[General Battuta]

If people like Mongoose and TESLA want to define human life as beginning at conception, fine. But don't force that view on me or my friends. Practice it in your own lives rather than trying to enshrine it in legislation.

Why not? Isn't that what EVERYONE is doing?
Aren't people who want abortion legalized doing the same - pushing their own agenda/beliefs, enshrine it into a legislation.

No, because they're not forcing people to have abortions. They're just permitting it. 'You can do this, if you want to' is very different from 'you MUST NOT DO THIS.'

How is not wanting a foreign entity leeching off your body not a medical issue? Also, when men have to be responsible after knocking someone up, then you can *****. As it is now, only women have to deal with it, and it's men who make up the vast majority of morons crying "take responsibility for your actions!"

Bull****.
Men have to take equal responsiblity - if not more. They have to take care of the child and mother. If they decide to bail on the girl they should be friggin castrated...no, hung from the highest tree by their balls and THEN castrated.

The worst men have to do is pay for the kid and change some diapers. They never have to deal with an invasion of their own body. The women already suffer friggin' castration, or at least near-equivalent physical change! Nine months as a handicapped, hormonal, invalid are way outside the male responsibility.

I think we're just working from fundamentally different grounds here. I don't know why anyone would care about a bundle of cells that much. There are billions of them. Billions have been wasted, billions more will be. A few more or less is irrelevant. Perhaps it's murder, but it's a commonplace and harmless kind.

You know, if you have been talking about humans, it the above would stil lapply. I mena, humans are jsut a bunch of cells. nothing special. There's billions of them and many die each die. A few more don't make a difference...

Point already addressed above. Please read posts.

I sincerely hope your world never comes to pass, Mongoose. You ask for the restriction of a fundamental freedom (self-determination) and the fundamental enslavement of women to a biological flaw they never asked for. I hope that such inequity will never be enshrined in law or in culture.

  fundametal freedom    enslavement    Oh, that's rich.

Women didn't ask to be born as baby factories. They certainly don't want to live as them.

You apparently can't think of any disagreement, though. Quite a fumble.

[TESLA]

Unfortunately, human beings are really, really bad at putting themselves in the shoes of others. Psychologists call this 'egocentric cognition' and it's most famously demonstrated by an experiment involving the whistling of common tunes.

Your right about this to an extent. Choosing the moral high grand, in a sense, without actually being in that situation can seem like hypocritical.
But (there is always a but...) sometimes people choose the wrong action out of fear, terror or afraid of a social stigma.

I just can't understand the 'life trumps all other concerns' argument when many of the fetuses being aborted are indistinguishable from the billions that naturally fail (or are only a few weeks past that stage.)

Those that survive are very distinguishable, thats what is important, of all the possible combinations, all the chances, variations, the person that will emerge, will be like you said unique

Yet billions of them vanish without ever getting a chance at life. If a few more vanish due to human intent, why does that matter?

see above point.

If I had never been born, well, then, I guess that would be a bummer

Awwww then we couldnt have this debate

There's a higher freedom to consider here, though. And that is the freedom to hold a view about morality and the world. If someone else doesn't believe the same way you do about the right to life, why do you have the right to impose your views on them? Isn't it the height of arrogance to believe that only you have correctly analyzed the world and synthesized a system of morality?

In a strange sense, you are trying to 'impose your views' on others. Are you not been just as arrogant by assuming that everyone is wrong as they dont conform to your method of thought?

The idea of the higher freedom, is not a new one. Many a great philosopher has discussed this at length. (great length)
But human freedom has to have limits. Without these limits, we simply create chaos. Now while id love some chaos, reminds me of a good old university night out, freedom has to come at a price, it has to have consequences if it is to be worthwhile

Conservatives do not have a monopoly on 'good' and 'right' and 'life-affirming.' Those with differing viewpoints can claim those values just as firmly.

The 8 years of the bush administration proved this  

[General Battuta]

If other people choose to view abortion as wrong, I have no problem with it. They can live their lives however they choose.

I just ask that the grant me the freedom to live my life how I choose as well. Now, I can see the argument that murdering babies is not an acceptable lifestyle, but until there's a broad consensus that this is what's happening, I think the benefit of the doubt is in order, no?

In real life there is no 'good' or 'bad'. There are simply actions with consequences. We, as a society, shun murder because of its consequences, and we have generated moral systems that label murder as 'inherently bad' in order to discourage it. But really, murder is only physics, only biology. It's only 'evil' because we choose to call it so. Life is only valuable because, well, if we didn't think life was valuable, we wouldn't be around.

