When Does Life Begin?

Run wrote: Cicerone, it's not up to me, you, or even them to kill what may very well be human life who has done absolutely nothing deserving death. That isn't up to other humans to decide.

If you understand all this, why do you imply we do? Even so, your statement is not wholly true; they still have infanticide in India, and probably still in China (no current info on this). You need to understand other cultures of the world before making generalized statements. Mothers kill their girl infants in India.

0 Replies

I understand that people do decide. That's obvious, but that just shows that people makes decision and pretend they have the right to decide on a whim who lives an who dies. My point is that they are excercising a right that they don't have.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Do you not understand that if law defining who may live and who may not is to be based on when a human being exists and when they do not, then a precise date must be defined by said law?
If you were separated by a wall, and could only communicate with the other side via a keyboard and computer screen, and other side communicated similarly to you, would it be OK to push a button causing the other side to be destroyed? What if your life depended on you pushing said button, would it be OK?

Very few abortions are done to save the life of the mother, Chumly. I have consistently said that it should be an allowable exception.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are done for convenience:

I don't want a baby now

I don't want a baby ever

I have enough children

I don't have much money

I want to continue my education

I want to continue upward in my career

I wanted a girl, not a boy

My boyfriend/husband doesn't want a baby now

Even Planned Parenthood publishes statistics that show that these kind of reasons comprise the overwhelming majority of reasons for abortion.

Have you never heard of adoption?

0 Replies

Chumly,
I see your point about mercy killing, and warfare. I guess I saw no need to include them in my list. Mercy killing I would then by the meassure of intent would be death with positive intent, and war being death by other's intent systematically. Either Way, I simply mean to addrress that the term "murder" is incorrect in reguards to abortion. I choose only one way I could explain, there are others.

As for my suggestions for ways to help in legistlation: welfare, after-school, minimum wage, etc. I don't mean to present a false promise as a band-aide. I'm only trying to make light that the issue of abortion is often related to other political issues. My suggestions may not be it, but I still stand firm that enabling a culture is the way. These are things reguardless of abortion that I feel need to be addressed. BTW, I am glad you included something about educating people, this could do a great deal of good.

Run,
The Pro-Life camp characterizes people who get abortions as being mislead or cruel and ambitious. The Pro-choice camp characterizes these people as often young victims, and often poor.

They both have merit, but the problem is that there is NO one type of person that has an abortion. I see the Pro-life lobby trying to taylor laws that reflect their characterization, and I see the pro-choice lobby being forced to do the same. Remember, pro-choice is the moderate opinion not the extreme.

The arguement from the Pro-Life platform that the unborn is human, I think is true, however trival. I'm very positive that people understand that the unborn is in fact human and not some other species, further it is alive. to those that dont' understand, it is less a failure of doctors who perform these operations and more of our cultures lack of educating people. I'm forgiving, and to those who are thinking of having an abortion, I think it's fine to let them know what they are doing. the reason i believe it is trivial, is that given that knowledge, abortion still is reasonable.

I won't make you read the many posts I've made on this issue, but I think that abortions should be moved out of clinics and into hospitals and patients should be given a greater degree of care. I feel consultation should be required, just like any other medical operation. I believe in a process for this greater than a clinic, which to me seems a bit... "drive thru." I hate the idea of pro-lifers shouting at people outside of clinics, it's low class and invassive. A patient for any proceedure has a the right to not be harrassed, and further have their privacy.

You said that people decide on a whim. I'm not sure this is such a universal case. I'm sure that some do yes, and again, that's why i see consultation to be required step. But deciding on a whim is a personal flaw, not a flaw in abortion.

As for rights, I say the mother is the custodian of all rights until birth. At birth and slowly as you develop into an adult you inherit more and more of your rights. So prior to birth, the mother/couple should be able to choose NOT the state.

0 Replies

Diest, You've covered the same ground as before, because the pro-lifers just don't listen to what we are saying. They continue to treat the unborn as a legal and ethical entity whose rights should supercede those of the mother. Their fanaticism goes so far as to kill abortion doctors, and as you say, intimidate women who seeks their services.

Talking about educating the pregnant women about abortion has much merit, but the prolifers want to control the final decision to restrict abortion as a choice.

There is no cure for extremism of any kind; this thread is a good example.

