secular humanism and abortion

[Durandal]

So you'd agree abortion should be illegal as soon as there is brain wave activity?

You finally figured it out, eh? We've only said it countless times for months whenever this subject comes up. There is no brain stem until the second trimester and no significant brain activity until we approach the third trimester.

This all comes down to when you think a life is a life btw, which is why I ask.

How do you define human life? By the bag of flesh we occupy, or the thoughts and feelings of our minds? Thoughts and feelings are brain functions.

Actually I've never seen an abortion thread here before, though that doesn't mean there hasn't been one.

As for brain activity, I had believed it was much sooner than you indicated

Dr. Vincent J. Collins, a diplomate of the American Board of Anesthesiologists. He estimated the age at which a preborn child feels pain: "As early as eight to 10 weeks' gestation, and definitely by thirteen and a half weeks, the human fetus experiences organic pain."

A bug feels pain, as well.

Personally I believe that life begins at conception. I am Pro-Choice though, everyone (except rape victims) has the choice to NOT have sex

We're not talking about sex; we're talking about abortions.

[Darth Wong]

Personally I believe that life begins at conception.

So a wriggling, swimming sperm is dead? 'Fraid not, dumb-ass. The difference in sentience between a sperm and a fertilized egg is precisely zero.

I am Pro-Choice though, everyone (except rape victims) has the choice to NOT have sex

Interesting. Does that mean you support abortion for rape victims? If so, does that mean you condone murder in certain cases, since you classify abortion as murder? Or, conversely, would you be one of those motherfuckers berating a rape victim for not carrying her violator's baby to term? Please, enlighten us on how you handle this particular conundrum for your belief system.

[Darth Wong]

PS. Totally off-topic, I hope you're enjoying your stay in Japan. I've never been there.

Thanks -- on my final night shift here -- most folks are watching DVD's on their laptops. The Japanese officers are fun to work with, but the weather here is very cold (from 0 to minus 12). The next few days will be off for me before we all head back to the States.

What are the Japanese officers like? My only dealings with Japanese have been Honda people, and their contempt for North American ways was rather annoyingly obvious.

My wife's orders include for me to get more Gaisha (SP?) dolls and a Japanese shot glass (we collect those from different places). Look forward to going home (the men in my room like to stay up late, get drunk, make noise, etc.)

I've never been a big fan of that sort of behaviour either. To be honest, I can never figure out what is so damned appealing about getting drunk. You suffer loss of co-ordination, impaired judgement, you make an ass of yourself, you'll puke and feel like hell the next day.and what's the upside? Apparently, shared misery; you get to talk about it with your friends.

[The Dark]

My personal belief is that abortions should be easy to get only for medical purposes or in cases of rape. If someone was just lazy and didn't feel like using protection, then gets themself knocked up, then IMHO it's their own responsibility, and killing the child should not be something done lightly. Removing all responsibility for actions is a bad thing.

And what if someone uses protection but gets pregnant anywaY? How does that fit into your neat little scheme?

I suppose I wouldn't object to an abortion in that case. They tried to prevent the pregnancy, and I understand that no form of birth control is 100% effective. The practical difficulty would be in proving the attempted use of birth control, and I realize that while this may be an ethical ideal, its application in the real world would not be feasible. I suppose this idea should be chalked up to wishful thinking...I seem to be guilty of that rather often .

[Durandal]

Wait ... so you're saying that, if they use contraception, it's okay for them to have an abortion? Who's it not okay for? People who planned having children? K ...

[Exonerate]

There's also the case of a mother getting pregnant, but the pregnancy threatening her life, or if somebody was not fit to make the decision at the time (Alcohol, drugs)

Some of you might remember, a very foolish friend of mine had sex with her boyfriend to keep him, then got pregnant.

[Darth Wong]

It's interesting to read some of the comments from people like DocMoriartty and his intellectual ilk (see http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=11609, I think he starts posting on the second page). Morality is a bit of a trade-off between goals which are sometimes complementary but sometimes mutually exclusive: justice, compassion, and rights.

A lot of people with fucked-up moral codes forget one or more of those ingredients. Your extreme left-wing liberal type has the "compassion" part down pat, has some idea about "rights", but is totally apathetic about social justice. Conversely, the extreme right-winger tends to have the "justice" part down pat and has some idea about "rights", but "compassion" is pretty much ignored.

