[Stealth]

Originally posted by vyper, 10 minutes before he made his next post in this thread.

I'm done with this debate.

I think abortion's wrong, yes.  i think it's a sin to kill an INNOCENT human life (albeit not a full-grown baby, but still...)

but it's even worse for you to say that this 13 year old "still has a chance to lead a normal life". SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO HAVE SEX...[/i], so she damned well should be responsible enough to pay the consequences, without taking the easy way out.

You think having her ****ing insides screwed up, doctors inside her and **** knows what other emotional trauma is just the easy way for her to carry on like nothing has happened?

let's compare the two:

1) she gets an abortion.  highly traumatizing, very emotional... a "big decision" for her to make... over in a few weeks, maybe months.  in fact, for argument's sake... let's say it takes her a year... or at any rate, it'll definately take less than #2
2) she DOESN"T get an abortion: spends 18+ years raising a child.  she'd obviously have to drop out of school, with no more than a junior-high education.  what would she do for a job?  probably nothing, while she's raising the kid... her parents would support her.  10 years later she may go to college, try to get some sort of education to support herself.

Yeah... i'd say getting an abortion IS the easy way out in this case

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by vyper
*holds head in hands* You're doing it AGAIN. You pompus self assured... WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL THIS GIRL HOW TO LIVE HER LIFE, OR HANDLE HER OWN BODY? IT IS NOT EVEN A SENTIENT LIFE FORM SHE IS CARRYING YET.

Not that I agree with them to the extent that they take things, but tell that to PETA. Just because a life form isn't sentient doesn't mean that we can completely ignore how we treat it.

And calm down, sheesh. I'm not gonna go bomb an abortion clinic or anything.

Originally posted by aldo_14
Technically, it'd be a carcass.

That's perfectly fine by me - the analogy still holds for the point I'm trying to make, which is "unborn human offspring" = "life". It doesn't matter whether it happens to have ongoing biological process or not (alive or dead), the point is that the very existance of one on Mars, in any condition, is evidence that there is (ok, was) Life on Mars.

I cannot in good concience deny that a fetus is, IMO, alive.

Oh, and that point about it being able to survive outside the mother's womb? Bollocks. Premature babies often survive just fine - many even without special medical care. And swinging in the other direction, go drop a newborn - heck, even a 6 month old kid - off on the street corner and see how long he or she survives without care.

Originally posted by Ghostavo
Taking Blaise Russel analogy, if some guy were to trespass (sp?) in a private/government property and for example get a gangrenous leg would it be unacceptable for the guy to have it taken care of? Or would he have to continue to have his leg gangrenous?

...which is an oversimplification in the other direction, since there's not the issue of whether the leg is it's own living being.

IIRC, the mother's blood does not mix with the fetus' at all. Two seperate circulatory systems. Hmm.

Originally posted by vyper
You think having her ****ing insides screwed up, doctors inside her and **** knows what other emotional trauma is just the easy way for her to carry on like nothing has happened?

Now I said I was leaving and I am - but that girl has a chance to get her future back  -  a painful chance but a chance nonetheless.

Bringing us back to my original question... ...why isn't there a more solid and cohesive link between unwanted children and barren couples? Aborting a child does cause immense emotional trauma (and I highly dout that the 13 year old in question is aware of the extent of this; whether she's old enough to be responsible or not, she's pregnant, and should at the very least be aware of the consequences of whichever path might be taken), far more than carrying the child through to birth. Yes, her life won't be "ideal" for the next 9 months, but she lives in a shelter, as aldo pointed out, so I doubt it's "ideal" anyway.

I guess the simple answer would be "beauracracy", but is that all it is?

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by Sandwich
...which is an oversimplification in the other direction, since there's not the issue of whether the leg is it's own living being.

IIRC, the mother's blood does not mix with the fetus' at all. Two seperate circulatory systems. Hmm.

Actually, no. I was targeting your position that the only way to 'take responsibility' for something was to grin and bear it; that removing the problem was undesirable because it was 'cheating'. Also, I was concerned about associating 'sex' with 'taking responsibility'.



Way I see it, issue of whether baby is alive or not is not strictly relevant. Human society shouldn't be making grand promises to protect 'all humans, whether they be zygotes or pensioners,' while people are still running around killing each other for silly, stupid reasons. A cluster of four cells may be alive, may be human, but it doesn't count as a member of society that can be protected by society's laws to me.

'Course, it's a gradual process, this becoming, that in truth technically starts years before anybody actually has sex, and I'm not in favour of late-term abortions because the baby is now so close to entering society, and may indeed actually be capable of doing so, that aborting it enters a dangerous area. Furthermore, it may be that the process of killing something so obviously not a bunch of cells is even traumatic to the people involved (nevermind the baby, of course).

