Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mystic...as you know...I have the utmost respect, admiration, and gratitude toward you. You also know I feel you are one of the most enlightened people to have ever lived. So...I beg your understanding that I disagree with you on an aspect of this matter.
The bolded portion of your post says it all. At issue IS a "new person". THAT should be all anyone needs to know, to understand what should be the legal protocol as to how to deal with him/her.
It may be true that legal sanctions against drug use, certain circumstances of drunkenness, killing another, serial killing of others, etc...have not ended such things. Legal sanctions NEVER end criminal acts. But that is no reason to decriminalize them. By that logic anything and everything should be legal...since "the law" doesn't completely deter everyone, like Gods commandments don't deter all from breaking them.
So though it may not be any one individuals' "business" what a woman does to her "new person" offspring growing in her body...it SHOULD be the "business" of the judiciary. It should be legally mandated that that "new person" be given the same legal protections of any new person. And anyone that would be determined to be legally responsible for that "new person" should be legally required to demonstrate that resposibility...or be held accountable.
There are nothing but bogus arguments that allow that "new person" to be legally killed...arguments that are uniquely applied to only this group of "new people"---Like that "new person" getting sustenance through a "duct" inside the womans' body...as opposed to it getting sustenance through the ducts that lead to a point on the breast outside the womans' body. It's the same otherwise helpless and nonviable "new person" feeding "in" her body...that will be feeding "on" her body...save for an increase in size/maturity, and a distance of three inches.
Likewise...the "circumstances" of a persons' parents...the parents' maturity...or their abilities at parenthood...is never considered a legal sanction to kill someone.
Same for any of the other myriad arguments the proabortion crowd uses to justify the legal permission to kill offspring in the womb...they ALL deny those "new persons" what would otherwise be expected as far as "equal protection" under the law.
I do not disagree with you on anything about this issue, GldRule . . . the truth is the truth and reality is reality. Abortion is a hateful, evil, abomination of human selfishness.
However . . . you seem to have abandoned your usual pragmatism and reality orientation in support of an idealistic belief that human laws can in any way impact this abomination positively. As you yourself recognize laws do not deter . . . even God could not deter us and He only had Ten laws. Secular laws should be limited to circumscribing behaviors that are societally dangerous . . . not personally immoral. A child in the womb is a part of the mother and subject to her moral conscience and actions. It is not a member of society until it exits the womb.
I do not disagree with you on anything about this issue, GldRule . . . the truth is the truth and reality is reality. Abortion is a hateful, evil, abomination of human selfishness.
However . . . you seem to have abandoned your usual pragmatism and reality orientation in support of an idealistic belief that human laws can in any way impact this abomination positively. As you yourself recognize laws do not deter . . . even God could not deter us and He only had Ten laws. Secular laws should be limited to circumscribing behaviors that are societally dangerous . . . not personally immoral. A child in the womb is a part of the mother and subject to her moral conscience and actions. It is not a member of society until it exits the womb.
The reality is that -- at least in the USA -- the "law" is based on Supreme Court precedent and all laws that came after Roe v Wade had to meet certain standards or be shot down. The Supreme Court took it upon themselves to define when human life begins. Two things can easily change all of that:
A.) A future Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade and the decision reverts back to state governments. Some will continue to allow abortions, but the vast majority will not.
B.) A constitutional amendment passes defining unborn children human beings with the same rights as they will have after they are born.
So saying, "Sure it's bad, but nothing you can ever do will change it" isn't really accurate. If a the President and the majority of both houses of Congress are Pro-Life every time a new Supreme Court justice is chosen, it's not at all inconceivable that Roe v Wade would be overturned in the near future.
I don't think there's a strong enough anti-abortion majority in the USA to get a Constitutional Amendment through just yet. That can change though and that's why giving up the debate on the matter is foolish.
At the end of the day, the American people can over-ride anything that the Supreme Court or Congress try to push on them, and that's a beautiful thing about the US Constitution IMHO. The people have the final say.
