Sex, lust, desire are SINS. Come, be saved!

[Bambi]

Some things that haven't been said but should be

Concerning the "scientific" arguments that fertilized egg = human life. What you don't realize is that a fertilized egg also = 2 human lives. Sometimes even 3. And possibly 4 or more. They're called maternal (or identical) twins, the "natural" version of genetic clones. So obviously there is a fundamental flaw in the argument that traces individuality back to a single fertilized egg. And not just a single flaw.

Many miscarriages occur due to a genetic defect in the developing embryo. In such cases the embryo was never even destined to become an individual; there was only a superficial appearance of potential.

An embryo, especially early-stage embryo, is no more an individual than a woman's liver. At such early stages, it is entirely a parasitic growth. Cancer is also a parasitic growth. It also has all the 46 human chromosomes of a fully formed, sexed, etc. individual. The crux of the issue is that an embryo has no existence apart from the woman's body; it is not an individual.

A genetic defect may result in the embryo producing a newborn with no brain. Instead of a brain, the skull is filled with fluid. This birth defect is called anencephaly. In such a situation, I think it can and should be argued that the resulting "child" is not a human being -- and never will be. And why? Because it does not have a brain. Which is why humanity is determined by the presence of a human brain that is developed enough to function at least at a rudimentary level. First-trimester fetuses are absolutely clearly not so endowed and therefore absolutely clearly not human.

I think that to rape, incest and child pregnancy we should add severe birth defects as a reason for imposing abortion as a legal right. It is truly cruel and subhuman to force a mother to allow a fetus to mature into an individual who will be born into a tortured life of certain, incurable, and incessant agony. That would be completely undeserved and hideous punishment both for the mother and for the individual-to-be. Note: I'm not advocating eugenics. But elementary compassion must be allowed -- just as in the case of euthanasia. If we allow putting a suffering dog "to sleep", it is a scandal if we won't allow the prospective parent such a choice before it's too late.

An individual is not determined entirely or even to a vast extent by his biochemical (including genetic) endowment. What we are unwittingly brushing here is the hot-button debate of nature vs. nurture. An enormous part of what makes a human is the human experience. The environment and interactions with the environment have an overwhelming effect in shaping the individual from the very moment of birth and probably even sooner all the way through maturity. This important portion of humanity is not contained in the genes nor in a fertilized egg nor even in a 3 month old protohuman embryo. This also ties into having a brain as a necessary prerequisite for a life to be considered human.

Consider, for a moment, a hypothetical scenario where human reproduction is not sexual but asexual. In such a case pregnancy would not be anyone's fault; rather it would be an unavoidable and not always desirable condition. I think that about 80% of the "pro-life" arguments that are based on guilt and "responsibility" would suddenly collapse under such a scenario. The truth of the matter is that under the "pro-life" slogan hide the true motivations -- the movement is pro-guilt, pro-oppression, pro-religion, pro-overpopulation, pro-suffering, pro-participation mystique.

 

[Dracula's Guest]

I'm going to have to go with the Pro-choice argument here. I know people have some issues with abortion, but I dont feel its right to make someone else's choice for them. I just feel its right that the mother has the choice over her own body, and not have that choice made for her by someone else's law. I know there has been a point made that conception creates a potential human, but then every egg that a woman produces is a potential human, and how many potential humans have been killed off during a womans period because the egg hasn't been fertilized. I mean every sperm cell a man wastes during masturbation could be seen as a potential human being, but I dont think it would be right to outlaw masturbation.

I'm not trying to recommend abortion. As other people have said already, prevention is the best option, but I just think it should be available as an absolute last resort for those that really need it. But then thats just my opinion.

 

[Xelios]

If abortion proceding is enforced, this also makes women slave of the state, in order to reproduce by force!. By not having a choice.

That's not it at all. Nobody will be forcing anyone to get pregnant, that is a consequence of a decision the woman herself makes. The government will not say to someone "Have a baby, now." and then force her to become pregnant. The government will simply be removing the option for her to kill the child. If she still does not want to take care of the child for 18 years, put it up for adoption, at least that way the child will have its life.

The woman has full choice on whether she wants to reproduce or not, if she really really doesn't want a child, then she can undergo surgery to "tie the tubes", use a combination of birth control methods or simply not have sex. The woman cannot, however, use abortion as birth control, that is what's immoral here.

I know there has been a point made that conception creates a potential human, but then every egg that a woman produces is a potential human, and how many potential humans have been killed off during a womans period because the egg hasn't been fertilized.

There is no potential for life in an unfertilized egg. Only when the egg becomes fertilized that the potential arrises. Up until that point it is no more human that a skin cell. IMO at least.

