A new push to define 'person,' and to outlaw abortion in the process

It really makes me laugh to see this argument about the wrongs and rights of abortion and if its murder or not coming from a country that is killing thousands in the middle east as we speak. Men, women and children too...

Hypocrisy anyone?

reply to post by refuse_orders


Excellent point sir, Star for you

The hypocrisy in this thread alone is astonishing. Although I am surprised the religious nutjobs haven't had their say yet.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Let me put it this way to you
I am a hindu vegetarian for example, but I do eat eggs
I do not kill living things or eat what was once living
But I don't give into the "what could have been" argument
So I eat eggs

It's completely different, what you are referring to is a completely different topic

a fetus is not a seed
a seed is a seed
a fetus is a fetus and a living thing

ModernAcademia

I have seen you state your fate twice, you are hindu.

What you believe is what you believe and it is fine by me, you believe that abortion = to murder and I am not in any authority to try to convince you otherwise. Other people tho have other views than yours tho and trying to push/argue your views over theirs is just wrong and offensive.

I eat meat, I love meat but over all, I truly enjoy a good T-bone, a ribeye, a NY strip and above all, a good filet minion wrapped in bacon, yummy. I love beef and I wouldn't mind trying one of them sacred cows, it must be one lean meat! I've also wondered how elephant meat taste like, does it taste musty?

Did I offend you? If I did then I am sorry but the way I see it, beef is beef sacred cow or not. Same goes for your views ModernAcademia, they offend me because I have different beliefs on the matter of abortion and women rights.

Semantics, fuzzy logic and twisted arguments are the ammo of pro-lifers and in extreme cases, violence and murder. So how about live and let live? You adhere to your own beliefs, I adhere to my own beliefs and we try very hard not to piss in each others cornflakes because we are civilized people and we both know that pushing our views and beliefs on someone who has a different set of values, beliefs and morals is just wrong and uncivilized.

Now if the government came around to pass such a law, then, they would need to also outlaw mustard baths, relaxing herbal teas, coffee, alcohol, a panoply of over the counter drugs considering that all of the above will heighten the chance of a miscarriage... When a woman who want an abortion is being put in a corner, she will find a way to achieve her goal, even if it means resorting to a coat hanger back alley abortion.

I do not kill living things or eat what was once living

How alive are lettuce and asparagus these days? And the poor artichoke, going for it's heart, how cruel! Should we create PETA for broccoli's?

Life is life, it is all in the way each of us sees it and define it.

reply to post by refuse_orders


Actually is not hypocrisy, is the misguided believes of many in this nation, fight for rights of women to their own bodies but kill anybody that doesn't agree with our nations way of thinking.

Funny.

Makes you wonder what is with women reproductive organs that so many wants to, regulate it, restricted, manipulate it, govern, create laws against it and even have some that can not live without thinking about it one second of their lives.


[edit on 28-9-2009 by marg6043]

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
It's not JUST her body though
that's the entire issue

there is a 2nd body there

you saying the govt. can say anything is the same as the govt. shouldn't tell you that you can't murder your neighbour

If your neighbor has an axe is gunning for you children you absolutely have the right to fill him full of lead.

I totally understand that you don't like abortion. I myself am not a proponent of it.

However in this country. The government should not be swayed by ideological group of people pushing an agenda. Nor should they be passing laws that denies the rights of women.
The government does not have the constitutional right to deny anyone an abortion.


[edit on 28-9-2009 by grey580]

reply to post by ModernAcademia


S&F for taking on such a vitriolic topic. -trust me- it's no picnic.

I think that any step taken to secure the same right to life as we all have, to an unborn child is good, is right.

Those that argue for the death of a potential person, need to take a step back, as far as I'm concerned.

That's all. Go back to your fighting now. . .

Here's my two cents...

Abortion is not a religious debate. Using Christianity as an example, those who state that "Abortion is murder" can feel free to believe that. But they also have to accept the other half of the faith that says all are already forgiven for their deeds. God will save all if they repent. By banning abortion, the pro-religious side would be taking away a potential opportunity for those in such a situation to actually repent and find God...it's a bit counter-productive.

For me, I believe the real reason behind the anti-abortion push is in preventing the human actions which lead up to the act itself. With the exception of rape, those who end up having to debate getting an abortion or not consciously did something to get there. At the basic level, two individuals had sex without thinking through any of the consequences. The more abortion is promoted as a viable birth control alternative, or at least remains an easily open process to obtain, then people will continue to not think before they act. If two people are so disconnected to not care about their physical selves prior to sex, how responsible are they in the rest of their lives? The abortion ban will do more to stem the out of control actions of today's society ("me first / entitlement" culture), which I see as the true focus of such legislative pushes.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
It's not JUST her body though
that's the entire issue

there is a 2nd body there

you saying the govt. can say anything is the same as the govt. shouldn't tell you that you can't murder your neighbour

Yes, and the mother will make decisions that affect the life of the child for the next 20 years. They will become less and less important as the child matures, but there are things like whether a illness needs a doctor, or can be cured with chicken soup, education, decisions about the childs social life, etc etc etc...

Now she must not make decisions for it in the first 9 months why exactly?

I know some of you are thinking that abortion is being used as a method of birth control. In some cases I believe this to be true. In other cases however, standard birth control methods (pill, iud, patch, ring, etc.) are not 100% effective. Even if multiple methods such as a pill and a condom are used there is still a chance, however small that may be, that conception can happen. Now, would you say that the couple who use both pills and condoms (or whatever combination of protection) wants to have a child? Would you say that these people are being irresponsible for their actions? Or would you say that they are taking the steps that are available to prevent from having a child?