I believe it depends on the mother as to whether she is carrying a human being in her womb, by the fact if she loves it or not. A mother who loves her unborn child considers it human and can't wait for the conception whereas on the other hand the mother who made a mistake with the pregnancy sees it as a nuisance, an interference in her life whereby she can't wait to dispose of it and sees it the way the law interprets.
This issue here really does not matter where one is a believer or atheist against abortion, but the love one has for a fetus that they will call their child one day.
Wouldn't this logic make everyone ever born whose mother didn't want them a non-human for the rest of their life?
I don't think that the law can use abstracts like love and hate to define what something is or is not, but maybe that's just me. An unloved unwanted unborn baby and one that is wanted and loved -- they cannot be distinguished from one another any better than two adult human beings. They look the same, grow the same, kick the same, both of them have a heartbeat, etc. Is there any other example where any species is defined as real or fake based upon whether or not it is wanted and loved?
I find it extremely ironic that we as a species do more to protect the life and well being of non-human animals: dogs, cats, horses, lifestock, wild animals, endangered species, etc. -- than we do to protect the unborn of our own species. A California Condor has more rights than a human fetus. Isn't hat odd?
I do not disagree with you on anything about this issue, GldRule . . . the truth is the truth and reality is reality. Abortion is a hateful, evil, abomination of human selfishness.
However . . . you seem to have abandoned your usual pragmatism and reality orientation in support of an idealistic belief that human laws can in any way impact this abomination positively. As you yourself recognize laws do not deter . . . even God could not deter us and He only had Ten laws. Secular laws should be limited to circumscribing behaviors that are societally dangerous . . . not personally immoral. A child in the womb is a part of the mother and subject to her moral conscience and actions. It is not a member of society until it exits the womb.
No Mystic...I'm still fully seated in the saddle of REALITY.
I just see the reality of the offspring developing in the womb as fully an individual entity...unlike you, and others.
I see it as fully objective...based on known science...that regardless of it's "attachment" to the mother...it is completely distinct from her, and has it's own unique identity. And thus should be afforded no less protections under the law than any would be given in the same jurisdiction. The ability of those laws at, "circumscribing behaviors that are societally dangerous" aside.
I have my personal "feelings" as to the moral egregiousness of abortion...but those are my "beliefs about" it. Of course, it's obvious I am opposed from that standpoint as well.
But my "bottom line" conclusion is rooted in the reality of the evidence that I can plainly see to be proven as fact through embryology, genetics, and biology.
ALSO...let me say as a U.S. citizen, and in that "jurisdiction"...when the SCOTUS determined that when life begins, and the "personhood" of the fetus, can't be definitively concluded...then they necessarily should have had to go with the "you can't legally take action to kill what is rustling in the bushes, if you aren't fully certain what it is" position...and viewed "privacy" as a completely bogus reason to usurp that position.
No Mystic...I'm still fully seated in the saddle of REALITY.
I just see the reality of the offspring developing in the womb as fully an individual entity...unlike you, and others.
I see it as fully objective...based on known science...that regardless of it's "attachment" to the mother...it is completely distinct from her, and has it's own unique identity. And thus should be afforded no less protections under the law than any would be given in the same jurisdiction. The ability of those laws at, "circumscribing behaviors that are societally dangerous" aside.
I have my personal "feelings" as to the moral egregiousness of abortion...but those are my "beliefs about" it. Of course, it's obvious I am opposed from that standpoint as well.
But my "bottom line" conclusion is rooted in the reality of the evidence that I can plainly see to be proven as fact through embryology, genetics, and biology.
ALSO...let me say as a U.S. citizen, and in that "jurisdiction"...when the SCOTUS determined that when life begins, and the "personhood" of the fetus, can't be definitively concluded...then they necessarily should have had to go with the "you can't legally take action to kill what is rustling in the bushes, if you aren't fully certain what it is" position...and viewed "privacy" as a completely bogus reason to usurp that position.
