Abortion.

[Jonathan]

It means that the arguments one side don't necessarily point to the same conclusions when the arguments are considered by the other side.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

If they're unborn, at least.

Earniel, since you wrote "Abortion does NOT always equal partial birth abortion", in response to a post I made about abortion images, I inferred that to be your meaning. I apologise if I erred.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

And so, again, it all boils down to when, in your mind, a baby becomes a baby and when life itself begins and whether this life is sacred and mustn't be touched.

[edit] And I have to agree with Eärniel that it does matter for the sake of the debate when members of the pro-life movement show nasty pictures of dead fetuses. Those images give a distorted picture of abortion per se.

And similarly, when members of the anti-war movement show nasty pictures of badly wounded civilians, it givers a distorted picture of war per se.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The reason you say that is because you support abortion (if I recall, forgive me if I am wrong), and so don't like images showing the nitty-gritty of it, while you oppose the war, and thus approve of showing said nitty-gritty.

Politicians who campaign as "pro-life", but then support abortion in some cases (rape, incest, etc.) are whores. For that matter, so are politicians who campaign as pro-life, but support death penalty. Which makes Bush a double-whore.

Supporting abortion in cases of danger of death for the mother is more understandable, but still flawed.

In response to your question. I disapprove of any after-the-fact contraception, as I believe that life begins at conception, and thus that they are in fact easier abortions. Less trauma for the mother, same death for the child.

You are absolutely right (apart from your first sentence!) and I see your stance on the issue as the logical conclusion of the belief that life begins at fertilisation (not implantation, right?).

However it is notable that you consider the not-too-infrequent event of ectopic pregnancy to be an exception. Seems there are always grey areas somewhere. What about rape, incest, depression, gestational diabetes, eclampsia? What about the 60-80% of all fertilised embryos which fail to implant "spontaneously"?

On the first point, there are lots of differences between the uses of the imagery of war and abortion. The intent for one: to inform people in the former case and to upset and disgust people in the latter. More than that belongs in the Media thread I guess.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

implant "spontaneously"?

On the first point, there are lots of differences between the uses of the imagery of war and abortion. The intent for one: to inform people in the former case and to upset and disgust people in the latter. More than that belongs in the Media thread I guess.

Now wait a minute here...who are you to say it's to "disgust"? You aren't the one publishing them. I can't see why it doesn't do both: digust and inform.
There's nothing uninforming about dead babies.

And how come War Pictures are "informing", but not "disgusting"?

[Earniel]

I don't quite see the connection with war here, except that it can also produce horrific images. War is a leettle bigger and more compex issue, IMO. It doesn't quite compare to abortion.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Earniel, since you wrote "Abortion does NOT always equal partial birth abortion", in response to a post I made about abortion images, I inferred that to be your meaning. I apologise if I erred.

No apologies necessary, just wanted to make my point clear.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Politicians who campaign as "pro-life", but then support abortion in some cases (rape, incest, etc.) are whores. For that matter, so are politicians who campaign as pro-life, but support death penalty. Which makes Bush a double-whore.

I'm with Bush and Hectorberlioz too. Abortion is about convenience. The death penalty is about justice. That makes the former murder and the latter justified.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I don't quite see the connection with war here, except that it can also produce horrific images. War is a leettle bigger and more compex issue, IMO. It doesn't quite compare to abortion.

No, war is not bigger at all. In the US alone there have been about 40 million abortions. If one believes that unborn human beings should be considered "equal" human beings to born human beings, what we've done in the US amounts to a holocaust. So I'd say the abortion issue is more serious than war, not less.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And how come War Pictures are "informing", but not "disgusting"?

Lol! I love it, hector . That's a very good point.

On a side-note, also one of the reasons support in the US for our presence in Iraq is sinking so low.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

And so, again, it all boils down to when, in your mind, a baby becomes a baby and when life itself begins and whether this life is sacred and mustn't be touched.

I agree with Insidious Rex on this, that from the moment a child is conceived, it is a human baby, a human life. It may be very primitive, but it is a human. A baby exists.

