The abortion clinic down the street from me...

[AngelikDemonik]

Originally Posted by korinna5555

My mom is a NICU nurse.. babies at 22 weeks can be and have been saved with no long term problems.

I watched a 24-week-old get an endo trach tube put in during one of my clinicals. It's sad.

[korinna5555]

They are sooo tiny..

[blackwater1110]

Quote:
Originally Posted by raggedyanne
If you believe that an abortion for any reason is immoral and should be illegal, then do your beliefs give you the right to prevent a woman carrying a child with defects - who will die before or soon after birth - from aborting and saving herself the pain of carrying a doomed child within her womb. my description may sound a bit melodramatic, but that's the situation my mom was faced with a few years back. She was able to abort, but I seriously doubt she would have been able to survive the emotion pain of a stillbirth or of watching her newborn die.

And just putting a question out there: When do you think a fetus becomes a "human." My bio teacher asked us this and it spawned an interesting a civil discussion. Let's hope you all can answer the question without dropping below the maturity level of fifteen year olds.


Storaged

The spine, a line, the fetus is mine,
Don't forget me
Don't forget me
Don't forget me
Don't forget revolt,
Revolt,
Revolution, counter revolution
Counter counter revolution
The mind,
Mind the mind that feeds the blind,
And helps you find,
And makes you bind,
The game,
Is on,
The game is on, the game is on,
The game is on, the game is on,

The spine, a line the fetus is mine (x 4)

A life, denied,
Comatosis, comatosis, comatosis,
Comment on my word, define,
My words define, my words define,
My words define, my words define
The line, the line,
Revolution, counter revolution,
Counter counter revolution,
Solution,
Dissillusioned by pollution,
Resolution starting with the

Spine, a line the fetus is mine,
The spine, a line the fetus is mine(x 6).

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

Beautiful, but I fail to see how it relates to the quoted post.

It's a song by System of A Down, about abortion. It seemed appropriate because the person quoted was asking us to draw some imaginary lines in the sand and say that on one side is life and on the other side isn't. Abortion talks always end up centering around this, and the lyrics to this song do an apt job describing the idiocy of the whole thing.

Is a single cell alive? If you say yes, then you had better not shower, or move around for that matter, because you'll kill hundreds of thousands of them. What if that cell is in a uterus? What if it starts multiplying? When does it stop becoming expendable material and start to get rights and a name and the title of 'human?' Life, on any level, doesn't fit into the confines of our words. It flows through them and beyond them. Right and wrong don't exist in the gray areas, and sitting around trying to make up rules to salve people's consciences or use them as ammunition--on both sides--for a war over existence is nauseating.

[raggedyanne]

Wow. Now that you explain it, I find that creepily beautiful. As a SOAD fan I'm ashamed not to have recognized that. You make an interesting point. Why is it always pro-life or pro-choice when pro-choice also incorporates the choice for life. If people just stopped butting into others people's business and trying to make their personal choices for them, we probably wouldn't have such a violent and annoying debate.

or

we could just "silence" all the super-christians . . . my that sounds nice.

(By that I mean the truly obnoxious ones who are a hazard to the safety of themselves and everyone they come into contact with. The rest of you are fine and I respect your choice to believe what you do as long as you stop telling me I'm destined for an eternity in limbo.)

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

If you believe that an abortion for any reason is immoral and should be illegal, then do your beliefs give you the right to prevent a woman carrying a child with defects - who will die before or soon after birth - from aborting and saving herself the pain of carrying a doomed child within her womb.

You mean, would you feel it permissible or even compulsory to so prevent the abortion? Well... yes. Obviously.

And just putting a question out there: When do you think a fetus becomes a "human."

Let me use this as an example to make a broader point. When you have a question to which there doesn't seem to be an obviously correct answer, and nobody can agree, ask yourself what missing data you would need to help you decide. If you can't think of any data that would help you answer the question, chances are the problem is the question itself.

