is, I kid you not, Dr. Richard Chop...

WOW!

Anyways, life...


----------



## BrandiJo (May 24, 2005)

i said at conterception. To me its a child when its inside me as well as out side me so whats the difference of it its been born yet or if it has fingers and toes yet


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 25, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm posting this poll to see where the majority of answers lie along this spectrum. Alot of this question depends on how one sees "life" in relation to the choices given. Please explain what you believe "life" is in relation to this question and the choices given.
> 
> Thanks :asian:
> 
> upnorthkyosa


When does life begin or when does human life begin?  Biologically or politically? 

Biologically, human life begins at conception. Politically it begins when you become old enough to be thought about as a potential present or future voter, or there are at least enough people to care about you as an individual that they will vote to protect you. 

So, I guess in that sense, life begins at birth.  If fetuses could vote, there wouldn't be an abortion issue. That's why abortion IS an issue, women vote, fetuses don't. It's a simple math equation. Life begins when the voter says it begins.

Regards.


----------



## Bammx2 (May 25, 2005)

oowee.....

what a can o worms..............:erg:


----------



## Ender (May 25, 2005)

Life ends when brain waves cease. Therefore, life should begin when brain waves begin to eminate.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 25, 2005)

_
Life ends when brain waves cease. Therefore, life should begin when brain waves begin to eminate._

A bazillion bacteria, virii,and other primitive forms of 'life' would probably argue the point...if they had brainwaves to argue with


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2005)

I have the answer!!

"Life" begins with single-called prokaryotic organisms and their capacity for irritability and reproduction. Happy??  :supcool:

Oh, and for what its worth, a human infant doesn't even begin to distinguish between themselves and their physical environment until the first few months _after_ birth. And, as such, the moo-moo cow whose hammy goodness you had at McDonald's was more "alive" or "sentient" or "aware" than those vomit-spitting cuties.

Something to stew about, anyway.


----------



## Tgace (May 26, 2005)

Generally...

Liberals=For Abortion/Against Capitol Punishment
Conservatives=Against Abortion/For Capitol Punishment

I just thought it was odd where some people put their values...on each side I guess. Even though I guess I fall into group #2.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2005)

I realize that this has as much chance as a popcorn fart in a windstorm, but--unless there's some nutcase somewhere--NOBODY is in favor of abortion.

Some of us are in favor of a woman's right to choose for herself. Is different thing altogether.

And the Catholic Church, as well as a number of Protestant denominations, are pro life across the board--no violences, period.


----------



## raedyn (May 26, 2005)

To repeat robertson's good point:

I've never heard of someone that was FOR abortion. I am for a woman's right to choose and have control over her own body and everything within it. I'm for preventing unwanted pregnancies in the *first place*, which renders the question of abortion moot. This would include proper sexual education, easy & cheap access to birth control, improving economic situations - these are the things that have proven to reduce abortion rates: because they prevent the unwanted pregnanies before they ever happen.


----------



## Gemini (May 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> but--unless there's some nutcase somewhere--NOBODY is in favor of abortion.


Wow, Robert! With all due respect, though I am certainly no nutcase, I, for one, do have the right to make my own decision, as do you. Please feel free to NOT speak on my behalf.

Regards,


----------



## Tgace (May 26, 2005)

http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-05-03-2.html


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2005)

You're in FAVOR of abortion? How the hell does that work?

Sorry, but you're misreading, I think.


----------



## Tgace (May 26, 2005)

This argument for abortion, minus the egalitarian rhetoric, goes thus: "Abortion is acceptable because a woman has a right to choose what is right for her and her baby." This is all well and good, except that the key point-a fetus is not a person-is left unproved, and the "right to choose" is thrown into the argument to take its place. This argumentative red herring neatly switches the issue from "Is abortion murder?" to "Can a woman choose?". It is so effective that the former defendant is now the prosecutor, pillorying the extremists for their reprehensible attack on women's rights.


----------



## Gemini (May 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> You're in FAVOR of abortion? How the hell does that work?
> 
> Sorry, but you're misreading, I think.


No. My response didn't even address the issue. I'm against sweeping generalizations. It basically DARED someone to say otherwise. That makes me nervous. Sorry if I went off topic. And if I misunderstood, I apologize for shooting from the hip.


----------



## elder999 (May 26, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm posting this poll to see where the majority of answers lie along this spectrum. Alot of this question depends on how one sees "life" in relation to the choices given. Please explain what you believe "life" is in relation to this question and the choices given.
> 
> Thanks :asian:
> 
> upnorthkyosa


Now that the kids are out of the house, I can honestly say that _life begins after 40._....hehehe...

In all seriousness, how should what *I* _believe_-'cause nobody can say with any certainty, and you left out the whole "ensouling" option, which would make life begin _before_ conception-make any difference to anyone else?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2005)

Uh...no, nobody's arguing for abortion. People are arguing for, "a woman's right to choose," and against having a right-wing, conservative Christian administration such as the one we've got right now tell women, their doctors, their ministers if any, and their families, what they should do about such matters. Or if you prefer, they're arguing against having some group of lefties and liberals start making these decisions for women either. In other words, it's strictly a MYOB decision--none of your business, butt out.

Moreover, you cannot supply evidence that substantiates the claim that human life begins with conception, or indeed with the first trimester. You cannot supply evidence that it doesn't. This is by definition a religious and philosophical decision, which is why Roe v. Wade assures a right to privacy about such decisions.

I could also note that for most of Western history aboration has been legal, and that the Catholic Church's own position is a fairly-recent development, but it won't do any good. But certainly, the claim that the original question was, "Is abortion murder?" simply isn't supportable--it's just propaganda.


----------



## Ender (May 26, 2005)

Most of the time an abortion is last resort option of irresponsibilty. 
The right to choose? Lets's see:

First of all, a woman CHOOSES have sex.

She CHOOSES under what condition she will have sex in, sober, drunk, high...

Then she CHOOSES who to have sex with, husband, boyfriend, one night stand, etc.

Then she CHOOSES whether or not to use birth control.

Then she has the CHOICE of which birth control to use.

Then she can CHOOSE when to have sex in relation to her cycle, whether she is in her fertile stage or not. 

And don't even get started with the rape/incest angle because that only occurs in .01% of abortions. So it really has no relevance.

The point is, after all the choices a woman makes, an abortion is usually a last resort. I, personaly don't care one way or another if a woman has an abortion or not. But I don't believe the government should be involved. the government should not pay/promote or perform abortions. As with the second admendment, I have the right to buy a gun, doesn't mean the government should buy me one. Also, hospitals and doctors should have the CHOICE of whether or not to perform abortions.


----------



## Tgace (May 26, 2005)

The "pro-choice" argument dodges the issue, but it brings up an even graver issue. Pro-choiceism, if carried to its logical conclusion, means pro-moral anarchy: there are no ethical constraints except the choice of the individual. But this brings up an important question. If all this is indeed true, why in the world are our friends such tenacious supporters of women's "rights"?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The "pro-choice" argument dodges the issue, but it brings up an even graver issue. Pro-choiceism, if carried to its logical conclusion, means pro-moral anarchy: there are no ethical constraints except the choice of the individual. But this brings up an important question. If all this is indeed true, why in the world are our friends such tenacious supporters of women's "rights"?


Let me get this straight. Endorsing the idea that, well, people should be left to make moral choices on their own, leads directly to anarchy. Instead, I guess we should deny people the ability to make moral determinations? The hell? 

To clarify for you, pro-choice doesn't mean let anyone do whatever they want. It means that, in the context of abortion, THAT choice in particular is up to the individual. Not all moral choices, but some, abortion being one of them. This doesn't at all conflict with women's rights (how you can say that pro-choice conflicts with women's rights I really have no idea.)


