[quote]mica617 wrote:
I’m so sick of society feeling the need to make laws to “protect” stupid people from themselves (this part goes deeper than just abortion- i.e. prohormone ban, etc). True, there IS a life that is created that should be protected AT SOME POINT, but even if abortion is illegal, it WILL take place (albeit not as rampantly) and not only will the unborn child be endangered, but the empregnated person will be endagered by unsafe practices. Remember, before it was legal, there were coathangers-in-bus-station-bathroom abortions performed every day that killed or injured many of the “patients”. [/quote]
I really agree with this to a great extend. Perhaps, if people really want to do something against abortion, they will have to start educating their children (their meaning not their own, but all children). That could do so much more than banning abortion.
Abortion is murder. Like the Scott Peterson case. Unborn baby was killed and he was charged with murder. Were as if he had driven his wife to the abortion clinic, she could have killed the baby and the Scott could have killed her and only be charged with one murder. Doesn’t anybody see that a U.S. court recognized the unborn baby as a person, yet done in a clinic, it is perfectly legal. Am I the only one who noticed this?
I’ve heard of that case, and yes, it is a contradiction to the law. But you could argue that in the case fo abortion, it is the mother who decides to kill her baby (if you will) while here the baby would have lived. I’m sure that even members of the pro-choice group won’t argue against that abortion is something that concerns the mother first and foremost. I suppose this decision is a privilege no one else has. Hence the murder charges.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Abortion is murder. Like the Scott Peterson case. Unborn baby was killed and he was charged with murder. Were as if he had driven his wife to the abortion clinic, she could have killed the baby and the Scott could have killed her and only be charged with one murder. Doesn’t anybody see that a U.S. court recognized the unborn baby as a person, yet done in a clinic, it is perfectly legal. Am I the only one who noticed this?[/quote]
pat36:
Actually, I began a thread on the subject to point that out. They won’t have it both ways much longer I suspect.
[quote]Timmeah wrote:
I’ve heard of that case, and yes, it is a contradiction to the law. But you could argue that in the case fo abortion, it is the mother who decides to kill her baby (if you will) while here the baby would have lived. I’m sure that even members of the pro-choice group won’t argue against that abortion is something that concerns the mother first and foremost. I suppose this decision is a privilege no one else has. Hence the murder charges.[/quote]
No, murder is murder no matter who decides.
[QUOTE]From original post
Curious how all the bible-thumpers can justify the fact that abortions have increased under such a “moral” president who is opposed to it. Oh, let me guess… Its Clinton’s fault.
I believe G W was just a tad busy to go out and stop all those abortions that happened under “his watch” you dumbass. Abortion is OK right? I mean why not tear the head off of the most innocent form of human life that could ever exist just before he or she has the chance to see his or her Mommy and Daddy for the first time?. I don’t think we need laws banning it. I just think people should get their heads out of their collective asses and stop killing unborn human babies. Is that hard to understand? Please disagree with me and give me your address so I can come rip YOUR fucking head off and throw you away in a medical waste bag. Other than that, I have no opinion.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
No, murder is murder no matter who decides.
[/quote]
Wow that’s a very emphatic statement to make on such a grey area. Do you believe abortio to be murder at ANY point during gestation no matter how early it may be?
[quote]T-chick wrote:
pat36 wrote:
No, murder is murder no matter who decides.
Wow that’s a very emphatic statement to make on such a grey area. Do you believe abortio to be murder at ANY point during gestation no matter how early it may be?[/quote]
T-chick do you really believe killing an unborn human at ANY age is a grey area? Wow! WTF is this world coming to? Read my previous post (two up from this one). You gotta be kidding me!
[quote]T-chick wrote:
pat36 wrote:
No, murder is murder no matter who decides.
Wow that’s a very emphatic statement to make on such a grey area. Do you believe abortio to be murder at ANY point during gestation no matter how early it may be?[/quote]
YES!
