Abortion

Several pages back Freeduck wrote this:

Quote:

I think most of the pro-abortion crowd say that in the first trimester (when the majority of abortions occur) the unborn is not a human being but rather the potential to be one. Most people would say that a later term baby is a human being. That's what I say. However, I take the rather extreme position that it doesn't matter as long as it is using the body of another human being as a life support system. That's just my personal take.

I took this to mean that it is her opinion that the woman should have the choice of legal abortion at any time, any place, anywhere, or for any reason. (She subsequently denied she said this, and I will believe that perhaps she did not intend it the way it looks.) But this is the view of many of the pro-abortion crowd.

Now Debra has argued, eloquently as always, that late term abortions for convenience of the mother aren't legal anywhere. I suspect she is right that most states do have some restrictions, but I'm not sure that all do. I am unaware of any restrictions on late term abortions here in New Mexico. Somewhere in the back of my memory is that at least three states have no laws of any kind regarding abortion, and I'm thinking that oddly enough one of them is Utah. The reason that would be odd is there are no more prolife groups anywhere than Mormons. Smile

I simply cannot see outlawing all abortion for any reason as a resonable or moral policy as I accept that sometimes it is absolutely necessary. But I would very much like to see us return to a culture of life where the unborn are not seen as optional throwaways.

That's all I ask. That's all I think 99% of prolifers ask. How best to accomplish that is for discussions like this to keep taking place.

Debra, you've been terrific in this discussion and though we do probably disagree on a couple of fundamentals, I have appreciated your input. MommaAngel I love you as always and still think we were separated at birth. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

Nothing surprises me anymore so you just never know! I am in complete agreement with you. I can deal with some abortions due to circumstances but this abortion for convenience is just something I cannot embrace. And I love you too!

0 Replies

I feel the decision must rest with the mother for a number of reasons:

There is no clear definition of when the human zygote/fetus can be called a human being. There is no evidence to suggest that such an answer will be forthcoming shortly if ever.

I would argue, that it can, to some more refined detail, be claimed what a human being is not:

1) It is not a human being if it is not reasonably cognizant.
2) It is not a human being if it is not reasonably self aware.
3) It is not a human being if it is not reasonably self sustaining.
4) It is not a human being if it is not constructed mostly from human genetic material.

If the life in a woman's womb cannot be circumscribed by points 1 - 4, then I would argue that the woman may apply her individual moral, ethical, personal belief systems to make the decision to keep or abort.

Clearly, cybernetics and other medical technologies have and will continue to blur the issues.

At some point surrogate non-human mothers and/or automated uterine creches may well be the common, that combined with other future medical technologies will makes today's issues seem rather quaint.

0 Replies

Well, I can see how a person might interpret those words in that way in another context. However, I simply meant that in weighing who's rights win out between baby and mother when there is a conflict of interest, it should be the mother. In truth I don't know, maybe that does mean that I think all abortions should be legal, I haven't really thought about it. But the truth is that late term abortions are such a tiny percentage of all abortions, and that they are already regulated by the state, that I don't think it matters what I think. I just can't imagine women choosing a late term abortion unless it was absolutely necessary. And I don't know why the whole abortion debate needs to be framed in terms of the rarest cases.

At any rate, I continue to deny that I ever have said that "the woman should have the choice of legal abortion at any time, any place, anywhere, or for any reason", whether or not I believe it.

0 Replies

Fox and Momma--
Really? You guys can accept abortion under certain circumstances? What's with all this lovey-dovey compromise going around? We're supposed to be polarized, dammit!

0 Replies

Sorry Echi. I try so damn hard to keep any reasonableness under wraps. Smile

0 Replies

Chumly, we don't know whether the unborn is congnizant, self aware, etc. but there are credible scientific medical types who measure brain waves in the unborn.

And as for this one:

Quote:

3) It is not a human being if it is not reasonably self sustaining.

That would mean that no baby is a human being for many months after birth as s/he is 100% dependent on others for nutrition, hydration, warmth, and protection.

0 Replies

Oh great! Mine and Foxfyre's secret is out! We are, at times, reasonable people. Shocked

Go figure. Laughing

Echi,

I said I can understand abortion under certain circumstances. I didn't say I liked it though.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Chumly, we don't know whether the unborn is congnizant, self aware, etc. but there are credible scientific medical types who measure brain waves in the unborn.

