Judges give go-ahead to terminate pregnancy of girl, 12

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

from couriermail.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24405590-952,00.html)
IN a landmark case a Supreme Court judge has given permission for state government doctors to terminate the pregnancy of a 12-year-old girl.

It was the first time a Queensland judge had been asked to determine the lawfulness of ordering the termination of a minor's pregnancy and probably in Australia.
The State Government had gone to the Supreme Court in its role as "parens patriae" (the supreme parent of children in its jurisdiction).

The girl had told her carers she wanted the termination and her parents had both consented. However, it was considered their consent was beyond their powers and a judge's declaration was needed.

Justice Margaret Wilson, because of the urgency, made the order in a special closed night court last week but did not release her written reasons until today.

The girl, 12, was 18 weeks pregnant and residing in a State Government-run public hospital.

Justice Wilson heard evidence from two psychiatrists and an obstetrician about the state of the child's mental health should the pregnancy not be terminated.

She noted it was thought the effect on her mental health would be far more serious and go beyond the normal dangers of childbirth.

Justice Wilson said the child's parents had divorced and the Family Court gave them shared custody.

The girl usually resided with her mother but the mother was interstate working and the girl had been looked after by her father and grandmother in recent weeks.

Justice Wilson said the whereabouts of the father of the girl's baby were unknown but he was believed to be in another part of Queensland.

She noted the girl had the maturity of a nine year old.

Justice Wilson made a declaration which allowed government doctors to terminate the child's pregnancy by administering the drug misoprostol.

Since abortion w/o a medical or mental condition is officially illegal in Queensland, I have to hand it to the judge for making a difficult decision.

And then, I want to :bang: because... 18 weeks? That's like, halfway along? What took so long?

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Good, it'd have been awful to make her keep it.

[Beowulf]

Good, it'd have been awful to make her keep it.
NO WAY MAN THAT'S LIKE BABY KILLING AND GENOCIDE AND INFANTICIDE AND SHIT YOUR GOIN' TER HELL!!!!

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

NO WAY MAN THAT'S LIKE BABY KILLING AND GENOCIDE AND INFANTICIDE AND SHIT YOUR GOIN' TER HELL!!!!
Most of the devoutly religious people who tout to be pro-life aren't even that; they're just pro-fetus because they sure as hell don't bother to look at the larger picture and care what happens to the baby after it's outside of the womb. Nor do they care how it impacts the mother.

[SlickWilly440]

Abort....she could have held the world record for the youngest person to have ever given birth!

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Abort....she could have held the world record for the youngest person to have ever given birth!
She'd have to be younger than five for that to happen.

[SlickWilly440]

^
Oh...then never mind them. Well if the fetus wasn't aborted, the child could have known their mother for a much longer time than an average child/adult.

Justice Wilson said the whereabouts of the father of the girl's baby were unknown but he was believed to be in another part of Queensland.

I guess they forgot to check her fellow classmates for the baby's father.

[Jetsetlemming]

Most of the devoutly religious people who tout to be pro-life aren't even that; they're just pro-fetus because they sure as hell don't bother to look at the larger picture and care what happens to the baby after it's outside of the womb. Nor do they care how it impacts the mother.
I really wish the pro-choice movement would realize how callous and malicious statements like these make them sound. :gloomy:

[Samurai_Pooh]

I really wish the pro-choice movement would realize how callous and malicious statements like these make them sound. :gloomy:

I really wish that there weren't pro-life activists that were so pro-life they were willing to kill. :gloomy:

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I wish a lot of people who are pro-life would realize how callous they sound when they tell a teenager that she has to go through the stress of carrying her baby to term and the consequences after birth. Especially if the girl or woman had been raped or the victim of incest (Hi Sarah!).

[TygressVirgo]

I used to be extremely pro-life >.<

It took me a few years and a bit of soul searching to be pro-choice. What a difficult decision for that judge.

[qwert]

Strange how a judge has more medical authority than psychiatrists and an obstetrician.

[Dresh]

I wish a lot of people who are pro-life would realize how callous they sound when they tell a teenager that she has to go through the stress of carrying her baby to term and the consequences after birth. Especially if the girl or woman had been raped or the victim of incest (Hi Sarah!).

Don't forget the part where they have to pay for their own rape kits.

[SlickWilly440]

I used to be pro-life, then I became pro-choice, but now I am pro-death because this world is getting too over populated and something has to give; you just can't rely on war, hunger,etc to naturally balance things out anymore.

[Roxie]

wait...WHY did this have to go to a court at all?

Since abortion w/o a medical or mental condition is officially illegal in Queensland
I need some details on that...like, what constitutes a mental/medical condition serious enough that the govn't can tell you that you MUST have an abortion?

[Swede]

... It was in Australia?

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

Hmm...I just don't like the idea of killing out of convenience. We don't even know the detail around the pregnancy but people are giving reasons as to why it should be condoned. Who was the father? Was this an instance of rape or consensual sex?

What I get from the article is that they needed both parents' consent for the abortion but couldn't get in contact with the mother so it had to go to court. Weird case.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Hmm...I just don't like the idea of killing out of convenience. We don't even know the detail around the pregnancy but people are giving reasons as to why it should be condoned. Who was the father? Was this an instance of rape or consensual sex?
I don't see how this is just for convenience. The girl is 12 years old and doctors were saying that this could really affect her mental health if she had the baby. That's good enough of a reason for an abortion.

And I wouldn't say any abortion is really killing out of convenience anyway, that's a really loaded term.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

^ A life is a life. An innocent one at that.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

That's not good enough for me. The 12 year old girl has a life too and going through with the pregnancy would certainly be a life-altering experience and a high risk on her mental well being as told by two psychiatrists; and considering they had an obstetrician argue for her too, I'm guessing that physical risks were involved too.

Why is an 18 week fetus worth the risk of the lifelong consequences (Mental risks, monetary risks, social risks, all of them) on this girl?

[japanat]

We don't know many of the details about this case, like why the mother's mental health didn't warrant an abortion 3 months ago, so making blanket statements is pretty much farting in the wind. But... PPHHPPHPPPttt!

One question: Why wait until 18 weeks to seek judicial approval of an abortion? See above. Why the hell didn't they do something 3-4 months ago? After all, isn't a 21-week fetus capable of life when premature (not all, obviously, but possible)?

Oh, and Uremeshii, the girl's 12 with the emotional development of a 9-yr-old. By definition, any sex is not consensual.

I am Pro-Choice, btw, so don't jump on me as a reactionist Pro-Life conservative blah-blah-blah...

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Dunno. The article mentions that this case was decided with urgency by the Justice but I suppose it's possible that it got caught up in red tape before it got to Justice Wilson in the article.

[TygressVirgo]

The pregnancy might not have even been discovered or made known until way into the pregnancy. That might be a possible reason for such a late decision.

[Beowulf]

I love the pro-lifers who are also pro-war and pro-death penalty :cool:

[Plekto]

The girl had told her carers she wanted the termination and her parents had both consented. However, it was considered their consent was beyond their powers and a judge's declaration was needed.
****

So let's get this right... Everyone agrees in the family and they STILL have no rights as a family/parents/etc? "Consent was beyond their powers" - that basically means parents are daycare providers for the state's child.

Wow.

Check another anal-retentive country off of my list...

[sOkU]

I love the pro-lifers who are also pro-war and pro-death penalty :cool:

Because those are exactly the same things, amirite? :bored:

I'm with Urameshi.

[Swede]

A line certainly needs to be drawn at some point, but I don't find the "life begins at conception" idea too convincing.

But I generally like to keep my mouth shut on this issue even though I'm pro-choice, since I don't think as a man I should be telling women what they should or shouldn't do with their body. That's why it's called pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion or anti-life.

[sOkU]

A line certainly needs to be drawn at some point, but I don't find the "life begins at conception" idea too convincing.

Err, plenty of prominent scientists agree that life begins at conception - genetically speaking.

But even ignoring that, it is not enough to say “we don’t know whether it’s human.” A hunter is criminally liable if he shoots towards a movement in the bush, not knowing whether a human or deer caused the movement. And an explosive engineer is criminally liable if he blows up a building, not knowing whether there are any people inside.