And abortion falls into a grey area that we, as a society, haven't quite defined yet. What's 'alive'? What's 'not alive'? We can't say, because the term 'alive' is an illusion...everything is a spectrum. And when is it okay to kill a living thing? Well, that's a hard question too, if we can't say what a living thing is, and if we, maybe, kill many living things every day, because they aren't quite as alive or as real as us.

[TESLA]

Life is a whole grey area.

I just follow my conscience.

Now im heading out to a friends bday party. going to have a couple of beers. Put a friend in a wheelie bin and roll him down the street.


Cheers for the intelligent debate people, i shall continue this later on

[General Battuta]

Good stuff. Have fun out there.

[The E]

I just follow my conscience.

Right, and your conscience tells you that abortion is wrong. Nothing wrong with that; Noone is forcing you to have an abortion. However, how does this translate into "Abortion is wrong, all the time, for everyone" ? Why do you think that YOUR morality needs and has to apply to everyone? What is wrong with having the OPTION available for anyone who thinks they need it? Why do you wish to restrict the amount of choices available?

[Turambar]

fundametal freedom    enslavement    Oh, that's rich.

And people wonder why I think religion needs to die

[iamzack]

Quick question for Liberator, TESLA, Mongoose, Trashman, etc:

Since abortion is murder, are you in favor of prosecuting women for starving themselves (or punching themselves in the gut or shoving knitting needles in their cooch, etc) on purpose in order to kill the fetus?

Because, if yes, you are suggesting that if a woman becomes pregnant, her body is no longer hers to do with as she wishes, and is instead property of the government.

[Colonol Dekker]

Self harm is self harm, akin to attempted suicide. Still a crime in most places.



WTF is a cooch ?

[NGTM-1R]

A remarkably archaic term for vagina.

[iamzack]

Self-harm isn't a crime. That's why you can drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, cut on yourself, etc. and not get arrested.

[Colonol Dekker]

Stabbing your own Vagina ort its contents in a an unqualified attempt at surgery is kinda not good. Like me slicing my cock off. i'd find it hard to justify. Although it would solve a hell of a lot of problems with abortions on my estate.

[iamzack]

I'm ignoring you now. Go be drunk somewhere else.

[Scotty]

Quick question for Liberator, TESLA, Mongoose, Trashman, etc:

Since abortion is murder, are you in favor of prosecuting women for starving themselves (or punching themselves in the gut or shoving knitting needles in their cooch, etc) on purpose in order to kill the fetus?

Because, if yes, you are suggesting that if a woman becomes pregnant, her body is no longer hers to do with as she wishes, and is instead property of the government.

I would be in favor of getting those individuals commited to some sort of help program.

As it stands, doing those things, to me, would be somewhat like using illegal drugs.  Yes, you could do it, since it is your body, but you still go to jail for that sort of thing.

Not going to re-quote the same post:  legally, your body is not free to do with as you wish.  There are still constraints that can't be crossed without risk of prosecution.

fundametal freedom    enslavement    Oh, that's rich.

And people wonder why I think religion needs to die

 

[karajorma]

Give me a break, kara.  You and I both know that that was exclusively responding to your "rest of your life" hyperbole, and nothing else.

Except it wasn't hyperbole. I was only partly referring the emotional effects. It goes deeper than that. You are aware that after the age of 18 an adopted child can attempt to track down their biological parent, right? At best you get 18 years of freedom followed by the rest of your life wondering if your adopted child is going to try to track you down.

And then what? Sure it might be some happy hallmark moment where you promise to always keep in touch forever, but you might not. So it's not as simple as "Give the child up for adoption, problem over" like some people like to claim it is.

Besides, why are you choosing to ignore emotional effects as a problem that will affect you for the rest of your life anyway?

Labeling the legitimate viewpoint of a large percentage of people on the other side of the debate "ridiculous" and "twisted" sure is an easy out, isn't it?  Call me when you're ready to ditch the ad hominems.

Call me when you ditch yours first. How many times have you referred to abortion as murder? And therefore anyone involved in the process as murderers?

Why do you believe you can use evocative language but no one else can?

Wanna explain that one to me, chief?  The abortion industry as it stands is part and parcel with the concept of legalized abortion, since that's precisely where said abortions take place.  And while I could rail on said industry directly, I only meant that statement in the general sense that an entire dedicated industry has been able to thrive just on the desire for abortions, which I think by any standards is a pretty sad fact.

See, again you attempt to use evocative language and then complain at anyone else who does so. Abortion Industry? Great way to paint the picture of a self sustaining business dedicated to the murder of babies and willing to lobby like any other industry, not for the rights of its consumers but for it's own money-grubbing needs.

