# Abortion: Split from "Abortion and Lesbian Marriage Thread."



## emma42

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. May I just address two points in respect of Post #9 ?

* 1 Why is not "government-funded" abortion a "real issue"?
*

I am curious to know.

Moderator Note: The first 6 posts in this thread were split from the conversation about feminism.
They are on a related but distinct set of topics

*Moderator Note Two:* This thread is a split copy of the original "Abortion and Lesibian Marriage Issues" which spun in too many different directions to follow any particular string of thought. All posts not relevant to the subject of *lesbian marriage *have been removed. In certain instances, individual posts where forer@s responded to questions regarding both abortion and lesbian marriage may have been edited to ensure content is relevant for *this *thread. 
 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via PM.

 GenJen54


----------



## Fernando

In this particular two points I fully agree with tvdxer:

- Gov-funded abortion is just (for many people) just a murder (of 50% man and 50% women, by the way) and it does so much "comfort" to the mother as to the father (the usual inductor).

In both cases the real case is not women defense but the defense of a very special way of understanding life and society.


----------



## cuchuflete

Dearest Emma,
They are not "real" issues in the minds of those who have all the answers neatly staked out, tied down, pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. For others, they are certainly very real issues. 

Those statements you questioned are examples of common attempts by males to impose their viewpoints on females.

And, now that we have begun, just for the record....Pat Buchanan is not an American conservative. He is an American Neanderthal.



> For example, the devalued the most honorable role for (married) women, that of mother and housekeeper,


 I trust there are millions of unmarried women who are fine mothers and housekeepers.
Sadly, fewer unmarried men take the roles of housekeepers and parents seriously enough. Some married men have the honesty and humility to acknowledge that for their particular families, the role of breadwinner is best fulfilled by a woman, and that of stay-at-home parent and housekeeper is best done by the father. Such stretches from conventionality must be very disquieting to those who would preserve the status quo ante, but those same folks have demonstrated difficulties with evolution in general.


----------



## emma42

I'm sorry Fernando, I don't understand what you said about abortion. "It does so much comfort to the mother....."etc. I don't understand what you are saying.


----------



## Fernando

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> For others, they are certainly very real issues.



For the foetus are, for sure.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Those statements you questioned are examples of common attempts by males to impose their viewpoints on females.



You mean, are there not any anti-abortion women? I use to see more male abortionists than women, as a matter of fact.

And the usula imposition of men over women is "You should abort, darling. We do not need this child".



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Sadly, fewer unmarried men take the roles of housekeepers and parents seriously enough.  Some married men have the honesty and humility to acknowledge that for their particular families, the role of breadwinner is best fulfilled by a woman, and that of stay-at-home parent and housekeep is best done by the father.   Such stretches from conventionality must be very disquieting to those who would preserve the status quo ante, but those same folks have demonstrate difficulties with evolution in general.



Excluding the ad-hominem, I could agree.


----------



## Fernando

emma42 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry Fernando, I don't understand - why is lesbian marriage not an issue? You haven't addressed that,apart from confirming that "marriage is for heterosexual couples", which we already know.
> 
> I also do not understand what you said about abortion. "It does so much comfort to the mother....."etc. I don't understand what you are saying.



2) Abortion: The man in the couple is many times who:

a) Obligues or advise the abortion.

b) gives no option to the woman abandoning her if she decides to raise the child.

We, men, should be happy if we could have sex knowing no child is going to knock our doors 9 months after.

Edit: On my part, I agree on focusing on the topic.


----------



## emma42

So, Fernando, if abortion has nothing to do with women's rights, when did men start getting pregnant?

Incidentally, none of the women I know who have had abortions were encouraged to have them by men.  Some women do have minds of their own.


----------



## emma42

One other thing, Fernando:  a foetus is not a human being, it is a foetus.  Murder is a word applied to human beings.  Abortion is therefore not murder.  Do you apply the same thoughts to the many people who are murdered by state and country via the electric chair and lethal injection?  Somehow, I doubt it.


----------



## Benjy

i don't think the termination of a foetus can be compared with someone being executed. two completely different questions. i do however think we have become altogether too casual in certain respects towards our responsabilites with regards reproduction.


----------



## emma42

Benjy, I was referring to Fernando's assertion in an earlier post that abortion is "murder". I was therefore comparing his idea of murder with one of mine.


----------



## Benjy

and i am saying i dont think they are a valid comparaison. puis c'est tout


----------



## emma42

Of course it's a valid comparison. The comparison goes towards the definition of "murder", the accusation of which is the central tenet of the Pro Life lobby.

Perhaps you are saying that to compare the two would lead to the conclusion that one is murder, whilst the other is not. If that is what you are saying, then I agree.


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> There is a thread about gay marriage which went on for many dozens of posts. I'm sure an interested person could easily find it and add any new thoughts to that one.
> 
> On the topic of abortion, I'm not really sure that we will add anything that hasn't been said, shouted, or screamed thousands of times before, but this thread remains open for civil discussion.


 I'm all for civil discussion, but... about what? Continuing on Fernando's and Emma's discussion? Or continuing the one on abortion?


----------



## tvdxer

emma42 said:
			
		

> Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. May I just address two points in respect of Post #9 ?
> 
> 1 Why is not "government-funded" abortion a "real issue"?



I should have to pay for mothers to kill their unborn children?



> 2 Why is not the right to marriage for lesbians a "real issue"?
> 
> I am curious to know.



Because it is an affront to justice and "rights" in general to grant marital status to an unnatural and wholly unmarriageable relationship.


----------



## emma42

I would like to point out to forer@s that this is the second time in this thread that anyone involved in abortion, ie women, doctors, nurses etc has been accused of "murder" and "kill"ing.  Those are serious accusations which, according to law, are libellous.


----------



## tvdxer

emma42 said:
			
		

> I would like to point out to forer@s that this is the second time in this thread that anyone involved in abortion, ie women, doctors, nurses etc has been accused of "murder" and "kill"ing. Those are serious accusations which, according to law, are libellous.


This post demonstrates that expressions of fascism can come in many forms. One happens to be left-wing fascism - the close-minded philosophy that anyone who speaks their mind against what they believe to be wrong (abortion, gay rights, etc.), and that left-wingers believe to be a protected right, is an evil bigot who must be silenced, perhaps by law (i.e. Ake Green).

By the way, I'm not trying to go after women who have had abortion or doctors who have performed them. They are fully invited to repent for their actions, since God is merciful.


----------



## Dandee

Fernando said:
			
		

> *2) Abortion: The man in the couple is many times who:*
> 
> *a) Obligues or advise the abortion.*
> 
> *b) gives no option to the woman abandoning her if she decides to raise the child.*
> *quote]*
> 
> -¿Que antecedentes tienes para afirmar que mujeres fueron *obligadas* por un hombre a abortar?. ¿Que significado y alcance le das a la palabra *"obligues"?*
> 
> *-*Si un hombre promete abandono a su pareja si decide tener el hijo. ¿Eso justifica que la mujer aborte?¿Es el hombre responsable del aborto mismo o de la decisión de la mujer?.
> 
> No entiendo claramente lo que quieres decir ¿Es algo así como que el hombre es el responsable de la decisión que adopta la mujer que aborta?
> 
> Saludos.
> Dandee.


----------



## ceci '79

I think that abortion can have some useful functions (that might counterbalance the seriousness of the elimination of the fetus and the moral dilemmas that go with it), but also that going around brandishing a "legal sword" to intimidate the opponets (bringing up libel and so on) is clearly over-the-top.

Pro-choice activists freak me out, anti-abortion activists freak me out. Most activists do freak me out, actually.


----------



## medeterian

I want to examine two point of views to abortion;

The first one is a religious perspective which clearly admits the abortion to be forbidden or allowed. The reasons are not defined well or simply said to be an obstacle for reproduction of human beings or vice versa acording to that religion.

The second one is a materialist perspective. If someone adopts a view that he or she (because both male and female are responsible for that) is not responsible for doing the right thing, then he or she may act in his/her own way(he or she also would not participate his/her opinions here in the forum in that situation). However, if someone adopted a view that he or she must do the right thing for himself or the soceity, then it would be hard to decide what to do. For instance, we can not say if the fetus is a human or not with our current knowladge. People who aborted pregnancies until today would become guilty if we admited the fetus was a human. Contrarily if we admited the fetus was not a human, the ones who carried on the unwanted pregnancies had their lives turn into something that they didnt want it be. I can not see any satisfying solutions in that case.

I have my religious thoughts for these kind of reasons maybe.

Sevgiler...


----------



## emma42

Ceci 79. I was stating facts. I am sorry if facts offend you. I was in no way threatening legal action against any forer@. I also thought that, as certain forer@s seem to be traditionalists, they might wish to abide by the laws of their countries and mine. I have made my point on the law and I will not be making it again.

It has also now been strongly implied that I am a "fascist", which I find highly amusing.


----------



## cuchuflete

emma42 said:
			
		

> 1 Why is not "government-funded" abortion a "real issue"?
> 2 Why is not the right to marriage for lesbians a "real issue"?


Obviously both 1 and 2 are "real issues".

If they weren't real issues, people wouldn't spend so much time, money and energy arguing about them. To dismiss them as less than real issues is either a statement of ignorance, or just a ploy in an argument, an attempt to redirect a conversation to where someone else would have it go. Despite such attempts, both of these remain real issues.

As to government funding of abortions, I take the side of the issue that it is wrong in most cases.  
Governments don't pay me to enjoy sex, or to make someone pregnant. If those who create a fetus decide to abort a pregancy, I fail to see why the citizenry in general, through taxation, should pay for that. 

An individual sex act is not a matter of public and governmental concern or responsibility, so long as it does not involve a minor, and is not an incidence of rape or incest. Therefore, the consenting adults in a sex act should have no call or right to make the consequences of that act a matter of public economic responsibility. 

This viewpoint is not anti-abortion, anti-right to anything, including life, choice, and whatever else one may try to mix into the conversation. It simply means that I believe people should be accountable for the consequences of their decisions.


----------



## ceci '79

emma42 said:
			
		

> Ceci 79. I was stating facts. I am sorry if facts offend you. I was in no way threatening legal action against any forer@. I also thought that, as certain forer@s seem to be traditionalists, they might wish to abide by the laws of their countries and mine. I have made my point on the law and I will not be making it again.
> 
> It has also now been strongly implied that I am a "fascist", which I find highly amusing.


 
Very little offends me, don't worry.

The libel statement you made is however a bit strange.

His argument was that, if (as he thinks) abortion is murder, then those doctors are necessarily murderers. 

Since according to U.S. law abortion is not murder, he has not accused them of the crime of murder as defined by U.S. law. He has only stated that he thinks that, in his opinion, abortion is murder (and therefore those who practice it are necessarily murderers).

If I said hypothetically that in my opinion buying an apple is theft (and that everybody who buys an apple is therefore a thief), would that qualify as libel? Could I be sued by everybody who has purchased an apple?

I sincerely doubt it, since his was just a logical infernce from a hypothetical assumption. That is free speech.

Just my famous 2 cents! Luckily, I am no lawyer!  

Good-bye to this heated, off-topic thread!


----------



## cuchuflete

Good gracious Ceci!
A post based on logic in a thread like this. What an absolute scandal. You didn't call anyone nasty names either. Are you, perchance, trying to engage in civil discourse?


----------



## moodywop

I don't agree, Cuchu, purely based on logic. There is a difference between saying that I think that abortion *should *be regarded as murder by the law (and that the law *should* be changed) and stating that doctors who perform abortions *are *murderers. This is not hairsplitting. I think there is a substantial difference.

PS If my logic is faulty please put it down to my having woken up at an unnaturally early hour It's a national holiday here and I was looking forward to a lie-in


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Moodywop,

Based purely on logic, the law may regard an act as legal, while a person's religion may dictate, not suggest, that it is murder.

These are two different, and at times contrary, logical systems in collision.


----------



## moodywop

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hola Moodywop,
> 
> Based purely on logic, the law may regard an act as legal, while a person's religion may dictate, not suggest, that it is murder.
> 
> These are two different, and at times contrary, logical systems in collision.


 
I agree, Cuchu. However, although I would abolish libel laws and would never sue anybody for libel, since abortion is not murder according to the law, a doctor who was called a "murderer" would be able to sue for libel, wouldn't he?

Again, I apologize if I'm not thinking straight. I need a strong espresso


----------



## cuchuflete

moodywop said:
			
		

> I agree, Cuchu. However, although I would abolish libel laws and would never sue anybody for libel, since abortion is not murder according to the law, a doctor who was called a "murderer" would be able to sue for libel, wouldn't he?



Anyone may sue for libel.  Their chances of prevailing will vary with local statute and case law, the judge, effectiveness of counsel, the jury, if any, and the specific facts of the case.
I wouldn't dare generalize as to a likely outcome.

In a discussion forum, the idea of calling advocates of an idea
suporters of murder seems, at very best, over-the-top.  At worst...well just read the posts and make a reasoned judgment.

In the original thread starter for the, ummmmmm "parent" of this thread...the poster asked about views from many countries.  I believe that in some very populous nations abortion is not criminal, either from a legal or moral standpoint.  Those who limit themselves to acknowledging the validity of only a single standard of religious justice must have a lot of trouble accepting that.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> I should have to pay for mothers to kill their unborn children?


Word Reference's dictionary definitions… 
A) mother, female parent
a woman who has given birth to a child (also used as a term of address to your mother); "the mother of three children" 
B1) child, kid, youngster, minor, shaver, nipper, small fry, tiddler, tike, tyke, fry, nestling
a young person of either sex; "she writes books for children"; "they're just kids"; "`tiddler' is a British term for youngsters"
B2) child, kid
a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age; "they had three children"; "they were able to send their kids to college"
C) person, individual, someone, somebody, mortal, human, soul
a human being; "there was too much for one person to do"

Your use of "unborn" negates your use of "mother"
Your use of "unborn" negates your use of "children"
The unborn, up until the moment it is born, is but a potential child.
Those who believe in "acts of God" would tell you that many un-induced abortions (call them miscarriages if you wish, but they're the same thing) occur in the human population. My wife and I suffered two such life-shattering events. Are you saying that God, having made a human child, then kills it before it is born? Before it has a chance to even become stained with "original sin" - which we are told (by those who claim to know these things) we acquire by the incident of our birth.


----------



## badgrammar

Whoa! That's quite a lot to wrap up in one thread : Abortion and lesbian mariage issues? Are the two that closely related? "Reproduction and Lesbian mariage issues" sounds related. 

As for the question of abortion - by definition it doesn't often go hand-in-hand with homosexual marriage. But reproduction does tie in, as many same-sex couples choose to start a family. Sometimes through adoption, surrogate mothering, insemination, etc. I have close friends who have done this, the second child will be born in a few months. In this _particular case_, the child does not seem as "balanced" as others his age. But that is a)My personal judgement of the child, not necessarily correct, b)perhaps more a reflection of this child's personality than of his having two mothers and c)Perhpas due more to the personality of his parents than their sex and d)not in anyway representative of a global experience with or knowledge of how children from same sex marriages fare.


----------



## la reine victoria

emma42 said:
			
		

> One other thing, Fernando: a foetus is not a human being, it is a foetus.


 

Simply stating my opinion, in a non argumentative way, on this controversial issue. A foetus *is* a human being in the *early stages of development*. It has a beating heart and circulatory system, digestive organs, a developing brain - all the required body parts to function as a human being.  We were all foetuses at one point - would we wish to have been aborted or are we happy that our mothers continued the pregnancy and gave us the life which we so enjoy?

