Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[squirrel123]

Personally I'm hoping to see a medical solution to this problem. I do believe a woman should have control over her own body. At the same time, I don't believe a fetus is a woman's own body. Eventually I would hope we could remove unwanted fetuses and implant them in women who want them. But right now I think the decision should be left to the mother and her doctor, hopefully recognizing that the fetus is a human being. There are too many factors involved for this to be effectively regulated by government.

That would actually be an excellent solution. The pregnant woman who doesn't want the baby gets to stop being pregnant, and someone who desperately wants to get pregnant gets to do so, and the baby gets to be carried (and subsequently brought up) by a woman who really, really wanted it. Sounds like all three parties would win

 

[KitKatMatt]

Eventually I would hope we could remove unwanted fetuses and implant them in women who want them.

This would be a great breakthrough for everyone. Although, I still think abortion would still be in demand (however, probably lower, especially if combined with education to reduce unwanted pregnancies).

Some people may have personal reasons for terminating a pregnancy and not allowing others to carry it to term.

 

[smaneck]

This would be a great breakthrough for everyone. Although, I still think abortion would still be in demand (however, probably lower, especially if combined with education to reduce unwanted pregnancies).

Some people may have personal reasons for terminating a pregnancy and not allowing others to carry it to term.

If there is something wrong with the fetus, then I agree she should have that discretion. But the right to an abortion is based on a woman's right to control her own body, not her absolute right over her baby. Still, I do wonder who is in a better position to make that decision than the mother.

 

[KitKatMatt]

If there is something wrong with the fetus, then I agree she should have that discretion. But the right to an abortion is based on a woman's right to control her own body, not her absolute right over her baby. Still, I do wonder who is in a better position to make that decision than the mother.

The problems that I have cannot be tested for during pregnancy, and are hereditary. They're a mix of physical and mental. As far back as I can remember, most of them haven't even skipped a generation (on both sides of my parents). This is why I personally could not bear the thought of forcing a life into this world that would have to endure the same hell that I'm already in. I would find it too cruel.

 

[smaneck]

The problems that I have cannot be tested for during pregnancy, and are hereditary. They're a mix of physical and mental. As far back as I can remember, most of them haven't even skipped a generation (on both sides of my parents). This is why I personally could not bear the thought of forcing a life into this world that would have to endure the same hell that I'm already in. I would find it too cruel.

I understand what you're saying. It is one of the reasons I don't think this is something government can really legislate. But this too may be one of problems which medical science may be able to resolve in the future.

 

[KitKatMatt]

I understand what you're saying. It is one of the reasons I don't think this is something government can really legislate. But this too may be one of problems which medical science may be able to resolve in the future.

I would really like to see the day when medicine goes that far It will be a great day for all of us!

 

[Armoured]

That would actually be an excellent solution. The pregnant woman who doesn't want the baby gets to stop being pregnant, and someone who desperately wants to get pregnant gets to do so, and the baby gets to be carried (and subsequently brought up) by a woman who really, really wanted it. Sounds like all three parties would win

Assuming there's enough prospective surrogate mothers around.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would submit it IS murder.

"killing of a human being"
A conceptus/fetus IS a human being. I do not care what the LEGAL definition of a human being is.

But "murder" is necessarily about matters of legality, as it is defined as being the unlawful killing of a specific type of being. And as we are talking matters of legality, you necessarily need a LEGAL definition of that being. Otherwise, the word doesn't mean anything.

Remember that less than 200 years ago blacks and native Americans were not legally human beings either. It was perfectly legal to kill either with malice. Can you tell me that was not murder?

Murder: unlawful killing. If it was legal to kill black folks, then by definition killing a black person was not "murder".

 

[Dave-W]

If it was legal to kill black folks, then by definition killing a black person was not "murder".

Except that it WAS murder.

As God said from atop of Mt Sinai:

Ex 20.13 “You shall not murder."

Where was the "legal" definition of murder there?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Calling all ye Nietzschean athsits - so much for an "eternal yes" to life? Personnally I thing there ought to be fewer abortions, but people are too busy getting wasted. Its a cultural thing.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Can you pinpoint exactly when red becomes green? If not, does that mean you can't point to a section that is clearly one or the other? A "line in the sand" is not necessary.

Red of course never becomes green but if you wish to know if I can find a point that is the first point where there is no red and there is only green in the picture you provided I suppose I cannot do so with my naked eye. Perhaps it would be possible using some computer enhanced method but I do not know that for sure. I can point to several sections that I would say was clearly one or the other but if I was wrong I suppose it would be of little importance. Now that would not be the case if a life depended upon my choosing what point is the first where there is no red and only green would it? If that were so, then I would be sure not one speck of green was possibly visible. Now, that I politely answered your question would you be kind enough to answer the questions I asked you?

 

[Armoured]

Red of course never becomes green but if you wish to know if I can find a point that is the first point where there is no red and there is only green in the picture you provided I suppose I cannot do so with my naked eye. Perhaps it would be possible using some computer enhanced method but I do not know that for sure. I can point to several sections that I would say was clearly one or the other but if I was wrong I suppose it would be of little importance. Now that would not be the case if a life depended upon my choosing what point is the first where there is no red and only green would it? If that were so, then I would be sure not one speck of green was possibly visible. Now, that I politely answered your question would you be kind enough to answer the questions I asked you?

What question did you ask me?

 

[Armoured]

Except that it WAS murder.

As God said from atop of Mt Sinai:

Ex 20.13 “You shall not murder."

Where was the "legal" definition of murder there?

Murder is an English word. The 10 Commandments weren't written in English. You want to use an English word, you're kinda stuck with the English definition.

