Abortion Laws, Pro Life or Pro Chice?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by sultan_of_agrabah, Jun 7, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RoboNerd Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2001
    star 2
    womberty,

    At what point does one become human? That's the focus of the whole debate. And the answer is always an opinion. Thus, it is more wrong to legislate your belief versus someone's freedom.

    +=o RoboNerd o=+
  2. sultan_of_agrabah Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 11, 2002
    star 1
    I agree 100 percent, since the answer is always an opinion, it is wrong to decide someone's life based on that opinion alone.
  3. Darkside_Spirit Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 9, 2001
    star 3
    The burden of proof must always be on those who wish the state to intervene.
  4. Captain-Communist Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 24, 2002
    star 3
    Pro choice, you cant tell people what to do with there own body.
  5. Darth Fierce Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    Interesting how the pro-choice camp have adopted the phrase "anti-choice" to refer to pro-lifers.

    Does this mean pro-choicers should be called "anti-life"?
  6. sultan_of_agrabah Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 11, 2002
    star 1
    Hey Cap-communist, what about the baby's body? Does'nt he have a say? He should have the right to choose to live just as much as the mother.
  7. Dacks Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2001
    star 2
    I haven't read this thread, but I have a question.

    To those who are here right now, if you are pro-life, do you believe abortion is all right if the girl was raped?

    By the way, I am pro-choice.
  8. Dacks Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2001
    star 2
    Nobody's here, so I'll just have a hypothetical argument with Jason, who hypothetically is pro-life.

    Me: Why are you pro-life?
    Jason: Because I don't think anybody has the right to take away a life, born or unborn.
    Me: What if the girl was raped?
    Jason: Then it is acceptable.
    Me: Oh, so it is okay to take away an unborn life in one situation, but not in another? How very hypocritical. I guess you don't value the life after all.
    Jason: Geez, I never thought of it that way. I'm gonna change my whole perspective.

    Well, it never finished like that, but I've had that argument many times.

    I also realize that there are many other pro-life argument, but if you fit Jason's profile, you make no sense.
  9. Dacks Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2001
    star 2
    Oh yeah, I've got more. I decided to read a few posts, and I've got more to say.

    First of all, it is ridiculous for any of you to say "It's all about whether a fetus is a human being". I hate to break it to you, but who made you the authority?

    Funny, I thought that the mothers, girlfriends, friends and acquaintances I've talked to over the years would have some say. And unfortunately, the majority of them did not think that it was "just about whether a fetus is a human being." I hate to break it to you, but 500 posts on an online message board doesn't really give you the right to decide what the rest of the world thinks the focal point of a debate is.

    As for "is it alive". Nope. You want my definition of alive? The ability to live independantly. A fetus dies when the mother dies. A new-born does not.

    By the way, what do the pro-lifers think of "morning after pills"?
  10. Rebecca191 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 1999
    star 6
    Hey Cap-communist, what about the baby's body? Does'nt he have a say? He should have the right to choose to live just as much as the mother.

    A fetus can't choose. It is not developed enough to make any sort of choice!!

    As for "is it alive". Nope. You want my definition of alive? The ability to live independantly. A fetus dies when the mother dies. A new-born does not.

    Exactly! Many pro-lifers are "The baby is a seperate person," but if it's take out, it dies. A newborn can recieve care from anyone, if the mother is unable.
  11. Dacks Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2001
    star 2
    Ah good someone here. I'm glad you agree. (At least with that part.)
  12. Dacks Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2001
    star 2
    I've also seen someone say, with all the easy precautions out there, there is no excuse for a woman to need an abortion.

    Let's say a female military person was captured during a war. She was abused, raped, and held in a camp, during which time a healthy fetus developped. This situation is perfectly possible, and I can come up with more situations in which a female is pregnant and had absolutely no way of preventing it.

    When she is eventually rescued, is she allowed to get an abortion? This is obviously a question for the pro-lifers.

    If you say "yes", than you're not really pro-life at all, you're really just a hypocrite. Either that, or you say you're pro-life when all you really want is for women of all ages to be more responsible, which I agree with.

    If you still say "no, she can't get an abortion" than you're not just pro-life, you're a Pro Asshole and I have no respect for your moral opinions anyway. But I hope that no such people would still say no.

    Why won't someone argue with me? Is it really that late?

