Abortion Reform Poll

[WIP]

Which it is already in the process of becoming. It's not just a dormant lump of flesh, It's development has begun.

And its not as if it is going to develop on its own! The development of the embryo/fetus is totally dependent on nourishment taken from the mother's body, who has to carry it around for nine months!

Once again, by declaring that the we mark the beginning of human life at the point of successful fertilization of the egg, and give it right to life, you are also ruling that the women who bring the children into this world have NO RIGHTS in the matter. You can't make declarations about right to life without also making fetal rights superior to an adult woman's rights of privacy to determine whether or not her body should be used to bring new life into the world.

I guess what I'm trying to understand is. If you win 10,000,000(life), but have not had the chance to collect it (get a chance to live it) is it still not yours?

You'll have to explain that one!

I'm a big proponent of responsibility which society so often tries to aviod. Why did she let herself get in that predicament in the first place? Learn to live with consequences of not being responsible and learn to take the necessary precautions namedly birth control.

And when things go wrong, abortion should be an option in the early stages of pregnancy, before brain development and properties that we identify as human begin to occur.

There are some girls, especially from broken homes, who don't think beyond their immediate needs, but there are also many situations where teenage girls from religious families have this sort of "accident" after having the abstinence doctrine drummed into their heads. Instead of being pragmatic and making sure they use contraception and safe sex methods if they are thinking of engaging in sexual activity, they are totally unprepared -- so when the dam breaks, and a flood of hormones takes over, they end up having sex with no protection of any kind -- and along comes baby!

So, should a teenage girl have to drop out of school, try to marry the baby-daddy, become a single, unwed mother etc. because we have to make sure that every fertilized egg is brought to term? This is something that mother nature doesn't practice BTW. Best estimates are that 60 to 80 percent of all fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted, or miscarried by the mother, because nature doesn't want every possible life to be realized -- only the ones that are fit enough to survive. So most abortions occur naturally, and yet the Catholic Church and other anti-abortion groups have little or nothing to say about prenatal health or other steps that could be taken to prevent "natural" abortions.

Yes, the right to live trumps freedom. On one one side I see inconvenience, on the other I see loss of life.

That's inconvenience alright! And I would argue that it is the sort of inconvenience that a man can't really grasp on a personal level -- I guess that's why Judith Jarvis Thompson created her example of "The Violinist," -- to give the average guy a little food for thought of what it might be like to have your life put on hold for the higher purpose of saving a life.

My position is still that this sort of right to life dialed back to a stage when the life has no human qualities does not merit violating the freedoms of the woman who will be stuck with carrying this life around for the next nine months and possibly raising it to adulthood after giving birth. All find and dandy if that's what she chooses to do! But I've seen enough bitter, frustrated single mothers to come to the conclusion that it is better for a child to be born into a family that wants a baby and has prepared for raising the child in a loving home.

[Canadian Blue]

And its not as if it is going to develop on its own! The development of the embryo/fetus is totally dependent on nourishment taken from the mother's body, who has to carry it around for nine months!

If the mother didn't want a child why didn't she use birth control?

Once again, by declaring that the we mark the beginning of human life at the point of successful fertilization of the egg, and give it right to life, you are also ruling that the women who bring the children into this world have NO RIGHTS in the matter. You can't make declarations about right to life without also making fetal rights superior to an adult woman's rights of privacy to determine whether or not her body should be used to bring new life into the world.

The right to life trumps that of privacy. Nobody is saying that women shouldn't have the same rights as anyone else, however this issue isn't as simplistic as you'd like to make it out. If a fetus has it's own DNA, then it is in many ways a separate entity and not a tumour as many of the feminists were once proclaiming.

So, should a teenage girl have to drop out of school, try to marry the baby-daddy, become a single, unwed mother etc. because we have to make sure that every fertilized egg is brought to term?

Adoption is still an option. I have not heard of a single case where a mother was forced to take care of her child if she wanted to give it up for adoption.

So most abortions occur naturally, and yet the Catholic Church and other anti-abortion groups have little or nothing to say about prenatal health or other steps that could be taken to prevent "natural" abortions.

Why would they, theirs a difference between a miscarriage and an act that's meant to destroy a fetus.

That's inconvenience alright! And I would argue that it is the sort of inconvenience that a man can't really grasp on a personal level -- I guess that's why Judith Jarvis Thompson created her example of "The Violinist," -- to give the average guy a little food for thought of what it might be like to have your life put on hold for the higher purpose of saving a life.

Children are often inconveniences, it doesn't mean that we should throw them in a dumpster if we can't handle it.

But I've seen enough bitter, frustrated single mothers to come to the conclusion that it is better for a child to be born into a family that wants a baby and has prepared for raising the child in a loving home.

This kind of thinking is dangerous on many levels. First of all it posits that their is life that's unworthy of life. We see an orphan and if our first thoughts are to put it out of it's misery for good then we've lost all compassion and humanity in our society. This seems like a voluntary eugenics philosophy to me.