[Ghostavo]

Now that I think of it, if adoption is such an issue, why wasn't the girl in the middle of this whole mess adopted?

[Kosh]

I'll remind you of the recent study that concluded that humans have reduced(sometimes non-existant) capacity for responsible thought and/or action until somewhere around the age of 25.

Interesting. I never heard of that study. Can you give me a link to it? I'm interested in seeing the rest of it.....

SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO HAVE SEX...,

And one thing that you people seem to forget is that (at least in the developed world), sex is NOT really about reproduction anymore. Being ready for sex and being ready to be a parent are two different things.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Not that I agree with them to the extent that they take things, but tell that to PETA. Just because a life form isn't sentient doesn't mean that we can completely ignore how we treat it.

And calm down, sheesh. I'm not gonna go bomb an abortion clinic or anything.

That's perfectly fine by me - the analogy still holds for the point I'm trying to make, which is "unborn human offspring" = "life". It doesn't matter whether it happens to have ongoing biological process or not (alive or dead), the point is that the very existance of one on Mars, in any condition, is evidence that there is (ok, was) Life on Mars.

I cannot in good concience deny that a fetus is, IMO, alive.

Oh, and that point about it being able to survive outside the mother's womb? Bollocks. Premature babies often survive just fine - many even without special medical care. And swinging in the other direction, go drop a newborn - heck, even a 6 month old kid - off on the street corner and see how long he or she survives without care.
 

Again, you're missing the point.  A 6 month baby is capable of digesting and processing food, and of feeding itself, even if that is simply a suck and grab instinct.  A foetus is entirely dependent upon the nutrition provided via the mothers womb; in that sense it cannot survive once seperated.  Once it can, i.e. in terms of having the developed organs to breathe, digest, remove waste, etc, abortion is usually prohibited in non-exceptional cases (i.e. may be allowed where the mothers health is threatened).

Now, if your opinion the foetus is alive, that's fine.  I have no objections to that.  What I'm saying, is that opinion is just that; it's not been factually proven to be alive.  Medical opinion holds life - human life - beginning at a certain point.  Personal opinion may shorten that time.  But I don't think personal opinion is a solid basis for creating laws that affect everyone - hence I am pro-choice, i.e. I believe the law should not judge which personal opinion is right, but stick to the known medical facts which have been proven right.  The rest, we should be able to determine for ourselves.

Originally posted by Sandwich

IIRC, the mother's blood does not mix with the fetus' at all. Two seperate circulatory systems. Hmm.
 

Actually, the mothers blood travels through the umbilical cord to the placenta, where nutrients (some harmful ones are blocked) are passed onto the developing embryo  / foetus / child; the placenta is considered a part of both mother and child (as it contains genetic material from both).

On a general note - 90% of us here are probably hypocrites.  At least, we have no experience, no personal knowledge to make an honest judgement as to what is right.  I think a lot of people are considering the 'easy way out' as being the one they regard as wrong; they're simplifying the arguement to suit their position, to apply their moral, ethical, personal, etc opinion to everyone as justification for holding it.  Abortion becomes 'easy', women who have one become 'hedonists'.... for me that's wrong.  I've seen only one person here who's properly qualified to speak of the issues here.

Oh, and Stealth - and everyone else who's seemingly selectively blind towards this;She does not have parents.  She is in a state shelter. [/i][/b]

I hope that makes that clear (for the third and final time I've said it...nggh); please consider that in your reasoning over if and how she would care for a child.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
Now that I think of it, if adoption is such an issue, why wasn't the girl in the middle of this whole mess adopted?

Good point. I didn't see anyone lining up to take care of her. Right now there are thousends of children in care in the US. I don't see anyone lining up to take care of them either.

I've said it before. Get every single child out of care and then maybe I'd believe the people who say that all these unwanted pregnacies would actually be wanted children.

Originally posted by Stealth
... the day people start comparing a human life, the most precious thing on this planet, to a plant, is the day i fear our species is ...... oh wait, you just did

I guess analogy is just a type of watch to you

Next time pay attention to the context.

[Fineus]

Can you guys please calm down? If not you know I'm going to have to lock this.

[Swamp_Thing]

I think we can drop the "Life on Mars" analogy for this discussion.
Scientists aren´t exactlly looking for little green men in Mars. If they find bacteria or even unicelular creatures on Mars, they will still regard it as alien "life". We are not discussing wether a fetus qualifies as life or not, we know it does. Even the baby´s placenta can be considered "life", as it is composed of living tissue. But that´s not the issue. The issue is wether a fetus can be considered an individual, and as such wether it´s warranted to have rights like any other individual.
The thing is, a fetus 4 or so months old is no more an individual anymore than a guy´s leg or arm. It´s a bunch of cells arranged to form tissue, but it hardly has a conscience yet. During the first few months, a fetus is only an extension of the mother´s body. It breaths through the mother, it feeds through the mother, it´s a part of the mother. Only when that fetus grows to be able to sustain itself, should it be considered a seperate entity. Untill then, it´s just like any other organ.
We are not disputing wether it´s alive or not, we know it is. But is it a seperate individual? Does it have a "soul" yet? I think not.

