• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Jj Roberts
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Himai Minh
  • Carey Brown
  • salvin francis

Pro choice

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 581
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
For women, to abort or not when get pregnant is really, really a very complicated decision which not only ethic and morality are involved. There are still factors like financial condition, career expectation...Not all pregnant women have perfect welfare and in my opinion they should have the right to make the choice...
In the modern world women are not born to just give birth to babies. The society should allow them to pursue something else if they like. Let's say, Mary and John get married when they were 22 and 25, they are both perfectly healthy, smart and beautiful. One day they weren't careful enough and got pregnant by accident. But they were at the beginning of their careers, they thought they were still young and energetic enough it was perfect period to build a stable financial condition, and Mary had great potent she didn't want to have the pause in promotions at that moment; And, they still wanted to enjoy the world of them two for a longer time. In one word, they didn't feel ready for a child. They made a dicision of abortion. When Mary was 32 and John was 35, they felt like having children and got 3 children one after another. I don't feel comfortable to think they are murderers. There are so many roles women can or have to play!
In the last passage I was trying to say in my opinion abortion should be the freedom available to women. Now here is a question. Do women are really treated equally in the job market? Really same job, same wadge? I'm still in school so sincerely I don't know at all. However I have a feeling that women have to pay more effort than men if they pursue the success in career. Am I going to abort if I concentrated on working? I don't know yet. But I understand those who aborted when pregnancy was in the way of their careers. To raise a child is not as simple as just giving birth to him/her, to me, at least, I expect my future children to have a caring and loving family, my children should have a good growing environment and decent education.....it's full responsibility, and, yes, heavy and serious and great responsibility. I don't see the point to force women ( or parents ) to take this full responsibility when they are not ready, or they prefer some other responsibilities, which may well be also good and benevolent, to take. To me, to give my baby to someone else, i.e. to let other people adopt my child when he/she is already born is unacceptable. Emotionally unacceptable.
I really hate to be the only child in my family. There are many side-effects of the one-child-policy of China: there is egocentric tendency of the child...just to name a one. But...Bert's simple math above is totally aussagekr�ftig, I cannot imagine how crowded the earth has already been, if in the early 1980's, China didn't take any measurement of birth control. Still this issue is too complicated I don't feel comfortable to simply say it's a "good" or "bad" thing. I like children very much I want to have more than three. But before that, there's still a long way to go...
P.S.:No slightest disrespect to anyone's beliefs was intended.
[ May 01, 2004: Message edited by: Ellen Zhao ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 15304
6
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
In the modern world women are not born to just give birth to babies. The society should allow them to pursue something else if they like. Let's say, Mary and John get married when they were 22 and 25, they are both perfectly healthy, smart and beautiful. One day they weren't careful enough and got pregnant by accident. But they were at the beginning of their careers, they thought they were still young and energetic enough it was perfect period to build a stable financial condition, and Mary had great potent she didn't want to have the pause in promotions at that moment; And, they still wanted to enjoy the world of them two for a longer time. In one word, they didn't feel ready for a child. They made a dicision of abortion. When Mary was 32 and John was 35, they felt like having children and got 3 children one after another. I don't feel comfortable to think they are murders. There are so many roles women can or have to play!
If I had to pick a murderer between the parents in your scenerio and a girl who was raped and impregnated that decided to have an abortion, I would pick the couple you just described. I hope this was not a true personal story hidden in a hypothetical.
Although I am pro-life 100%, if I had to choose a right and wrong time to have an abortion, your scenerio would be the most wrong to me I could possibly imagine. A perfectly able and healthy couple. Of all the reasons, this is the most selfish.
[ April 30, 2004: Message edited by: Gregg Bolinger ]
 