An unmarried friend of mine had an abortion and gave little thought to the matter - it suited her at the time. Because she hadn't taken contraceptive measures, abortion was a convenient way of getting rid of this "nasty by-product of a fleeting moment of sexual pleasure" - a human being in the making.

She then became pregnant again by a new partner. She continued the pregnancy (opposed by the partner!) and gave birth to a beautiful daughter. I couldn't tell you the number of times she said to me, "Imagine if I'd had another abortion; just look at this beautiful child - I could so easily have murdered her as I did my other baby." She has spent the past 34 years regretting that abortion - she is filled with guilt.

This topic has been discussed in the forums many times before. The pros for women who have been raped, or impregnated by a family member, could be approved but, generally speaking, I feel women should be far more responsible - when having a sexual relationship - to ensure that they don't get pregnant and have to destroy a human life.

I could never claim to be judgmental. I took many "chances" in my early sexual experiences but managed to avoid becoming pregnant. What would I have done had I found myself in that condition? Yes, I would probably have had an abortion. So my heart goes out to such women and I perfectly understand why they choose to do it.

Yet I still maintain that abortion is murder. It is the taking of a human life. Doctors and nurses in the UK (and there are many who hold this view) can choose to opt out of any procedures involving abortion.



LRV


----------



## emma42

LRV - "I would have had an abortion" "I perfectly understand why they choose to do it" "abortion is murder".  

Make your mind up, Your Maj.


----------



## Fernando

emma42 said:
			
		

> One other thing, Fernando:  a foetus is not a human being, it is a foetus.



That is the point of discussion. For many people, a black guy was not a person, he was a black guy.



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> Murder is a word applied to human beings.  Abortion is therefore not murder.  Do you apply the same thoughts to the many people who are murdered by state and country via the electric chair and lethal injection?  Somehow, I doubt it.



Totally off topic. And exactly why? Because in your mind anti-abortion = pro-death penalty? Exactly where have you taken this idea out from?


----------



## Fernando

moodywop said:
			
		

> I don't agree, Cuchu, purely based on logic. There is a difference between saying that I think that abortion *should *be regarded as murder by the law (and that the law *should* be changed) and stating that doctors who perform abortions *are *murderers. This is not hairsplitting. I think there is a substantial difference.
> 
> PS If my logic is faulty please put it down to my having woken up at an unnaturally early hour It's a national holiday here and I was looking forward to a lie-in



Hitler was a murder.
Stalin was a murder.
Gengis Khan was a murder.

Given that they did not fail to meet any of their laws, I am expecting their heirs' libels.

I accept (though disagree) that some people think that abortion is just as taking a hair out of their heads, but it is certainly hairsplitting the libel's claim.


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:
			
		

> LRV - "I would have had an abortion" "I perfectly understand why they choose to do it" "abortion is murder".
> 
> Make your mind up, Your Maj.




Tsk tsk Emma.
We are all capable of doing the (as we see it) unthinkable (and even illegal) and it takes an uncommon form of honesty to admit that, let alone to admit it publicly.

And what LRV actually said was "I would probably have had an abortion" - don't leave out vital words when you use quotation marks and attribute the words to someone.


----------



## geve

Fernando said:
			
		

> I accept (though disagree) that some people think that abortion is just as taking a hair out of their heads, but it is certainly hairsplitting the libel's claim.


Oh please... Can't we admit once and for all that there can be more mitigated opinions than the simplistic categorization of
_A. abortion is murder_
_B. abortion is just like taking a hair out_ (BTW, are you aware that depilation can be rather painful?? ...Sorry, just kidding  )
?

I don't agree with either statements. I believe this is a lot more complicated than that. It's not all black or all white. It can be grey too - and there are many shades of grey. Please acknowledge the existence of grey-thinking people.


----------



## la reine victoria

emma42 said:
			
		

> LRV - "I would have had an abortion" "I perfectly understand why they choose to do it" "abortion is murder".
> 
> Make your mind up, Your Maj.


 

My mind is perfectly made up Emma. Women in desperate circumstances will choose abortion as an end to their problem - the only way out. ****

(However I believe that many young women in the USA continue with their pregnancy and then give the baby for adoption. I have an American friend who has adopted two such babies.)

****I would probably have done the same had I ever been in that situation. I wouldn't have thought of all the implications at the time. But who's to say that I wouldn't have suffered deep remorse, as my friend did, afterwards? Many women suffer deep psychological trauma, after the initial feelings of relief, and it can take many years of psychotherapy to make them well again.

So, if I'd been is such dire straits, I could have sought the easy way out and by doing that (although it wouldn't have occurred to me at the time) I would have been complicit in the taking of a human life.

Whichever way a person looks at it, abortion is murder, and I believe I would have carried the guilt with me ever afterwards. Thank God I never had to make that decision.

For those women who can have abortions without feeling the slightest pang of guilt - they are made of steely stuff, and it is entirely their choice. I am neither pro nor anti abortion - it is up to each woman to do what she thinks is the right thing for her.

I took issue with your statement that a foetus is not a human being when it so obviously is, albeit one which has quite a bit of growing to do before it reaches maturity and is able to exist outside the womb.



LRV


----------



## ceci '79

moodywop said:
			
		

> Ceci
> 
> It's not just the children issue. Two friends of mine (a heterosexual couple) lived together for ten years without getting married. Like you, they thought they would only consider marriage if they had children. They were also proud of their _anticonformismo. _While touring Turkey on a motorbike they had a terrible accident. He was unconscious. The doctors at the local hospital said they would amputate his left leg. His girlfriend said she wanted a second opinion. She was told she was not a relative and had no say. Luckily his parents, with the help of the Italian Consulate, were able to have him transferred to a better hospital. As soon as they got back to Italy they got married.
> 
> It's not just about children or inheritance.


 
First of all, I am very happy to hear that your friend is now married and doing well.

But who knows if a spouse would always make the right decision? (See the complex case of Terri Schiavo). By "making the right decision" I mean acting in the patient's best interest.


----------



## maxiogee

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> First of all, I am very happy to hear that your friend is now married and doing well.
> 
> But who knows if a spouse would always make the right decision? (See the complex case of Terri Schiavo). By "making the right decision" I mean acting in the patient's best interest.



Hard cases make bad laws! — A well known expression meaning that we cannot legislate purely on the basis of difficult situations.

We must allow people involved to make the best decision they can in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Most people do this.


----------



## ceci '79

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Hard cases make bad laws! — A well known expression meaning that we cannot legislate purely on the basis of difficult situations.
> 
> We must allow people involved to make the best decision they can in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Most people do this.


 
Good point. I was just wondering whether being somebody's spouse is a such a sure indicator that you have their best interest in mind...


----------



## maxiogee

Who else might know their wishes?
Who else is to be the one who cares for them enough to make a decision?

If my life hung in a balance of some sort and a decision had to be made by someone, I'd like to think that my wife, informed by the best medical advice she can get, would be the one to make that decision. 
Not…
…a minority interest-group with an agenda,
…a medical person with some unknown agenda - financial constraints, some hospital's ethics committee (here hospitals are hugely influenced by Roman Catholic personnel), or other unlegislated standpoint
…a jury, who rarely evince great wisdom in simple matters of fact, let alone getting into the murky world of ethics and morals.

And if my wife were to decide, against sound advice given which recommended that I be allowed to live, that she felt I should be allowed to die, would I want to live in the care of someone who felt like that?


----------



## la reine victoria

_



Murder is a word applied to human beings. Abortion is therefore not murder. Do you apply the same thoughts to the many people who are murdered by state and country via the electric chair and lethal injection? Somehow, I doubt it.

Click to expand...

_


_No comparison, Emma. People who are executed for heinous crimes (usually murder, mass murder, serial rape) are adults who deliberately chose to act as they did._

_An unborn foetus (which you choose not to call a human being) has committed no crime. Yet it cannot cry out when its right to life is casually taken from it._

_Foetuses aborted at 24 weeks gestation (new maximum legal limit, reduced from 28 weeks) have been known to survive the procedure and been given the best of intensive care to ensure that they go on to live as normal a life as possible - sometimes in the care of adoptive parents, sometimes accepted by the natural mother._


_LRV_


----------



## ceci '79

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Who else might know their wishes?
> Who else is to be the one who cares for them enough to make a decision?
> 
> If my life hung in a balance of some sort and a decision had to be made by someone, I'd like to think that my wife, informed by the best medical advice she can get, would be the one to make that decision.
> Not…
> …a minority interest-group with an agenda,
> …a medical person with some unknown agenda - financial constraints, some hospital's ethics committee (here hospitals are hugely influenced by Roman Catholic personnel), or other unlegislated standpoint
> …a jury, who rarely evince great wisdom in simple matters of fact, let alone getting into the murky world of ethics and morals.
> 
> And if my wife were to decide, against sound advice given which recommended that I be allowed to live, that she felt I should be allowed to die, would I want to live in the care of someone who felt like that?


 
Thank you: That was a very interesting reply!  

Unless people got into the habit of writing living wills... What do you think of living wills?


----------



## maxiogee

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> Thank you: That was a very interesting reply!
> 
> Unless people got into the habit of writing living wills... What do you think of living wills?



It's probably off-topic here, but we'll see how far it can go. If it goes far enough then the Mods will do their spin-off trick to isolate it.

I'm all in favour of them.
I do not want to be a burden to anyone.
I equally do not wish to live on in a persistent vegetative state.

I witnessed the slow deaths of both of my parents. Had my father been aware of what he was going through he would have been mortified! The drugs he was administered caused him horrendous hallucinations. He was in great physical and mental agony as his end drew nearer. If his illness had been such as to grant his family the choice to maintain him or to allow him to die with dignity, then I know which one all of us whould have chosen.
My mother's death was different. She lingered for months, maintained alive solely by continuous use of oxygen. She too began to hallucinate, and to be struck my terrible doubts about her God (all her life she had been a very devout and focussed believer) and to hear her mumbled voicings of her doubt was heart-rending. I persuaded a cleric I respected to pay her a visit. He was someone she had known many years previously. They "spoke" for quite some time. He was aghast when he emerged, but I refrained from asking him about what had passed between them. She was somewhat less agitated after he had been.
Death is not an easy thing to be close to, but it comes to us all and we need to acknowledge that. I think my family of origin all had different opinions on what we would have done had we had a choice regarding my mother.

As I say, death comes to us all.
Advances in medical technology and in pharmaceuticals mean that things which killed us not too long ago can be shaken off with ease. We live now until our bodies can no longer function. The concept of entropy is becoming our downfall. Parts of our bodies which were not designed to last this long are routinely being expected to function for 90+ years. That is not a pretty way to go. losing control of our faculties and facilities.

We need to be prepared to face the increasing incidence of physical breakdown as a cause of death - a breakdown which by its very nature comes at a time when our children are themselves aging, and often not in a condition to care for us. The length of time the breakdown process takes is also a huge drain on medical resources - people too ill to be cared for at home (or with no-one at home who can care for them) can take a very long time to die, and all the time occupying a valuable medical bed in a health facility.


----------



## ceci '79

@ Maxiogee,

Thank you. Your reply was one of the most interesting, poignant and touching things I have ever read online. It was really to the point and thought-provoking. I will get back to you about it as soon as possible, after having seriously thought about it.

Ceci


----------



## coconutpalm

HI, I'm too excited with this thread that I can hardly wait to finish all the posts (actually, I have only finished half of the first page) before posting my own opinion!
The homosexual issue is getting hotter in China, despite the fact that many people are still quite ignorant of it or simply neglect it!
I'm not a lesbian, but I will never stand against gays and lesbians. I think they are groups of disadavantage (I'm not sure whether I use the right phrase), they are humans that have the same born rights, needs, desires as ours, they need our understandings. 
The only reason that men love men, women love women is that the one they love happen to be the same gender as his/hers. NOthing to be blame for that!

As for abortion issue, I think it's the mother's right to decide whether it's better for the baby AND her to give birth to the foetu. To desert a baby is lousy, but to give up a foetu is a reluctantly made have-to decision.


----------



## moodywop

Fernando said:
			
		

> Hitler was a murder.
> Stalin was a murder.
> Gengis Khan was a murder.
> 
> Given that they did not fail to meet any of their laws, I am expecting their heirs' libels.
> 
> ...it is certainly hairsplitting the libel's claim.


 
I didn't bring up the libel issue. Emma suggested that calling a doctor who performs abortions a murderer is libellous. She was criticized for saying that. 
I simply added that campaigning to change the law and calling doctors murderers are two quite different things and that calling a doctor a murderer might lead to a libel suit. I may well be wrong since I'm not a legal expert. And mine may well be hairsplitting.
However I do think that calling these doctors murderers is dangerous, since there are a few isolated fanatics (who I am categorically *not *equating with law-abiding opposers of abortion) who try to kill doctors and nurses in abortion clinics.
I was just trying to encourage the use of less inflammatory language but I'm aware that when one feels strongly about an issue that is not easy.


----------



## Papalote

emma42 said:
			
		

> One other thing, Fernando: a foetus is not a human being, it is a foetus. Murder is a word applied to human beings. Abortion is therefore not murder. Do you apply the same thoughts to the many people who are murdered by state and country via the electric chair and lethal injection? Somehow, I doubt it.


 
Hi,

Since the title of this thread says abortion, I hope I am not off-topic

I have had this discussion with many pro-abortionists and every single one of them has failed to prove to me that the foetus or bunch of cells or any other name they have thought up to give to those human cells will ever become anything but human. But, blinding oneself to the fact that killing cells is not killing and killing human cells is not killing makes it a lot easier to have an abortion instead of disciplining oneself to taking the pill daily, or to ask the one-night stand to use a condom. I have known a few women who have had abortions. Not one of them had an abortion for health reasons. All of them had abortions because they didn`t want to be stigmatized as being a _loose woman_, having to be responsible for a child, or have to live with the guilt of having given a child up for adoption. But killing it, _what me kill someone? Never, I`m not *that* kind of person_. Except that it is not your body, those cells are not you, they are part of the most innocent and most helpless human being in the world. You do not have the right to kill them.

I have more respect for a girl who got pregnant because she was raped and kept the baby, (I`ve gone through this with a family member so I am not just standing on my soap box) even if she gave it up for adoption, than for any woman who hides behind all the verbiage given by women`s groups because she lacks the courage to face up to her acts and her responsibilities. Abortion doesn`t take courage. It`s just the easiest way out for weak people.

I`m sure many women who have read this are wishing I had been aborted.

Did that comment shock you? Why? I thought abortion was just getting rid of trash, not of a human being!

I`ve got to go. Clients calling. 

Respectfully,

Papalote


----------



## coconutpalm

Ah, it seems that I was off-topic. Sorry for that. I was overexcited.
I think marriage for lesbians is definitely a "real issue". They love each other, they make love, and they don't want to make love with other men or women. If you think it can't be a "real marriage" without a mother pregant or giving birth to a baby, I think it's a bit ridiculous! Many men and women are unable to give birth to kids. Can you say their marriages are false or unnatural or something?

Abortion funded by government? We don't have such a system in China. I agree with cuchu on this point: it's a personal affair. No need to trouble the government and the public.
But for those single mother, especially those under-aged, and those raped to be pregnnant, I think the government and the publice should try their best to help them!


----------



## maxiogee

Papalote said:
			
		

> I`m sure many women who have read this are wishing I had been aborted.



Why would you say that?
They are not your mother. Why would anyone but the mother wish that anyone had been aborted?
Do people actually wish that other people had been aborted?
Do mothers who have declined the abortion option later wish that the child had been aborted?

It is so easy to say that women take the easy option, but talk to a woman who is contemplating an abortion and you'll very quickly change your mind about how easy the option is - if, of course, your mind is open to change.