[Oleg Bach]

Birth is wonderful no matter in what form - abortion is not wonderful and has never done any good for anyone - those that push abortion on others and provide a service that is in reality a dis-service are the same jerks that demand the re-instatement of capital punishment - and they are the same ones that would practice eugenics to the point that if they could they would go though every poor neighbourhood and kill all unwed mothers - and the children that are the filithy unwashed in their minds.. what true benevolence lays in the heart of pro-abortors? I would say they are all mean spirited and base - but wear the cloak of kindness - let them abort their own children and their own elderly and take a flying leap - this is not freedom of choice - this is a robbery of life by the spiteful and envious....If the family was not under such attack and being slowly dismantled, woman no matter who would have the support of society instead of being condemned and persecuted and their children not just dragged from their arms by protection agents - but dragged from the womb also. This is about control not freedom.

Recently a nephew of mine met an early death - after his death his child was born...the mother was the daughter of a clinical mental health professional - the daughter defied the system - that she knew all to well - within days the "protection" people ripped the baby from her arms - a nursing infant.....IF the authorities had been more aware they would have attempted to manipulate this young woman to abort..but they were to late - now the child is in the world and there is not a damned thing that the social engineers and eugenics jerks can do - Abortion is the denial of womans rights to real atonomy - not the other way around. It should not be promoted - it should not be enforced and inflicted on the poor or defiant - and this young mother is defiant - she is the opposite to her mother - who makes a living dealing with the crimminally insane - who are under her control - the daughter did not want to be just another prisoner of her systems dependant lieing mother ...this was a clash between woman and woman...thank God the child lives...It will be a fine human being who will have wisdom and leadership - just what society does not want!

[WIP]

If the mother didn't want a child why didn't she use birth control?

Who knows! Maybe birth control didn't work. It's all besides the point anyway since we're talking about an embryo or fetus that is not at a stage of development that merits being awarded human rights, including a right to life that carries the implicit demand that the woman continue supporting its development for the next nine months.

The right to life trumps that of privacy. Nobody is saying that women shouldn't have the same rights as anyone else,

By stating that a woman's privacy is trumped by the needs of a growing fetus, you have just made clear that you regard a woman's rights as inferior to mens and even fetuses!

however this issue isn't as simplistic as you'd like to make it out. If a fetus has it's own DNA, then it is in many ways a separate entity and not a tumour as many of the feminists were once proclaiming.

A woman who is forced to carry a pregnancy to full term may very well feel like she has a tumor!

You are placing an inordinate amount of credence on this point of a fetus or an embryo having its own DNA. So what? The DNA only provides the blueprint for future development, and the genes are the scaffolding, but future development is determined by interaction with the environment, and the kind of person that developes, both physically and mentally, cannot be predicted just by looking at the DNA code.

At an early stage of fetal development, you don't have a human life that should be given the same value as a child or an adult. Attempting to do so results in travesties like the one going on in Brazil with the Catholic Church's attempts to prevent a 9 year old girl from having an abortion.

Adoption is still an option. I have not heard of a single case where a mother was forced to take care of her child if she wanted to give it up for adoption.

Sure, adoption is an option, as long as it isn't an order. Should the girl be forced to carry it to term and put the baby up for adoption? NO! There is no reasonable basis for giving an embryo or fetus more value than the woman who it depends on for life.

Why would they, theirs a difference between a miscarriage and an act that's meant to destroy a fetus.

Well if the Catholic Church, and the broader anti-abortion movement shows no interest in improving prenatal health for expectant mothers, then they are guilty of abortion through negligence.

Children are often inconveniences, it doesn't mean that we should throw them in a dumpster if we can't handle it.

We're not talking about children here, since by definition, children have had the umbilical cords severed and are breathing, eating and drinking on their own. Leave it up to the women who face this dilemma, what sort of inconvenience they consider acceptable or unacceptable. This is not a situation that a man can understand on anything more than an external, objective level......except for Billy Crystal....if I recall correctly, he played a pregnant man in a movie about 30 years ago or so.......I forget the title because it wasn't really worth remembering anyway.

This kind of thinking is dangerous on many levels. First of all it posits that their is life that's unworthy of life.

There is life that is unworthy of protection, such as all of the frozen embryos that have been held up and deteriorating in cold storage in the U.S. because the Bush Administration had to kow tow to their fanatical followers, even though these embryos were unsuitable for implantation by couples using the services of the fertility clinics.

There is a bigger dilemma than abortion for a lot of people today to have to deal with -- when does a life become not worth living? While we are frozen by a dogma of sanctity of life, many terminally ill people are prevented from having the option of deciding for themselves when they should check out.

We see an orphan and if our first thoughts are to put it out of it's misery for good then we've lost all compassion and humanity in our society. This seems like a voluntary eugenics philosophy to me.

So, by allowing abortion up to 20 weeks, we are going to start killing orphans too? Real morality and ethical standards can be reached by choosing options that lead to the best consequences, not by setting an arbitrary standard like regarding a fertilized egg cell as equal to a human life.