The people who say "if she didn't want to live with the consequences, she shouldn't have had sex" fall into the category of social right-wingers. They pay lip-service to rights as long as they're their own rights; when those rights apply to someone else, they don't matter (classic case: men who will fight and die for their right to own a gun but don't give a flying fuck about womens' rights). They have a very thorough and deep grasp of justice and social fairness. But compassion is simply nonexistent in their vocabulary; they see everything in terms of black and white, and ruining a woman's whole life for some abstract principle or unjustifiable personal belief (eg- "I believe life begins at conception") is perfectly acceptable to them.

[Dargos]

It's interesting to read some of the comments from people like DocMoriartty and his intellectual ilk (see http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=11609, I think he starts posting on the second page). Morality is a bit of a trade-off between goals which are sometimes complementary but sometimes mutually exclusive: justice, compassion, and rights.

A lot of people with fucked-up moral codes forget one or more of those ingredients. Your extreme left-wing liberal type has the "compassion" part down pat, has some idea about "rights", but is totally apathetic about social justice. Conversely, the extreme right-winger tends to have the "justice" part down pat and has some idea about "rights", but "compassion" is pretty much ignored.

The people who say "if she didn't want to live with the consequences, she shouldn't have had sex" fall into the category of social right-wingers. They pay lip-service to rights as long as they're their own rights; when those rights apply to someone else, they don't matter (classic case: men who will fight and die for their right to own a gun but don't give a flying fuck about womens' rights). They have a very thorough and deep grasp of justice and social fairness. But compassion is simply nonexistent in their vocabulary; they see everything in terms of black and white, and ruining a woman's whole life for some abstract principle or unjustifiable personal belief (eg- "I believe life begins at conception") is perfectly acceptable to them.

I hope you are not lumping me in with Mr.Superfundie Andro Rights DocMoriartty, Mr. Wong. I was/still am Pro-choice, but the thought of someone aborting MY child without any say in the matter really irks me. I do have compassion for the woman and I've seen what they have to go thru to have a child. Both of my boys had HUGE heads and my wife refused to have any pain reducing proceedures done during child birth(shes a better man than me, I would have been screaming for drugs I think). I view in the matter has nothing to do with religion or when it is considered "life" or not. It is simply that I love my kids more than my own life. They are my joy. Having kids has changed my outlook on the topic.

[Darth Wong]

I hope you are not lumping me in with Mr.Superfundie Andro Rights DocMoriartty, Mr. Wong.

Of course not. That comment was directed quite specifically at him.

I was/still am Pro-choice, but the thought of someone aborting MY child without any say in the matter really irks me. I do have compassion for the woman and I've seen what they have to go thru to have a child. Both of my boys had HUGE heads and my wife refused to have any pain reducing proceedures done during child birth(shes a better man than me, I would have been screaming for drugs I think). I view in the matter has nothing to do with religion or when it is considered "life" or not. It is simply that I love my kids more than my own life. They are my joy. Having kids has changed my outlook on the topic.

I love my kids too, but you don't necessarily make over-arching public policy out of what you think is right for yourself and your own situation.

[David]

I am against abortion, and I get sick especially of proponents of partial birth abortion. There is no diffenece between a child ten minutes before they are born and ten minutes after, except that the child ten minutes before is dependent on an umbilical cord for his/her supply of oxygen and nutrients. The child is not "part" of the mother just because he/she is dependent upon her body to provide for his/her growth.




Notice that I put emphasses on the his/her? Notice that when people don't want a child he/she goes from being a person to an "it" and a fetus instead of a baby.



As far as pro-choice goes, I don't believe it is the mother's choice. We don't allow the mother to choose to jam a pair of siscors into a baby's skull even ten seconds after birth, why do they somehow get to choose to do that ten seconds before the child is born?




As far as " They might have a bad life so lets not make them go through that." goes, I would ask you to go find 100 people that you think have had bad lives, and offer them the choice between having their skin burned of with a chemical solution or having a pair of scisors jammed into the base of their skull and having their brains sucked out, and the choice of living, and see how many takers you have on that.

[Dargos]

Of course not. That comment was directed quite specifically at him.

ok, thanks.

I love my kids too, but you don't necessarily make over-arching public policy out of what you think is right for yourself and your own situation.

I never wanted this to be a public policy,nor have I said that this is a logical thing to want.
My view in the matter is purely emotional. Leaving the choice with the woman is the only realistic option we have.
Someones rights will be violated one way or another, the rights of the mother to choose what happens to her body, the rights of the father who really wants the child.
Women are the ones effected directly by pregnency, they have the health risks and discomfort to live with. They have the greatest burden, they get the choice.