 

[grasping the after wind]

There is no such thing as a "pro abortion" movement. Some of us believe that a pregnant woman should have the right to choose an abortion, but that doesn't make us "pro abortion" as you claim because we also believe that she should have the right to choose to carry the fetus to term. Pro choice is the correct description.

Be consistent then. If you want to be pro choice call your opponents pro life as they will tell you they want the women to choose life not death for the fetus. You seem unwilling to give what you demand to receive in this matter i,e, that those opposed to your position bow to your use of the language to describe your position.

 

[grasping the after wind]

What question did you ask me?

I am asking you to answer the questions I asked Belk that you decided to quote and comment upon but to leave unanswered. Belk has answered it will you? .

How do you then determine the exact moment that it becomes conscious? If being conscious was the reason someone decided they would not be willing to abort a fetus would one want to test any fetus up to be aborted to make sure it had not reached that point? If so how would one go about testing for that?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Actually, votes cast by black men counted as 3/5 of a vote cast by white men. That put black men 3/5 of a vote higher than women. Pretty sure they still considered women to be human.

Not quite . Blacks could not cast votes. The 3/5th human idea was put forward by the southern states not so that blacks could cast votes that counted 3/5ths of a white but so that blacks would be counted in the census as 3/5th human and increase the southern states representation in the House of representatives and in the electoral college .

 

[Armoured]

I am asking you to answer the questions I asked Belk that you decided to quote and comment upon but to leave unanswered. Belk has answered it will you? .

How do you then determine the exact moment that it becomes conscious? If being conscious was the reason someone decided they would not be willing to abort a fetus would one want to test any fetus up to be aborted to make sure it had not reached that point? If so how would one go about testing for that?

My "question" WAS my answer. You don't NEED to determine the exact moment of consciousness, you just need to draw the line while it still unarguably isn't conscious. e.g. in the unarguably green section of the red to green diagram.

 

[ecco]

FYI, to all the liberals wondering about sex Ed., the reason why most "right-wingers" oppose it is because they don't want to encourage casual sex. They don't want rampant hedonism to be promoted and for contraception to be seen as a way to "get away with a one-night stand". "Right-wingers" would rather have people waiting until they are physically and emotionally mature enough in a relationship to have sex, and possibly prepared for a child.

More correctly that would be "Christian Right-Wingers". And we weren't wondering about it at all. We are well aware of the simplistic mindset that brought about things like the Purity Pledges.

http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&PageID=1202 (emphasis in the original)

Since the concept was introduced, virginity pledges have been intricately linked with religious organizations. For example, True Love Waits, the pioneer of the virginity pledge movement, is sponsored by LifeWay Christian Resources, the “world’s largest provider of religious products and services,” which is operated by the Southern Baptist Convention.

• The same study also found that young people who took a pledge were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged.[3] In other words, pledging can create harm by undermining future contraceptive use.

• The researchers also found that “pledgers” have the same rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) as their peers who had not pledged. Not only were pledgers less likely to use condoms to prevent STDs, they were less likely to seek medical testing and treatment, thereby increasing possibility of transmission. In fact, in communities where there are a higher proportion of pledgers, overall STD rates were significantly higher than in other settings. [4]

• Further research found that, among those young people who have not had vaginal intercourse,pledgers are more likely to have engaged in both oral and anal sex than their non-pledging peers. In fact, among “virgins,” male and female pledgers are six times more likely to have had oral sex than non-pledgers, and male pledgers are four times more likely to have had anal sex than those who had not pledged.[5]

This is working out about as well as Ronnie Reagan's drug policy - "Just Say No" - with even worse consequences.

It's sad that so many people believe that there are simplistic solutions to complex problems. But, I guess, when you have simplistic ideas about the origins of the universe, you can come up with simplistic "solutions" to anything.

 

[Armoured]

More correctly that would be "Christian Right-Wingers". And we weren't wondering about it at all. We are well aware of the simplistic mindset that brought about things like the Purity Pledges.

http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&PageID=1202 (emphasis in the original)

Since the concept was introduced, virginity pledges have been intricately linked with religious organizations. For example, True Love Waits, the pioneer of the virginity pledge movement, is sponsored by LifeWay Christian Resources, the “world’s largest provider of religious products and services,” which is operated by the Southern Baptist Convention.

• The same study also found that young people who took a pledge were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged.[3] In other words, pledging can create harm by undermining future contraceptive use.

• The researchers also found that “pledgers” have the same rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) as their peers who had not pledged. Not only were pledgers less likely to use condoms to prevent STDs, they were less likely to seek medical testing and treatment, thereby increasing possibility of transmission. In fact, in communities where there are a higher proportion of pledgers, overall STD rates were significantly higher than in other settings. [4]

• Further research found that, among those young people who have not had vaginal intercourse,pledgers are more likely to have engaged in both oral and anal sex than their non-pledging peers. In fact, among “virgins,” male and female pledgers are six times more likely to have had oral sex than non-pledgers, and male pledgers are four times more likely to have had anal sex than those who had not pledged.[5]

This is working out about as well as Ronnie Reagan's drug policy - "Just Say No" - with even worse consequences.

It's sad that so many people believe that there are simplistic solutions to complex problems. But, I guess, when you have simplistic ideas about the origins of the universe, you can come up with simplistic "solutions" to anything.

I don't teach me kids about seatbelts so that way they won't have car accidents.

 

[grasping the after wind]

My "question" WAS my answer. You don't NEED to determine the exact moment of consciousness, you just need to draw the line while it still unarguably isn't conscious. e.g. in the unarguably green section of the red to green diagram.

Your little color picture scenario was more of a comment than a question and certainly could not be considered an answer to any but one of the questions I asked. How does your picture answer the questions "If being conscious was the reason someone decided they would not be willing to abort a fetus would one want to test any fetus up to be aborted to make sure it had not reached that point? If so how would one go about testing for that?"