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2005)

No, it really doesn't. There remain minor things like the woman's education, family, community and doctor, unless of course you assume that she has none of these things. There also happens to be the fact that we permit "moral anarchy," on all sorts of issues--allowing people to buy SUVs and to waste as much power as they want comes to mind--yet somehow, let women want to right to decide about having kids, and WHOMP! it's a problem.

Our tax dollars at work pay for all sorts of things of which I disapprove--tobacco subsidies, lunatic weapons, the Ronald Reagan Library--and, I am afraid, others will just have to live with the fact that their tax dollars also do the same. 

And in both cases, it never fails to amaze me that the espousal of libertarian values suddenly stops dead when it comes to women. Apparently reproductive rights are somehow linked to men's sense of power and control.

"Safe, legal, and rare," gentlemen. It's a good goal.


----------



## shesulsa (May 26, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> Most of the time an abortion is last resort option of irresponsibilty.





			
				Ender said:
			
		

> And don't even get started with the rape/incest angle because that only occurs in .01% of abortions. So it really has no relevance.


 Although the summation of your post seemed to be pro-choice, I take issue with the above comments - actually many of your points about choice.

 In general, I'd like to say that your points are indicative of educated, sexually aware and repeatedly active females and do not account for the MANY abortions sought after by under-age, inexperienced and uneducated girls. And as for your insulting comment on rape and incest, perhaps you need to research some data on just how few rapes and incest are actually even reported, and the small percentage that are successfully prosecuted.

  The arguments you posted are idealistic at best.


----------



## Tgace (May 26, 2005)

I find it interesting that in capitol punishment we are to "err on the side of life" but in abortion its "we cant determine when life starts so have at it..."


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2005)

...actually, the point would be, "when it comes to decisions like abortion, we have no scientific basis, so we really should leave the matter up to the conscience, the doctor, the minister and the families of the woman directly involved."

What I find interesting is that whenever these discussions come up, we get a pretty quick look at the political unconscious of those who oppose choice for women: abortion links to capital punishment, to, "moral anarchy," and the disappearance of all values, to the idea of women, "sober, drunk, high," jumping into sex in and out of marriage, to making up stories about rape and incest, to guns and too-high taxes, to self-defensiveness on the part of men faced with the withering assaults of feminists...

It's an interesting map of the intellectual territory, that's for sure.


----------



## arnisador (May 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> You're in FAVOR of abortion? How the hell does that work?


 Yeah. that's weird. It's like being in favor of appendectomy. You'd only favor it when it was appropriate, right?


----------



## arnisador (May 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> This argument for abortion, minus the egalitarian rhetoric, goes thus: "Abortion is acceptable because a woman has a right to choose what is right for her and her baby."


 I would say, "...and her _body_" instead.

 Professional bioethicists, lawyers, women's studies professors, etc., have all debated this into the ground, with no resolution. We won't settle it here!


----------



## arnisador (May 26, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> She CHOOSES under what condition she will have sex in, sober, drunk, high...


 Well, if she's sufficiently drunk, it wouldn't be considered her choice any longer, right? It'd be rape?

 I wonder if anyone would apply your argument to someone who Xtreme skateboards off the edge of a building and onto a freeway and gets hit by a truck. You'd pay for his health care, even though it was a risky choice, right?


----------



## Tgace (May 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Yeah. that's weird. It's like being in favor of appendectomy. You'd only favor it when it was appropriate, right?


Well, when an appendix becomes the equivalent (over any length of time) of human life Ill buy that comparison...


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2005)

...and when men grow a uterus, I'll start to concede their rights to control them.


----------



## arnisador (May 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well, when an appendix becomes the equivalent (over any length of time) of human life Ill buy that comparison...


 The point is, one doesn't favor or disfavor a surgery in the abstract. Most people would accept abortion when the life of the mother is at stake, for example...very few people oppose the surgery, but rather they disagree on the circumstances in which it is appropriate.


----------



## arnisador (May 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ...and when men grow a uterus, I'll start to concede their rights to control them.


  It's 2005. Be careful what you wish for!


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2005)

> Originally Posted by rmcrobertson
> ...and when men grow a uterus, I'll start to concede their rights to control them.



We all await your approval on many issues.....


----------



## Kane (May 27, 2005)

Life may start at conception in some ways, but the fetus does not become uniquely human until between 1-3 months. I believe before then it is okay for a woman to get an abortion for important reasons (such as rape, incest, ect.) but after 3 months it becomes almost like murdering a human.

 If a woman hasn't decided by 3 months that she wants an abortion (for a good reason), then she has no right to end the life of the baby that has become uniquely human.


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Life may start at conception in some ways, but the fetus does not become uniquely human until between 1-3 months. I believe before then it is okay for a woman to get an abortion for important reasons (such as rape, incest, ect.) but after 3 months it becomes almost like murdering a human.
> 
> If a woman hasn't decided by 3 months that she wants an abortion (for a good reason), then she has no right to end the life of the baby that has become uniquely human.


Thats "pretty much" where I stand. I voted for the first trimester too....


----------



## BruceCalkins (May 27, 2005)

I guess the Best Answer is "All of the Above.." Many believe that Life means Awareness.. So is that AfterBirth... But If You Play Music to a Baby in the Mom it reacts.... Is that Awareness..... Again I say..

":idunno: All Of The Above"


----------



## Kane (May 27, 2005)

So yes that makes me against partial birth abortion I guess, because once the fetus becomes human the sanctity of human life must be upheld. This is coming from non-christian agnostic deist. So no, rcmcrobertson attempts to make out that catholics are creating propaganda to push their political agenda, that is nonsense. In fact Rmcrobertson is really starting to sounds a lot like a Micheal Savage gone liberal (who probably thinks conservatism is a mental disorder, like savage who thinks liberalism is a mental disorder).


----------



## Kane (May 27, 2005)

No offense Rmcrobertson, but it is so painfully obvious.


----------



## Gemini (May 27, 2005)

Well, I usually prefer to think things through before I answer, and this thread was no exception. After all, it's hardly the first time the issue has been raised. Though I'd like to think I keep an open mind and truly listen to other people's opinions, I'll rarely change my mind. As most I think.

This thread has proven to be one of those exceptions. I originally put "At birth" because my response was "when a child becomes aware". Without going into great detail, this thread forced me to acknowledge I was clearly wrong. And I didn't even have to look past my own personal experience to see it. See? It's amazing what happens when you open your eyes. Maybe I should try it more often. 

I want to commend you all on your ability to take such a sensative topic and keep it as civil as you have. I guess that's why I lke being here so much.

Regards,


----------



## Ray (May 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ...actually, the point would be, "when it comes to decisions like abortion, we have no scientific basis, so we really should leave the matter up to the conscience, the doctor, the minister and the families of the woman directly involved."


Society sets the guidelines as to who and when makes the decisions to terminate lives (capital punishment has one set of criteria, abortion has another set of rules, etc).  It doesn't necessarily depend on "scientific basis" although it may be a factor in the rules set by society.

As others have said The question of "when life begins" needs definition before answering, but the reason for asking the question probably has a bearing on the answer to be given.


----------



## evenflow1121 (May 27, 2005)

In an ideal world I would say that life begins at conception, but we dont live in an ideal world. And I certainly  would not want that sort of theory when there are rapes, incestous rapes, and other horrors going around. For example, I would not want to live in a society where a 13 yr old girl is raped by her father and we have a type of law stating that life begins at conception. We dont live in a perfect world that is why these issues are so hard, but we also have to protect the victims, that is why imo life can only begin at birth.