Ellen Zhao
Ranch Hand
Posts: 581
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Okay, Mary and John were just graduated then, still owed much money to the bank ( tuition in college ), they didn't have their own house, they...
I don't know if that can be called selfish. Really. As I know many women abort just for that reason. And, as I said to raise a child is not an easy task. Parents are responsible to make a good environment for their coming chilren.
The reality is not as sympathetic as many posters here. We may think a woman who aborts is selfish, evil...but...sometimes they really meet all sorts of difficulties and not all of them can get perfect help from government or friends. I'm not saying abortion is the only option, but should it be one of the options?
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I had an abortion when I was 25. I wanted this child, but it gradually became clear that I am the only single person in this world who wanted her. At some point I started to ask myself if this is wise to bring up a child into a world that doesn't want her. At some point I decided "no". I feel a little bit more cynical to the world since then
 
Gregg Bolinger
Ranch Hand
Posts: 15304
6
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
but should it be one of the options?
I think that is the question Ellen.
I just found out a few days ago that my wife is pregnant with our 3rd. That will put #2 and #3 about a year apart. Our 1st is 3 years old.
We don't own a home and we have a combined income of about $45K a year which isn't bad, but we have some debt; car payment, old credit cards from single days, school loans, etc. My wife is currently in school so this puts a big damper on that. We were not planning on this at all. Turns out it was some Roving Cycle or something.
Anyway, abortion never even entered into the equation. Make all the excuses you want for Mary and John. It's still selfish. There are people worse off than you expect and still manage to raise children better than people who are very well off.
You make the best of the situation you have. You make sacrifices. Adoption is a living choice. Tell me you could kill someone as precious as this, or this or this because you wanted that promotion at work.
[ April 30, 2004: Message edited by: Gregg Bolinger ]
[ May 01, 2004: Message edited by: Gregg Bolinger ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
If you are going to name them that sur eyou wouldn't want to reconsider ?
Zachariah Cooper ? :roll:
Just joking - they all really look lovely.
Aren't they lovely.
 
blacksmith
Posts: 1332
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Responding to me:

Good point. "Pro-abortion" would actually mean 'in favor of forcing people to have abortions even when they don't want to'.


Thomas Paul:

Really? Would pro-capital punishment then mean you were in favor of executing everyone?


I read through my sentence several times, and I still can't find the word "everyone" in it.
I certainly wouldn't call anyone pro-capital punishment if they weren't in favor of executing anyone at all.
 
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Posts: 1332
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ellen Zhao:
I really hate to be the only child in my family. There are many side-effects of the one-child-policy of China: there is egocentric tendency of the child...just to name a one. But...Bert's simple math above is totally aussagekr�ftig, I cannot imagine how crowd the earth has already been, if in the early 1980's, China didn't take any measurement of birth control. Still this issue is too complicated I don't feel comfortable to simply say it's a "good" or "bad" thing. I like children very much I want to have more than three. But before that, there's still a long way to go...


A tangent to the topic, but what's wrong with two rather than one or three? At some point, even China will need to come back up to a replacement rate, though I agree that much above that is probably unwise.
 
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
GB: I just found out a few days ago that my wife is pregnant with our 3rd.
ME: Congratulations, Greg! I wish the best for you, your wife, and a healthy and happy addition to your family.
GB: There are people worse off than you expect and still manage to raise children better than people who are very well off.
ME: Economic circumstances can be very real for some people, but I'd guess far more often having very modest means is a rationalization. People raise children on next to nothing if they have to. The much bigger concern is...
GB: You make the best of the situation you have. You make sacrifices.
ME: ...whether a couple with an unexpected pregnancy in view have or can acquire the skills, the intent, and the desire to raise a child. There's nothing healthier than a person who can say to themselves, "I don't have the means or the skills to do what it takes to handle this."
GB: Adoption is a living choice. Passionate Argument Edited.
ME: I believe in the passionate argument, but let's draw the line at deameaning a contrary view in these terms. For a touchy subject, we're doing quite well so far.
[ May 01, 2004: Message edited by: Gregg Bolinger ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Warren Dew:

A tangent to the topic, but what's wrong with two rather than one or three? At some point, even China will need to come back up to a replacement rate, though I agree that much above that is probably unwise.


