[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

It's human life in that it's an organism, and it sure as hell won't grow into a rabbit. I certainly agree that conception is nothing magical, but my point is really that it's a gray area of semantics and emotional connotations.

precisely

[Grug]

Humans can become emotionally attached to a blanket as well as fellow human.
Slightly different things yes, but thats why the mother should have the last say. Within common sense guidelines.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

wasn't it in the other thread....moral dilemma, where somneone posted that an unborn child begins to produce brainwaves as early as two weeks?  Yes i do remember reading that.  In order for brainwaves to be produced, it would infer that there is a brain active during that time...as oposed to a person who is on life support in a hospital and showing no brain activity.

This would also infer a cetral nervous system...of sorts.

No brain no pain?  brain.  pain?  see that's my whole problem with this abortion issue.  when does life begin?  as far as i am concerned, it begins when brain waves are detected.  Now i didn't bother to check up on that statement for validity, but if it is true, then by the admission of some of the people in here, life begins as early as two weeks into the pregnancy.  brainwaves are very much individual, so then it would stand to reason that the unborn is an individual as early as two weeks.

I know i read it in the other thread, but can't remember who wrote it, and i am to0o damned tired to go hunting.  I am going to operate on the assumption that this is factual, if someone would like to prove that wrong, then please do so, and maybe my way of thinking can be changed.  Then again, porbably not.  

as soon as those cells divide and attach, i tihnk that it should be considered a human life.  that is my emotional response.  my logical response is the above stated.  

But to be perfectly honest, i lean more toward my emotional side in this issue.  A mother should not have the right to decide alone whether a child that is yet unborn should live or die.  I disagree with pro choice, because contrary to popular belief in here, Life should not be an alternative to abortion.  Life should be given a chance.  I think that this is a particularly heinous act, in that, in my opinion, life starts earlier than the law says it does, so we are killing defenseless children.  We murder for birth control.  The daughter of a friend of mine, (she lived with her mother) has had no less than 6 abortions.  I think that this borders on just plain ridiculous.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
wasn't it in the other thread....moral dilemma, where somneone posted that an unborn child begins to produce brainwaves as early as two weeks?  

A) brainwaves != consciousness
B) brainwaves != able to survive outside of mothers body without the aid of medical technology

[ShadowWolf_IH]

and there is a difference between killing that unborn child, and pulling the plug on someone.  in the case of the child, if left alone, they will probably continue to develop, in the case of the person on medical life support, if left alone they will do nothing.  

that arguement is invalid kazan.  nowhere did i mention consciousness, or the ability to survive outside the womb.  It was merely to point out that brainwaves mean that there is a brain present as early as two weeks.  Now if you would like to show me where this is in fact NOT true, i will be more than happy to listen to you about it.

[Kazan]

i want you to show me the medical documents that say that brainwaves can be detected at 2 weeks because im calling BS

(PS: the court doesn't deal in "can be" - and it cannot consider something that is not an individual - in the eyes of the court non-individuals do not exist)

[ShadowWolf_IH]

If you read the first post, then you know where i got the bit of information, and you also knowq that i am tired and don't feel like hunting.  Call BS if you like, or go hunt for yourself if you want to change my mind.  I also said that if you would like to find something that would prove that statement to be false i would be more than willing to listen to you about it.  That was sincere and not sarcastic.  and it still stands.

[Sapphire]

Originally posted by Genryu
Clicky.

Right now, I'm trying very much not to bash the US government upside down. Since Kazan's back, and with Rictor lurking, I think I'll let them do it, they're so much more experienced at this than me
 

Still, sad to see than even China is doing better on human rights than the USA (or at least its government).

I would like to draw attention away from the pro-life vs pro-choice argument and back to the original intent of this thread for a moment.  Genryu states that China is doing a better job on human rights than the USA...especially in light of this article.

Lets just for a moment look at China...  China imposes Birth Control Policies on its people, and limits the number of children a family can have.  This is Human Rights?  (And yes...I do see the problem of over population there, so you needen't point that out)   Families with only one child (most likely a boy--having elliminated any girls which may have been born first) are given preferential treatment.  It even rewards women who abort their children.    

