Abortion Poll

[lixluke]

No, please explain. If you're wondering, abstaining is not an option I would vote for.

The abortion debate itself is rooted in the above debate definition.
A debate definition is a single question in which individuals can take opposing positions on. Yes/no. True/false. Agree/disagree.

The debate definition in this case as quoted in the original post:
"Does an unborn child have an ethical right to life which should be protected by law without exception in a manner equal to a born individual’s ethical right to life which should be protected by law without exception?"


There are 2 opposing positions. It is impossible for there to be any other position other than the standard abstain/present positions.


In regards to this particular debate definition question, any other debatable opinion regarding the abortion debate is not a separate position, but falls under one of those 2 opposing positions.

For example: Is cool skill 100% human? Yesor No?
To say Yes with restrictions is logically impossible. I cannot say that I am 100% human with the restriction that I'm 2% alien. It would contradict the statement that I am 100% human. Therefore, I am not 100% human. Therefore, the answer is no.


Regarding this topic, I would like to see how you could have a restriction on the "yes" position or exceptions on the "no" position.

 

[lixluke]

The issue here is whether the foetus is a 'life' before it is born.

This has nothing to do with the issue, and is taken out of context of the issue. The issue as presented above bears the assumption that the unborn child is a living separate entitiy in relation to its host parent just as one human is a living separate entity in relation to another human.

For your information, the following statements of mine that you quoted out of context were in regards to a post made by Arquibus.

cool skill:
--------------------
"Therefore, in any case not necessarily abortion, the right for Person A to take the life of Person B to save his own life, outweighs the high probability that both Person A and Person B will die if Person A doesn't take Person B's life.

Considering the case where the birth threaten's the parent's life, but is no threat to the baby, who's life is more valueable?
Host Parent?
Unborn Child?
Equal?"
--------------------


Taking statements out of context is not necessary. Please review the thread, and refrain from taking statements out of context, and imposing positions on others. I have had great problems communicating with you in other threads because you do not seem to wish to follow logical forms of communication.

The biggest problem I have had with you on other threads is illogical personal attacks and illogical statements that make no sense. Please do not bring that into this thread. Everybody has points that they wish to discuss, and everybody has the right to discuss them.

Your entire post is a response to cool skill's calrification of what Arquibus posted as if it was cool skill posting those comments. I have no idea what the relevance is of responding to an objective explaination of somebody else's post.

Again, that post was nothing more than cool skill trying clarify and understand what arquibus had said. Next time you respond do that post, do not respond to it as if that is what cool skill is saying. Instead, be more helpful.

For example: Well maybe I can help cool skill be more clear on what arquibus said by giving my opinion regarding what I think Arquibus was trying to say. That way, I might be able to give cool skill some insight on understanding what Arquibus' opinion is.



********************
Some people just do not understand how to understand others. I have encountered many people here and in RL that are so focused on their own point of view that they are completely incapable of even stating the othe person's opinion or point of view.

If I have my point of view, at least I can hear the next person's point of view. And I can restate the next person's point of view exactly or if not more clearly than the person that stated it. It does not mean that I must agree with that person's point of view.

On the other hand, some people are incapable of stating the point of view of a person they disagree with. I have seen this alot on these forums. Dealing with such people can be time consuming because you have to sit there and explain to them the following over and over:
BEFORE YOU ARGUE WITH SOMEBODY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT PERSON'S POSITION AND OPINION!!!!

In order to clearly understand that person's position and opinion, try restating it to that person, and try to ask the person questions if you are not clear about what they said. Allow the person to respond to confirm that you understand what exactly it is that person is saying. Then you can decide what you may or may not agree with regarding that person's opinion.

This is what I was doing in the case of Arquibus' post. Instead of seeing it as a post of cool skill trying to understand what Arquibus was saying, you jumped in, and started arguing against certain statements in that post as if it was cool skill's.

IF YOU ARE UNWILLING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING BEFORE YOU DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE/DISAGREE WITH THEM, THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR YOU. PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN A FRIENDLY REASONABLE MANNER OR EXIT THIS DEBATE
********************

 

[Bells]

Your entire post is a response to cool skill's calrification of what Arquibus posted as if it was cool skill posting those comments. I have no idea what the relevance is of responding to an objective explaination of somebody else's post.

Again, that post was nothing more than cool skill trying clarify and understand what arquibus had said. Next time you respond do that post, do not respond to it as if that is what cool skill is saying. Instead, be more helpful.

I apologise for responding to your repetitive reiteration of another.

QUESTION:
Does an unborn child have an ethical right to life which should be protected by law without exception in a manner equal to a born individual’s ethical right to life which should be protected by law without exception?

No.