----------



## coconutpalm

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Simply stating my opinion, in a non argumentative way, on this controversial issue. A foetus *is* a human being in the *early stages of development*. It has a beating heart and circulatory system, digestive organs, a developing brain - all the required body parts to function as a human being. We were all foetuses at one point - would we wish to have been aborted or are we happy that our mothers continued the pregnancy and gave us the life which we so enjoy?


LRV, sorry that I have to differ with you.
Yes, we are living a happy life. But there are so many children and mothers that are not living a happy life! And if only the mothers had made the decision to abort, they would be living a happier life, and their unborn child (every child is an angel, so if it's aborted ,it should be able to return to the heaven, isn't it?) should have found another mom that can provide them with a better condition.


----------



## rsweet

I remember in the early weeks of my pregnancy, being astounded at how much love I felt for the small human growing inside me. At this point my husband and I were following along in a book of incredible photos of babies in the womb, and we jokingly referred to our then-to-be daughter as _the lizard_! I knew without a doubt that if this baby were in danger I would run out in front of a truck and sacrifice myself to save her--without a thought. I might do this for someone else I love, but I would probably think about it. 

This being said, I believe that a foetus is not an independent human being; it has the potential to become an independent human being. It needs the lifesupport system of a mother. Babies then need ongoing financial, emotional, and physical support until they are able to function in society on their own. Lifesupport and love cannot be legislated. I sometimes imagine the horror of prolife advocates (especially men) if they were given the option of saving a child by "hooking up" that unborn baby to their bodies for nine months. These people are also the ones who fail to support social programs to help educate and provide for unwanted children. The sad fact is that children die from rejection all the time. If a woman, such as LRV's friend, decides to keep her child and is glad afterwards, that's a gift, that's wonderful. If a woman decides to go through the pregnancy and care for her body and her baby long enough to give that child to loving adoptive parents, that's wonderful. But should we legislate these acts? And can we? You can't legislate love. This won't prevent back-street abortions and the pain and suffering that goes along with these tragedies. I agree. It's a sad business and I'm sure many women sadly count the birthdays of children that never were, but it should remain a personal decision.


----------



## Fernando

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> And if only the mothers had made the decision to abort, they would be living a happier life, and their unborn child (every child is an angel, so if it's aborted ,it should be able to return to the heaven, isn't it?) should have found another mom that can provide them with a better condition.



Sorry, cocnut, but I can not avoid to ask you:

Exactly in which religion or phylosophical system "every child is an angel" and , if aborted, he will return "to the heaven"?

In my biology classes they said to me that the foetus dies. Just that. His DNA is irrepetible. He (or "it") if you want is dead. he will never turn to life again.

And, by the way, your reasoning could be appliable to half African population.


----------



## la reine victoria

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> LRV, sorry that I have to differ with you.
> Yes, we are living a happy life. But there are so many children and mothers that are not living a happy life! And if only the mothers had made the decision to abort, they would be living a happier life, and their unborn child (every child is an angel, so if it's aborted ,it should be able to return to the heaven, isn't it?) should have found another mom that can provide them with a better condition.


 
That's all right Coconut Palm.  What a boring place the forum would be if we all had the same opinion.

I would be going off topic if I started a debate on unhappy mothers and children, so I shan't say anything further.  I may open a new thread on this topic (when I can find the time).




LRV


----------



## emma42

I must just apologise to LRV for misquoting her.  That was not my intention and was a genuine mistake.  I don't feel that I need to resort to such tactics to put my point across.  Sorry LRV.

Secondly, the capital punishment point is, indeed relevant.  The anti-abortionists appear to be saying that human life is sacred/a human right.  If this applies to an unborn foetus, why does it not also apply to those convicted of serious crimes?

Thirdly, Hitler, Genghis Khan et al, were the lawmakers, so that argument is not relevant.

Fourthly, it is, in law, libellous to accuse someone of a crime they have not committed.  Including stealing an apple.


----------



## la reine victoria

emma42 said:
			
		

> I must just apologise to LRV for misquoting her. That was not my intention and was a genuine mistake. I don't feel that I need to resort to such tactics to put my point across. Sorry LRV.
> 
> Secondly, the capital punishment point is, indeed relevant. The anti-abortionists appear to be saying that human life is sacred/a human right. If this applies to an unborn foetus, why does it not also apply to those convicted of serious crimes?
> 
> Thirdly, Hitler, Genghis Khan et al, were the lawmakers, so that argument is not relevant.
> 
> Fourthly, it is, in law, libellous to accuse someone of a crime they have not committed. Including stealing an apple.


 
That's OK Emma. No problem.

May I just remind everyone of GenJen's post - we have to stick to the original thread topic.



> Why is not "government-funded" abortion a "real issue"?


We have drifted far away from this . . . . . 




Regards,
LRV


----------



## Fernando

emma42 said:
			
		

> Secondly, the capital punishment point is, indeed relevant.  The anti-abortionists appear to be saying that human life is sacred/a human right.  If this applies to an unborn foetus, why does it not also apply to those convicted of serious crimes?



And I repeat: Why do you imply that anti-abortionists are pro-death penalty? 
And anyway, your question answers it alone:

unborn foetus = not guilty, not dangerous
convicted of serious crimes = guilty, dangerous

It is irrelevant, but I am anti-abortion and anti-death penalty.



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> Thirdly, Hitler, Genghis Khan et al, were the lawmakers, so that argument is not relevant.


 
Subotai was a murderer.
Mengele was a murderer.
Trotski was a murderer.
Owners of Roman gladiators were murderers.
...

Uff, my lawyer has a big work ahead.



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> Fourthly, it is, in law, libellous to accuse someone of a crime they have not committed.  Including stealing an apple.



That is OK. I studied Laws and I could agree with you. Next time I will recall to put in jail all people who called Bush, Aznar and Blair "murderers", given they were not, according the law.


Said all this, I agree that "murderer" is a strong word and I will not use it. (as a matter of fact I have not used before, I think), but please, do not throw as the Penal Code on the head when we open our mouth.


----------



## maxiogee

LRV,

I'm still waiting for tvdxer's response to these questions.
I suppose that it may take a while given the time difference in our locations.



			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> I should have to pay for mothers to kill their unborn children?


Word Reference's dictionary definitions… 
A) mother, female parent
a woman who has given birth to a child (also used as a term of address to your mother); "the mother of three children" 
B1) child, kid, youngster, minor, shaver, nipper, small fry, tiddler, tike, tyke, fry, nestling
a young person of either sex; "she writes books for children"; "they're just kids"; "`tiddler' is a British term for youngsters"
B2) child, kid
a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age; "they had three children"; "they were able to send their kids to college"
C) person, individual, someone, somebody, mortal, human, soul
a human being; "there was too much for one person to do"

Your use of "unborn" negates your use of "mother"
Your use of "unborn" negates your use of "children"
The unborn, up until the moment it is born, is but a potential child.
Those who believe in "acts of God" would tell you that many un-induced abortions (call them miscarriages if you wish, but they're the same thing) occur in the human population. My wife and I suffered two such life-shattering events. Are you saying that God, having made a human child, then kills it before it is born? Before it has a chance to even become stained with "original sin" - which we are told (by those who claim to know these things) we acquire by the incident of our birth.


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> Subotai was a murderer.
> Mengele was a murderer.
> Trotski was a murderer.
> Owners of Roman gladiators were murderers.
> 
> 
> Uff, my lawyer has a big work ahead.



You cannot, Fernando, libel the dead.
Try saying that about the Governor of an American state which executes criminals, or try saying it about the last drunk driver who killed someone in your neighbourhood. Try saying it, and then try proving it. If you cannot prove it, it is libel.


----------



## emma42

I didn't say that the libel law was just or otherwise.  I simply stated its existence.  Please do not try to read between the lines.

I agree that those listed above are murderers.  I don't know what your point is.

I am glad that you are anti-death penalty, but I maintain that the majority of anti-abortion lobbyists are pro death penalty, as most of them are conservatives/republicans.  A fact.

I maintain that government-funded abortion is a "real issue" because it goes towards the mental and physical health of half of its citizens.  In England, a woman can only have an abortion (state-funded or otherwise) if two doctors consider that her mental or physical health would be damaged if she were to continue with the pregnancy.  It should be state-funded because many people cannot afford private medical care.


----------



## Fernando

emma42 said:
			
		

> I am glad that you are anti-death penalty, but I maintain that the majority of anti-abortion lobbyists are pro death penalty, as most of them are conservatives/republicans.  A fact.



And I repeat (thrice). Where do you get your data? As a matter of fact in US Catholic Church is both against death penalty and abortion. And again, I do not see the relation among killing an unborn and killing a mass killer.



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> I maintain that government-funded abortion is a "real issue"


Of course it is a real issue (just ask the aborted foetuses). The point is whether or not is a woman's rights issue.



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> In England, a woman can only have an abortion (state-funded or otherwise) if two doctors consider that her mental or physical health would be damaged if she were to continue with the pregnancy.



Then, every woman should have the right to abort as easily as depilation (not state-funded and that affect only to women)?. I think that my extreme example (I agree, Geve) is not so extreme to you.



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> It should be state-funded because many people cannot afford private medical care.



In Spain, toothcare (beyond some basics) is not state-funded. So, let me say that (regardless of the abortion polemic) we have some priorities before.


----------



## la reine victoria

emma42 said:
			
		

> It should be state-funded because many people cannot afford private medical care.


 

Well, in the UK at least, it is available "free of charge" under the National Health Service.  I have put quotes round "free of charge" because, in fact, all those in work have to pay sizeable contributions towards National Health Insurance, and the employer also has to cough up considerably more than the employee.  At least that's how it was before I retired.




LRV


----------



## emma42

I was not talking about the Catholic Church, I was talking about the right (wing). The anti-abortion stance and the pro capital punishment stance are well-known values of the American right. Please don't ask me to produce data for the obvious.

I talked about government-funded abortion being a "real issue" because that is what I have been asked to address in this thread by a Moderator. See Post 67.

You have no right to infer that I view abortion as the same matter as depilation. I have said nothing to cause you to infer that. If you think I have, please quote me. Please do not (again) try to read between the lines.

So you think dental care is important (agreed), but any physical or mental damage caused to a woman by pregnancy or by giving birth to an unwanted child is not important? I disagree.


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> You cannot, Fernando, libel the dead.



Certainly I can. Depending on the legal system, their heirs can represent the dead. I agree that Subotai's heirs are not a big danger. So, let me reword again:
The argentinian AAA were murderers, Pinochet was a murderer, Franco and Carrillo was muderers.

Maxiogee, as said before, I consider that maybe "murderer" is a bit hard and I drop the term from this discussion but reckon that accusing the people of libelling is not exactly "nice".

Of course we know they are not technically murderers since the law does not consider them as such, but we consider that people should be aware of the severity of what they are doing. People in US, 150 years ago, considered that having slaves was common and 100 years in Germany they thought that Jews were subhumans. Most of the people who had slaves or scorned Jews were nice people who loved their families and payed their taxes, but they were performing brutalities (not crimes, since the legal system protected them) than can be considered nowadays as "murders".



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> try saying it about the last drunk driver who killed someone in your neighbourhood.


 I am glad to say you that under current Spanish law he is, at least, a killer (homicida) and even a murderer (asesino) if he complies with some rules.


----------



## tvdxer

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Word Reference's dictionary definitions…
> A) mother, female parent
> a woman who has given birth to a child (also used as a term of address to your mother); "the mother of three children"
> B1) child, kid, youngster, minor, shaver, nipper, small fry, tiddler, tike, tyke, fry, nestling
> a young person of either sex; "she writes books for children"; "they're just kids"; "`tiddler' is a British term for youngsters"
> B2) child, kid
> a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age; "they had three children"; "they were able to send their kids to college"
> C) person, individual, someone, somebody, mortal, human, soul
> a human being; "there was too much for one person to do"
> 
> Your use of "unborn" negates your use of "mother"
> Your use of "unborn" negates your use of "children"
> The unborn, up until the moment it is born, is but a potential child.
> Those who believe in "acts of God" would tell you that many un-induced abortions (call them miscarriages if you wish, but they're the same thing) occur in the human population. My wife and I suffered two such life-shattering events. Are you saying that God, having made a human child, then kills it before it is born? Before it has a chance to even become stained with "original sin" - which we are told (by those who claim to know these things) we acquire by the incident of our birth.


Tieing up legitimate debates in semantics is not a very worthy method of defending your point. The dictionary.com definition, provided by American Heritage, goes like this:



> 1. A woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child.


An unborn child _is_ a young person...a very young PERSON indeed. I am fully aware of miscarriages...they are tragic for a reason, you know. And such argumentation about "God" is silly at best - God has a permissive will; he allows things to happen. PEOPLE die at all ages - young babies born with horrible defects, children in accidents, etc. I don't see at all the relevance of your point.


----------



## Fernando

emma42 said:
			
		

> I was not talking about the Catholic Church, I was talking about the right (wing). The anti-abortion stance and the pro capital punishment stance are well-known values of the American right. Please don't ask me to produce data for the obvious.


 
So we have some common ground. Please, let me know if you agree

Only in US (not in Europe), some (not all, by far) of the anti-abortion movement is, at the same time, in favour of death penalty. 

Though it is difficult set the equivalence US rightist = anti abortion = pro death penalty, given that most US citizens are pro death penalty (regardless their political stance) I can agree that there is a relation.




			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> You have no right to infer that I view abortion as the same matter as depilation. I have said nothing to cause you to infer that. If you think I have, please quote me. Please do not (again) try to read between the lines.
> 
> (...)but any physical or mental damage caused to a woman by pregnancy or by giving birth to an unwanted child is not important? I disagree.



You said before these cases were covered by the state. I implied (and I retire it if I misunderstood you) you wanted to widen the coverage.


----------



## emma42

Fernando, I don't understand your point about "widening the coverage".  I don't know what you mean by that.  What has it got to do with you thinking that I view depilation and abortion as "the same matter"?


----------



## Fernando

You said:

"In England, a woman can ONLY have an abortion (state-funded or otherwise) if two doctors consider that her mental or physical health would be damaged if she were to continue with the pregnancy. "

Were you implying with "ONLY" that coverage should include also the voluntary, not-mother-health-involved abortions?


----------



## cuchuflete

Emma42 said:
			
		

> It should be state-funded because many people cannot afford private medical care.



Many people cannot afford many things they would like, or some might argue, things they "need".  Why is the state responsible for providing those things?

In some countries, by popular will, such things come to be accepted as "rights".  An obvious example is public education.
I don't think that the state (taxpayers) should pay for abortions in general.  I've already named the exceptions. 

 There is such a thing as personal responsibility for one's actions.  If the state (taxpayers) is not responsible for causing people to have sex, regardless of economic means, then to say that state responsibility automatically begins after a sex act for those with few economic means is curious.

You could follow the same logic and end up with taxpayers providing contraception for all poorer citizens, along with food, housing, transportation.  All of that is fine, *if* the taxpayers demonstrate their agreement with the policies.


----------



## emma42

Well, Cucheflete, they _do _in this country. (taxpayers providing contraception for all poorer citizens... etc etc).  It's called the Welfare State.  

I completely agree with personal responsibility for one's actions.  However, which would you rather have - irresponsible people having free abortions or loads of unwanted children?  And I do say "irresponsible" because such people exist.  I don't like it any more than you do, but sometimes you have to make a choice between the crap and the even more crap.  I think this answers Fernando's point as well.

I have to also say that contraception does not always work.  Neither does the morning-after pill.  I know a nurse who says she is scandalised by the amount of women attending for abortions who have taken the morning-after pill.  She says that in her experience, the fail-rate is far higher than that publicised.  However, I don't want to go off-topic.