So when we talk about abortion in China, we need to consider the total picture...  not just the right/wrong, of abortion itself.

I would venture a guess the the US seeks more stringent controls on the abortion issue in China because the Bejing conference was about equal rights for Chinese women--Including the right for a girl-child to not be aborted because it wasn't a male.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sapphire


I would like to draw attention away from the pro-life vs pro-choice argument and back to the original intent of this thread for a moment.  Genryu states that China is doing a better job on human rights than the USA...especially in light of this article.

Lets just for a moment look at China...  China imposes Birth Control Policies on its people, and limits the number of children a family can have.  This is Human Rights?  (And yes...I do see the problem of over population there, so you needen't point that out)   Families with only one child (most likely a boy--having elliminated any girls which may have been born first) are given preferential treatment.  It even rewards women who abort their children.    

So when we talk about abortion in China, we need to consider the total picture...  not just the right/wrong, of abortion itself.

I would venture a guess the the US seeks more stringent controls on the abortion issue in China because the Bejing conference was about equal rights for Chinese women--Including the right for a girl-child to not be aborted because it wasn't a male.

If the US position was based on that (rather than faith), don't you think someone else would have agreed with them?  This was a conference for Womens Rights, remember - they're not exactly likely to endorse a (10 year old) document allowing gender discrimination as a reason for abortion. (EDIT; it prohibits it, anyways)

Besides which, this doesn't have a single bloody thing to do with China or the Chinese government beyond the fact the document came from a conference held in China.  It's not a Chinese document, it's a United Nations one.

See http://www.un.org/esa/gopher-data/conf/fwcw/off/a--20.en (specifically section 106 k), i) and especially section 277 c) (which specifically prohibits the sex-bias you're referring to).  If you want to know the US position at the time, it's in section 30; the Vatican perspective is 11, and has a go against unmarried relationships, the right to choose sexual orientation and generally reinterprets everything to fit their own stuff.  

And the Iranians have a go about the whole thing in general in a subtle way ('importance of the family unit' and soforth;i.e. we don't want equal male-female rights).

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
wasn't it in the other thread....moral dilemma, where somneone posted that an unborn child begins to produce brainwaves as early as two weeks?  

I'm certainly not going to take that as proof of anything. I'd want to see the comparison against other living creatures and embryos of other animals before it can be taken of proof of anything.

For all we know a beetle may have stronger brainwaves than an embryo twice that age.

[Sapphire]

Well considering that the US objects to the current idea that Abortion is a "human right", it also means that current funding to the UN will be cut from the US to support such things as the encouraged abortions in China.  I, as a tax payer, feel much better that my money would be channeled towards abstinence programs rather than funding countries that support "abortion as birth control" around the world.  

You can say that a fetus isn't human all you want....but as Ford Prefect pointed out, it sure won't develop into a rabbit.  I hope the US holds it's stance.

Hmmmm...  Wikipedia says this:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Abortion, refers to the voluntary or induced murder of an unborn human being, generally through the use of surgical procedures or drugs. As a result, birth does not take place.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sapphire
Well considering that the US objects to the current idea that Abortion is a "human right", it also means that current funding to the UN will be cut from the US to support such things as the encouraged abortions in China.  I, as a tax payer, feel much better that my money would be channeled towards abstinence programs rather than funding countries that support "abortion as birth control" around the world.  

Actually, that means the Us will oppose all funding for any part of the womens rights treaty (you can't pick and choose the human rights you want to implement from these agreements).  Oddly enough, that includes the right to choose sexuality and the protections against forced abortion within there.

Originally posted by Sapphire

You can say that a fetus isn't human all you want....but as Ford Prefect pointed out, it sure won't develop into a rabbit.  I hope the US holds it's stance.

That's not the issue, though.  It's not about whether or not the foetus is human, it's about whether it is alive at the point when abortion is legal.

Originally posted by Sapphire
Hmmmm...  Wikipedia says this:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Abortion, refers to the voluntary or induced murder of an unborn human being, generally through the use of surgical procedures or drugs. As a result, birth does not take place.