But I generally like to keep my mouth shut on this issue even though I'm pro-choice, since I don't think as a man I should be telling women what they should or shouldn't do with their body. That's why it's called pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion or anti-life.

If a unborn baby is a "part" of a pregnant woman's body, then they would have a common genetic code, since a "part" of a body is defined by its having the same genetic code as other "parts" in the body. The unborn baby is a genetically distinct entity with its own unique and individual gender, blood type, bone-structure, and genetic code.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

A line certainly needs to be drawn at some point, but I don't find the "life begins at conception" idea too convincing.

I'm pretty sure 18 weeks isn't conception. There are alternatives to abortion afterall. Yes having the baby till term would put an immense amount of stress on the girl but so does the abortion.

I love the pro-lifers who are also pro-war and pro-death penalty :cool:
There is a big difference between killing a criminal and an enemy combatant and terminating a fetus. The only similarity there is a human life is taken. What do you even mean by pro-war? Casualties are a result of war and not actually their main objective.

[Roxie]

Yeah. I just can't agree with anyone having to go through a pregnancy that they don't want.
Especially not a 12 year old.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Err, plenty of prominent scientists agree that life begins at conception - genetically speaking.
It's an argument of semantics, so you're not going to get far with this. I know plenty of biologists who would call bullshit on this.

If a unborn baby is a "part" of a pregnant woman's body, then they would have a common genetic code, since a "part" of a body is defined by its having the same genetic code as other "parts" in the body. The unborn baby is a genetically distinct entity with its own unique and individual gender, blood type, bone-structure, and genetic code.
I was going to stay out of this after I had my say but I'm really going to have to question your knowledge of developmental biology. A fetus is most definitely a part of a woman's body because she is in control of its development, it's not happening on its own. She is providing nutrients and protection necessary for it to develop with her own body. She has every right to decide if she wants to continue this or not.

And even then, going into semantics about a fetus being "part" of a woman's body is really reaching, because that's not what Swede said. He said a woman should have a choice of what to do with her own body, and since a developing fetus is every way dependent on the woman's body and is going to have its own impacts on her body.

I'm pretty sure 18 weeks isn't conception.
Strawman, he didn't even try to imply that 18 weeks is conception and you're building an argument out of nothing.

There are alternatives to abortion afterall. Yes having the baby till term would put an immense amount of stress on the girl but so does the abortion.
And yet two medical professionals with working knowledge of human mental health argue that having an abortion would be far better for her. What are your qualifications? Are you really even taking into consideration what the potential impact this could have on her, or are you not concerned with that?

[Beowulf]

There is a big difference between killing a criminal and an enemy combatant and terminating a fetus. The only similarity there is a human life is taken. What do you even mean by pro-war? Casualties are a result of war and not actually their main objective.
War kills people. Death penalty kills people. If you're "pro-life" (a term deliberately coined to make a connotation between anti-abortion and saving lives) then you should oppose death in all forms. I've even seen abortion protests go so far as to call abortion "genocide" and label anyone who gets an abortion an honest to god murderer who should be jailed as such.

[Swede]

I wasn't going to respond, but yes, what FYP said.

[Samurai_Pooh]

I love the pro-lifers who are also pro-war and pro-death penalty :cool:

don't forget anti-euthanasia

'you must live, at least until we need you to fight for us, and if you do something we really don't like WE WILL FUCKING KILL YOU'

for the record, I am pro-choice but personally would keep any child that was mine (provided the mother felt the same way). I just don't think we have any right to force our own moral codes on others when it doesn't affect us.

although one might say a 12 year old having a baby WILL affect us, one day

[stsparky]

... But I generally like to keep my mouth shut on this issue even though I'm pro-choice, since I don't think as a man I should be telling women what they should or shouldn't do with their body. That's why it's called pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion or anti-life.

The TORAH says "life" begins when there is a live birth. And in Exodus — specifically states that causing a miscarriage is not murder. I'm Pro-Choice because it makes sense.

[Plekto]

The TORAH says "life" begins when there is a live birth. And in Exodus — specifically states that causing a miscarriage is not murder. I'm Pro-Choice because it makes sense.

The mother's life is always considered to be more important(in cases of emergencies/etc) as well, as the logic is that you can create more children in theory and you can't have a functional family without the mother. But the choice is explicitly hers to make. Pro-Choice, according to Jewish law. Though, obviously not considered a good thing to do without a good reason.

And, this is overly simplified. There's an entire series of *books* on family laws and stuff like this that's part of the Talmud explaining every nuance several times over.

Who would have guessed? Of course, since the issue is already "decided", you'll find few people getting upset over any of this in the Jewish community at large.

P.S. the reason this is relevant is that the core legal codes and rules for Western(tm) society are directly based upon all of this - though centuries of lawyers have mangled it quite a lot. But originally there wasn't a ban or anything on abortion - it wasn't for men to make laws over. And interestingly enough, for most of the rest of the world that wasn't bothered with Christianity or Islam coming in and displacing the native religion(s), it also works much the same way. Of course, now with much of the world being either of these two religions, it's suddenly a huge issue again.

Plus... The world is vastly overpopulated. Having children because some religious dogma is forcing you to... well, hope your great grandchildren like living with 12 billion people in 2100... That is, if they are still around.

[erbiumfiber]

So who knew Australia had screwed-up laws on abortion that basically go state-by-state (territory-by-territory)?

From Wiki:

Queensland: The McGuire ruling of 1986 declared abortion to be legal if necessary to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or health - beyond the normal dangers of pregnancy and childbirth - that would result if the pregnancy continued, and is not disproportionate to the danger being averted. Abortion law in Queensland closely mirrors the law in Victoria. That being said, abortions are carried out as "therapeutic miscarriages", performed by specialists, upon request of the patient after an appointment with their local GP. This procedure is only applicable on pregnancies < 22 weeks and is partly covered by Medicare or more-so by private healthcare insurers. In addition to this, abortions can be performed if a fetal defect is considered to be "inconsistent with life" - this has been narrowly interpreted to mean that the newborn would die immediately or shortly after birth.

So, not just kids but all women need a "reason" for an abortion. Instead of having a law that makes sense, they have this law which is apparently widely ignored (hence "therapeutic miscarriages"). Sort of torturing the language of "necessary to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or health." I'm really surprised as I thought the U.S. had the most extreme positions on abortion (uh, other than places like Ireland where abortion on demand is pretty much illegal and you have to go to Britain).

Generally, judicial interpretations changed in the late 1960s and early 1970s such that abortions were not subject to criminal prosecution if necessary to preserve the mother's health. Over time this has come to be broadly defined so as to include the mental health of the patient, to which an unwanted pregnancy is interpreted as injurious.

Lame. Either make it legal or don't but don't force people to come up with bogus "reasons" to justify why it will damage the mother's physical or mental health.

But, in this case (the 12-year-old) it would probably be both. Pregnancy is hard on such a young body and, as japanat pointed out, she wasn't capable of consent so it was at least statutory rape. And I'm guessing that, with the mental capacity of a 9-year-old, she might have not even known she was pregnant. At such a young age, periods are often pretty irregular so that might not have been a clue. And most people don't gain very much weight (or any at all) the first trimester.

It sounds like they are basically going to induce premature labor and she is going to "give birth" to a fetus so it's going to be pretty grim at this point. I'm pro-choice but believe it should be limited to the first trimester (13 weeks or so) unless there is a medical reason (I think there is a valid reason here, even though it's regrettable that it didn't happen sooner).

[sOkU]

It's an argument of semantics, so you're not going to get far with this. I know plenty of biologists who would call bullshit on this.

Except for the fact that it's not "semantics", it's simply the truth. A conceptus meets all the criterion for the definiton of life: growth, stimulus response, metabolism, homeostasis, mutation, reproduction and autonomous motion.

And I know of plenty of genetic scientists who would agree with me. Are any of these you know that are more prominent than Jerome LeJeune?

I was going to stay out of this after I had my say but I'm really going to have to question your knowledge of developmental biology. A fetus is most definitely a part of a woman's body because she is in control of its development, it's not happening on its own. She is providing nutrients and protection necessary for it to develop with her own body. She has every right to decide if she wants to continue this or not.

You should've stayed out of it because you have no idea what you are talking about.

