Should abortion be legal or illgeal? (Page 14)

DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: sorry to triple post, but a very early pope established the 1st trimester rule- over concern that early-term miscarriages may go to purgatory, or hell.
10 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: I agree that, past the 1st trimester it gets a little unclear on the morality of the subject- but i still believe it should be handled on a case-by-case situation, not a one-law-suits-all situation.

Politics and Religion shouldn't matter in issues such as those- it should be a matter between the woman and her doctor, not a matter between the woman and the religious congregation, or a woman and a politician looking to get more votes next election.
10 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

I believe....

Life starts at conception. Perhaps, to say otherwise is arrogant.

Everyone has an opinion? The courts...The religion...the doctor...who is right...or wrong...


However...I also believe....abortion should not be used as birth control. I understand all the positives and negetives...that's why I said 'should'.

I also beleive when the mother's life is in danger, a serious injury or illness to the fetus is determined, that quality of life my be horrible...abortion should be considered....

However....I do not believe abortion should be an option because the sex of the fetus is not what the parents wanted.

.

10 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: i wasnt bringing religion into the issue- duncan, i was merely presenting the historical basis of the 1st trimester argument. i would prefer no abortion, but, ill settle on a 1st trimester compromise
10 years ago Report
0
thewhitewizard416
thewhitewizard416: I never read any post here but I'll add my 2 cents.

If there is a right or wrong answer:

If it is right, then nothing changes. Abortion continues legally unchallenged.

If it's considered to be wrong, 50 million babies killed over the past few decades in the USA alone can be considered genocide, especially in recent years whereas black abortions have made up a higher than average abortion rate.

My scientific problem with abortion is as follows:

When does a fetus become a human being? Nobody can give an exact scientific answer with adequate reasoning. Was 3 months just a number pulled from a hat?

If there was a definitive date that could be proven without doubt then maybe abortion could be justified ethically in some cases. But as a philosopher I will always choose life over death when not sure of the details.

PS: I think it's also misleading to call abortionists Pro-Choicers. It makes it sound like a liberating and easy experience to kill a fetus. It reminds me of how Global Warming is now called Earth Changes when their theory fell apart. It reminds me of how Public Servants have changed their title to Public Officials in order to change public perception of their power. Historically speaking, when new words and definitions are created they are usually propaganda. And usually propaganda does not have the most moral intentions...
10 years ago Report
1
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: >>>Was 3 months just a number pulled from a hat?

I'm not sure of the reasons why 3 months was chosen, but I personally prefer the issue of consciousnesses. A fetus is not conscious until it's nerve ending are connected to it's brain stem- it is physically impossible to achieve consciousness otherwise. And that happens at approx 26 weeks- with the majority of legal abortions occurring in less than 12 weeks, with exceptions being made up until the 25th week. So yea.

Nonetheless, some developmental milestones;

First Heartbeat is at 12 weeks

First brainwaves at 12 weeks(some pro-lifers claim 6 weeks)

Obviously first unique DNA is at conception, which is immediate.

At 14-21 days, the fetus may split off into twins or more- prior to that, could be argued, you cannot be a person,

And, of course, there's the belief that life begins at either the point where the fetus is viable(ie capable of surviving on it's own), or actual physical birth.


Honestly, I would suggest you research the subject and decide what circumstances you agree with- don't let anyone decide for you- but I suspect the reasoning is a mixed of the above....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood

10 years ago Report
0
thewhitewizard416
thewhitewizard416: If a woman was two-months pregnant and was murdered, and technically a fetus is not a child until 3 months, then do you also agree with the law? Only one murder occurred?
(Edited by thewhitewizard416)
10 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Yes. I believe a fetus becomes a person once they become conscious. That doesn't happen at 2 months.
10 years ago Report
0
thewhitewizard416
thewhitewizard416: A woman is 89 days pregnant, 1 day before the legal abortion limitation.
The woman consults the father who wants to keep the fetus/baby and she decides to kill the fetus/baby anyways because the father has no legal rights.

The same woman the next year, is again 89 days pregnant, 1 day before the legal abortion limitation. She consults the second biological father, and this second father wants to have an abortion. Despite the mother does not want an abortion and she has a child after 9 months.

This woman in society has absorbed the rights of this soon to be 3-person family. She makes the decisions for the fetus/baby, she makes the decision for the father (no legal rights), and then she makes a decision for herself.

It turns out the first father was not financially up to her standards, so the woman opted to have an abortion, even though the father and all of his family pledged their support they were all ignored.

The second father did not care at all about this woman, or at all for her fetus/baby, she was just another one-night-stand for this smooth player of a father. However, the woman decided to keep the baby because she knew the child-support payments would be more than adequate to support the child and her lifestyle.

The point of my story is this. Think of women you know who ever got pregnant, and all the women who considered or had an abortion. They all get the same advice from their friends/family.

Are you mature enough for a child?
Can you financially support a child?
Does the father commit to his responsibilities to help raise this child?
Will having this child put your school/career on the back-burner?
Will there be a loving environment to raise this child?