The Chinese population is growing as it is. The average rate of birth is roughly 1.1 per person during his or her lifetime.
There are also people who are excempt from the law (special permission is granted as reward to the faithful) and of course there are people who get more than one child in violation of the law. When and if they're found out the parents are punished and the child may be removed to an orphanage, but the child is not killed (orphanages make for excellent schools to train proper communists).
What IS happening is that the birthrate in cities has dropped. This does however not slow the growth of the cities as the influx of people from the countryside into those cities has gotten larger and larger to compensate (the countryside being where the birthrate is still high and control difficult).
It is estimated that there are tens of millions (some sources speak of over a hundred million) people living in the PRC which are unknown to the authorities. The government doesn't know they exist, they have no papers and pay no taxes. They're out of government control.
 
Ellen Zhao
Ranch Hand
Posts: 581
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Gregg,
I respect you and your wife tremendously for leaving all of the chance to your baby. I wish I could be able not to give abortion a consider when I get pregnant in the future. And, yes, you are perfectly right, there are many great children from really poor or miserable family. And, yes, I admit in my opinion, under most of situations abortion is not greatly moral or ethical. But the point I really wanted to make is, to leave abortion legal or not. Different people have different expectations in their lives, should the society be more open and more tolerant to those who prefer making different choices? Should the society leave "the best choice" to women ( or their husbands ) to meet their need in the complicated reality instead of forcing them to be heros according to some abstract things?
Abortion for promotion or a more stable( different people have different expectations about how "stable" is enough ) financial condition is only one of the very upset facts I know. There are more upset ones: some companies don't want to hire women because women are likely to get pregnant, companies will lose efficiency for hiring women ( of course such companies won't make this point clear to public, but they do exist ). The world hasn't been that rose-coloured yet. I really hope there will be one day all women can have perfect security, but there is still too much work to be done to achieve this. Higher level civilisation always takes time to reach and confusion is inevitable...For this matter I am optimistic. At least gynecology and obstetrics are getting more and more advanced, more and more children are taken good care of when they are being born and after they are born
All my best wishes to your wife and your future baby.
[ May 01, 2004: Message edited by: Ellen Zhao ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 400
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
This isn't really a controversial topic in Europe. Their are a few anti-abortion proponents in the uk. They tend to be from the extreme right and often have a hidden agenda that is anti-woman.
(Please be careful with your choice of words if you wish to continue discussing this subject -- Marilyn).
[ May 01, 2004: Message edited by: Marilyn de Queiroz ]
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Responding to me:

I read through my sentence several times, and I still can't find the word "everyone" in it.
I certainly wouldn't call anyone pro-capital punishment if they weren't in favor of executing anyone at all.


Ok, would "Pro-capital punishment" mean 'in favor of forcing juries to execute people even when they don't want to'?
 
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Plenty of women, who make fine salaries on their own, abort. Let's not use economics as a scapegoat.
Women have an out, so some take it. Plenty of men pass the buck when it comes to be responsible dads AND even more would if they could before the child was born.
If a guy impregnates a girl he doesn't really like, then he needs to "be a man"; BUT when a women gets pregnant by a guy she doesn't like, she can "make her choice". If ever we had true equality in the workplace and the home, some women would be in for a very rude awakening.
If abortion is a women's issue, why are there so many women who are spending thousands and thousands of dollars, lots of intense emotional pain, and months of real physical pain trying to have children, while their 'sisters' are disposing of mistakes or children they "just can't economically take care of"?? I believe some charismatic young woman will organize a way for woman to help one another and not feel ashamed about it.
I don't think our daughters will give up their control of their bodies, they'll just make different choices than their Moms.
 
author and iconoclast
Posts: 24203
43
Mac OS X Eclipse IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Ok, would "Pro-capital punishment" mean 'in favor of forcing juries to execute people even when they don't want to'?


