Prochoice/ proabortion

[Feil]

Life doesn't begin. If it weren't alive, it would never be alive. Nor does humanity begin; if it weren't human, it would never be human. What does begin is personhood, and what exists before personhood is future value. These are topics for law and the science of ethics. Biology doesn't give a damn; it can provide data, but not theory.

Once you have personhood or future value established, you can make an ethical argument based on doing the least harm.

[Justforfun000]

Life doesn't begin. If it weren't alive, it would never be alive. Nor does humanity begin; if it weren't human, it would never be human. What does begin is personhood, and what exists before personhood is future value. These are topics for law and the science of ethics. Biology doesn't give a damn; it can provide data, but not theory.

Not THAT is a truly fascinating topic, and a philosophical exercise I would love to see explored.

It's almost comforting to approach it from that angle because it implies that you might technically have beel "alive" in the first place, just not a sentient entity. At least that's how I'm interpreting this generalization. I guess this goes into pretty deep stuff.
Still, the truth of our existence might actually be more comforting then a purely materialistic assumption of alive/dead. I assume it will just take a hell of a lot more information then we possess currently to evaluate such a thing.

[Darth Wong]

It seems to me that an awful lot of anti-abortion arguments attempt to attack the perceived personality and motives of the person committing the act, rather than discussing the ethics of the act itself. On far too many occasions, I've heard people saying that they might accept abortion in the case of some innocent virgin who was raped, but not for some slutty girl who forgot to use birth control. That kind of argument has nothing to do with the ethics of the act itself, and everything to do with trying to divide the world into "us" vs "them" and then use the weapons of law to punish the other side for not joining yours. And your argument seems to be inching toward that kind of attack as well.

Actually, you make a good point there Mike. It seems like the arguments over abortion always seem to be fought from the starting point of good or bad behaviour in the mind of the anti-abortionist. Their entire argument is framed from the assumption that you have to judge the motives of the person first in order to decide the ethicality of the act.

Or to put it more bluntly, their position on abortion is designed to ostracize and punish women who have "loose morals", thus continuing a longstanding cultural tradition of persecuting women who enjoy sex too much. That's why it's so important for them to establish the difference between an abortion for woman who was raped and an abortion for a woman who had sex willingly.

So how can this argument be won then? If we divorce motives and behaviour from the equation, how can you judge the ethics of abortion by itself? The problem here is that science doesn't REALLY have an answer to when life truly begins, am I correct? So until this is "proven", is this simply a subjective opinion that has to be made individually with no true way of evaluating the morality of the action?

Actually, the science is fairly clear that there is no higher brain activity until well into the pregnancy, past the halfway point. No brain, no person. The idea of considering someone a person despite the lack of a brain may play well in the Deep South, but it really makes no sense. If I think therefore I am, then those who do not think ... are not.

[Ted C]

The laws you mention applied to the Mosaic (aka Israelite/Jewish) law to which Christians are not bound.

That is a very common rebuttal to that argument. I always point out that this doesn't change the fact that these laws were viewed as moral at one time, and sanctioned by no less than God himself. So either the early prophets were completely full of shit about what God was saying, or God himself thought those kinds of actions were moral at the time and has since changed his mind. Despite supposedly having "timeless" morality.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Christ said that not one letter of the law had changed because of him; he just provided a path to salvation through forgiveness, since fallible humans were incapable of living up to the law. The laws still apply, and everyone should still be trying to follow them to the best of their ability. Just being a Christian does not exempt anyone from the Ten Commandments or other Old Testament law.

[Spin Echo]

So that's it?

The ignorance of that statement is astounding.

Vericrose veins, damage to the pelvic floor, diabetes, uterine rupture, bed rest, spine damage....

Carrying a pregnancy to term carries many risks. No woman should have this forced on her.

Not to mention morning (ha!) sickness, 1 and 3 women are incontient after childbirth, postpartum depression, ripping of the vaginal opening (things get sewn up, of course, but it's often not the same afterwards). Plus, having a pregnancy they don't want can have a strong detrimental effect on a woman's mental health. There's also the fact that you're much more likely to die from childbirth than (legal) abortion across the board. The likelihood of death varies from country to country, with a significantly higher chance in third world countries to a slightly higher chance in first world nations.