Now, here´s a seperate issue that is very important for this discussion:
If anti-abortionists think a fetus is a fully formed individual, then isn´t sperm aswell? Where is the line drawn? And if sperm is "alive", isn´t the simple action of ejaculating a full pledged genocide? And what about masturbation? How many of the so-called pro-lifers haven´t masturbated at some point in life? And in having done so, aren´t they just as quilty as any woman who aborts?
Before you pro-lifers start saying "we don´t masturbate, never!", i doubt there is even one person in this forum who hasn´t done it at some point. Wether you admit it or not.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Kosh
And one thing that you people seem to forget is that (at least in the developed world), sex is NOT really about reproduction anymore. Being ready for sex and being ready to be a parent are two different things.

Then what the hell is it for you hedonistic bugger?

Sex is the one romantic act that invariably will lead to being a parent if it is performed enough times.  Voluntarily having sex with any member of the opposite gender is tacitly signalling that you are ready to become a parent.  It's one of the reasons that it should be reserved for the marriage bond.(but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish and let's stay on topic here).  If you don't want to become a parent, you simply shouldn't be having sex.  As has been shown by example(see Flipsides post above), "safe" sex can lead to pregnancy just as easy as "unprotected" sex.

Sex is(so I've been told) a wonderful thing, but if you are in a relationship and want to take the next step...IT CALLED MARRIAGE YOU MORON!

[vyper]

Since the topic has changed I feel I can now jump back in.

Lib - go get a) laid b) a girlfriend (in any order you wish) before you try and tell other people what sex is about.

[karajorma]

Lib. If you feel the need to start calling people names I hope you enjoy being a monkey again. Quite frankly you deserve it and this time you can't complain that Kazan provoked you.

Simple fact is that Kosh is right. Even between many christian couples sex is about pleasure and intimacy. Reproduction is a secondary consideration.

The days when women used to lie back and wait for the nastiness to be over are long gone.

[Liberator]

Kara, you're right(about the name calling), and I apologize.

But you must see the logic of it:

Sex invariably leads to pregnancy.  To avoid pregnancy don't have sex.

It's quite simple.

Also, I view it as a test of Sentience.  A sentient being can override their hormonal/instinctual responses to a given situation.  Warriors do not fear during combat.  Politicians do not fear during public speaking.  And couples should not **** until they are married.

But no, everywhere you look, humans, supposedly sentient and supposedly beyond the influence of instinct are rutting around like a bunch of animals.  I wonder sometimes if we are actually sentient or just a bunch of well trained animals whose masters died off or left us alone.

[karajorma]

I've seen your picture. Should I apply the same logic to the fact that you're rather heavy set? The fact that you can't stop eating should perhaps be used as a sentience test too? The fact that despite the fact that you know that eating less would make you slimmer but yet you choose to eat anyway and can't override your hormonal/instinctual response to eat when something is placed in front of you should also be used to say you fail perhaps? After all an animal will eat when food is placed in front of it as long as it isn't completely full. Overfeed any animal and it will get fat because it lacks the capacity to stop itself.


Personally I don't think having sex is even wrong let alone something you can use in that way. Nor do I think you can simply say that fat people are stupid because they didn't stop eating.

But if you think that way I'd love to hear your explaination for why you're sentient.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by Liberator
Kara, you're right(about the name calling), and I apologize.

But you must see the logic of it:

Sex invariably leads to pregnancy.  To avoid pregnancy don't have sex.

It's quite simple.

Also, I view it as a test of Sentience.  A sentient being can override their hormonal/instinctual responses to a given situation.  Warriors do not fear during combat.  Politicians do not fear during public speaking.  And couples should not **** until they are married.

But no, everywhere you look, humans, supposedly sentient and supposedly beyond the influence of instinct are rutting around like a bunch of animals.  I wonder sometimes if we are actually sentient or just a bunch of well trained animals whose masters died off or left us alone.

...

Because I just got back from a vacation I won't blow this to pieces.

[Fineus]

Alright then, seeing as a second complaint has been made about this thread and it seems a couple of you really can't keep it civil, this is now closed. You had your chance and blew it.

In addition, Lib, I believe you can read. Calling someone a moron like that two posts after my request that everyone calm it down is not the smartest move. Chill out or your posting privlages will be removed.