"What is the meaning of life?" <- Assumes that the idea of meaning applies logically to life, which it doesn't, and assumes that there is some particular meaning which applies to life, which there isn't. Stupid question.

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?" <- One hand doesn't clap alone, dumbass. This is not profundity. It's mush-brained crap.

Not every question has an answer. Sometimes you just have a stupid question. And this is a stupid fucking question (meaning not that you are stupid for asking it, but that the question is not a real question). It's not like there is some magical line between human and non-human, any more than there is an exact boundary between red and orange.

Ultimately people have to decide what to do and what not to do, which in practical terms means they're probably going to have to pick a line, but I cannot get on board with the silent ethic implicitly endorsed by both sides of the abortion issue of pretending that it's not a choice. It is a choice. Morals are not something that happen to us. They're something we do.

[raggedyanne]

The answer to life is 42. Just ask the little white mice that run the world.

And that was just the way my bio prof phrased it. A better way would be "When do you think the clump of cells resulting from the human act of procreation becomes a "life"?

. . . or something like that.

[ionic_angel]

The problem with simply defining a human fetus as a "bunch of cells" and then making moral decisions from that is that, ultimately, we are all simply collections of cells, physically. It's very fashionable to simply proclaim that we cannot make judgments about the morality of this or that, or to state that we can't define "human", but the fact remains that from these abstract arguments very real ethical systems emerge.

I don't wish to Godwin the argument, so I'll try not to refer to the Nazis. However, it must be noted that certain groups have at one time of another, decided to base decisions on human rights upon their judgments of certain persons being "less than human".

One must question why, if a fetus at 10 weeks or 6 months is not human, why humanity is suddenly inherited at 8 months or birth. Of what particular quality must one find oneself in possession of to enter in to our exclusive fold?

The ability to feel pain? Then why should we not kill lepers? The ability to think? Then shall we not terminate the mentally disabled? The ability to survive? Then shall we not kill those with terminal diseases, or those mortally injured? The ability to provide for oneself? Then shall we not destroy the handicapped?

There is a world of difference between a skin cell and a fertilized ovum. The skin cell has no future, no potential to become a great artist, a mother or father, a child, or anything else. The ovum does. And, given that the course of nature is not interrupted, it will be.

I have compassion for unwed mothers. I have given time and money to organizations dedicated to helping them. But, given a choice between what I see as murder of the helpless and unresisting, and the comfort and lifestyle of another, I must choose morality over emotion. It is not that I wish to punish the woman for anything, but rather that I would not see a human being, brimming with the bright spark of life, extinguished before it has a chance to even open its eyes.

[Drake Dun]

The "potential" line is even worse than the pain line or conciousness line. It's a less concrete distinction, with less intuitive importance. Worse yet, it sweeps the duty of definition under a rug - the potential has to be potential for "human" life. That's begging the question.

I can sympathize with your desire to react to the difficulty of drawing a line by drawing it on the safe side rather than pushing the moral envelope, but you're still just drawing a line based on an arbitrary distinction.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

The "potential" line is even worse than the pain line or conciousness line. It's a less concrete distinction, with less intuitive importance. Worse yet, it sweeps the duty of definition under a rug - the potential has to be potential for "human" life. That's begging the question.

I can sympathize with your desire to react to the difficulty of drawing a line by drawing it on the safe side rather than pushing the moral envelope, but you're still just drawing a line based on an arbitrary distinction.

I think that that there is relatively little need to make a sure definition of "human" in most abortion cases. The vast majority of abortions kill healthy fetuses genetically similar to the rest of the human race. However, for an operative definition, it is reasonable to assume that a normal adult human possesses the ability to reason, to use and create complex devices, to understand symbols, to appreciate beauty, to express emotion, to create artistic works, to cooperate with others within and without complex hierarchies and social structures, and etc.