1.There's only two possible reasons I can think of for you thinking that fetus is part of the woman's body: (1) because the "fetus" is inside the woman; (2) because the "fetus" is dependent on the woman for survival. But both are absurd criteria: (1) being in the hospital doesn't make me part of the hospital (in that sense that I'm am no longer an individual, distinct entity); and (2) being dependent upon a life-support machine does not make me a part of the life-support machine.

2. Do you know anything about immunology? In a normally functioning immune system it will detect any foreign "tissue" in the body and set up a specific defense against it. The baby has a unique genetic makeup - half its chromosomes come from the mother, the other half come from the father. This condition is sufficient to cause the mother’s immune system to identify the baby as "foreign" and the killer T cell system attacks the child. And all this happens because the baby is "part" of the body? Give me a break.

3. If it is argued that since the fetus is dependent upon the mother,and therefore she has the right to terminate it at her will then that is a huge non sequitur. Since when was there a moral principle that asserts the right of individuals to kill others because they are dependent? In most moral systems, it is, in fact, a duty to care for the dependent.
Next you're going to tell me that if I were to ingest a tapeworm that is the same as it being part of my body. After all, it is dependent on me and it is inside of me, it also causes me discomfort, too. :boggled:

And even then, going into semantics about a fetus being "part" of a woman's body is really reaching, because that's not what Swede said. He said a woman should have a choice of what to do with her own body, and since a developing fetus is every way dependent on the woman's body and is going to have its own impacts on her body.

1. Swede said that a woman should have a choice of what she would do with with her body of which I entirely agree.
2. A fetus is not part of a woman's body.

How do you reconcile the two?

And yet two medical professionals with working knowledge of human mental health argue that having an abortion would be far better for her.

What about the child?

[Beowulf]

words
Boy this whole "choice" thing really escapes you huh?

[sOkU]

Boy this whole "choice" thing really escapes you huh?

People should not have a legally encouraged "choice" to violate others' self-autonomy except in very specific and limited circumstances (i.e. life threatening).

[Beowulf]

People should not have a legally encouraged "choice" to violate others' self-autonomy except in very specific and limited circumstances (i.e. life threatening).
I've read this like 3 times and I cannot figure out what point you're trying to make.

[sOkU]

^ And we come to the crux of the problem.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Soku, it is actually obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Being a biology major doesn't make me an expert in the field but it makes me capable of seeing when someone is taking basic scientific fact and twisting around to corrorborate their own narrow-minded beliefs. You were making it a bit apparent when you started arguing that a fetus is not a part of a woman's body with a game of semantics, but when you made the argument of being part of a hospital it was painfully obvious. The argument doesn't even make sense and is actually an easy fallacy because you are comparing two completely different things because of some arbitrary thing in common.

I really can't be surprised, though, as it seems you haven't changed a bit since the religion thread when you started taking basic scientific understandings and twisting them to fit your own viewpoint. You said a theory such as the origin of life through the development of organic molecules from inorganic substances was a reach in logic, even though it's been demonstrated time and again; including the first time with the Miller-Urey experiment.

Obviously I can't convince you when you want to deny scientific understanding, so keep on trucking all you want. But hopefully anyone viewing this thread can see through your incredibly blatant bullshit.

For the record, Jerome LeJeune was well-known as a Catholic, pro-life geneticist and he made some good findings in that area, especially in regards to Down's syndrome. However I see an inherent bias in his views from being a Catholic so that doesn't really help you.


What about the child?
Shouldn't Christians show a compassion for their fellow men and women? Why do you seem to be lacking in feeling any compassion for this 12 year old when it's said that having this baby could have emotional and mental repercussions on her for years to come? Do you think she deserves this to happen since she had sex in the first place?

[sOkU]

FYP, you're hilarious. First, you don't answer any points other than saying "bullshit" and then pretend that I'm twisting scientifc facts (even though you can provide no example of what the "basic" scientific fact is and then how I'm "twisting" this fact).

Second, you bring up something completely unrelated to "prove" a point.
Shall I remind you of how you said abiogenesis is a matter of "simple biology"? Honest atheists don't even try to use that point.

(Note: The Miller-Urey experiment was hugely flawed and has been widely criticized. Don't take my word for it - look it up. Of course I'd be accused of twisting the facts if I brought it up myself. Lol)

Third, "inherent bias" has nothing to do with the facts. Bias does not automatically entail false conclusions. You do realize that there are many Catholics that are pro-choice as well? So him being Catholic doesn't necessarily have anything to do with him coming to the conclusion that life begins at conception.

Shouldn't Christians show a compassion for their fellow men and women?

Including the unborn ones? Yes.

Why do you seem to be lacking in feeling any compassion for this 12 year old when it's said that having this baby could have emotional and mental repercussions on her for years to come?

I place a child's right to life over any psychological stress.

Why do you seem to be lacking in feeling any compassion for this unborn child who did nothing wrong except exist? This unborn child committed no wrong.

Do you agree that intentionally killing a innocent human being is wrong?

Do you think she deserves this to happen since she had sex in the first place?

No.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I can't answer a point when the logic that goes into forming the argument is inherently flawed and nonsensical. It's clever to use such an argument to corroborate your point, but it's fairly easy to see through.

Urey-Miller has been criticized, sure, but most of the vehement criticism is from very religious people who try to use its flaws as proof that science hasn't shown that it was possible for life to evolve from nothing on the early earth, which it never tried to prove anyway. It showed that certain organic compounds necessary for life can come from inorganic substances, which is one of the early steps in that theory of abiogenesis. The experiment has also been repeated plenty of times over and over all around the world as corroboration for the original experiment too. In other words, science has since then shown that it can work. Try again.

If I did say that it's a matter of simple biology then I'll give you that. It's more biochemistry and physical science as a whole. I gotta give my chemists and geologists and physicists some cred too.

Do you agree that intentionally killing a innocent human being is wrong?
Obviously I agree that abortion isn't wrong, so if you wanted to use loaded words like this then yes, I'm all for it.

[stsparky]

Remember the Torah says causing a miscarriage is not murder.
Exodus 21:22

And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges

Bible in Basic English
If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.

The fetus is part of the woman until it is born - and isn't "alive" until it draws its' first breath as a person according to the Talmud. Any other description is someone else claiming the mother's womb is property of the church or state.

I'm going to trust the womb owner in this situation.

[Beowulf]

^ And we come to the crux of the problem.
Yeah your post didn't make any sense.


I place a child's right to life over any psychological stress.

Why do you seem to be lacking in feeling any compassion for this unborn child who did nothing wrong except exist? This unborn child committed no wrong.

Do you agree that intentionally killing a innocent human being is wrong?
Because I hate babies that much. If it were legal to trapshoot with babies I'd be all over it. I wish we could just juggle babies with spears. That is how much I hate babies.

In fact I will support any stance, any issue, that allows me to exercise my hate of babies.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

You know, Prohibition doesn't work.

[Swede]

You know, Prohibition doesn't work.

This.

Outlawing abortion wouldn't stop it. Women would still get them, they would just go about it in more dangerous ways that are harmful to their health.

[Kaji]

At the same time, it doesn't make the act right or change its essence.

[mawande]

I place a child's right to life over any psychological stress.
Why do you seem to be lacking in feeling any compassion for this unborn child who did nothing wrong except exist? This unborn child committed no wrong.
Do you agree that intentionally killing a innocent human being is wrong?

It's a sort of a tangle. I kicked up a fuss when I saw someone drop a sticky sheet on top of a baby mouse. On the other hand, I think there are quite enough human beings on this planet. We certainly aren't in danger of extinction. It's not going to hurt the species. Selfishly, I don't want my child to die nor myself.

If I were raped and ended up pregnant because of it, I would abort as soon as possible. Yes, it's certainly not the fault of my potential offspring. And that doesn't actually matter. All I'd know of the father is that he is a rapist (unless he's caught and prosecuted, then I'd know what came up in trial).

A 13 year old who is, they tell us, developmentally slow, was pregnant. I don't know who by, but certainly by a person of low moral standards. Possibly another child, who knows. The male doesn't deserve to be a father. The female doesn't want to be a mother. The child doesn't need to be brought into a situation like that. Normal or developmentally slow, adopted off to potentially decent parents or tossed here and there through foster care where abuse is all too possible....