 

[Taken]

****no, giving life happens every day, Taken it is not some out of this world experience, *****

That attitude toward children is a large part of the problem. Anyone who would say that, has never experienced haveing a child. Cancer happens everyday too...but tell a 10 year old on Chemo that it is no "big deal".
It's the "NO Big Deal" syndrome that has teenage girls throwing babys out in the snow and in trash dumpsters. A Baby IS a BIG DEAL...and if people would get that in their heads mabey they would be a bit more carefull about reproducing out of negligence.



***When thousands of women died, in the hands of unprofessionals who were runing ilegal joints to give abortions to women who paid dearly for it.
*****

I say they got what they asked for. You take a life and you run the risk of loseing your own. It is a good enough philosophy for the US Government...check out death row.

 

[Bambi]

Xelios,

You said:

The woman has full choice on whether she wants to reproduce or not, if she really really doesn't want a child, then she can undergo surgery to "tie the tubes", use a combination of birth control methods or simply not have sex.

I find it very typical that you put the onus of preventing reproduction on the woman. As if the man is not an even more responsible party. After all, the woman's egg was already in her body; it was the man who put his sperm where it didn't belong. Hey, maybe we should just mandate a reversible vasectomy for all unmarried males. That way we would no longer have to face the abortion "problem".

Taken,

You state that:

Anyone who would say that, has never experienced haveing a child.

Even as you keep ignoring the difference between having a child and having a fetus. Stop mixing incompatible terminology.

I say they got what they asked for. You take a life and you run the risk of loseing your own. It is a good enough philosophy for the US Government...check out death row.

I suppose it is a good enough philosophy -- until someone close to you bleeds to death. I should point out that you are coming across as a self-centered, unempathetic, dogmatic to the point of mental atrophy egotist inhabiting a magical somnambulist microcosm.

 

[KalvinB]

What is the difference between someone close to you bleeding to death and a complete stranger bleeding to death?

Ben

 

[Xelios]

I find it very typical that you put the onus of preventing reproduction on the woman.

Yes, I apologize. It is the responsibility of both parties involved to prevent pregnancy, you're right.

Hey, maybe we should just mandate a reversible vasectomy for all unmarried males. That way we would no longer have to face the abortion "problem".


Maybe we should, it's better than killing the child every time you get an unwanted pregnancy. But that would pose an even bigger problem of money and resources. We do not have either in the amount needed to pull off something like that.

 

[Tiassa]

Excellent point

KalvinB

What is the difference between someone close to you bleeding to death and a complete stranger bleeding to death?

Only selfishness, good sir. In other words, I agree that there isn't really any.

An excellent point.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Bambi]

Originally posted by Xelios

Maybe we should, it's better than killing the child every time you get an unwanted pregnancy.

Killing the child is against the law. Aborting fetal development is not and should not be.

But that would pose an even bigger problem of money and resources. We do not have either in the amount needed to pull off something like that.

Oh please. We routinely circumcise male children upon birth; we might just as well take the opportunity to perform a vasectomy right then and there. (ok... before this gets too far out of hand, I'm only being sarcastic.)

 

[Dracula's Guest]

I know there has been a point made that conception creates a potential human, but then every egg that a woman produces is a potential human, and how many potential humans have been killed off during a womans period because the egg hasn't been fertilized.

Originally posted by Xelios
There is no potential for life in an unfertilized egg. Only when the egg becomes fertilized that the potential arrises. Up until that point it is no more human that a skin cell. IMO at least.

I'm not out to slay anyone, but I'm just curious about your opinion. I mean technically speaking there is potential life in every egg and sperm cell, so where do you draw the line? I dont personally view abortion as murder if it is during the early phases of pregnancy but I'm intrigued by those who say that life begins at the moment of conception.

I mean Is there any real difference between a fertilized egg and an un-fertilized egg? Sure, the fertilized egg will develop into a human baby if left to grow, but then an un-fertilized egg is a potential human being too if just had the chance to have been fertilized.
For instance, a couple might start trying for a baby, they might make several attempts, none of which are succesful, then the womans period comes and her egg is destroyed, does that mean a potential human being has been killed off by her natural body functions? Had they been lucky, the egg could have been fertilized and a baby boy or girl could have been on the way. Should the couple be mourning because they failed to give that particular egg cell life?? There are some extremist Christians that believe that men shouldnt masturbate because they would be "wasting their seed". Every sperm cell a man makes could be used for insemination so where do you draw the line between wasted cells and a potential human life?

 

[Xelios]

I'm not trying to insist that life begins at the moment of conception, but before conception there is not even potential for life as half the genes needed are missing. At conception, the potential of life is there, and indeed unless something is done to prevent it life will form there. My question is simply do we have the right to stop this formation of life, in essence take the life away from that child, because it presents an inconvenience for us?