Thanks for trying, anywhoos.

0 Replies

Chumly,

Here are the figures on abortion for convenience. As you can see, about 90% of abortions are for convenience reasons, saving the life of the mother doesn't even show up. The health of the mother (including mental health, i.e. stress, worry) combined is only 3%.

These figures are from an AGI survey. AGI is the public policy arm of Planned Parenthood, so if any bias is present it would be toward the pro-abortion side.

from http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html#2

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 1987 [3, 4]

reason % of abortions

rape or incest 1 (0.4-1.3)
mother has health problems 3 (2.8)
possible fetal health problems 3 (3.3)
unready for responsibility 21
is too immature or young to have child 11 (12.2)
woman's parents want her to have abortion <0.5
has problems with relationship
or wants to avoid single parenthood 12 (14.1)
husband or partner wants her to have abortion 1
has all the children she wanted or all children are grown 8 (7.9)
can't afford baby now 21 (21.3)
concerned about how having baby would change her life 16
doesn't want others to know she
had relations or is pregnant 1
other 3

So, Chumly, have you never heard of adoption?

0 Replies

Another view on it is here:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html#4

State statistics: In the United States, limited official statistics are available. Abortion reporting varies significantly from state to state. Seven states report data on the reasons given for obtaining abortions (with varying definitions and levels of detail). These figures are self-reported by women obtaining abortions, as in the case of the AGI studies discussed above. However, they are independent data and involve a larger sample. Below are results for these states--Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah:

REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: ARIZONA [13]

reason 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
medical 16 7 11 11 7 10 3 6 11 9 17 10
elective 15,274 14,300 15,228 14,068 11,078 13,075 13,504 12,709 11,739 11,891 10,588 10,768
unknown 314 148 376 271 490 805 375 178 102 360 1,133 90
total 15,604 14,455 15,615 14,350 11,575 13,890 13,882 12,893 11,852 12,260 11,738 10,868

reason 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 total
1985-2004 % of abortions % of abortions,
known reasons
medical 6 12 19 15 10 21 43 207 451 0.18 0.19
elective 11,012 14,144 10,390 9,614 8,210 9,910 9,602 10,770 237,874 96.73 99.81
unknown 3 450 247 2 6 466 449 1,324 7,589 3.09 N/A
total 11,021 14,606 10,656 9,631 8,226 10,397 10,094 12,301 245,914 100.00 100.00

This shows that a very small % of abortions are for medical reasons.

What do you say in support of convenience abortions, Chumly?

0 Replies

Answer my question and I'll respond to your claims:

If you were separated by a wall, and could only communicate with the other side via a keyboard and computer screen, and other side communicated similarly to you, would it be OK to push a button causing the other side to be destroyed? What if your life depended on you pushing said button, would it be OK?

0 Replies

real, Whether it's for medical reasons or not, it's not for you to decide; it's the woman's decision, and it's none of your damn business.

0 Replies

It would seem real life is out to save us from ourselves with a peculiar brand of righteousness.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

reason % of abortions

rape or incest 1 (0.4-1.3)
mother has health problems 3 (2.8)
possible fetal health problems 3 (3.3)
unready for responsibility 21
is too immature or young to have child 11 (12.2)
woman's parents want her to have abortion <0.5
has problems with relationship
or wants to avoid single parenthood 12 (14.1)
husband or partner wants her to have abortion 1
has all the children she wanted or all children are grown 8 (7.9)
can't afford baby now 21 (21.3)
concerned about how having baby would change her life 16
doesn't want others to know she
had relations or is pregnant 1
other 3

"inconvieniance" 0%

You are not reading the data. The reasons you listed are far beyond convieniance.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Answer my question and I'll respond to your claims:

Already answered it. I have no problem with allowing abortion to save the life of the mother.

But you have no answer for the information I posted.

Your punting is getting poorer, Chumly.

The overwhelming majority (about 90% or more) of abortions are done for convenience, not medical necessity.

What say you to that?

Is it ok to kill someone because they may interfere with your career?

Is it ok to kill someone because you don't have money to feed them?

Is it ok to kill someone because you don't want any responsibility for their well being?