    The sad thing is, I probably won't be on here again for a while, so I'll never get a chance to back my statements up. Sigh.
  13. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    As I have said before, I am pro-life when a women wants an abortion done "for convenience" which is 98% of the time. For the other 2% that are done due to rape, incest, life threatening complications, then I think it is a decision the mother should be able to make, knowing that there will be complications. Something no one has yet pointed out is the physiological damage a women's body goes through in developing a healthy fetus and then having it scraped out of her body. Just because the baby is gone, that doesn't mean that a women's hormones that have begun planning for the development of the child disipate immediately. Typically they cause severe depression and sometimes lead women to commit suicide.


    I personally believe that abortion should not be an option, but as a realist, I do not expect to enforce my beliefs on others. I would hate to return to the time in which women engaged in back alley abortions, risking their lives.
  14. Kit' Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 30, 1999
    star 5
    Lets try an easier example, one that I know happens all the time...

    We have a a boy named Fred and a girl named Mandy. Now Mandy and Fred are in love, both of them are using contraceptives. Mandy is on the pill and both use condoms. Now Mandy (after several years of going out with Fred)discovers she is pregnant. They don't have the family support, or money to raise the baby. She doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy because she's frankly scared (I know a girl who was in a similar situation, she hadn't even thought of adoption before I suggested it. Even then she wasn't sure).

    Should she be able to abort the baby? It's only a few thousand cells at the moment, it isn't a fetus and if you took Mandy away then it would die very quickly.

    Should she be able to abort? It is a decision that will change her life, even if she does give it up for adoption...


    Kit

    Womberty: The person in question that was using several different contraceptives was my mother. I questioned her about whether she thought she had made any mistakes and she said she didn't think so. She said everything had been done properly and she still fell pregnant with my little sis, same as when she fell pregnant with me.
  15. Cailina Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 1999
    star 4
    Just popping in to reply to one comment:
    I hate to break it to you, but 500 posts on an online message board doesn't really give you the right to decide what the rest of the world thinks the focal point of a debate is.

    Okay let me clarify that...I am pro-choice as I stated before and I agree with the person who, was a pro-lifer, and said that when the fetus becomes a human being is the focal point of the debate. What we meant, about the 500 posts, is that we've both posted in numerous debates about abortion...I know I've been in at least five on the JC. Every single time it goes in circles for awhile and then finally comes down to people disagreeing about when the baby becomes a person and protected by the constitution. Eventually, that is what has happened in every abortion debate we've been involved in which is why we both agree that it is the focal point of the debate...it is a very crucial disagreement.
  16. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    When this thread first started, I was all ready to go. But it's tiring. I've done this several times already, and not just bantering--real, in-depth debating. And it's very, very tiring.
    I'm going to reply now, but I don't know how much I'll be around to debate.

    Partial-birth abortions are murder.
    A child is delivered halfway, and then literally gets its brain sucked out. I'm incredibly disappointed in Congress for letting this one pass. How is a child any less human, and less of a person, mere seconds before it is born? How is it less deserving of life? It's still exactly the same both before and after delivery; whether it is inside or outside the mother's womb is a completely arbitrary distinction.

    Abortion in the Third Trimester is murder.
    If a baby is born prematurely, do you know what happens? Doctors try to save its life, because it's a human being. Two weeks, or three weeks, or a month, or more--it doesn't matter how early. The child is still a person, a human being protected by the law. And yet it is not considered human if it is inside the womb. If it were displaced less than a foot, it would be a human being. I ask you, is that not unjust? Isn't that stupid?!

    Abortion is murder--period.
    You could argue that a child is not human until it is capable of surviving with no ties to it's mother. But that, too, is arbitrary, for as technology grows the fetus will be able to survive outside its mother's body from an earlier and earlier point.
    You could argue that a fetus is not a living human being until it has consciousness (which, of course, casts aside current biological definitions and standards for life). But what is consciousness? Is it awareness? Is it the capability of awareness? Is it understanding? All three sound plausible--until you realize that they don't even apply to people living, in some cases. A 'vegetable' is not aware. Any person in a coma is not necessarily aware of what goes on around them. If they are not aware, the aren't capable of understanding either.
    But then, you say, they are human if they are capable of being aware. But what does that mean? That you've got the hardware? How does that make you human? Is a person any more or less human because he lacks a vital organ, but lives? He's still as human as you or I, so I would hesitate to define humanity requiring a prerequisite amount of organs.

