Abortion

[Coyote]

How the unborn was conceived has nothing to do with the abortion, but I'll give you this. In cases of rape and incest, I do tend to favor allowing the woman to have the abortion.



These two are examples of an inconvenience.

Good thing you'll never have to worry about getting pregnant.

 

[Coyote]

$200,000 is an awful lot of money to come up with for an "inconvenience".

 

[palerider]

Not all abortions are done as a matter of convenience. There are many reasons why they are done and that is a decision to be made between the woman and the doctor. You may believe that convenience is the reason but that does not make it a fact.

Convenience - noun - 1. anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc. 2. a convenient situation or time 3. freedom from effort or difficulty 4. advantage or accommodation.

You describe a reason for having an abortion that does not involve the life or long term health of the mother that does not fit the definition of convenience and you might have a valid point. My bet, however, is that you aren't going to be able to do it.

 

[palerider]

What right? From where? The twins together will survive - maybe not as long as one that is seperated - yet if seperated one will surely die. Someone is making a decision here to kill it.

In cases where twins are separated and it is known that one will die, the circumstance is always (as far as I can tell) one in which there is a shared organ but it is not strong enough to support both twins. This sort of surgury is usually done very early. If there is no risk that both will die if they are left conjoined, the decision is left to the twins when they get older.

We're talking about an environment that is someone elses body - that belongs to someone else.

Who is responsible for placing the child in such a position?

The difference here though - is you are talking about rights pertaining to only one entity. Here you have competing rights.

Right you are. The right to not be inconvenienced is competing with the right to live. Explain the logic by which the right to not be inconvenienced outweighs the right to live and explain it in such a way as it applies to all human beings and not a particular class of human beings.

 

[palerider]

See what I mean? Nothing but an academic argument. Nothing but contempt for women. So detached from life's little inconvenient realities. Sounds like someone who hasn't lived life. Never had to face any hard decisions. That must be why it's so easy to speak in theoretical terms. What choice do you have?

No explanation huh? Exactly what I thought. Double talk. Shuck and jive. Evasion. But no explanation. And there is nothing theoretical about my position and I don't have to shuck and jive around issues to explain it.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

$200,000 is an awful lot of money to come up with for an "inconvenience".

It doesn't matter. The fact is that the reason for the abortion is that the baby would provide a financial inconvenience.

Well wouldn't it be nice if we could just kill off anything that posed an inconvenience, financial or otherwise.

 

[Coyote]

In cases where twins are separated and it is known that one will die, the circumstance is always (as far as I can tell) one in which there is a shared organ but it is not strong enough to support both twins. This sort of surgury is usually done very early. If there is no risk that both will die if they are left conjoined, the decision is left to the twins when they get older.

Regardless - a choice is deliberately made to end one innocent life prematurely.

Who is responsible for placing the child in such a position?

Depends on the situation doesn't it?

Right you are. The right to not be inconvenienced is competing with the right to live. Explain the logic by which the right to not be inconvenienced outweighs the right to live and explain it in such a way as it applies to all human beings and not a particular class of human beings.

It is not about the right to be "inconvenienced". It is about the right of a person to control decisions regarding their own body.

 

[palerider]

But we are talking about a womens body. You know the Catholic church believes even taking birth control pills is taking life. The truth is what we are talking about are developing cells that if left to term could become sustainable human life. Could die off as a miscarriage. Could have terrible medical issues causing much pain and suffering before inevitable death. Many things "could" happen.

Using birth control pills does cause the child to die. Birth control pills are not contraception, they are abortifacients.

The truth is that from the time fertilization is complete, the unborn is a human being. Exactly as human as you and science supports my position. Once fertilization is complete, you have a potential ball player, or pianist, or judge, or serial killer, but not a potenital human being.

I think the truth is once you're confronted with the fact that it is a woman's body in control of this... and you have zero power over it... you become hostile to the obvious. Let the woman decide.

Another error in your position. From the time fertilization is complete, the child begins chemical communication with the mother's body, directing her to prepare for pregnancy. The child is in control even to the point of telling the woman when to go into labor.

Those are your words my friend I never said any such thing.I said it's a personal decision that should be considered very seriously by the person involved. There could well be medical reasons pertaining to the fetus or for the woman. There could be any number of reasons and I think you are aware of that. I'm presuming you are a man like me and thusly I know that you don't know the physiological effects of being in this situation. I think I may have said this before... Everyone talks a good fight.

Barely 1% of all abortions are due to medical reasons and I have no problem at all with those if the mother's life, or long term health is in danger because we do have the right to defend our lives, even if the one who is threatening us does not have any intent to harm us.

See that's what I had hoped you would say. You just stepped in it my friend because it's the same thing. The reasoning behind the "murder" as you put it does not in fact vary do to these circumstances at all. For your position to be consistent you would have to say it's God's will let whoever has to die, die. You can't be the orbiter of life & death. What your position does is it makes you "feel" you are being gallant when the choice is presented in a certain way. But death is death... killing is killing if not by complete and utter accident. Look at it you'll see what your mind just tried to spin.

I never bring God into this discussion. Pro choicers seem to have to do it. If I couldn't win without bringing God into it, I wouldn't join the conversation. My logic is flawless and entirely consistent. Let me see if I can explain it to you in more simple terms.