Second, you say that "potential" makes for a poor choice for dividing between moral and immoral actions. Well, if we accept that a human can achieve the above, or has the potential to do so, than obviously abortion is wrong, if killing a human is wrong.

Now, one would question why "potential" should also be a factor in such decisions. The answer is simple: all of these terms in the definition are in many ways subjective, as all definitions ultimately are. Therefore, while humanity as a whole may measure up to a reasonable standard of the above, individually we all fail to possess to the fullest one or more of the above qualities. Unless one is willing to accept that only the one man or woman on earth who most successfully fulfills all criteria is human and worthy of protection, one must yield that the potential to possess such traits is also a mark of humanity.

Also, one must note that a child, being as yet incapable compared to an adult, would also be without "humanity" if we did not already accept that potential is a viable condition of humanity. However, the killing of children is morally unacceptable to most people, and since I do not wish to delve arguments derived from religion or the lack thereof at this time, I will simply note that I believe the majority is correct in this case.

I also believe that the argument I just made is valid with other definitions of humanity as well.

[blackwater1110]

Originally Posted by ionic angel

I think that that there is relatively little need to make a sure definition of "human" in most abortion cases. The vast majority of abortions kill healthy fetuses genetically similar to the rest of the human race. However, for an operative definition, it is reasonable to assume that a normal adult human possesses the ability to reason, to use and create complex devices, to understand symbols, to appreciate beauty, to express emotion, to create artistic works, to cooperate with others within and without complex hierarchies and social structures, and etc.

Second, you say that "potential" makes for a poor choice for dividing between moral and immoral actions. Well, if we accept that a human can achieve the above, or has the potential to do so, than obviously abortion is wrong, if killing a human is wrong.

Now, one would question why "potential" should also be a factor in such decisions. The answer is simple: all of these terms in the definition are in many ways subjective, as all definitions ultimately are. Therefore, while humanity as a whole may measure up to a reasonable standard of the above, individually we all fail to possess to the fullest one or more of the above qualities. Unless one is willing to accept that only the one man or woman on earth who most successfully fulfills all criteria is human and worthy of protection, one must yield that the potential to possess such traits is also a mark of humanity.

Also, one must note that a child, being as yet incapable compared to an adult, would also be without "humanity" if we did not already accept that potential is a viable condition of humanity. However, the killing of children is morally unacceptable to most people, and since I do not wish to delve arguments derived from religion or the lack thereof at this time, I will simply note that I believe the majority is correct in this case.

I also believe that the argument I just made is valid with other definitions of humanity as well.

You, sir, are a master logician. Philosophy much?

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

You, sir, are a master logician. Philosophy much?

Er, no formal schooling. Just what I learned at college and with two years or seminary-lite training. But thank you. :-)

[acidxrainbows]

77% of anti-abortion leaders are men.
100% of them will never be pregnant.

See something wrong with that picture?

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

I think that that there is relatively little need to make a sure definition of "human" in most abortion cases... for an operative definition, it is reasonable to assume that a normal adult human possesses [various attributes]...

Again, if you're happy with an admittedly ad-hoc approach, that's fine. All I want is for people to admit that their answers are arbitrary. Ad hoc. Not expressions of some moral line drawn indelibly into the metaphysical sand.

Myself, I would hope for an answer that digs deeper to the underlying issues (rather than treating Homo sapiens as somehow uniquely privileged), and therefore delivers answers in anticipation of other, related problems, like the rights of non-human animals or any extra-terrestrial beings such as we may bump into in the future.

Second, you say that "potential" makes for a poor choice for dividing between moral and immoral actions. Well, if we accept that a human can achieve the above, or has the potential to do so, than obviously abortion is wrong, if killing a human is wrong.

Huh? That's a non-sequitur. There's a logical chasm between saying that it's wrong to act in a particular way toward thing X, and saying that it's wrong to act in that way toward a thing which may give rise in time to thing X.