You are focused on the wrong issue. We do not disagree about the scientific status of the child as a separate human being. We differ about the "So what should we do about it as a society?" Making the mother a criminal and punishing her is just stupid and accomplishes nothing for the already dead child. It just makes the mother another victim of the criminal element of society . . . just as making drug addicts criminals does nothing to prevent them from entering their drugged stupor . . . it just makes them victims of the criminal element of society. We have to stop this madness and begin to address the real issues that propel women to WANT to kill their offspring (or drug addicts to WANT to be high). Keeping them within legitimate society (away from the criminal element) is a better way to achieving that end. We just need to be smart about finding ways to take the profit out of abortion providers (or drug dealers) . . . so there is no incentive to promote it (or push them). Wherever profit exists . . providers will flourish and promote.
You are focused on the wrong issue. We do not disagree about the scientific status of the child as a separate human being. We differ about the "So what should we do about it as a society?" Making the mother a criminal and punishing her is just stupid and accomplishes nothing for the already dead child. It just makes the mother another victim of the criminal element of society . . . just as making drug addicts criminals does nothing to prevent them from entering their drugged stupor . . . it just makes them victims of the criminal element of society. We have to stop this madness and begin to address the real issues that propel women to WANT to kill their offspring (or drug addicts to WANT to be high). Keeping them within legitimate society (away from the criminal element) is a better way to achieving that end. We just need to be smart about finding ways to take the profit out of abortion providers (or drug dealers) . . . so there is no incentive to promote it (or push them). Wherever profit exists . . providers will flourish and promote.
By that same logic, we should ban all invetero fertilization. After all it is medical science assisting the infertile couple to have a child. Surely their creator knew better when he made them infertile and they should remain w/o child. We should dismiss every single form of life extending drugs and or treatment as the demise of the unhealthy is predetermined by god.
See the slippery slope you have just entered?
All it boils down to, science now has the tools to determine much of what previously was unknown or unseen and it can be used to safely provide a method of terminating a pregnancy with minimal risk to the woman.
In the same vein as your logic, we should NEVER allow abortion even if it is determined the child has no brain, and let the prospective parents suffer the agony of 5-10 minutes as they and medical science including your god stand helplessly by as they watch the newborn die in their arms.
Make no exceptions, after all life begins at conception.
You want to address the problem, the solution is modern sex ed and liberal availability of contraception FREE of charge.
The biggest demographic of abortions is amongst teens and the younger they are the higher the abortion rate. Pretending that abstinence only will address this issue is naive.
By that same logic, we should ban all invetero fertilization. After all it is medical science assisting the infertile couple to have a child. Surely their creator knew better when he made them infertile and they should remain w/o child. We should dismiss every single form of life extending drugs and or treatment as the demise of the unhealthy is predetermined by god.
See the slippery slope you have just entered?
I swear I have no idea how you come up with your responses to my posts. They are farther than left field. You seem determined to impute a fundy attitude to me about God predetermining or demanding things or whatever. I adhere to no such dogma. I have said criminalization is NOT an effective way to address these issues. There is no slippery slope there at all.
Quote:
All it boils down to, science now has the tools to determine much of what previously was unknown or unseen and it can be used to safely provide a method of terminating a pregnancy with minimal risk to the woman.
In the same vein as your logic, we should NEVER allow abortion even if it is determined the child has no brain, and let the prospective parents suffer the agony of 5-10 minutes as they and medical science including your god stand helplessly by as they watch the newborn die in their arms.
Make no exceptions, after all life begins at conception.
You want to address the problem, the solution is modern sex ed and liberal availability of contraception FREE of charge.
The biggest demographic of abortions is amongst teens and the younger they are the higher the abortion rate. Pretending that abstinence only will address this issue is naive.
I don't know who you are addressing but none of the things you berate have anything to do with my views about the proper societal actions to take. In fact, your "FREE of charge contraception idea is in line with my "remove the profit" suggestion. I do personally abhor and despise abortion as an option . . . and I would take every opportunity to discourage it . . . but I do not support criminalizing it. It is a personal moral decision between the mother, her doctor, family and God (whether or not she believes). Like all moral decisions between us and God . . . it is no one else's business.