***edit to get the quotes correct***

[David]

Someones rights will be violated one way or another, the rights of the mother to choose what happens to her body...

However the child is not apart of her body, and she does not have to raise the child after birth. I know two girls that had kids before they were 17 and both chose to give their children up for adoption.




Edited for clarity

[David]

Mike, how does "I believe that life begins at conception" constitute an unjustifiable personal belief? It seems to me that most people do go to either end of the spectrum, one end being life at conception and the other life at birth. If we went with what might be a more scientific explination such as life begins at the first brain activity, how do we them measure that? We would have to leave the point of them being a classified as a human being somewhere in the area of the final trimester. That seems alot more blurry than say either at the start or end, and since the end seems so blantently incorrect to me I'd rather err to the beginning.




edited for spelling, going to use preview next time.

[Dargos]

Someones rights will be violated one way or another, the rights of the mother to choose what happens to her body...

However the child is not apart of her body, and she does not have to raise the child after birth. I know two girls that had kids before they were 17 and both chose to give their children up for adoption.

Edited for clarity

The child is of her and the fathers "flesh" and the child is totaly dependant on the mother until at least the end of the 2nd trimester at which it might I stress MIGHT be able to survive outside the womb with medical help.

It would be wonderful if everyone would carry the child to term and if not wanted give them up for adoption(although SOME orphans in the East Europe and Russia live in such horrible conditions in state run instatutions, I think death would have been almost a blessing for the poor kids.)
But that is a pipe dream to think that. In the real world not everyone is willing/or be able to go thru the stress, health risks, discomfort, responsiblity, inconvieniences, financial responsibilities, etc etc. that come with bringing a child into the world, if only to give them up to a adoption agency. Abortion, while in my eyes wrong, is a neccesary evil.
On the bright side the numbers of abortions in the US is at its lowest since the 70s and is continueing to drop.(hopefully due to effective use of conticeptives and not to fundie GOD will BURN U IN HELL IF U DO IT)

**edit because I haven't drank any coffee yet and it looked horrible the first time....doesn't look all that great after edit either...ahh fuk it.. coffeee mmmm*********

[David]

Ahhh but in my opinion not being responsible, not wanting to deal with the stress etc. does not give a person the right to commit murder.



I would also argue that because in your opinion someone maylive a horrible life does not give you the right to prematurely end it.




EDIT: That last statement was not directed at you Dargos, I know you don't want abortion, it was directed at the general idea that anyone has the right to dicide whether or not another person gets to live or not, for whatever reason.

[Dargos]

Ahhh but in my opinion not being responsible, not wanting to deal with the stress etc. does not give a person the right to commit murder.



I would also argue that because in your opinion someone maylive a horrible life does not give you the right to prematurely end it.

So it all comes down to personal beliefs and choice. Humans are thinking animals with free will and are all guided thru our lives by the morals impressed upon us as we grow and the experiances we live thru. We do not have the "right" to FORCE(make against the law) anyone to not have an abortion. It is an individual choice, and those that make it must live with it. Just as is my choice(recently made btw) to be against abortion, but you won't see me protesting at the local clinic.

[Edi]

David, did you read the previous abortion topics? Namely the one where DocMisogynistic Fuckwit posted and the one a few months back? There were quite clear distinctions being made between at what point the fetus becomes a sentient human being, which is also the point when abortion is unacceptable.

You'll be fucking hardpressed to find anyone here who will defend partial-birth abortions, because that particular category of abortion is outright murder. Try not to use false dilemmas or strawman distortions of people's positions, especially when they have made their positions very clear on the issue. Mike certainly has been quite specific about his, as have many others.

Edi

[InnerBrat]

To those who believe life begins at contraception, does that mean you oppose the use of the Pill as well? Because one of its functions is to flush out fertilised eggs before they can attached to the uterus.

[Durandal]

I am against abortion, and I get sick especially of proponents of partial birth abortion. There is no diffenece between a child ten minutes before they are born and ten minutes after, except that the child ten minutes before is dependent on an umbilical cord for his/her supply of oxygen and nutrients. The child is not "part" of the mother just because he/she is dependent upon her body to provide for his/her growth.

No one here is advocating partial birth abortions.

However the child is not apart of her body, and she does not have to raise the child after birth. I know two girls that had kids before they were 17 and both chose to give their children up for adoption.

This is a very common strawman from the anti-abortion side. When pro-abortionists say that the woman has the right to decide what happens to her body, most anti-abortionists leap to the conclusion that pro-abortionists are arguing that the child is a part of the mother's body. This is not true.