----------



## evenflow1121 (May 27, 2005)

Oh and btw Roe v Wade is no longer good law the case you should be citing to is Planned Parent Hood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, I believe.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2005)

I see that some of us get cranky when outquipped, and that some of us aren't very good at comparasions--note to Kane: "painfully obvious," and, "probably," are probably best avoided in arguments, because they make it painfully obvious that you're probably reaching too far for a comparasion you can't sustain.

I also see that--surprise, surprise, surprise--much of this boils to men telling women what to do with their bodies, and arguing with each other over the details.

Incidentally--not that reality will bother--historically speaking, the fetus was apparently not considered viable until it began to, "quicken," to kick, that is, in a way that could be felt, somewhere around 6-7 months gestational age.

Most of the fussbudgeting is modern, and appeared--surprise, surprise!--about the time that a) capitalism needed more bodies, b) decent contraception began to be available, c) women began to be, 'a problem.'

This isn't about a fetus; it's about the Preservation of the Almighty Sperm. This isn't about trimesters; it's about men's control of women. So let's ask the REAL question--why don't you trust women to think the matter through, and make the right decision for themselves?


----------



## Ray (May 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So let's ask the REAL question--why don't you trust women to think the matter through, and make the right decision for themselves?


I'm curious, if a woman disagreed with your view and thought that abortion should be illegal would you think that she had made the right decision?


----------



## shesulsa (May 27, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I'm curious, if a woman disagreed with your view and thought that abortion should be illegal would you think that she had made the right decision?


 I know you were asking Robert, but ... my answer would be that she clearly made the right decision for her.  And I wouldn't dream of forcing her to have an abortion - any more than I would want her guarding my vagina with a machine gun.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2005)

I agree with the last poster, though I might emphasize that I specifically noted the decision was to be made for oneself.

And I see that the question I asked gets no answer; let me restate it: why shouldn't each and every woman be trusted to make this decision for herself, without men's dictation?


----------



## raedyn (May 27, 2005)

See, for me, I think it's important to consider the life of the pregnant woman. To me, it takes priority over the potential life of the potential child. A mother-to-be has to sacrifice a lot in order to give the fetus growing inside of her the best chance at life once it's born. If the pregnant woman isn't committed to giving the growing life inside of her all the best chances, she can do things to screw the kid up before it's ever born - even if she ends up not keeping the child once it's born.

Of the people here saying abortion should only be done if the woman was raped how many of you have ever been pregnant? How many of have given birth? If you haven't, then you can't comprehend how completely being pregnant takes over your life and your body. It affects your ability to move, to think, to breathe. It changes what foods you can eat, how much sleep you need, what work you are able to do, how much energy you have, how you poop even! People on the street treat you differently, look at you differently. Your body changes *permanently*. 

Being pregnent for some women can mean they
 - lose their jobs
 - suffer additional physical abuse from a partner or parent
 - develop debilitating allergies
 - suffer daily migraines for nearly 10 months
 - vomit mutiple times daily for up to 10 months
It's different for every woman of course. But some women who are pregnant then suffer each of these consequences.

More women die from pregnancy & childbirth complications than from abortion-related complications. Both by number and percentage. Pregnancy is more dangeous for the woman than abortion is.

I care about the life growing inside the woman. I have been pregnant, I have given birth. I remeber the excitement of feeling those early movements. And of hearing my daughters heart beating. But the fact remains that for the first 26ish weeks of my pregnacy, if our daughter had left my body she would have died. Even with all our amazing technology, she could not survive outside my body. So she was entirely dependant on me and I had to give up a huge part of my self and my own identity to give her a place to grow and develop into her own person.

It was okay that my entire life and body was taken over by this parasite because I decided to joyfully embrace the coming life. But if I didn't want her, I could not have taken good care of myself and of her. I would have become depressed, possibly suicidal. I would have wrecked both her life and mine. How is THAT the right choice?


----------



## raedyn (May 27, 2005)

I'm also pretty bothered by the concept of a "good enough" reason to have an abortion.

A woman does not have to justify her reasons for having an abortion - or for not having one. It's her choice to make. It's her business why, not anyone else's.

Compare to another health crisis. Say you were diagnosed with cancer. You would have a range of options from ignoring the cancer and letting nature take its course right through to agressive surgery and chemotherapy and radiation. The patient is the one who gets to make the choice. Sure, they consult their doctor for advice, and ask what their family thinks. But in the end, it's the patient who must live through the consequences of their choice, and it's the patient who gets to make the choice. No one asks a cancer patient to justify themselves. It a very difficult and personal desicion that will change their life forever. And it's their choice to make, none of your business why.


----------



## evenflow1121 (May 27, 2005)

I respectfully disagree, in my opinion it is not always a woman's right to choose.  I believe it is a woman's right to choose if the woman was raped, if her partner has abandoned her, or some other tragic incident.  If the father wants the baby and the sex was consentual I no longer see it that way, as it does take two to tango.


----------



## Ray (May 27, 2005)

I'd like to know if the question of defining "when life begins" only has meaning when applied to the debate on abortion?  When first reading the question, abortion didn't even come to my mind.  Several posts have been about abortion.

Why, in relation to abortion law, does it matter when life begins?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2005)

But why can't you trust women to think all that through, and make a wise choice?


----------



## Ray (May 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But why can't you trust women to think all that through, and make a wise choice?


Who says I can't?  And what do you think about my previous question?

Thanks.


----------



## arnisador (May 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> historically speaking, the fetus was apparently not considered viable until it began to, "quicken," to kick, that is, in a way that could be felt


 This is my understanding of the Western tradition.



> Most of the fussbudgeting is modern, and appeared--surprise, surprise!--about the time that a) capitalism needed more bodies


 I remember watching in horror one day as a woman giving a speech to a group of senior citizens, broadcast on C-SPAN, explained that they should all oppose abortion because if they didn't, who would pay for their social security? She proceeded with a detailed economic argument--this many abortions, this much salary lost per aborted fetus per year, what percentage would go into FICA payments, how that would translate into cash in their monthly checks...I was stunned to see it laid out so baldly. 



> about the time that [...] women began to be, 'a problem.'


 Make your own joke here.



> why don't you trust women to think the matter through, and make the right decision for themselves?


 I agree, but in fairness, if one believes it's alife, it's the father's child as well. But, I see no way to resolve that--it's the woman's body. That idea must rule when all is said and done, to my mind.


----------



## arnisador (May 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But why can't you trust women to think all that through, and make a wise choice?


 People make bad choices all the time. This argument doesn't impress me. Letting her make her _own_ choice, though...that I agree with. I see the argument that it's the father's potential child also and he should have a say, and in a world of ideal biology that could be so. As is--and here *raedyn* makes a very good point about both the temporary and _permanent_ effects of pregnancy (a point with which my wife would surely agree)--it's happening in and to the woman's body, and so her health and life are what's affected. It has to be her choice.

 Certainly, the doctrine of being able to control one's own fate has long been applied to men, hasn't it?


----------



## heretic888 (May 27, 2005)

Perhaps "life" isn't the best term to be tossing around here...

"Life", per se, begins with single-celled organisms capable of reacting with external stimuli and reproducing themselves in some fashion or another. As such, we destroy "life" all the time and make no big hubbub about it. Nor should we, since we're talking about organisms that have less sentience than an amoeba.

It seems to me, rather, that people are tossing around ideas like "humanity" or "sentience" or "consciousness". That's a whole 'nudder thing from "life".

So, really, what is it we're actually debating about here, guys??  :idunno:


----------



## Kane (May 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> This isn't about a fetus; it's about the Preservation of the Almighty Sperm. This isn't about trimesters; it's about men's control of women. So let's ask the REAL question--why don't you trust women to think the matter through, and make the right decision for themselves?