0 Replies

Diest, since you agree that it is human, then to kill him/her who has done nothing is wrong and not our say. But you say that the mother has all of the baby's rights until birth including the right to life. Why do you believe that? Why doesn't the baby have his/her own right to life?

0 Replies

Run 4 fun wrote:

Diest, since you agree that it is human, then to kill him/her who has done nothing is wrong and not our say. But you say that the mother has all of the baby's rights until birth including the right to life. Why do you believe that? Why doesn't the baby have his/her own right to life?

I see the right to life as more a inherited gift. A mother is host to the child and during that time, I see the unborn as under the dominion of the mother.

Don't get me wrong. I further see a difference between a early pregancy abortion and a last minute partial birth abortion. That choice of whether to give that right to life can obviously happen before birth, but as far as when the child inherits that right independant of the mother, I see it only fit that it happen at the point of separation.

The senario I propose is one that allows for a mother/couple to choose whether to keep a child early after conception, be informed of all procedures and alternatives. There may be some hoops to jump through, but I think it would be worth the hassle if choice was ultimately left intact and further if the previously said changes were made to the procedure: consultation, hospital, care, etc.

Philosophically, I can't equate the born and the unborn, further I can't equate humans in their multiple stages of development. Philosophically me, but like it or not, you as well. I'll prove it.

Thanks to our friend here in A2K, Eorl, we have an example: Their is a fire, and in the fire a child dies. Additionally, the fire destroyed 100 embyos. Being realistic, you know that the emotional and moral consequence of the deaths varies.

But why?

If we are to adopt the pro-life stance that all human life at any stage of development is created with congruent equity with respect to thier rights then given the chance to go back in time and either save the child or the container of 100 embryos their is no wrong choice. How would you feel about the person who saves the embryos over the child?

You see, If I have you pegged right (as a rational human), you wouldn't feel that good abou their decision.

Certainly this is an extreme senario, but it sells the point. I'm not being cruel when I say that the unborn doesn't just have rights immediately at concetion despite being human, I'm just reciting the true human responce. And if this is the true human responce; the moral/emotional consequence of loss, then that contract--rights are not yet present.

You haven't answered how abortion leads to chaos. Thanks again for reading.

0 Replies

Run 4 fun wrote:

Eorl, as a matter of fact, they are of the same value to me, but even if they weren't, that would not mean anything in the conclusiveness of this discussion. I'm not infallible.

Let's test it.

You are in a burning building with a fridge with 50 frozen embryo's and a 5 year old little girl. You can only carry one to safety. Which do you choose?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Run 4 fun wrote:
Eorl, as a matter of fact, they are of the same value to me, but even if they weren't, that would not mean anything in the conclusiveness of this discussion. I'm not infallible.

Let's test it.

You are in a burning building with a fridge with 50 frozen embryo's and a 5 year old little girl. You can only carry one to safety. Which do you choose?

LOL. eorl, read my last post.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Answer my question and I'll respond to your claims:

Already answered it. I have no problem with allowing abortion to save the life of the mother.

But you have no answer for the information I posted.

Your punting is getting poorer, Chumly.

The overwhelming majority (about 90% or more) of abortions are done for convenience, not medical necessity.

What say you to that?

Is it ok to kill someone because they may interfere with your career?

Is it ok to kill someone because you don't have money to feed them?

Is it ok to kill someone because you don't want any responsibility for their well being?

Nope'm you did not already answer it.

Chumly wrote:

Answer my question and I'll respond to your claims:

If you were separated by a wall, and could only communicate with the other side via a keyboard and computer screen, and other side communicated similarly to you, would it be OK to push a button causing the other side to be destroyed? What if your life depended on you pushing said button, would it be OK?

0 Replies

oops Sorry Diest. Embarrassed

That'll teach me to read everything!

To be fair with the credit, the hypothetical was introduced by someone else...Terry, I think?, and I used it to hit "real life" with until my fingers bled. (Unfortunately, he didn't seem to notice!)

0 Replies

Legally, the parents are the ones who make medical decisions for the child, not only before birth , but for a long time after as well.

To be consistent, the pro-aborts should insist that the parents have the right to terminate the child's life AFTER birth as well, since they are the 'custodians' of his/her rights.

0 Replies

RL, your views are so black and white that it's a marvel that you survive traffic lights.... Smile

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know