Here's my question, from that groundwork. Who are we to decide at what stage in development the child deserves the same rights as people that have come out of the womb?

And if we do have the right to decide at what stage in growth a human deserves full rights, what precedent does that set? It says that by our measurement of a person's brain, we can ethically kill. Racists have done that throughout time. Hitler did it to the insane and disabled. Is that the category we want our civilization lumped into?

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree with Insidious Rex on this, that from the moment a child is conceived, it is a human baby, a human life. It may be very primitive, but it is a human. A baby exists.

Here's my question, from that groundwork. Who are we to decide at what stage in development the child deserves the same rights as people that have come out of the womb?

And if we do have the right to decide at what stage in growth a human deserves full rights, what precedent does that set? It says that by our measurement of a person's brain, we can ethically kill. Racists have done that throughout time. Hitler did it to the insane and disabled. Is that the category we want our civilization lumped into?

this is interesting. I have always wondered what people think of premature babies born at say anywhere between 24-37 wks. Now babies born this early can survive outside the womb albeit sometimes with irreparable damage. if a baby is born at 28 wks gestation it is given the same rights as a full term baby right? WHy though? It wasn't full term? thoughts?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

I have always wondered what people think of premature babies born at say anywhere between 24-37 wks. Now babies born this early can survive outside the womb albeit sometimes with irreparable damage.

Yet why should being able to survive outside the womb on their own have anything to do with the decision? There are huge numbers of adults and children who only survive because of taking medications of various kinds. They have an artificial surviving mechanism too, and yet it would be absurd to consider this an adequate justification for killing them.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yet why should being able to survive outside the womb on their own have anything to do with the decision? There are huge numbers of adults and children who only survive because of taking medications of various kinds. They have an artificial surviving mechanism too, and yet it would be absurd to consider this an adequate justification for killing them.

exactly. Alot of people I know who are pro-choice use the whole "surviving" outside the womb argument" to justify their stance on the matter.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

You are absolutely right (apart from your first sentence!) and I see your stance on the issue as the logical conclusion of the belief that life begins at fertilisation (not implantation, right?).

However it is notable that you consider the not-too-infrequent event of ectopic pregnancy to be an exception. Seems there are always grey areas somewhere. What about rape, incest, depression, gestational diabetes, eclampsia? What about the 60-80% of all fertilised embryos which fail to implant "spontaneously"?

On the first point, there are lots of differences between the uses of the imagery of war and abortion. The intent for one: to inform people in the former case and to upset and disgust people in the latter. More than that belongs in the Media thread I guess.

Yes, at fertilisation.

Basically, I consider abortion to be permissible only when the infant is certain or virtually certain to die without abortion; even then, I'm not sure. Rape, no, incest, no, depression, no; gestational dibates and eclampsia, I don't know about, but basically apply what I said above as a rule of thumb. I made an exception because as ectopic pregnancy was explained to me, the infant won't survive whether or not an abortion is procured.

I really think that the purpose of both war and abortion pictures is to upset and disgust people. But the reason they aim at this is to get them thinking.

Originally Posted by Lief

I'm with Bush and Hectorberlioz too. Abortion is about convenience. The death penalty is about justice. That makes the former murder and the latter justified.

Punishment ought to be corrective, not penal. Death penalty is about vengeance, not justice. Also, I seem to remember a certain wise man once saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when asked his opinion on the death penalty...

One cannot be pro-life and pro-death penalty, as hector calls it. It's an oxymoron. Then, one is simply anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.

No, war is not bigger at all. In the US alone there have been about 40 million abortions. If one believes that unborn human beings should be considered "equal" human beings to born human beings, what we've done in the US amounts to a holocaust. So I'd say the abortion issue is more serious than war, not less.

I think when Earniel said "bigger", she merely meant the same as when she said "more complex", not that it is more important; or am I mistaken? If I am right, I agree with her; if I am wrong, I agree with you.

That's also one of the reasons support in the US for our presence in Iraq is sinking so low.

And why support for abortion is so low?