----------



## emma42

Just to add to my previous post, I don't particularly like my taxes going to pay for the abortions of irresponsible people, but neither do I like them going to pay for the medical treatment of irresponsible skiers, drivers, smokers, whatever. I would not have it the other way round, though. That is the National Health Service for you, with all its faults.


----------



## badgrammar

Fernando, with all due respect, if that is part of Coconut's belief system, I do not see the relevance of your comments to her.  Perhaps you are coming from a different philosophical and cultural viewpoint.  There is no reason to search to argue with her statement, unless you mean to say that her religious/spiritual beliefs are less valid than yours.  Perhaps she is a buddhist, or is paraphrasing her beliefs in "Western" terms so as to be understood.

Other than that, I usually enjoy reading your posts, although I sometimes disagree with you strongly.



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Sorry, cocnut, but I can not avoid to ask you:
> 
> Exactly in which religion or phylosophical system "every child is an angel" and , if aborted, he will return "to the heaven"?
> 
> In my biology classes they said to me that the foetus dies. Just that. His DNA is irrepetible. He (or "it") if you want is dead. he will never turn to life again.
> 
> And, by the way, your reasoning could be appliable to half African population.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> There is such a thing as personal responsibility for one's actions.  If the state (taxpayers) is not responsible for causing people to have sex, regardless of economic means, then to say that state responsibility automatically begins after a sex act for those with few economic means is curious.



There is also such a thing as looking after the less fortunate (howsoever they find themselves in that situation) by a state providing more than just education from central funds. It is not uncommon for states to provide medical services free at point of usage - the actual costs being met by taxation - as is the cost of free travel schemes for the elderly, and free electricity/gas, free dental care, free optical care, the list is a long one.

Defining what is and what is not a "medical service" is a long and tortuous discussion which, were we to rehearse it here, would provide more much heat than light. Usually it ends up being more involved with economics than health, or even morality/ethics.


----------



## djchak

Hmm.

Well I can only add this to the discussion. I am pro choice (choosing to have an abortion).

Personally, I think you should have a liscence to have a baby (both parents), but this would be impossible to enforce.

One note: It seems libel laws are different around the world, so we might want to keep this in mind, or not have libel applicable to this discussion.


----------



## Fernando

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Fernando, with all due respect, if that is part of Coconut's belief system, I do not see the relevance of your comments to her.  Perhaps you are coming from a different philosophical and cultural viewpoint.  There is no reason to search to argue with her statement, unless you mean to say that her religious/spiritual beliefs are less valid than yours.  Perhaps she is a buddhist, or is paraphrasing her beliefs in "Western" terms so as to be understood.



By no means I am implying her beliefs are stupid, badgrammar, but I need to know which their beliefs are. Though my knowledge of East religions is limited (to say the least) the idea of unborn children being "angels" is strange to me and it has no relationship with no East or West philosophy. 

You can be certain that conconut's comment would have passed unnoticed if it was about a less sensitive topic. In some way he/she was saying abortion was unimportant because the child would eventually return in other body. 



			
				badgrammar said:
			
		

> Other than that, I usually enjoy reading your posts, although I sometimes disagree with you strongly.



Thank you very much. I try to learn from you.

The times you disagree with me, I beg you to let me know. I express my opinions to read others', not for public brain masturbation.


----------



## Outsider

I don't think that Eastern religions have angels, so I suppose what *Coconutpalm* meant to say was that newborns and unborn children are _sinless_. Not being very familiar with Western religions herself, I guess she didn't use the best words.

Technically, I don't think it is that way. As far as I know, most Christians believe that every human being is born with the original sin. And, in traditional Catholic doctrine, unbaptized babies go to limbo, not to heaven.


----------



## cuchuflete

In front of me on my desk is the American Heritage  dictionary of the English Language.

For "Mother", the entry reads 



> 1, A female that has borne an offspring.


 I have supplied the underlining.


----------



## Fernando

The terminology discussions are always funny...and annoying:

I propose the following definitions:

- Mother: Female human with a born child (Cuchu's #98 definition, if you like).
- Pregnant woman: Female human who has a viable foetus.
- Foetus: Any "being" resulting of the fecundation of a cell by a sperm.
- Person: "Being" with so-called human dignity.
- Legal person: Human with legal rights and obligations.

Discussion on abortion: Are foetuses persons? = Do they have "human dignity"?

The discussion on what "human dignity" is, is open ?


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> The terminology discussions are always funny...and annoying:
> 
> I propose the following definitions:
> 
> - Mother: Female human with a born child (Cuchu's #98 definition, if you like).
> - Pregnant woman: Female human who has a viable foetus.
> - Foetus: Any "being" resulting of the fecundation of a cell by a sperm.
> - Person: "Being" with so-called human dignity.
> - Legal person: Human with legal rights and obligations.


I'll play with that deck, with the exception of "person" which my Oxford American Dictionary defines as "a human being regarded as an individual".




> Discussion on abortion: Are foetuses persons? = Do they have "human dignity"?


I would have to argue with the "person-ness" of a foetus as they are 'dependant' on the womb, and bodily functions of another "person" and so are not "independent". Birth live young is one of the defining characteristics of our species, but I cannot see that the unborn are 'persons', just as a laid & fertilised hen's egg is not a chicken until is hatches, it is only a potential chicken. (This is not to equate humanity with hens, although to me, we are just a different species - no more, no less.)


----------



## Fernando

emma42 said:
			
		

> I am surprised that badgrammar "enjoy"s reading posts which denigrate homosexuals and seek to rescind the right of women to have abortions.  I do not "enjoy" reading them.



Now we are aware on your tastes and your tastes on badgrammar's tastes.

Thank you, Emma, for the information.


----------



## maxiogee

However, I see the definition of terms as essential. That said, and in the light of my previous post, I do not see abortion as "murder", it is merely a "medical procedure".
Medical procedures are, in my neck of the woods, available through state funding. Not all, and there may be rationing involved. But, it should be up there with hip replacements, quadruple heart bypasses, psychiatric services and other 'services' routinely discussed by the powers that be when discussing their budgets.


----------



## emma42

I would like to know precisely what right those forer@s who are anti-abortion think they have to dictate to any woman what she should or should not do with her body.  I simply cannot understand it. Where is your compassion?  Where is your understanding of the myriad reasons why a woman might not carry on with a pregnancy?  Why are you so determined to dictate to other people about their own bodies?  Look after your own bodies and leave others to do with theirs what they will.


----------



## Fernando

...with the difference that hips becoming "legal persons" (see definitions above) are scarcely recorded.

Mengele saw his experiments as "medical procedures" also. THIS IS NOT AN EQUIPARATION , IS A COMPARISON.


----------



## emma42

So now you are implying that people in favour of the right to abortion are Nazis? Cannot a forero discuss without being so offensive?  Why would you compare Maxiogee with Mengele?


----------



## Fernando

emma42 said:
			
		

> I would like to know precisely what right those forer@s who are anti-abortion think they have to dictate to any woman what she should or should not do with her body.



We have no right to dictate to any woman what she should do with her body. We completely agree.



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> I simply cannot understand it.



Human limitations, you know.



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> Where is your understanding of the myriad reasons why a woman might not carry on with a pregnancy?



We understand them. As a matter of fact, I understand no petty criminal is doing bad for pleasure, mostly he does either for necessity or for lack of knowledge.



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> Why are you so determined to dictate to other people about their own bodies?



Ditto.



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> Look after your own bodies and leave others to do with theirs what they will.



My own body is ugly enough. Uninteresting and unworthy of attention.


----------



## tatis

emma42 said:
			
		

> One other thing, Fernando: a foetus is not a human being, it is a foetus. Murder is a word applied to human beings. Abortion is therefore not murder.
> 
> 
> I 've been checking this thread on and off, and although this comment is directed to Fernando, I can't help but to interject and say what I am compelled to say:
> 
> Dear emma42: The human heart begins to beat around 22 days of conception, including yours, because you too are and were a human being from that very moment.
> You were not embryo or a fetus of a box or a shoe, a cat or a cow.
> You are a beautiful and unique human being from the very beginning.


----------



## Joelline

I have read all of the posts in this thread with great interest. I am now ready to post my own opinions (for whatever they are worth) about the matters under discussion:

(2) Regarding government-funded abortion: It certainly is a "real issue"! However, I do not support it. I am personally opposed to abortion. I believe that the fetus is a "person." I believe that, for example, anyone who kills a woman and her fetus has committed a double-homicide. Emma asks: 





> Where is your compassion? Where is your understanding of the myriad reasons why a woman might not carry on with a pregnancy? Why are you so determined to dictate to other people about their own bodies? Look after your own bodies and leave others to do with theirs what they will.


 I do understand; I do sympathize, and I also do not choose to legislate for my entire gender. I do not claim the right to dictate to other women what they may and may not do, but I also do not think that I should have to pay for their personal choices! I acknowledge that other women have the right to do what they will with their bodies, but they refuse to allow me to abstain from paying for them to exercise their right! In brief, I strongly oppose government-funded abortion.

Finally, I am also strongly opposed to capital punishment, and I resent Emma's assumption that those who are opposed to abortion are not also opposed to capital punishment: 





> "Do you apply the same thoughts to the many people who are murdered by state and country via the electric chair and lethal injection?


 Yes, I certainly do! 





> Somehow, I doubt it."


 Doubt no more, Emma!


----------



## maxiogee

tatis said:
			
		

> The human heart begins to beat around 22 days of conception, including yours,


As I said earlier, a fertilised hen's egg is not a chicken. It is a 'potential-chicken'.



			
				tatis said:
			
		

> because you too are and were a human being from that very moment.


* How do you 'know' this?
* What makes us human? 
* What moment in the purely mechanical process of the division of cells and the pre-ordered growth of the foetus is it which marks that foetus as 'human' as against 'potential-human'.


----------



## tatis

maxiogee said:
			
		

> As I said earlier, a fertilised hen's egg is not a chicken. It is a 'potential-chicken'.
> 
> 
> * How do you 'know' this?
> * What makes us human?
> * What moment in the purely mechanical process of the division of cells and the pre-ordered growth of the foetus is it which marks that foetus as 'human' as against 'potential-human'.


 
Hi there maxiogee. The comment was directed specifically to emma42.  As you can see I was referring to humans, not chickens.

¿What makes you human?  Look at yourself carefully, and decide.  Or do you consider to be something different from a human being?  

Now, if you need a more scientific explanation (I don't), there are great sources of information, I suggest that you research, specially on your last question.

Have a nice day.


----------



## timpeac

Wow, what a mixed up, muddled up, shook up thread.

Hmmm, To remind myself of the question I'll just put that here -



> Why is not "government-funded" abortion a "real issue"? Why is not the right to marriage for lesbians a "real issue"?


 Right, A -


> Why is not "government-funded" abortion a "real issue"?


Well I would certainly agree that this is a very real issue, because it is far from morally black and white - this is evidenced in the myriad posts in this thread and in others. There are too main value judgements that I can see:
a)- Does the foetus have any rights before it is born (and if so at what stage)?
b)- Do the rights of the mother over her body over-ride any or all of the rights the foetus may or may not have.
Interestingly, although I naturally seem to gravitate to have the more liberal opinion on such items, I find myself with the conservative guys on this one. I don't think it's for us to judge when live becomes "worthy" enough to exist, and therefore I don't think I could find a point that the foetus doesn't have equal rights to life as the born baby it becombs immediately on leaving the womb. So my personal answer to a) is - the foetues has equal right to life as a baby from conception. For b) I have to say that in my opinion I think that the woman's rights over her own body don't over-ride the rights of the foetus to life.

Now that is my personal opinion but the conflict of gradations between a) and b) (eg does it make a difference if the woman was raped or if she is using abortion as pure contraception etc) goes to show why the government taking a stand on it is something that is an "issue" for all of society. Apart from anything else a concensus is needed on how to deal with people that break any law that may be involved. Again this is far from clear - I think that the foetus's right to life is greater than the woman's right to abort, but that doesn't mean I would villify a woman who had an abortion. Sending people to dangerous back-street abortionists wouldn't seem to solve any problem at all.

So so so many issues - I find it hard to believe that someone would suggest this wasn't an issue.


----------



## rsweet

tatis said:
			
		

> Hi there maxiogee. The comment was directed specifically to emma42.  As you can see I was referring to humans, not chickens.
> 
> ¿What makes you human?  Look at yourself carefully, and decide.  Or do you consider to be something different from a human being?
> 
> Now, if you need a more scientific explanation (I don't), there are great sources of information, I suggest that you research, specially on your last question.
> 
> Have a nice day.



Hello tatis,

I think what is being debated here about "being human" is a level of consciousness. What's being asked is at what point after conception does a person realize his or her humanity? Another way to look at this is where is the majority of the lifeforce coming from when a baby is too young to survive by itself out of the womb? What was being said is that this fetus is a potential human and cannot become an independent human being able to live by itself without the lifesupport provided by the mother. The question asked is whose rights override the other's when these two beings share a body? 

Another thought I had involves posters who claim that women who have an abortion do so casually, without thought or remorse (as easily as depilation). Personally, I don't think this kind of callousness is the norm, but I don't know. However, if a woman does have this kind of total disregard for the fetus, what kind of a mother would she be?! A woman who carries an infant to term is a mother to that baby for at approxiimately nine months. What kind of care will she take of her body to insure that the baby is healthy? Will she drink and cause fetal alcohol syndrome? Will she take drugs?


----------



## medeterian

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> My mind is perfectly made up Emma. Women in desperate circumstances will choose abortion as an end to their problem - the only way out. ****
> 
> For those women who can have abortions without feeling the slightest pang of guilt - they are made of steely stuff, and it is entirely their choice. I am neither pro nor anti abortion - it is up to each woman to do what she thinks is the right thing for her.


 Thanks la reine victoria. I completely share your ideas that there is no such a strict rule for abortion to be a guilt or not. (I am not saying the word "murder" conciously) This type of thinking is a kind of fuzzy logic which seems more healthy to me.


----------



## maxiogee

tatis said:
			
		

> Hi there maxiogee. The comment was directed specifically to emma42.  As you can see I was referring to humans, not chickens.


Does this disbar me from asking you to explain your use of the words you choose?




			
				tatis said:
			
		

> ¿What makes you human?  Look at yourself carefully, and decide.  Or do you consider to be something different from a human being?


No, I'm more than happy to proclaim my humanity. I was asking you to explain your use of the terms "you were a human being from that very moment" —> How do you know that? 
"You are a beautiful and unique human being from the very beginning." —> What is the very beginning? How do you know "that"?


----------



## badgrammar

Emma, 
As we say ever so colloquially chez nous, _"Take a chill pill"_.  You are writing in an inflammatory fashion, and I begin to think that all this heated debating is far less contructive than getting perspective and ceasing to attack.  Embattlement seems to be all the rage at WR, I think it's a shame.

What the heck are you misconstruing my words for now? I said "I enjoy although often strongly disagree".  I am, and always have been pro-abortion and pro-equal rights for same-sex unions.  But I enjoy reading others' views without ascribing to them. They have a right to believe what they believe.  I know and appreciate many people who have ideas different from my own.  





			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> Chambers English Dictionary;
> 
> I am surprised that badgrammar "enjoy"s reading posts which denigrate homosexuals and seek to rescind the right of women to have abortions.  I do not "enjoy" reading them.


----------



## coconutpalm

Fernando said:
			
		

> Sorry, cocnut, but I can not avoid to ask you:
> 
> Exactly in which religion or phylosophical system "every child is an angel" and , if aborted, he will return "to the heaven"?
> 
> In my biology classes they said to me that the foetus dies. Just that. His DNA is irrepetible. He (or "it") if you want is dead. he will never turn to life again.
> 
> And, by the way, your reasoning could be appliable to half African population.