I'm not about to go out and bomb abortion clinics, but I do feel it morally wrong. What other animal on earth performs abortions? We are altering the course of nature by aborting. Yet, many people who support abortion are completely against genetic research and genetic manipulation. Where do we draw the line at tamporing with nature?

I know technically the fetus is not alive, but it should have the right to develop to maturity. There are far more morally correct solutions to this problem than abortion.

 

[Godless]

Computer melt down....

I've been gone a few days, had problems with the computer.

BTW, I like the fact that I have some company on "pro-choice" issue!.

Ok, here's the deal as I see it, abortion should be legal it's only moral, for an individual to decide what she's going to do with her life, however, abortion should not be used as a contrapseption.

There must be a limit set of how many times an individual woman choses to have an abortion, after the first time, she must attend some class, on contrapseption, and pryor to getting the abortion she also needs some counseling, in the case of teen pregnancy the decision should be made with counseolors and parents assistance.

Abortion laws are been passed to kind of offset the frequency an indiviual has abortions, also on parents aknowledgement of such decisions by teens. This last part, I really don't agree with, if the teen does not really want her parents to know, the "law" should respect her privacy.

As for when does life start?, it starts as soon as the baby starts to breath!!.

 

[Xelios]

I would be willing to settle for that Godless. While it is still not as morally correct in my view as banning abortion altogether, I'd say it's a good compromise. As long as abortion does not become a form of birth control I'm happy. Well, happy as I could be considering you'd still be taking at least one life per woman...

 

[Bambi]

Godless,

I find the following remarks of yours rather questionable:

... abortion should not be used as a contrapseption.

There must be a limit set of how many times an individual woman choses to have an abortion, after the first time, she must attend some class, on contrapseption, and pryor to getting the abortion she also needs some counseling, in the case of teen pregnancy the decision should be made with counseolors and parents assistance.

Abortion laws are been passed to kind of offset the frequency an indiviual has abortions...

Who in their right mind would imagine that a woman would prefer abortion as her method of contraception? Abortion is a traumatic, painful, dangerous surgery. Do you think you would eschew other forms of contraception if your alternative was the equivalent of having a root canal surgery every time you got pregnant? Even if a woman is careless prior to her first abortion, you better believe that afterward she will use everything she can not to go through that experience again.

As for classes, we already have sex ed mandatory in our public schools. Of course, maybe we should move it down (or at least the important parts of it) in grades to be taught to students just prior to them becoming reproductively fertile.

Xelios,

At conception, the potential of life is there, and indeed unless something is done to prevent it life will form there. My question is simply do we have the right to stop this formation of life, in essence take the life away from that child, because it presents an inconvenience for us?

Again, you are not thinking clearly. Before you can take anything away from anyone, that someone has to exist. There is no child at the time of abortion. And as for potential, two people having sex represents a potential for life. Does that mean we must outlaw all forms of contraception?

What other animal on earth performs abortions? We are altering the course of nature by aborting.

What other animal flies around in airplanes? What other animal razes forests and replaces them with plantations? We alter the course of nature in virtually everything we do. Unless you advocate that we discard modern civilization and return back to our "roots", you can't be serious in proposing such an argument against abortion.

Yet, many people who support abortion are completely against genetic research and genetic manipulation. Where do we draw the line at tamporing with nature?

Reasonable people do not oppose genetic research/manipulation because of "tampering with nature". That is merely a political argument designed to snare simple-minded religionists. The real motivation for opposing or at least demanding great caution of genetic research is that it creates new, unprecedented life forms with consequences for biosphere that are not always easy to predict. The possibility of deleterious consequences warrants a great deal of caution.

Moreover, we are nature. We are not supernatural, we are natural; we are an integral part and parcel of it. There is nothing, therefore, we can ever do that could be considerd "unnatural". The real issue in conservation is that because of our interdepence with nature we hurt our own future interests by being profligate with our present endowment.

There are far more morally correct solutions to this problem than abortion.

It always irks me when people start to appeal to "morality". Just what the heck is the meaning of "morally" in your statement above? Is it some private morality you hope to impose upon everyone else? Is it your religion you hope to impose upon everyone else? As far as I am concerned, morality should be grounded in reason. Therefore, it is specious to appeal to morality in an argument; instead just use what you think is the underlying argument for the very moral position you choose to champion.

 

[Godless]

Babi

This point of view, for setting a limit of abortions to an individual came from a debate with a co-worker, the way he put it, sounds reasonable, and justifiable. I.e. The only type of woman who would probably go thruough her life, with another abortion after the first is more than likely a drug junkie, coming from a black man who was explaining this to me, I saw his reasoning, women who abuse drugs have no limits of what they do, to aquire the drugs, sex is often a payment. In the event she should get pregnant, she might go for the second abortion, knowing well what she has to deal with, however the drug addiction she has may be her "excuse" for going through the second abortion, then the third and so forth!.