[guyser]

The right to life trumps that of privacy.

No it doesnt. I cannot think of a single reason why that would be true. There are instances we may wish that true, but it isnt.

Nobody is saying that women shouldn't have the same rights as anyone else, however this issue isn't as simplistic as you'd like to make it out.

That sounds eerily familiar....like from a church lesson or something along those lines...the simplistic part that is.

Either the person has control of their body or they dont. It is that simple.

Adoption is still an option. I have not heard of a single case where a mother was forced to take care of her child if she wanted to give it up for adoption.

It is an option. She can make that her option or not. No more.

Cant recall any anti-choice advocating adopting a child either. Relevant or not?

This kind of thinking is dangerous on many levels. First of all it posits that their is life that's unworthy of life. We see an orphan and if our first thoughts are to put it out of it's misery for good then we've lost all compassion and humanity in our society. This seems like a voluntary eugenics philosophy to me.

Tell that to the CC whos work in Africa leads to numerous orphans.

[Canadian Blue]

Who knows! Maybe birth control didn't work. It's all besides the point anyway since we're talking about an embryo or fetus that is not at a stage of development that merits being awarded human rights, including a right to life that carries the implicit demand that the woman continue supporting its development for the next nine months.

Except that it's been shown that the fetus is a separate entity and with more knowledge we get from pre-natal care we can show that said fetus is far more complicated than many pro-choice groups made it out to be. That should give the question on whether or not we can play god with other lives, or for that matter simply throw out what could be human beings for being inconveniances.

By stating that a woman's privacy is trumped by the needs of a growing fetus, you have just made clear that you regard a woman's rights as inferior to mens and even fetuses!

No, because half of those fetuses are likely female which makes that point moot. Ironically enough their was a study which showed that abortion was being used as a gender selection technique, some of the advocates at the clinics would attempt to talk women out of their abortions only if it was a female and the reason given was that a female fetus had alot of "potential." That must give you pause to wonder why they would care so much if a fetus had no intricate value.

You are placing an inordinate amount of credence on this point of a fetus or an embryo having its own DNA. So what?

Likely because it does give you pause to think that their might be more to a fetus than many may think.

The DNA only provides the blueprint for future development, and the genes are the scaffolding, but future development is determined by interaction with the environment, and the kind of person that developes, both physically and mentally, cannot be predicted just by looking at the DNA code.

Yes, it does give a blueprint for future human development. You've just made my point.

Sure, adoption is an option, as long as it isn't an order. Should the girl be forced to carry it to term and put the baby up for adoption? NO! There is no reasonable basis for giving an embryo or fetus more value than the woman who it depends on for life.

I find the right to life to be more concerning than the absolving an individual of their biological and human responsibilities.

We're not talking about children here, since by definition, children have had the umbilical cords severed and are breathing, eating and drinking on their own.

But they still require the mother for sustenance, as nature generally intends.

This is not a situation that a man can understand on anything more than an external, objective level

How about Jane Roe? To argue that people should not be allowed to be part of this debate is foolish. As well you make a presumption that women will always be pro-choice, even though it isn't so. I'm sure plenty of men are pro-choice, for decent reasons and selfish reasons.

Well if the Catholic Church, and the broader anti-abortion movement shows no interest in improving prenatal health for expectant mothers, then they are guilty of abortion through negligence.

Dorothy Day didn't care for expectant mothers?

There is a bigger dilemma than abortion for a lot of people today to have to deal with -- when does a life become not worth living? While we are frozen by a dogma of sanctity of life, many terminally ill people are prevented from having the option of deciding for themselves when they should check out.

I'm hesitant to exterminate life considered unworthy of life.

So, by allowing abortion up to 20 weeks, we are going to start killing orphans too? Real morality and ethical standards can be reached by choosing options that lead to the best consequences, not by setting an arbitrary standard like regarding a fertilized egg cell as equal to a human life.

Real ethics aren't consumed by soley selfish desires.

No it doesnt. I cannot think of a single reason why that would be true. There are instances we may wish that true, but it isnt.

If a mother throws her child in a dumpster, then I'd say the right to life trumps that of privacy.

Either the person has control of their body or they dont. It is that simple.

Not really, especially if that other entity can be considered another human being. Humans cannot perfect society by simply killing off undesirable life.

Cant recall any anti-choice advocating adopting a child either. Relevant or not?

When exactly did pro-life groups start opposing adoption? Did they argue that laws should be in places to make sure adoption is no longer allowed in Canada.

Tell that to the CC whos work in Africa leads to numerous orphans.

I'm not a Catholic, so I can't presume to defend the Catholic Church. To argue so is absurd, but I don't think those orphans should have been aborted and then thrown into a trash can either as you seem to suggest. But it seems Russia would be the ideal place since 2/3's of pregnancies result in abortion if that's any indication of the kind of society we should be moving towards.

But I do feel somewhat repulsed if someone were to kick a pregnant woman in the stomach, much more than I would if she was not carrying a child. But after watching an abortion I became far more sickened and became pro-life afterwards.

