# General Discussion > Opinions >  Abortion: Pro-life or Pro-choice?

## Golgo_13

Abortion is legal in most Western nations as well as Japan. In Japan, most people aren't even concerned about it. It is currently legal in the U.S. but it has been a burning issue for many years now. What's your opinion?

Personally, I believe in the woman's right to choose, even though my views are conservative on many issues.

----------


## kirei_na_me

Pro-choice, definitely. No one should have the right to tell an able-minded/bodied woman(or anyone else) what to do with their own body. It's just ridiculous. Plain and simple.

However, I do believe people need to try harder to practice safer sex, because abortions are not good for you physically and they are usually not good for you emotionally either.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I think in Japan, you _must_ have the 'father's' signature in order to have an abortion? I've also heard from friends that some Japanese girls/women will use abortion as a kind of birth control. Having pregnancies terminated repeatedly, which will definitely harm your reproductive organs(namely uterus).

----------


## Frank D. White

is Bush is against it, I'm for it!

Frank

 :Blush:

----------


## Golgo_13

> Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I think in Japan, you _must_ have the 'father's' signature in order to have an abortion?


Only if you are a minor.




> is Bush is against it, I'm for it!
> 
> Frank


What if he changes his mind?  :Laughing:

----------


## Glenn

Well, the problem lies in when you believe that life starts. I think that by the third trimester you are definitely dealing with a person, because it's so developed. To me, aborting a fetus at that stage is the same thing as murder. 

I don't believe that it is all about a woman being able to choose what to do with her body, because quite frankly it doesn't involve only her. If it did, then no one should have the right to tell her what to do, but what she does affects another life, so, to me, that throws that argument out of the window. Aside from that, the man helped to create the child, so he should be consulted. It's his child too. Now, in the first two trimesters it becomes more acceptable to me for a woman to have an abortion (maybe not so much the second, but it's better than the third), because the fetus is not fully developed yet (as far as I can remember right now).

So, I would have to say that I'm pro-life.

----------


## kirei_na_me

The way I see it is that an _embryo_(first/second trimesters) can't feel pain(all kinds) the same as a grown person living on the 'outside' can feel. It hasn't experienced life and emotional turmoil the same as a frightened young woman has. So, to me, it's definitely not the same. 

By the way, the due date is calculated by going 40 weeks from the first day of a woman's last menstrual period. The baby is considered 'full-term' at 36 weeks, though. That is the point when the lungs have more than likely matured and the baby is capable of breathing on its own. Up until that point, the lungs haven't fully matured, and intubation would probably be necessary.

----------


## Frank D. White

anyone post those gross pictures that protesters carry around!! Thanks!

Frank

 :Sou ka:

----------


## Glenn

> By the way, the due date is calculated by going 40 weeks from the first day of a woman's last menstrual period. The baby is considered 'full-term' at 36 weeks, though. That is the point when the lungs have more than likely matured and the baby is capable of breathing on its own. Up until that point, the lungs haven't fully matured, and intubation would probably be necessary.


So here's my question to you now: do you think that having an abortion after the lungs have developed and the baby can breathe on its own is the same as having one before such a late stage of development?

----------


## kirei_na_me

> Only if you are a minor.


Oh, it was my understanding that even grown women had to have the father's(husband/boyfriend/whatever) 'permission'(signature) to get an abortion. I was told that a woman couldn't have an abortion without a signature? I was also told that in a lot of cases, the signatures would be forged, because the father couldn't be contacted, the girl didn't want him to know, etc. Maybe I was told wrong?




> So here's my question to you now: do you think that having an abortion after the lungs have developed and the baby can breathe on its own is the same as having one before such a late stage of development?


Well, having been pregnant myself and after having my sons, it's hard for me to say that having an abortion in the third trimester is okay. So no, I don't think it's the same. If the baby is already at the stage that it can live on its own, it should.

----------


## Glenn

> Well, having been pregnant myself and after having my sons, it's hard for me to say that having an abortion in the third trimester is okay. So no, I don't think it's the same. If the baby is already at the stage that it can live on its own, it should.


This is one of the reasons that the abortion debate can be difficult, because it can be fuzzy at times as to exactly what people are arguing about. At a certain point, it usually seems to turn into a "murderers" versus "oppressors" type of argument, which I just don't believe it is.

----------


## Mandylion

If we were all a society unto ourselves, I would agree that we all have a right to our bodies and could do whatever we wanted to them. In such a world, anything we did would not impact on anyone else  we could all smoke, drink until our livers were preserved, do drugs, drive, eat, and live like there was no tomorrow because the costs of such behavior (impacts on the healthcare system, the quality of our communities, our environment) would not be spread beyond the individual.

However, I feel that abortion, like so much else, carries a distinct and lasting social implications that cannot be ignored or selfishly abused. This is not to say that a woman does not have a right to her body, or that society should be approving abortions on an individual level, but society must empower women and their partners to make qualified, informed, and responsible decisions about human reproduction (at all stages). Society cant stop you from making a decision, but if you are going to do something that impacts us all, you at least owe it to the rest of us to really think about it beforehand.

Society owes it to its members to provide a safe and fertile environment for personal, economic, and social growth. It cant stop you from making a decision, but decisions should not be made in complete isolation. The societies of man are not perfect and most of us dont get to choose which one we are a part of. When you make a decision of this magnitude it is not fair to write all the rest of us completely out of the process, nor should society dictate on such a sensitive and personal issue. We all are impacted by the birth or abortion of a child  it creates new challenges and benefits of one form or another onto all the institutions our societies are built on: economical, political, educational, societal, etc. By no means should a woman be forced to have a child that will carry her family deeper into grinding poverty, but neither should the rich woman be free to abort because prenatal tests have shown the child will have a slight physical deformity but be otherwise healthy (if you have been reading the New York Times as of late you probably caught the article).

(Ps  Frank, not to worry, the Merry Band of Moderators will keep things kosher)

----------


## bossel

I'm on the same line as Glenn on this one. I haven't voted, since my idea is not in the list. I'm pro-choice as long as the foetus has not developed a nervous system, but as soon as the embryo can feel pain, it should be treated as an individual being. Abortion then should only be legal under special circumstances. 
The right to your own body ends where the other's body begins.

----------


## Golgo_13

I'm going to pose another difficult question.

What if you found out early in the pregnancy that your baby is suffering from an illness which will require lifetime of medical care at enormous costs, not to mention cause him/her great pain?

If I were the mother, I would seriously consider terminating the pregnancy.

What would you do?

----------


## Glenn

It's hard to say, because you never know what could happen. The very existence of such a person could serve to inspire others to greater things; there have been cases like this before. Also, how would the child's mental state be? He could still be potentially the smartest person to have ever lived, and could shed light on a lot of areas about which we either know nothing, or, at best, not much. I am tempted to bring up the question of life expectancy, but that is never accurate anyway, so forget that I brought it up. In the end, I guess I would give the child a chance, but then again, I can never really know until I am in said situation.

----------


## kirei_na_me

It is hard to say. When I was 16 weeks pregnant with my second son, the ultrasound technician spotted something abnormal on the ultrasound. It was extra fluid on the back of his neck, which was supposed to be a symptom of Down's Syndrome. I then had to take a blood test which would reveal if the baby was Down's or not. In the few days that I had to wait on those results to come back, I had to try to think about what to do if it came back positive for Down's. 

Although I was getting pressure from my side of the family(mom/grandma saying things like 'they didn't have ultrasounds back then....if they did, something could be done about it'), I still didn't come to a firm conclusion in those few days. I just kept trying to keep a positive attitude about it. I kept telling myself that I was very young, his kidneys and other organs were fine, etc. etc. Luckily, he was born healthy. I will always be extremely thankful for that.

----------


## michi

:) I'm glad everything turned out alright, kirei. :)

By the way, I'm pro-choice.

----------


## Foxtrot Uniform

When I discussed this issue with my friends, one of them came up with an interesting point. He is am industrial strength Christian so he was against abortion, so I asked him why abortion are wrong. He replied that getting an abortion is always murder because even if the fetus has not yet developed a nervous system or has even grown lungs and you terminate it, it is still murder because it had the potential to mature and develop into a human being that could have had a life. As soon as the sperm fertilizes tha egg and the process of the creation of life begins, terminating it would be murder because it has the potential to live. He went onto to talk about how murdering is wrong because we are God's children that is not important.

Although I am an atheist and I am very pro-choice, this made me think.

----------


## silver angel

> I'm going to pose another difficult question.
> 
> What if you found out early in the pregnancy that your baby is suffering from an illness which will require lifetime of medical care at enormous costs, not to mention cause him/her great pain?
> 
> If I were the mother, I would seriously consider terminating the pregnancy.
> 
> What would you do?