"Pro-capital punishment" means being in favor of having capital punishment as an option when circumstances warrant. "Pro-choice" means being in favor of having abortion as an option when circumstances warrant. Neither of these positions is about forcing anyone to do anything. They're about not restricting the choices available to someone in a difficult situation.
Note that you can personally dislike execution (I don't know anyone personally who is interested in being executed themselves) and abortion, yet still be pro-capital punishment and pro-choice.
[ May 01, 2004: Message edited by: Ernest Friedman-Hill ]
 
Gregg Bolinger
Ranch Hand
Posts: 15304
6
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
ME: I believe in the passionate argument, but let's draw the line at deameaning a contrary view in these terms. For a touchy subject, we're doing quite well so far.
I agree so I fixed it. Although the argument was directed at Ellens example couple. Not all abortion. But my argument stands well without that statement so it has been removed.
 
Gregg Bolinger
Ranch Hand
Posts: 15304
6
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
EZ:Should the society leave "the best choice" to women ( or their husbands ) to meet their need in the complicated reality instead of forcing them to be heros according to some abstract things?
That brings up another interesting topic. Who should be the deciding voice when the wife wants an abortion but the husband wants the baby. And vice verca.
 
Gregg Bolinger
Ranch Hand
Posts: 15304
6
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
ME:There's nothing healthier than a person who can say to themselves, "I don't have the means or the skills to do what it takes to handle this."
There are plenty of living choices that can be made. Sure, you say it's healthy for someone who can make that statement. And when that ends in abortion, how healthy is the dead baby?
 
Sheriff
Posts: 9102
12
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by John Dunn:
I believe some charismatic young woman will organize a way for woman to help one another and not feel ashamed about it.


This already exists, but it is not nearly as well publicized as abortion is.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:

"Pro-capital punishment" means being in favor of having capital punishment as an option when circumstances warrant. "Pro-choice" means being in favor of having abortion as an option when circumstances warrant./QUOTE]
The question was about "pro-abortion". If "pro-capital punishment" can mean "being in favor of having capital punishment as an option when circumstances warrant" then why can't "pro-abortion" mean "being in favor of having abortion as an option when circumstances warrant"? Why must the euphemism of "pro-choice" be used? Should people who are pro-capital punishment start insiting that they be called "pro-choice"?

 
Gregg Bolinger
Ranch Hand
Posts: 15304
6
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
[qb]
"Pro-capital punishment" means being in favor of having capital punishment as an option when circumstances warrant. "Pro-choice" means being in favor of having abortion as an option when circumstances warrant./QUOTE]
The question was about "pro-abortion". If "pro-capital punishment" can mean "being in favor of having capital punishment as an option when circumstances warrant" then why can't "pro-abortion" mean "being in favor of having abortion as an option when circumstances warrant"? Why must the euphemism of "pro-choice" be used? Should people who are pro-capital punishment start insiting that they be called "pro-choice"?[/QB]


That's interesting. I'm just going to start calling it Pro-Abortion. Doesn't quite have the same passive tounge and cheek tone anymore, does it.
[ May 01, 2004: Message edited by: Gregg Bolinger ]

 
author
Posts: 9000
19
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ellen -
You threw me there, I tried to translate "aussagekraftig" and came up with "meaningful", is that what you meant? If not, what did you mean?
thanks,
Bert
 
Ellen Zhao
Ranch Hand
Posts: 581
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Bert,
sorry for the confusion. I tried my best to find a proper word for "aussagekr�ftig" in English in my context but wasn't satisfied by the translation from dict.leo.org:
meaningful or significant.
sure, I found the caculation was meaningful and significant but they weren't exactly what I meant...now I try harder, "laconic, cogent" might be closer? Any native German who's also good at English please help out? Aussage means statement and kr�ftig means powerful, mighty.

Regards,
Ellen
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:

That brings up another interesting topic. Who should be the deciding voice when the wife wants an abortion but the husband wants the baby. And vice verca.


Why assume a married couple?
I'd think the person carrying the baby would have the decision to make.
Naturally when two people disagree there's going to be quite a potential fight. But if the state supports a father-to-be's right to decide, how has a woman's right to choose been upheld?
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:

There are plenty of living choices that can be made. Sure, you say it's healthy for someone who can make that statement. And when that ends in abortion, how healthy is the dead baby?