    So what would I define a human being as? A living human being?
    Pick up a scientific textbook and talk to me, bro. Talk to me.

    Now, the TalkBack section of my post :D

    RoboNerd: At what point does one become human? That's the focus of the whole debate. And the answer is always an opinion. Thus, it is more wrong to legislate your belief versus someone's freedom.

    Can you tell when it does become a human being? When exactly? When it's born? Nah. That's loony.
    If you can't tell me, which you can't, wouldn't it be wise to err on the side of caution? Not doing so would result in ultimate hypocrisy.

    Dacks: First of all, it is ridiculous for any of you to say "It's all about whether a fetus is a human being". I hate to break it to you, but who made you the authority?

    This is where you bring up an argument, instead of this ad hominem stuff ...

    Funny, I thought that the mothers, girlfriends, friends and acquaintances I've talked to over the years would have some say. And unfortunately, the majority of them did not think that it was "just about whether a fetus is a human being." I hate to break it to you, but 500 posts on an online message board doesn't really give you the right to decide what the rest of the world thinks the focal point of a debate is.

    You can disagree, but it's a waste of time. Sorry to be rude. Read Cailina's post.

    As for "is it alive". Nope. You want my definition of alive? The ability to live independantly. A fetus dies when the mother dies. A new-born does not.

    So you agree that abortion in the Third Trimester should be outlawed?

    By the way, what do the
  17. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    StarFire: I think there's a logical limit to where and when we place value on life... I mean, what you say about technology... with today's technology, all kinds of cells on your body can be used for replicating life. Should you stop taking showers, getting biopsies, throat cultures?

    In the interests of protecting every potential for human indepdendent life, I strongly suggest that you never set foot in a doctor's office again, much less take showers or sneeze.

    The issue isn't so much whether or not we're terminating a life. It's obvious that fetus termination is termination of a life. It's a question of who has the right to adjudicate over the fetus' existence prior to the third trimester, when the likelihood of independent survival after premature birth/extraction is high.

    I think we're caught up in the same dilemma that makes us want to save bunny rabbits but not cockroaches. They're both living things... but one is obviously more similar to us (hint: The mammal), and therefore more endearing.

    Who cares? That the underlying impetus for saving every last fetus is simply because they have the potential to be an independent life doesn't change the fact that they aren't and, if caught in a dangerous medical situation, may very well never be.
  18. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    I'd point out the difference between potential human life and actual human life, but then I'd be posting. Ah well.
  19. Terr_Mys Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    Good points, StarFire. I just want to elaborate a bit on that point about consciousness.

    If one argues that a fetus only becomes a human being when it becomes conscious, then they are saying that when you go to sleep, you are dead. Umm...no. Sleep is defined as "a normal loss of consciousness." So that theory can be thrown out the window right now.

    Ah, everyone loves this concrete 'dictionary evidence' stuff. :)
  20. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    A fetus is independant life, Darth_SnowDog.
  21. Rebecca191 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 1999
    star 6
    I am against abortions in the third trimester and partial birth abortions. In fact, I think abortions should really only be done in the first trimester.
  22. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    A fetus is independant life, Darth_SnowDog.

    Prior to the third trimester, how so? If you remove it from the parent, it cannot exist. Therefore it's not independent.. it is, by definition, wholly dependent upon the parent for its biochemical existence.
  23. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    It's dependent in the third trimester, and after it's born too. Unless you're basing it's independence (or lack thereof) on the completely arbitrary number of people that care for it, it's independent (in the sense that the mother has no control over it).
  24. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    I'm basing it on the fact that, prior to the third trimester.. it's no more independent of the mother than a kidney or piece of skin. Cut it off and it dies.
  25. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    The Third Trimester is hardly a set-in-stone cut-off point. It's simply a period which, with our current technology, we have a much higher chance of saving premature babies.

    The mother's body never has any direct control over the fetus, voluntarily or involuntarily. It is markedly independent in the sense that it can not really be defined as a part of the mother's body. Is it dependent on her for nutrition? Certainly. But I am dependent on the earth for nutrition. In that sense, no one is truly independent.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.