When my friend made me see his point, I could well see where he was coming from. He has met women whom have had several abortions, and by his definition these women were sleazy sluts, who were drug abusers, it's not that he hanged out with them, it is a small world in the big city, and easy to know all kind of different people.

So I came to the conclusion, that there must be a set limit for women to have abortions, specially if the individual involved may have this kind of life, as you yourself mentioned "Abortion is a traumatic, painful, dangerous surgery." it may as well save her life.

 

[Bambi]

Well Godless,

you do have a point about junkies and prostitutes. However, I don't think it would help anyone if they were forced to bear their crack and syphilis babies (not to mention that crack and syphilis are just the tip of the iceberg.) I would think that in the case of junkies and prostitutes the problem is far more fundamental than contraception, and should be treated at its roots. On the other hand, it might not hurt to offer such people free contraception at the public's expense -- because it would come out cheaper than having to pay for their abortions and/or care for their devastated children.

 

[Tiassa]

Again, education

I would think that in the case of junkies and prostitutes the problem is far more fundamental than contraception, and should be treated at its roots

You have a marvelous point, Bambi. In this case, I'm prepared to haul out my soapbox, but I hope it would suffice to say this is where I would introduce my arguments about education and the drug war.

Education in terms of sex and abortion will help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies; knowledge and availability of contraception works wonders. In terms of drugs, if the education we gave kids about drugs was more honest, we might find less junkies. And then there arises the psychology of substance abuse, and the motivating factors of peoples' unhappiness. But again, we see education as a way: if people understand more about how their own minds and bodies function, much of the unhappiness that leads to substance abuse can be averted.

As the GI Joe cartoon spots used to go, knowing is half the battle.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Godless]

True however...

Setting the limits of abortions for these people would also solve problems, specially if it is going to be paid for by tax money!.

Again I do agree with Tiassa, education is key factor.

No easy answer, no easy solutions either. But if these women prostitutes & junkies, were limited to how many abortions they could go through & contrapseption made affordable, as it is for lower income people, the people may start solving some problems.

But I don't believe these people should be given contrapseption at the people expence!, we already pay much as it is!, welfare is not the answer, it is a problem. I much rather have free education, other than free contrapseptions, free abortions, free everything else!!.

People have taken advantage of the welfare system long enough, it is more of a burden than solving any problems. People need to support themselves, not be supported by the state!. This is were free education comes in, teach these people to survive on their own, other than have a free lunch!.

 

[Tiassa]

I just have to ask ...

But if these women prostitutes & junkies, were limited to how many abortions they could go through & contrapseption made affordable, as it is for lower income people, the people may start solving some problems.

I just have to ask if anybody actually has a number.

If we limit ourselves to women on drugs who have had abortions, what is the average number of abortions those women have had?

It's worth mentioning here that the socially-acceptable alcohol is probably responsible for more pregnancies than heroin and crack.

In the United States, at least, the only limit you can put on the number of abortions, so long as abortion is legal, is the limit that nature applies; eventually, if you have enough abortions, your body simply won't be able to foster a pregnancy.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Bambi]

Re: True however...

Originally posted by Godless

Setting the limits of abortions for these people would also solve problems, specially if it is going to be paid for by tax money!.

Just which problems would that solve, and how? And what about all the problems it will create?

... if these women prostitutes & junkies, were limited to how many abortions they could go through & contrapseption made affordable, as it is for lower income people, the people may start solving some problems.

Well "affordable" is one step on the road to "free". I still think a strung-out junkie who begs for money just to buy their lifeblood would not spend a red cent on a contraceptive.

But I don't believe these people should be given contrapseption at the people expence!

What you apparently do not see, is that not giving them contraception comes at the people's expense! You need to think more carefully about the costs involved (including abortions, malformed/sick babies, even more people being born into a life of poverty and crime (which has a bearing on costs of crime and prison populations and all the associated upkeeping costs) -- IOW, total up all the costs and consider whether they are really any less or at all comparable to the cost of free condoms/diaphragms.

we already pay much as it is!, welfare is not the answer, it is a problem. I much rather have free education, other than free contrapseptions, free abortions, free everything else!!.

I think you go way too far when you equate free contraceptives and/or abortions to welfare. Neither of these are a benefit to the individual or any sort of inducement for that individual to continue their failed lifestyle; rather both of these are for the benefit of the society at large. But you are right about free education.

People need to support themselves, not be supported by the state!. This is were free education comes in, teach these people to survive on their own, other than have a free lunch!.

No question about it. However, not everyone who is taught wishes to learn. And as for drug addicts, the brain damage is so extensive that no amount of teaching can save them; what is needed is medical intervention (which is not always effective or available, but research continues as does the struggle to publically finance such intervention.)