There are plenty of "living" choices that can be made. The point is that a person may choose them -- that's the "pro-choice" aspect I argue for. To the degree that a pro-choice acitvist is always a baby-killer in the minds of others, there is no acceptance of this notion of choice, and the label is seen as a sham. Neither does choice exist in any meaningful way if the options available to a pregnant woman are limited to those that require her to carry to term any fetus at any stage of development under any circumstances.
The power to choose means abuse of the power is possible. But this is what one signs up for in a country dedicated to the idea that, on the whole and not in each and every possible case, people will choose according to their best interests. And one hopes the choices for something positive and constructive outweigh the ones that are destructive.
Does anyone wish to point to evidence suggesting that abortion is subject to widespread misuse? Is anyone willing to tack a percentage or number to the term 'widespread'?
 
John Dunn
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Just got back from my wife's baby shower. We got some cool stuff. I've just declared myself the designated family stroller-pusher. We got things that I couldn't have thought we needed in a million years.
There is a very good reason why Pro-Choice is used. It sounds better and easier than pro-Abortion. Abortion itself is a vague word. I wonder what impact it would have to call it "Terminating an offspring"?? IMHO, there is a small portion of woman who deep down really think its okay to abort.
I wonder if women HAD to have their offspring, would they would date less losers?
Why is it that a fetus is considered part of a woman's body? It might not have the same sex, same blood type, same RH type, definitely not the same DNA and maybe not even the same color. When can it be considered worthy of its own rights? My wife and I lost our last child at 25 weeks. A real border-line life. A week earlier and we could have killed it legally. My wife no longer believes abortion to be an option. A fetus in the 20+ week period is undeniable a human offspring.
It's funny to me that a young girl can have a child and throw it away and be considered a murderer, yet another woman can have it removed and be considered legit. Why come to think of it is suicide against the law? Why should a woman be allowed to kill herself?
If it were up to me I'd half a two-week period to allow woman to terminate conceptions. This would cover women, who at the very least, had been raped.
"mistakes" could also be caught. Why do we really need a whole trimester?
Funny how when Connor Peterson was murdered the California chapter of NOW wanted to prevent the Peterson family from claiming it as two murders because that might take away women's rights. (Forget the fact that Laci was a woman...) Didn't Laci have a right to make a choice with her body? Whose choice is it anyway? IMO, young women are being grossly mis-led.
 
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Posts: 1332
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Ok, would "Pro-capital punishment" mean 'in favor of forcing juries to execute people even when they don't want to'?


I don't think most people who are in favor of capital punishment want to leave it up to the jury; that's a compromise between the people (or rather, the supreme court justices) who were in favor and those who were against.
Where I've heard about it the most recently is in phrases something like, 'in the case of Osama Bin Laden, I'm in favor of capital punishment'. I think most people saying that mean they want him executed, not that they want it as a potential option if the jury happens to be in the mood that day.
I will agree that I find "pro-choice" a little vague. Then again, I don't know any "pro-life" people who think it's evil to kill plants for food.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1340
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
During menstruation a human egg is washed away. By not fertilising that egg we are denying life through inaction. Similarly by not taking an unfertilised egg and storing it until it can be fertilised we are again denying life through inaction. I suppose this was acceptable before humanity's knowledge of the human life-cycle was so advanced, but now that we know what happens and (more importantly) we have the ability to save all eggs created by women, surely not to do so is criminal. Each egg has the potential to become a unique human being and the fact that it wasn't given the chance to grow through the misfortune of a man's thingy not being around at the time is cruel in the extreme. However, it seems that this is acceptable in today's society. Why?
Why are we only concerned with the welfare of a fertilised egg? Something that was previously one cell can be flushed away but the moment it starts to becomes 2 cells, 4 cells, 8 cells etc, it now has rights (in some people's eyes) above those of the host because to kill it is now murder? I can't accept that reasoning.
I am pro-choice. I don't believe in immortal souls or afterlives so maybe its easier for me than those that do(?). There is a sensible point at which society can agree that a pregnancy can be terminated. Maybe we've found it or it needs redefining (and I'm all in favour of erring on the side of caution, within reason). Abortions before the time that a foetus can be widely accepted as starting to become aware and capable of suffering pain is fair game game IMO. If a woman wants to abort because of dire straights or because she was raped or just because she "doesn't fancy it right now because it'll ruin my social life" then all power to her and everyone else should butt out! She should be able to do so without being called selfish or a murderer.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Similarly by not taking an unfertilised egg and storing it until it can be fertilised we are again denying life through inaction.
To me, that argument doesn't hold any weight. Life only occurs after the sperm fertilizes the egg. Anything before that point is relatively meaningless, at least as regards to this particular argument. It takes a conscious act between a man and a woman to produce a human life. Since we are only talking about terminating living beings, what happens before fertilization is not even part of the equation.
 