Sleepy. It's 6:16am here in China. MY brain isn't working properly I'm afarid, especially my English part. I think I should state my opinion more clearly: I don't support abortion, but sometimes it's a have-to decision!
I'm a female, I love children as much as every woman does. Although I'm too young to experience all of these things: having sex, having the 'opportunity" to undergo abortion, or entering into a marriage,  I have a say in this issue: I don't believe any woman will be making an easy decision when she chooses to abort her baby. Out of pure selfishness of human beings (if you approve of the theory), she is not. Abortion does great harm to a woman, physically and psychologically. I'm not supporting abortion, but I do understand those that abort. 
Is the foetus a life or just a cell? It depends purely on your definition of life. Many people might think the stone, the water, the fire has life! These are extreme examples, but a cell, accroding to the biologic teaching, is definitely a life. I won't deny it. This truth adds to the agony of the would-be mother when she makes that painful decision. However, I still hold that a mother has the right to decide which it's better for the unborn baby and herself. I said I approve of abortion only when the mother is totally helpless and finds no way out. In this case, I believe that a mother does it for the good more of the baby. 

BTW,what do you mean by "applicable to half African population"?


----------



## medeterian

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> Sleepy. It's 6:16am here in China. MY brain isn't working properly I'm afarid, especially my English part. I think I should state my opinion more clearly: I don't support abortion, but sometimes it's a have-to decision!
> I'm a female, I love children as much as every woman does. Although I'm too young to experience all of these things: having sex, having the 'opportunity" to undergo abortion, or entering into a marriage,  I have a say in this issue: I don't believe any woman will be making an easy decision when she chooses to abort her baby. Out of pure selfishness of human beings (if you approve of the theory), she is not. Abortion does great harm to a woman, physically and psychologically. I'm not supporting abortion, but I do understand those that abort.
> Is the foetus a life or just a cell? It depends purely on your definition of life. Many people might think the stone, the water, the fire has life! These are extreme examples, but a cell, accroding to the biologic teaching, is definitely a life. I won't deny it. This truth adds to the agony of the would-be mother when she makes that painful decision. However, I still hold that a mother has the right to decide which it's better for the unborn baby and herself. I said I approve of abortion only when the mother is totally helpless and finds no way out. In this case, I believe that a mother does it for the good more of the baby.
> 
> BTW,what do you mean by "applicable to half African population"?



A stone may be a living thing. Yes. It is a nice point of view coconutpalm. What makes us or science say something is living. Maybe this is an extreme point. But it is clear that we can not say wheter a fetus is human or not. We can not know how she feels or knows.


----------



## emma42

I seem to have offended some people and I would like to apologise.  I can see that if a person views a foetus as a human being, they will consider it wrong to abort it. I have to accept that as a point of view.

I also apologise to badgrammar for crticising her feelings about reading posts and to Fernando for assuming he was pro capital punishment.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Well done, Emma.


----------



## medeterian

This is a cool acting emma


----------



## maxiogee

*On the subject of abortion.*
There are many good reasons why animals do not always give birth following pregnancy. Some animals have the ability to carry a fertilised (but undeveloping) egg until such time as external conditions are optimised for the gestation to continue.
Humans do not have this facility.
There are however many occasions when pregnancy is not in the interest of the woman involved, nor would birth be in the interest of any child which would result from it.
We have, as a species, developed medical science to a degree which allows us to halt and indeed reverse many natural processes and we do this without a second thought. 
Halting the production process which, were it to carry through to completion, would result in a baby is one more thing we can safely do.

As to whether abortion should be "government-funded", I cannot go into that here as there are too many variables.
a) Which government are we talking about?
b) Are we talking theory or practice? There are many other medical procedures I'd like to see funded but financial constraints preclude them. Abortion would have to fight its case slongside them
c) Are there to be limits to who is eligible, when they are eligible, how often they are eligible.
d) Is "need" to be an issue.


----------



## Brioche

medeterian said:
			
		

> A stone may be a living thing. Yes. It is a nice point of view coconutpalm. What makes us or science say something is living. Maybe this is an extreme point. But it is clear that we can not say wheter a fetus is human or not. We can not know how she feels or knows.


 
A fetus is human.

A fetus is formed by the combination of a _human egg_ and a _human sperm._ The result is _human being_. Not a carrot, not a sheep, not a monkey.

The question is not whether a fetus is human, but what legal status is to be given to the fetus. 

According to English Common Law, only a *person* has legal rights, and to be person, you must be *born alive*. So in countries where the Common Law prevails, a fetus is not a person, and thus has no legal rights.


----------



## tvdxer

> *On the subject of abortion.*
> There are many good reasons why animals do not always give birth following pregnancy. Some animals have the ability to carry a fertilised (but undeveloping) egg until such time as external conditions are optimised for the gestation to continue
> 
> Humans do not have this facility.
> There are however many occasions when pregnancy is not in the interest of the woman involved, nor would birth be in the interest of any child which would result from it.
> We have, as a species, developed medical science to a degree which allows us to halt and indeed reverse many natural processes and we do this without a second thought.
> Halting the production process which, were it to carry through to completion, would result in a baby is one more thing we can safely do.


The problem is a human being has already been created at the moment of conception. Both you and me can trace our own history back to that point in time; before then, the components necessary for our physical existence were not together, but after then, we would become who we are today through a long process of growth and development.

The fetus as a human has the right to life; it is NOT up to the mother to decide whether he or she shall be able to continue on living. You say "nor would birth be in the interest of any child which would result from it." Why should we stop at birth? Do we become human beings, homo sapiens, at birth? I don't think so. In fact, as long as the child has not developed the faculty of reason, why should it not be allowed to kill him or her if the mother decides that the living situations are too bad for him?



> As to whether abortion should be "government-funded", I cannot go into that here as there are too many variables.
> a) Which government are we talking about?
> b) Are we talking theory or practice? There are many other medical procedures I'd like to see funded but financial constraints preclude them. Abortion would have to fight its case slongside them
> c) Are there to be limits to who is eligible, when they are eligible, how often they are eligible.
> d) Is "need" to be an issue.


Abortion is no tonsillectomy, bone marrow transplant, or other useful medical practice. The medical field is rightly interested in maintaining and prolonging life rather than destryoing it.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> The problem is a human being has already been created at the moment of conception.



But that entity has no independent existence.
It exists at the whim/mercy/discretion of the woman who is carrying it.




			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> The fetus as a human has the right to life;


I've said this before on another thread here, and I'll highlight it because it seems to lie at the heart of our disagreement
*No thing on this earth - be it human, other animal, plant or even a bacterium - has a *right* to anything —> other than rights which people have decided to accord each other.*

From where does the "right to life" which you assert arise?
What evinces it?


----------



## medeterian

Brioche said:
			
		

> A fetus is human.
> 
> A fetus is formed by the combination of a _human egg_ and a _human sperm._ The result is _human being_. Not a carrot, not a sheep, not a monkey.



What you are saying is like a sperm and an egg is human too. They both are  still the same organism right after they combine. We dont say the sperm and the egg becomes human after it. The fertilized egg then becomes a fetus in time. Maybe the questin is, when the fetus turns into a human being. imho.


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> But that entity has no independent existence.
> It exists at the whim/mercy/discretion of the woman who is carrying it.



You could say the same about:

- A foetus five minutes about to be born.
- A toddler
- An autist.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> From where does the "right to life" which you assert arise?
> What evinces it?



I see some problems with the consequences of your question? Do you mean there is no "right to life"? Or, rather, that you restraint such right to newborn babies?

You said:

"No thing on this earth - be it human, other animal, plant or even a bacterium - has a right to anything —> other than rights which people have decided to accord each other."

Are there no "human rights" then? Are we entitled to decide, say, that Parkinson people has no right to life.


----------



## timpeac

I was interested, and a bit shocked, by Maxiogee's comments too. But, on reflection, I think he's right. I think (and I'm sure I'll be corrected) that he means that there is no cosmological constant that gives rights to anyone. Who says that I have rights, who says that my cat has rights (it does legally have some)? Who says that my rights are more important than the cat's? Are they (they are legally)? I think his point is that it is human consensus which decides who has rights and it is up to us to decide what those rights are. There is no point from starting from the point of well _obviously _a foetus has the same rights as a baby - it's not obvious at all (although I would agree!). Our current morality may consider they have rights - and it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the majority decide to grant a group rights then they have those rights. You could draw parallels in history: the Nazis didn't take away the Jews' human rights (to their mind, not mine!!) they didn't consider that the Jews had any human rights. Same with slaves throughout history - although even there, societies that have had slaves have accorded various amounts of legal protection to them.

We need to decide why things have rights - and it's all relative. My point of view is that I could not decide when a foetus stops having the same rights as a baby (imagine slowly moving backwards in time from the point of birth - I wouldn't like to say "now!" it has no rights) and so I would chose not to do so and say that the foetus therefore always has the same rights from the point of conception. Now, exactly what those rights _are_ is a cultural thing. Of course, in our culture babies - as do all people - have the right to life. It's not the same in all cultures where culturally (not necessarily legally) illegitimate (or even simply female!) babies may be exposed (left outside to die).


----------



## diegodbs

> The problem is a human being has already been created at the moment of conception.


 
I don't agree with that point of view, two cells are not a human being but something that might become a human being.

As Fernando said:



> A foetus five minutes about to be born.


 
For me, that's a human being, and not only five minutes but days or weeks before.
When does the foetus become a human being? I don't know and I'm glad I didn't have to legislate and decide on abortion.
Maybe it is clear for Christians since they believe there is a human soul in the moment of conception.


----------



## maxiogee

timpeac said:
			
		

> I was interested, and a bit shocked, by Maxiogee's comments too. But, on reflection, I think he's right. I think (and I'm sure I'll be corrected)



No need for correction, timpeac.
I have rarely had my own opinions reflected back so accurately in this matter. (And thank you for taking the time to reflect on what I said, and not just shrugging, muttering "nutter!" and passing on!)
It is a tricky point.

Please Note: In saying that a foetus has no independent existence, or no "rights", I am not saying that this makes abortion acceptable. Other decisions must be taken to come to that conclusion.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> My point of view is that I could not decide when a foetus stops having the same rights as a baby (imagine slowly moving backwards in time from the point of birth - I wouldn't like to say "now!" it has no rights)



Let us do this exercise by taking an (imaginary) scan of the foetus on a minute-by-minute basis and laying out the printouts side by side in a lengthy sequence.  If a pregnancy is taken as 39 weeks, by 7 days by 24 hours by 60 minutes, that's 393120 images. Working backwards from one minute before birth the 'picture' becomes less and less recognisably "human", until you see a separate egg and a sperm.

Now, let us replace all those foetus images with your maternal ancestors - again going back one step at a time and taking the 'image' at the time of the birth of the next generation. If we 25 years (a usual definition of "a generation" to be the age at birth we find we are covering a span of nearly 10 million years - which brings us back to around the time we shared ancestry with other still-extant species of primates.
Now, having laid out our ancestry, as you go back along the line at which point are you going to look and say "There! That's the point where I stop according "human rights" to my ancestors."?
Or more importantly, at which point does tvdxer look at the line and say "This is the female to whom the Moral Law first applies!"


----------



## Fernando

Maxiogee, excuse me but I can not follow your argumentation. Are we agreing the foetus is (if only partially, to you) human in (all?) the pregnancy?

Maxiogee, May I rememeber we are not talking about tvdxer now?


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> Maxiogee, excuse me but I can not follow your argumentation. Are we agreing the foetus is (if only partially, to you) human in (all?) the pregnancy?



No, I never said "partially". 
The foetus is a human foetus, it is human. 
I am stating that I cannot regard it as a "person", and therefore it is not a "human being". A human being is a person who has been born - whether that occurs 'naturally' or by Caesarian section.



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Maxiogee, May I rememeber we are not talking about tvdxer now?


"We" may not be talking about him, but I am speaking to him


----------



## Fernando

So this "human thing" is substantially different before and after the Caesarian section? If so, why?


----------



## geve

Fernando said:
			
		

> So this "human thing" is substantially different before and after the Caesarian section? If so, why?


Maybe, because this "human thing" can live independantly from another body? 


But I don't really feel confident enough (in my debating skills, in my opinion on the question, and in my English) to contribute to this thread. I have a question though, for everyone: 
What do you think of the morning-after pill, or emergency birth-control, that prevents the implantation of a fertilised egg? 
Does the fertilised egg have the right to become a foetus?

And then I guess the next logical question would be... Does the egg have the right to get a chance to be fertilised? But that would probably be hairsplitting...


----------



## timpeac

geve said:
			
		

> Maybe, because this "human thing" can live independantly from another body?
> 
> 
> But I don't really feel confident enough (in my debating skills, in my opinion on the question, and in my English) to contribute to this thread. I have a question though, for everyone:
> What do you think of the morning-after pill, or emergency birth-control, that prevents the implantation of a fertilised egg?
> Does the fertilised egg have the right to become a foetus?
> 
> And then I guess the next logical question would be... Does the egg have the right to get a chance to be fertilised? But that would probably be hairsplitting...


You might see this as hairsplitting - but I would rather see your question as "_should_ these eggs have a right to be fertilised" because as Maxiogee pointed out above there are no absolute rights in the world - just those that human beings decide to confer to other living beings.

I hope you don't view that as hairsplitting because I think the distinction is important - "_should_ they have the right..." seems to me a much easier question to answer, or at least not so extremely difficult.

For me the answer is that we should not give unfertilised eggs a right to become fertilised. It would be unworkable for a start - what would you do, extract every female creatures eggs after puberty and try to artificially inseminate them so they all have the right to become exposed to a sperm (since only a tiny proportion would if left in the bodies). Morally I don't see the need either - although I find that harder to justify. As I say above, I wouldn't like to say when a foetus would have the same rights as a baby, and so I decide to view it as the point of conception. However, I have no problem considering that the egg and sperm before that point do not. I suppose the difference is that if you abort a viable foetus then you are taking positive action to stop the creation of a human being. If you use contraception you are not allowing the necessary mix to come together in the first place and so are taking "action" by default. The other point of view would seem to lead to other absurdities such as the fact that all creatures ought to be having sex all the time to give maximum chance of fertilisation to all their gametes.

Edit - as to the emergency conception point I would be against since you are now talking about a possibly fertilised egg and thus a viable foetus and eventually a baby.


----------



## Fernando

geve said:
			
		

> Maybe, because this "human thing" can live independantly from another body?


 
It can be (whether this is your opinion or your guess on Maxiogee's). But consider that many childs are not capable to live independantly. thy need an incubator or even more radical assistance.

Moreover, a healthy child is hardly an independent life. Every 3/4 hours he needs his mother's fluids (milk) and, let alone, death is sure.

In addition (if we get the out the womb/after the womb split in a radical way) viable childs at 6 months, say, had less rights than an unviable newborn child of 5, expelled from the womb of his mother. 



			
				geve said:
			
		

> What do you think of the morning-after pill, or emergency birth-control, that prevents the implantation of a fertilised egg?



I am against because:

1) Morning-after pill kills (not always since the pill sometimes prevent the ovulation) the fertilized egg. Since the egg has been yet fertilized you are performing an abortion. 

2) While I am pro-condoms, pills and so on, morning after pills are oftenly a kind of irresponsible remedy when you have failed to take the 200 preventive previous measures and gives the idea of "do not worry, you will have the m.-a. pill afterwards."

3) It has none of the controls (unenforced, but controls) set by the laws.



			
				geve said:
			
		

> Does the fertilised egg have the right to become a foetus?