That's because Wikipedia - being open to free public editing - was changed to a biased entry.  If you check the revisions page and current text (amongst a host of changes to remove previous vandalism and POV statements), you'll see that's been reverted to;

[q]Abortion, in its most common usage, refers to the voluntary or induced termination of pregnancy, generally through the use of surgical procedures or drugs. As a result, birth does not take place. Medically, the term also refers to the early termination of a pregnancy by natural causes ("spontaneous abortion" or miscarriage), which ends one in five of all pregnancies, usually within the first thirteen weeks, or to the cessation of normal growth of a body part or organ.[/q]


Out of curiousity, do you support the death penalty, then?  I'd presume not, as it would seem somewhat hypocritical to support a system which actively kills human beings (and not just the guilty ones...) when criticising something which you say has the same effect.

[aldo_14]

US backing down in abortion row

Incidentally, on the US anti-abortion policy (denying funding to any group which provides information or advice about abortion); US exports anti-abortion policy

[Sapphire]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Actually, that means the Us will oppose all funding for any part of the womens rights treaty (you can't pick and choose the human rights you want to implement from these agreements).  

[/B]

The column said that it was a specific fund they were withholding from-- the UN Population Fund.  So in this case the funding has nothing to do with the other rights.  

That's not the issue, though.  It's not about whether or not the foetus is human, it's about whether it is alive at the point when abortion is legal.

[/B]

Its alive in its unique environment.  If someone shoots you into outerspace without benefit of a suit or ship, does the fact that you are unable to sustain yourself in that environment negate the fact that you are a living creature while you were dependent on earth for life support?

That's because Wikipedia - being open to free public editing - was changed to a biased entry.  If you check the revisions page and current text (amongst a host of changes to remove previous vandalism and POV statements), you'll see that's been reverted to;

[/B]

Thank you for the education...  I was not aware of that  In otherwords its not a very reliable source...

 

Out of curiousity, do you support the death penalty, then?  I'd presume not, as it would seem somewhat hypocritical to support a system which actively kills human beings (and not just the guilty ones...) when criticising something which you say has the same effect.

Ironically, yes I do.... IF a person is a repeat offender, IF the crime was unprovoked, and IF there was collaborated eye-witnessing of the murder(s).  You may say I'm hypocritical, but I cannot in any way, shape or form, compare a fetus (who has done no wrong, other than being unwanted) to that kind of criminal.  Now say....if the fetus went on a mindless killing spree I would abort the little sh*t myself....

[Kazan]

hey Sapphire - do you know that it's a proven fact that "Absistance programs" not only fail, but they make things worse

[Sapphire]

 

[Sapphire]

 

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sapphire


The column said that it was a specific fund they were withholding from-- the UN Population Fund.  So in this case the funding has nothing to do with the other rights.  

The UN population fund is set to address multiple aspects of human rights concerning reproductive activity; i.e. including all the aspects of the Beijing treaty (or agreement), such as sex education, combat of HIV/AIDs, sexual freedom, ect. ( http://www.unfpa.org/about/index.htm )

 I can't speak for the bias behind this other source - http://www.uscommittee.org/myth.html - but it states;

The Bush Administration and UNFPA

During his first year in office, President George W. Bush provided funding to UNFPA and Secretary of State Colin Powell praised the agency in his public testimony to Congress. The Administration also requested additional assistance for UNFPA to support emergency efforts undertaken to help Afghan refugees in the aftermath of the fall of the Taliban.

In 2002 the Administration abruptly put funding on hold, UNFPA’s work in China. A State Department team traveled to China to determine whether or not UNFPA supports or participates in the country’s coercive family planning activities. Their report to Secretary of State Colin Powell on May 21, 2002 stated: “We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary stabilization in the [People’s Republic of China]…We therefore recommend that not more than $34 million, which has already been appropriated, be released to UNFPA.”

Ignoring this recommendation, the Bush Administration withheld $34 million in congressionally-approved funding in 2002. The next year $25 million was blocked and another $34 million in 2004.

The Impact of Funding Withdrawal
Concretely, experts estimate that $34 million could prevent:

    * 2 million unwanted pregnancies
    * 800,000 abortions
    * 4,700 maternal deaths
    * 77,000 infant and toddler deaths

Originally posted by Sapphire


Its alive in its unique environment.  If someone shoots you into outerspace without benefit of a suit or ship, does the fact that you are unable to sustain yourself in that environment negate the fact that you are a living creature while you were dependent on earth for life support?