Now, one would question why "potential" should also be a factor in such decisions. The answer is simple: all of these terms in the definition are in many ways subjective, as all definitions ultimately are.

In some technical sense, maybe. But some terms are more concrete than others. And "potential" is not very concrete. It appears to have been injected into the analysis purely for the purpose of broadening the scope of protection as much as possible - i.e., as a hindsight justification for a line already drawn in accordance with another agenda (read: "religious dominionism").

Unless one is willing to accept that only the one man or woman on earth who most successfully fulfills all criteria is human and worthy of protection, one must yield that the potential to possess such traits is also a mark of humanity.

Or just relax your standards. Or come up with a better definition. The shoe-horning of "potential" into the picture is making things less clear, not more.

Also, one must note that a child, being as yet incapable compared to an adult, would also be without "humanity" if we did not already accept that potential is a viable condition of humanity.

Only in accordance with your definition. You can't just make up your own definition for a word in direct contradiction to the common usage of that word, then arbitrarily select it as the centerpiece of what you propose as an inviolable moral principle, and having demonstrated that applying the definition would yield undesireable results, demand that we escape the slippery slope by carpet bombing the moral landscape.

However, the killing of children is morally unacceptable to most people, and since I do not wish to delve arguments derived from religion or the lack thereof at this time, I will simply note that I believe the majority is correct in this case.

Without having raised the topic of abortion (or hell, even after raising it), go ask 100 randomly selected people on the street why it's wrong to kill children, and notice how many of them tell you that it's because they're not really quite human, but they have the potential to be.

[AngelikDemonik]

http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b6...ent=foetus.jpg

[korinna5555]

All that picture shows is the common appearance of embryos. A calf fetus doesn't magically transform into a human, though.

Ionic_Angel, I'm with you.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Again, if you're happy with an admittedly ad-hoc approach, that's fine. All I want is for people to admit that their answers are arbitrary. Ad hoc. Not expressions of some moral line drawn indelibly into the metaphysical sand.

Myself, I would hope for an answer that digs deeper to the underlying issues (rather than treating Homo sapiens as somehow uniquely privileged), and therefore delivers answers in anticipation of other, related problems, like the rights of non-human animals or any extra-terrestrial beings such as we may bump into in the future.

Since this discussion is taking place on an internet message board, in a thread specifically relating to the idea of abortion and whether it is right to protest it, it must by nature be less detailed and more "ad-hoc" than not, if we are to retain reasonable post lengths.

However, I will point out that looking for deeper answers beyond those founded in the commonly accepted morals of our culture will require delving into the relationships between morality, religion, and human instincts, amongst other things. Is that easily handled within a single thread? I doubt it. More importantly, it derails the original purpose of the thread. I don't think it's fair to expect a single answer to any issue to incorporate the details you seem to desire.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Huh? That's a non-sequitur. There's a logical chasm between saying that it's wrong to act in a particular way toward thing X, and saying that it's wrong to act in that way toward a thing which may give rise in time to thing X.

The statement I made there was not a non-sequitur. It was a statement I proceeded to prove, inasmuch as anything might be proved within reasonable limits. It was the argument in bare form, elaborated on in the next couple of paragraphs.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

In some technical sense, maybe. But some terms are more concrete than others. And "potential" is not very concrete. It appears to have been injected into the analysis purely for the purpose of broadening the scope of protection as much as possible - i.e., as a hindsight justification for a line already drawn in accordance with another agenda (read: "religious dominionism").

I can't help but feel that since you cannot find a way to challenge my logic, you are challenging my definitions. Fine. I certainly hope, however, that you realize that since all terms are derived at by other terms, I will never be able to provide a definition you cannot criticize in this way.

For example, the Merriam-Webster dictionary states the following about "potential":
existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality

Now, it basically defines it as possibility. So what is "possibility"? Well, "potential" is listed as one of the definitions of "possibility". So is the word "possible", which also has as one of its definitions the word "potential". Another definition of "possible" is "within the limits of one's ability". So what is ability?