I agree with Insidious Rex on this, that from the moment a child is conceived, it is a human baby, a human life. It may be very primitive, but it is a human. A baby exists.

Waaaaaaaaitta minute; IR said that?

Here's my question, from that groundwork. Who are we to decide at what stage in development the child deserves the same rights as people that have come out of the womb?

Exactly. I mean, none of us can really know in the fullest sense when human life begins. So, it seems to me that the best approach, for those who have no definitive point that they can truly point to and say "Here begins humanity!", would be to take the safest approach, i.e. assume that life begins at conception, and act in such a manner, unless there is a question of the life of the child or of the mother. In such a case, since they are uncertain as to the humanity of the child, but are certain as to the humanity of the mother, it would be justifiable to go for the certainty. But to just assume that the infant is not human for the first dozen or so weeks (if I am right?), and allow the destruction of the embryo for pretty well any reason, is simply being calloused to the extreme, and an absurd level of hubris.

[hectorberlioz]

I'm going to look this up in a minute, the polls (which I never trust) that show that the majority of abortion reasons were "for looks".

Lief: Glad you entered the fray

EDIT: Gwai, justice questions can wait for another thread, I'm tired already, but I will get at ya

[hectorberlioz]

Can't find it now...

but this is interesting enough, I suppose.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir

Punishment ought to be corrective, not penal. Death penalty is about vengeance, not justice. Also, I seem to remember a certain wise man once saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when asked his opinion on the death penalty...

If justice is about correction and doesn't require a death penalty ever, then why did God's justice demand that Jesus die on the cross?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir

I think when Earniel said "bigger", she merely meant the same as when she said "more complex", not that it is more important; or am I mistaken? If I am right, I agree with her; if I am wrong, I agree with you.

If she simply meant "more complex," then I agree with her too.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir

Quote:
That's also one of the reasons support in the US for our presence in Iraq is sinking so low.


And why support for abortion is so low?

Do you see pictures of dying babies on the headlines of every major news service and newspaper, Gwaimir?

And another thing is that many people in the US now know people who have committed abortions or have themselves committed abortions. That makes it something they have a harder time condemning.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir

Waaaaaaaaitta minute; IR said that?

Yep. He thinks that babies killed at the early stages abortions take place at are so mentally primitive that eliminating them isn't a heinous act. So even though he knows they're human, he says they're very primitive humans. To him, this means abortion should be legal, though it still is very tragic and horrible.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And how come War Pictures are "informing", but not "disgusting"?

Do try to read what I wrote. It is about intent.

Everyone knows that abortions kill foetuses; there is no need for information about that outcome. The question is rather, as Jonathan said, about whether those foetuses are fully fledged humans or not. The use of images which connect aborted foetuses with dead babies attempt to short-circuit that all-important definition with extremely upsetting imagery.

We also know that war kills people, of course, but there is a key knowledge issue about the extent of the casualties, one which your government is very keen to play down for political reasons at the moment, for example.

Back on topic, I do like how the woman's body is equated with "artificial life support", such as plugging in a dialysis machine or taking a statin to lower cholesterol and stave off heart disease. A male conception of motherhood if ever I saw one!

While the foetus is clearly human, in the same way that my kidneys are human, it is also a part of its mother's body, right up until it comes out into the world and takes its first breath. So, I would contend that an unborn baby is a different sort of human from a born baby, because it is still one with its mother. I would also point out that almost everybody, even most self-professed "pro-lifers" (since Gwaimir's extreme, though logically consistent view is a minority view), share this fundamental view even though they may argue to the contrary.

I have witnessed two childbirths, seen them open their eyes for the first time and take their first breaths. (Arien, you have been on the sharp end, IIRC!) Babies undergo a qualitative change in the process, believe me!

But I too believe in erring on the side of caution and that's where medicine comes in. We should acknowledge the extent to which the debate is framed by what we know about gestation and embryology.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm with Bush and Hectorberlioz too. Abortion is about convenience. The death penalty is about justice. That makes the former murder and the latter justified.

Your reasoning isn't perfect.
Requesting no-life support is about convenience. Death by stoning is about justice. Is the former murder and the latter justified?