But here's an important question, why are so many people shocked if abortion is used for gender selection? What makes it more acceptable to abort a male than a female:

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_...40184e503787025

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...efoeticide.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../lifeMain/home/

Edited March 11, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

Now while I don't think either of you support abortion as a first option, I'll just point out that if you're going to make an argument you should realize that this debate is about more than just privacy rights.

[WIP]

Except that it's been shown that the fetus is a separate entity

It is not an independent entity! The life of the fetus in contingent on whether the mother is willing and able to make its development possible. You cannot classify a fetus as a separate entity as long as its life comes at the expense of the mother.

and with more knowledge we get from pre-natal care we can show that said fetus is far more complicated than many pro-choice groups made it out to be. That should give the question on whether or not we can play god with other lives, or for that matter simply throw out what could be human beings for being inconveniances.

It still depends on what stage of development you're talking about. And keep in mind that these pro life propaganda sites often give misleading information on subjects like fetal brain development.

No, because half of those fetuses are likely female which makes that point moot. Ironically enough their was a study which showed that abortion was being used as a gender selection technique, some of the advocates at the clinics would attempt to talk women out of their abortions only if it was a female and the reason given was that a female fetus had alot of "potential." That must give you pause to wonder why they would care so much if a fetus had no intricate value.

I think you can safely file that story in the bullshit category! If this story was from an actual published study, I'd like to see the journal reference for it. So abortion clinic personnel are trying to abort only male offspring so they can create a lesbian amazon world? Is this the kind of crap that the anti-abortion movement is resorting to now!

For the record, the last time I checked information about determining the sex of a child, an accurate determination cannot be made before the 20th week of pregnancy, and often it takes even longer. This would make knowing the sex of the child impossible during the time that most abortions are performed, since this would be getting into the third trimester, when abortion is restricted and more difficult to perform if needed.

Back to the question on privacy, is it ethical to force a woman or girl to carry a pregnancy to term? The law would have to be used to force women to serve as unwilling incubators — using their bodies to provide a place where a fetus can develop into a baby. This is okay with the anti abortion movement which is built around a patriarchal religious worldview that doesn't want women to have equal status, but forcing women to have babies against their will is not compatible with an egalitarian democratic state.......and this doesn't even get to the inevitable blackmarket, which would return to provide abortion services illegally if church authorities got their way.

Likely because it does give you pause to think that their might be more to a fetus than many may think.

Yes, it does give a blueprint for future human development. You've just made my point.

And is a blueprint enough? If you were building a house, you would likely follow the blueprints closely -- but, you might have to make a few alterations along the way.

But we're talking about living organisms here, and at least half of the child's development is altered because of environmental factors that cannot be foreseen.

A good case in point would be to examine identical twins. If your view that DNA is everything, accounted for all or most of a child's development, identical twins would be virtual clones of each other since they share the same DNA code, and were part of a single fertilized egg until it split at some point during the first two weeks of development.

In reality, the differences are much greater as the twins age because of those environmental factors. If one twin is gay, or has a highly heritable illness such as schizophrenia, the odds that the other twin shares the same traits are less than 50%. This is much higher correlation than two unrelated people, but it is not 100%, and it illustrates that genetics does not equal destiny!

Even if a DNA code was comparable to a set of construction blueprints, it would still not be enough to make a case that this genetic code is enough to give it equal value as a child or an adult, since you need more than blueprints to give you a house ready to move in to. Somebody has to build it. And until the job is done, that house under construction is not equal to one that is completed.

But they still require the mother for sustenance, as nature generally intends.

Not necessarily! It may be best for the mother to be the caregiver, but not essential. Someone else can step in if necessary. And this is not the case before the umbilical cord is severed.

How about Jane Roe?

How about her? Does Jane Roe changing her mind on abortion settle the issue?

To argue that people should not be allowed to be part of this debate is foolish.

I've been debating it....... a lot more than I originally intended to! The point I was trying to make is that for me it is an objective, theoretical issue -- not something that I can have a personal, intuitive understanding of. That's why I cannot feel comfortable about the notion of telling women when or if they can end a pregnancy. It's not an issue of having a right to be part of the debate; I just question how much effort most men have made to understand the debate before they formed their opinions.

As well you make a presumption that women will always be pro-choice, even though it isn't so. I'm sure plenty of men are pro-choice, for decent reasons and selfish reasons.

I checked through U.S. polling data on abortion the last time I got into this issue, and it's true that there is not a great divide between men and women of similar ages and backgrounds on the abortion issue; but women do tend to be somewhat more pro choice than men of the same social grouping. So that might indicate that some women might be considering that since this issue could affect them personally, they want more personal rights to decide abortion.

Dorothy Day didn't care for expectant mothers?

I had to do a search to find out who Dorothy Day was. If that's the best to offer, it proves my point that the Magisterium doesn't consider miscarriage as serious an issue as abortion.