Before the third trimester, a foetus is not viable outside of the mother's body. To give this foetus equal rights to life as that of the mother's which is protected at law without exception is dangerous not only to the mother, but to the foetus itself. For example, if at 12 weeks into her pregnancy, the mother discovers that she has cancer (as an example), if the foetus she is carrying had equal rights to life "without exception", then she would be denied the right to save her own life in seeking treatment for her cancer. In this example alone, the child's right to life has superseded hers and is no longer equal to that of the mother's.

How can one give equal ethical rights to life to a being that is not yet alive? Who would make the choice? If the answer to this question was yes, then if during the birth for example, complications arose which put both the mother's and the baby's life at risk, who's equality and ethical right to life would supersede the other's? For this reason the foetus' life could not be equal to that of a living person's. After all, if both have an equal or ethical right to life, then how would one decide which has the a superior right to life in the event of an emergency? If it is an ectopic pregnancy for example, shouldn't the woman have the right to abort the embryo to ensure that she survives since the pregnancy could result in not just the embryo dying but also the mother once the tube ruptures? If we are to say that the unborn has equal and ethical rights to life, then the mother would not be allowed to abort the ectopic pregnancy. There must always be exceptions to such rules.

In the case where nothing has gone wrong and the mother wishes to abort, my answer is still the same. If the woman feels that the pregnancy and the child that follows will impede on her way of life and she does not want it, she should be allowed to abort the embryo. The "child" at this point cannot survive outside of her body and is parasitic in nature and her body would reject it given the chance, and something not yet alive or living should not be given the same rights as one who is alive.

That is my personal opinion and if you disagree that is your perogative. Since it seems we are not allowed to discuss, debate or argue each other's opinions and statement, merely state it, I have given you my own as a statement.

-----------------------------------------

There? Does that satisfy the rules you have set down for your thread? As for your attack on my unfriendly style in this thread and others, I will only say this... Pot.. Kettle.. Black..

 

[dsdsds]

Considering the case where the birth threaten's the parent's life, but is no threat to the baby, who's life is more valueable?
Host Parent?
Unborn Child?
Equal?

If the host parent's life is more valuable, it is ethical for the parent to extinguish the unborn child.
If the unborn child's life is more valuable, it is not ethical for the parent to extinguish the unborn child.
If they are equal, it is not ethical for the parent to extinguish the unborn child.

Depends on the meaning of "valuable". From an human evolutionary standpoint, the baby's life is more "valuable". For the pregnate woman with cancer scenario, who is or has the potential to be more "valuable" to society. Shouldn't the law favour the one who has the potential to contribute more to society?

 

[DiamondHearts]

It is necessary if the Mother's life is in danger to abort the fetus to save the life of the woman.

Muslims believe it is ok to abort the fetus before it develops, which is something like 120 days.

(1) Abortion could be allowed for a lady's health sake, and that too when properly suggested by some responsible specialist/physician.

(2) Under normal health conditions, and particularly when the foetus is developed enough (that specialists consider it a live body), abortion amounts to deliberate killing and therefore, not allowed.

(3) Abortion or even prevention of conception for fear of economic hardships, is the negation of the basic article of Islamic faith that God is sole Provider and Sustainer of every living soul. That being the reason, the act will be un-Islamic.

(4) Seeking abortion for no "good" reason at all, and saying that the "mother" or "father" just does not want that baby - is inhuman and cruel thinking. No sane person would allow that.

(5) If even the conception is the result of extra-marital union or forced rape, abortion is not allowed, because the (innocent) baby to be, has the right to life, that can not be denied. The biological parents - both or either one - or else the society/state is responsible to take care of such "un-wanted" or illegal births.

http://www.jamaat.org/qa/abort.html

Peace

 

[QuarkMoon]

Regarding this topic, I would like to see how you could have a restriction on the "yes" position or exceptions on the "no" position.

No, with exceptions! = Incest, rape, if the mother's life is in jeopardy.

Yes, with restrictions! = Restrict the number of abortions one can have. The women must provide substantial documentation to prove that she would be unable to care for the child.

It's quite simple, actually. Perhaps you are confusing all pro-lifers as religious objectors?

 

[snake river rufus]

The key point to me is " Can the fetus survive outside the womb on its own?" this was not stated in the poll question and to my mind this is the key distinction re the morality of abortion. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that it's not my place to try to force my own feelings on abortion onto anybody else.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

who cares about abortion,

thousands of animals die all the time, humans arent so special, let people abort if they want, and if they dont want to abort then dont let them, its win win, the people who dont want abortions dont have them, the people that want them should have them,


happy both sides win,

peace.

 

[Mrhero54]

No, with exceptions! = Incest, rape, if the mother's life is in jeopardy.

Yes, with restrictions! = Restrict the number of abortions one can have. The women must provide substantial documentation to prove that she would be unable to care for the child.

It's quite simple, actually. Perhaps you are confusing all pro-lifers as religious objectors?

