Perfect solution to the Abortion dilemma?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-08-30 12:44pm

Personally, I disagree with abortion, but I must override such feelings with a woman's right to choose--within reason. What it comes down to is deciding when an unborn child is considered "life", which is different for different people. I have little problem with allowing first-trimester abortions, and in later stages (particularly the third trimester), abortions should still be available if the mother's life is in danger. However, such ideas would be difficult to put into law.

That's because such ideas make no sense. The embryo in the first trimester is not a human being. It's a collection of cells that could, eventually, become a human. There's no evidence of sentience or consciousness.

For religious groups, I wish more of them would emulate the example of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, which held a series of conventions in the late 1980's (IIRC) to adopt a policy on abortion. The resulting statement was one that in essence said, "While we disagree with abortion, the church's duty is to focus on those societal issues that cause women to consider abortion." In other words, they recognize the futility of arguing over the morality of abortion and that the women considering abortion are real people with real-life problems and worries. Unfortunately, this policy is not practiced uniformly by the membership of the ELCIC (in fact, there were many that were outraged that the policy pointedly refused to condemn abortions, and a number of these switched to more conservative churches).

I just wish that more religious groups would shut the fuck up, personally. In matters of law, churches have no voice. The policy adopted by the ELCIC would seem to be the best compromise, though. Instead of campaigning to shove their religious views into the State, they try helping women considering abortion have the child and find a safe home for it.

As a side note, I've often found the anti-abortionist stance that adoption is a better option as particularly hilarious. They act like pregnancy isn't a burden until the child is born. Are we supposed to believe that it's a better idea for a pregnant teen to carry the child for nine months, miss work, school, fall behind on everything, and then pay hospital bills for delivery is a better option than simply aborting the pregnancy early on and then being able to stay in school?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-08-30 12:49pm

Durandal wrote: I just wish that more religious groups would shut the fuck up

Agreed. Those and the others "Legalize abortion up to the 10th month" woman rights fundamentalists.

Stupid people discussing a serious problem

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-08-30 04:32pm

Indeed. Why leaving a child's head inside the womb and then snapping its neck isn't murder is a complete mystery to me.

The biggest problem is that politicians are making decisions, not people who actually have relevant knowledge in whatever particular field is being discussed.

For example, scientific societies (the American Geological Society, National Center for Scientific Education, American Biological Society, et cetera) have written and signed letters to Congress explicitly stating that the theory of evolution is not a controversial theory in the scientific community and that it is regarded as one of the most robust, accurate theories in all of science, ranking up with the general and special theories of relativity. They've also explicitly stated that no (well, very few) legitimate scientist would ever dream of teaching creationism is a scientific classroom. Has Congress listened?

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-08-30 04:38pm

I'm going to go with my mother's opinion on abortion:

"You might as well wait until your child is fifteen, see if you like them first."

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-08-30 05:06pm

Lagmonster wrote:I'm going to go with my mother's opinion on abortion:

"You might as well wait until your child is fifteen, see if you like them first."

Soo.. I'm guessing you're either under fifteen or your mother decided she likes you. You lucky guy

RayCav of ASVS · Post by **RayCav of ASVS** » 2002-08-30 08:17pm

I guess time to make my thoughts known:

as I understand, Mike Wong is against abortion, but I don't know to what extent. I am against late abortion, but still undecided towards early abortion. To tell you the truth, though, I'm kinda against that too. I just don't like the idea of messing with life, even if it's merely potential life. But that's just me. Personally, I dream of a day where abortion won't be necessary due to effective birth control (I have no problem with birth control)

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-08-30 08:26pm

Indeed I have to say its a failuer if it got that far that somthing was concived at all considering all the *Baby away Pills we have today(I met a Gunigolicest who used to use that phrase for all the drugs on the market to be taken right before or after sex to prevent conception)

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-08-30 08:31pm

Just a note:

Receipt to induce next day abortion. Take 5 normal pills and swallow them with lots of water in the next days. You don't need special next day ones. Only works if you're a girl, though

RayCav of ASVS · Post by **RayCav of ASVS** » 2002-08-30 08:48pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:Just a note:

Receipt to induce next day abortion. Take 5 normal pills and swallow them with lots of water in the next days. You don't need special next day ones. Only works if you're a girl, though

I don't like to use the term "next day abortion" because it's not abortion in the slightest bit (as I define it) and frankly I think it's giving the whole concept a bad image.

My definition of abortion is preventing the further development of an embryo that has already "evolved" from the egg stage. However, "next day abortion" prevents the egg from joining the uterine wall in the first place: the egg is ejected just like during a peroid. I personally view this as no more than a contraceptive, which I have no problem with.

BTW I also support RU-486.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-08-30 11:47pm

I would like to make the following arguements for abortion:

Any questions?