 Do you think all men would make the right decision of they were put in the same position as women are in? Some would, some wouldn't. It isn't about controlling a woman, that is the biggest radical liberal argument I have heard. No man today wants to "reclaim" control of women or whatever. Before you ask whether people who are against partial birth abortion think that women can't make the decision, ask yourself this: Are you not being sexist by assuming men are purposely trying to be oppressive? Are you calling people like me who think abortion after a trimester becomes murder to a human life are oppressive. Why do you cont. to use that old argument from the early 20th century that "men are trying to oppress women and think they can't make the right choice". 

 Also, if this were all about men to gain control over women then why so many women in America are opposed to abortion? Are they asking men to oppress them? I mean if every single woman in America were pro-choice, do you really think abortion would be a big deal? It would most likely be legal. I know so many women who are against abortion, my mother is a perfect example.


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2005)

I was just thinking about how nice and convienent my life would be if I could eliminate every person (pre or post birth) that inconvienced me in any way....


----------



## shesulsa (May 27, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I was just thinking about how nice and convienent my life would be if I could eliminate every person (pre or post birth) that inconvienced me in any way....


 Would it Tom?  I'm sure your parents inconvenienced you in MANY ways - expecially growing up. Would eliminating them have been 'convenient'?  You're an LEO - have you ever had to elminate a perp who you felt sorry for?

 I'm sick and tired of the assumption by various persons that most women who get abortions think "it is no more than having a mole removed."  Don those moccasins and walk that mile. And if it's a physical impossibility for the person then shut up.

 ... and I still think that if we're going to protect life then male masturbation must be outlawed.  Sperm must be preserved - they move, they are alive and there are exponentially more sperm that die unnecessarily than human zygotes, embryos and fetuses.  ELIMINATE NONOXYNOL-9!!!!!:mp5:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2005)

1. It matters in abortion law because of what I already mentioned: continuing the tradition of permitting unrestricted abortion up to the point that the embryo becomes a living creature. It also matters because of the Supreme Court (whose Chief Justice was Republican-appointed, incidentally) compromise  on deciding the legality of abortion in terms of trimesters: first tri, definitely not really a human life, no restrictions; second tri, maybe/maybe not, some restrictions, third tri probably, more restrictions.

2. OK, women make bad choices too. Gee, you think? This has nothing to do with legality or Constitutionality--neither the law nor the Constitution guarantees you will exercise your freedom wisely, they JUST SAY THAT YOU HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE FOR YOURSELF, particularly about things that boil down to religious and moral ideas and decisions. It's the derndest thing--men must be free to own guns, run their companies irresponsibly, rip up the countryside, etc., all that's a person's rights--but boy, let some woman use a "morning after," pill or consider terminating a pregnancy, and oh my GOD, we can't let these decisions be made by mere individuals. Looks to me like PEOPLE'S (i.e. men's) rights are involable, but on the other hand, WOMEN gotta be watched.

And yes, I just said that the ideological structure employed by some is that men are people, and women are not. Le deuxieme sexe, dontcha know.

3. Kane. a) Nice try on the old, "Women's rights means the oppression of men," spiel. Sorry, no cigar...though of course in this case, a cigar is not just a cigar. b) I'd probably say something about the internalization of patriarchal ideology on the part of women, but wotthehell. c) The point, ace, is that women are free to MAKE THEIR OWN DAMN CHOICES, not to," choose abortion," (which you fantasize is what I demand), or to, "choose life," (which is what you demand). d) I'm not even gonna try and disentangle the ideological spaghetti in those last couple of sentences.

The point is--women choose, each and every one. Men shut up and support their choices as best they can, starting with butting out of them if they're not wanted. Why do you want to go snooping into other people's lives this way?

d) That's funny. I was just thinking how much more convenient MY life would be if everybody were forced by government, law, cops and churches to think and behave exactly as I want them to.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2005)

Or-


Every Sperm is Sacred



From: The Meaning Of Life
by the Monty Python Team

There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood!

Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine! And mine! And mine!

Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaate!


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2005)

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/bioethics/beckwith_2001-11-19.htm



> Thus, the Court actually did take sides on when life begins. It concluded that the fetus is not a human person, for the procedure permitted in _Roe_, abortion, is something that the Court itself admits it would not have ruled a fundamental right if it were shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the fetus is a human person: "If the suggestion of personhood [of the unborn] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth Amendment]."7
> 
> But this conditional concession cuts both ways. For if, as Blackmun admits, the right to abortion is contingent upon the status of the fetus, then the allegedly disputed fact about life's beginning means that the right to abortion is disputed as well. For a conclusion's support--in this case, "abortion is a fundamental right"-- is only as good as the truth of its most important premise--in this case, "the fetus is not a human person." So, the Court's admission that abortion-rights is based on a widely disputed fact, far from establishing a right to abortion, entails that it, not only does not know when life begins, but it does not know when, if ever, the right to abortion begins.8


My only "beef" with the topic is that the whole issue of if the unborn are "people" is conveniently ignored, because its such a difficult one. So it turns into a debate over "convince", or who controls what/who. Of course taking the stance of being concerned for human life, or at least wanting to discuss when a person is a person turns into "you are just a man trying to control me" (ignoring pro-life women or turning them into men repressed pawns).


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2005)

If a man punches a full term woman in the stomach and kills the "fetus" is it homicide or assault?

http://www.courttv.com/news/2003/0326/fetalhomicide_ctv.html
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2005)

1. Good try at distraction--bringing up men's violence against women, as a way of trying to divert the discussion from the question of why men should be telling women what to do all the time.

2. Nobody tried to drop the whole "personhood," issue, though it's largely bogus. (See Barbara Johnson, "Apostrophe, Animation and Abortion") Some of us tried to point out that such issues are best decided by individuals, not by outsiders, by liberals, not by left-wingers, not by the State, and not by right-wing religious fanatics. 

3. So it doesn't bother some of you folks that essentially you are arguing for the same approaches to women's independence and self-determination that characterized the Taliban?


----------



## Kane (May 27, 2005)

Sure Rmcrobertson. You sound so much like a radical liberal.. You keep going back to your stale arguments. You think every non-liberal man is a oppressive  man that wants to "put women in their place" and what not.

 You have a particular obsession in proving that Christians, catholics in particular, are evil oppressive monsters. You whine and complain that the catholic church is trying to take over the government. Well if that were the case I guess people like me who are not catholic should be very afraid. Considering I am not white either, I should fear the oppression of the white man as well.

 By the way, do you think only men are the ones who are against abortion and arguing against it? If you think this you really know little.

 No offense or anything, but you need to come up with better arguments than men are trying to oppress women who are against partial birth abortion. I dare you to find an article by a man who is against partial birth abortion that says he is against partial birth abortion because he wants to oppress women.


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2005)

The typical "easy explanation" answer. Its easier to blame a differing opinion on "catch phrase" explanations then it is to confront the complexities of peoples varying reasons for their stance. Hmmm..much like many persons rejection of the simple "war on terrorism" rationale for various government actions...whats good for the goose....


----------



## arnisador (May 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. OK, women make bad choices too. Gee, you think? This has nothing to do with legality or Constitutionality--neither the law nor the Constitution guarantees you will exercise your freedom wisely


 Don't try to hold me responsible for your point. You are the one who said they would choose _wisely_.

 But, the Monty Python song is very much on point!


----------



## Ray (May 27, 2005)

But anyway, you believe that life begins when the court says so?  or you belief that it begins when science says so?  Do you have a well thought out opinion of your own?