Even "pro-choicers" have to agree:

The common decision making for abortions is 90 percent based on lifestyle. You never hear of philosophical discussions. The closest thing to this are the religious nuts who don't even philosophically know why their Church tells them to be against abortion, yet they blindly believe their own "god" killed newborn babies in Egypt. Their "god works in mysterious ways".

A lot of people aspire to be philosopher kings when it comes to the issue of abortion. But before you attempt to put yourself on a intellectual level which took Ancient Greeks a dedicated lifetime to ponder and scribe, the first issue that should be tackled is the inequality of the issue.

I recommend a Court of Abortions should be established where all parties of the biological union should have the right to be involved in the decision of legal abortion. Until basic fairness and equality of the sexes is achieved in this matter, there will never be a moral stepping stone large enough to even grasp what the value of life is before 3 months.

Women got their right to vote 50 years ago. When will men get their right to vote?
10 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Court of Abortions. Hum. Depending on which way the political winds are blowing would determine whether a fetus is allowed to go to term or not.
10 years ago Report
0
thewhitewizard416
thewhitewizard416: The political winds already determine how many Americans die everyday at war. Well actually Obama just signs executive orders and does not consult congress for war.

The Court of Abortions would be of course non-partisan ideals, and could have even have jury members.

Let's say the mother wanted an abortion, but was overruled by the courts. In all financial fairness, the father would have to financially compensate the mother for taking care of the fetus/child. Child support in the womb. Once the child is born the mother would loose all custody. This is a novel idea in order to bring equality to an issue that has most people divided.
10 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: >>>Let's say the mother wanted an abortion, but was overruled by the courts.

So then the woman would be forced to use their body as an incubator against their will? That's aweful, and another large part of why abortions were made legal- became a woman has rights

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_debate#Bodily_rights

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_debate#Sexual_emancipation_and_equality

"An argument first presented by Judith Jarvis Thomson states that even if the fetus has a right to life, abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body. Thomson's variant of this argument draws an analogy between forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy and forcing a person's body to be used as a dialysis machine for another person suffering from kidney failure. It is argued that just as it would be permissible to "unplug" and thereby cause the death of the person who is using one's kidneys, so it is permissible to abort the fetus (who similarly, it is said, has no right to use one's body against one's will)."
10 years ago Report
0
thewhitewizard416
thewhitewizard416: Don't you see the obvious problem to the claim of a woman's bodily rights. You are forgetting the fetus is also a body within a body.

It's just like claiming because illegal Mexicans don't have citizen's rights in the body of the United States, that they can be treated just like a fetus can today.
10 years ago Report
0
thewhitewizard416
thewhitewizard416: Intercourse requires responsibility.
Responsibility to have protected sex against disease.
Responsibility for the possible outcome of pregnancy.

Most people in life don't want to be responsible. The believe they can take all the joys out of life without being responsible. They want life to hand them a bowl of grapes and make it into wine too!

Since people don't like to be responsible for their actions, that is why laws and contracts are made. Marriage is also a contract that is supposed to represent these responsibilities between two people. If there is no contract, you can expect people to be more irresponsible. This does not mean you have to be married to have a child, but start treating sexual intercourse with the respect it deserves.

When property rights in the USA finally reconcile biological advances, there will be legal grounds to challenge an abortion as the destruction of intellectual property and the destruction of the male's DNA. This may seem absurd at the moment but I guarantee it will cause quite a stir when a lawyer decides to take this route!
10 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: >>>You are forgetting the fetus is also a body within a body.

Not until 26 weeks. After 26 weeks, I'm right onboard with you- that child must be taken to term.

But if nothing else, if you deny a woman the right to legally abort, she will attempt an illegal one- and many women have died in the past simply because they wanted to control their body.

"Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million. Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions. Today, abortion is one of the most commonly performed clinical procedures in the United States, and the death rate from abortion is extremely low: 0.6 per 100,000 procedures."

...

In 1970, one in four abortions in the United States took place after 13 weeks gestation.Today, 88% of all abortions in the U.S. take place before the end of the first trimester.

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?compID=100&id=20

>>> Intercourse requires responsibility.
Responsibility to have protected sex against disease.
Responsibility for the possible outcome of pregnancy.

And there exists no defense that is 100% effective. There are extremely effective prevention, yes, but even people who have a vasectomy or their tubes tied sometimes find themselves with child.

>>>Since people don't like to be responsible for their actions, that is why laws and contracts are made.

Uhh well, the law is in their favor in this instance...

>>>but I guarantee it will cause quite a stir when a lawyer decides to take this route!

Haha it DOES seem absurb.....I keep imagining lawyers, chilling out in their offices, waiting for the time to challenge abortion laws with that suggestion....."Is it time yet?" goes on lawyer...."Nah" goes the other....

What you're suggesting has certainly been attempted- and it's failed. This sets the legal precedence future judges will observe.