Face it. If God wanted this child to be born, the abortion wouldn't happen.

[japanat]

At the same time, it doesn't make the act right or change its essence.
"Right" is determined by context and culture. While many things are universal, many others are not.

While I'm immensely glad my wife and I didn't go the abortion route when we found ourselves with a totally unexpected number 4 in the oven, I do not have the right, nor the desire, to control others' actions in the same situation. And while I feel it's a true shame to abort at such a late stage, I don't consider the fetus viable until it has reached the point where it can survive outside the womb. Up to that point, all the discussion in the world is academic.

[sOkU]

I can't answer a point when the logic that goes into forming the argument is inherently flawed and nonsensical. It's clever to use such an argument to corroborate your point, but it's fairly easy to see through.

Are you ever going to tell me what's wrong with my logic or my twisting of basic scientific facts so I can correct my reasoning? If not, then you should really refrain from just saying "bullshit" and leaving it at that.

Urey-Miller has been criticized, sure, but most of the vehement criticism is from very religious people who try to use its flaws as proof that science hasn't shown that it was possible for life to evolve from nothing on the early earth, which it never tried to prove anyway. It showed that certain organic compounds necessary for life can come from inorganic substances, which is one of the early steps in that theory of abiogenesis. The experiment has also been repeated plenty of times over and over all around the world as corroboration for the original experiment too. In other words, science has since then shown that it can work. Try again.

Again, just because they are religious (protip: religious people can do science, too! I hear some are pretty good at it too...) does not mean their criticisms are not valid. If I dismissed atheists out of hand like you dismiss people who believe in God I'd be called a narrow-minded bigot (Oh wait! I already have been called that! :duh: ). Unless you can show that their bias impeded their search for the truth then you are barking up the wrong tree. Try again.

Atheists have the vehemently criticized the experiment, too, FYI. :innocent:

Obviously I agree that abortion isn't wrong, so if you wanted to use loaded words like this then yes, I'm all for it.

And that's the problem.

Because I hate babies that much. If it were legal to trapshoot with babies I'd be all over it. I wish we could just juggle babies with spears. That is how much I hate babies.

In fact I will support any stance, any issue, that allows me to exercise my hate of babies.

That's not nice.



Outlawing abortion wouldn't stop it. Women would still get them, they would just go about it in more dangerous ways that are harmful to their health.

If the unborn are human, this is like saying that, since people will murder other people anyway, we ought to make it safe and legal for them to do so.

Are you going to prove that the unborn aren't human?

Besides, in some studies, it has been shown that in countries that have legalized abortion longer than the US that the rates of criminal AND legalized abortion rose.

On the other hand, I think there are quite enough human beings on this planet.

Since when has human value been determined by how many people there are? These are the things I'm not understanding.

A 13 year old who is, they tell us, developmentally slow, was pregnant. I don't know who by, but certainly by a person of low moral standards. Possibly another child, who knows. The male doesn't deserve to be a father. The female doesn't want to be a mother. The child doesn't need to be brought into a situation like that. Normal or developmentally slow, adopted off to potentially decent parents or tossed here and there through foster care where abuse is all too possible....

No, the child doesn't need to be brought up in a situation like that, so instead of giving the child the chance at a new life, just to be safe (because the child will probably be abused/abuse/a criminal), you kill the child?

Again, something I do not understand.

Face it. If God wanted this child to be born, the abortion wouldn't happen.

Free will counters this statement nicely.

I do not have the right, nor the desire, to control others' actions in the same situation.

Is this that whole "imposing morality" thing? Just asking for clarification.

[Beowulf]

Besides, in some studies, it has been shown that in countries that have legalized abortion longer than the US that the rates of criminal AND legalized abortion rose.
CORRELATION = CAUSATION AMIRITE GUYS!?

[Digital Masta]

And while I feel it's a true shame to abort at such a late stage, I don't consider the fetus viable until it has reached the point where it can survive outside the womb.

This is how I feel about it. I keep it simple. If it can survive outside the womb then thats a no go for me...if it can't then it's fair game.


Debating this is really entirely moot as both sides are not going to agree or even come to a "agree to disagree" point.



I'll also just throw out this...the next generation is going to come...regardless. I dislike the idea of getting so worked up over potential life but then turning around and...for lack of a better term "taking a dump" on the life thats already here *cough* stem cells *cough*.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Are you ever going to tell me what's wrong with my logic or my twisting of basic scientific facts so I can correct my reasoning? If not, then you should really refrain from just saying "bullshit" and leaving it at that.

I already told you and you didn't like it. Your argument, for example, of saying how being a patient in a hospital doesn't mean you're a part of the hospital is not an appropriate comparison. The fact here is that a fetus is a part of a woman's body, and the only person disputing that is you by arguing semantics.

Again, just because they are religious (protip: religious people can do science, too! I hear some are pretty good at it too...) does not mean their criticisms are not valid. If I dismissed atheists out of hand like you dismiss people who believe in God I'd be called a narrow-minded bigot (Oh wait! I already have been called that! :duh: ). Unless you can show that their bias impeded their search for the truth then you are barking up the wrong tree. Try again.

Atheists have the vehemently criticized the experiment, too, FYI. :innocent:
I said that most arguments I hear against it are from very religious people, which is an observation, not really a generalization. And when I imply that their criticisms aren't valid, it's because they have come from outright religious sources that don't generally use the scientific method to argue against it, or they used science that's been easily disproved. The fact is that the Urey-Miller experiment has been repeated over and and over in various forms and there is plenty of evidence to corroborate it.

Now, yes, atheists (Or actually, I'll just say scientists) have shown objection to it as well, but it has neither been vehemently or heavily criticized. From scientific sources, the most common criticism I hear of it is not that it couldn't show organic substances necessary for life can come from inorganic ones, but that the experiment may not have adequately recreated the environment of the early Earth, which Miller has acknowledged.

But even with that objection, the concept of certain biomolecules arising from physical processes isn't a "far reach". So yes, it has been criticized, but not nearly to the extent you've made it out to be.

Besides, in some studies, it has been shown that in countries that have legalized abortion longer than the US that the rates of criminal AND legalized abortion rose.

Studies by?

[SlickWilly440]

Outlawing abortion wouldn't stop it. Women would still get them, they would just go about it in more dangerous ways that are harmful to their health.

Yeah, like Pregnant Women Boxing on Prime Time TV.

[Swede]

Yeah, like Pregnant Women Boxing on Prime Time TV.

This almost made me want to outlaw abortion. Almost. But then the novelty wore off, and here I am :meh:

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I love the pro-lifers who are also pro-war and pro-death penalty :cool:

There is rationalization to that.

Pro-lifers believe that those who murder or are wrong have already had their chance in life.

Those who never been born were never given that chance.

[Roxie]

Besides, in some studies, it has been shown that in countries that have legalized abortion longer than the US that the rates of criminal AND legalized abortion rose.
You know, in other studies it shows that in countries that do not have legal abortion, criminal abortion rises--as well as deaths of women seeking abortions.

Also, if it should be illegal, there should be a punishment.
Some people have trouble answering that. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo)

[Swede]

Interesting video. Such an obvious question that so many of those people who are so passionate about the issue haven't thought about.

[Beowulf]

There is rationalization to that.

Pro-lifers believe that those who murder or are wrong have already had their chance in life.

Those who never been born were never given that chance.
But killing other countries peoples in war is A-Ok right?

[mawande]

Since when has human value been determined by how many people there are? These are the things I'm not understanding.

Actually, that argument has been used many times. In fact, a reverse of that argument is currently what some people are using when they're worried that non-whites will out-breed the whites.

No, the child doesn't need to be brought up in a situation like that, so instead of giving the child the chance at a new life, just to be safe (because the child will probably be abused/abuse/a criminal), you kill the child? Again, something I do not understand.

I think you understand it all too well. Why don't you offer... hey, is it possible yet for a woman to carry another woman's child? Oh, wait! It is! Okay, so all you women who want little girls to have babies when they've been raped, go and offer to have that little life transferred into your own womb. Put your body where your mouth and supposed morals are.

[sOkU]

I already told you and you didn't like it. Your argument, for example, of saying how being a patient in a hospital doesn't mean you're a part of the hospital is not an appropriate comparison. The fact here is that a fetus is a part of a woman's body, and the only person disputing that is you by arguing semantics.

A fetus IS NOT part of a woman's body, that's pure fact.

The fact is that a person's body parts all have the same genetic code. The fetus does not, it follows that fetus is not part of nor just a mere extension the woman's body.

All the rest just bolsters my case, not yours.

Please explain to me what basic scientific fact I am twisting here, Mr. Biologist.

Start a thread of abiogenesis or pm me about it.

You know, in other studies it shows that in countries that do not have legal abortion, criminal abortion rises--as well as deaths of women seeking abortions.

Should we make murders safe and legal because they are going to happen anyways? What if there was a person intent on killing another person and no law will not stop them otherwise. But, there is a danger, the would-be-killer might mess it up and the would-be-victim could end up taking the gun away from them and shooting the would-be-killer. Or the would-be-victim's relatives' might come after the would-be-killer. Therefore, since the would-be-killer wants to kill the would-be-victim, they should have a safe and legally encouraged way to do it.

Also, if it should be illegal, there should be a punishment.


That would follow.

I think you understand it all too well. Why don't you offer... hey, is it possible yet for a woman to carry another woman's child? Oh, wait! It is! Okay, so all you women who want little girls to have babies when they've been raped, go and offer to have that little life transferred into your own womb. Put your body where your mouth and supposed morals are.

Oh, you burned me by implying I have no or supposedly no morals because I don't want to have a child pay for the wrongs of the father. And then you double got me when by saying since I am not willing or in this case not able to carry the unborn child in my non-existent womb in order for me to not be hypocritical.

Let's take a look at this type of argument; it goes something like this: Unless the pro-life advocate is willing to help bring up the children he or she does not want aborted, he or she has no right to prevent a woman from having an abortion.
Really now? Let's see here:
1. It begs the question by assuming that the unborn are not fully human. Again, if you think so, prove it.
If I told you, "Unless you take care of my grandmother, I am going to murder her by noon tommorrow", and you refused, does that automatically make me murdering her a moral good? You refusing to take care of her would have nothing to do with my murder being justified.

2. Welcome to the slippery slope. Think of all the awesome precepts that could be fairly deducted from such a moral principle: unless I am willing to marry my neighbor's wife, I cannot prevent her husband from beating her; unless I am willing to hire ex-slaves for my business, I cannot say that the slave-owner should not own slaves. Now, I believe there is a obligation to help those in need. BUT it does not logically follow from this moral obligation that abortion automatically becomes a moral good simply because individual pro-life advocates are not currently involved in such a cause.

BTW, I'm not a woman; this is part where you tell me men don't get pregnant so I have no idea what I'm talking about - it's a "woman's issue". And then after that part is the part when I tell you that since other pro-life women use much the same arguments I do, you could not not argue the same way if a woman were putting forth my arguments, therefore, my gender is irrelevant to whether the pro-life position is correct.

[Beowulf]

sOKU, is this a human (y/n)?

http://copland.udel.edu/~sswain/jj_blastocyst-703867.jpg

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

Remember the Torah says accidentally causing a miscarriage is not murder.

Exodus 21:22

And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges

Bible in Basic English
If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.
This is a really flawed example. It's obvious that this pertains to an accidental miscarriage and NOT an intentional one as the men would be fighting one another and the woman hit by mistake. Harm was done therefore a payment is to be made but the action wasn't malicious in nature.

[Swede]

That would follow.
and what would you propose for said punishment?

[Roxie]

Should we make murders safe and legal because they are going to happen anyways? What if there was a person intent on killing another person and no law will not stop them otherwise. But, there is a danger, the would-be-killer might mess it up and the would-be-victim could end up taking the gun away from them and shooting the would-be-killer. Or the would-be-victim's relatives' might come after the would-be-killer. Therefore, since the would-be-killer wants to kill the would-be-victim, they should have a safe and legally encouraged way to do it.
I don't think abortion is murder....so, I don't need to follow up on the rest.

[Digital Masta]

A fetus IS NOT part of a woman's body, that's pure fact.

The fact is that a person's body parts all have the same genetic code. The fetus does not, it follows that fetus is not part of nor just a mere extension the woman's body.

If you want to technical about it up until it can survive on its own outside the womb I guess a fetus is actually more like a symbiote. In which case the mother's body is the host and that host should have the right to decide whether or they want said symbiote there.

Really...what is the alternative? People always use adoption but really...force a person to come carry something they don't want to full term, dealing with all the crap that goes along with it just so they can give it up right after going through all that shit.

I can't imagine the punishment for having an abortion as not silly.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

sOkU, I'm going to concede one point, and that is that I can't prove through the scientific method at this point that a fetus is a part of a woman's body. But hold it, don't start getting ready to declare victory, because I wouldn't make it that easy for you. In short, I'm still claiming that a fetus is a part of a woman's body, and because you seem to have a lack of biology, I'm going to have to go into more detail. Now, let's remember that you also claim it to be fact that a fetus is not a part of a woman's body with your own reasoning, which I will get to later.

But first, let's go through why a fetus is a part of a woman's body. Okay, now as I'm sure you know, the first thing that needs to happen is that feritilization needs to occur. Two things are necessary for this to happen: There needs to be an egg, and there needs to be a sperm cell to fertilize it. Now, the egg that this process involves comes from the woman (Duh). Now, this egg didn't just arise, because it came from the woman's own body, so that the woman is contributing half of the genetic material. After fertilization happens, the zygote becomes a blastocyst and, in short, embeds itself in the mother's endometrium. Now we should know the rest; after the blastocyst is embedded in the mother's endometrial lining, the placenta is eventually formed. After the yolk sac comes the umbilical cord to provide oxygen and nutrient-rich blood to the fetus (from the mother). Blah blah, baby develops.

Now, knowing this I'm not sure how you can argue that a fetus is not a part of a woman's body, because while in development (and really, whenever before birth) it is directly connected to the mother's body and is using her nutrients and oxygen for growth. It is not a spiritual connection, or any connection that could otherwise be considering superficial, but an actual physiological connection between the fetus and mother which allows for the baby to grow by the mother's permission. It also developed out of something that specifically came from the mother's body. Now, I think that sounds like a fair argument for why a fetus is a part of a woman's body until it has exited (Not to mention is being sheltered and protected inside the mother's own body). But let's look at your arguments. The hospital argument is stupid, so we'll skip it.

Q: Why would you not consider a tapeworm a part of your body if you swallowed it?

A: While I'm sure that in the course of the relationship some swallowing was taking place, none of it involved swallowing a fetus and having it attach to the mother's gastrointestinal tract.

So, that brings me to your genetics argument. I provided reason for my argument, so now you need to provide me reason as to why you think defining a body part because it has its own unique genes is a fair requirement. If it's fact, I'm sure you can provide evidence of this requirement being a fact. I thought that maybe you were on to something, so I did my own research and tried to see where this has been used as an argument, and I only found it used on a couple of websites specifically made to be against abortion. Adding to that, I found this:

http://theologica.blogspot.com/2004/12/is-fetus-part-of-womans-body.html (http://theologica.blogspot.com/2004/12/is-fetus-part-of-womans-body.html)

If a "fetus" is a "part" of a pregnant woman's body, then they would have a common genetic code, since a "part" of a body is defined by its having the same genetic code as other "parts" in the body. (For example, the lungs and legs and livers of Person X all have the same genetic code.) An unborn baby is a genetically distinct being; therefore it is not a part of its mother's body.

This is extremely similar to your argument:

If a unborn baby is a "part" of a pregnant woman's body, then they would have a common genetic code, since a "part" of a body is defined by its having the same genetic code as other "parts" in the body. The unborn baby is a genetically distinct entity with its own unique and individual gender, blood type, bone-structure, and genetic code.

So basically, unless you're the one maintaining this blog, you seem to only be plagiarizing someone else'se argument as to why a fetus is not a part of a mother's body as your own argument.
Unfortunately, that blog writer also doesn't provide reason as to why having the same genetic code is a good goal post to judge whether something is a part of your body, much less state as a fact that it is.

You did this twice, too:

Why does Caulson think that a "fetus" is "part" of a pregnant woman's body? There's only two possible reasons I can think of: (a) because the "fetus" is inside the woman; (b) because the "fetus" is dependent on the woman for survival. But both are absurd criteria: (a') being in the hospital doesn't make me part of the hospital (in that sense that I'm am no longer an individual, distinct entity); and (b') being dependant upon a life-support machine does not make me a part of the life-support machine.

1.There's only two possible reasons I can think of for you thinking that fetus is part of the woman's body: (1) because the "fetus" is inside the woman; (2) because the "fetus" is dependent on the woman for survival. But both are absurd criteria: (1) being in the hospital doesn't make me part of the hospital (in that sense that I'm am no longer an individual, distinct entity); and (2) being dependent upon a life-support machine does not make me a part of the life-support machine.


Frankly, sOkU, I don't see why you said I had no idea what I was talking about when it seems that you can't even come up with your own arguments. But even then, I think I've shown why your arguments aren't really all that great, and now it's up to you to prove otherwise.

sOKU, is this a human (y/n)?
In that same idea, I think I should be a bit more fair and ask sOkU if he thinks it should be illegal to intentionally abort this:

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/4500/nocheatingov6.jpg

[Swede]

Ouch.

[stsparky]

This is a really flawed example. It's obvious that this pertains to an accidental miscarriage and NOT an intentional one as the men would be fighting one another and the woman hit by mistake. Harm was done therefore a payment is to be made but the action wasn't malicious in nature.
Ah - it's the only part of the REAL bible which mentions miscarriage though. Rabbinic Law based on the oral Torah and the Midrash clearly states: Live birth determines life. If being a mother - for whatever reason - causes harm (and stress qualifies), Judaism doesn't outlaw one seeking to abort her baby. I don't claim to understand the obsession Christians have with this issue. It's clear they're wrong on scripture. It's only a baby if it is wanted.

[Beowulf]

sOKU, is this a human (y/n)?

http://copland.udel.edu/~sswain/jj_blastocyst-703867.jpg
Quotin' this till I get a straight answer. What would you name it sOKU? Billy? Sue?

Also, since my boogers also share my genetic makeup am I going to hell/jail for murder when I blew my nose (read: nose-abortion) this morning?

[Swede]

Quotin' this till I get a straight answer. What would you name it sOKU? Billy? Sue?

Also, since my boogers also share my genetic makeup am I going to hell/jail for murder when I blew my nose (read: nose-abortion) this morning?

No, but you are for the holocaust you committed on your skin cells when you scratched it.

[Beowulf]

No, but you are for the holocaust you committed on your skin cells when you scratched it.
Fuck. And I just shaved my head again. I'm aborting shit all over the damn place :(

[mawande]

BTW, I'm not a woman; this is part where you tell me men don't get pregnant so I have no idea what I'm talking about - it's a "woman's issue". And then after that part is the part when I tell you that since other pro-life women use much the same arguments I do, you could not not argue the same way if a woman were putting forth my arguments, therefore, my gender is irrelevant to whether the pro-life position is correct.

No, this is the part where I say, I'm sure you know plenty of women. Any of them willing to carry someone else's child? A random child who may have defects etc?

[Firefly]

If the unborn are human, this is like saying that, since people will murder other people anyway, we ought to make it safe and legal for them to do so.

Are you going to prove that the unborn aren't human?


I don't understand how you could use that as an argument. Take a "generic" murder case and compare it to abortion? I don' think so. A murder (when defined as "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought")...basically, someone who choses to kill another person for malicious reasons. Intending to hurt another human for the sole reason of ending their life or making them suffer. I don't know of many cases where someone purposely has sex so they can have an abortion? Never heard of any, at least.

Perhaps the problem here is that there is no "definition" of what is human and what is not. Wiki pedia has defined Human as "Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and emotion." Is an embryo, a fetus, or anything within a mother's womb capable of any of these things? Do you have memories of being in your mother's womb? You can argue all you want that it's not a part of the Mother- but that umbilical cord and womb sure do have a purpose. That egg would not have even existed if it were not for the mother.





Since when has human value been determined by how many people there are? These are the things I'm not understanding. No, the child doesn't need to be brought up in a situation like that, so instead of giving the child the chance at a new life, just to be safe (because the child will probably be abused/abuse/a criminal), you kill the child?




Our world is an extremely populated place. We've grown a lot in a short amount of time (time being within the existence of the World itself) and there are already many homeless and starving children. Most abortions are done because the pregnancy is Unwanted- would you rather have it never exist, or to have a life of neglect? You can argue for adoption all you want- but if people continue to have children, who is going to adopt? If you require all pregnant women to give birth, who is going to take care of all of the unwanted babies? Are YOU going to adopt a child, ever? Or will you have your own? Think about it. We should perhaps consider taking care of what is already in our world instead of forcing more into it.

[erbiumfiber]

OK, what I am about to say will sound incredibly callous but, here goes.

I have no problem with people deciding that life begins at conception or that abortion is "legalized murder" (well, maybe "murder" is a little extreme due to the "malice" issue- maybe "legalized manslaughter" might be better).

As a society, we have decided that there are times when it is permitted to take a life. For example, war, the death penalty, self-defense, the brain dead (removing life support or removing nutritional support for those who are breathing on their own), and deciding not to perform medical procedures that would prolong life (we chose not to have a feeding tube surgically implanted in my grandfather's stomach and he died about a week later).

And abortion.

So I'm ok with saying that a life is being taken. In my opinion, a life IS being taken, a life that, in at least 98% of cases or so, would have resulted in a viable human being in a few more months.

But we have decided that this is a situation where it is socially (i.e., we have determined, as a society) acceptible to take a life.

So rather than torture the issue of whether it's fully human or merely life on its way to becoming fully human, society has decided that, for the greater good of society, a woman can terminate her pregnancy within a specified period of time. And take a life/prevent a life from coming into being, depending on your views.

I'm ok with that even if I think it's regrettable or despite whether or not I could personally go through with it. Because I don't want to let my own personal choices dictate what someone else should do.

When I was a kid, we had foster children from NYC living with us (from when I was 5 until I was 17). Most (all?) of these kids were born pre-Roe v. Wade and were not really wanted. They had pretty rough lives. It's not a pretty world out there.

So, legalized murder or no, we have decided that this is a situation in which life can be terminated.

(No, I am not debating whether it's "life" or "human" or whatever. I'm saying that even if you say it's fully human at conception, not part of a woman's body, whatever...society has decided that it can be ended based on the choice of the woman. And I think that, as a society, it is the right decision for society, whether or not it would be my personal choice).

Edit:

Oh, and all those bumper stickers that say "Abortion stops a beating heart!" My response was, "Yeah...and?" I mean, yes, it's going to die if it's removed from the mother. We know that- that is precisely the goal. If you want to tell me reasons why we should preserve the beating heart, go ahead. I'm not going to pretend that abortion is not preventing a baby from being born by arguing the exact point at which it magically turns human. I'll accept that we, as a society, are preventing many, MANY lives from coming into existence when we permit abortion. I'm not trying to evade the consequences of the act. It is what it is.

[SlickWilly440]

So yes the end justifies the mean. The so call human will not have to suffer the life of being born into an unwanted, uncaring, and hard world. And the mother/(parents) do not have to endure the financial/emotional/etc burned.

It's win win.

[vasca]

We don't know many of the details about this case, like why the mother's mental health didn't warrant an abortion 3 months ago, so making blanket statements is pretty much farting in the wind. But... PPHHPPHPPPttt!

One question: Why wait until 18 weeks to seek judicial approval of an abortion? See above. Why the hell didn't they do something 3-4 months ago? After all, isn't a 21-week fetus capable of life when premature (not all, obviously, but possible)?

For one thing, many women are numb-nuts and take forever to realize they ARE pregnant in the first place. I've seen a couple of cases where the woman is in her 13th week of pregnancy and barely realizing her periods haven't been coming. Just yesterday I saw a 41 year old woman who had irregular periods because menopause was soon arriving having a baby at that instant (and what a life threatening birth that baby had, the baby's heart wasn't beating when she was born! She was still reanimated on time and survived though).

I even saw a case in one of the hospitals where a teenager girl came into the ER with abdominal pain and when a doctor suggested her she might be pregnant she thought it was baloney until AFTER a baby came out of her. :blank:

And yes, teenagers just have no idea. I saw a 14 year old with a 11 week pregnancy and she didn't even know how many boyfriends she had slept with. :boggled:

No, 21 weeks is WAY too young, impossible today even in the finest of hospitals to keep a fetus so young alive. Fetuses are only capable of producing a chemical called sulfactant factor after week 26 which expands the lungs. The record holder is the US with an extreme minimal age of 24 weeks, but even if the baby somehow survives, the mental retardation is very severe and incurable. In the case of Mexico, the youngest prematures with statistically good enough chances to make it through are at 28 weeks.

[TygressVirgo]

I wonder how often a woman is guilt-tripped into keeping a baby, and then suffers from postpartum depression. I've watched a friend go through it, and it is terrible to see the affect it has.

[Kaji]

On the other hand, I've seen women who got an abortion thinking it was the right thing to do at the time, and absolutely hating themselves for it even years after the fact. At least if you keep the kid there's something that can be done if you regret your decision later. Once it's dead, it's dead.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

On the other hand, I've seen women who got an abortion thinking it was the right thing to do at the time, and absolutely hating themselves for it even years after the fact. At least if you keep the kid there's something that can be done if you regret your decision later. Once it's dead, it's dead.
On the other hand it's for them to weigh how it may affect them afterward, not you, so the point is moot. Anecdotal evidence only gets you so far.

[stsparky]

On the other hand, I've seen women who got an abortion thinking it was the right thing to do at the time, and absolutely hating themselves for it even years after the fact. At least if you keep the kid there's something that can be done if you regret your decision later. Once it's dead, it's dead.
I regret the loss more than my ex did 29 years ago. I stood by her decision, and would again. She's a happy woman now. And I'm luckier than most. So. As an adopted person I repeat a fetus is only a person if it is wanted.

Everything else will sort itself out. A mildly retarded child should not be forced to have a baby after she's been forced to have sex without understanding what's going on.

[Trump]

My opinion is that since the preganancy does and birth will irreversably affect the life of the woman, she should have final say in the matter. As long as she understands why people are against it before making her decision, I'm ok with that. How anyone can try to force a woman to go through the process of child birth and raising is completely beyond me.

[Beowulf]

On the other hand, I've seen women who got an abortion thinking it was the right thing to do at the time, and absolutely hating themselves for it even years after the fact. At least if you keep the kid there's something that can be done if you regret your decision later. Once it's dead, it's dead.
Please point out the women that get abortions then go around laughing and high-fiving each other about it.

[Digital Masta]

I was gonna make a really bad joke but decided not to.


I've always been pro-choice but I got taken to a strange place when my dad revealed to my brothers and I that prior to my older brother's birth they had abortions. I realized that my existence was pretty much determined by that fact. If they decided to keep them I most likely wouldn't be typing this right now. My older brother probably wouldn't be here either and maybe my younger brother too.

Of course its one of those things that you're never going to be truly over I mean my mother never told us this information and has no idea that we know.

[japanat]

Hey, I'm a broken-condom baby myself, so I'm glad my parents didn't abort (although they considered it retroactively a few times, I hear...:knockout: ). But I still don't think I have the right to determine what a lady does with her body. If she is not able to give the child a good life, for whatever reason, that's for her to decide, before giving birth to an unwanted child, before abandoning a baby in a truckstop restroom, dumpster, 55-gal drum, before abusing this unwanted child, etc.

I do, however, see abortion as a last-resort, not as active birth control. I worked with a girl in college who'd already had 3 abortions at age 16, yet refused to use condoms because she didn't like the way they felt. I didn't feel a lot of sympathy in this case.

And you being you, as Masta said, is pretty much a crap shoot anyways. If a different sperm had won the race, you'd be a different person, not to mention if mom had had a headache that day...

[TygressVirgo]

On the other hand, I've seen women who got an abortion thinking it was the right thing to do at the time, and absolutely hating themselves for it even years after the fact.

I too have seen women like this, can't be pro-life without meeting these women. However, it affects the life of the woman in question, and its her choice.

At least if you keep the kid there's something that can be done if you regret your decision later. Once it's dead, it's dead.

How does this work out? Could you elaborate your thoughts on this?

[sOkU]

sOkU, I'm going to concede one point, and that is that I can't prove through the scientific method at this point that a fetus is a part of a woman's body. But hold it, don't start getting ready to declare victory, because I wouldn't make it that easy for you. In short, I'm still claiming that a fetus is a part of a woman's body, and because you seem to have a lack of biology, I'm going to have to go into more detail. Now, let's remember that you also claim it to be fact that a fetus is not a part of a woman's body with your own reasoning, which I will get to later.

Okay, so what you are saying is that by your own criteria you can't prove that a child is part of woman's body. That is good to know.

Now, knowing this I'm not sure how you can argue that a fetus is not a part of a woman's body, because while in development (and really, whenever before birth) it is directly connected to the mother's body and is using her nutrients and oxygen for growth. It is not a spiritual connection, or any connection that could otherwise be considering superficial, but an actual physiological connection between the fetus and mother which allows for the baby to grow by the mother's permission. It also developed out of something that specifically came from the mother's body. Now, I think that sounds like a fair argument for why a fetus is a part of a woman's body until it has exited (Not to mention is being sheltered and protected inside the mother's own body). But let's look at your arguments. The hospital argument is stupid, so we'll skip it.

HOW are you NOT understanding that being CONNECTED AND DEPENDENT AND INSIDE something is not the same as being "part" of this something?

Q: Why would you not consider a tapeworm a part of your body if you swallowed it?

A: While I'm sure that in the course of the relationship some swallowing was taking place, none of it involved swallowing a fetus and having it attach to the mother's gastrointestinal tract.

You missed the purpose of the analogy. A tapeworm is dependent on me for life and inside of me. WHY IS IT NOT CONSIDERED PART OF MY BODY? This is basically your criteria for considering a fetus part of woman's body. I'm going by your criteria.

So, that brings me to your genetics argument. I provided reason for my argument,

No, what you did is ignore the argument all together.

so now you need to provide me reason as to why you think defining a body part because it has its own unique genes is a fair requirement.
If it's fact, I'm sure you can provide evidence of this requirement being a fact. I thought that maybe you were on to something, so I did my own research and tried to see where this has been used as an argument,

Um....This is kind of common knowledge that all cells in the body have same genetic code. Are you seriously asking me to show you to a site that says so?

Good God.

So basically, unless you're the one maintaining this blog, you seem to only be plagiarizing someone else'se argument as to why a fetus is not a part of a mother's body as your own argument.
Unfortunately, that blog writer also doesn't provide reason as to why having the same genetic code is a good goal post to judge whether something is a part of your body, much less state as a fact that it is.


*sigh* You are aware this is a very common pro-life argument, aren't you? It's a by-rote one that even goes around in emails; as it is pretty common place and variations of it are said very often. But, let's say I "plagarized" which I have no doubt that the person who typed that also "plagarized" it. I guess my mistake was in not sourcing it by saying "oh, yeah I got this from a email and I thought this was a good argument". I'll give you that, then. I plagarized.
Now, how does this refute the truth of the position?

Let's take this argument:
1. All parts of a woman's body have the same genetic code.
2. The fetus does not have the same genetic code as the mother.
3. Therefore, the fetus is not part of the mother.

Also one more for ya, I'm sure you've heard of how it is possible scientists to achieve conception in a petri dish ", and if this were a black child that was concieved and it were put in the womb of a white woman, the child would still be born black? How is this possilbe if the child is just a mere extension (a "body part" as it were) of the biological mother?

Are you maintaning that it is possible for a human body to have two different genetic codes?

Frankly, sOkU, I don't see why you said I had no idea what I was talking about when it seems that you can't even come up with your own arguments. But even then, I think I've shown why your arguments aren't really all that great, and now it's up to you to prove otherwise.

Says the guy who relies on traditional pro-choice arguments such as "The fetus is part of the womans' body; it's her choice (even though I can't prove it based on the scientific method which is the thing I supposedly base all my logical and rational thinking on)!".

And you still don't know what you're talking about. I am able to defend these positions logically. What about you?