And really, does the question of "when life begins" only matter when we're talking about abortion?

So far it seems too.  Why?  Probably because we can define a fetus as not "human life" and it's easier to stomach abortion?  I don't think it matters when life begins in the abortion debate since society can decide what is do-able and what isn't.  courts have decided that tomatoes are legally vegetables, while science says they're fruits.

I'm more interested in when life begins.  Any ideas?


----------



## arnisador (May 27, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> And really, does the question of "when life begins" only matter when we're talking about abortion?


  Well, the answer only seems to matter then.

 I don't think it's a scientific question. It's a philosophical question, and that question really is: What should the word 'life' mean? We're haggling over a definition, not a line that a potential human crosses.

 When does life begin when an amoeba is splitting into two?

  The problem is reverse engineering the definition to fit our preconceived notions of when abortion should be acceptable.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 28, 2005)

1. My comment about nothing in the law guaranteeing a WISE choice was there because of at least two posts saying that women might make an unwise choice so therefore we needed to have laws telling them what to do. And what I actually wrote before that was a question: why don't men trust women to make a wise decision? Should I try balloon animals? 

2. I may be a radical liberal (come again?), but at least I don't keep trying to shift the subject and raise the ante--partial birth abortions, my foot. 

3. I'd ask for some sort of vague evidence that I wrote (or intended) anything resembling a claim, "that Catholics are trying to take over the government," but hell, why pollute the weird comment stream with reality?

4. Similarly, nobody I know rejected the, "simple war on terrorism," (and they say I can't stick to the topic...), or anything vaguely resembling that. It's just that some of us object to being repeatedly lied to, and watching lives get thrown away to no purpose. Sorry; we're funny about that stuff, we immoral rad-libs. 

5. It certainly is a moral and philosophical issue. That's why we let the people most immediately affected make the decision. And by the bye--please explain how, if men tell women that they must have a child whether or not they want to, this is NOT an example of men controlling women. Can't wait to read the logic behind that one.

6. So how many of you guys are rushing out there to do something about either, a) the millions of babies who die every year because of diarrhea, which could be easily fixed; b) the fact that a very high percentage of pregnancies spontaneously abort before the woman even knows she's pregnant?

Disapprove of abortion? Good for you; don't have one. That's your right, and it should be.


----------



## Kane (May 28, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. My comment about nothing in the law guaranteeing a WISE choice was there because of at least two posts saying that women might make an unwise choice so therefore we needed to have laws telling them what to do. And what I actually wrote before that was a question: why don't men trust women to make a wise decision? Should I try balloon animals?
> 
> 2. I may be a radical liberal (come again?), but at least I don't keep trying to shift the subject and raise the ante--partial birth abortions, my foot.
> 
> ...


 It isn't a case of whether man trusts women to make the wise decision. It has nothing to do with gender or telling the other gender what to do. Where do you come up with this stuff? I am curious to know. Don't you know that there are a lot of women that feel the same about life or abortion? So I guess women are controlling women now.

 It is not a case of controlling the other gender for the last time. It is about whether or not you think murdering human life, whether it be a fetus  above 3 months or a born baby. Many Americans, both men and women, think that it is. If men were the ones who produced the children, it would be no different.


----------



## Kane (May 28, 2005)

A fetus becomes uniquely human at 3 months. At the first month  it said that the embryo can be anything from chimpanzee to a turtle to the untrained eye. When about 2 or 3 months hits, it becomes basically human. Is it not almost like murder to a human life when you kill a baby this old in the womb?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 28, 2005)

Nonsense. By that sort of logic, a Tiny Tears doll is, "uniquely human," because it looks like one; my skin cells are, "uniquely human," because they have human DNA; somebody who's be dead for a day is, "uniquely human," because of their shape and their DNA.

The point is exactly what you said it was: whether or not abortion kills a baby. You think it does; that's your right. I think it doesn't; that's mine.

Neither of us gets to make this philosophical and possibly religious decision for a woman, or for anybody else but ourselves. 

Why do you INSIST that you have a right to make this decision for others? really: skip the guff, and just explain why you think that you're capable of telling everybody else what to do?

By the way, what's your position on contraception and "morning after," pills? Let me guess--every sperm is sacred, right?


----------



## Tgace (May 28, 2005)

I find the poll results interesting. It would be interesting to how that belief corresponds with their abortion stance...


----------



## Kane (May 28, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Nonsense. By that sort of logic, a Tiny Tears doll is, "uniquely human," because it looks like one; my skin cells are, "uniquely human," because they have human DNA; somebody who's be dead for a day is, "uniquely human," because of their shape and their DNA.
> 
> The point is exactly what you said it was: whether or not abortion kills a baby. You think it does; that's your right. I think it doesn't; that's mine.
> 
> ...


 That logic makes no sense. So should we make murder legal too? Some people might think murder is wrong, but that it their opinion. Why should we deny the rights to those who think murder is right? Do you not see that the logic of "opinion" can only go so far. If society was just run on opinions of other people then there would be no rules. Some sick child molesters think raping little kids is alright. Why should we deny them their right to rape little kids? That logic is so flawed.

 Heck why don't we make drinking and driving legal? Certianly some people think it is wrong since it risks the lives of other people, but that its their opinion. Some people think it is no risk, therefore drunk dirving should be legal.

 Does that not sound similar to your logic?


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 28, 2005)

I realize that this might put some of us in the non life form category but 

How about life  begins when a being  is able make conscience thought


----------



## Tgace (May 28, 2005)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> I realize that this might put some of us in the non life form category but
> 
> How about life begins when a being is able make conscience thought


Well since some scientists say that doesn't happen until sometime after birth, that would justify infanticide. Want to allow that? What about patients that are unconscious?


----------



## Tgace (May 28, 2005)

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/bioethics/beckwith_2001-11-19.htm



> Although functional definitions of personhood may tell us some conditions that are sufficient to say that a being is a person, they are not adequate in revealing to us all the conditions that are sufficient for a particular being to be called a person. For example, when a human being is asleep, unconscious, and temporarily comatose, she is not functioning as a person as defined by some personhood criteria. Nevertheless, most people would reject the notion that a human being is not a person while in any of these states. In other words, while personhood criteria, such as the ones presented by Warren can tell us that a being is a person, these criteria are not adequate to declare a being a non-person: The exercise of rational thought tells us that a being is a person; when that person is sleeping, and thus is not exercising rational thought, that lack of exercise of the thought function does not make her a non-person at that time. Consequently, it seems more consistent with our moral intuitions to say that personhood is not something that arises when certain functions are in place, but rather is something that grounds these functions, whether or not they are ever actualized in the life of a human being. Thus, defining personhood strictly in terms of function is inadequate.


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 28, 2005)

As I said that might also put some of us in the non liveing area.

OK how about till the brain funtions
a non brain funtioning person is considered dead (by medical standards)


----------



## Tgace (May 28, 2005)

Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 28, 2005)

I may have missed it, but I was waiting for robertson, or someone, to explain at what point does a woman NOT have the right to murder her child? At conception, at 6 months, at birth, at 10 years? I keep hearing "Choice" and "I just support women's rights". At what point does a woman's rights end, and a child's rights begin? 

I still maintain it's an issue of political power. Women have more political power than fetus'. At various times in our history infanticide were considered reasonable population control methods. The Roman's had their Pater Familias, who had absolute control over his family. Are were to presume that the list of "property" owned by humans has been reduced to women owning their fetus? 

Actually, I don't have a horse in this race, however, I am interested to see the response.  I am neither for or against abortions (or abortion rights, as the semantical minded prefer).