In the case of the conjoined twins. Suppose they share a heart and that heart is not strong enough to support both. If left alone, they will die. The one who has no heart of his or her own is going to cause the death of the one who has a heart. The one who has the heart has every right to defend his or her life even if the other twin has no intent to harm. If the mother's life or health is in danger, she has the right to defend her life as surely as she has the right to defend her life from anyone who might do her harm.

My argument, as is the case with every defense of my position, applies equally to all human beings and excludes none. Your argument only works for unborns and fails when applied to any other class of human beings.

But the "fact" has been proven my friend and the Supreme Court has upheld it for decades. Even many other countries have accepted the practice since the United States has. I think the difference is the world is evolving and you might prefer the middle ages.

No. The supreme court has proven nothing. Did the supreme court "prove" that blacks were not human beings when they ruled in Dred Scott that blacks were not, in fact, human beings but were property? Did they prove anything or simply make a terrrible mistake?

The scientific fact is that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. If you believe I am mistaken, I challenge you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

Who's hiding. I'm openly telling you you are wrong.

But completely failing to prove it in any way.

Interesting concept but I think that analogy actually applies much more to your own position. You want to be the slave master and dictate what a woman must do to something in her own body that is TOTALLY under her control. If she does not do as you have chosen you want to punish her. I'm sorry but I just don't agree with that.

Since you are suggesting that the woman "owns" the child like property and can therefore do with it whatever she wishes, my analogy to slavery is spot on.

Of course not. I judge everything on an individual basis. I do agree that if you don't like those things you mentioned you shouldn't do them because in doing so you set a bad example. Much like I would not expect you to have an abortion (if that were possible) because you feel strongly against it. And I don't think anyone should force one on you. In the same way I don't think you should force your opinion and interpretations on the majority of woman out there that disagree with you. I believe the courts have decided this matter correctly.

So you are a relativist?

 

[palerider]

That is also the issue I have with the anti-abortion movement. Many of them lose interest once the child is born. What happens to those children? What support is there for parents? What support for parents carrying disabled children (adoption is unlikely)....what happens and does anyone care? I never see protesters lined up marching along with signs saying "stop child abuse", "adopt a crack baby" etc.

So you favor killing them because they "might" be disabled, or they "might" not get adopted, or they "might have any number of problems? Which newborn from any economic class "might" not grow up to live a perfect life?

 

[palerider]

That is a false statement. The issue is not an "invented right to not be inconvenienced" - it's the very real right to be able to control choices affecting her body.

Do you have the right to kill another human who might cause you inconvenience?

Your argument only carrys weight if you include the death involved in the choice and can apply it equally across all classes of human beings and not just one.

 

[palerider]

Rape and incest come to mind - not an "inconvenience".

Why should the child forfiet its life because of the crimes of its father?
[/QUOTE]

 

[palerider]

Regardless - a choice is deliberately made to end one innocent life prematurely.

No. A choice is made to defend the life of the twin who is being threatened since it can not defend itself.

Depends on the situation doesn't it?

98% of all aborted pregnancies are the result of consensual sex. In any event, is the child responsible?

It is not about the right to be "inconvenienced". It is about the right of a person to control decisions regarding their own body.

It is about convenience and acting without accepting the responsibility for one's actions. Tell me a situation that does not involve the mother's life, or long term health that doesn't fit the definition of convenience.

 

[Coyote]

Using birth control pills does cause the child to die. Birth control pills are not contraception, they are abortifacients.

No, that is incorrect. Birth control pills work by preventing ovulation.

Another error in your position. From the time fertilization is complete, the child begins chemical communication with the mother's body, directing her to prepare for pregnancy. The child is in control even to the point of telling the woman when to go into labor.

That is also not entirely correct and deceptive. For one thing - what the fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo etc. does is mindless and mechanical there is no will behind it whatsoever - it is an automated process no different then a rabbit's or a mouse's. In addition it does not completely control the mother's body. In times of stress, the mother's body can shut it down and abort or reabsorb the fetus.

In the case of the conjoined twins. Suppose they share a heart and that heart is not strong enough to support both. If left alone, they will die. The one who has no heart of his or her own is going to cause the death of the one who has a heart. The one who has the heart has every right to defend his or her life even if the other twin has no intent to harm.

Typically, they both have a shared organ - a choice is made end one's life prematurely - it's not a matter of one defending his or her life because left unchanged they would both live for a period of time - short or long.

 

[Coyote]

Why should the child forfiet its life because of the crimes of its father?

Should the woman have to pay for the crimes of the father?

 

[Coyote]

No. A choice is made to defend the life of the twin who is being threatened since it can not defend itself.

It is not threatened. It may have a shorter life expectency but it would still be longer then the one that was murdered.

98% of all aborted pregnancies are the result of consensual sex. In any event, is the child responsible?

Like I said, depends on the situation.

It is about convenience and acting without accepting the responsibility for one's actions. Tell me a situation that does not involve the mother's life, or long term health that doesn't fit the definition of convenience.

Tell me a situation that does not involve someone besides the woman trying to control decisions made about her own body?