The mother has the right to decide if she wants to subject her body to the physical and psychological trauma brought about by nine months of carrying and supporting the fetus. It is no light trial on a woman's body to carry a child. She'll gain lots of weight and have to eat enough to support herself and the developing fetus. The financial expenses of pregnancy are also significant. You can't force a woman to go through nine months of pain, one day of intense delivery pain and a pile of medical bills if she doesn't want to. While anti-abortionists may crow that adoption is a viable solution, they completely miss the point of abortion, which is to help the woman avoid the burden that comes with having a child, both before and after delivery. Unless adoption agencies begin paying for delivery room fees, increased diet and compensate the woman for psychological and physical trauma, adoption isn't a very good solution.

Mike, how does "I believe that life begins at conception" constitute an unjustifiable personal belief? It seems to me that most people do go to either end of the spectrum, one end being life at conception and the other life at birth. If we went with what might be a more scientific explination such as life begins at the first brain activity, how do we them measure that? We would have to leave the point of them being a classified as a human being somewhere in the area of the final trimester. That seems alot more blurry than say either at the start or end, and since the end seems so blantently incorrect to me I'd rather err to the beginning.

There's no way to really identify the exact instant when brain wave activity becomes sufficient, but remember that to make laws, you need to define clear-cut boundaries. That's why you're considered an adult at the age of 18 in the United States. Sure, some 16 year-olds may be mature enough and some 20 year-olds may be irretrievably immature, but the law always likes having a discrete boundary. We know that sometimes near the beginning of the third trimester, the fetus' brain activity starts looking a lot like the activity that a human has when dreaming. So, a reasonable boundary for the abortion cut-off would be the third trimester. This would get rid of partial-birth abortions (which I don't even know why women are fighting for), as well as respect the woman. If women are going to have abortions, they should have them as early as possible, anyway. Why they'd put it off until the moment of delivery in beyond me ...

[David]

David, did you read the previous abortion topics? Namely the one where DocMisogynistic Fuckwit posted and the one a few months back? There were quite clear distinctions being made between at what point the fetus becomes a sentient human being, which is also the point when abortion is unacceptable.

Didn't even see it.

You'll be fucking hardpressed to find anyone here who will defend partial-birth abortions, because that particular category of abortion is outright murder. Try not to use false dilemmas or strawman distortions of people's positions, especially when they have made their positions very clear on the issue. Mike certainly has been quite specific about his, as have many others.

Edi

I'm not saying anyone here does believe in partial birth abortion, just stating that I believe it is murder. Just whose position did I try to distort exactly? I mearly asked Mike why life at conception would be in his opinion an unjustifiable personal belief while life at birth would not be.

[Durandal]

I'm not saying anyone here does believe in partial birth abortion, just stating that I believe it is murder. Just whose position did I try to distort exactly? I mearly asked Mike why life at conception would be in his opinion an unjustifiable personal belief while life at birth would not be.

Because there is no evidence to indicate that a clump of cells is a human. It doesn't look like a human; it doesn't even have a brain stem. It's up to the anti-abortionists to show that something which no one would ever think is a human being if they saw it sitting on the ground is, in fact, a human being.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not saying anyone here does believe in partial birth abortion, just stating that I believe it is murder. Just whose position did I try to distort exactly? I mearly asked Mike why life at conception would be in his opinion an unjustifiable personal belief while life at birth would not be.

Notice the false dilemma fallacy; why must we choose between life at conception (a meaningless divider; please explain the difference in sentience between a sperm and a fertilized egg) and life at birth (another meaningless divider; the baby is obviously thinking and feeling ten minutes before it's born).

Why do we assume there's some magic moment, and why must it be either at the very beginning or the very end?

EDIT: bad quoting fixed.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Even before any debate on abortion begins, the positions are already distorted. One side calls itself "pro-life", implying that the other side must either be pro-death or anti-life.

[Wicked Pilot]

Even before any debate on abortion begins, the positions are already distorted. One side calls itself "pro-life", implying that the other side must either be pro-death or anti-life.

Perhaps we should rename the "Pro-life" side to "Pro-Ruined Female Lives and Unwanted Children"

Then, we could rename the "Pro-choice" side to "Pro-Stabbing Babies in the Back of the Head with Scissors"

[HemlockGrey]

This is how I differentiate between sperm and fertilized eggs:

A single sperm has an astronomical chance of becoming a child.

A fertilized egg has quite a good chance of becoming a child.

Not throwing myself into debate, I'm still formulating my posistion.