I knew I could put my foot in my mouth on those claims so I prefaced them with "reasonably". And I did try and mention how technology has and will change this blurry line.

Foxfyre wrote:

And as for this one:

Quote:
3) It is not a human being if it is not reasonably self sustaining.

That would mean that no baby is a human being for many months after birth as s/he is 100% dependent on others for nutrition, hydration, warmth, and protection.

More do-do for me! See "reasonably" above. Plus I would argue that it can defecate on it's own, breathe, digest, metabolize, provide various physical and sonic communications, and ingest nutrients if near enough to the mother's nipple

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Chumly, we don't know whether the unborn is congnizant, self aware, etc. but there are credible scientific medical types who measure brain waves in the unborn.
I knew I could put my foot in my mouth on those claims so I prefaced them with "reasonably". And I did try and mention how technology has and will change this blurry line.
Foxfyre wrote:
And as for this one:

Quote:
3) It is not a human being if it is not reasonably self sustaining.

That would mean that no baby is a human being for many months after birth as s/he is 100% dependent on others for nutrition, hydration, warmth, and protection.
More do-do for me! See "reasonably" above. Plus I would argue that it can defecate on it's own, breathe, digest, metabolize, provide various physical and sonic communications, and ingest nutrients if near enough to the mother's nipple

And so can an unborn, even a very new one, absorb nutrients from the mother's body, etc. etc.

I do know what you're saying and actually I think the Roe v Wade final decision was based pretty much on your take on it. It's just difficult for me to think that the moments it requires for an unborn baby to go from 'unviable' to 'viable', might make all the difference in a decision of whether that baby will be allowed a chance to live.

It is the whole issue of a human life that, unless somethings goes terribly wrong, progresses in a predictable fashion from conception to a fully functioning being. To pinpoint the exact moment that being became alive is not that easy to do.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

Maybe you can help me with something. The other night and I cannot remember where I heard this. I think it was on a TV show but I am not sure.

Someone said something about "life being in the blood" and that blood does not get to the fetus until about the 18th day of life. The Life in the blood was taken from the Bible in the Old Testament but I can't remember where.

Does any of this sound familiar to you? Ever heard it before?

Okay, it comes from Letiticus 17:11 but it is talking about eating blood being forbidden. It says "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourself on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

Do you think this might relate in any way to when life begins in the womb, such as when blood actually enters the fetus?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And so can an unborn, even a very new one, absorb nutrients from the mother's body, etc. etc.

Foxfyre wrote:

I do know what you're saying and actually I think the Roe v Wade final decision was based pretty much on your take on it.

Naturally, because it is the reasonable approach and Chumly is, if nothing else always reasonable. <both dog and wife fall down laughing in tears>

Foxfyre wrote:

It's just difficult for me to think that the moments it requires for an unborn baby to go from 'unviable' to 'viable', might make all the difference in a decision of whether that baby will be allowed a chance to live.

Too true and yet in the real world, at least with present medical technologies in North America, that line must be drawn somewhere, and at a point which provides for the inherent freedoms of the mother, ahead of the potential for another human life. If only because one is quantifiable and the other is not.

Foxfyre wrote:

It is the whole issue of a human life that, unless somethings goes terribly wrong, progresses in a predictable fashion from conception to a fully functioning being. To pinpoint the exact moment that being became alive is not that easy to do.

I will go one step further and say that fine line is impossible to draw, even if you exempt all religiosity and morality and view it purely on a pragmatic basis.

I believe the best idea to take away from all this, is that we are in a transitional period in which medical technology has given us some control over the life process, but not enough yet to take full accountability, for all our actions.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Debra,

Quote:
I don't know, MM. Why wouldn't she hunt him down?

You ask the question,then you answer it...

No. You asked the question why a man should have to pay support if a woman waits years to track him down.

I replied that I didn't know. I offered one possibility why she didn't hunt him down. Perhaps it was a one-night stand and she couldn't remember his name. However, that doesn't excuse his behavior in simply walking away from the encounter and never looking back to see if . . . oops . . . a pregnancy occurred.

But, from now on when you ask why should a man have to pay, I'm going to reply as follows:

Poor mysteryman. Those darn conniving women are always plotting to get their hands on men's money. You have convinced me, MM. A man should never have to pay support . . . unless he chooses to pay. Rolling Eyes

mysteryman wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
The unwed father, in a LOT of cases, is aware of the child but has threatened the mother that he will seek custody if she tries to get support. That might explain why she might wait years before she takes any action because, during those years, she is establishing continuity and stability with the child. Courts generally do not find it in the best interests of the child to remove the child from the only home/ only parent that the child has ever known.