(please don't ban me for the Dr. Laura pic)

Mr. B · Post by **Mr. B** » 2002-08-30 11:52pm

LOL

I think that is an argument for executions. Becasue everyone of them deserve it. Especially the first and last.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-08-31 03:15pm

I'm always forgetting that most of the users on this board are not from the United States, and therefore will not be familiar with my first arguements for abortion. I apologize for that. Here are my international arguements for abortion:

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-09-01 10:21am

Good choices all around.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2002-09-06 03:04am

The solution is simple. Genetically engineer human males to be unable to produce children unless supplied with a chemical or injection that allows true procreation to take place within a given time frame. After it wears off, back to screwing around to your heart's content.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2002-09-06 07:54pm

Robert Walper wrote:The solution is simple. Genetically engineer human males to be unable to produce children unless supplied with a chemical or injection that allows true procreation to take place within a given time frame. After it wears off, back to screwing around to your heart's content.

Why not engineer the females? Hell, let's give them control of their own damn bodies. That way, rape won't be a viable procreative strategy either, and good fucking riddance.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-09-07 12:01pm

To the best of my knowledge, Queensland has legal first trimester abortions, and 'medical necessity' late-term abortions (i.e. meeting regulations requiring recommendations from medical practitioners).

As for the (very relevant) 'when does life (and hence, human rights) begin?' question (common answers and a few logical consequences):
1. Zygote: At conception (i.e. 'day after' pills are killing a human, IVF involves killing 'excess' humans)
2. Embryo: At implantation (i.e. abortion is killing a human)
3. Foetus: After 3 months, all vital organs present (i.e. late term abortion is killing a human)
4. Baby: At birth (i.e. so long as some part is still inside the mother, it isn't killing a human, even if the foetus is sufficiently well developed that it could serve in an artificial incubator)

I use the term 'killing a human' rather than murder, since not all killing is murder (e.g. self-defense, war, negligence). Drawing the line at the start of the foetal stage seems sensible, striking a reasonable balance between the mother's right to choice, and a human's right to live (we can be confident that the 3-month foetus is not a conscious human, but that the significant consciousness seen in a newborn baby develops sometime over the course of the following 6 months).

Remember, we are talking about the role of the State in this issue, not the moral views of individuals or religions. There is no good scientific basis for considering a zygote or an embryo as a fully-fledged human. Is it OK for an individual to believe that life begins at conception or at impantation? Certainly. Is it OK for this belief to be enshrined in law, and imposed on the rest of the population, who don't subscribe to that belief? Hell, no!

(So why is it OK to impose option 3 on people who believe in option 4? Because there are people who believe murdering adult humans is OK, too. . .)

RayCav of ASVS · Post by **RayCav of ASVS** » 2002-09-07 03:04pm

Nick wrote:To the best of my knowledge, Queensland has legal first trimester abortions, and 'medical necessity' late-term abortions (i.e. meeting regulations requiring recommendations from medical practitioners).

As for the (very relevant) 'when does life (and hence, human rights) begin?' question (common answers and a few logical consequences):
1. Zygote: At conception (i.e. 'day after' pills are killing a human, IVF involves killing 'excess' humans)
2. Embryo: At implantation (i.e. abortion is killing a human)
3. Foetus: After 3 months, all vital organs present (i.e. late term abortion is killing a human)
4. Baby: At birth (i.e. so long as some part is still inside the mother, it isn't killing a human, even if the foetus is sufficiently well developed that it could serve in an artificial incubator)

I use the term 'killing a human' rather than murder, since not all killing is murder (e.g. self-defense, war, negligence). Drawing the line at the start of the foetal stage seems sensible, striking a reasonable balance between the mother's right to choice, and a human's right to live (we can be confident that the 3-month foetus is not a conscious human, but that the significant consciousness seen in a newborn baby develops sometime over the course of the following 6 months).

Remember, we are talking about the role of the State in this issue, not the moral views of individuals or religions. There is no good scientific basis for considering a zygote or an embryo as a fully-fledged human. Is it OK for an individual to believe that life begins at conception or at impantation? Certainly. Is it OK for this belief to be enshrined in law, and imposed on the rest of the population, who don't subscribe to that belief? Hell, no!

(So why is it OK to impose option 3 on people who believe in option 4? Because there are people who believe murdering adult humans is OK, too. . .)

Really, I think stage 1 is the only appropriate stage. I don't care if you don't consider an embryo non-human...it's just a personal belief. And yes, I know, I shouldn't be shoving it down the throats of others, but this is a "life and death" situation, so I'll make an exception.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-09-08 01:21am

RayCav of ASVS wrote:Really, I think stage 1 is the only appropriate stage. I don't care if you don't consider an embryo non-human...it's just a personal belief. And yes, I know, I shouldn't be shoving it down the throats of others, but this is a "life and death" situation, so I'll make an exception.

Tell me, do you eat?