John Dunn
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
RH, I think you are making a very complex series of events sound very trivial. Many eggs get fertilized and never continue along the path to becoming a zygote and then a fetus. Many women don't even know. (Some of the "late" cycles women experience are actually extremely early miscarriages. (i.e. egg is fertilized but fails to stick to uterus wall, etc, etc.) The body knows when to abort.
Interesting study on pregnant rape victims: link
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1923
Scala Postgres Database Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
... Life only occurs after the sperm fertilizes the egg. ...It takes a conscious act between a man and a woman to produce a human life. ...


So if cloning would work, you wouldn't call the cloned livings a human life?
Or in vitro fertilisation, which isn't a conscious act between a man and a woman.
The argument was an ironic exaggeration, but shows again, that definitions are problematic.
I'm pro choice, if somebody likes to hear it explicitely, but of course I'm not pro abortion. I guess the time to allow it should be fixed to a value, as short as possible, but long enough for most pregnancys to be observed plus a short time - maybee two or three weeks, to make up your mind and come to a decision plus some time to get it done.
Three months should be enough.
The decision should be made by the woman.
 
John Dunn
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Believe it or not the next song is by Kid Rock. A very nice song, but quite sad, the tune really captures the author's mood.
ABORTION by Kid Rock
My veins are poppin from this love inside
I just can't let it out
This pipe and these needles are my only guide
They've got me on the wrong route
What is my life about
Living in the shadows of a man I've never seen
Dreamin' like a lonely child
I know your brothers and your sister and your mother too
Man I wish you could see them too
Oh Lord
Oh Lord
Man I wish that you could see them too
Man I wish that you could see them too
So can I come to see you sometime
Cause I been missin you
I've never heard you cry I've never seen you whine
I'm feeling oh so young
But still I must die to get to you
And if I do I wonder how just you will see me
And implicate the things I've done
I'm diein in the shadows of this man I've never seen
I'll see you soon
Now where's my gun
Oh Lord
Oh Lord
Oh Lord
Wheres my gun
Oh wheres my gun
Oh Lord
Wheres my gun
Oh Lord
My gun
Let me open your eyes
Let me see who you are
I am you, you are me
We are a part of
The second coming of christ
It's God himself in a jar
Yeah...yeah
Yeah...yeah
Let me open your eyes
Let me see who you are
I am you, you are me
We are a part of
The second coming of christ
Its god himself in a jar
Yeahhhh
Heyyyyyyy
You got me, sad and lonely
When I'm me...me
You know you make me so lonely
I am so alone
And I will pray and then I'll cry
And I will pray and then I'll cry
And I will pray and then I'll cry
And I will pray and then I'll cry
 
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1340
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Life only occurs after the sperm fertilizes the egg. Anything before that point is relatively meaningless ... It takes a conscious act between a man and a woman to produce a human life. Since we are only talking about terminating living beings, what happens before fertilization is not even part of the equation.
Originally posted by John Dunn:
RH, I think you are making a very complex series of events sound very trivial. Many eggs get fertilized and never continue along the path to becoming a zygote and then a fetus. Many women don't even know. (Some of the "late" cycles women experience are actually extremely early miscarriages. (i.e. egg is fertilized but fails to stick to uterus wall, etc, etc.) The body knows when to abort.
Sure, I'm no biologist. An egg is not 'dead' though is it? I realise its a pretty tenuous argument but there doesn't seem to be much difference between an unfertilised egg and an egg just starting its development after fertilisation. Biological processes start at a molecular level after impregnation, but in terms of this discussion (the right to terminate unborn life), they're both about as full of life as an amoeba (yet both have human 'potential'). IMO there is a period when action can be taken. Using the exact point at where the 'magic' starts to determine whether something is suddenly human seems to be a bit artificial. Its more ambiguous, a curve - zero to less to more.
With so many 'natural' abortions occurring and the continued advances in medical science, how long before it does become part of the equation to save as many as possible?
 