Now,you are intentionally misrepresenting my position.
I am NOT saying that support shouldnt be paid,and I have never said that,nor will I ever say that.

I wasn't even responding to your post or what you said. I was responding to Chumly's post. And, although you sometimes say you're not against a man paying child support, you always ask WHY he should have to pay child support. Then you list all kinds of conditions that the woman would have to meet BEFORE a man should have to pay. And then you resort to your "I told her to get an abortion" so I shouldn't have to pay defense. So, here's my reply:

Poor mysteryman. Those darn conniving women are always plotting to get their hands on men's money. You have convinced me, MM. A man should never have to pay support . . . unless he chooses to pay. Rolling Eyes

mysteryman wrote:

BUT,if a woman gets pregnant,does not tell the father,does not try to tell him,then comes back years later demanding support,then it should be his option about paying.

BTW,do you have any statistics or proof to back this up...

Quote:
The unwed father, in a LOT of cases, is aware of the child but has threatened the mother

Poor mysteryman. Those darn conniving women are always plotting to get their hands on men's money. You have convinced me, MM. A man should never have to pay support . . . unless he chooses to pay. Rolling Eyes

When you have handled as many divorce, custody, and child support cases that I have handled, you see a PATTERN in people's behavior. Believe it or not, it is extremely common for the man in all kinds of domestic relations cases to threaten the woman that he will fight for child custody as LEVERAGE to get something else that he wants.

Mysteryman wrote:

You and I both know that there are men paying support for adult children,and we both know that there are women that demand support but wont allow the father to see the child.

If you wont let me see my child,then why should I pay support?

If you refused to tell me,for whatever reason,that you were pregnant,then why should I pay support?

Poor mysteryman. Those darn conniving women are always plotting to get their hands on men's money. You have convinced me, MM. A man should never have to pay support . . . unless he chooses to pay. Rolling Eyes

(Wow. Copy and paste comes in handy when responding to MM's multiple "why should I pay support" statements in every post.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Poor mysteryman. Those darn conniving women are always plotting to get their hands on men's money. You have convinced me, MM. A man should never have to pay support . . . unless he chooses to pay.

That has never been my position,but since you want to claim it is,lets also add that women have no business working outside of the home.
If you truly are a female,and a lawyer,you have no business being out of the house.

Lets go all the way and make it illegal for women to work.
That way you can stay home,have babies,and treat your man (if you have one) the way a woman should treat him.

0 Replies

You two ever consider hooking up? You have all your arguments already figured out. You won't have work hard inventing them as most couples need do. Think of the efficiencies. You already know you don't like each other, and it did not take 20 years to find out.

I'll stop teasing now and let you two carry on carrying on.

(secretly I prefer DL's views but don't tell anyone)

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Poor mysteryman. Those darn conniving women are always plotting to get their hands on men's money. You have convinced me, MM. A man should never have to pay support . . . unless he chooses to pay.

That has never been my position,but since you want to claim it is,lets also add that women have no business working outside of the home.
If you truly are a female,and a lawyer,you have no business being out of the house.

Lets go all the way and make it illegal for women to work.
That way you can stay home,have babies,and treat your man (if you have one) the way a woman should treat him.

NOW ! FINALLY!

We're getting down to the real MysteryMan!! He's actually no mystery at all!

TheTrueMysteryman

During the good old Abuzz days, MM had a screed against women, womens rights, femi-nazis, rant, rant, rant ... It was his defining Interaction which he highlighted in his personal profile!! He was very proud of that screed against any rights for a woman!!

Anon

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Lets go all the way and make it illegal for women to work. That way you can stay home,have babies,and treat your man (if you have one) the way a woman should treat him.

Illegal to work? I just ironed my man's shirts. I guess that's NOT work. Oh yes. I have a man. He's the best man in the whole world and he's all mine. (I'm still looking for the starry-eyed, love-struck woman emoticon.)

0 Replies

Debra_Law,

Try this: http://www.smileys.ws/cheeky.htm

There is one at the bottom that has hearts for eyes!

There are more on this page:

http://www.websmileys.com/love.htm

0 Replies

http://www.smileys.ws/smls/cheeky/00000033.gif

0 Replies

You go girl!

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/laughing1.gif

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know