----------



## Flatlander (May 29, 2005)

Somehow, this discussion has turned into an abortion issue, and I'm not certain as to whether or not that was the original intent.  If upnorth could help clarify that, I'd be appreciative.  I do understand that, for all intents and purposes, the question of where life begins is really only relevant in that context.  In that spirit, I will offer my answer to Sgt. Mac regarding when a woman "no longer has the right". 

  I would suggest that, when a fetus is viable outside the womb, it should be allowed the opportunity to live under whatever circumstances it can be afforded.  If the woman's body is no longer a necessary component in the life of the fetus, then the woman no longer has claim to all decisions regarding its perpetuation.  To me, that seems reasonable.  The caveat here being that, as a man, I have never been a woman, never experienced the issue, and may be missing some important contextual knowledge.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2005)

1. Please cite an instance in which in would be OK by you to have the State step in and make decisions of comparable importance about their health and their testicles for men.

2. If you write something such as, "when does a woman's right to murder her child end," you're pretty much saying that any and all abortion is murder. It's not a real question, but a rhetorical one.

3. Incidentally, the way you guys are arguing would outlaw not only any and all abortion, but any and all contraception.

4. Since all ya got to support your claims are religious and philosophical arguments unsupported by science (a 1982 textbook? c'mahn...and by the way, "brain waves," don't tell you jack...MICE have "brain waves" what'll it be next--"The Silent Scream," hokum?), gee, maybe, just maybe, this is a religious and philosophical issue in which the State has no business.

5. In the current political climate, the people pushing hardest to deny women their rights to reproduction just happen to be--surprise, surprise, surprise!--right-wing religious wackos and right-wing politicans like Henry Hyde. Congrats on your allies.

6. I happen to think that these decisions ought to be left to the women directly involved, who can be trusted at least as much as Bible-thumping preachers, right-wing politicians, clinic bombers, assassins of doctors, and the rest of the panoply of Taliban who panic at the very thought of a world in which women make their own choices, just like human beings do.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

So Dan, would you say that if a man kicked his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach while she was in labor and killed the baby, its only a case of assault against the mother?

How "far out" of the uterus does the baby have to be to be protected? Water breaking, dialation, crowning, head out, body out, cord cut...when? Where is that "magic point" where we place value on human life? More and more babies are being born premature and surviving. Its apparent that as a separate life they can survive (albeit with signifigant medical aid) far before a full term birth.


----------



## Flatlander (May 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Its apparent that as a separate life they can survive (albeit with signifigant medical aid) far before a full term birth.


Sorry Tom, I think you misunderstood me.  That's what I was speaking to when I said "viable outside the womb".  I meant "at the point where the fetus no longer _requires_ the womb to stay alive".  I think you'll find we are in perfect agreement.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

OK..yeah we are. It seemed like an "after birth" argument to me at first. There is obviously a point sometime before birth that the "fetus" is as much a "baby" inside as it is outside....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Somehow, this discussion has turned into an abortion issue, and I'm not certain as to whether or not that was the original intent. If upnorth could help clarify that, I'd be appreciative. I do understand that, for all intents and purposes, the question of where life begins is really only relevant in that context. In that spirit, I will offer my answer to Sgt. Mac regarding when a woman "no longer has the right".
> 
> I would suggest that, when a fetus is viable outside the womb, it should be allowed the opportunity to live under whatever circumstances it can be afforded. If the woman's body is no longer a necessary component in the life of the fetus, then the woman no longer has claim to all decisions regarding its perpetuation. To me, that seems reasonable. The caveat here being that, as a man, I have never been a woman, never experienced the issue, and may be missing some important contextual knowledge.


Good answer.  Though, I must reject the argument that because you are not a woman, you can't answer this moral question.  I've never been a dictator or lived under one, but I don't have to in order to make a moral decision about dictators.  Good answer on the viability question, although I would propose this counter:  A child is reliant upon his mother for several years, and cannot live without assistance from it's mother or a surrogate, does that mean the child has less rights than the caregiver?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Please cite an instance in which in would be OK by you to have the State step in and make decisions of comparable importance about their health and their testicles for men.


 Like what, for instance? Lets hear an example, and i'll deal with it.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. If you write something such as, "when does a woman's right to murder her child end," you're pretty much saying that any and all abortion is murder. It's not a real question, but a rhetorical one.


 I knew that would get your goat, robertson. The more pointed question is "at what point does it become murder?"



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. Incidentally, the way you guys are arguing would outlaw not only any and all abortion, but any and all contraception.


No it wouldn't. Sperm and Ova are not human life, that argument is asinine in the extreme. The fact is, in this argument we can set the definite boundary of what is NOT human life at sperm and ova, and the boundary of what definitely IS human life at a live birth child.  Now, there is considerable gray area in between.  Lets here an argument about that, not some absurdity about sperm and ova.  I'm not arguing anything, merely asking questions at any rate. Sorry asking at what point it comes murder is a difficult question, but it seemed of relavent.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 4. Since all ya got to support your claims are religious and philosophical arguments unsupported by science (a 1982 textbook? c'mahn...and by the way, "brain waves," don't tell you jack...MICE have "brain waves" what'll it be next--"The Silent Scream," hokum?), gee, maybe, just maybe, this is a religious and philosophical issue in which the State has no business.


 Really, and what scietific evidence have you presented? Do you have some scientific evidence to show at what point human life begins? Or is this another one of those famous sidesteps to avoid even discussing it?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 5. In the current political climate, the people pushing hardest to deny women their rights to reproduction just happen to be--surprise, surprise, surprise!--right-wing religious wackos and right-wing politicans like Henry Hyde. Congrats on your allies.


Well, i'm not Henry Hyde or a right-wing religious wacko, so just deal with who you're arguing with, not the same old ad hominem's I keep seeing in many of your posts.


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 6. I happen to think that these decisions ought to be left to the women directly involved, who can be trusted at least as much as Bible-thumping preachers, right-wing politicians, clinic bombers, assassins of doctors, and the rest of the panoply of Taliban who panic at the very thought of a world in which women make their own choices, just like human beings do.


 At what point should it NOT be a woman's decision. Since a woman has to care for young infants, should she not have the right to post natal abortion, infanticide. I mean, if we're pro-choice, why not pro-choice all the way. I do like your clever "You're just afraid of women" argument, predictable but clever. Also clever was your backhanded attempt to call all those who disagree with you "Bible-thumping preachers, right-wing politicians, clinic bombers, assassins of doctors, and the rest of the panoply of Taliban", very clever. At least you didn't call me a Fascist again (or fascist small "f").


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2005)

1. I see that we are as yet incapable of producing any actual post in which I called anyone who wasn't Mussolini a "fascist," big or small, "f." That's your fantasy, not mine.

2. I see that we remain more interested in getting someone's, "goat," than in discussing issues.

3. Since I believe that the proofs and the weighing of evidences should be left to the parties immediately involved, there's no burden upon my side of the argument to produce any scientific evidence whatsoever.

4. It remains interesting that the idea of women's choice is immediately linked to infanticide, and to the general notion that women will behave irresponsibly and immorally. It remains interesting that the discourse emplaces men as the repositories of moral choice.

5. If, "human life," begins at conception, and anything that prevents human life is immoral, then any and all contraception or, "morning after," pill must preforce be immoral.

6. I can document a long history of right-wingers and Bible thumpers shooting doctors and nurses, blowing up clinics, harassing women, etc. I should like to see a comparable list for pro-choicers.

7. What I actually wrote was that men seem to be made anxious by women's choice, and do not seem willing to trust women to make moral and adult decisions.


----------



## Flatlander (May 29, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Good answer on the viability question, although I would propose this counter: A child is reliant upon his mother for several years, and cannot live without assistance from it's mother or a surrogate, does that mean the child has less rights than the caregiver?