I'm hesitant to exterminate life considered unworthy of life.

But, I was talking about euthanasia! Who's asking you to exterminate a life? The issue is whether terminally ill people should be allowed to end their own lives if they choose.

Real ethics aren't consumed by soley selfish desires.

How is trying to create rules that lead to the best possible outcomes being selfish?

But here's an important question, why are so many people shocked if abortion is used for gender selection? What makes it more acceptable to abort a male than a female:

Do you have some special hatred for women or something? Because this is the second time in this post that you've claimed that male fetuses are being aborted. Did you actually read any of those articles that you linked? Because all three of them discuss the problem, mainly in India, of abortion female fetuses, not males!

As far as the issue of using sex selection as a reason for a late term abortion goes -- I would say that it can be proven to be detrimental for a society to allow sex-selected abortions, since societies that give women lower status, also have serious imbalances in the ratios of men to women in their societies. When the numbers are too high to be accounted for naturally, it is obvious that female fetuses are being aborted and likely even female babies are being murdered for being the wrong sex. A longterm solution won't likely be achieved until they give up on their misogyny and value women as much as men.

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_...40184e503787025

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...efoeticide.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../lifeMain/home/

[Molly]

LOL What fun! to watch a group of MEN talking about abortion!

Two things: First, ALL birth control methods have failure rates, even when performed perfectly. If performed imperfectly (as in 'Nobody is perfect.') then there are even more failures. (So 'She should have used birth control.' is a pretty irrelevant comment, since in all liklihood, 'she' did. In any case, we doubt the intent of such a comment to mean that women who do use birth control should have abortion on demand without argument from you.)

A wonderful one-liner is that our test of what qualifies someone as a good parent is 'If you are too irresponsible to remember to take a pill every day, you pass." (That should make the Darwinians in the crowd shudder.)

And secondly, using 'girls' is completely inappropriate. Teen-agers only account for about 16% of abortions. There are as many women over the age of 35 as teen-agers seeking abortion- so you aren't talking about kids, but rather real, grown-up, job-holding, tax-paying, vote-casting WOMEN who are old enough to make an informed decision, and tough enough to tell you to butt out.

[Canadian Blue]

It is not an independent entity! The life of the fetus in contingent on whether the mother is willing and able to make its development possible. You cannot classify a fetus as a separate entity as long as its life comes at the expense of the mother.

Then by that logic since a baby cannot survive without it's mother if it is in the wild it's not really a human being since it comes at the expense of it's mother.

I think you can safely file that story in the bullshit category! If this story was from an actual published study, I'd like to see the journal reference for it. So abortion clinic personnel are trying to abort only male offspring so they can create a lesbian amazon world? Is this the kind of crap that the anti-abortion movement is resorting to now!

No, it comes from the ultra-right wing pro-life media at the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/06/21/...-selection.html

Back to the question on privacy, is it ethical to force a woman or girl to carry a pregnancy to term? The law would have to be used to force women to serve as unwilling incubators — using their bodies to provide a place where a fetus can develop into a baby. This is okay with the anti abortion movement which is built around a patriarchal religious worldview that doesn't want women to have equal status, but forcing women to have babies against their will is not compatible with an egalitarian democratic state.......and this doesn't even get to the inevitable blackmarket, which would return to provide abortion services illegally if church authorities got their way.

This is absurd, especially considering that notable atheists Nat Hentoff and Christopher Hitchens have both espoused pro-life views. As well women are serving a unwilling incubators because they had the unfortunate disposition of being born human with certain human responsibilities. Many recognize the processes of decivilization.

Even if a DNA code was comparable to a set of construction blueprints, it would still not be enough to make a case that this genetic code is enough to give it equal value as a child or an adult, since you need more than blueprints to give you a house ready to move in to. Somebody has to build it. And until the job is done, that house under construction is not equal to one that is completed.

So which arbitrary stage should a person be considered worthy of life exactly. Is it based merely on the ability to survive independently of others.

Not necessarily! It may be best for the mother to be the caregiver, but not essential. Someone else can step in if necessary. And this is not the case before the umbilical cord is severed.

But the child still cannot survive without the care of another human being, and it's considered a human responsibility to care for a child. Not to merely throw a baby in a dumpster when it becomes inconvenient.

Do you have some special hatred for women or something? Because this is the second time in this post that you've claimed that male fetuses are being aborted. Did you actually read any of those articles that you linked? Because all three of them discuss the problem, mainly in India, of abortion female fetuses, not males!

Actually the reference my dear sir was to laws put in place to end sex selection abortions. Unfortunately you didn't really recognize the irony in people saying abortion is fine and great and should be used for the most frivilous of reasons with the exception of sex selection abortions. It's ironic that many of these clinics will do everything they can to prevent a female from being aborted and talk about the possibility of the fetus doing great things, but no so when it comes to a male.