Depending on your definition of a foetus there is no difference between a foetus and a fertilized egg, but the development degree. The fertilized egg has the same DNA of a human being (a grown up person).



			
				geve said:
			
		

> And then I guess the next logical question would be... Does the egg have the right to get a chance to be fertilised? But that would probably be hairsplitting...



Absolutely not. An egg is an egg and a sperm is a sperm. There are (literally) billions of sperms and hundreds of eggs. Most of them are wasted and they can not determine how the child (if fertilized) will be.  

Moreover, the egg is a part of the man's body and the egg a part of woman's. They have the same genetic structure (well, except for the number of cromosomes).

So, only the fertilized egg is unique, has its own DNA and is not his (1) mother body.

(1) I do not know if egg is masculine or femenine in English.


----------



## emma42

I understand that, for many, there are "grey areas" in this matter. However, for those who believe that abortion is unjustifiable killing (or murder), am I to understand that no distinction is to be drawn between abortion and the killing or murder of, say, a five-week old baby/a fifty-year old adult?  

I am genuinely interested in forer@s  views and am not looking for an argument!  I have mended my ways.


----------



## geve

timpeac said:
			
		

> You might see this as hairsplitting - but I would rather see your question as "_should_ these eggs have a right to be fertilised" because as Maxiogee pointed out above there are no absolute rights in the world - just those that human beings decide to confer to other living beings.
> 
> I hope you don't view that as hairsplitting because I think the distinction is important - "_should_ they have the right..." seems to me a much easier question to answer, or at least not so extremely difficult.


I absolutely agree with that - I found your previous post very interesting on that matter. 
It just seems that this vocabulary distinction escaped my mind when I was writing my post...

Now my question about unfertilized eggs was definitely hairsplitting, but you both chose to answer it nonetheless  



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> It can be (whether this is your opinion or your guess on Maxiogee's).


It was a random guess on Maxiogee's idea. I'm sure he'll answer himself.


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> So this "human thing" is substantially different before and after the Caesarian section? If so, why?



It's not about the style of birth, Fernando, it is the fact of birth that turns a foetus into a person.

I may be wrong, but you seem to be trying to get me to say when an abortion is not the killing of a person. I never said it isn't. In an abortion something definitely dies. But my niggling at the distinctions is to try to arrive at an understanding of what it is to be a person.
You have mentioned a toddler and an autistic person. I cannot answer your questions. Maybe a doctor can.
All I can say is that nature (or God, for those who look to a deity) set up the birthing process which humanity undergoes. In time past, many pregnancies were 'lost' for many reasons, reasons which we now understand and can prevent. These pregnancies now go to full term. Similarly, many babies used to die in the immediate post-natal period of conditions and diseases which are no longer terminal. These babies require our total and on-going intervention in their lives to keep them alive.

I don't say that we shouldn't give them that intervention! No more do I say that the sick and infirm should be allowed to die of the illnesses which used to kill them.
I don't know if humanity has a purpose on this earth. I strongly doubt that it has. I definitely do not believe that we were put here by an external agency with a game-plan to which we are expected to play. My best understanding of the goal of life is not to harm others unnecessarily, to leave this world a better place for our having been here, and to enjoy the ride. It is, to me, important that one does these things altruistically, for to do them out of a fear of punishment for not doing them is to be niggardly about doing them. These goals are, however, human. No other species seems to have them. Other species have but one aim - to wake up again tomorrow, to do all that is necessary to acheive that, and to reproduce so that another generation can being to do the same in another season.
(I do feel that there is probably a genetic imperative in us to reproduce, but  I am inclining towards thinking that this is more as a species than as individuals, as so many people seem to be able to lead happy, fulfilled and contented lives without reproducing.)

Having said that, to get back to the discussion of abortion. The autistic person you mentioned can experience life only because we now know how to allow them to do so. We do not yet know how to allow a (for example) 10-week-old foetus to come to term outside of the womb of the person carrying it. This, for me, means that the only person with a voice on the matter is the woman carrying the foetus. It does not involve me. Were I to know a woman who felt the need to ponder whether to put herself forward to undergo a termination, I like to think I would try to assure that she was fully conversant with all the options open, had explored each one carefully and then, I would have to trust to her judgement in the matter.

Romans (among others) used to expose unwanted babies. Were they wrong to do so? Not by the light of the time they were living in. Were they any less "moral" then us? I doubt it - they just had different morals.

Life used to be precious, because getting to the age at which one could participate fully in the business of living used to be a more hazardous thing than it is today. Now, life it cheap. It can be taken away in an instant by a decision taken by someone who will never see you, or the place in which you live, on the other side of your country, the other side of your continent, the other side of our globe. Your loss to your parents can never be replaced, but they can have another baby. 
Murder is widespread, "manslaughter" is rampant, killing is industrialised. The killing of one person by another probably sees off more humanity each year than abortion does.


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> It's not about the style of birth, Fernando, it is the fact of birth that turns a foetus into a person.



I know. I only wanted to be sure you gave such a big value to birth (regardless how accidental it was).



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> In an abortion something definitely dies. But my niggling at the distinctions is to try to arrive at an understanding of what it is to be a person.



So, do we agree we are killing "something" human and then, worthy? Maybe we could discuss further how worthy.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> All I can say is that nature (or God, for those who look to a deity) set up the birthing process which humanity undergoes. In time past, many pregnancies were 'lost' for many reasons, reasons which we now understand and can prevent. These pregnancies now go to full term. Similarly, many babies used to die in the immediate post-natal period of conditions and diseases which are no longer terminal. These babies require our total and on-going intervention in their lives to keep them alive.
> 
> I don't say that we shouldn't give them that intervention! No more do I say that the sick and infirm should be allowed to die of the illnesses which used to kill them.



All agreed.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> My best understanding of the goal of life is not to harm others unnecessarily, to leave this world a better place for our having been here, and to enjoy the ride. It is, to me, important that one does these things altruistically, for to do them out of a fear of punishment for not doing them is to be niggardly about doing them. These goals are, however, human. No other species seems to have them. Other species have but one aim - to wake up again tomorrow, to do all that is necessary to acheive that, and to reproduce so that another generation can being to do the same in another season.
> (I do feel that there is probably a genetic imperative in us to reproduce, but  I am inclining towards thinking that this is more as a species than as individuals, as so many people seem to be able to lead happy, fulfilled and contented lives without reproducing.)



My philosophy is different, but I think I can assume your comments are common ground for public discussion.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Having said that, to get back to the discussion of abortion. The autistic person you mentioned can experience life only because we now know how to allow them to do so. We do not yet know how to allow a (for example) 10-week-old foetus to come to term outside of the womb of the person carrying it.



I do not know about a 10-week foetus. For a fertilized egg is easy: implant him/her in other womb.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Romans (among others) used to expose unwanted babies. Were they wrong to do so? Not by the light of the time they were living in. Were they any less "moral" then us? I doubt it - they just had different morals.



Luckily we have progressed. I think they were not WORSE PEOPLE but they have WORSE MORALS.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Life used to be precious, because getting to the age at which one could participate fully in the business of living used to be a more hazardous thing than it is today. Now, life it cheap. It can be taken away in an instant by a decision taken by someone who will never see you, or the place in which you live, on the other side of your country, the other side of your continent, the other side of our globe.


(...)Murder is widespread, "manslaughter" is rampant, killing is industrialised. The killing of one person by another probably sees off more humanity each year than abortion does.[/QUOTE]

I do not share your gloomy (is this the English word?) view. We are (probably right) scandalized about Iraq war. We are talking about (at most) 100,000 people. That is bad. 

- In the Dark Ages 25% of European pop. (eq. today to 100 m people) died due to the "peste nigra".
- Normal % of child death was well over 20% (and there was abortion).
- Post-birth fever was the main cause of death for women.
- Gengish Khan killed EVERY unhabitant of Kiev, Pekin/Beijing, Baghdad and many other cities.

Life has never been more sacred than today. I only intend the process do not stop.


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> So, do we agree we are killing "something" human and then, worthy? Maybe we could discuss further how worthy.



Yes something human is being killed. I have never denied that.
As to "worthy", I think I may understand your use of the word, but I can only repeat what I said already…

> This, for me, means that the only person with a voice
> on the matter is the woman carrying the foetus. It does
> not involve me. Were I to know a woman who felt the
> need to ponder whether to put herself forward to undergo
> a termination, I like to think I would try to assure that
> she was fully conversant with all the options open, had
> explored each one carefully and then, I would have to
> trust to her judgement in the matter.


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I do not see abortion as "murder", it is merely a "medical procedure".





			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Mengele saw his experiments as "medical procedures" also. THIS IS NOT AN EQUIPARATION , IS A COMPARISON.



What do you mean by that?
Any surgical process is a medical procedure. The surgeon who removed my  (withheld for reasons of privacy) called it a procedure.

I have waited to see if you would respond to Emma42's question, but you haven't yet. I will cease discussing this with you unless you answer me.

Please explain the difference you see between an equiparation and a comparison. My copy of Chambers English Dictionary says…
*equiparate* to regard or treat as equal or the same; to put on an equal footing.
*compare* to put (as if) side by side so as to ascertain how far things agree or disagree; to liken or represent as similar.

It is not often that I find myself compared with a Nazi.
I have been called similar things by gentlemen(?) who disagreed with me in the past, but it was usual for them to deny anyone who didn't agree with them the right to be heard, and to cast aspersions on them to blacken their name.


----------



## Fernando

I had written a long (and annoyed) post. I will do it shorter:

First, I do discuss concepts and ideas, not people. The people who do not love me, please, do not marry me.

Second, I will not answer no post which is addressed specifically at my humble person. Or at least, I will answer it "on my way". I perceive them as a sad defeat reckoning.

Third, I have not called no one "Nazi". It is the third time I have to say it in these fora. I will not say it again.

Fourth, it is true that sometimes I behave as an intellectual Gengis Khan (1). If so, let me know, by PM, or telling the mods, but do not get tired other foreros, please.

(1) Have you got it, Maxiogee?, another comparison. I am comparing with Gengish Khan.


----------



## GenJen54

*MOD NOTE:  Ahem! *


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> I had written a long (and annoyed) post. I will do it shorter:



============================
Posted by Fernando at Today, 07:01 PM
Last edited by Fernando : Today at 07:27 PM.
============================
Posted by maxiogee at Today, 07:45 PM
This message has been deleted by GenJen54. Reason: Response to edited post. No longer relevant.
============================

Please don't radically edit a post after almost half an hour.  



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Third, I have not called no one "Nazi". It is the third time I have to say it in these fora. I will not say it again.


I never said you called me a Nazi - I asked why you compared me to one.

I will repeat myself here on the subject of abortion.
It is a medical procedure.
I do not deny that something human dies in an abortion - I never have denied that.
I do deny that that which dies is a person.
I deny that abortion is "wrong". Nobody has yet told me why it is wrong, what "law", natural or moral, it transgresses.
I also assert that the decision rests solely on the shoulders of an informed woman who finds herself faced with the choice.

Now, if someone wants to argue those points in a sane, reasoned and calm manner, I'm all ears!


----------



## timpeac

I haven't said what law it transgresses but I have said that I can't see where you could draw the line between a foetus's rights and that of the baby it becomes the second it leaves the womb. Therefore, erring on the side of caution, I would accord the foetus from conception the same rights as a newly born baby whatever those rights may be (and most of the time that of course means the right to life, and certainly does in our culture).


----------



## maxiogee

timpeac said:
			
		

> I haven't said what law it transgresses but I have said that I can't see where you could draw the line between a foetus's rights and that of the baby it becomes the second it leaves the womb. Therefore, erring on the side of caution, I would accord the foetus from conception the same rights as a newly born baby whatever those rights may be (and most of the time that of course means the right to life, and certainly does in our culture).



Fine - and I would, probably, agree with you in my heart, but hearts don't make laws, and a cut-off point will usually be arrived at. I fail to see how a logical, reasoned decision can say "Okay, we'll allow abortion up to X weeks."

But permit me to play Devil's Advocate here…
If I am to be stopped from killing a newborn baby by laws which criminalise my infringement of its right to life, when will the pregnant woman who drinks too much, or smokes too much, or takes illegal drugs be stopped from doing those things?
When and where do the police become involved in her actions?
Who vindicates the unborn's rights?
Is there any point in ascribing legal rights to an entity which has no legal representation - or even legal recognition: are the "unborn" even recognised as legal entities in any jurisdictions?


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Fine - and I would, probably, agree with you in my heart, but hearts don't make laws, and a cut-off point will usually be arrived at. I fail to see how a logical, reasoned decision can say "Okay, we'll allow abortion up to X weeks."
> 
> But permit me to play Devil's Advocate here…
> If I am to be stopped from killing a newborn baby by laws which criminalise my infringement of its right to life, when will the pregnant woman who drinks too much, or smokes too much, or takes illegal drugs be stopped from doing those things?
> When and where do the police become involved in her actions?
> Who vindicates the unborn's rights?
> Is there any point in ascribing legal rights to an entity which has no legal representation - or even legal recognition: are the "unborn" even recognised as legal entities in any jurisdictions?


 
Good questions, but I don't understand why you need to consider both questions at the same time. I don't have a quick answer - well, any answer - to the questions you pose there about how a foetus's rights should or could be enforced but I don't think that invalidates a logical argument, or at least an argument based on some sort of logical process, which concludes it should have some.

I've said all along in this thread that, although I think the foetus should have the same rights as a baby - and that I personally consider those rights to be more important than the woman's while she is pregnant - I would not villify someone who decided to have an abortion. I would have little to no sympathy for a woman who got pregnant through consensual sex whose life was pretty much well sorted otherwise and used abortion as a type of contraception because the baby would be inconvenient however I'm sure that things are rarely that simple. If a woman deliberately does something like, say, drink a bottle of vodka knowing she's pregnant then yes I would say a crime should be said to have been committed. How, if at all, such a crime could be "punished" (if indeed it is even desirable to punish such a crime - could well not be, criminalisation is not always the answer to an act you view as undesirable) I don't know. Perhaps the best thing would be to put all possible energy into preventing the "crime" from happening in the first place.


----------



## maxiogee

timpeac said:
			
		

> I've said all along in this thread that, although I think the foetus should have the same rights as a baby - and that I personally consider those rights to be more important than the woman's while she is pregnant



As it stands at the moment, I'd have to disagree with you there.
If faced with a choice, I'd have to 'respect' more a actual person rather than a potential person.
But, equally, as I said, the decision isn't mine.


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:
			
		

> But, equally, as I said, the decision isn't mine.


But it could be - we all vote for governments who make laws, even laws which don't affect us directly.


----------



## maxiogee

timpeac said:
			
		

> But it could be - we all vote for governments who make laws, even laws which don't affect us directly.



This is getting off-topic now, but I've voted in many elections in my time and I don't think I've ever allowed one subject to influence my decision.

Mind you, this doesn't stop politicians from assuming that a vote for them is a vote for all of their policies! These folks can also somehow manage to convince themselves that a vote for their opponents is not a vote for the policies of those opponents!


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:
			
		

> This is getting off-topic now, but I've voted in many elections in my time and I don't think I've ever allowed one subject to influence my decision.
> 
> Mind you, this doesn't stop politicians from assuming that a vote for them is a vote for all of their policies! These folks can also somehow manage to convince themselves that a vote for their opponents is not a vote for the policies of those opponents!


True - but equally one vote on its own won't make a party win or not. It is the sum of them all and if the mass of voters is swayed partly by one issue then that can nuance the overall result. In other words you don't base your one personal vote on one single issue but there will be thousands of people with your voting profile and an increasing percentage of those people will vote for the party that fits your concerns best - so how strongly you feel on one certain issue will have an effect if there are enough voters, even if it can't influence your personal vote (or not so that you could discern anyway).