I'm not commenting on the abortion part, because I am personally torn between two views (personally and religiously) 
But to answer this question,
I'm certain that I would let my child be born. Even if it will cost me my career, savings and such. As long as I can be with that child for the time God gave it. Pain is just another way of growing, and a part of life. I know because I've been through it with my family in the hospital. I'd give up all the money that I can to give that child a chance to live. 
Also, miracles can happen in that time.  :Smiling:

----------


## Lina Inverse

Pro-Choice - Abortion should generally be allowed! Let the women make a choice, without being influenced by any braindead christian organizations who just want to talk her into getting the child even if it would often be much better not to because the mother can't make an outcome and/or is too young for it. Abortion is _never_ murder, that's utter nonsense! The life of the mother is alway more valuable than the "life" (if you can even call it that way) of something that isn't even born yet, so she must not be forced to ruin her life just to have the child!
I even think that minors should generally be disallowed to get children because they're way too young for it!

@Foxtrot Uniform
The point of your friend is absolute nonsense. Arguing that way, you could also say that shooting your sperm on the ground (or into a condom, or somewhere else where it can't impregnate a woman) is murder because it had the potential to mature and develop into a human being and yadda yadda whatever else  :Laughing:

----------


## silver angel

> Arguing that way, you could also say that shooting your sperm on the ground (or into a condom, or somewhere else where it can't impregnate a woman) is murder because it had the potential to mature and develop into a human being and yadda yadda whatever else


Because it's so easy to shoot a sperm.... :Laughing:

----------


## Lina Inverse

> Because it's so easy to shoot a sperm....


Or, with the same insane religious fanatic argumentation style, you could also argue that every time you have a menstruation you are committing murder because the egg had the potential to mature and develop into a human being and yadda yadda whatever else  :Laughing:   :Laughing:

----------


## Glenn

> Abortion is _never_ murder, that's utter nonsense! The life of the mother is alway more valuable than the "life" (if you can even call it that way) of something that isn't even born yet...


However, I think that there is some grey area here. If a baby is born prematurely then after it is born it could still be "aborted," because it hasn't finished developing to the point that it should have. Therefore, it is nothing more than a fetus that is in the wrong place. What's the difference between a 32-week fetus and a baby born after 32 weeks? Does where it is affect the situation that much?

Another question: what's the difference between a baby that is just about to exit the womb and one that just has? Is one more alive than the other? Can one feel pain more than the other?

Here is something else about which I have often wondered: do pro-choice women become upset about losing a "child" if they have a miscarriage? If so, then the fetus would seem to be more than a "choice" to them. 




> ...so she must not be forced to ruin her life just to have the child!


Who says that having the child would ruin her life? Do you think that there are not women out there who just view abortion as a convenience issue? I.e. women for whom having a child would just be an inconvenience, while not being really disadvantaged by the child.

Also, it seems to me that abortion is quite a cop-out. If you can't afford to have a child, don't. If you have become pregnant or gotten someone pregnant (whichever the case may be), then you have to live with the consequences of your actions. Abortion seems to me to be yet another symptom of the "it's not my responsibility to reap what I have sown" mentality.

----------


## Foxtrot Uniform

> @Foxtrot Uniform
> The point of your friend is absolute nonsense. Arguing that way, you could also say that shooting your sperm on the ground (or into a condom, or somewhere else where it can't impregnate a woman) is murder because it had the potential to mature and develop into a human being and yadda yadda whatever else


Hmm good point! I'll tell him that, but now he'll feel guilty when ever he shoots his sperm onto the ground.  :Poh:

----------


## chiquiliquis

> Well, the problem lies in when you believe that life starts. I think that by the third trimester you are definitely dealing with a person, because it's so developed. To me, aborting a fetus at that stage is the same thing as murder.


Some Orthodox Jews believe beating off is tantamount to murder. 

When does life start? Life doesn't start. Life is! 

Our valuations of life (when it starts or stops, or what qualifies it as "human") are all functions of life. LIFE gave birth to reason (what some like to call, "humanity"); Not the other way around. 

There is no other thing than life in this world, and it is singular. There are no "lives" except those that reason alone has lead us to judge or qualify in one way or another. 

I'll say it again, cause it's worth saying: LIFE gave birth to reason; Not the other way around. 

I see only one issue at hand... affirming life through choice. 

And, yes... I beat off with a very clear conscience.  :Futon: 


This is what I get for posting without having read the entire thread... props to Lina for bringing up the sperm issue.  :Hey there !:

----------


## Glenn

> Some Orthodox Jews believe beating off is tantamount to murder.


Yes, and it's a sin in Catholicism, most likely for that very same reason. 




> When does life start? Life doesn't start. Life is! 
> 
> Our valuations of life (when it starts or stops, or what qualifies it as "human") are all functions of life. LIFE gave birth to reason (what some like to call, "humanity"); Not the other way around. 
> 
> There is no other thing than life in this world, and it is singular. There are no "lives" except those that reason alone has lead us to judge or qualify in one way or another. 
> 
> I'll say it again, cause it's worth saying: LIFE gave birth to reason; Not the other way around. 
> 
> I see only one issue at hand... affirming life through choice.


I'm not sure what you're saying here, and I don't know what stance you have taken. Do you mean that everyone on Earth is part of a collective life, so therefore there are no individuals? Or are you perhaps saying that if a being cannot reason, then it is not alive (I hope you aren't saying that)? Or are you saying that life is in everything and should not be terminated? I'm afraid that I can't seem to make any sense of what you have said.




> The point of your friend is absolute nonsense. Arguing that way, you could also say that shooting your sperm on the ground (or into a condom, or somewhere else where it can't impregnate a woman) is murder because it had the potential to mature and develop into a human being and yadda yadda whatever else.


I was thinking about this, and there seems to me to be a difference between a fertilized egg and one that isn't or a sperm. The reason is this, a sperm has about a one in one million chance of fertilizing an egg, right? Also, a sperm only carries half of the human chromosones. Same thing for an egg -- I'm not sure what the chances are of an egg becoming fertilized, but when you put that together with the chances of a sperm fertilizing an egg, you have a less than one in a million chance of a certain egg combining with a certain sperm.

Now, if you consider a fertilized egg, you will see that it is already a special entity, because it somehow beat the odds (even though there are millions of sperm in each ejaculation and there are several eggs available -- not every act of sexual intercourse results in pregnancy anyway). Aside from that, a fretilized egg can arguably be considered a human. For example, it already has all of the DNA encoding that it requires and will ever have throughout its lifetime. That means that height, weight, body type, build, intelligence, personality, sex, race, etc. are all there from the moment of conception. It just doesn't *look* human yet. However, it is certainly not a frog or a moth. On the point of looking human, would you consider someone so disfigured that he didn't look human anymore to not be human?

----------


## Golgo_13

> And, yes... I beat off with a very clear conscience.


What magazine do you use?  :Laughing:   :Laugh out loud:

----------


## Lina Inverse

> Hmm good point! I'll tell him that, but now he'll feel guilty when ever he shoots his sperm onto the ground.


He should feel guilty for that anyway if he reads the bible (and if he's as religious as you say, he probably does). In the bible there's already Onan who shoots his sperm on the ground, and that was regarded as a great sin!  :Laughing:

----------


## Duo

Hmm, I myself am a little blurred by both pro-choice and pro-life. I believe, like Glenn was saying, that after the second trimester, or after the baby reaches maturity, abortion should not be performed. Also, it is not good for the health of the mother to abort a baby if he has passed the second trimester.

----------


## Golgo_13

> In the bible there's already Onan who shoots his sperm on the ground


I bet Onan went blind!  :Laughing:

----------


## Elizabeth

Wasn't he instead struck dead for not impregnating his dead brother's wife ? No wonder Japanese men don't have any of the normal onani complex  :Laughing: .

----------


## Lina Inverse

> Wasn't he instead struck dead for not impregnating his dead brother's wife ? No wonder Japanese men don't have any of the normal onani complex .


Yes, it was something very drastic like that  :Laughing: 

btw, did you know that there's actually a German word derived from Onan?
"onanieren" means "to masturbate"  :Laughing:  (We have "masturbieren" as well)

----------


## Elizabeth

Yeah, onani is one of the Japanese words for it as well.

----------


## Lina Inverse

> Yeah, onani is one of the Japanese words for it as well.


Good to know that  :Laughing:

----------


## Golgo_13

A question for Americans to consider:

When women do it, do they call it "Jill Off"?

 :Bravo:   :Bravo:   :Bravo:   :Laughing:   :Laughing:   :Laughing:   :Poh:   :Poh:   :Poh:

----------


## Lina Inverse

> A question for Americans to consider:
> 
> When women do it, do they call it "Jill Off"?


"Jil" as opposed to "Jerk"? Never heard of that...
I'd say it's called "rubbing the carpet"  :Laughing:   :Laughing:   :Laughing:

----------


## Golgo_13

That's why it says "for Americans to consider". They would get it and find it funny.

----------


## Lina Inverse

> That's why it says "for Americans to consider". They would get it and find it funny.


Well... perhaps you could tell us non-Americans who this Jill is?

----------


## Dan B

"Jack and Jill went up the hill
to fetch a pail of water..."

"Jill" in this sense is an oblique reference to a nursery rhyme in which, we might generalize, boys are referred to as "Jack" and girls are referred to as "Jill."

Regardless, I'm quite new to this board and I therefore hesitate to comment. But I wonder if some of the sentiments here might be expressed with a little more regard for people's feelings. Abortion is a polarizing issue and its very nature conjurs up deeply-held beliefs, irrespective of the "side" one elects to support.