Beyond physical problems, pregnancy is also a major disruption to a womans life. If you don't have insurance or your insurance doesn't cover pregnancy, you're faced with racking up some hefty medical bills or not getting proper prenatal care. Pregnancy and childbirth is disruptive to education and career, often with long term consequences. Teen girls that get pregnant are much more likely to drop out of school and not likely to return. If the woman is unwed, in many places in the US, there's still a strong stigma against unmarried pregnant women.

[Lisa]

In regards to higher brain functions = life, i say bull. a cockroach is alive and does not exactly have higher functions. when does it stop being a growth and start being a life? i don't have an answer for that, even parasites are alive, and they depend on another for it's life. if you want to be technical life is preconception because the cells themselves are alive just like my hands are alive.
I thing the question we should be asking is "when does the fetus become human?". Does a fetus have free will? how about a new born baby?

Ted C: Jesus also brought 2 new laws to follow in additon to the 10, love your god, love your fellow man. Though the way I see it, if you follow those two you automaticly follow the rest

[Justforfun000]

The idea of considering someone a person despite the lack of a brain may play well in the Deep South

Actually in the deep south it's almost a prerequisite to have no brain to be considered a person.

[Covenant]

The idea of considering someone a person despite the lack of a brain may play well in the Deep South

Actually in the deep south it's almost a prerequisite to have no brain to be considered a person.

I think we also class those strains under parasites, or some variety of exotic fungi. At best they're a symbiotic organism existing to provide services to people like Ein and our other distinguished lower-state folk.

[Darth Wong]

In regards to higher brain functions = life, i say bull.

We're saying that higher brain functions = personhood, not life.

a cockroach is alive and does not exactly have higher functions. when does it stop being a growth and start being a life? i don't have an answer for that, even parasites are alive, and they depend on another for it's life. if you want to be technical life is preconception because the cells themselves are alive just like my hands are alive.

I thing the question we should be asking is "when does the fetus become human?". Does a fetus have free will? how about a new born baby?

That's exactly what we've been saying, moron. No one here has been saying that the fetus is actually dead before higher brain functions begin, and I don't particularly care for your massive distortion of the argument, which can only be due to either stupidity or deception.

Ted C: Jesus also brought 2 new laws to follow in additon to the 10, love your god, love your fellow man. Though the way I see it, if you follow those two you automaticly follow the rest

Notice the order: God first, humans second. That's exactly the problem with this religion.

[BrandonMustang]

I find this attitude (which is very common among Americans, and certainly not unique to you) very perplexing. Why such reverence for your political figureheads?

I don't hold much reverance for any individuals. GB as an individual is nothing special. I agree that it is a citizen's duty to question political misbehaviors and I do. I didn't vote for him (I was only old enough to vote in the 2004 election) and I am unhappy with his administration. I do hold a large amount of respect for his office, however. So, while my personal review of his performance would be less-than-stellar, I feel uncomfortable calling the President of the United States an idiot.

[Darth Wong]

I find this attitude (which is very common among Americans, and certainly not unique to you) very perplexing. Why such reverence for your political figureheads?

I don't hold much reverance for any individuals. GB as an individual is nothing special. I agree that it is a citizen's duty to question political misbehaviors and I do. I didn't vote for him (I was only old enough to vote in the 2004 election) and I am unhappy with his administration. I do hold a large amount of respect for his office, however. So, while my personal review of his performance would be less-than-stellar, I feel uncomfortable calling the President of the United States an idiot.

Is there any reason for this respect? It's hardly necessary or useful. My own Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is a manipulative two-faced asshole. His predecessor, Paul Martin, was an accountant who thought he could be Prime Minister and bumbled his way through his short tenure. The man before that, Jean Chretien, was a fucking moron.

[Diomedes]

Is there any reason for this respect? It's hardly necessary or useful. My own Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is a manipulative two-faced asshole. His predecessor, Paul Martin, was an accountant who thought he could be Prime Minister and bumbled his way through his short tenure. The man before that, Jean Chretien, was a fucking moron.