Except that picture is wrong.

[The E]

Not going to re-quote the same post:  legally, your body is not free to do with as you wish.  There are still constraints that can't be crossed without risk of prosecution.

Why would my body not be my responsibility? Why do you want me to hand part of the authority over MY BODY over to the government? Are you totally insane?

[TESLA]

Back again (*sigh, oh Frak, not him again*) 
Stayed off the booze, cause moving in the GF tomorrow, need to have clear head, or get my head bitten off with 'why I'm not interested in rugs, carpet colours or curtains (but i did manage to get a lovely 50" HD TV, for my xbox 360 & PS3    I'm sorry but now I'm very happy lol

Right to the point.....
Let me play a little more devils advocate.....

Quick question for Liberator, TESLA, Mongoose, Trashman, etc:

Since abortion is murder, are you in favor of prosecuting women for starving themselves (or punching themselves in the gut or shoving knitting needles in their cooch, etc) on purpose in order to kill the fetus?

Because, if yes, you are suggesting that if a woman becomes pregnant, her body is no longer hers to do with as she wishes, and is instead property of the government.

I never mentioned anything about government. But if you agree with this complete freedom of the body, then logically you are in favour or Self assisted suicide, since starving of the body can be a necessary act? Or how about self-harm?

If you believe that a womens body is free to do what she chooses, does that mean, if she gave birth, she could give the baby to whoever she wanted, simply because she produced the 'end product'?

Finally on this point, i must point out, that if a women is pregnant, it is not simply her own body, her body is now shared with another lifeform growing within her. Regardless of personel feelings towards the issue.

fundamental freedom    enslavement    Oh, that's rich.

And people wonder why I think religion needs to die

Religion has made mistakes, so has science.
Simply wishing the other did not exist is not an option. Be Realistic. Both sides have caused great harm, when both sides wanted to create some sort of benefit to humankind.

Religion preached peace, it has in many cases, caused war
Science wanted electrical power, it has the nuclear bomb

Both points are valid. I believe in God. I will never back down from that. I know i am an intelligent person. My School, University grades all back this up. In the field of work i do, i make great progess and have a lot of respect (talk about an ego-centric response here  ) I love the work of science and the progress of humankind. Why else would I be on a forum like this (other than the greatest game that is Freespace)
Without losing focus on the topic, both science and religion can work together to help humanity.
Science asks the question how.
Religion asks the question why.

I just follow my conscience.

Right, and your conscience tells you that abortion is wrong. Nothing wrong with that; None is forcing you to have an abortion. However, how does this translate into "Abortion is wrong, all the time, for everyone" ? Why do you think that YOUR morality needs and has to apply to everyone? What is wrong with having the OPTION available for anyone who thinks they need it? Why do you wish to restrict the amount of choices available?

If abortion becomes simply a "feck I'm pregnant, down to the local clinic, get rid of this thing inside of me" then few weeks later your out fraking again, i just believe it lowers use all as a species.

I never said, its a simple black and white issue, wrong all the time,

1) what is the mothers life was in danger?

2) rape or incest issues?

which are very valid points

Abortion is illegal in my country. The people went to the polls twice on the issue. Both times voted against it. Does that mean that a whole people are wrong, if we as a democracy, vote against it, but a small minority are in favour of it?

Thats like saying, we voted against drugs, but addicts voted in favour, therefore, all drugs should be legal, i know thats a very flippant remake, but you understand the picture.

Not going to re-quote the same post:  legally, your body is not free to do with as you wish.  There are still constraints that can't be crossed without risk of prosecution.

Why would my body not be my responsibility? Why do you want me to hand part of the authority over MY BODY over to the government? Are you totally insane?

If you attempt to harm yourself or others, does your body not become the responsibility of the state or your family.
Granted this should be of last resort. Think rationally. There are times, when the government must take control of your body: A virus outbreak (Quarantine)

[MP-Ryan]

As your doctor, it is symbiosis. Regardless of what you 'get anything' from it.

Tsk tsk.  Compact Oxford English Dictionary says:

SYMBIOSIS noun (pl. symbioses /simbioseez, simbi-/) Biology interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, especially to the advantage of both.

SYMBIONT  noun Biology; an organism living in symbiosis with another.

As opposed to:

PARASITE noun  an organism which lives in or on another organism and benefits at the other’s expense.