You are focused on the wrong issue. We do not disagree about the scientific status of the child as a separate human being. We differ about the "So what should we do about it as a society?" Making the mother a criminal and punishing her is just stupid and accomplishes nothing for the already dead child. It just makes the mother another victim of the criminal element of society . . . just as making drug addicts criminals does nothing to prevent them from entering their drugged stupor . . . it just makes them victims of the criminal element of society. We have to stop this madness and begin to address the real issues that propel women to WANT to kill their offspring (or drug addicts to WANT to be high). Keeping them within legitimate society (away from the criminal element) is a better way to achieving that end. We just need to be smart about finding ways to take the profit out of abortion providers (or drug dealers) . . . so there is no incentive to promote it (or push them). Wherever profit exists . . providers will flourish and promote.
I agree in principle with all you've said here Mystic...and your points are well taken.
The only difference is my viewpoint that if the developing child is scientifically known to be "a separate human being"...that any society with laws that offer protection from being killed by another without what would be considered a just cause for taking such action...must necessarily provide that same protection to that developing child, in order to apply the law in a fair and equitable manner.
Anyone then party to killing that child should be held accountable to that law regardless of that one could argue that it "accomplishes nothing for the already dead child"...the same as holding them accountable for any other killing proscribed by law wouldn't really do anything for the person(s) they killed, but would hold them accountable for violating the law.
Also, again, whether the law would or wouldn't deter them is not what I see as the issue...it is that, if we are dealing with a "separate human being" they should be "covered" by the laws like anyone else, whatever the law might be.
Figuring out how we can "move" people to not violate the law or act in an evil manner, is, of course, the ultimate solution...and I do not dispute that.
And in all honesty...I believe you think more along these lines than I do because you are much smarter, much wiser...and to REALLY "tell it like it is"--just simply a "better" person than I am as far as overall quality of character, and being able to find that vibe that is the "Jesus example of complete love, mercy, and forgiveness" within you.
Maybe someday I'll "get there" too...I hope and pray I can.
It was the for profit and WOMAN that want to kill their offspring that I responded to, I should have highlighted that.
Discouraging abortion is already built into the framework of the legislation. Doctors are required to provide counseling pre and post and in the case of minors, they are required to inform the parents in the USA it is a lot stricter as far as minors are concerned, here the applicant can decline as far as the law is concerned but I would think most doctors would still require a waiver signed by a guardian to protect himself should anything go wrong.
Abortion within the 1st trimester and particular in the first 8 weeks where 88% of abortions take place the fetus looks like this;
and can be chemically induced to abort. It results in something akin to a heavy period.
At 20 weeks when our laws become pro life, it looks like this
The Canadian Medical Association's abortion policy defines abortion as the active termination of a pregnancy up to 20 weeks of gestation (Canadian Medical Association, Policy on Induced Abortion, 1988). 90% of abortions in Canada are performed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and just over 9% of abortions take place between 12 and 20 weeks of gestation. A mere 0.4% of abortions take place after 20 weeks of gestation. These are considered late term abortions.
The stats in SA are similar and I am pretty sure in the US follow the same trends.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,029,399 times
Reputation: 11862
I won't read through all the threads, since I already started a 300 page thread about this not long ago (some may remember it).
Actually, I find it sort of surprising that it's mainly the religious who are anti-abortion. While I am a believer, my main objections are ethical, and I think I'd feel the same if I was an atheist. If you think abortion is killing and killing is wrong, saying that only the religious can feel this way kind of shows that it is they who have the 'moral high ground' so to speak, whereas a Christian can be capable of not acknowledging a fetus is a life. I think it's more those who are adamant that God implants a soul into an embryo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wouldn't this logic make everyone ever born whose mother didn't want them a non-human for the rest of their life? 