I've never understood how people could be totally against abortion untill rape or incest.

So if a woman is raped, decides to have to baby, and then two weeks after the birth she decides to kill her child is she wrong? The aforementioned reasoning seems to imply that's its okay to kill a baby you were rapped or impregnated by your father. But it's not okay if its some one-night-stand?

 

[Clockwood]

I'm a firm believer in moral relativism.
The Spartans dropped unfit or deformed babies off tall cliffs... and, in my mind, it was not wrong for them.

I deny that there is any inherent right or wrong built into the universe. A culture has to decide such things for itself... and there is no god or gods to help it do so.

 

[QuarkMoon]

I've never understood how people could be totally against abortion untill rape or incest.

So if a woman is raped, decides to have to baby, and then two weeks after the birth she decides to kill her child is she wrong? The aforementioned reasoning seems to imply that's its okay to kill a baby you were rapped or impregnated by your father. But it's not okay if its some one-night-stand?

By law, killing a baby after birth is murder. By law, killing a fetus inside the womb is not, ergo abortion. Depending on the developmental stage of the fetus, it is a good law. Late term abortions are illegal for a reason, the fetus is almost fully developed and sentient.

My opinion? Continue to outlaw late term abortions, outlaw all other abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in jeopardy. Why an exception for rape and incest? Psychological reasons and health issues (incest).

 

[sapphirerain]

I apologise for responding to your repetitive reiteration of another.


No.

Before the third trimester, a foetus is not viable outside of the mother's body. To give this foetus equal rights to life as that of the mother's which is protected at law without exception is dangerous not only to the mother, but to the foetus itself. For example, if at 12 weeks into her pregnancy, the mother discovers that she has cancer (as an example), if the foetus she is carrying had equal rights to life "without exception", then she would be denied the right to save her own life in seeking treatment for her cancer. In this example alone, the child's right to life has superseded hers and is no longer equal to that of the mother's.
QUOTE]

This isn't entirely true. A foetus is viable before the third trimester. My cousins are living proof of this. They were born in the 5th month of pregnancy. If I remember correctly there have been babies born as soon as 4 and half months. I might be wrong about this last statement and if I am I'm sorry. My cousins were born in the early 80's and technology has come a long way since then.

 

[Bells]

This isn't entirely true. A foetus is viable before the third trimester. My cousins are living proof of this. They were born in the 5th month of pregnancy. If I remember correctly there have been babies born as soon as 4 and half months. I might be wrong about this last statement and if I am I'm sorry. My cousins were born in the early 80's and technology has come a long way since then.

The third trimester begins from week 27 (in Australia anyway). There have been some babies born at that point and some even born from 25 weeks and have survived. However most of those babies do end up having disabilities ranging from mild to extreme.. if they survive. The longer the foetus remains in the womb, the better the chances. A friend of my sister in law's gave birth to her daughter when she was 26 weeks. After many many months spent in hospital, she is still quite a sick little girl. She is 2 years old and still cannot walk or talk. She has to undergo intensive physiotherapy to get her limbs moving and extensive speech therapy to get her to try to talk. She is also blind and partially deaf. She has heart problems as well. Her heart stopped more times than I can remember when she was in the hospital and her parents pushed for resuscitation. It has stopped since she was released and again, was able to be resuscitated successfully.

The viability of these babies is.. well.. slim. They cannot survive without extensive medical treatment and care. Most do not survive even with the best of care. If they do survive, many end up needing extensive care for the rest of their lives, even with the advancement of medicine and technology. The friend of my sister in law was told that her daughter's viability (or survival chance) was that of winning a lottery. I guess she won the lottery and yes she was viable, but at what cost...?

 

[Possumking]

Shit. I voted Yes, but meant to vote No. Can someone edit the polls?

 

[Quagmire]

Absolutely not, picture in your mind the poor little kids in romanian orphanages and other eastern bloc countries in particular, no care, no love, little chance of making a decent life for itself, the social lessons we learn and take for granted whilst we are raised are non existant for these children.

So what future do they have? crime? drugs? prostitution? creating more orphans and so the cycle is complete.

Also i could never expect a rape victim to give birth to the maniac rapists offspring.

in britain, there seems to be a growing culture of mothers being younger and younger, i have personally seen girls that are barely teenagers pushing their babies around - the mothers havnt finished school, havnt got an education and so have little prospects for providing a good life for their babies.

so they get older, resent their choice, and are reminded of their choice everytime they see their child, the usually single mother eventually gives in, stops caring, the result - ASBO nation. 1000's of children terrorising the streets, into crime, into drugs, violent, no respect, in trouble with the law, no prospects, no education, the gutter.

im not suggesting this is the 100% truth in every case, but if allowing abortion gives one girl the chance to correct a mistake, make something of herself before becoming a mother then isnt it worth it?