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Posts: 1332
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Stefan Wagner:
The argument was an ironic exaggeration, but shows again, that definitions are problematic.


More specifically, RH's argument applies to the "potential human" definition, but probably not to the "actual human" definition.
If you argue that the embryo has rights because it has the potential to become a human being, that argument can be applied to eggs and sperm before conception. In fact, it's basically reasoning about potential human beings that's behind the Catholic church's prohibition against contraception.
I don't think there are very many people who would argue that separated sperm or eggs are actual human beings, though. Different people might have different definitions on when an embryo becomes a human being - birth, conception, second trimester, third trimester, age 18, age 35, whatever - but "all the eggs in the ovaries are human beings" would be kind of difficult to argue, in my opinion.
Still, it's kind of amusing to think about putting Scott Peterson up for 250 counts of murder....
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Warren Dew:
In fact, it's basically reasoning about potential human beings that's behind the Catholic church's prohibition against contraception.

I'm sorry but that is completely wrong. The Church's prohibition against contraception has nothing to do with "potential human beings". It has to do with the fact that the Church believes it is intrinsically evil to separate the marriage act between conjugal love and procreation. You can read Humanae Vitae if you care what the Church actually teaches.
http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pa06hv.htm
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Sure, I'm no biologist. An egg is not 'dead' though is it? I realise its a pretty tenuous argument but there doesn't seem to be much difference between an unfertilised egg and an egg just starting its development after fertilisation.


Actually there is. An unfertilized egg is incapable of reproducing itself and making a new cell. That is one of the definitions of life, isn't it?
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The fertilised egg contains a complete set of DNA, the unfertilised egg does not.
Effectively (and cloning experiments have proven this) any cell with a full set of DNA can be used to grow a complete individual, the main differences being the chemical environment in which the cells exist during their existence.
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
It has to do with the fact that the Church believes it is intrinsically evil to separate the marriage act between conjugal love and procreation.


Ayep, that's the doctrine I remember. It's not for us to question the means by which God grants life on Earth. We are intended as vessels in this purpose; our work is to choose with or against God's intentions.
I remember that from a piece of a sermon I heard in New Berlin, Wisconsin, in 1975. The teachings of the Catholic Church are so extraordinarily clear in the minds of some. If there is a power in that kind of religion, it seems to come from the idea that in beginning from one Truth, so many others will become clear -- including ones that seem completely dogmatic and arbitrary.
[ May 03, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
 
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Posts: 1332
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
[QB]I'm sorry but that is completely wrong. The Church's prohibition against contraception has nothing to do with "potential human beings". It has to do with the fact that the Church believes it is intrinsically evil to separate the marriage act between conjugal love and procreation. You can read Humanae Vitae if you care what the Church actually teaches.


I understand how it's worded, but from this non-Catholic's point of view, "procreation" is exactly about "potential human beings". The bottom line is still "you shouldn't have sex unless you're willing to go through with creating a human being". The "potential human being" "pro-life" argument is essentially similar to that, but cuts things off at a later point: "you shouldn't conceive unless you're willing to go through with creating a human being". Both are different from the argument that the embryo is already an actual human being.
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Marilyn de Queiroz:

Or at least seem completely dogmatic and arbitrary to some people.


Of course. Lest anyone confuse what I have to say with the Truth on anything, I've modified my post accordingly.
 
Happiness is not a goal ... it's a by-product of a life well lived - Eleanor Roosevelt. Tiny ad:
the value of filler advertising in 2020
https://coderanch.com/t/730886/filler-advertising
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic