The Official Abortion Thread

[Embar Angylwrath]

Most social conservatives were against unplugging Schiavo, and letting her slowly dehydrate and starve to death.

That being said, the situation between Schiavo and a fetus is completely different. A fetus is well adept at taking care of itself as long as the mother takes care of herself, and the fetus isn't interfererd with, like being vacuumed out of the womb, or having its brains sucked out. A fetus can survive naturally.

Schiavo wasn't able to survive naturally. Even if you don't have an issue with how Schiavo was treated, there's a difference between letting nature take its course, and actively terminating a life. If you want to make an apples to apples comparison, it should have been legal to drill a hole in Schiavo's head and suck her brains out, our dismember her while she was still alive, because she was dependent. And it should be legal for us to do that to other humans if they become dependent. Would you supported this, since you seem to see the dependency of a fetus and dependency of adults as relatively equal in scope.

[Partha]

I can't remember my wingnut talking points - is it that they're busy having abortions every few months or so to continue the party life or is it that they're busy popping out kids for that welfare check?

Anyways.

Banning abortions makes women slaves. Being of a general 'slavery is bad' mindset, I support it generally when the fetus is nonviable.

[Ddrak]

Are you define human life on the basis of the technology to support it?

No, and I've never said abortion wasn't killing a baby. I'm saying that the *law* shouldn't require a woman to be a baby-support-machine whether I feel she's morally obligated to be one or not.

I feel that making a woman nothing better than a life support machine is simply not the business a government should be in.

Dd

[Saevrok]

I am pro choice. I have a friend who is a social worker, she sees so many kids so screwed up beyond recovery all due to a messed up family condition. If you cannot care for the child then I believe you have two options, take care of it before it has a heartbeat or give it to an adoption agency.

Then again, my opinion doesnt matter, because I wont ever be shooting an infant through my pecker.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Are you define human life on the basis of the technology to support it?

No, and I've never said abortion wasn't killing a baby. I'm saying that the *law* shouldn't require a woman to be a baby-support-machine whether I feel she's morally obligated to be one or not.

I feel that making a woman nothing better than a life support machine is simply not the business a government should be in.

Dd

I'm going to assume you think abortion is killing a baby. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So.. why is it ok to kill a baby when its in the womb, but no ok to kill it when it outside the womb? Isn't a mother a life support machine after the baby is born too? In fact, I think MORE of a mother's life is taken up by care for the baby AFTER birth than before. Is the government forcing them into slavery by not allowing them to put a bullet in the kids brain and be done with it?

[Select]

Embar, after the birth, the mother can walk away -abandonment or adoption. For a good part of the pregnancy, she can't, and is forced to stay with it. It's not like she can adopt her uterus out.

And I do not believe abortion is killing a baby. After a certain point, later in the pregnancy, then yes, I will see the fetus as a baby. For the majority of abortions, which are done earlier in the pregnancy, then no, I don't believe it's killing a baby; it is just a clump of cells or a fetus, IMO.

Edit: I'd like to add this:

I think MORE of a mother's life is taken up by care for the baby AFTER birth than before.

I completely disagree. When the baby is born, the mother can hand it to the father or other family members for care. She can even put it down in its crib for a break. During the pregnancy, the fetus/baby is with her 24/7 and she is the sole caregiver.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Embar, after the birth, the mother can walk away -abandonment or adoption. For a good part of the pregnancy, she can't, and is forced to stay with it. It's not like she can adopt her uterus out.

And I do not believe abortion is killing a baby. After a certain point, later in the pregnancy, then yes, I will see the fetus as a baby. For the majority of abortions, which are done earlier in the pregnancy, then no, I don't believe it's killing a baby; it is just a clump of cells or a fetus, IMO.

Edit: I'd like to add this:

I think MORE of a mother's life is taken up by care for the baby AFTER birth than before.

I completely disagree. When the baby is born, the mother can hand it to the father or other family members for care. She can even put it down in its crib for a break. During the pregnancy, the fetus/baby is with her 24/7 and she is the sole caregiver.

Some points...

You, too, are just a "clump of cells".

At what point in the pregnancy does a fetus become a baby, in your eyes? At what point does it become a person?

If you think that a woman is more free after pregnancy than before... you have a BIG surprise in store for yourself if you ever decide to have children. Pregnancy lasts 9 months. Motherhood lasts a lifetime.

[Select]

Like I said, after birth, it can be abandoned or adopted out. It can be handed to the father or family members if she's lucky. She has options so she doesn't have to be the life support machine. I get the easily understood concept that motherhood is work and lasts a lifetime, but it's possible to walk away if you don't want it.
With pregnancy, she is the only option and so she is a life support machine. If she doesn't want it, it's not like she can walk away.

I am a clump of cells and then a little more. I certainly don't think an egg and sperm combined makes a person.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Like I said, after birth, it can be abandoned or adopted out. It can be handed to the father or family members if she's lucky. She has options so she doesn't have to be the life support machine. I get the easily understood concept that motherhood is work and lasts a lifetime, but it's possible to walk away if you don't want it.
With pregnancy, she is the only option and so she is a life support machine. If she doesn't want it, it's not like she can walk away.

I am a clump of cells and then a little more. I certainly don't think an egg and sperm combined makes a person.

You dodged some questions.

When does a fetus become a person, in your eyes?

And some new questions...

If an egg and sperm don't combine to make a person, what does combine to make a person?

Why are you defining a pregnant mother as nothing more than a life support machine? Is that how you want to be defined when you are pregnant?

[Select]

I didn't dodge some questions, I purposely didn't answer them because the answers would be too long and I don't have the energy right now with suffering daily attacks. Typing short posts at a time is far easier than sitting here for an extended period -which is why I played with Rsak for awhile

I feel that making a woman nothing better than a life support machine is simply not the business a government should be in.

I was agreeing with Dd's stance. You asked if mothers after birth could be considered life support machines as well and I said "No, because a mother can walk away from a born child."

Just an egg and just a sperm aren't a person. Combined, to me, they are merely two cells combined with the potential of growing into a human being. It's further down the timeline that I feel a person eventually forms out of that cell union. When do I feel the cells go from clump of cells to human being? My short answer is I believe it becomes a person towards the end to give you the most general and short answer.

Dd still hasn't answered your question. Refocus on your first question.

[Ddrak]

I'm going to assume you think abortion is killing a baby. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes - that is my opinion.

So.. why is it ok to kill a baby when its in the womb, but no ok to kill it when it outside the womb? Isn't a mother a life support machine after the baby is born too? In fact, I think MORE of a mother's life is taken up by care for the baby AFTER birth than before. Is the government forcing them into slavery by not allowing them to put a bullet in the kids brain and be done with it?

No, because you have other options aside from killing the children once they can survive without you - in short you can give them to someone else or to the government, or the government can come and take them away from you if you're failing to be an adequate parent. None of those options are available prior to viability so you're either left with saying the mother is legally nothing but a life support machine without rights or you say the law shouldn't be getting involved in the decision.

Dd

[Rsak]

Select you were playing with yourself.. you just didn't realize it. Otherwise you wouldn't have to declare you are "done" and run off to this thread to keep it going.

Embar,

I think the clump of cells is a person as soon as conception occurs because that is when it is unique genetic code that is next to impossible to ever occur again. And I consider any direct action to end that pregnancy killing a person. Yet even with all of those points I am still pro-choice because it is still someone's body having to be the incubator.

I would try to convince the person otherwise, but I will not condemn them or the doctors who perform the procedure. And I think that decision should be made early on in the pregnancy for the safety of the person. Waiting to do a late term abortion is just completely irresponsible.

[Embar Angylwrath]

If you think a fetus is a baby, and a baby is a human, then I fail to see how you can support the notion that the baby's right to life is somehow subserviant to a woman's right to not be inconveienced for a few months.

[Select]

inconveienced for a few months.

Sometimes it lasts a lifetime: Permanent physical damage; permanent physical changes; permanent mental or emotional damage; career damage; financial damage; and so on.

And slavery for a even a few months is still slavery.

[Kulaf]

Is Embar going to actually outline his own position on this issue.......or just ask a lot of questions and play devil's advocate?

[Embar Angylwrath]

I thought I had in other threads, but I'll restate them.

Abortion is murder. There is no justification for it under any circumstances, including rape and incest.

That about sums it up for me.

[Kulaf]

But we as a society recognize mitigating factors in murder.....such as self defense. If carrying the baby places the mother in danger of death.....what would you do?

[Ddrak]

If you think a fetus is a baby, and a baby is a human, then I fail to see how you can support the notion that the baby's right to life is somehow subserviant to a woman's right to not be inconveienced for a few months.

No one has an unqualified "right to life". Where on earth did you get that idea from? You have a right to life up until the point it involves someone else having to do something to sustain your right, otherwise you're preaching pure communism. You do NOT have the right to demand that someone else help you live, and so I claim that a baby has the right to life of itself, but not the right to demand the mother provide that life.

What right does a stranger have to demand you sustain their life?

Dd

[Partha]

Is Embar going to actually outline his own position on this issue.......or just ask a lot of questions and play devil's advocate?

Silly goose. Does Embar do anything else?

Abortion is murder. There is no justification for it under any circumstances, including rape and incest.

That about sums it up for me.
I thought I had in other threads, but I'll restate them.

Abortion is murder. There is no justification for it under any circumstances, including rape and incest.

That about sums it up for me.

Then people who have had abortions should be killed or imprisioned for life, correct?

And doctors who provide abortions should be killed or imprisioned for life, correct?

[Arathena]

If you think a fetus is a baby, and a baby is a human, then I fail to see how you can support the notion that the baby's right to life is somehow subserviant to a woman's right to not be inconveienced for a few months.

No one has an unqualified "right to life". Where on earth did you get that idea from? You have a right to life up until the point it involves someone else having to do something to sustain your right, otherwise you're preaching pure communism. You do NOT have the right to demand that someone else help you live, and so I claim that a baby has the right to life of itself, but not the right to demand the mother provide that life.

What right does a stranger have to demand you sustain their life?

Dd

Well, now, that brings up an entirely less stupid question: Under what circumstances is it morally acceptable to take a life? Forget this whole 'abortion' and 'clump of cells' versus 'baby' bullshit - When is it okay to kill? Where does the right to life end?