Anyway many think the death penalty is just because a criminal is the subject here whereas abortion is murder since a fetus is always innocent. On the other hand many think that taking the life of a fully-grown person is worse than discarding a clump of cells. Some believe the criminal deserves death and others don't think the Golden Rule can be apply to pre-natal babies.
It's all a matter of what you as an individual choose to believe and there is no right or wrong. That makes it very hard to discuss the right or wrong about the death penalty/abortion because the same arguments can have entirely different meanings depending on your beliefs. It's important to understand this so one doesn't think the other side is pure evil or plain stupid.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In the US alone there have been about 40 million abortions. If one believes that unborn human beings should be considered "equal" human beings to born human beings, what we've done in the US amounts to a holocaust.

And here one's beliefs play a big role again. Does those 40 million abortions include spontaneous abortions, ectopic pregnacies, abortions after rape etc.? Among the pro-life AND pro-choice supporters there are those who think one kind of abortion is ok while another kind is not. For some, maybe all of those 40 million abortions were equal to murder. For others maybe only half of them were.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree with Insidious Rex on this, that from the moment a child is conceived, it is a human baby, a human life. It may be very primitive, but it is a human. A baby exists.

That's a common view among the pro-life supporters of course but also nowhere near uncommon among the pro-choice people. Meaning that if this view was a well-established fact (which it can never be obviously), it's not an argument against or for the right to abortion.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Here's my question, from that groundwork. Who are we to decide at what stage in development the child deserves the same rights as people that have come out of the womb?

We can't since there's no correct answer. Just like we can't really decide at what age people should be able to vote, drink or drive. But still we have to decide such things for our legislation for society to work smoothly.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And if we do have the right to decide at what stage in growth a human deserves full rights, what precedent does that set? It says that by our measurement of a person's brain, we can ethically kill. Racists have done that throughout time. Hitler did it to the insane and disabled. Is that the category we want our civilization lumped into?

Woah, don't invoke Godwin's law just yet . Anyway you're leaving out the fact there may be very important reasons behind performing an abortion, like to save the mothers life. Maybe a devout pro-life supporter thinks no reasons in the world could justify an abortion but he/she would have to remember that for many people, the reasons would matter a great deal.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

No, war is not bigger at all. In the US alone there have been about 40 million abortions. If one believes that unborn human beings should be considered "equal" human beings to born human beings, what we've done in the US amounts to a holocaust. So I'd say the abortion issue is more serious than war, not less.

Oh, I wasn't talking about the number of casualties when I said bigger. What I meant (as I see Gwai already mentioned) was that war is much more complicated. In war there are whole regions and different peoples involved. Politics, demographics, economic forces, relegion ect... all play a role in war, or are influenced by war. A war in the Middle-east can affect the whole world on many levels, a nation legalising abortion for example does not have such large-scale effects.

I suppose if parallels are to be drawn between abortion and another world phenomenon, I would pick plastic surgery. It's also a medical procedure and like abortion it can be out of convenience, or medical reasons, has a similar controversy and grey areas.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Do try to read what I wrote. It is about intent.

Everyone knows that abortions kill foetuses; there is no need for information about that outcome. The question is rather, as Jonathan said, about whether those foetuses are fully fledged humans or not. The use of images which connect aborted foetuses with dead babies attempt to short-circuit that all-important definition with extremely upsetting imagery.

We also know that war kills people, of course, but there is a key knowledge issue about the extent of the casualties, one which your government is very keen to play down for political reasons at the moment, for example.

Gaffer, how many times you want to dance around the christmas tree with me?

It's the Intent, as you say. How do you know the intent of putting pics of dead soldiers isn't as rotten as those of a pro-lifer? You said the intent of one was to inform, the other to repel, so I don't see how or why I should re-read your above post. And you say the Gov is keen to "play down" the killing for political reasons. That seems to me the EXACT intent of abortionists as well. I don't see why we shouldn't know the extent of the casualties via pictures of aborted babies. And I don't care how clean they look, either.