I sometimes wonder if certain people, as a matter of their particular psychology, in some way actually want to live under an all-powerful leader who must never be disrespected, a strongman, or a monarch with a divine right to rule. The reverence I see some people display towards their leader or president (or the "office" of the presidency) makes the distinction between democracy and monarchy seem blurry sometimes. Even moreso when you look at the almost "royal" nature of certain political families in the US. Look at the last few presidents - Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, Bush Junior, possibly Hillary Clinton next, and in future, Jeb Bush may run...

When you look at other western nations in comparison to the US, it seems ironic to me that of all countries, the American public's relationship with their leadership most closely resembles that of a monarchy.

[Lord Poe]

I don't hold much reverance for any individuals. GB as an individual is nothing special. I agree that it is a citizen's duty to question political misbehaviors and I do. I didn't vote for him (I was only old enough to vote in the 2004 election) and I am unhappy with his administration. I do hold a large amount of respect for his office, however. So, while my personal review of his performance would be less-than-stellar, I feel uncomfortable calling the President of the United States an idiot.

You can still respect the office of the President, as an American. There's nothing un-American about calling the current man who holds that office an idiot.

[Covenant]

I don't hold much reverance for any individuals. GB as an individual is nothing special. I agree that it is a citizen's duty to question political misbehaviors and I do. I didn't vote for him (I was only old enough to vote in the 2004 election) and I am unhappy with his administration. I do hold a large amount of respect for his office, however. So, while my personal review of his performance would be less-than-stellar, I feel uncomfortable calling the President of the United States an idiot.

You can still respect the office of the President, as an American. There's nothing un-American about calling the current man who holds that office an idiot.

In fact, it's your duty to call the man an idiot if he's a goddamn idiot. Take this sage advice from a real cowboy manly man President:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
- President Theodore Roosevelt

Sure, quotes don't prove anything, but it's only the gutless cowards of the Right who claim that I'm un-American for loving my country more than the retard who is in charge of it. Teddy shared a lot of common traits with the way Bush would like to run things, but Teddy was much more honest about the office he held. And I think there's one more excerpt that is good to hear from the lips of this seated President on that Office.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right.

Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912

If Bush needs to hide behind the doors of the Oval Office to escape the truth that he is indeed incapable of his duties, unqualified for the tasks at hand, and unworthy of standing beside people like Teddy who at least understood that Liberty, not Duty, is the essential nature of America... then he's more of a coward than any Republican shill who would defend him. No man deserves less than the truth, and Bush has earned nothing more.

[Ted C]

Posted at RIPP_n_WIPE's request...

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[Invictus ChiKen]

You have "informed" your girlfriend of the way things are going to be? How egalitarian of you.

Well she did inform me of what jobs I may and may not take...

[Invictus ChiKen]

P.S. to the above.

Inform might have been the wrong choice of words. While talking about kids she asked me how many did I want us to have. I told her, her choice as it is her body.

Same thing when she wanted a tatoo. Personally major turn off for me but it is her body so she can decide wether or not to get it.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I find this attitude (which is very common among Americans, and certainly not unique to you) very perplexing. Why such reverence for your political figureheads?

I don't hold much reverance for any individuals. GB as an individual is nothing special. I agree that it is a citizen's duty to question political misbehaviors and I do. I didn't vote for him (I was only old enough to vote in the 2004 election) and I am unhappy with his administration. I do hold a large amount of respect for his office, however. So, while my personal review of his performance would be less-than-stellar, I feel uncomfortable calling the President of the United States an idiot.

Honestly, if you hold that much respect for the office itself, you should have all the more reason to call him an idiot. If the office is that damn important, than the person holding it should be held to a sufficiently high standard. If he doesn't meet that standard, he's, in effect, insulting and shaming the office you respect so much. Thus, he more than earns any and all derision you can give to him.

P.S. to the above.

Inform might have been the wrong choice of words. While talking about kids she asked me how many did I want us to have. I told her, her choice as it is her body.

Same thing when she wanted a tatoo. Personally major turn off for me but it is her body so she can decide wether or not to get it.

You might want to address the other points made in response to you. This was pretty much just icing on the cake as opposed to the other claims you made.

Basically: For a vast majority of the female population, childbirth is, despite all prosaic views to the contrary, hell. To her body, the growing fetus is considered a foreign object, and it makes all attempts to get rid of it. Morning sickness. Horrible cramps. Wild emotional swings. Sudden cravings as the nutrients she takes in are suddenly diverted to the growing fetus. Again, more pain. Stretching of the skin, often quite horribly overstretched. Your whole body in pain because of what's growing inside it.