As far as the issue of using sex selection as a reason for a late term abortion goes -- I would say that it can be proven to be detrimental for a society to allow sex-selected abortions, since societies that give women lower status, also have serious imbalances in the ratios of men to women in their societies. When the numbers are too high to be accounted for naturally, it is obvious that female fetuses are being aborted and likely even female babies are being murdered for being the wrong sex. A longterm solution won't likely be achieved until they give up on their misogyny and value women as much as men.

Awe yes, so we should acheive equality of oppurtunity when it comes to abortion. It's funny that you're in favour of abortion for just about any reason at all, but get angry that it's being used for a purpose you find offensive. I thought that their was no intrinsic value to such an entity, but I suppose I was wrong. You should take your own advice and "stop shoving your morals down peoples throats."

LOL What fun! to watch a group of MEN talking about abortion!

What fun to watch someone make an idiotic point which somehow infers that all women are pro-choice.

Two things: First, ALL birth control methods have failure rates, even when performed perfectly. If performed imperfectly (as in 'Nobody is perfect.') then there are even more failures. (So 'She should have used birth control.' is a pretty irrelevant comment, since in all liklihood, 'she' did. In any case, we doubt the intent of such a comment to mean that women who do use birth control should have abortion on demand without argument from you.)

Perhaps in the minority of cases, but in the vast majority it was due to a lack of birth control use.

And secondly, using 'girls' is completely inappropriate. Teen-agers only account for about 16% of abortions. There are as many women over the age of 35 as teen-agers seeking abortion- so you aren't talking about kids, but rather real, grown-up, job-holding, tax-paying, vote-casting WOMEN who are old enough to make an informed decision, and tough enough to tell you to butt out.

That's a great way to end a discussion by saying any person with an opposing view should simply butt out. Perhaps we should have that kind of logic with every issue, when it comes to education the only people who have a say should be parents. On welfare the only people to have a say are actual welfare recipients. With regards to the military the only people to have a say on funding and overseas expeditions should be military members. With criminal justice the only people to have a say will be the legal profession and law enforcement.

But this debate will go nowhere, especially if the best the other side can come up with is that people shouldn't have any say on the issue and that they're not for abortion when it's done for politically incorrect reasons. It'd be nice if their were some principled defenders on the pro-choice side who'd argue for full rights to abortion regardless of the reasoning behind it.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Sabre Rider]

Whether you agree with abortions or not, they will happen whether they are legal or not. Make them illegal or restrict them in some manner and you will just end up with the old coat hanger back room operations of the past. At least they are a hell of a lot safer when done legally and in proper settings.

[WIP]

Then by that logic since a baby cannot survive without it's mother if it is in the wild it's not really a human being since it comes at the expense of it's mother.

Well, thanks for getting back to me so fast! I thought this was a dead topic.

The obvious difference in that example should be that the baby outside the womb can be cared for by others, and this could also be true for the fetus that has past the 23 week of gestation. That was the reason why the Roe vs. Wade decision determined that restrictions should be applied to abortion after this stage......but that wasn't good enough for prolifers who have propagandized the decision as "abortion on demand."

No, it comes from the ultra-right wing pro-life media at the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/06/21/...-selection.html

Is this why you waited a month to answer back on this topic? I addressed the issue of sex-selection and I already told you that there are reasons to disallow this frivolous use of new technology because it can skew the population ratio of males to females that is normally roughly equal. I showed you examples where sex-selection has been used to abort female fetuses, but for some reason you ignored that and made this claim in post#431:

No, because half of those fetuses are likely female which makes that point moot. Ironically enough their was a study which showed that abortion was being used as a gender selection technique, some of the advocates at the clinics would attempt to talk women out of their abortions only if it was a female and the reason given was that a female fetus had alot of "potential." That must give you pause to wonder why they would care so much if a fetus had no intricate value.

Now, your CBC link to a statement from an organization of obstetricians and gynecologists, does not even identify which sex is being aborted, so it doesn't bolster the claim you made earlier that male fetuses are being aborted by some feminist conspiracy to create a no-male world. The sad truth is that the opposite is the reality, and pregnant women are indoctrinated to hope for a son (especially as first offspring), and the

This is absurd, especially considering that notable atheists Nat Hentoff and Christopher Hitchens have both espoused pro-life views. As well women are serving a unwilling incubators because they had the unfortunate disposition of being born human with certain human responsibilities. Many recognize the processes of decivilization.

Nobody elected Hitchens pope, and I don't even know who Nat Hentoff is, and I could care less since arguments from authority don't carry weight among atheists! The only thing I know I have in common with them is what we don't believe...and one issue where Hitchens was totally wrong on was his support for the Iraq Invasion and occupation, so why should I check first with what Hitchens has to say before forming my own opinions.

So which arbitrary stage should a person be considered worthy of life exactly. Is it based merely on the ability to survive independently of others.

That has always been a defining distinction for a lot of people. Any attempt to enforce an abortion ban earlier cannot be done without being in direct conflict with the personal rights and freedoms of a pregnant woman. And deciding when personhood should be granted and override the interests of a pregnant woman, should be set a stage when a good argument can be made for personal rights of a fetus....not the lame, half-baked arguments of future potentials that keep getting trotted out in endless variations.