"Oh poor sensitivites! I looked at War pics like they were my family album, but dead fetuses just knocks me out ..."

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yep. He thinks that babies killed at the early stages abortions take place at are so mentally primitive that eliminating them isn't a heinous act. So even though he knows they're human, he says they're very primitive humans. To him, this means abortion should be legal, though it still is very tragic and horrible.

Well more or less… But I think using the term ‘babies’ is pretty loaded when you are talking about a ball of cells. And its more then just the mental capacity it’s the overall developmental state of the organism.

My basic stance on abortion (since Im being sited here) is that it’s a necessary evil in our society. Not something to be at all celebrated or treated callously but essential that it is available to people as an option when necessary or else we have created several other problems when we forbid a given abortion. I would think many "pro choice" people would fall under this same kind of thinking. Pro choicers tend to be miscategorized as abortion celebrators by those opposed to abortion and its largely not at all true.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Your reasoning isn't perfect.
Requesting no-life support is about convenience. Death by stoning is about justice. Is the former murder and the latter justified?

Call me barbaric, but my answer is "yes" to the latter. Though it depends what crime death by stoning is the penalty for. Judgments can be more harsh than true justice demands, just as they can be too lenient. I think that our US death penalty, which exacts painless death, is not true justice per say. It is justice tempered by mercy. True justice would sometimes be utterly horrific, because for exact retribution to occur, a true "eye for an eye" system, we'd be doing very ruthless things to criminals. That would be just. It would not involve any element of mercy, and I'm glad our justice system is merciful, but it would be just.

Requesting no-life support is simply letting natural processes take their course. That isn't taking an action to kill yourself, so it is not murder.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

It's all a matter of what you as an individual choose to believe and there is no right or wrong.

Let's say you're right. Oops, I can't do that, for there is no right or wrong. Oh well . That ends that discussion. We decided you aren't right, for you said there is no right.

Wait a second . . . if you don't even think you're right, then why am I wasting time listening to you?

Originally Posted by Jonathan

And here one's beliefs play a big role again. Does those 40 million abortions include spontaneous abortions, ectopic pregnacies, abortions after rape etc.? Among the pro-life AND pro-choice supporters there are those who think one kind of abortion is ok while another kind is not. For some, maybe all of those 40 million abortions were equal to murder. For others maybe only half of them were.

Only twenty million! How stupid of me! So this isn't a holocaust after all!

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Woah, don't invoke Godwin's law just yet . Anyway you're leaving out the fact there may be very important reasons behind performing an abortion, like to save the mothers life. Maybe a devout pro-life supporter thinks no reasons in the world could justify an abortion but he/she would have to remember that for many people, the reasons would matter a great deal.

I guess you're right. If there's no right or wrong, we might as well accept that killing unborn children is fine. Our society works smoothly with it. Hmm. Well, I guess that based on that, we might as well also let anti-Semites do whatever they like, and all the other racists. After all, it certainly benefitted Hitler's economy to have all those Jews gone, leaving their property to his followers. His society ran smoothly with it.

Let them all do what they like. So long as it doesn't bother my niche in society, it doesn't matter. We have to remember that for the the anti-Semites, "the reasons matter a great deal."

I'm serious on that last. The anti-Semites believe Jews are tearing society to shreds. To them, the reasons for their actions do matter a great deal. So why should we refuse them permission to do what they want, but allow pro-choice folk to have it their way with abortion? If the argument for abortion is based on is people "having reasons," than anyone can get away with anything provided they think they have a reason.



By the way, forgive me in all my sarcasm in this post. I know the post is just dripping with it.

Also, Jonathon, I strongly encourage you to no longer hold onto relativism.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Oh, I wasn't talking about the number of casualties when I said bigger. What I meant (as I see Gwai already mentioned) was that war is much more complicated. In war there are whole regions and different peoples involved. Politics, demographics, economic forces, relegion ect... all play a role in war, or are influenced by war. A war in the Middle-east can affect the whole world on many levels, a nation legalising abortion for example does not have such large-scale effects.

Okay, in that case I agree with you .