Fair Abortion Discussions

2006-08-04 [Fizban]: Yup. Which is why I agree with Roe v Wade...

2006-08-04 [ceridwen]: Yes, exactly. That is my whole reasoning for keeping abortion legal. I'm not in any way saying that women should have the fetus aborted, but there should be the option. Women will get an abortion one way or another, but if it's outlawed, it won't be as safe. I may not be able to save the fetus, but at least with legal, safe abortions the mother will survive.

2006-08-04 [ceridwen]: As for the whole lump and deadline issue, I don't know when that lump would become a human. So it's a lump that relies on the mother? It's still the mother's choice. Whether aborting it is immoral or not, I can't say. And I can't tell you when that lump becomes a human. But even if you consider that lump a human, it has no control over itself. The mother has ultimate rights. For example, if say a six year old had serious brain damage and went into a coma, they have no control of themselves. The kid being a minor, as well as rendered senseless, whether or not to cut off the life support is the legal gaurdian's choice. That fetus has no control, and is definately a minor. The mother is still -

2006-08-04 [ceridwen]: has final say. If she thinks the lump shouldn't be able to become a member of our world, that's her prerogative.

2006-08-04 [Fizban]: what right does she have to decide such things? Who says her will is correct, intelligent, rational, or feasible. I would want an entire phychological examination of the mother to determine if having that childs life within her decision to terminate it, is allowable.
Ofcourse...I believe life to be sacred, soooo...
Because its in her body, she gets to decide? I suppose that makes sense. But I dont believe its her body to decide with. We all know that if the lump was to pick something, it would pick life over death. It would pick birth over desctruction at a possibly scared and insane hormonal preganant soon to be, but not wanting to be mother.

2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: But really, what makes this child any more than the unjoined sperm or egg? Really, it's got as much self-awareness... I don't see a difference.

2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: Hey, did the comment boxes change for everybody? Or am I just mental?

2006-08-05 [Dil*]: She has rights over her body, that includes the right to give birth or not, a woman isn't a damned incubater.

2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: If pro-lifers really want to save these babies, they should be providing their own incubators. That would actually do a lot more than illegalizing safe, legal abortion.

2006-08-05 [Dil*]: I don't see why we care so much about a lump, it's a damned lump! A rights of a lump with unique DNA supercedes that of a woman? Ludicrous at best. Insidious at worse.

2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: I totally agree, but I think that there are more productive ways that prolifers can go about 'saving babies.' If they're really so for it, they'll go down a path that won't negatively interfere with the woman or the lump. But they'd have to save every unwanted child, find homes for said children, and explain their existence.... take responsibility for them. That's what it would take. Really, there are no sensible alternatives to abortion.

2006-08-05 [Fizban]: Nope, abortion is necessary. Also, the woman would still need to have a Cecarian (sp) section or give birth for incubators to be the least bit useful.

And, yes, a woman is in a sense an incubater. She was designed for that, among many other purposes. If she performs the required act to turn herself into one...then thats what will happen.

She is just a lump of tissue as well. Just a bigger one then the baby. The fact that she is bigger and capable of current decision, gives her the right to, by default, kill the baby. They are the same...Only, she is farther on the path then the lump inside her. A bigger, older, lump. If our laws protect big lumps, little lumps....but not tiny lumps? 

Also, the lump has just as much awareness 2 days after its born, as it does, 2 days before its born. Yet one can be abortion, and the other is murder.

Is that lump now suddenly just becomeing a human because it exits the mother?

2006-08-05 [M_Sinner]: Oh! I get it now! We can have multiple lines now... yes... I like this new text block very much... Makes for smoother reading. Well, given that the typist isn't some brain-dead moron... (like that weird sine guy over there... pshtt).

Anyway, I'm going to (obviously) have to take the side of Fizzy on this one. I've read about tribes that considered a person to not be human until they had a coming-of-age ceremony in which they were circumcised (at the age of 13... quite, QUITE painful, if you don't know. One is generally unable to walk for three days after such a circumcision.).

After all the "sophistication" that our society has collected and all of the "moral superiority" that we pretend to have over such "primative" societies... we're still marking a line saying "Here you're not a human... and here you are!"

Just moving that line back...

My point is: there is a definite definition for the time that death occurs (the cessation of brainwaves from a human). Shouldn't the beginning of life begin with the same perameters (the begining of brainwaves... which opens up a while new can of worms).

2006-08-05 [M_Sinner]: Oh, this new comment structure could get very ugly very quickly... very, very ugly.

2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: Back to fizban's comment.... DESIGNED?!

2006-08-05 [M_Sinner]: I missed something... damn my not reading everything that's been posted!

2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: "...yes, a woman is in a sense an incubater. She was designed for that..."

2006-08-05 [M_Sinner]: Whether by evolution or by a Creator, "design" is a fair word to use there.

2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: Oh, come on. Not at all. It's just unfortunate that the female carries the child. It's just.
Ok. Yes. You are right, literally speaking. But. 


My arguements are making sense inside my head. It's just when I type them...

2006-08-05 [M_Sinner]: Ummm... quick idea here... if the MALE had to carry the baby, what the fuck kind of difference would that make? Unless an egg were to be laid (which isn't possible with current human physiology), then SOMEONE has to be DESIGNED to carry the baby. 

If it were the male sex, then it wouldn't change this abortion situation at all. It would mean that all occurances of the word "female" and "woman" would be replaced with "male" and "man" respectively.

It's not "literally speaking" at all, from where I stand.

2006-08-05 [tuff ghost]: Oh, hush.

The egg thing brings up an interesting point. Many
vegetarians eat eggs. That was my point. Extrapolate.