As a fetus provides no benefit to the mother, and actually weakens her in many ways (immunologically and nutritionally being the two biggest ones), it is a biological parasite, not a symbiont.  Anyone who says its a symbiont needs to go back to high school biology, nevermind developmental biology.

[MP-Ryan]

You "give it up for adoption" idiots are going to make me drag out the sociology again, aren't you?

Two reputable sociological studies have actually found that crime rates are lower in areas where access to abortion services is (1) readily available and (2) legal.  Social conditions are also better in those jurisdictions.  Why?  Because the vast majority of unwanted children who are born are never actually given up for adoption (for a variety of reasons).  Instead, they are raised by families unable or unwilling to care for them.  That correlates directly with involvement in criminal activity (it's not causal, it's correlative).  It also costs the social support system a fortune in resources dedicated to crime prevention, drug and alcohol abuse prevention and treatment, subsidized housing, anti-homelessness programs, etc.

This avoids a whole host of other valid issues of course, namely:

The biology of the issue; aborting a pluripotent cellular mass at a few weeks gestation is not the termination of a human life, it's the termination of something which - given a very narrow set of circumstances - has the potential to become a human life.

Or the fact that pregnancy takes an enormous, and still often fatal, toll on the female body.

Or the fact that men bear as much if not more responsibility for a pregnancy than women, yet share none of the biological or emotional cost.

Or the fact the number of pregnancies aborted remains constant regardless of the legality of the procedure, while female mortality is dramatically higher in jurisdictions where the procedure is illegal.

Or the fact that sexual education is, in general, woefully inadequate and the same people that typically advocate the anti-abortion stance are also the biggest proponents of abstinence-only sex education which actually has the effect of INCREASING teen pregnancy rates in jurisdictions where it is taught.

Or the fact that it is patently unreasonable for the decision (either way) to be forced upon anyone.

Ultimately, the decision to abort a pregnancy is the sole decision of the people who created it in the first place.  It is no one else's business if they choose to conceive a child or not.  The parents are required to bear the biological, psychological, social, and financial cost of the pregnancy even if they are able to give the child up for adoption.  Until someone else is prepared to take over ALL of those costs (I'm especially interested in seeing someone claim the biological cost can be accounted for), then they have precisely ZERO say in that couple's affairs.  The same goes for sex itself; the only people who have any say in it are those directly involved.  Everyone else can concern themselves with their own affairs.

And for any of you more conservative-minded folk who are prepared to debate me on this, I'm warning you in advance that you will be called to account for your opinions based on the following topics:
-Biology.
-Social cost.
-Rights of liberty, equality, and freedom.
-Rights of government.
-The governing constitutional document of your nation.
I'm warning you in advance so you have some prep time.  There are a lot of hypocrites around here that espouse libertarian principles when it comes to government and then promptly turn into facists when it comes to individual social rights.  You can't have it one way for one issue and a different way for another just because you personally don't agree with it.

[iamzack]

Finally on this point, i must point out, that if a women is pregnant, it is not simply her own body, her body is now shared with another lifeform growing within her. Regardless of personel feelings towards the issue.

If abortion becomes simply a "feck I'm pregnant, down to the local clinic, get rid of this thing inside of me" then few weeks later your out fraking again, i just believe it lowers use all as a species.

I never said, its a simple black and white issue, wrong all the time,

1) what is the mothers life was in danger?

2) rape or incest issues?

which are very valid points

Abortion is illegal in my country. The people went to the polls twice on the issue. Both times voted against it. Does that mean that a whole people are wrong, if we as a democracy, vote against it, but a small minority are in favour of it?

Thats like saying, we voted against drugs, but addicts voted in favour, therefore, all drugs should be legal, i know thats a very flippant remake, but you understand the picture.

Well, first of all, the woman doesn't WANT to share her body. She is being FORCED to.

Second of all, if abortion is okay in ANY case, you're being inconsistent. If murder is not okay to preserve bodily autonomy, then murder should not be okay to save the life of someone else. If murder is not okay because it's not the fetus's fault it got where it is, then it's not okay in the cases of rape or incest either. Pick a side.

Finally, majority is not always right. In fact, the majority has been very gravely wrong many times in the past. Think slavery, witch burnings, gay marriage, etc.

Side note: Drugs are a good example. It's your right to not use drugs, it should be my right to use drugs. And we both have a right to information about said drugs so that we can each make informed decisions about whether or not to do them.

I guess my point is that we should be educating people rather than keeping everyone uninformed and making decisions for them. Given information on birth control measures/drugs and abortion, obviously people will choose preventative measures over abortion, but there are cases where something goes wrong, and we shouldn't be punishing women for that.