In space you're immediately dead, so i'm not sure what your point is... what i mean is, the human body when alive is able to provide for itself and sustain itself.  It needs certain conditions, of course, but it functions independently within those.

A foetus can't; it relies on a secondary entity to perform that role; it simply cannot live as an independent individual under any conditions because it needs that (for lack of a better word) proxy source.

Originally posted by Sapphire
Thank you for the education...  I was not aware of that  In otherwords its not a very reliable source...

Wikipedia is usually actually fairly reliable, because this sort of stuff gets excised very quickly; there's a very strong emphasis on Neutral Point of View within the 'harcore' community there.  It's a very good source for links, at least.
 

Originally posted by Sapphire

Ironically, yes I do.... IF a person is a repeat offender, IF the crime was unprovoked, and IF there was collaborated eye-witnessing of the murder(s).  You may say I'm hypocritical, but I cannot in any way, shape or form, compare a fetus (who has done no wrong, other than being unwanted) to that kind of criminal.  Now say....if the fetus went on a mindless killing spree I would abort the little sh*t myself....

And what if the person is innocent?  Framed, perhaps?  I appreciate you've put a degree of caveat to counter that, but it's still possible, surely?   Of course, i just thing execution is the wrong type of punishment altogether, even for the unequivocally guilty.

I think long term prison is a more effective punishment, and I don't think you can gain the moral high ground by killing people.  Plus you can't execute people multiple times, i.e. if they are serial/multiple killers.  But it's not worth getting into the capital punishment debate here anyways, I was just curious.

EDIT;

Originally posted by Sapphire
Hey Kazan....show me unbiased proof.   Abortions are being performed around the world ever day at an incredible rate.  No where have I read that pro-abortion programs are "succeeding" in curbing the problem.

I know offhand that studies have discovered that young teenage members of abstinance only programs (I think it was the 'Silver Ring Thing' or something) have a higher rate of unplanned pregnancy & VSs than those who have had a standard sexual eduction, as the abstinance kids haven't had adequate education on contraception.

NB: It's 'pro-choice', not 'pro-abortion'.  There's no such thing as a pro-abortion programme.... just one which provides complete information on what abortion is and entails, and usually alongside sexual information such as contraception.

Oh, and that second BBC article describes how abortions can increase as the result of a lack of education on contraception (which goes hand-in-hand with abstinance programs)

EDIt; dammn.....long posts today....

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sapphire
thank you aldo....I really enjoyed those articles.

I think as long as we are speaking of rights....why doesn't the US have the right to choose what it will fund?  

Are these articles saying that the US is the only source of funding for these abortion clinics and programs?  And its the only one responsible for carrying on the work of abortionists?  So if the US cuts its funding its the Big Bad Guy?

Where is Britain?  Can't they cough up more funding if they feel so strongly about the right to abort?  How about France?  And China....they are very in favor of it.  Where's all the bucks from the other countries?  Or does everyone feel that its the US's responsibility to carry the majority of the financial burden?

Well, the US is the worlds richest country, for one thing.  But I think the main issue is the sudden withdrawal of funds; it's not that other countries don't try to fund this, but they already have full budgets set up... suddenly switching to fund extra places where the US has abandoned funding might be logistically and financially impossible.

China... I don't know.  It does plow money into certain governments and organisations, I think, in Africa as part of a strategy of influence and resource access, but I don't know its focus.  Athough what China does or doesn't do shouldn't affect how 'good' what the US - or any other country - contribution is, because these things need to be done on individual merits rather than via comparison.

But with regards to specific withdrawal, the US effectively said 'do what we say or we take our money away'... I don't think that's charity.  I think that's ideological bribery, and it's probably counter-productive.

Oh, and I'd point out these places aren't abortionists.  They offer neutral advice and information on abortion, they don't perform it.  They're primarily just family planning / sexual health clinics.

[WeatherOp]

Man, Aldo, do you have to post so long?


And I think that the number of abortions each year shows what state the world is in, And I bet 98.8% of the abortions that take place out of marriage, and that is sad.