Maybe we’re starting from different definitions of ‘murder’. I was working to the assumption that murder is taking a human life; from exactly what moment after conception an embryo becomes ‘human’ IS philosophically, medically, a grey area.
I’m just not seeing how something that is little more than a cluster of cells can be credited as having humanity.
[quote]T-chick wrote:
Maybe we’re starting from different definitions of ‘murder’. I was working to the assumption that murder is taking a human life; from exactly what moment after conception an embryo becomes ‘human’ IS philosophically, medically, a grey area.
I’m just not seeing how something that is little more than a cluster of cells can be credited as having humanity.
[/quote]
dictionary.com defines a cluster as:
A group of the same or similar elements gathered or occurring closely together; a bunch
so arent we all just a “cluster of cells?”
Derek
What would you tell a 13 year old rapevictim? That she can’t have an abortion and that she have to be reminded for next nine month (minimum) about the creep that did this to her?
BTW my address is
75/28 Soi 5, Moo 12, Nongprue Banglamung, Chonburi 20260
Thailand
You’re welcome to come and try to rip my head of anytime! Could be interesting 
[quote]derek wrote:
Please disagree with me and give me your address so I can come rip YOUR fucking head off and throw you away in a medical waste bag. Other than that, I have no opinion. [/quote]
That’s exactly the kind of attitude that irritates me the most about the pro-life group.
Timmeah:
Yea, I know what you mean, some get a bit harsh in here.
What bothers me about the pro abortion people is that they always use the “13 year old rape victim” as their model for being pro abortion.
In reality about 98% of abortions are for convenience. Let’s not try to kid each other. Abortion has simply become another form of birth control, and that’s what a civil society needs to avoid!
ZEB: I agree that it’s not right to use abortion in the way you mentioned. But a ban would lead to the case where in the end, no one will be able to have an abortion. If you say, is case of rape it’s allowed, where will you draw the line? perhaps at some age? every single woman can claim she was raped… the only thing that can lead to a decrease in abortions, as i said, is educating people better.
I have to say Timmeah has a good point. Good education is the only way to permanently and safely reduce the number of abortions.
Timmeah:
I can’t agree with you on that. You cannot allow 98% of abortions to occur for convenience sake and claim that the law should not be changed because you are afriad that the same 98% will then scream rape.
First of all several things would occur if the abortion laws were to be rewritten to include just rape, incest and for the life of the mother:
-
Young women and men would begin to act just a bit more responsibly. Condom use, other contraceptive measures, maybe even some abstinence (I say “some” abstinence). Since there is abortion there is always a tendency to be somewhat reliant upon it (98% convenience). “If she gets pregnant she can get an abortion.” There tends to be more responsibility taken when there is no easy out. It’s human nature, when actions have consequences the actions are better thought out.
-
In the event that there were an unwanted pregnancy the mother would be forced to carry the child full term. By that point she would have the option of giving it up for adoption (many childless couples in this country are unable to adopt because of the shortage of children).
-
There are some statistics that show when a woman actually carries a child nine months (from an unwanted pregnancy) and then gives birth she is more apt to keep it, than give it up for adoption (bonding etc.). Makes you wonder how much regret there is among the women who have aborted!
If someone is willing to accuse someone of rape in order to try to get an abortion then they have many more problems than just an unwanted pregnancy. Not the least of which is burden of proof as they falsely accuse their boyfriends.
I do want to keep abortion safe and legal under controlled situations. However, to simply write off a human life in such a brutal manner, for convenience sake is one of the most horrible acts of selfishness. It is an act that does not belong in a civilized society. No more than slavery belonged in our society when those who were pro slavery simply stated, “if you don’t like slavery don’t own a slave.” There are societal obligations that every active member of that society has a right to speak out on.
Simply my take on this complex argument.
Referencing my question to Kev above, how do you all think this sort of thing plays into the moral debate – related? not related? – it seems to me there’s a definite continuum, and science doesn’t explain where we draw our lines.