"1978: William Paton of Liverpool, United Kingdom attempted to stop his separated wife, Joan, from undergoing an abortion in the 1978 case Paton v. Trustees of British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees. A judge ruled in his wife's favour and Mr. Paton's later request for a hearing before the European Court of Human Rights was also denied.[6][7][8]
1987: Robert Carver of the United Kingdom tried to prevent an abortion in the 1987 case C v. S. He claimed that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act applied to the fetus, as, at the time, his ex-girlfriend was 21 weeks along. When the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal dismissed the case, it was brought before the House of Lords, where three Law Lords sided with the earlier decisions. The entire legal process took 36 hours, as the Health Authority refused to allow an abortion before a decision was reached, making it one of the fastest cases in the history of British law. Nonetheless, the woman involved chose to carry the pregnancy to term and gave the baby to Carver.[6][7][8][9]
1989: Jean-Guy Tremblay of Quebec, filed an injunction against his girlfriend, Chantal Daigle, in attempt to prevent her from obtaining an induced abortion in the 1989 Canadian case Tremblay v. Daigle. The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled that there was no precedent for a man's right to protect his "potential progeny", as a fetus was not found to have a right to life under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
2001: Stephan Hone of Coventry, United Kingdom, unsuccessfully attempted to prevent his former girlfriend Claire Hansell from having an abortion."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_rights_and_abortion#Legal_cases
10 years ago Report
0
thewhitewizard416
thewhitewizard416: The "precedent card" is a mockery of the courts even a child can understand.

The entire purpose of a Judge is for him to interpret the law, and to evaluate the circumstances, and to create a balance of law and human ethics to determine what is justice. This is why there cannot be a law called "justice", because justice is a concept.

The media constantly repeats these strange verdicts of cases, and blindly accepts this "tradition" of judges, in order not to offend another judge in the past, or because of the current judges inability to make a decision himself. If a case is determined solely by a past precedent, then what do we need judges for? We can just hire Court Historians to look up the past cases and stop wasting tax payers money for an entire trial.

As a child, I remember the Robotic Hero of Power Rangers, Megazord, would always have an ending battle sequence, where Megazord would battle and struggle with an enemy for 10 minutes. Just when Megazord was about to "die", he pulled out this magical sword and with only one swipe killed the enemy in less than 5 seconds. Many kids did not like Power Rangers because they could never figure out why Megazord did not just pull out his "mighty magical sword" in the beginning. The answer is the ending is always predetermined in stories as having a climax to a problem, and then a happy ending. Meaning, if he pulled out his sword first you wouldn't find any interest in the fight because you know how it will end up. The show would fail to provide adequate "entertainment" of the emotions of not knowing.

In the Court System today, we have the same "entertainment" of justice going on, but not enough real justice. The Judge should just pull out his "trump card" from the beginning, but then that would have people start to think of why even bother to go to court if the outcome is predetermined by the past decisions? So the game show in the court rooms go on, and many "newspaper columnists" overnight become experts of "past cases", and they decide to overwhelm the public with the details of past cases in order to move the questions away from the blind acceptance of this disgusting "tradition of elites".

Now the act of sexual reproduction is the primary means of survival. In order to make sure survival continues, "god/nature" has made it pleasurable. To be responsible to to take responsibility for the results of your actions. One cannot be responsible for the action of safe sex, and yet claim non-responsibility when even their most responsible sex-sex measures have failed, and a child was conceived.

I can be a responsible driver, and yet Murphy's Law will dictate even I can make mistakes on the road and be at fault for a motor vehicle accident. Just because I was a responsible driver, this doesn't get me "off the hook" for the accident.

Just because you practiced safe sex, you are still responsible for the "accidental conception" that is always possible. There is no responsibility without the chance of being liable. To be a responsible driver, is to accept being liable for any intended/unintended consequences of your driving.

A lot of modern people think being responsible is just a pretty concept in their mind. They do not want to take any actions of responsibility. Just like many people think their religion is a great religion, but when it comes to actually being responsible for the religion they represent, 99 percent or more are not responsible at all. They do not want to take all the responsibility doing the "work of God" entails, but they want to sing all the songs at their Synagogue/Church/Mosque. They know all the scriptures by heart. They are first to claim their religion is better than yours, but they fail to actually do the responsible things that their own religion preaches.

Another point I will make it this. A lot of the ammunition fired by "Abortionists/Pro-Choicers" is all this "modern scientific stuff". The heart beats at this many weeks. Movement takes place at this many weeks, ETC. I'm pretty sure that when Abortions first became legalized, this scientific data did not exist. These are also the same types of people who use ammunition of "past precedents". What I say to them is, what about the precedent of abortions being illegal for thousands of years in most places throughout the world?

A philosophy can only hold true because they are tested by examining the same ethics in the micro and the macro. From the trivial children's TV show, to daily driving, to examining the the purpose of a Judge, coherency is echoed throughout.
10 years ago Report
0