That's not to mention childbirth itself. I could go into detail of what exactly it's like for the woman, but I think it might be better to just draw an analogy. Imagine having to pass an egg out your own urethra. Along with all the over-stretching, highly possible tearing of your more sensitive tissues down there. Now stretch this over a period of, on average, at least several hours. On top of that, over the whole period of time, give yourself stomach cramps to the point of dry-heaving during the whole time, and after several hours of this exhausting you, get told that you still have to tense your already overtaxed abdoman more to get that damn egg out.

You don't even have to be female to at least gain a reasonable understanding of the pain involved. You just have to have a functioning brain. Look at the average woman in the act of giving birth. Take a good look at her face and listen to her. Unless you're completely dense, it's not to hard to see that she's in fucking agony during the whole ordeal.

And in reaction to this, for you to say, "So that's it?" goes beyond tasteless. I don't particularly want to speculate on the mindset of someone who would react so blithely to that much pain and suffering, especially when he says his girlfriend is likely to go through the same thing. So I'm *really* hoping that was just a mistake on your part.

[PainRack]

Basically: For a vast majority of the female population, childbirth is, despite all prosaic views to the contrary, hell. To her body, the growing fetus is considered a foreign object, and it makes all attempts to get rid of it.
Morning sickness. Horrible cramps. Wild emotional swings. Sudden cravings as the nutrients she takes in are suddenly diverted to the growing fetus. Again, more pain. Stretching of the skin, often quite horribly overstretched. Your whole body in pain because of what's growing inside it.

A parasite might be a better word. After all, the body doesn't actively seek to destroy the foetus and all the symptoms you describe are a result of bodily changes made to sustain the baby.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Basically: For a vast majority of the female population, childbirth is, despite all prosaic views to the contrary, hell. To her body, the growing fetus is considered a foreign object, and it makes all attempts to get rid of it.
Morning sickness. Horrible cramps. Wild emotional swings. Sudden cravings as the nutrients she takes in are suddenly diverted to the growing fetus. Again, more pain. Stretching of the skin, often quite horribly overstretched. Your whole body in pain because of what's growing inside it.

A parasite might be a better word. After all, the body doesn't actively seek to destroy the foetus and all the symptoms you describe are a result of bodily changes made to sustain the baby.

I suppose it's a bit more accurate. From what little I know, the *only* reason the body doesn't destroy the growing fetus is because the fetus itself secretes chemicals that subvert the body's own immune system. In a way, it shares traits of certain parasites and viruses.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Posted at RIPP_n_WIPE's request...

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I apologize for the late post.

Wongs new thread will apparently dealing with these issues of the mosaic law vs new law etc. And BrandonMustang is the only person allowed atm and I believe permanently. He is stating for the most part what I agree with so I would direct you toward that thread.

[Cairber]

To add to the list of pregnancy risks:

Today I read a story from one of the moms in my old due date club (we delivered our first at the same time and now she just gave birth to her second a week ago). Anyway, apparently she needed a vacuum extraction and the ENTIRE uterus came out with the placenta...plus she had 4th degree tears that went all the way through her anus


I have never heard of anything like this. She hasn't been on to post an update but her husband has been giving us info as he gets time. She has had two surgeries and is doing ok right now. The babe is well.

[Aaron]

To add to the list of pregnancy risks:

Today I read a story from one of the moms in my old due date club (we delivered our first at the same time and now she just gave birth to her second a week ago). Anyway, apparently she needed a vacuum extraction and the ENTIRE uterus came out with the placenta...plus she had 4th degree tears that went all the way through her anus


I have never heard of anything like this. She hasn't been on to post an update but her husband has been giving us info as he gets time. She has had two surgeries and is doing ok right now. The babe is well.

Well that's something I don't recall on the list of delivery risks that the doctors told us. I wonder how often that happens?

[Cairber]

Another woman in the group suspects that she had this condition where the placenta actually grows inside the uterine wall and kind of becomes part of the uterus basically.

[Cairber]

OK, I went and looked and she thinks it might have been placenta accreta (but we are just speculating at this point)

link about the condition