[Tiara]

Originally posted by icespeed
2) an unborn baby is an innocent human being.

this is the whole thing. How do we determine when (or even wether) an unborn baby is actually alive?

But I do agree that if you get pregnant by accident or rape, you have to decide right then and there wether you want the child or not. And don't come crying after s5-6 months that you suddenly changed your mind.

That's why I really love the way they've done it here. It's only possible to get an abortion within the first 22 weeks of conception, otherwise it is in fact illigal to do so.

[Flipside]

Well, 'Pro-Life' is such a wonderfully all-encompassing phrase isn't it?

And quite quite misleading.

We think in the 'here and now' terms with life, and, as usual, turn a blind-eye to the future. Take the stance on Stem Cell research, many Pro-Lifers would rather see a Mother have a child from a Rapist than allow the undeveloped foetus to be used for research, which could save the life a child who is wanted by another Mother in 10 years time.

So Pro-Life isn't actually promoting the enhancement of life as such, it would be closer to say the two groups are 'Pro Choice' and 'Anti-Choice'.

[Ford Prefect]

Ford, you ever wonder why there are so few real Nihilists? It's cause nobody likes a party pooper.

Well, for what it's worth, I usually refer to myself as an existentialist, because while I do believe that all existence is meaningless, I usually step back and concede that I would prefer to have a certain level of organization in society, for the sake of happiness.

Also, I would disagree with your inference. There are so few nihilists/existentialists because there are only a few of us who take obscene, masochistic pleasure in dealing with absurdity. It is the urge of all people, myself included, to assign meaning to things, but to an existentialist, the artificiality of this meaning is sort of a like a splinter in the brain; it's just stuck there for good. I embrace it as my artistic inspiration.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Flipside
Well, 'Pro-Life' is such a wonderfully all-encompassing phrase isn't it?

And quite quite misleading.

We think in the 'here and now' terms with life, and, as usual, turn a blind-eye to the future. Take the stance on Stem Cell research, many Pro-Lifers would rather see a Mother have a child from a Rapist than allow the undeveloped foetus to be used for research, which could save the life a child who is wanted by another Mother in 10 years time.

So Pro-Life isn't actually promoting the enhancement of life as such, it would be closer to say the two groups are 'Pro Choice' and 'Anti-Choice'.

But, then what will happen if that child you kill, even tho it was from a rapist, was the one who cured cancer, or mental retardation. A you can say that there will be another one born who will find it anyways, but if thats the case, then where is another Albert Instien and if there was another one like him, it would have been far too late too drop the bomb on Japan, and thousands and thousands of soiders would have died, or what would have happened if they had the tech and aborted George Washington, John Adams and Ben Franklin. We might not have the freedom we have now.


I know this falls on deaf ears, and wonder why I saying this. And I promise this will be the last message on this subject, since Me, Ford and Gank don't mix well.

[Flipside]

Well, think of the trouble we might have avoided had Hitler or Pol Pot been aborted? The times produce the people in far more cases than we care to admit

I suppose that's the whole thing though isn't it? If we use the 'could be a genius/could be a tyrant' argument, it all boils down to 50/50 so it may as well be personal choice anyway.

The question I always ask at a time like this though, is, if a way were found to identify Homosexual tendencies in an unborn foetus, I wonder what a fair percentage of 'Pro-Life' campaigners position would be on abortion then?

[Gank]

Umm, not being smart or anything but your name doesnt really set off any bells in my head.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Flipside
The question I always ask at a time like this though, is, if a way were found to identify Homosexual tendencies in an unborn foetus, I wonder what a fair percentage of 'Pro-Life' campaigners position would be on abortion then?

The pro-life people would remain pro-life, because they hold that you can change your sexual orientation.  But the homosexual lobby would switch to pro-life, because they hold that you can't.

[WeatherOp]

I gonna break my promise.


Even if they are gonna be gay, they still should not be aborted. But, being gay is a choice, not a born in thing. But, I'm not gonna get into that subject. And even if they were another Hitler they should should still get a chance to live.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
I think that abortion should be legal only when the baby is still dependent on it's attachment to the mother. if the baby is able to survive with out the umbillical cord (whether by forced removal or early birth), then abortionm should be illegal.

Besides, you went through about 7 months with this child, why not just have the last 2 months and just birth it?

Actually, that is the legal position; there's a certain time period in the pregnancy after which abortion is illegal.

I think the whole issue of abortion is determined by whether you believe life begins at birth or at some point of cellular embryonic development; which is a matter of faith rather than empirical fact.

At the moment abortion law uses the scientific definition of life (and dependency upon the mother) to determine when abortion is legal and when it is not.  I think extending that to a blanket ban is forcing a belief (not necessarily religious) upon people - and that people should have a moral right to decide when and if abortion is 'right'.  Basically, the mothers right to choose.

[icespeed]

the thing is, science is allowing earlier and earlier preemie survival. used to be, if you were thirty-six weeks then it was touch-and-go. now they've got incubators and respirators and stuff, it's twenty-eight weeks. what if they invent artificial wombs and manage to support embryos from conception? (not likely, but it's a possibility.) so it's kinda moving towards pro-life/anti-choice if you define abortion as immoral if the baby can survive without the mother.

and saying 'what if the kid will be hitler or einstein' is putting everything down to fate. you might as well not bother with the whole free will business if you say, oh yeah, but that kid might turn out to cure cancer. it's like you're forcing someone into a role. and besides we don't know if they will be a genius or whatever, so that's entirely irrelevant anyway.

[Ford Prefect]

so it's kinda moving towards pro-life/anti-choice if you define abortion as immoral if the baby can survive without the mother.

Well I don't know about other people, but I don't go for the conditional abortion stance. Either you deny it to everyone or you grant everyone the right, and accept that many people will use that right in a way that you believe is immoral.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by icespeed
the thing is, science is allowing earlier and earlier preemie survival. used to be, if you were thirty-six weeks then it was touch-and-go. now they've got incubators and respirators and stuff, it's twenty-eight weeks. what if they invent artificial wombs and manage to support embryos from conception? (not likely, but it's a possibility.) so it's kinda moving towards pro-life/anti-choice if you define abortion as immoral if the baby can survive without the mother.

It's only defined as immoral because the foetus is at that stage alive, though; the issue is not whether or not the foetus can live, because that's wholly presumptative.  

Abortion law is not about morality, but protecting the rights of the child. The issue over the legality of abortion, is when does that foetus become a living child which is to be protected (has rights)?

We can't really form laws on the basis of morality but societal harm anyways; the sort of universal lawas against rape, murder, theft, etc can be clearly defined as crimes because they do tangible damage.  

With abortion, the concept of damage is highly subjective; is you view a foetus as being alive, then it's murder but if you view a foetus as a set of differentiating cells (not alive), then it isn't. It's only when that foetus becomes legally a person (not based on any religious or personal notions of when life begins, but the best unbiased scientific evidence) that it should be protected.