Oooh, nice riposte.  Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that options become available.  What I mean is that, whilst still in the womb and unviable outside of it, the fetus is necessarily reliant upon the mother.  Once viable outside, any capable and willing person may fulfill the duty of surrogate.  Given that we have no shortage of people willing to fulfill that duty, there are options presented, thus affording the baby the right to whichever option is deemed to be sufficient.  Perhaps.


			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Good answer. Though, I must reject the argument that because you are not a woman, you can't answer this moral question. I've never been a dictator or lived under one, but I don't have to in order to make a moral decision about dictators.


I agree, but only insofar as it is my right to make _my own_ moral judgements.  Each to their own when it comes to moral choices, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

The "right to make my own moral judgements" argument begins and ends with the issue of where another human life begins and is subject to that decision.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2005)

1. I expect, then, to read no more posts asserting an absolute right to employ deadly force in self-defense, and asserting that no one who was not there when the decision had to be made has any right to criticize.

2. Actually, in law a minor child always has fewer, and far more-circumscribed, rights than any adult.

3. If we're still talking about abortion, the distinction to be made is that between a pretty-obvious case of human life (a five-year-old, say) and a pretty-obscure case of something that may or may not be taken as fully human.


----------



## arnisador (May 29, 2005)

There's a form of the Heap Paradox going on here, yes.

Take a five year old. It's a living human. What if it were a day younger? Yes. A day younger than that? Yes, still the same. But if you repeat this logic, at some point you get to the child's great-grandparents--an absurdity.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

Is the child any different 1 hr prior to birth than it is 1 hr after?

Of course if we are going to equate abortion with lethal force encounters as "moral decisions" then we must be conceding that the fetus is a "human life" eh?


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> There's a form of the Heap Paradox going on here, yes.
> 
> Take a five year old. It's a living human. What if it were a day younger? Yes. A day younger than that? Yes, still the same. But if you repeat this logic, at some point you get to the child's great-grandparents--an absurdity.


How is that possible? It goes back to conception where the "process" (if not life) of the 5 yo's formation began right?

While I would say the "Process" of human life begins at conception, I personaly wouldnt equate a 5 hr old ball of cells with a 2nd trimester fetus that has all the physical traits of a human being. I can understand some other persons stance otherwise, but Im not really against pre 1st trimester abortion and issues like stem cell research. Again I can understand the arguments against them but thats just where I fall on the issue.


----------



## arnisador (May 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Is the child any different 1 hr prior to birth than it is 1 hr after?


 Well, the chord has been cut, meaning it's no longer so dependent on the mother--anyone can care for the child then, and (leaving aside breastfeeding) it doesn't make demands on the woman's body as before. It changes the "her body, her choice" part of the abortion argument, certainly (not that anyone would support abortions an hour before birth, obviously).


----------



## Tgace (May 30, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> (not that anyone would support abortions an hour before birth, obviously).


And why is that, if it has no (apparent) right to life? Because at some point it becomes distastefull..which begs the question of why is that?

Ill ask the question again (few people want to answer it it seems). If a person were to kick that mother 1 hr prior to the fetus' birth is it murder or just assault on the mother?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. I expect, then, to read no more posts asserting an absolute right to employ deadly force in self-defense, and asserting that no one who was not there when the decision had to be made has any right to criticize.


  Well, as in principles of law regarding self-defense, we are delving in to the question of what is and is not permissible.  Unless you are suggesting that we should only make laws about things that have personally happened to us already.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. Actually, in law a minor child always has fewer, and far more-circumscribed, rights than any adult.


  Of course they do, the question is at what point do children become merely property, disposed of at the whim of their owner. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. If we're still talking about abortion, the distinction to be made is that between a pretty-obvious case of human life (a five-year-old, say) and a pretty-obscure case of something that may or may not be taken as fully human.


  The question is at what point does a fetus become a child.  Do you have an answer?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 30, 2005)

Again the issue is one of choice, and the freedom of the individual to make choices--sorry to have brought up one of the basic tenets of democracy, and to suggest that women were as capable of men of making these choices wisely, based on their own perfectly-reasonable beliefs.

I brought up the issue of using deadly force because of the fact that several of the posters on this thread have elsewehere insisted upon the right of individuals and police officers to defend themselves using deadly force when necessary, and further insisted that this right (and, in the case of police officers, duty) should not be second-guessed by outsiders, especially those with a political agenda. I'm simply saying that women's decisions about reproduction should not be second-guessed by outsiders, especially those with a political and/or religious agenda.

My response to the demand for an impossible answer--exactly when, "a fetus," becomes, "a child--" is precisely what it has been all along: that because this cannot be settled on any objective basis but remains a philosophical and possibly religious question, the State (particularly a State that, as at present, is clearly dominated by political conservatives and Protestant fundamentalists) should be leaving this decision to the individuals directly involved.

A simpler question is this: why can't people simply leave the decision where it belongs, and trust their fellow citizens to make moral and intelligent choices?

My answer is that it's partly because control of reproduction is directly tied to men's power, both in terms of their literal physical control of women, and their sense of their own identity in the world. In this regard, men who want to remove this choice from women are the same all over the world: they suspect, quite rightly, that allowing full reproductive rights for women would radically change the way the world works. And they are...concerned, quite rightly, that their own identities and power would change at the same time. 

I certainly understand that it is, for some, a simple matter of, "murdering babies." But a) it strikes me as odd that the same folks who worry over this are often completely unconcerned with the way kids gets killed and damaged all the time by this society, let alone in the world (the Catholic Church, increasingly, sees this rather differently) and b) the claim remains based on religious beliefs that deserve respect, but not hegemony.


----------



## arnisador (May 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ill ask the question again (few people want to answer it it seems). If a person were to kick that mother 1 hr prior to the fetus' birth is it murder or just assault on the mother?


 It was answered thousands of years ago by the Greeks in a much more general form. Try this one: Suppose the age of consent in your state is set at 17 years. If you have sex with a girl an hour before she turns 17, you're a rapist; if you wait an hour, you're not.

  Substitute drinking alcohol and being 21 years old if desired.


----------



## raedyn (May 30, 2005)

I find it interesting that this debate is full of a bunch of men going back and forth on a topic that will never affect them personally as deeply & profoundly as it affects women*. The few times that women have popped in to make comments, the men in the discussion have completely ignored their contributions. Nice to know that you all value womens opinions on a (primarily) women's health topic.  

*I know that men are affected by it, and that they care about the topic, but it just isn't as intense and intimate for men as it is for women. Argue that if you want, but as much as my husband was involved in my pregnancy - as much as he could be! - it was still MY body. And until men can have uteruses, this will continue to be the reality.


----------



## Tgace (May 30, 2005)

> "Nice to know that you all value womens opinions on a (primarily) women's health topic."



What if you believe its a "human life" topic? No offense meant but it sounds like.."Its not your busniess so shut up." Is there any issue where men can say that to women?


----------



## raedyn (May 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What if you believe its a "human life" topic? No offense meant but it sounds like.."Its not your busniess so shut up." Is there any issue where men can say that to women?


That's not what I said, and that's not what I meant.
Read my post again.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 30, 2005)

Sorry, but you need to include me out of the, "you all." I was specific, and repeatedly agreed.


----------



## raedyn (May 30, 2005)

Tgace, I don't wish that men would "shut up" about the issue. But I did think it was interesting that in all these pages and pages of men talking about the issue, there was little in any attention paid to the contributions of the women on the thread.