Do you see where I am going with this? It is impossible for me to define any term in such a way that you could not criticize it, because no non-noun term can be fully defined. And I cannot make an argument in nouns alone, which, I suppose, is your desire.

I'll note that you also do a side-swipe suggestive ad hominem on me by suggesting I am arguing from "religious dominion-ism", and not from any rationally thought out position. Very nice.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Or just relax your standards. Or come up with a better definition. The shoe-horning of "potential" into the picture is making things less clear, not more.

The definition of humanity I am arguing from is one that could technically be considered the mainstream of our culture today. However, I again must make two points.

Point A: Humanity cannot be defined. It is an intrinsic quality that can be recognized, but is impossible to truly measure. It's like asking me to defined the color green. I can point to a leaf, or a blade of grass, but those do not encompass all that pertains to "green", as a term. Sure, one can arbitrarily say that a certain color value is "green", but why should we all consent to believing that that particular value is the perfect example of green?

On the other hand, we can all agree (save for the color-blind) on what is green. Most grass is green. Living pine needles are green. Limes are green. So it is also with humanity. I am human. You are human. We cannot perfectly decide on all the qualities of humanity, but the ones I listed are certainly appropriate.

Point B: Changing the definition (human) to allow an argument for a behavior (abortion) works equally well for defending ****, or murder, or any number of other things, which society condemns. I was using a fairly useful amalgamation of several human qualities, which apparently you disagree with, but can't be bothered to improve. As for relaxing standards, what on earth are they for if not to distinguish behaviors, beings, or actions from other behaviors, beings, or actions? Heck, I can use this to get Paris Hilton accepted as a goth: all we need to do is relax the standard of, say, listening to goth bands.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems rather amusing that in one paragraph you require absolute, concrete definitions, and in the next, suggest that relaxing the standards of the definition you just criticized is also a valid tactic for those who disagree with the argument.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Only in accordance with your definition. You can't just make up your own definition for a word in direct contradiction to the common usage of that word, then arbitrarily select it as the centerpiece of what you propose as an inviolable moral principle, and having demonstrated that applying the definition would yield undesireable results, demand that we escape the slippery slope by carpet bombing the moral landscape.

Here you attack my definition of the word "humanity". Now, What I said was that a "human possesses the ability to reason, to use and create complex devices, to understand symbols, to appreciate beauty, to express emotion, to create artistic works, to cooperate with others within and without complex hierarchies and social structures, and etc."

How is that in direct contradiction to the common usage of the term? I think most people would agree (and thus, common usage) that the noun "human" encompasses those qualities. I suppose I could use a flat dictionary definition of "bipedal primate mammal", but in that case, great apes are also humans.

Now, I'll note that you didn't bother explaining why my definition was against all common usage, merely stated that it was so, as with many other things in your post. So, not only did you use a straw-man argument, you did it without any evidence.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Without having raised the topic of abortion (or hell, even after raising it), go ask 100 randomly selected people on the street why it's wrong to kill children, and notice how many of them tell you that it's because they're not really quite human, but they have the potential to be.

You seem to completely miss the point of my argument. May argument isn't that

[children aren't human, but have the potential to be]

but rather that

[humanity is an idealized standard that we all fall short of in some way, but that the potential to meet it is acceptable towards belonging to that humanity]

with the explanation that

[without accepting "potential" we would be forced to accept logical conclusions incongruous with the established standards of our society]

and therefore

[since a fetus possesses the full potential for humanity, as does a child, it is morally wrong by societal standards to deprive it of life]

This argument works only as long as you accept that humanity is a quality possessed intrinsically by humans, and that it is wrong to murder.

[raggedyanne]

Originally Posted by acidxrainbows

77% of anti-abortion leaders are men.
100% of them will never be pregnant.