It would seem to me that mocking another person's beliefs about--or position on--the matter serves little purpose except to further alienate people of opposing views. Yet that surely cannot be the intent of anyone who engages in such a discussion...?

Forgive me, but it seems rather counter-productive.

Regards,

Dan

----------


## Lina Inverse

So it comes from a nursery rhyme... I see. No wonder I didn't know it  :Relieved:

----------


## chiquiliquis

> What magazine do you use?


Clear Conscience Magazine  :Smiling:  

Glenn, 
My point is this: life is beyond all representational thought. 

I am pro-life and pro-choice. I believe in affirming life through choice.

----------


## Elizabeth

> "Jack and Jill went up the hill
> to fetch a pail of water..."
> 
> "Jill" in this sense is an oblique reference to a nursery rhyme in which, we might generalize, boys are referred to as "Jack" and girls are referred to as "Jill."


I'd say these are the clear references but that weren't being used in direct reference to abortion here....You could make a stronger argument they were religiously insensitive (thus mocking an absolutist pro-life position no one has taken), and if anyone claimed offense I'm sure the discussion would come to a dead end as abortion debates generally do.

----------


## Dan B

Elizabeth,

It seems that our wires have gotten crossed. To clarify, I only referred to Jack and Jill in an effort to answer someone's question about the relevance of the name "Jill."

My other remarks were an independent and intentionally vague allusion to some earlier comments which would seem to have been made with the intent to disparage--rather than to honestly debate or discuss the logical merits and demerits of--the beliefs of those of opposing views.

In my experience, discussions of abortion almost inevitably devolve into little more than a collection of fruitless ad hominem attacks, with such attacks being made by proponents of both sides.

I must admit that, on the whole, this has been one of the more rational abortion discussions that I've read. I made my comments in the hope that this would continue.

Regards,

Dan

----------


## Elizabeth

> My other remarks were an independent and intentionally vague allusion to some earlier comments which would seem to have been made with the intent to disparage--rather than to honestly debate or discuss the logical merits and demerits of--the beliefs of those of opposing views.


For better or worse, you'll need to be direct and specific on this board (and any I've ever been on).  :Wavey:

----------


## Glenn

> So it comes from a nursery rhyme... I see. No wonder I didn't know it


Just to add a little clarification: masturbation is commonly called "jacking off" among guys, so "jilling off" would be the female version.

By the way, Golgo, I thought the joke was funny.  :Cool:   :Cool:   :Laughing:   :Laughing:  




> Glenn, 
> My point is this: life is beyond all representational thought. 
> 
> I am pro-life and pro-choice. I believe in affirming life through choice.


I guess I'm an idiot, because this still seems vague to me. How are you pro-choice and pro-life, in the context of the abortion debate? I'm still having problems relating what you have said in a significant way to this topic. Sorry.  :Sorry:   :Gomen: 




> I must admit that, on the whole, this has been one of the more rational abortion discussions that I've read. I made my comments in the hope that this would continue.


Thank you for saying that. I was hoping to have an open discussion on the points that I mentioned above, but no one seems to want to comment on them. I'm not sure of the reasons why, though.

----------


## Winter

> Pro-Choice - Abortion should generally be allowed! Let the women make a choice, without being influenced *by any braindead christian organizations* who just want to talk her into getting the child even if it would often be much better not to because the mother can't make an outcome and/or is too young for it. *Abortion is never murder,* that's utter nonsense! *The life of the mother is alway more valuable than the "life" (if you can even call it that way)* of something that isn't even born yet, so she must not be forced to ruin her life just to have the child!



Wow......thats....well, just a bit harsh.

----------


## Elizabeth

> Just to add a little clarification: masturbation is commonly called "jacking off" among guys, so "jilling off" would be the female version.
> 
> By the way, Golgo13, I thought the joke was funny.


Jacking off is an allusion to Jack's activities in the second verse (of the original rhyme) however.....there's no way of knowing what happened to Jill after she went tumbling after.

----------


## Glenn

> Jacking off is an allusion to Jack's activities in the second verse (of the original rhyme) however.....there's no way of knowing what happened to Jill after she went tumbling after.


Hmm, I guess I need to find a copy of the original rhyme, then. All that I can remember is "Jack and Jill went up a hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown, and Jill came tumbling after."

----------


## Elizabeth

> Glenn, 
> My point is this: life is beyond all representational thought. 
> 
> I am pro-life and pro-choice. I believe in affirming life through choice.


Yes, no one is anti-life so you must use these labels in the standard way to be understood.  :Laughing:   :Laughing:

----------


## kirei_na_me

Maybe I should make a thread specifically for analyzing the nursery rhyme, Jack and Jill?  :Doubt:

----------


## Elizabeth

Do we have any threads analyzing how shy Japanese people are in talking about sexual matters ?  :Laughing: . I don't think it needs to get any more graphic personally.....

----------


## Golgo_13

> Just to add a little clarification: masturbation is commonly called "jacking off" among guys, so "jilling off" would be the female version.
> 
> By the way, Golgo, I thought the joke was funny.



Thank you!  :Cool:  It wasn't too hard for you to get it, right?

Finally, someone has a sense of humor.  :Laughing:  

It wasn't even my joke. I heard someone say that at a comedy club and thought it was hilarious.




> Do we have any threads analyzing how shy Japanese people are in talking about sexual matters ? . I don't think it needs to get any more graphic personally.....


I don't think we need uncomplimentary discussions of shy Japanese any more than really necessary. Just turns into more generalizations and stereotypes.

----------


## Dan B

Elizabeth,




> For better or worse, you'll need to be direct and specific on this board (and any I've ever been on).


  :Smiling:  I appreciate your advice and, in fact, that's exactly what I typically do. Nonetheless, in my estimate, the point I sought to make could be expressed without directing my comments at particular individuals. Thus, the lack of specificity in my post.

As a newbie to the JRef Forum commenting on a discussion with a topic as volatile as abortion, I've little doubt that my best course of action was, and continues to be, to tread lightly.


Glenn,




> Thank you for saying that. I was hoping to have an open discussion on the points that I mentioned above, but no one seems to want to comment on them. I'm not sure of the reasons why, though.


You're quite welcome!

Real discussion and debate, like that which you are trying to foster, requires a willingness to closely analyze and test what one has come to believe to be "true." But given the zeal with which many people often defend their views on abortion, it seems likely that very few would be willing to engage in the requisite calm, rational introspection.

I would think that this would provide at least a partial explanation for the lack of commentary on your points.

My regards to you both,

Dan

----------


## Lina Inverse

> Hmm, I guess I need to find a copy of the original rhyme, then. All that I can remember is "Jack and Jill went up a hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown, and Jill came tumbling after."


So it's called "crown" now?  :Laughing:  Guess breaking it must be quite painful  :Laughing:   :Laughing:   :Laughing: 

@kirei na me
Yes, I think it would be better to make a new thread named "Masturbation and nursery rhymes" and move all the corresponding posts there, since they have nothing to do with abortion  :Relieved:

----------


## Elizabeth

> I don't think we need uncomplimentary discussions of shy Japanese any more than really necessary. Just turns into more generalizations and stereotypes.


And posting on Japanese sex houses, porn industry, love hotels, sex industry in general is more complementary to the culture then their modesty  :Doubt:

----------


## Golgo_13

Can you show me where I've ever said that? Right now! Now!

Of course, they ARE NOT !!!!!!!!

But the _____s on this forum will go on doing that anyway, and I'm tired of dealing with them. I thought at least I could reason with you .

----------


## Elizabeth

> Can you show me where I've ever said that? Right now! Now!
> 
> Of course, they ARE NOT !!!!!!!!
> 
> But the _____s on this forum will go on doing that anyway, and I'm tired of dealing with them. I thought at least I could reason with you .


I'm not being unreasonable.  :Gomen:  and I didn't mean to be uncomplementary. It was just something I heard from some Japanese friends -- not necessarily that they're shy (actually more sociable than Americans in many ways) but that they don't talk as openly about sex. 
Please correct me if this is a misimpression.

----------


## kirei_na_me

Okay, back to the subject or else I'm going to have to lock it. I really hate being authoritative, but sheesh...

And I thought the abortion debate alone would cause controversy...  :Mad:

----------


## Areku

To me, the woman should have total choice. 

I don't think it's an issue where 'life' begins. Because you can just take it further back, and futher back, until, as someone said, masturbation is equivalent to murder.

I don't believe the nervous system should have anything to do with it either. Maybe the embryo can feel pain at 6 months+ or whatever the date is, but it's still virtually braindead. It doesn't have the capacity to think or to have memories or to have emotional pain. And being realistic, how long/how much pain will it have? I don't know the specific procedure for abortions but I doubt it takes longer than a few seconds and I doubt the embryo is 'alive' very long during it either. 

At the end of the day, the baby won't care that it's dead, it doesn't even have any intelligence at all. The mothers rights always come first because she's already a fully developed human who has the intellectual and emotional capability for lots of pain.

I think issues gets blurred badly when you start using religiously-inspired phrasing and arguments like 'when does life start'. 'Life' is no more than a chemical state of an organism being technically alive. The embryo is the property of the parents, a mass of cells totally and utterly reliant on the mother to even exist without dying.