Not everyone wants to have a child, married couples included. But are you going to say "well don't have sex if you're not ready to have one" when they're doing everything that's available to prevent a child from being formed?

Until they come up with a 100% effective method of preventing pregnancy (aside from abstinence, because honestly no one is going to practice that) then rare situations like this one will continue to happen. I'm sorry I don't believe in punishing (and an unwanted pregnancy is punishment to my mind) a couple who are taking all the steps available to prevent a pregnancy. Not to mention an abortion isn't exactly cheap these days.

Also for those that say "oh go watch one and see how you feel", I have, and no it's not a pleasant sight. I doubt you'd find anyone that would enjoy watching it. However it also doesn't change my mind in what I believe, we can debate when life forms until the cows come home, but it's going to be something no two people will agree on completely. Such is life.

A living entity that is 100% biologically reliant on a host cannot have the right to directly determine the choices of it's host regarding it's survival. Neither do others who think they have the right to speak for it, or the host, using morality for justification or try to redefine it's status to do so.

Until that "entity" becomes unattached it is part of the host and not two seperate "people".

Why do people say "GOING TO BE a mother" and not "AM a mother" when a woman is pregnant?

I have no words for how dumb this is.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia


Sounds good to me
Personally, I consider myself very pro-choice
But I do not find that Abortion has anything to do with pro-choice.

Pro choice means you can do whatever you want to your body, but during pregnancy there's another body in your womb, and the mother does not have complete ownership of that fetus or can decide to end it's life or not.

I guess if I were given that poll I would chose both, i'm pro life and pro choice.

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

So you would be fine with the gov't monitoring your birth control, what you do with your genitals among everything else? Sure let's give the bastards more control

there should be a balance between both sides of the argument.

Abortion should be legal ONLY in the first 20 weeks, when the fetus still has not formed pain receptors and the fetus is still pretty much a mass of cells that can't possibly be called a fully formed human.

Any abortion done after 20 weeks should be against the law.


Abortion should not be outlawed because there are certain cases in which an abortion should be a viable choice. For example, abortion should be available for women who could die or suffer any form of permanent harm due to giving birth, rape victims, and as a choice for women who are to give birth to a child who has some form of malformation or disorder that could cause the child a horrible life.

And consider how many lives would be wrecked from unwanted pregnancies, spiralling down through the generations to create a world of unhappy families, resentful parents, overstressed social security systems, suicidal shunned or demanded of unwilling fathers and a myriad of additions to the age old "what if" questions that already rule many tormented souls.

No!

The problem lies with those who's meglomanic tendancies and delusional beliefs make them TRY to control the world around them because they have no self control over their own and little understanding of what they are actually asking for here.

Who's lives does this ultimately affect? The parents of forced births from abortion being disallowed because of the redefinition of a word "person",or the winners of that new definition so they can sleep better at night?

I ****ing HATE self ritiousness!

M.Y.O.B. first, come back when you're perfect.

Originally posted by newworld
Any abortion done after 20 weeks should be against the law.

The law should have nothing to do with it.

Personal and proffessional common sense and health issues should dictate these kind of things, not some commitee who follow a pre-written script for the masses written by a commitee who follow a pre-written script for the masses.

[edit on 28/9/2009 by nerbot]

reply to post by Kryties


A baby leaves the bassinet after about 3 or 4 months, (though some babies don't even require one) so your memory is either wrong or you are (most likely) just making it all up. I don't know of anyone who remembers being inside the mother at 9 months, does that still not count as a person? Life begins at conception like it or not, it is still a soul even if if it can't feel or think, we have no way of knowing that. Abortion is an excuse to run from your responsibility. Pretty cruel one too.

reply to post by refuse_orders


All Americans are killing thousands in the middle east and support it? That's news to me. Don't confuse our governments actions with the citizens. Different entities.

"The law should have nothing to do with it.

Personal and proffessional common sense and health issues should dictate these kind of things, not some commitee who follow a pre-written script for the masses written by a commitee who follow a pre-written script for the masses."

then how do you plan to enforce it?
i have suggested, what I believe is the best way to compromise both sides of the debate, by allowing abortion to be legal as long as it is done before the fetus gains pain receptors.

There is a point in about late second trimester in which a fetus could be considered a baby and not a mass of forming cells. If a law is not created to enforce that individuals won't be using abortion during the time a fetus could be considered a baby then we clearly will have problems.

It would be much better if no laws were necessary to enforce this, but it should be clear that as long as there are no laws that set some sort of limit to when an abortion becomes illegal then we will continue to see this form of debate.

Originally posted by Kryties
I am sorry but no-one will ever convince me that an egg has feelings. I can understand the debate about abortion late in the pregnancy when the foetus has formed a proper brain and actually LOOKS like a human, but at the egg stage of development it's an absolutely ridiculous argument.

"feelings" dont equal "person". by your reasoning, mentally disabled people are less of a "person" because they are less proficient at thinking

Originally posted by lucentenigma
So I guess everyone that masturbates or has protected sex commits genocide.

sperm is a cell, and embryo is a life. it has its own dna and everything

Originally posted by Kryties
I don't buy into the whole 'abortion is murder' bollocks. Up to a certain point the bloody thing is a zygote or an egg with no thought processes of it's own (I am waiting to hear from someone claiming they do have them - that will be a laugh a minute).

your whole argument is based on thinking. therefore by your logic, you dont count people in coma's as "people". and apparentlymentally disabled as less "people" than you.