See something wrong with that picture?

My question exactly! That man outside the abortion clinic will never have to tell his abusive parents that he's pregnant. He'll never feel the fear of finding out he's carrying something within him that could potentially end his education and career possibilities. And yet he thinks himself - who has never and will never even be able to comprehend these feelings - worthy of deciding for all the females whether or not they should have the right to get a possibly life-saving abortion. (Life in the sense of future education and career opportunities; and basic mental stability)

[korinna5555]

Originally Posted by acidxrainbows

77% of anti-abortion leaders are men.
100% of them will never be pregnant.

See something wrong with that picture?

No, I don't.
How many of those men will have a woman carry their child? How many of them lose their unborn children because the mother aborts without consent? It's legal to do so, even if the father desires to keep the child and raise it alone.

Just because men don't get pregnant, the children are as much theirs as the mothers.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

My question exactly! That man outside the abortion clinic will never have to tell his abusive parents that he's pregnant. He'll never feel the fear of finding out he's carrying something within him that could potentially end his education and career possibilities. And yet he thinks himself - who has never and will never even be able to comprehend these feelings - worthy of deciding for all the females whether or not they should have the right to get a possibly life-saving abortion. (Life in the sense of future education and career opportunities; and basic mental stability)

This is an emotional argument that fails in two senses.

First, because it assumes that you have to be in a position to critique that position. By that logic, you must therefore be a soldier, terrorist, or war victim to have an opinion on the Iraq war. By that same logic, you must be a painter to have an opinion on paintings, or a plumber to have an opinion on your house's plumbing. This is obviously neither correct, nor the case. It also supposes that the opinion of a father is worthless and void.

(Also, where do these figures come from? For all we know, acid may have made them up on the spot?)

Second, I can use this argument for any bad behavior...r'ape, murder, drug abuse, you name it. It's basically saying "you can't judge me because you haven't gone through what I've gone through."

Well, that's not true. We judge people all the time for what they do, regardless of the facts of their life. Ted Bundy would be no less deserving of the electric chair if he was abused as a child, or if killing people was the only way he could feel good about himself and have a good career and education.

Because that's what the abortion debate is all about, ultimately. It's about killing people. And some believe that it isn't a people, and others do.

[ionic_angel]

Oh, I forgot another angle: what about my perspective as a person who was almost aborted? (I was given up for adoption after my mother decided not to abort.)

Wasn't everyone who protests abortion at one time a potential victim as well? Doesn't that give them a right?

[raggedyanne]

It is still my opinion that a man cannot and should not try to control what does or does not go on in a woman's womb. You may hold your opinion to be true, as I hold mine. But you are still a male and I, as a pregnant female, believe I understand a bit more about this subject. When I found out I was expecting I was quite ready to get an abortion as soon as possible. I didn't, but that is not important. What is important is that a woman who cannot take care of a child should have the choice of whether or not she wants to bring another human being into the world. If you deny a woman right to control her own body and it's contents, and therefore her life and future, where does that leave her?

Those who believe that abortion is killing people should just not get abortions and let others do as they may. It is against common decency to force religious opinions on others, no matter your good intentions.

As for Acids figures, as far as we know, the one that matters is true. 100% of those men protesting have not had to go through childbirth and probably never will. So why should he be allowed to tell me I have to go through hours of hell for something I don't want just because his religion tells him it's "saving a life." Saving a life from what?! A the point where pregnancy is terminated, the child has no cognitive thought. It may have potential, but that potential will be left unfufilled if it's not raised in an environment that can properly care for the it.

[korinna5555]

I fail to see how this is a "religious opinion", as Ionic hasn't brought his religion into any of this conversation, besides the tidbits about his personal life. I am pagan, and very much against abortion.

I too was pregnant, at 15. I loved my child more than anything, even though I never got to even feel her kick. She was there, and she wasn't me.
A fetus, no matter how small, is not just bodily tissue; it has different DNA, and will eventually be completely separate from the mother.

[raggedyanne]

Okay, so I generalized on the religion. I apologize to Ionic for my ranting and inaccuracies.

As for my baby, I eventually succumbed to maternal instinct and a persuasive boyfriend ;D

I respect you as a person and have great respect for your opinion in everything else, but I'm sorry that I cannot agree with you on this topic.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

It is still my opinion that a man cannot and should not try to control what does or does not go on in a woman's womb. You may hold your opinion to be true, as I hold mine. But you are still a male and I, as a pregnant female, believe I understand a bit more about this subject. When I found out I was expecting I was quite ready to get an abortion as soon as possible. I didn't, but that is not important. What is important is that a woman who cannot take care of a child should have the choice of whether or not she wants to bring another human being into the world. If you deny a woman right to control her own body and it's contents, and therefore her life and future, where does that leave her?

This is blatant sexism at its worst. Besides the fact that there are almost certainly more women who actually oppose abortion than men, since when do females create life by themselves?

A woman who becomes pregnant has already had the chance to decide whether to bring life into the world (I will grant r'ape/incest, but that is so rare as to be statistically irrelevant to the argument). That choice was made when the woman chose to have sex, knowing that a pregnancy was a possible outcome.

Once conception occurs, the woman's body is not the only factor in the equation. Human life does not take a second seat to a woman's quality of life. If you want to argue that it does, then you must also accept that you are arguing that a woman should be allowed to kill anyone she feels is negatively influencing her life.

Besides, you are completely ignoring other possibilities such as abortion. Pre-marital pregnancy is not a life-ender for those who give up their children for adoption, at least not for the birth mothers I've known.

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

Those who believe that abortion is killing people should just not get abortions and let others do as they may. It is against common decency to force religious opinions on others, no matter your good intentions.

I don't believe I've made a single religious argument yet. You'd know if I had, because I can make some really good ones. But I already proved that the same standards we extend to children and the handicapped make abortion a immoral, unethical choice.

Second, if one believes that abortion is, indeed, the killing of an innocent human being, than one must, must speak out against it. In the holocaust, Christians were killed for speaking out against the death camps. Was that indecent to oppose? If one believes that abortion is the pitiless extermination of human life, one can accept no other conclusion than that abortion is indeed, mass infanticide. Common decency should thus compel my objection.

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

As for Acids figures, as far as we know, the one that matters is true. 100% of those men protesting have not had to go through childbirth and probably never will. So why should he be allowed to tell me I have to go through hours of hell for something I don't want just because his religion tells him it's "saving a life." Saving a life from what?! A the point where pregnancy is terminated, the child has no cognitive thought. It may have potential, but that potential will be left unfufilled if it's not raised in an environment that can properly care for the it.

Considering that we have no real way to measure whether the child has cognitive thought or not, I highly doubt that we should use this criteria. We certainly do know that the unborn can feel pain quite early on. But even if the child has no cognitive thought...well, neither do you, for at least 4 hours every day. If mental ability is our threshhold for humanity, then we should be exterminating the unintelligent and mentally handicapped, for they are...sub-human.

Lastly, who are you, or anyone, to judge whether a person has or will have a life worth living? I currently live below the poverty threshold, and don't exactly have a life filled with bliss. But I ardently object to any characterization of my life as not worth living.

By your standard of "unfulfilled" and "environment that can properly care", Beethoven would have been aborted, as well as countless others who enriched the world through their words, music, and art.

I've met many people who argue that others should be aborted, but not one who wishes they were.

(P.S. I don't hate you either. But I'm sticking to me guns, matey.)

[raggedyanne]

You make a good point and I am no one to judge anyone's life or actions except my own and I understand that. It is just my position in this debate that a woman should be given the option of abortion. She doesn't have to take it. But it should be an option.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this, but I enjoy arguing with you ;D