----------


## Glenn

> To me, the woman should have total choice. 
> 
> I don't think it's an issue where 'life' begins. Because you can just take it further back, and futher back, until, as someone said, masturbation is equivalent to murder.


So what do you think about this:




> I was thinking about this, and there seems to me to be a difference between a fertilized egg and one that isn't or a sperm. The reason is this, a sperm has about a one in one million chance of fertilizing an egg, right? Also, a sperm only carries half of the human chromosones. Same thing for an egg -- I'm not sure what the chances are of an egg becoming fertilized, but when you put that together with the chances of a sperm fertilizing an egg, you have a less than one in a million chance of a certain egg combining with a certain sperm.
> 
> Now, if you consider a fertilized egg, you will see that it is already a special entity, because it somehow beat the odds (even though there are millions of sperm in each ejaculation and there are several eggs available -- not every act of sexual intercourse results in pregnancy anyway). Aside from that, a fretilized egg can arguably be considered a human. For example, it already has all of the DNA encoding that it requires and will ever have throughout its lifetime. That means that height, weight, body type, build, intelligence, personality, sex, race, etc. are all there from the moment of conception. It just doesn't look human yet. However, it is certainly not a frog or a moth. On the point of looking human, would you consider someone so disfigured that he didn't look human anymore to not be human?


I am arguing that a line *can* be drawn before you get to individual sperm and eggs.





> I don't believe the nervous system should have anything to do with it either. Maybe the embryo can feel pain at 6 months+ or whatever the date is, but it's still virtually braindead. It doesn't have the capacity to think or to have memories or to have emotional pain. And being realistic, how long/how much pain will it have? I don't know the specific procedure for abortions but I doubt it takes longer than a few seconds and I doubt the embryo is 'alive' very long during it either.


From what I understand, most abortions take place in the second and third trimesters, and the procedure involves tearing the fetus apart. Being realistic, how can you say that it can't think? Also, is the intensity or duration of the pain that important? Using this argument you could say that killing people instantly is OK, because the duration and intensity of the pain is not that great.





> At the end of the day, the baby won't care that it's dead, it doesn't even have any intelligence at all. The mothers rights always come first because she's already a fully developed human who has the intellectual and emotional capability for lots of pain.


At the end of the day, no one will care that he is dead. Once life ends, so does all caring, for the deceased. It doesn't matter at what stage of life one is. Also, see what I have stated above about intelligence and DNA encoding from the time of conception.




> I think issues gets blurred badly when you start using religiously-inspired phrasing and arguments like 'when does life start'. 'Life' is no more than a chemical state of an organism being technically alive. The embryo is the property of the parents, a mass of cells totally and utterly reliant on the mother to even exist without dying.


How is the question "when does life start" a religiously-inspired argument? Even if its roots are in religion, is it not a valid question? A child is also totally and utterly reliant on at least some other person to exist without dying. Does that mean that it is OK to kill children? They are, after all, not fully developed. You say that "'life' is no more than a chemical state of an organism being technically alive," which begs an answer to the question, "what is technically alive?" or, to paraphrase, "when does life start?" Technically, an amoeba is in "a chemical state of...being technically alive." Do you think that an amoeba is more alive than a human embryo, or even a fetus? Also, how about answering these questions:




> If a baby is born prematurely then after it is born it could still be "aborted," because it hasn't finished developing to the point that it should have. Therefore, it is nothing more than a fetus that is in the wrong place. What's the difference between a 32-week fetus and a baby born after 32 weeks? Does where it is affect the situation that much?
> 
> Another question: what's the difference between a baby that is just about to exit the womb and one that just has? Is one more alive than the other? Can one feel pain more than the other?

----------


## Areku

> So what do you think about this:
> 
> 
> 
> I am arguing that a line *can* be drawn before you get to individual sperm and eggs.


It makes more sense to draw the line at a fertilised egg, but to me I don't see much difference. The sperm is half a set of dna, the fertilised egg is a full set. It's still just a mass of cells. Technically it has a genetic height/weight roughly encoded already, but in my opinion it doesn't make it remotely human.






> From what I understand, most abortions take place in the second and third trimesters, and the procedure involves tearing the fetus apart. Being realistic, how can you say that it can't think? Also, is the intensity or duration of the pain that important? Using this argument you could say that killing people instantly is OK, because the duration and intensity of the pain is not that great.


Technically yes. If you killed me now, instantly, I wouldn't care less. But in this case, you'd have to think about the implications on my friends/family. But in the case of a mother wanting an abortion, she is the only one (except the father) who has the capability to suffer from the situation. And furthermore, if she wants an abortion in the first place, she'll probably suffer more if it lives, than if she has an abortion.





> At the end of the day, no one will care that he is dead. Once life ends, so does all caring, for the deceased. It doesn't matter at what stage of life one is. Also, see what I have stated above about intelligence and DNA encoding from the time of conception.


But that's not true for adults. People do care.




> How is the question "when does life start" a religiously-inspired argument? Even if its roots are in religion, is it not a valid question? A child is also totally and utterly reliant on at least some other person to exist without dying. Does that mean that it is OK to kill children? They are, after all, not fully developed. You say that "'life' is no more than a chemical state of an organism being technically alive," which begs an answer to the question, "what is technically alive?" or, to paraphrase, "when does life start?" Technically, an amoeba is in "a chemical state of...being technically alive." Do you think that an amoeba is more alive than a human embryo, or even a fetus? Also, how about answering these questions:


Because originally the main arguments against abortion were 'it's murder' etc, based on the principle of the embryo having a 'soul'. About the children, well, I suppose if a family had a child and killed it before it could even walk because they weren't allowed an abortion, it wouldn't bother me. To me, the organism that can't even move, feed itself, communicate, drink or think rationally has no rights compared to an adult who is in control of themselves and their body. If you think rationally, even if two parents killed their own child, and they were better off for it, and the child had no idea it was going to happen, assuming it couldn't be adopted by anyone, is it that wrong?

Yes, in my opinion an amoeba is more alive than a human embryo because it can survive on it's own.

About the questions, I don't think outside/inside the womb matters.

----------


## Glenn

> It makes more sense to draw the line at a fertilised egg, but to me I don't see much difference. The sperm is half a set of dna, the fertilised egg is a full set. It's still just a mass of cells. Technically it has a genetic height/weight roughly encoded already, but in my opinion it doesn't make it remotely human.


Not remotely? It isn't anything else, and it certainly will develop into a full grown human adult, if given the chance. I see your point, but I think that saying that it isn't remotely human may be going a bit far.






> Technically yes. If you killed me now, instantly, I wouldn't care less. But in this case, you'd have to think about the implications on my friends/family. But in the case of a mother wanting an abortion, she is the only one (except the father) who has the capability to suffer from the situation. And furthermore, if she wants an abortion in the first place, she'll probably suffer more if it lives, than if she has an abortion.


I don't think that she is the only one who suffers here. Think about the mother and father's parents. Do you think that they don't care about having a grandchild? Do you think that they aren't affected in the least by what the mother does with her child?

Like I said before, just because someone wants to have an abortion doesn't mean that they are in dire straits. There are people who just view it as a convenience issue. Also, how hard is it to not get pregnant or get someone pregnant? If you can't afford to get pregnant, there are measures that you can take to prevent it. If you play with fire, there is the possibility that you will get hurt.





> But that's not true for adults. People do care.


Like I said above, people also care about children.




> Because originally the main arguments against abortion were 'it's murder' etc, based on the principle of the embryo having a 'soul'. About the children, well, I suppose if a family had a child and killed it before it could even walk because they weren't allowed an abortion, it wouldn't bother me. To me, the organism that can't even move, feed itself, communicate, drink or think rationally has no rights compared to an adult who is in control of themselves and their body. If you think rationally, even if two parents killed their own child, and they were better off for it, and the child had no idea it was going to happen, assuming it couldn't be adopted by anyone, is it that wrong?


Have I argued that the baby has a soul? Have I used any religious rhetoric in my arguments? 

If you think that it's OK to kill an infant because it can't fend for itself, then I suppose that you feel that it's OK to kill retarded people, who don't have the mental capacity to keep up with everyone else even at adult age. Also, what about elderly people who aren't totally in control of their body, and who can't feed themselves? 

I'm not sure that it would be rational to kill a child for any reason. Would it be rational to kill 1/3 of the people on the planet to avoid overpopulation, even if we were all (what's left of us) better off for it and the 1/3 had no idea that it was coming? 





> Yes, in my opinion an amoeba is more alive than a human embryo because it can survive on it's own.


I suppose that you think that an amoeba is also more alive than a human baby, or an ape baby, etc.




> About the questions, I don't think outside/inside the womb matters.


Apparently not, if you think that it's OK to kill infants, and even children who can't walk and talk. Using this logic, it's OK to kill anyone up until the age of 18, because only then are they considered adults, and only then are they expected to be autonomous and self-sufficient. If we all thought this way, then our species would not be around right now.

----------


## chiquiliquis

> Yes, no one is anti-life so you must use these labels in the standard way to be understood.


No one is anti-life? 

I'll be more specific in regards to my position: There are choices we make, all of us (faced with an abortion or otherwise) that either _affirm_ life, or allow us to live in a hollow fiction. Hence, affirm life through choice.

The idea that there is a "start" to life is a hollow fictition--a tickling of reason, or massaging of the ego. Starts and ends are objects of representational thought (ideas, like the number 1, or 0). Life is not an object of representational thought; there is no one thought that captivates all of life. Ever try counting to infinity?--go ahead. Like life, the infinite (a.k.a. what is beyond the limits of human thought) has no start. Why?--"start" is a human thought. There is nothing inherently wrong with "start", it is how we use it that makes the difference between affirming life and the mere tickling of reason.

Perhaps a solution to the question at hand requires moving beyond "standard" termanology.

Then again, perhaps not. If what I've said makes no sense, don't think much of it.

----------


## Elizabeth

> I'm not sure that it would be rational to kill a child for any reason. Would it be rational to kill 1/3 of the people on the planet to avoid overpopulation, even if we were all (what's left of us) better off for it and the 1/3 had no idea that it was coming?


I don't know what kind of restrictions or in place on third trimester abortions (it was my understanding only where the mother's life was endangered and I thought most abortions occured in the first 9-12 weeks), so I can't comment on that, but anyone looking for a utilitarian approach could champion the "harvesting" of aborted fetus/embryo's developing sperm & egg cells or tissues for medical research or as a genetic donor to save the life of a sibling.....Although I still don't think it should promote abortion in any way or a pregnancy should be deliberately planned with this end in mind regardless of parental desire or rationalizing.

----------


## Glenn

> The idea that there is a "start" to life is a hollow fictition--a tickling of reason, or massaging of the ego. Starts and ends are objects of representational thought (ideas, like the number 1, or 0). Life is not an object of representational thought; there is no one thought that captivates all of life. Ever try counting to infinity?--go ahead. Like life, the infinite (a.k.a. what is beyond the limits of human thought) has no start. Why?--"start" is a human thought. There is nothing inherently wrong with "start", it is how we use it that makes the difference between affirming life and the mere tickling of reason.


Alright, so are you saying that someone who will be born in 20 years is already alive, and even after they die they will still be alive, thereby saying that his life doesn't ever start or end, and only is? If so, does that also mean that you are against abortion?

----------


## Dan B

Glenn,

It occurs to me that an interesting implication of this view might be that we are all part of a single life.

If a human egg, even as a haploid cell, is alive (as we might consider every other cell in a human body, though they are certainly not necessarily individually independent of the larger organism), then where _does_ life begin and end? Might it be possible to argue that, once life started--however it may have started, some 10-14 billion years ago--it has never stopped?

Instead, we might say that smaller elements of that singular life have stopped functioning in the interim due to biochemical limitations, accidents, or violence.

Even if valid, this argument would not seem to take away from your larger point.

Just a thought. Regards,

Dan

----------


## Glenn

> Glenn,
> 
> It occurs to me that an interesting implication of this view might be that we are all part of a single life.
> 
> If a human egg, even as a haploid cell, is alive (as we might consider every other cell in a human body, though they are certainly not necessarily individually independent of the larger organism), then where _does_ life begin and end? Might it be possible to argue that, once life started--however it may have started, some 10-14 billion years ago--it has never stopped?
> 
> Instead, we might say that smaller elements of that singular life have stopped functioning in the interim due to biochemical limitations, accidents, or violence.


Indeed, and I too thought that this may be the case. However, if this is the case, then we are talking about the smaller elements of singular life, and not the collective (with regards to the abortion debate). That is why I can't make heads or tails of why it would be brought up. However, if he meant something else by what he said, then he may have a perfectly valid point that I just can't understand.

----------


## Elizabeth

> No one is anti-life? 
> 
> I'll be more specific in regards to my position: There are choices we make, all of us (faced with an abortion or otherwise) that either _affirm_ life, or allow us to live in a hollow fiction. Hence, affirm life through choice.


Are you saying women should have the choice of an abortion as an affirmation of life in general (or, that this is a consequence of their own choosing?)  :Doubt:

----------


## Dan B

Glenn,




> Indeed, and I too thought that this may be the case. However, if this is the case, then we are talking about the smaller elements of singular life, and not the collective (with regards to the abortion debate).


Agreed. Of course, this could lead to other philosophical arguments about the relative import of any given element of this singular life. Then again, I would tend towards categorically rejecting an implication that any given element is "worth less" than any other (as a rough extension of Khutoryansky's thoughts on Objective Morality).




> That is why I can't make heads or tails of why it would be brought up. However, if he meant something else by what he said, then he may have a perfectly valid point that I just can't understand.


True. I'm certainly no closer to understanding what he really meant than you are.

Regards,

Dan

----------


## kirei_na_me

I say it's not fair for anyone to judge this until they are faced with it themselves. It's pretty easy to have all kinds of _opinions_ when you have never been in a certain situation yourself(of which no one can really understand the contributing factors).

----------


## chiquiliquis

> Are you saying women should have the choice of an abortion as an affirmation of life in general (or, that this is a consequence of their own choosing?)


This is diffucult. But if you have a background in Buddhist philosophy (or if you have a strong background in Nietzsche or Kierkegaard, and some postmoderns), it may help--particularly as regards the "singular" distinction of life--which leaves no room for individuation of any kind (Grant) apart from that ventured by reason (nothing more than a thought exercise, albeit a fancy one). 

Terms (Dan B) like "any given element", or "someone" (Grant), are perfect examples of the principle of individuation (above); it is a mental inclination towards dissection. Within the context of "life", such distinctions/judgments are valueless (meaningless). Close your eyes, like some buddhists might(--not physically), and experience a world with no boundaries--no individuation, no parts, no elements, no someones.

The activity of the mind (while not capable of grasping the beyond--life, the infinite, "why", etc.), however, is not inherently bad. Still, when the activity of the mind becomes a lie--it is given priority and command over "life"--things become fuzzy. 

Objective morality, the dualism of Plato and (to a great extent) Christianity, Descartes' _cogito_, Kant's transcendental aesthetics--they have all been wonderous and amazing exercises of the mind; they all show human productivity at it's most brilliant. They also give preference to reason over (a "flawed", incomprehensible, and utterly beyond) "life", without recalling that "life" is the one key ingrediant to any and all reason. 

I think I agree with Kirei na Me here: It's not really fair for anyone to judge this until they are faced with it themselves. This is probably one reason why I have been so darned cryptic with what I want to say. I don't particularly want to force my opinion, but this is a forum, and I had understood it (my opinion) to at least be welcome. If you have ears for it, great. If you don't, no sweat--don't let it bother you. 

I would say, nonetheless, that when you are faced with abortion, you ought to be as true to yourself, your lived experience, and the limits of your knowledge, as possible. Know who you are, know what you are, and know as best you can what life is, before judging. In doing so, you would be affirming life.

----------


## Glenn

> I say it's not fair for anyone to judge this until they are faced with it themselves. It's pretty easy to have all kinds of _opinions_ when you have never been in a certain situation yourself(of which no one can really understand the contributing factors).


True. However, we can discuss our opinions (this is the opinions forum) on the subject, and try to come to a conclusion for ourselves about whether we believe it to be right or wrong, or in what situations it could be right or wrong. I don't mind whether someone is pro-life or pro-choice, as long as they have valid reasons for it that stand up to logic and reason. To me, though, it seems to be getting closer and closer to an immoral act, and I have argued this point without deteriorating the discussion into a flame war, or by using religiously based arguments. I believe that the arguments that I have made are good ones, and they should be taken into consideration. Do my arguments come off as being judgemental of women who have had abortions? I feel as though I am just trying to specifically categorize the act into one of two categories: moral or immoral. Any offense was not intended.  :Sorry: 

As a note, judging people at this point is, well, pointless. They've done what they've done. If it comes to pass that we, as a (human) race, conclude that abortion is wrong, then all that we can do is not do it from that point forward. Looking at the past wouldn't help at all. But if it is deemed immoral, then people who partake in the process should be judged as people who murder should be judged. However, we have not reached that point, so judgement at this stage would be too early. As I said before, it was not my intention to judge people's actions with my comments.

----------


## kirei_na_me

No, no. I think you've been excellent about this, Glenn.  :Cool:  I wasn't aiming that at anyone. Just making a statement.

It might sound bad to some people, but this(I can't even say it) can be very bittersweet. Bitter in the sense that you know a 'life' is coming to an end, and (not very) sweet because it has saved you from a hellacious life(in a lot of cases). Sometimes, things are complete accidents and mistakes _do_ happen. It's a fact of life. And sometimes, in order to save one's self from heartache and a miserable life, very difficult decisions have to be made. Decisions that are not taken lightly and weigh heavily on one's mind, even for years after they've been made.

It just seems kind of not fair to hear men, especially, talk about this subject. It's not a part of their body, like it is a woman's.

----------


## Golgo_13

Nice post! 

I think everyone has had a chance to say what they wanted. Maybe it's time to close this thread.

----------


## bossel

> It just seems kind of not fair to hear men, especially, talk about this subject. It's not a part of their body, like it is a woman's.


To me it seems unfair to exclude men from that discussion.  :Poh:  

Re "part of their body": That's part of the question, isn't it? How long (if ever) can the foetus/embryo be considered part of the female body? I don't think it's very ethical to say "As long as it's inside me, I can do whatever I want!"

For what I know it has been shown that a foetus can feel pain beyond a certain stage of development. From then on it should at least have the same right as any pet: not to be treated in an unnecessary cruel way. 

Now the question is, what to consider unnecessary. IMO this means that after this point only for reasons which threaten the health or life of the mother abortion should be an option.

Yep, accidents & mistakes do happen (always afraid of something like that myself), but if they do you should take your responsibility!

----------


## kirei_na_me

> Yep, accidents & mistakes do happen (always afraid of something like that myself), but if they do you should take your responsibility!


Well, that is taking repsonsibility, isn't it? It's a choice one can make, and one shouldn't be judged by it either. Sometimes, it is the only option one has. 

Like I said, it's very easy to go around casting judgement, isn't it? Everyone has different ways of dealing with different situations. Everyone's circumstance is different, and no one has any way of knowing exactly what it's like to be another person, do they?

Besides, as I said earlier in the thread, abortion isn't a good thing. It's not good for a woman physically and it isn't good for anyone emotionally either. It is definitely not something to take lightly.

I could tell you stories.

----------


## Glenn

> To me it seems unfair to exclude men from that discussion.  
> 
> Re "part of their body": That's part of the question, isn't it? How long (if ever) can the foetus/embryo be considered part of the female body? I don't think it's very ethical to say "As long as it's inside me, I can do whatever I want!"


I agree with bossel here. Also, this issue doesn't just affect women, so it shouldn't be left exclusively to women. I do, however, understand how it could be awkward for you to hear only men discussing the issue. But then again, where are all of the women? And are the men's opinions any less important just because we don't carry the baby/fetus/embryo/whatever you want to call it?




> For what I know it has been shown that a foetus can feel pain beyond a certain stage of development. From then on it should at least have the same right as any pet: not to be treated in an unnecessary cruel way. 
> 
> Now the question is, what to consider unnecessary. IMO this means that after this point only for reasons which threaten the health or life of the mother abortion should be an option.


I agree with these points also (which I probably didn't need to say).




> Yep, accidents & mistakes do happen (always afraid of something like that myself), but if they do you should take your responsibility!


I feel the same way. There are measures that can be taken to avoid pregnancy. If you become complacent and get pregnant because you didn't take those measures, you should have to face the consequences of your actions. I'm speaking about men and women here. The father should be financially responsible and also should help to raise the child in an environment conducive to healthy growth in all areas, and the mother should be responsible for raising the child in the same manner (and I don't mean to say that she shouldn't be excluded from financial responsibility, but it usually is on the man).

Of course, if having the child means the mother will die or be otherwise seriously injured, then abortion should be an option. If having the child means you can't have that new TV, then abortion should not be an option past the second trimester, and maybe even earlier. I'm trying to think of a hellacious situation that could result from having a child, and I'm doing a poor job of it. Here's about the worst scenario that I can imagine:

A single woman who doesn't have a job or living parents or relatives gets pregnant. The father skips out on her, or she just doesn't know who he is. She would be constantly ridiculed for being pregnant and not having a serious life partner. She doesn't have any money.

That's the worst that I can think of, but I doubt that it is very likely (well, then again, in today's world...). In such a scenario, I'm sure most women would have an abortion, and I would say that it is understandable. But I'm not so sure that I would agree with that decision.




> Well, that is taking repsonsibility, isn't it? It's a choice one can make, and one shouldn't be judged by it either. Sometimes, it is the only option one has.


I have also thought this. It *is* taking responsibility. The question, though, is whether it is like taking responsibility for having been seen counterfeiting money by killing someone, and thereby solving the situation by silencing them, or whether it is like taking responsibility by throwing out the rest of your beer before you get in a car. Finding which situation is closer to abortion is what this discussion is all about, as far as I can see.

----------


## mdchachi

> I don't mind whether someone is pro-life or pro-choice, as long as they have valid reasons for it that stand up to logic and reason.

Glenn, you're asking a lot here. Humans rarely make decisions based on logic or reason even when they think that that is what they're doing. ;)

----------


## kirei_na_me

Have you been there? Probably not. Have I? Yes.

I guess I should stop reading this thread because of that. It hits extremely close to home and I take it very personal.

I wouldn't have the family I have today if I hadn't made that decision. I would be stuck with an SOB who was mean to me and threatened me into having it done in the first place. I was 18 and scared to death. I would've had a miserable life. I could never explain it so that you could understand. It is something you would've had to witness, and even then, you probably still wouldn't be able to know to the extent one would have to know in order to _really_ understand.

So, go ahead and judge me now.

----------


## bossel

Kirei, you should remember that we're talking theoretical here. I certainly cannot judge you or any other individual case, for this has to be considered individually (not that I want to judge you, anyway). I don't want to give you a hard time, but I also won't stop saying my opinion. Maybe in the US you have too many of those pro-life activists which makes you a bit overly suspicious of others' intentions.

When I give my opinion it is usually not to judge people but to show my point of view, & in this particular case to make people think about the fact that they might destroy a valuable life (a feeling human being) if they have an abortion. To me, it is essential whether this life is able to feel pain, or not. As long as it's just a bunch of cells without nervous system, I don't have any problem with abortion. If there is a nervous system, see above...

By coincidence, just today there is an interesting article on BBC regarding foetal development:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3846525.stm
It's about a new scanning technology to see the foetus inside the womb.

Quote:
"The images have shown:

* From 12 weeks, unborn babies can stretch, kick and leap around the womb - well before the mother can feel movement

* From 18 weeks, they can open their eyes although most doctors thought eyelids were fused until 26 weeks

* From 26 weeks, they appear to exhibit a whole range of typical baby behaviour and moods, including scratching, smiling, crying, hiccoughing, and sucking.

Until recently it was thought that smiling did not start until six weeks after birth."

----------


## mdchachi

> The father should be financially responsible and also should help to raise the child in an environment conducive to healthy 
> growth in all areas, and the mother should be responsible for raising the child in the same manner

It's easy to say this but the question is what do you do when you live in an imperfect world when people often don't do what they "should" do.

In my opinion, "pro-lifers" should spend their time taking care of the lives that are already born (especially the ones which are born due to their opposition to abortion). Making sure that they are not abused or malnourished and that they are loved and taken care of -- making sure that all the "shoulds" that should happen do happen. Once these lives are safe, then they can worry about the unborn.

----------


## Areku

> Not remotely? It isn't anything else, and it certainly will develop into a full grown human adult, if given the chance. I see your point, but I think that saying that it isn't remotely human may be going a bit far.


Maybe, but to me it's still not human. It's no more 'alive' than a sperm or an egg on their own, other than the fact it grows.





> I don't think that she is the only one who suffers here. Think about the mother and father's parents. Do you think that they don't care about having a grandchild? Do you think that they aren't affected in the least by what the mother does with her child?


Put it this way, if grandparents are involved, then will they care more for? Their real, adult children and their lives, or their unborn grandchildren?




> Like I said before, just because someone wants to have an abortion doesn't mean that they are in dire straits. There are people who just view it as a convenience issue. Also, how hard is it to not get pregnant or get someone pregnant? If you can't afford to get pregnant, there are measures that you can take to prevent it. If you play with fire, there is the possibility that you will get hurt.


Morally, you're correct, and preventing conception is better than 'curing' it. But people aren't perfect, in fact most are far from it, and in this day and age they have the right to utilise medical technology to whatever extent they want within the law...don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's OK for people to take risks, just because they can fall back on an abortion, it's hardly a nice prospect for them anyway, but what I'm saying is it shouldn't matter how much it would actually affect them. In my opinion they should have the right to do as they wish with their own bodies.





> Like I said above, people also care about children.


Yes but in the case of an abortion, who will? we have to assume the parents haven't gone ranting and raving about the child to everyone they know. And even so, deciding to keep a child just because relatives/friends would be upset if you didn't is no reason to do it.





> Have I argued that the baby has a soul? Have I used any religious rhetoric in my arguments?


Nope, but they're typically used in a lot of pro-life argment, that's all.




> If you think that it's OK to kill an infant because it can't fend for itself, then I suppose that you feel that it's OK to kill retarded people, who don't have the mental capacity to keep up with everyone else even at adult age.


That's a totally different kettle of fish, but I would rather be killed if I was in such a state, myself. I also didn't say it was OK to kill something just because it can't survive on it's own, but that it was ok for the parents to, specifically (no-one else). They have given birth to it, it is utterly reliant on them, it's life is literally in their hands. Why shouldn't they be in control still?




> Also, what about elderly people who aren't totally in control of their body, and who can't feed themselves?


They've generally worked all their lives and paid taxes and thus earned the right to a retirement and national health service.




> I'm not sure that it would be rational to kill a child for any reason. Would it be rational to kill 1/3 of the people on the planet to avoid overpopulation, even if we were all (what's left of us) better off for it and the 1/3 had no idea that it was coming?


Rational yes, socially acceptable no, practical no. Besides, who is gonna take a decision like that? There's plenty of things that would be better for the planet as a whole that could have been done but won't ever be done because of the immorality or whatnot.





> I suppose that you think that an amoeba is also more alive than a human baby, or an ape baby, etc.


Well, yeah. It moves and eats for itself which is more than what babies do. 
Of course, it doesn't have a fraction of the potential for intelligence or physical development. But does this mean it should have less rights?

And why do the millions of animals slaughtered have less rights than humans, even while millions of tonnes of surplus grain is wasted each year?

Offtopic, but it shows hypocrisy to me (not aimed at you personally). Personally I don't see people as any more 'value' as their pets. They're just lucky to have been born human. People make SUCH an uproar over anything that infringes on 'human rights' then go home and tuck into a juicy steak from a cattle that was probably reared in a tight compartment and fed crap to fatten it up to be killed for human pleasure.





> Apparently not, if you think that it's OK to kill infants, and even children who can't walk and talk. Using this logic, it's OK to kill anyone up until the age of 18, because only then are they considered adults, and only then are they expected to be autonomous and self-sufficient. If we all thought this way, then our species would not be around right now.


No you're twisting my words there. I said I wouldn't be bothered if two parents killed their very young child. Well, in fact, I would, I'd be shocked at the audacity to break away from social norms in such a way, and I'd say they'd have to be pretty messed up individuals to do it BUT only considering the norms they'd been brought up in themselves. As an act itself, it wouldn't bother me.

I disagree, if we all focused more on logic, than emotions and 'rights' then our species would be more advanced.

----------


## Golgo_13

Now, Planned Parenthood has come out with an "I had an abortion" T-Shirt.

http://store.yahoo.com/ppfastore/ihadabt.html

I'm pro-choice but this is going a bit too far.

----------


## PaulTB

1. The question "Pro-life or Pro-choice?" is at least half the problem.
2. The option I'd vote for isn't on the list.

----------


## sgt. Pepper

Abortion should be the womans own choice. The kid isn't even conscious before about 3months before it comes out.

----------


## Golgo_13

Yes, but why go around wearing a T-shirt that says you had one.

----------


## blessed

> Yes, but why go around wearing a T-shirt that says you had one.


maybe the people doing it are unconformists? (don't know why anybody would be one though)

anyways, who cares that a woman decides to abort. This is mainly a problem between religion and science and I say this: first a fetus is not alive, at most i'd call it a parasite. Until it can survive on its own, its not alive, so why should I intervene in the removal of this extra bit of tissue? And abortions of living children - generally considered over 24 weeks old - is illegal because they have a chance of survival. at this point, giving them to orphanages is the option. 

Christians believe that the bible has its own opinioin: it states that children are a "gift from god"... sure, but childbirth isn't, infact its punishment for Eve's sin and any woman who doesn't want to go through this punishment, given to women by the all-loving, all-forgiving god, doesn't have to. 
And if you're a christian and you believe that this is wrong, shouldn't you leave this up to the judgement of your perfect god, not your imperfect self?

(my opinioin why some christians can't let god do the judging because they know he will forgive the siners no matter what)

----------


## Golgo_13

No, the issue has now become, should one go around wearing a T-shirt that says you had one.

----------


## TimF

I have no real strong opinion towards this beacuse it is diffrent for every situation and untill you have been in the mothers shoes you have no right to judge them or tell them what they do with their child. But if the child is born I belive the man should step up to the plate and do his best for the child and the woman what ever the circumstances if you concieved that child and you decided to keep that child then you need to do your best for that child gentelmen that is just the way it is. This is how I was raised. (Note: My Father was not always there for my Mother so he taught me how I could be better than him when I got married and had a child.)

----------


## Golgo_13

> No, the issue has now become, should one go around wearing a T-shirt that says you had one.


Everyone on this thread is skirting this issue . . . .

----------


## TimF

> Everyone on this thread is skirting this issue . . . .


I feel if you go around wearing a t shirt that says you had one that is your choice not anyone elses that would be like you telling me i had to walk around in the suit and tie all day beacuse it is what "society" deemed proper so like i said it is there choice if they want to proclaime it then so be it.

----------


## PaulTB

> No, the issue has now become, should one go around wearing a T-shirt that says you had one.


No. That's just *you*.

----------


## bossel

> first a fetus is not alive, at most i'd call it a parasite. Until it can survive on its own, its not alive, so why should I intervene in the removal of this extra bit of tissue? And abortions of living children - generally considered over 24 weeks old - is illegal because they have a chance of survival. at this point, giving them to orphanages is the option.


In general I agree with what you wrote, but why 24 weeks? Is there any physiological reason for this? 

Illegal or not depends on where you are. In Germany abortion is generally illegal, but if women have an abortion after obliged counselling within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy they won't be prosecuted. After 12 weeks it's only possible under special circumstances.

----------


## Lina Inverse

> anyways, who cares that a woman decides to abort. This is mainly a problem between religion and science and I say this: first a fetus is not alive, at most i'd call it a parasite. Until it can survive on its own, its not alive, so why should I intervene in the removal of this extra bit of tissue? And abortions of living children - generally considered over 24 weeks old - is illegal because they have a chance of survival. at this point, giving them to orphanages is the option.


Well said!  :Haihai:  Gave you some rep.
Imo the German law (as pointed out by Bossel) is absolutely *braindead* - all it does is forcing women who need an abortion to go see some quack to have a secret abortion. Not only will that quack demand some exorbitant sum, but also quite likely he'll screw up in one way or another, resulting in lasting damages for the woman, and also some nasty infections from the use of non-sterile instruments.
The counsellign is held by christian institutions which of course do everything possible they can do to force the woman to have the child, regardless if the woman wants it or not, and if she can support it or not.  :Okashii:

----------


## Satori

I voted for "Women Should Choose for Themselves."

----------


## WyteAnjal

My opinion on this is..

1. If a girl is ready to have a sexual relationship then she should be old enough to understand contreception and birth control. 

2. If a girl gets pregnant she should be forced to have the baby unless for specific reasons. Abortion is murder the same. 

3. If a girl is raped I believe that she should be able to have an abortion because this was not a decision made by herself and having the baby could cause sever mental effects.

4. If a girl can not physically carry a baby I feel they should be allowed to have an aborition.


Okay now think of this. A woman in Texas shot herself in the stomach trying to kill the baby inside her. She went to jail for murder because the baby died. So why is it legal for doctors to kill a baby with a womans consent and not okay for a woman to kill her own baby. No matter how you look at it a baby inside you is still a life and no one should have the option to just throw a life away without a very good reason.

----------


## bossel

> Imo the German law [...] is forcing women who need an abortion to go see some quack to have a secret abortion. Not only will that quack demand some exorbitant sum, but also quite likely he'll screw up in one way or another, resulting in lasting damages for the woman, and also some nasty infections from the use of non-sterile instruments.
> The counsellign is held by christian institutions which of course do everything possible they can do to force the woman to have the child, regardless if the woman wants it or not, and if she can support it or not.


Oh man, you're so waaay off!
No German woman is forced to go to a quack to have an abortion, at least as long as she decides in the 1st 12 weeks (up to 22 weeks if she had counselling) of her pregnancy to have it done. She _is_ forced to have counselling, but contrary to what you said this is not necessarily done by Christian institutions, you can also go to independents. Even if a woman has an illegal abortion the penalty is rather moderate, while the executing doc is punished more severely. You should really look into the facts before producing some crappy horror stories.

BTW, how would the Christian counselling institutions _force_ the woman to carry out the child?

----------


## Brooker

I've never jived with the arguement of, "It's my body, so it's my choice," because, if you believe the fetus is a person (I haven't really decided) then it's not your body, it's the body of the child.

Both sides of the abortion debate (not talking about the debate we're having here) always seem to misunderstand the concearns of the other side. The main problem is that they can't agree on what a person is. Because saying, "It's my body" doesn't make sense to someone who thinks you're murdering another life, and saying, "It is my business because it's murder" doesn't make sense to someone who sees the fetus as being part of their own body.

I support the right to choose to have an abortion for entirely different reasons. I think people should have the ability to take control of their lives and having a child has a big effect on your life (duh). And telling people, "If you didn't want to have children, you shouldn't have had sex," just isn't realistic. Since I'm not religious, it seems that having an unwanted child as the result of a night of passion is a *huge* penalty for a relatively minor "crime". 

But this is just my view. Since we'll never really know what it means to be a person (who would we ask?) and we'll never really know if it's "right or wrong" (and saying, "The bible says...." doesn't prove much to me) I say people should be able to make that call for themselves.

----------


## blessed

> In general I agree with what you wrote, but why 24 weeks? Is there any physiological reason for this?


It's to do with the fact that the child can at that point survive as he has enough alveoli in his lungs to breathe air.

----------


## Dream Time

"Should be allowed only when medically necessary or if the girl was raped"

other than that, I am against abortion, it does not only involve the female,
but the man who helped the create the baby,and of course,the baby,
to me,abortion is just the same as murder

if I had sex with someone,and she got pregnant accidentally,
I will talk her into keeping the baby,and I will raise him.

----------


## Brooker

Dream Time wrote....



> if I had sex with someone,and she got pregnant accidentally,I will talk her into keeping the baby,and I will raise him.


That's respectable.




> it does not only involve the female,but the man who helped the create the baby


I agree.




> to me,abortion is just the same as murder


Do you think abortion is exactly the same as murder, or a little different?

----------


## lolife

I'm all for a woman to choose. BUT, there should IMO be _some_ kind of "punishment" (for both parties), especially for people who is just to damn lazy, drunk or horny to bother to protect themselves. _There should be a really damn good reason to have an abortion_, that's my opinion.

----------


## Kintaro

> My opinion on this is..
> 
> 1. If a girl is ready to have a sexual relationship then she should be old enough to understand contreception and birth control. 
> 
> 2. If a girl gets pregnant she should be forced to have the baby unless for specific reasons. Abortion is murder the same. 
> 
> 3. If a girl is raped I believe that she should be able to have an abortion because this was not a decision made by herself and having the baby could cause sever mental effects.
> 
> 4. If a girl can not physically carry a baby I feel they should be allowed to have an aborition.
> ...


1. A fair amount do. A fair amount don't, usually by fiddling from people with similar opinions as yourself (such as the US Department of Health which at thismoment only teaches abstinence. Some people know of condoms and birth control pills, but what about things like "le strilet", a t-shaped metallic object that automates rejection for about 30 months. Therefore for someone to unilaterally decide such a standard is ethically unacceptable. In french, also, there is a difference between "rapport and relation sexuelle", which sexual relationship means that there's more to it than a casual *bleep*.

2. Your statement is quite obstinate. I will make one of my own. Murder the parents for not teaching the child to keep her legs shut. Both yours and mine are true-felt feelings but are not applicable to the real world. Obviously, you've never heard of infanticide. Want to promote that instead ? Killing not blastocysts or embryos, but babies who have been brought to term, born and then cut up into mincemeat, poisones or shot and thrown into dumpsters... I await your answer on this one. Do you prefer killing babies who have actually felt, breathed or is an embryo that runs a natural risk of rejection anyway that gets aborted an acceptable alternative to infanticide ?
(Please do not use the age-old "but birth and sustained life is better" Because we both know that with the appropriatre resources, it is, and when you don't have them, it isn't. Stick to abortion vs its alternative infanticide.)

3 and 4 are inconsistent to your feelings expressed in 2. It's ok to murder if raped because rape isn't a voluntary decision... And in 4, some states past this "24 weeks" BS force the mother to carry out to term. It may be nice that you think that 9-12 year olds should be allowed to abort due to bodily issues, but what about the older women who were fine before the pregnancy but carrying it out could mean their direct death ?

As for 5, too bad it wasn't Old England. That could be viewed as a suicide attempt,and "the crime of attempting to suicide" (since actually carrying out means you are dead) "was to be put to death". A mother like that should have went for an aborion instead of filling herself with Vitamin Lead.


While I am pro-abortion, I am not pro-abortion*s*. I say counter-measures for people who get abortions on a repeated basis should be after 2, the "strilet" , put a brake on it for 24-30 months. I do not think the Indiana Project type solutions are proper in today's society, therefore imprisonment if they reach 4. No conjugal visits that enable fluid transfers either.

----------


## No-name

Hard topic.
I would never wear a T-Shirt which said anything about abortion.

Although abortion seems morally wrong, I can't place abortion in the same category as murder. I'm not certain a the State should decide this matter.

I wish no woman would ever have to, want to , or feel compelled to have an abortion.

I wish all children were born knowing that they are wanted and loved.

----------


## Melkor

I think abortion should be fully acceptable if decided on within a week or so of the woman finding out that she is pregnant. That would be quite early in the pregnancy, and definitely not late enough that the fetus could be considered an independent person.

----------


## Satori

> I think abortion should be fully acceptable if decided on within a week or so of the woman finding out that she is pregnant. That would be quite early in the pregnancy, and definitely not late enough that the fetus could be considered an independent person.


Unfortunately, even though a woman or a couple may decide to abort at a particular time, it is the doctor's call as to when to perform the procedure. Oftentimes, the doctor will make the woman wait until a certain number of weeks.

----------


## Camui

I don't think abortion should be aloud..then again ppl have their right to make their own decisions about it...so I'm not sure..

----------


## Japanimaniac

I'm pro-choice, but I do believe there should be strict guidelines and rules. Abortion is _NOT_ a form of birth control.

All these teens getting pregnant (and even some adults) who think abortion is some kind of failsafe are wrong. All other options should be considered and tried before an abortion is deemed acceptable. A child living with a foster family is better than a child never given a chance to live. Also, it should not be legal to perform an abortion after the fetus has "become a living child", if that's how you want to put it (if the female chooses to abort, the doctor should be required to choose a time which fits this guideline).

I'm not going to say abortions should be limited to rape victims, because there are honest "accidents". These accidents should be admitted and dealt with as soon as possible, however, instead of put off for an unreasonable amount of time.

----------


## Maciamo

It's an old thread (over 5 years old !) but there is no need to start a new topic when it already exists. 

I just want to add a few sentences by Richard Dawkins on abortion. It is from a discussion on the Guardian's Science Blog.




> Our ethics and our politics assume, largely without question or serious discussion, that the division between human and 'animal' is absolute. 'Pro-life', to take just one example, is a potent political badge, associated with a gamut of ethical issues such as opposition to abortion and euthanasia.
> 
> What it really means is pro-human-life. Abortion clinic bombers are not known for their veganism, nor do Roman Catholics show any particular reluctance to have their suffering pets 'put to sleep'. In the minds of many confused people, a single-celled human zygote, which has no nerves and cannot suffer, is infinitely sacred, simply because it is 'human'. No other cells enjoy this exalted status.


He then raises the important question of the limit between humans and animals. Where in evolution did apes become human ? How would we treat a half-chimpanzee half-human hybrid ? But more interestingly, would pro-life Christians who defend the right to live of a few human cells in an embryo apply the same logic for a mouse with partial human DNA ? It's not a theoretical question. Such mice do already exist (e.g. with the human version of FOXP2).




> 3. An experimental chimera in an embryology lab, consisting of approximately equal numbers of human and chimpanzee cells. Chimeras of human and mouse cells are now constructed in the laboratory as a matter of course, but they don't survive to term. Incidentally, another example of our speciesist ethics is the fuss now made about mouse embryos containing some proportion of human cells. "How human must a chimera be before more stringent research rules should kick in?" So far, the question is merely theological, since the chimeras don't come anywhere near being born, and there is nothing resembling a human brain. But, to venture off down the slippery slope so beloved of ethicists, what if we were to fashion a chimera of 50% human and 50% chimpanzee cells and grow it to adulthood? That would change everything. Maybe it will?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

Pro-choice... But, abortion should never be treated as a form of contraception.

----------


## Maciamo

> Pro-choice... But, abortion should never be treated as a form of contraception.


Of course. An abortion is not something to be taken lightly. It can be psychologically traumatising, it can cause physical damage leading to sterility, and too many abortions increase the risk of ovarian, breast and uterine cancer. 

Yet abortion should be an option because accidents do happen, especially with less experimented or more careless teenagers. There is nothing worse than a unwanted baby raised by a single mother who does not have the means to support a child and is still too emotionally immature. That's an extreme case, but in general unwanted babies who are a burden on the parents are less well taken care of, less loved, and have more chance of becoming deliquents. It has been proven that 20 years after abortion was legalised in the USA the crime rate has been steadily decreasing. Aborted unwanted babies did not grow to become criminals. That's very important to keep society safe and healthy.

----------


## LeBrok

To Kill, abort, euthanize, the bottom line is if it's beneficial to society, neutral, or not much destructive, it will be tolerated by our egalitarian nations. Just get use to it. We always excused killing enemies, though they are humans. We can kill in self defence and defending others, kill sick if they ask for it, kill life to help women have an easier life. Life goes on....


I know how to legalise abortion or killing kids in any cases. Parents should patent their DNA. I'm not kidding, their are DNA patents already or at least pending. Therefore any combination of parents DNA will be treated as their invention. As such they should have rights to do whatever they want with their kids/creation. It should even excuse tribal/honor killings. 
Damn, it's so Darwinian...it might work.
Cheers

----------


## keyoghettson

Life starts when the sperm hits the egg. Abortion should be allowed only when medically necessary. Ask your self if you would have liked to be aborted?

----------


## Rastko Pocesta

Women should choose for themselves (pro-choice)

----------


## LeBrok

Don't forget to ask fetus (new human) too? 
What? You took it's rights to choose away? Hypocrite!

----------


## julia90

I'm pro abortion, but afet watching this video, it's not so simple to form an opinion

very touching and beutiful video.. the myracle of life




this part is one of the most fashinating... the Spermatozoos race, to reach the ovolus
(in italian) -Complete video af the creation of life-

----------


## julia90

Geminis playing in the womb!



this is also cute!

----------


## himagain

In the USA too many women died from unsanitary and clumsy methods. How the opponents can call themselves pro-life is beyond me. I would prefer to see a grown woman live and be healthy than worry about a foetus. Let sanity continue to prosper in the US as long as possible.

----------


## MobyD

Honestly I am pro-life except for pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

----------