I don't mean that to be off topic - I think it's quite important to make clear this is a topic that affects all or at least on which we can all have an influence, otherwise I think that two men discussing this topic which affects overwhelmingly women - at least in the most direct way - would be rather incongruous.


----------



## rsweet

Thank you, timpeac, for bringing women back into this.  This thread was beginning to remind me of the time my obstetrician and husband were playing with the baby during one of my prenatal visits. When I raised my head up to see what they were looking at, I was promptly told to lie down because I was distorting their view of the baby!

I understand the viewpoint that from the minute of conception, the fertilized egg is growing with purpose toward being an independent human being, able to breathe and eat on its own. With further nurturing after birth, this baby has the chance to grow to be a fully functioning adult. What I hear Maxiogee saying (and I agree with him) is that until a fetus is able to function outside the womb, its life is fully dependent on the lifesuport of its mother's body. Many women succumb to the powerful hormones that allow them to bond very strongly with their babies before and after birth. Some women reject the baby before it is born. Since there is no alternative environment for the baby outside the woman's womb, are you suggesting that the law should force her to provide lifesupport to a fetus against her will. Would you have her locked up? Force-fed healthy food? Forced to think good thoughts and not flood her own body with stress hormones that can negatively affect the baby/human after it is born? Where does it end? 

I am assuming that women get adequate counseling before an abortion and give it a lot of thought before going through with it. If the woman rejects the life growing inside her, and there is no other place for that new life to go, do you still think that the state should hi-jack her body? Do you think this is in anybody's best interest?


----------



## timpeac

Hi rsweet. Yes it is a horribly thorny issue. I do believe that the foetus has a right to life and that that right is more important than the woman's not to have it in her body (let's assume, for simplicity's sake that this is a result of consensual sex and that the woman would be perfectly equipped to cope with the baby (eg no illness or penuary or any other impediment)). But how to enforce that? Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be inforced, of course. You can believe something is right without forcing others to do it. In the event I suppose there is very little you could do to force a woman to carry a baby she didn't want - although if the alternative is death it is certainly in the interests of the foetus that she does.

I do think it is important to decide what is right or wrong to your way of thinking before deciding what problems in ensuring what is right happens.


----------



## rsweet

Yes, I agree with you, timpeac, that straightening out what we each believe to be right or wrong is important. I also realized something from reading your post. Maybe part of the reason this thread brings up such passionate points of view is that people are talking about two different things: the idea of a personal (or even a universal) sense of right and wrong, and what should be legislated by a government and legally enforced. I find terminating the life of a helpless innocent tragic; it feels wrong deep in that human center where I set my own moral compass. I do, however, find a government's enforcement of anti-abortion--legislating nurture at the physical level--monstrous, impossible, and ultimately not in the woman's or her unborn child's best interest.


----------



## timpeac

Absolutely. I wasn't really even trying to touch on the difficult issue - how to get something fair and practical in the real world. Just sort out what I believed to be "right" first.


----------



## geve

timpeac said:
			
		

> Yes it is a horribly thorny issue. I do believe that the foetus has a right to life and that that right is more important than the woman's not to have it in her body


How do we decide that one's right is higher than someone else's?
Could a woman then sue the foetus she's bearing because it forced her to quit her oenologist or gymnast profession?
What about ectopic pregnancy? Does Should the foetus have the right to live until it naturally dies, or do we need a law to allow us to _euthanize_ it?
(I am pretty fond of hairsplitting!!)

I don't have an answer either as I've said at the beginning of this thread, because I think that the moral, practical and legal issues are incredibly numerous and complicated... and this thread is an interesting read.


----------



## Fernando

geve said:
			
		

> How do we decide that one's right is higher than someone else's?.



Upper rights is before than lesser rights could be a good criteria. Right to life scores high in my view.



			
				geve said:
			
		

> Could a woman then sue the foetus she's bearing because it forced her to quit her oenologist or gymnast profession?



No. Because he can not avoid to be conceived. Maybe she could sue the condomless father with many more reasons.



			
				geve said:
			
		

> What about ectopic pregnancy? Does the foetus have the right to live until it naturally dies, or do we need a law to allow us to _euthanize_ it?



If he is going to die anyway and there is a risk to her mother you do not need any particular law to perform a provoked abortion.


----------



## geve

I've just thought that I should log again (damn it!  ) and correct the wording of my previous post.


----------



## geve

Fernando said:
			
		

> No. Because he can not avoid to be conceived. Maybe she could sue the condomless father with many more reasons.


Or the condom factory for marketing goods that are not 100% reliable...


----------



## Fernando

geve said:
			
		

> Or the condom factory for marketing goods that are not 100% reliable...



Agreed.


----------



## Fernando

geve said:
			
		

> I've just thought that I should log again (damn it!  ) and correct the wording of my previous post.



I have read your reworded post and I do not feel the urgency of reword mine... or I am too lazy.


----------



## Sallyb36

Abortion is a totally personal issue, and should not be decided by any law or other formal body, it should be decided by the pregnant person, no-one else!  I would like to ask anti-abortionists what they think a person should do if they find themselves pregnant as a result of a rape?


----------



## Fernando

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> Abortion is a totally personal issue, and should not be decided by any law or other formal body, it should be decided by the pregnant person, no-one else!



OK. This is your thesis. Would you mind to justify it?



			
				Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> I would like to ask anti-abortionists what they think a person should do if they find themselves pregnant as a result of a rape?



She should carry the child till birth and afterwards to hold it or to give him in adoption, as she wants.

The raper should compensate her. If he is in bankruptcy the State should compensate her. Yes, I assume the tax increase.


----------



## Sallyb36

It is my personal feeling, and i don't need to justify it.

I disagree that a woman should be forced to live for 9 months with a rapists child growing inside her, then have to give that child away, it would be bad enough being raped and having to abort it, never mind having to carry it for 9 months, then give it away.  Also, it would bind her forever to the rapist if it was born.


----------



## timpeac

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> It is my personal feeling, and i don't need to justify it.
> 
> I disagree that a woman should be forced to live for 9 months with a rapists child growing inside her, then have to give that child away, it would be bad enough being raped and having to abort it, never mind having to carry it for 9 months, then give it away. Also, it would bind her forever to the rapist if it was born.


Posting a bald opinion with no attempt at reason or justification is not very helpful on a discussion forum (although you have partly done so now) .


----------



## cyanista

By respecting the rights of an unwanted foetus you necessarily neglect the rights of the woman who bears it in her body. If the foetus' rights are concidered more important then the woman is viewed as some kind of a reproducing machine during her pregnancy - because her will an opinion don't matter at that point. 
I agree with Maxiogee that the rights of an actual person are more important than those of a "potential person". I would certainly like to have a choice, even if it's that difficult. 

Sorry, if it's all muddled up.


----------



## Sallyb36

how am I supposed to be helping someone? I didn't realise anyone neede help in this thread!  If you want me to justify it I will, it's because the pregnant person will be the one whose entire life will be affected.


----------



## timpeac

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> how am I supposed to be helping someone? I didn't realise anyone neede help in this thread! If you want me to justify it I will, it's because the pregnant person will be the one whose entire life will be affected.


True - I was trying to be polite. Ok - I take back the 

Posting a bald opinion with no attempt at reason or justification is *not very helpful* on a discussion forum

and replace it with

Posting a bald opinion with no attempt at reason or justification is *unhelpful* on a discussion forum.

You see, the clue is in the name - you can't have a discussion if you just get a string of person A: I think xxx. person B: I think yyy. It kills the discussion and the thread and is not appreciated.

So the pregnant person is the only person whose life is affected by abortion? I think the aborted foetus might argue with you - if it were given the chance.


----------



## Sallyb36

do you really think that it would be better for the child to grow up with a family that has adopted it, and then when it gets old enough to know that it is a product of rape?  do you think that is better for a child than abortion before it's a sentient being?


----------



## Sallyb36

the pregnant person is the main person whose life is affected.  Also, the life of her husband and other children should she have any!


----------



## timpeac

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> do you really think that it would be better for the child to grow up with a family that has adopted it, and then when it gets old enough to know that it is a product of rape? do you think that is better for a child than abortion before it's a sentient being?


Yes, I honestly do. I would much rather be alive and know I was the result of a rape than not have life at all. You are picking one small (and very emotive) aspect of the whole issue though - how about abortion generally that isn't the result of rape?


----------



## Sallyb36

I don't think I would.
Abortion generally, well it would be ideal if there were no need for it because everybody took the necessary precautions, or just didn't have sex unless they wanted a baby (very likely!), but that just isn't ever going to happen (as much mans fault as womans) so it should in my unimportant opinion be a personal choice.  Nobody should be condemned for their choice one way or another.


----------



## coconutpalm

One of my roommates are strongly against abortion. However, when I asked:"If you were raped and pregnant, what would you do?" She firmly said:"Of course I would take abortion! I would hate that baby even if I gave birth to it!"

So, if a woman doesn't want to/can't have the baby, and she is forced not to abort it, I think it's for sure that many(not say half of them or most of them) mothers will hate the baby. And if it's the case that she simply can't have the baby, she will certainly encounter many many many more difficulties, and these difficulties will enforce the hatred.

Just imagine how it would be like when a mother hates her baby!


----------



## Fernando

Just imagine how it would be like when a mother KILLS her baby!


----------



## coconutpalm

She is not killing her baby. It's a fertilised egg or a foetus.
And she is not a mother yet, but a para-mother.


----------



## geve

Fernando said:
			
		

> I have read your reworded post and I do not feel the urgency of reword mine... or I am too lazy.



I grant you the right to be lazy - only because I grant myself with the same right 

The reason I modified my post (does the foetus have the right=>should the foetus have the right) is that I find the distinction important, as per Tim's post 105.
But some of you at some point stated the question in different terms: should the foetus be considered as a person? 
If we think that the answer is "yes", then the foetus _has_ the rights that every person has been granted with in this society. Including the right to live even if it's going to die eventually (as we all are)... hence my question about ectopic pregnancies, which might have sound stupid but really wasn't  : I think it shows that the foetus _cannot_ be considered as a person, because of this inextricable link it has with someone else's body (and with the body of a _specific_ person, not with _any_ other person, which makes it different than the other cases of child dependencies raised by Fernando in post 113). 

Now the question remains as to what rights _should _we _give_ to a foetus? And it brings this question back: should we grant different rights to foetuses of different ages (1 hour old, 10 days old, 2 months old etc.)?


----------



## Fernando

The dependency question will give you that a fertilized egg (it is not dependant on the mother -or "para-mother"-, it can be moved, freezed and implanted in other womb) would have more rights than an implanted embryo, which I think is a bit hard to understand.

The ectopic pregnancy only shows that a foetus needs a suitable womb. He can be killed because he is not able to survive and the mother is going to be harmed, no matter how much she or me or the medical system love the embryo.

The reasoning "I am the only one who can save this guy. I have the right to kill him" is strange to me.


----------



## la reine victoria

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> do you really think that it would be better for the child to grow up with a family that has adopted it, and then when it gets old enough to know that it is a product of rape? do you think that is better for a child than abortion before it's a sentient being?


 

If you watch television Sallyb36, you are probably aware of the popular "soap", Eastenders.  For those not in the know, this is a drama set in the East End of London; (in fact it is nothing like the true East End.)

To get to the point, this programme weaves many controversial issues into its story lines - homosexuality, lesbianism, racism, teenage pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, adultery, mental disorder, child abuse, murder, etc.  It's a real barrel of laughs!  

There has recently been a long-running story line about this very issue.  One of the characters, a seemingly meek and mild girl, a bit of an ingénue, is raped by a customer (after closing time) in the pub where she works.

She discovers that the rapist has made her pregnant, but such are her opinions on the sanctity of human life that she refuses to have an abortion.  As the pregnancy progresses so her maternal feelings of bonding with the growing baby increase.  Mother Nature does a great job here to ensure that the new life will be loved and nurtured (I know, I have two sons of my own).

She gives birth to a son and keeps him.  She has many issues to deal with because of the rape but the overwhelming love she feels for her child somehow sees her through.

OK, this is fiction.  But I'm sure many similar success stories happen in real life.  Even if the baby is given for adoption it will grow up knowing that it was wanted and loved despite the circumstances surrounding its conception.


LRV


----------



## Sallyb36

But that woman is a total emotional mess!


----------



## la reine victoria

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> But that woman is a total emotional mess!


 


I don't intend going off topic by discussing the emotional state of a fictitious, "simple", soap character.

I merely used this story to illustrate the fact that, to some women, all human life is sacred and, even if they become pregnant as a result of rape, they will not destroy this life

My point of view is possibly influenced by the fact that I lost a baby in circumstances which nearly cost me my life.

I'll spare you the details.  Suffice it to say that my baby died in utero.  After being resuscitated, and undergoing a surgical procedure to remove my baby, I was placed in a bed in a gynae ward between two women who had been admitted for abortions.

When I woke up the following morning, the woman on my left (still suffering with morning sickness) said to her friend (on my right), "Thank God this bloody thing will be gone today."  "Mine too," replied the friend, "I can't wait."

I was suffering deep shock and grief at my loss.  They didn't know this, otherwise they might not have said it.

In emergency cases such as mine, hospitals have very little choice in finding a suitable bed.

Please don't offer me sympathy (even though I'm crying as I write this - 30 years on).

I don't know how I would have reacted had I ever been raped and conceived a child.  My gut feeling is one of disgust and contamination.  An uninvited intrusion into my body.  Would I have wanted to bear a (possibly) male child with a (possible) genetic predispositon to become a rapist.  I think not.  I just don't know.  I know for sure I would have been a total emotional mess.

Which brings us full circle to your comment.



Regards,
LRV


----------



## Sallyb36

I agree that life (not just human) is sacred, and also believe that people have rights over thier own bodies and their own lives. Which brings us to the endless debate about when a foetus deserves to have rights.  All I know is that the host (Mother) already has rights and is a full blown sentient being, and as such, in my opinion has the right to decide if she wants the baby or not.


----------



## geve

I have been desperately trying to remain on a pure "logical" viewpoint in this thread, because I can only guess the painful, heartbreaking, excruciating personal stories that this issue arouses. I have not experienced anything close to it and I don't feel qualified to judge what is or is not the right thing to do. Either way I think someone who has ever been confronted with the option of abortion will not be left unchanged. 

When I was younger we went on a trip with my parents and sisters. We were travelling with other people including a girl who was eager to be friends with my older sister (who was around 18-19 yo. at that time). One of the first thing this girl told my sister, was that she had had an abortion a few years ago. We were aghast that she would reveal this to a total stranger like that; but I guess she just needed to let it out. I must say she seemed to be in an emotional mess... Everyone's story is different.


----------



## timpeac

geve said:
			
		

> I have been desperately trying to remain on a pure "logical" viewpoint in this thread, because I can only guess the painful, heartbreaking, excruciating personal stories that this issue arouses. I have not experienced anything close to it and I don't feel qualified to judge what is or is not the right thing to do. Either way I think someone who has ever been confronted with the option of abortion will not be left unchanged.


 
Absolutely the same for me. When I just think from a pure logic point of view going from my belief a to belief b etc I can't help but conclude that foetuses should have a right to life. How that right could or should be enforced or protected - I just wish I even had an inkling of an idea.


----------



## maxiogee

This was posted in a response to a point made on the "vulnerable" thread"



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> "that a woman has the right right to decide what happens with her own body" As you are aware we have a little discussion about what "her own body" is,



No we don't. We have a discussion on abortion. At no point has anybody mentioned who's body is involved. 
Some might like to follow me thinking on "her own body" over to the thread in question where I will take this further.

Okay,
Now, at what point does the process involved within the woman's body stop happening to "her body"? How can I have the right to have something which I deem to be detrimental to my physical or mental health removed from my body, and a woman not - up to some (as yet undetermined by us here) point in the process - have the same right?


----------



## tatis

timpeac said:
			
		

> Yes, I honestly do. I would much rather be alive and know I was the result of a rape than not have life at all.
> 
> There are many, many posts, and this comment might be somewhat unrelated since I cannot read each and every one, but I just want to totally agree with what you've said.
> 
> I personally know a mother who has many children and it all started with the first one, being the fruit of a rape.  Latter on, she was raped many times more, bearing more children from the same man.  (All this was not disclosed until many years later).  Maybe she would have chosen to abort them if she had had that choice, but she gave birth to all of them.
> 
> Now, many years later, they are the most caring children (all grown ups and married by now), they love their mother and take care of her as one cannot imagine.  The rapist is gone and this mother as she quotes, has been blessed by these sons and daughters, they now know what their mother went through and appreciate her sacrifice and of course, they value their own lives... I ignore what their feelings might be toward their biological father, but I can imagine.
> 
> It sounds like a pretty good real life story to me... I wonder what would've been of this woman if she had decided to have one abortion after another, had been left with the trauma, no one to call her mother, and no one to love her and take care of her as her children do.
> 
> Of course, this is one of many very different scenarios concerning abortion and choices, but one that is worth mentioning.


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Now, at what point does the process involved within the woman's body stop happening to "her body"?



What about "It does not have the same DNA"?


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Don't go there, Fernando!   —> A virus does not have the same DNA!



A virus has no DNA. It has RNA. 

And that is why it is not my own body and I murder him.


----------



## Sallyb36

I'm sure that if it were men who got pregnant there would be a whole lot of people with completely different attutudes.


----------



## maxiogee

Okay, so going away from the DNA and the bacteria, my question still remains 



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Now, at what point does the process involved within the woman's body stop happening to "her body"?
> 
> How can I (a male) have the right to have something
> which I deem to be detrimental to my physical or mental health removed from my body,
> and a woman not - up to some (as yet undetermined by us here) point in the process - have the same right?


----------



## la reine victoria

> *Timpeac
> I can't help but conclude that foetuses should have a right to life. How that right could or should be enforced or protected - I just wish I even had an inkling of an idea.
> *


*

Various laws were introduced in the UK, Tim, to do just that.




			In 1861 Parliament passed the Offences Against The Person Act. Section 58 of the Act made abortion a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment from three years to life even when performed for medical reasons. No further legal changes occurred in England until 1929. Two successive laws, the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 and Abortion Act 1967 provide the exceptions to this 1861 Act. Source.
		
Click to expand...

 
In Victorian times most married women were producing a child every year. Those with unwanted pregnancies had three main options - the services of the highly risky back-street abortionists; carrying the baby to term and selling it to a "baby farmer" (who would sell it on at a huge profit to a childless couple); infanticide. This was a very common practice - many babies were suffocated and their bodies thrown into a river. There was no way of identifying these babies so nobody was convicted of a crime.

Quack doctors made a fortune selling boxes of pills to "alleviate women's disorders" - supposedly menstrual disorders but understood to be abortifacients (which they weren't).

Abortion and infanticide have been with us throughout history. Where abortion is legal it will continue, where it isn't unwanted pregnancies will be terminated somehow, or babies sold for profit, or infanticide committed - the latter now rare in western society, possibly in third world countries too since so many little ones are killed off by disease or famine.

There appears to be no solution.  A well-known, slightly mad, radio show host in the UK has suggested reversible vasectomies for all pre-pubescent boys.  He has a point perhaps, but putting it into practice . . . . . .  




LRV 
*


----------



## Fernando

I (a PERSON) have the right to have something
which I deem to be detrimental to my physical or mental health removed from MY body, and a PERSON not - given that:
- "it" is not part of her body.
- "it" is a human being


----------



## la reine victoria

> Okay, so going away from the DNA and the bacteria, my question still remains
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maxiogee*
> _Now, at what point does the process involved within the woman's body stop happening to "her body"? _
> 
> _How can I (a male) have the right to have something_
> _which I deem to be detrimental to my physical or mental health removed from my body,_
> _and a woman not - up to some (as yet undetermined by us here) point in the process - have the same right?_


 

You can have any of your "bits" removed Tony - I believe in an earlier post you admitted to having something "taken away- details withheld for reasons of privacy"*****  - but since, as far as I know, you will never be carrying a foetus within you (although nothing would surprise me with you), then you won't be killing a human being.

Women do have the same right as you to have anything removed.


***** Should I cancel my trip to Dublin?




LRV


----------



## geve

Fernando said:
			
		

> I (a PERSON) have the right to have something
> which I deem to be detrimental to my physical or mental health removed from MY body, and a PERSON not - given that:
> - "it" is not part of her body.
> - "it" is a human being


And we're back to the debate on "at what point can we call it a human being"... going round in circles, are we?  

(just for fun: something else that's inside the body, that's a living organism and that doesn't have the same DNA: a taenia  )



			
				la reine victoria said:
			
		

> *There appears to be no solution. A well-known, slightly mad, radio show host in the UK has suggested reversible vasectomies for all pre-pubescent boys. He has a point perhaps, but putting it into practice . . . . . . *


Yes, that's the problem, there is no right solution... Abortifacient (?) methods have probably always existed, with varying degrees of efficiency and safety for the woman's health. 
So one can hold beliefs against abortion, and still think that legalizing it is necessary nonetheless.

I remember reading a story (if someone can think of what book it is...) where men and women wear a ring that cannot be removed, and in order to conceive a child, both of them have to place the ring in a certain position... no risk of unwanted child there. If it could be that simple!


----------



## Sallyb36

LRV I think you are missing this bit *which I deem to be detrimental to my physical or mental health* removed from my body.
If another life within you is deemed detrimental to your physical or mental health, then do you suggest that a person should just ignore that fact, and continue with the pregnancy?


----------



## Fernando

If the life of the mother is at stake, NOBODY (including Cat. Church) is denying them the "right" to abort. We have life of the mother against the life of the child (two equal lives).

In that particular case only the woman can decide what is the best option.

For the record, I know women that (with a more than probable risk) have decided to go along with the pregnancy. Even if I consider them as heroines, I would not obligue no one to do alike.

Anyhow, in Spain, >90% of legal abortion are performed on behalf of avoiding the risk for the "mental"  health of the mother.


----------



## Sallyb36

Fernando, do you not consider a womans mental helath important?

health, sorry


----------



## maxiogee

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Women do have the same right as you to have anything removed.
> 
> 
> Should I cancel my trip to Dublin?



Some groupings and individuals would deny that right to women, I do not seek to do that.

Don't cancel the trip, all parts of me deemed necessary for hospitality are still present and correct.


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> If the life of the mother is at stake, NOBODY (including Cat. Church) is denying them the "right" to abort. We have life of the mother against the life of the child (two equal lives).



This is a question which goes to the heart of the debate, and to which I have never heard a valid answer…

What gives the Catholic Church an authority which anyone should listen to (especially legislators)?


----------



## la reine victoria

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> LRV I think you are missing this bit *which I deem to be detrimental to my physical or mental health* removed from my body.
> If another life within you is deemed detrimental to your physical or mental health, then do you suggest that a person should just ignore that fact, and continue with the pregnancy?


 

Not at all, Sally.

Bearing in mind what I told you by PM; during my third pregnancy, if my obstetrician had told me it was detrimental to my physical or mental health to continue it, then I would have followed his advice for the sake of my husband and little son who needed me.

I believe the Roman Catholic Church takes the opposite stance. Considering human life to be a "gift from God" and therefore sacred, it forbids abortion and contraception. When a mother is giving birth and her life and that of the baby are in danger, priority is given to saving the life of the baby, regardless of any dependants the mother may have. I don't know if this view has changed, possibly it has, but that's how it was.

*I will state, once again, that I have never been in the position of having to consider an abortion. Had I been, I really don't know what I would have done. It is up to every individual woman to decide for herself what is right for her. It is none of my business.  I neither condemn them nor agree with them.*



LRV


----------



## Sallyb36

LRV, the bit that you put in bold is exactly what I believe as well.


----------



## timpeac

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> *It is up to every individual woman to decide for herself what is right for her.*


But that's the whole hub of the matter, isn't it? She's not just deciding what's right for herself, but also for the foetus too (or at least weighing up what's right for one against what's right for another).

I couldn't always reach your conclusion of *It is none of my business. I neither condemn them nor agree with them.*

If an otherwise healthy, well-adjusted and solvent woman used abortion as a form of retrospective birth control then I just feel in myself that is wrong, and I think I would personally find it very hard not to judge them (unfavourably).


----------



## la reine victoria

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Some groupings and individuals would deny that right to women, I do not seek to do that.
> 
> Don't cancel the trip, all parts of me deemed necessary for hospitality are still present and correct.


 

I imagine the individuals you mention would be

The Pope
Roman Catholic Priests
Doctors who refuse to carry out abortions
on moral grounds.

I can sympathise with medical practitioners.

The Pope, of course, has to uphold the teachings of the Bible - "Thou shalt not kill." (What about "thou shalt not spill thy seed into a condom"?  )

Roman Catholic priests have to swear obedience to God and the Pope, I imagine.

Are there any other individuals you have in mind? Are they all motivated by religion?




> Don't cancel the trip, all parts of me deemed necessary for hospitality are still present and correct.


 
Thank goodness! Then you'll still be able to show me "101 uses for an Irish big toe"? ye wee divil   Read this quickly before it gets censored - Cuchu hates me



LRV


----------



## la reine victoria

timpeac said:
			
		

> But that's the whole hub of the matter, isn't it? She's not just deciding what's right for herself, but also for the foetus too (or at least weighing up what's right for one against what's right for another).
> 
> I couldn't always reach your conclusion of *It is none of my business. I neither condemn them nor agree with them.*
> 
> If an otherwise healthy, well-adjusted and solvent woman used abortion as a form of retrospective birth control then I just feel in myself that is wrong, and I think I would personally find it very hard not to judge them (unfavourably).


 

I understand and respect your views Tim.

Note I have been careful not to truly reveal my own - neither condemning nor agreeing leaves me on neutral ground in this public forum.

Were I to say who I think the ultimate judge will be would cause a Mrs Merton style "heated debate" and take this thread way off topic.

Therefore I choose to keep my own counsel.



LRV


----------



## cyanista

I would ask men who condemn abortion to do a mental exercise (consider an imaginary situation which is similar to that experienced by women in case of an unwanted pregnancy). Imagine you've been asked to adopt a sick child. It needs constant care and attention that cannot be provided at a hospital. If you don't agree it will probably die.  It doesn't matter if you are single or have a partner - in each case it is you who will have to provide most of the care and will bear all the responsibility for the child. You will have to quit your job for at least 1-2 years and afterwards work part-time; you will certainly have to cut your expenses; you will have to drastically change your whole way of life to respond to the child's needs... 

Honestly, how many would have the courage to do that?


----------



## maxiogee

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> I imagine the individuals you mention would be
> 
> The Pope
> Roman Catholic Priests
> Doctors who refuse to carry out abortions
> on moral grounds.
> 
> I can sympathise with medical practitioners.
> 
> The Pope, of course, has to uphold the teachings of the Bible - "Thou shalt not kill." (What about "thou shalt not spill thy seed into a condom"?  )
> 
> Roman Catholic priests have to swear obedience to God and the Pope, I imagine.
> 
> Are there any other individuals you have in mind? Are they all motivated by religion?



The other individuals I can think of immediately are motivated by all sorts… 
Religion (a) - they just accept what the priests say, without thinking.
Religion (b) - they actually believe that to kill is wrong, because their God has said so.
Morality - they have actually thought out the debate and come to a reasoned stance on it.
Ignorance - they assume that any woman wanting an abortion nowadays is using it as a form of birth-control.
Jealousy - in their day a woman had to carry her lapse to term and why shouldn't this generation?

I too can sympathise with medical practitioners, and would support one who felt that any procedure went against their morality.

As for the Pope and Roman Catholic priests, well I must confess to having a wee problem there. Their deity did indeed say "Thou shalt no kill." But I seem to have missed the bit where that deity put in "except in certain circumstances" - and the Catholic Church has been finding "certain circumstances" for years now - Killing has been alright when…
* it involved heretics - you could be killed for disagreeing with the Pope.
* it involved Muslims in the Holy Land - they were desecrating sacred sites.
* it involved Jews - the Spanish Inquisition.
* it involved Protestants - Catholicism in Tudor England.
* it involved witches - can't be letting "wise women" practice healing arts.
* it involved a "just war" - and aren't they all 'just'?

… so I hope you'll excuse me when I look for a firmer stance on killing from somewhere else.


----------



## Fernando

cyanista said:
			
		

> I would ask men who condemn abortion to do a mental exercise (consider an imaginary situation which is similar to that experienced by women in case of an unwanted pregnancy). Imagine you've been asked to adopt a sick child. It needs constant care and attention that cannot be provided at a hospital. If you don't agree it will probably die.  It doesn't matter if you are single or have a partner - in each case it is you who will have to provide most of the care and will bear all the responsibility for the child. You will have to quit your job for at least 1-2 years and afterwards work part-time; you will certainly have to cut your expenses; you will have to drastically change your whole way of life to respond to the child's needs...
> 
> 
> 
> That is why I do not adopt children (regardless their health).
> 
> If I would have adopted one or for some reason or someone would obligue me to bear him for a period, I should have to care him.
Click to expand...


----------



## timpeac

cyanista said:
			
		

> I would ask men who condemn abortion to do a mental exercise (consider an imaginary situation which is similar to that experienced by women in case of an unwanted pregnancy). Imagine you've been asked to adopt a sick child. It needs constant care and attention that cannot be provided at a hospital. If you don't agree it will probably die. It doesn't matter if you are single or have a partner - in each case it is you who will have to provide most of the care and will bear all the responsibility for the child. You will have to quit your job for at least 1-2 years and afterwards work part-time; you will certainly have to cut your expenses; you will have to drastically change your whole way of life to respond to the child's needs...
> 
> Honestly, how many would have the courage to do that?


Your analogy is a bit far fetched. I think if you are sexually active - even if you take contraceptive measures - then you should be prepared for the fact there is a chance a child might result. That's a bit different from suddenly being asked to adopt a sick child. Moreover, children can be put up for adoption after the birth.

However, to answer your analogy - if the child's only hope of life were that I adopt it I would.


----------



## cyanista

timpeac said:
			
		

> Your analogy is a bit far fetched. I think if you are sexually active - even if you take contraceptive measures - then you should be prepared for the fact there is a chance a child might result. That's a bit different from suddenly being asked to adopt a sick child. Moreover, children can be put up for adoption after the birth.




It has been pointed somewhere along the way that not all methods of contraception are that reliable as they are thought to be. So it certainly may come this way - you are suddenly confronted with a situation that is not of your own making (here meaning you've gone to some lenghths to prevent it).  My imagined story is not 100% realistic, that's for sure. I was just attempting to come up with something that wouldn't reqiure from a man to imagine he is a woman. I think it illustrates pretty well what a great change and a HARD choice a woman might face when she's suddenly pregnant. A baby certainly needs constant care and attention like the sick child in my example. Changing your style of life and bearing constant responsibility also applies.
You remind me of one thing to be kept in mind: most people do make a difference between an embryo/fetus and a child.



> However, to answer your analogy - if the child's only hope of life were that I adopt it I would.


 Hat off!


----------