Actually the reference my dear sir was to laws put in place to end sex selection abortions. Unfortunately you didn't really recognize the irony in people saying abortion is fine and great and should be used for the most frivilous of reasons with the exception of sex selection abortions. It's ironic that many of these clinics will do everything they can to prevent a female from being aborted and talk about the possibility of the fetus doing great things, but no so when it comes to a male.

Here we go again! It's the female fetuses that get aborted, not male fetuses! From what I read previously about the sex-selection issue, sex cannot be accurately determined before the third trimester, so we are already into the zone where fetal rights are considered worthy of consideration.

The point is not whether sex selection desires are frivolous, but what effect allowing it will have on society, and allowing people to dramatically skew male/female ratios is not in any society's best interests. And I think the same reasoning applies in the "designer baby" issues of whether new bioengineering technologies should be allowed so people can actually choose the sex of their child. I woulldn't object to choosing physical features, but I don't think this choice should be allowed when it becomes available for the same reasons that sex-selected abortions shouldn't be allowed.

Awe yes, so we should acheive equality of oppurtunity when it comes to abortion. It's funny that you're in favour of abortion for just about any reason at all, but get angry that it's being used for a purpose you find offensive. I thought that their was no intrinsic value to such an entity, but I suppose I was wrong. You should take your own advice and "stop shoving your morals down peoples throats."

It's not a matter of what I want or don't want! I'm in favour of leaving the decision to the woman's personal choice until there is a point where the fetus should be considered to have its own personal rights.

What fun to watch someone make an idiotic point which somehow infers that all women are pro-choice.

Molly is right that this is an issue where men are wading into an area where we don't have any skin in the game. We don't get pregnant, have to worry about getting pregnant etc., and the fact that so many pro life men are so oblivious to this simple fact indicates to me that they don't give a shit about what women want or don't want in a general sense. Certainly all women aren't pro choice, but I couldn't help noticing that women tend to be more pro choice than men of similar backgrounds; so even women who are thoroughly indoctrinated by pro life religious propaganda from childhood, are more pro choice than their male compatriots.

[Canadian Blue]

The obvious difference in that example should be that the baby outside the womb can be cared for by others, and this could also be true for the fetus that has past the 23 week of gestation. That was the reason why the Roe vs. Wade decision determined that restrictions should be applied to abortion after this stage......but that wasn't good enough for prolifers who have propagandized the decision as "abortion on demand."

Actually Roe vs Wade took the issue out of the hands of the states and made it legal right across the nation. Most countries have restrictions on abortions, European countries have restrictions for example.

Now, your CBC link to a statement from an organization of obstetricians and gynecologists, does not even identify which sex is being aborted, so it doesn't bolster the claim you made earlier that male fetuses are being aborted by some feminist conspiracy to create a no-male world. The sad truth is that the opposite is the reality, and pregnant women are indoctrinated to hope for a son (especially as first offspring), and the

You've missed the point, again. You've stated that we should allow abortion under any circumstance, with the exception of sex selection because you deem it to be morally wrong. You are just as guilty of "shoving morality" down peoples throats as pro-life individuals in that you do oppose abortion if it's done for politically incorrect reasons. You're for abortion in just about every other circumstance unless it's done for sex selection, which is a hideous double standard.

Molly is right that this is an issue where men are wading into an area where we don't have any skin in the game. We don't get pregnant, have to worry about getting pregnant etc., and the fact that so many pro life men are so oblivious to this simple fact indicates to me that they don't give a shit about what women want or don't want in a general sense.

Yes, because men have never taken roles as a parent in relationship of a child at any time in history. As well I haven't heard of a single case where males were involved in the reproductive process either. You might have a point if a father had no emotion attachment to his child or children, but they unfortunately do. As well it's doubtful that men have no effect on whether or not a woman gets an abortion, infact I'd venture to state that most men do support abortion because it allows them to sleep around and never have to take responsibility for their own stupidity and lack of common decency.

We haven't been quite successful in abolishing humanity yet, but I'm sure we're getting close.

Certainly all women aren't pro choice, but I couldn't help noticing that women tend to be more pro choice than men of similar backgrounds; so even women who are thoroughly indoctrinated by pro life religious propaganda from childhood, are more pro choice than their male compatriots.

Awe yes, if someone doesn't support abortion they are automatically indoctrinated. First of all it's already been proven that you don't have to religious to be pro-life as you've stupidly claimed ad nauseum.

The obvious difference in that example should be that the baby outside the womb can be cared for by others, and this could also be true for the fetus that has past the 23 week of gestation.

Why 23 weeks gestation, a fetus has been found to survive outside the womb at 21 weeks.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article597136.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/feb...h.lifeandhealth

Unfortunately many on the pro-life side in the United States fail to mention that such procedures are costly. It's hideous that few members of the "religious right" have ever supported universal healthcare to ensure all children in the United States can get access to healthcare.