Because a potato possesses as much consciousness as an embryo. The dividing line isn't between human and non-human (despite my unfortunate misuse of terminology. . .). It is between conscious and non-conscious, between insensibility, and a capacity for suffering.

If you want to extend the protection due a conscious being to the human embryo, then you better have a long hard look at the way you treat plants and animals to make sure you are being self-consistent.

Or are you perhaps, so humanocentric that you consider the possesion of human genetic material more important than being a conscious entity capable of suffering? It is certainly wise to err on the side of caution when estimating the capacity for suffering, but don't try and tell me a potato starts screaming in pain when I turn up the heat.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-09-08 02:20am

I don't like abortion. However, there should be strict limits to the state's interference in such matters. Subjective touchy-feely criteria for the onset of human rights during the prenatal period are an insane basis for laws governing the behaviour of adult human beings.

There are several fallacies employed by abortion extremists:

"Life begins at conception". This is pure bullshit. Do the people who say this believe that the egg and sperm were not alive before conception? There is an unbroken cellular chain of life going back from you to your parents to all their descendants and finally, to some highly reactive molecule billions of years ago (think about that for a minute; it's pretty awesome). At no point in the reproductive process is any living thing ever created from any dead thing, so there is no discrete point at which life can be said to begin. The moment of conception is just as arbitrary as, say, week #5. Deal with it.
"At any time before birth, it is just 'fetal material' and it has no rights". This is also bullshit. Babies can move around, think, feel, and hear well before they are born. To classify a living, thinking, feeling sentient being as "fetal material" because it hasn't been born yet is fucking cold and inhuman.
"If it can survive outside the womb, it has full human rights." This was the basis of the Roe vs Wade decision IIRC. While it's a better compromise than either of the two extremes, it's entirely arbitrary (and not forward-thinking; a baby that could not survive outside the womb in 1970 can easily survive today, thanks to modern medical technology). What the fuck does the baby's ability to survive independently have to do with anything?

I think the simple and obvious dividing line is consciousness, as others have suggested. Human existence is defined by human thought; when someone goes brain-dead, they are considered legally dead even though the body is still alive. Therefore, there is simply no question that a fetus can be considered legally devoid of rights before its brain develops consciousness. In the early weeks, this is a no-brainer. But after the first trimester, it gets more complicated because brain activity starts at that point IIRC, so you have to try to determine how much brain activity constitutes pseudo-human thought (ie- higher brain functions as opposed to mere signalling of body functions).

RayCav of ASVS · Post by **RayCav of ASVS** » 2002-09-08 12:17pm

Darth Wong wrote:I don't like abortion. However, there should be strict limits to the state's interference in such matters. Subjective touchy-feely criteria for the onset of human rights during the prenatal period are an insane basis for laws governing the behaviour of adult human beings.

There are several fallacies employed by abortion extremists:

"Life begins at conception". This is pure bullshit. Do the people who say this believe that the egg and sperm were not alive before conception? There is an unbroken cellular chain of life going back from you to your parents to all their descendants and finally, to some highly reactive molecule billions of years ago (think about that for a minute; it's pretty awesome). At no point in the reproductive process is any living thing ever created from any dead thing, so there is no discrete point at which life can be said to begin. The moment of conception is just as arbitrary as, say, week #5. Deal with it.

"At any time before birth, it is just 'fetal material' and it has no rights". This is also bullshit. Babies can move around, think, feel, and hear well before they are born. To classify a living, thinking, feeling sentient being as "fetal material" because it hasn't been born yet is fucking cold and inhuman.

"If it can survive outside the womb, it has full human rights." This was the basis of the Roe vs Wade decision IIRC. While it's a better compromise than either of the two extremes, it's entirely arbitrary (and not forward-thinking; a baby that could not survive outside the womb in 1970 can easily survive today, thanks to modern medical technology). What the fuck does the baby's ability to survive independently have to do with anything?
I think the simple and obvious dividing line is consciousness, as others have suggested. Human existence is defined by human thought; when someone goes brain-dead, they are considered legally dead even though the body is still alive. Therefore, there is simply no question that a fetus can be considered legally devoid of rights before its brain develops consciousness. In the early weeks, this is a no-brainer. But after the first trimester, it gets more complicated because brain activity starts at that point IIRC, so you have to try to determine how much brain activity constitutes pseudo-human thought (ie- higher brain functions as opposed to mere signalling of body functions).

Hmmm...so, in other words, Lord Wong, are you saying there is no simple solution? I'm confused....

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-09-08 12:34pm

RayCav of ASVS wrote: Hmmm...so, in other words, Lord Wong, are you saying there is no simple solution? I'm confused....

Just read the EEG of the fetus and decide upon it, relying in pre-established regulations made to be on the safe side [for example, flat line = fetus considered devoid of rights].
Fetus develop with different rates, so just take the lowest common denominator and still add a certainty margin.