I see your point about it being a human life topic. But go back and read my lengthy post in this thread (page 4, I think). What about the points I raised? It's not just about the fetus's potential human life. In my mind, it's also about the living breathing woman's life, and the permanent consequences this will have for her. I've seen a lot of comments arguing about the life which may or may not ever be born (about 15-20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage source) but little to no attention is being paid to the life of the woman. What about her life? her mental health? her quality of life? To me, that's just as important as the life that she is growing.


----------



## evenflow1121 (May 30, 2005)

When you have been enlightened by something or someone, when you discover some sort of enlightment or purpose in your life.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

Regarding gender and this issue. Most polls I have found state there are more pro-life women than men....

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030701-115636-9509r.htm
http://www.heartheissues.com/americanson-prochoiceprolife-g.html



> Are Women More Pro-life?
> 
> 
> There is little difference between men and women when it comes to attitudes toward abortion. At least that has been the prevailing view, although some researchers have found men to be slightly more pro-choice and women a shade more pro-life. Is there a difference in attitudes? If so, what explains it? Bradley R. Hertel and Mark C. Russell of Virginia Polytechnic Institute set out to answer these questions in Sociological Inquiry.
> ...


One would think that men, wanting out of unwanted fatherhood, child support etc. (as crass as it sounds) would fall on the more "pro-choice" side wouldnt you?


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Tgace, I don't wish that men would "shut up" about the issue. But I did think it was interesting that in all these pages and pages of men talking about the issue, there was little in any attention paid to the contributions of the women on the thread.


I think that if someone wants their "point known", they will make their point known. You believe that some female points were ignored, I believe its more because they werent participating enough. Note that I am talking to you because you are making a consistent contribution.

Ignoring or arguing with Robert doesn't stop him and he makes his points known and doesn't "expect" anybody to pay him attention. And while we obviously have our differences I have to say I respect him for that.


----------



## Ender (May 31, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Although the summation of your post seemed to be pro-choice, I take issue with the above comments - actually many of your points about choice.
> 
> In general, I'd like to say that your points are indicative of educated, sexually aware and repeatedly active females and do not account for the MANY abortions sought after by under-age, inexperienced and uneducated girls. And as for your insulting comment on rape and incest, perhaps you need to research some data on just how few rapes and incest are actually even reported, and the small percentage that are successfully prosecuted.
> 
> The arguments you posted are idealistic at best.



Actually I did do the research for a college paper. I was taking the stance of Pro-Choice, but the data didn't bear out the position. The whole "poor minority woman" scenerio is pretty much a myth. As well as the "Rape/Incest" cases, these cases accounted for one in every ten thousand abortions. The typical profile of a person seeking an abortion is:

White, middle class, ages 17-27, 1 or no kids, unattached. in school or some sort (high school or college)

Reason for an abortion: inconvienient at this time

Those were the facts. Now granted, these stats are now over 10 years old, but I'm sure an honest data-filled research would find about the same thing. And I now stand with the position that the federal government should not be involved in abortions. It should be a states rights issue.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

1. Could you give the sources for these facts, please?

2. Could you explain why you apparently consider a well-educated, well-off section of our population incapable of reasonable moral choice?

3. You do know that the, "State's rights," claim has, a) a long, ugly history; b) remains a smoke screen for making abortion illegal? But perhaps you could explain why you consider a state government better-qualified to pry into women's private lives than the Feds?


----------



## shesulsa (May 31, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> Actually I did do the research for a college paper. I was taking the stance of Pro-Choice, but the data didn't bear out the position. The whole "poor minority woman" scenerio is pretty much a myth. As well as the "Rape/Incest" cases, these cases accounted for one in every ten thousand abortions. The typical profile of a person seeking an abortion is:
> 
> White, middle class, ages 17-27, 1 or no kids, unattached. in school or some sort (high school or college)
> 
> ...


 For one, I don't think anyone here has presented a "poor minority woman" scenario, though am intrigued by the rape/incest case figure and your assertion that an honest data-filled research would find the same thing.  I know of few women who have not lied on their application for the procedure.  And again - since most rapes and incest do not get reported in any fashion the statistics for those are moot and inapplicable.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

My biggest concern on this subject is that if we are not really careful with our parameters and limits, that this can lead us into complete moral subjectivism in which we are prone to justify as ethical whatever it is we want to do. The whole "who are you to make my moral decision" argument. Cant that be applied to any topic? You can decide to do whatever you want, that doesn't automatically make it right, justified or above the law....its a big, important issue with many shades of acceptance/unacceptance. Moral/Ethical/Lawful its a complicated thing...


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

Would this moral subjectivism in any way resemble the Bush government's cavalier assertion that the treaties we've signed, the international accords to which we are signatory, and our own Constitution's strictures concerning illegal arrest and physical abuse, can simply be ignored because they're inconvenient for us?


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

Wanna keep it on topic..for once.


----------



## raedyn (May 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> My biggest concern on this subject is that if we are not really careful with our parameters and limits, that this can lead us into complete moral subjectivism in which we are prone to justify as ethical whatever it is we want to do. The whole "who are you to make my moral decision" argument. Cant that be applied to any topic? You can decide to do whatever you want, that doesn't automatically make it right, justified or above the law....its a big, important issue with many shades of acceptance/unacceptance. Moral/Ethical/Lawful its a complicated thing...


So, you're worried about starting down a slippery slope? Is that correct?

You are right, it is complicated. But pro-choice people such as myself aren't advocating for anybody to be able to do anything they want. I am (and others like me are) advocating for people's right to make informed choices about medical issues affecting their own health - like, for example, if a woman would continue with a pregnancy.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

And the health of their "fetuses"....the issue of the separateness of the "other involved party" either is ignored or dealt with as a "we dont know". Thats what the issue revolves around IMO. Its either another life and "moral" issues abound. Or its not..the debate goes on and I guess will depending on where the majority of the populace lands.


----------



## raedyn (May 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> the debate goes on and I guess will depending on where the majority of the populace lands.


Actually, in both your country and mine, our highest courts have determined it is a basic civil right for a woman to make the determination for herself. I don't know how it works in the US, but in Canada, sometimes the will of the majority must be over-ruled to protect the rights of the minority.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Actually, in both your country and mine, our highest courts have determined it is a basic civil right for a woman to make the determination for herself. I don't know how it works in the US, but in Canada, sometimes the will of the majority must be over-ruled to protect the rights of the minority.


Not to put too crass a point on it but (sorry but its the easiest way to express the following point)...like the lives of children who have no voice?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

When one raises the larger issues--

"My biggest concern on this subject is that if we are not really careful with our parameters and limits, that this can lead us into complete moral subjectivism in which we are prone to justify as ethical whatever it is we want to do. The whole "who are you to make my moral decision" argument. Cant that be applied to any topic? You can decide to do whatever you want, that doesn't automatically make it right, justified or above the law---it's a big, important issue..."


--one really shouldn't be overly surprised if others discuss them.

Here, it looks to me as though the argument boils down to saying that men have responsibilities that go beyond clear moral choices because of their Big Responsibilities, but women have no right to exercise situational ethics even when it comes to their own bodies...


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

If men are disqualified from the abortion issue, they should be disqualified on both sides.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

I also believe that it was a predominately male supreme court that ruled on Roe v. Wade hmmmm?


----------



## arnisador (May 31, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> So, you're worried about starting down a slippery slope?


 This whole thing is a slippery slope. There's no final answer to be reached--just better udnerstanding for both sides.

 When does life begin? It's not a scientific question. There's no right answer.


----------



## arnisador (May 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If men are disqualified from the abortion issue, they should be disqualified on both sides.


 I see the fairness argument here, and I have some sympathy for it--that a father who wanted to abort should be exempt from child support. But, the ramifications of that are very expensive for society.


----------