It's not a matter of what I want or don't want! I'm in favour of leaving the decision to the woman's personal choice until there is a point where the fetus should be considered to have its own personal rights.

Apparently the difference between a human being and a meaningless fetus is a couple of days.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[WIP]

Actually Roe vs Wade took the issue out of the hands of the states and made it legal right across the nation. Most countries have restrictions on abortions, European countries have restrictions for example.

My point was that it was mischaracterized as "abortion on demand," when that was only true for abortions performed during the first trimester.

You've missed the point, again. You've stated that we should allow abortion under any circumstance,

No I did not! I have said repeatedly that a woman's decision to have an abortion should not be interfered with in the early stages when there are no grounds for treating an embryo or fetus as an independent human life worthy of protection until it has reached a stage where it has identifiable human qualities like the ability to survive on its own outside of the womb, a rudimentary ability to feel pain or discomfort, development of the cerebral cortex - the higher brain region where conscious thinking is performed...and there may be others, but whatever it is, none of these marks are reached before the 16th week of gestation, which is the normal cutoff for abortions performed in clinics.

with the exception of sex selection because you deem it to be morally wrong. You are just as guilty of "shoving morality" down peoples throats as pro-life individuals in that you do oppose abortion if it's done for politically incorrect reasons. You're for abortion in just about every other circumstance unless it's done for sex selection, which is a hideous double standard.

Now, who's the moral relativist? You mean you don't see a problem if allowing sex-selection abortion or future sex-selected genetic modification is used to skew the ratio of men and women one way or the other? I'm not shoving my personal beliefs on anyone. The basic principle should be that people are free to make their own personal choices as long as there is no significant negative effects on the rest of society. So any personal choice that could be a serious problem for society as a whole, should either be restricted or disallowed completely.

Yes, because men have never taken roles as a parent in relationship of a child at any time in history. As well I haven't heard of a single case where males were involved in the reproductive process either. You might have a point if a father had no emotion attachment to his child or children, but they unfortunately do.

But, a man can't hav an emotional attachment to a fetus! A woman can because it is a new life growing inside of her, but a man's attachment takes awhile to develop...and I got to say from my own experience that I could not really connect with our children the way my wife did when they were newborn infants, even though I did all the things that a modern dedicated husband is supposed to: prenatal classes, coaching her in the delivery room, changing diapers, doing occasional bottle feedings....still it wasn't until our babies were old enough to respond to faces and try to interact with me that I really started feeling an emotional connection to them.

As well it's doubtful that men have no effect on whether or not a woman gets an abortion, infact I'd venture to state that most men do support abortion because it allows them to sleep around and never have to take responsibility for their own stupidity and lack of common decency.

I know there are guys who try to push pregnant girlfriends into having abortions, and that should not be their decision to make, but if it's a guy who wants the baby, he should not have the right to force her to carry it and deliver the baby. If men had babies, you can bet that there would be no abortion debate, since we don't care for anything that restricts our personal freedoms.

Awe yes, if someone doesn't support abortion they are automatically indoctrinated. First of all it's already been proven that you don't have to religious to be pro-life as you've stupidly claimed ad nauseum.

So I've heard! But not many atheists or agnostics are part of the pro life movement. Claiming that life (human personhood) begins at conception, does not find much favour with secular-thinking people, and the requirement that this doctrine goes so far as banning emergency contraception because it might kill a newly fertilized egg cell, requires putting restrictions on personal rights of women that very few humanists, if any, are going to be willing to agree to.

Why 23 weeks gestation, a fetus has been found to survive outside the womb at 21 weeks.

So, draw the line at 21 weeks, or 16 weeks, whatever it is, it will be long past the point where most women seeking abortions have them done. But even after 23 weeks, exceptions have to be made for conditions where the mother's health is at risk if the pregnancy is continued or there are severe birth defects discovered that will degrade the quality of life the fetus will have if it is born.

Unfortunately many on the pro-life side in the United States fail to mention that such procedures are costly. It's hideous that few members of the "religious right" have ever supported universal healthcare to ensure all children in the United States can get access to healthcare.

It's not the costs that bother me here, it's the fact that these dangerously premature 21 or 23 week old infants are almost guaranteed to have serious health defects as mentioned in the articles you cited for reference. A recent medical research study has determined that being even being born 2, 3 or 4 weeks premature can set you up for life-shortening problems like stroke and heart attacks later in life, even where there were no other identified risk factors. So children that are born this early are really facing long odds against having a long, healthy life.

[Machjo]

My answer's not in the poll, so I can't vote. Morally, I'd say don't allow abortion at all. Politically, I'm less certain, as there are different arguments. Elizabeth May, for instance, is one politicial on record to have said that she opposes abortion morally but sees its prohibition legally as unwise sinse it could result in many back alley abortions, thus costing even more lives.

So as to the political front, I lean in favour of prohibiting abortion, but wouldn't make it an election priority, but morally definitely oppose it.

[Machjo]

OK I voted, make it illegal.