On an another interesting and perhaps related note, the Dutch are among the most staunch opponents of the death penalty.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/01/netherlands.mercykill/index.html
Dutch ponder ‘mercy killing’ rules
Thursday, December 2, 2004 Posted: 1:28 AM EST (0628 GMT)
(CNN) – Dutch health officials are considering guidelines doctors could follow for euthanizing terminally ill people “with no free will,” including children, the severely mentally retarded and patients in irreversible comas.
Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia – ending the life of someone suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, with their approval.
In recent years there also have been reports of mercy killings of terminally ill babies, and officials at one hospital say a number have been carried out there.
The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) has asked the Netherlands Ministry of Health to create an independent board to evaluate euthanasia cases for each category of people “with no free will.”
Doctors now follow legal standards regarding euthanasia, or assisted suicide, for patients who are able to make such a decision on their own.
Under the rules established by KNMG and the Dutch courts, the patient’s decision must be freely made, well-considered and persistent; there must be unbearable suffering; and the attending physician should consult with a colleague.
There are no official guidelines for ending the lives of those who are unable to make their own decision, such as in the case of a baby, but Groningen Academic Hospital has conducted such procedures under its own, internal guidelines.
Dr. Eduard Verhagen, clinical director of the hospital’s pediatric clinic, told NPR in an interview that the babies who had been euthanized were born with incurable conditions that were so serious “(we) felt that the most humane course would be to allow the child to die and even actively assist them with their death.”
“They are very rare cases of extreme suffering. In these cases, the diagnosis was extreme spina bifada.”
That disorder is marked by incomplete development of the brain, spinal cord and/or their protective coverings.
Because the procedure was not legal, Verhagen said, the hospital preferred that cases be assessed by a committee of experts. The Dutch parliament legalized euthanasia for adults in 2002.
“What we would like to happen here in Holland is that we put the spotlight on these decisions because they need to be extremely secure, and instead of taking these positions in a kind of gray area, we want them to be in the spotlight,” the doctor said.
Eric Van Yijlick, project manager for SCEN (Support and Consultation on Euthanasia in the Netherlands), said the Groningen cases involving newborns should be referred to as “life ending without request” rather than euthanasia, because that term indicates the dying party has requested the procedure.
Van Yijlick said that to his knowledge, the killing of newborns is not common – just a few cases yearly. No official statistics exist on terminally ill children’s lives being terminated, he said.
New York Medical Producer Chris Gajilan contributed to this report.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
However, to simply write off a human life in such a brutal manner, for convenience sake is one of the most horrible acts of selfishness.
[/quote]
On this I do agree with you, but think about this: when does it become necessary and when is it convenience? I think you could argue that a rape victim would have an abortion because of convenience issues. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to argue only for the “rape victims” and cases like that, as I stated earlier, but I think that by the time abortion is generally banned with the few exceptions, it will be close to impossible to prove that having one is necessary, instead of being only for convenience. We could even go so far as to say that every abortion done is for convenience, because unless you can prove without any doubt that the result of having the baby will be fatal (for example deadly) it is not 100% necessary. But, since we all know despite the fact that something can’t be proven, it can be right, especially when we’re dealing with human emotions and feelings. I would really like to throw in something I keep asking me all the time when I argue about this subject: could my point be wrong? Could it be that the other side is valid? I’m sure we all agree that both sides have points we can’t argue about (which is what really makes this discussion so lengthy; you can’t disapprove some of the other side’s points,) so I don’t think that you can force people to act either way. This subject is very tricky, and it is important to keep your mind open and hear the other side, because I don’t think there is a right and a wrong - there are opinions.
Zeb and Timmeah
I agree with you both, abortion should NOT be used instead of contraceptives and education would probably reduce the numbers of abortions.
BUT, Derek said that abortions are ALWAYS wrong. I don’t agree with that, I believe there are cases were an abortion would be the better choice for the woman.