In that same idea, I think I should be a bit more fair and ask sOkU if he thinks it should be illegal to intentionally abort this:

I'm pretty sure I said life starts at conception.

I don't claim to understand the obsession Christians have with this issue. It's clear they're wrong on scripture. It's only a baby if it is wanted.

Are you serious?

Also, since my boogers also share my genetic makeup am I going to hell/jail for murder when I blew my nose (read: nose-abortion) this morning?

You clearly don't understand the difference between parts and the whole.

No, this is the part where I say, I'm sure you know plenty of women. Any of them willing to carry someone else's child? A random child who may have defects etc?

If the alternative is an abortion, then yes, I do know some women who would do that.
What do you mean by "defects"?

I don't understand how you could use that as an argument. Take a "generic" murder case and compare it to abortion? I don' think so. A murder (when defined as "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought")...basically, someone who choses to kill another person for malicious reasons. Intending to hurt another human for the sole reason of ending their life or making them suffer.

Erm, easy. It's an apt analogy. The pro-choice argument is something like this:
1. Abortions are inherently dangerous.
2. If made illegal, abortions will happen regardless.
3. Legalized abortions are safer than illegal abortions.
4. Abortion should be legalized.

The same logic can easily be applied as a case to legalize "generic murder" (as you put it) as both the victims are human.

Perhaps the problem here is that there is no "definition" of what is human and what is not. Wiki pedia has defined Human as "Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and emotion."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/human

This entity inside has the nature of a human. It already has all it's genetic information from the moment of conception.

Is an embryo, a fetus, or anything within a mother's womb capable of any of these things?

You do realize this argument can cut both ways, don't you? Would you call a brain dead patient 'not human'?
And if your going wikipedia's defintion of human, a chimpanzee is human too - after all, it can do all of those things.

Do you have memories of being in your mother's womb? You can argue all you want that it's not a part of the Mother- but that umbilical cord and womb sure do have a purpose. That egg would not have even existed if it were not for the mother.

Do you have memories of when you were 2 months old? What's your point? They do have a purpose - to keep the child alive; I never argued that the child is not dependent on the mother. I'm asking pro-choicers what moral principle it is that allows you to say that killing someone because they are dependent and a burden on you is a-okay.

If you think that's okay, then why is it not okay for me to kill my grandmother because I take care of her and it's a burden on me? It's not with malice; it's just for her own good; I wouldn't want to her to live a 'miserable' life anymore.

Our world is an extremely populated place. We've grown a lot in a short amount of time (time being within the existence of the World itself) and there are already many homeless and starving children. Most abortions are done because the pregnancy is Unwanted- would you rather have it never exist, or to have a life of neglect? You can argue for adoption all you want- but if people continue to have children, who is going to adopt? If you require all pregnant women to give birth, who is going to take care of all of the unwanted babies? Are YOU going to adopt a child, ever? Or will you have your own? Think about it. We should perhaps consider taking care of what is already in our world instead of forcing more into it.

You are beating around the issue, firefly. Is human life dependent on how many people there are or on the whims of others? If so, I suggest we start killing off all the old people, they take up too much time, energy, money, and space.
What if I don't want you here? Do I have the right to kill you? No, of course not! So, why is it different for abortion?
What you are arguing here is seperate from my argument (what you are talking about is mostly lack of access to contraceptives and education and the like; we can fix that through hard work). I am saying human life is NOT DEPENDENT on others', what you are arguing is that it is. It really is that simple.
And actually I am planning to adopt and have kids that are biologically mine someday.

So yes the end justifies the mean. The so call human will not have to suffer the life of being born into an unwanted, uncaring, and hard world. And the mother/(parents) do not have to endure the financial/emotional/etc burned.

It's win win.

Wow. Really, though?

And, erbiumfiber gave the clearest and best argument here in defense of abortion.

Erbium, are you arguing for abortion from social consensus and imposing morality?

Because:
1. Social consensus is not always right.
2. It is not always necessarily wrong to impose morality on someone else.

[Beowulf]

Wow that is a wall of text if I've ever seen one.

You clearly don't understand the difference between parts and the whole.
Pot meet kettle, kettle this is pot.

[sOkU]

^ Look at me, I'm Beowulf and I can just drop in with my witticisms.

[stsparky]

Are you serious?
Fuck yes - I'm serious. It is not a game. If you're a Christian - you're wrong if you go to the Torah to back your claim up. Mosaic Law is clear on this. It isn't alive until it's a bouncing baby on the outside.

[Beowulf]

^ Look at me, I'm Beowulf and I can just drop in with my witticisms.
Uh-oh, here I go again!

http://copland.udel.edu/~sswain/jj_blastocyst-703867.jpg
What is the gender of this "baby"?

[Swede]

I dunno, but I be it likes soccer.

[Kaji]

How does this work out? Could you elaborate your thoughts on this?

If a woman wants to give up the child, it's still possible to meet the child later on or potentially regain custody (e.g. arrangement with another family member or foster family). Even if she isn't or doesn't want to, however, she won't carry around the guilt from killing a child on her conscience. An abortion, however, is irreversible (unless it fails, but that's another issue entirely). As it's impossible to know the level of regret that will be felt until after the abortion has taken place, I feel it in the best interests of both the mother and child that the pregnancy take its course, unless there is a medical reason why the birth of the baby threatens the life of the mother.

Rape and incest I leave up to the mother (I'm against automatic abortions without seeking the mother's consent in these cases, however). That said, in cases of consensual sex that resulted in conception, the above sums up my stance.

[Roxie]

You know...making a choice means you have to deal with the consequences.
I'll take that instead some false protection from them.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I'm pretty sure I said life starts at conception.
Okay.

Because that picture was of a cat.

This is kind of common knowledge that all cells in the body have same genetic code. Are you seriously asking me to show you to a site that says so?
You're misunderstanding. I wasn't asking for citation that all cells in the same body will have the same genetic code. I asked multiple times in my post why it should be an acceptable requirement to define something as a part of one's body. Show me where this standard has been considered acceptable by the medical community at large. Since you said that it's a fact that a body part must have the same genetic code, it shouldn't be hard to cite. Otherwise, you'll have to admit that your criteria is your own opinion and therefore will simply just have to be compared to mine.

I'm going by your criteria.
Read my post again then, because you're not. You're going by what you want to be my criteria.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

Okay.

Because that picture was of a cat.
But his statement still stands.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

But his statement still stands.
Sure, if he wants to argue that. I'd also like to know how he feels about a veterinarian aborting a cat embryo when it's still developmentally similar to a human one. And it's best not to argue that that wouldn't happen; my boss has done it several times before.

[erbiumfiber]

My point was that I don't want to get into a debate over whether it's human and therefore it's OK to terminate it (because it's not human) or any other argument that makes it seem like less than what it is.

It is living matter, human or not. The act of abortion ends its existence, whether or not it was human life. It had a greater than 90% chance of becoming human life if not aborted. I feel like it is disingeneous to pretend it's something less consequential than that.

That said, I believe that there are times when society, in the interest of society as whole, makes choices that I personally do not endorse. As in the case of abortion, the choice is pretty grim but the alternative of outlawing abortion is even worse.

I don't like killing animals for food. I think it's wrong as well as being really bad for the environment and world food supply. I wish I had the determination to be a vegan, like my daughter, but I continue to use milk, eggs, fish, and frequently chicken because I am too lazy to go to the trouble of searching out and preparing vegan alternatives. A lot of people don't think it's wrong to kill animals and eat them and, as a society, we have determined that we are going to continue to allow animals to be killed for food.

We have to live together as a society and therefore the rules must be for the greater good. The greater good is served by permitting abortion, even if abortion is morally wrong (yes many believe it isn't, I'm not saying it is or is not one way or the other). On some level, society itself determines what is "moral" and what is not, even if individuals within society have vastly different ideas on the subject.

[stsparky]

So you're cool with saying Society owns the retarded 12 year olds's womb until she has a baby she doesn't want? I'm not.

I've done my part. I wanted to get married and have the baby. My gf at the time didn't. I stood by her. It was the right decision.

[TygressVirgo]

If a woman wants to give up the child, it's still possible to meet the child later on or potentially regain custody (e.g. arrangement with another family member or foster family). Even if she isn't or doesn't want to, however, she won't carry around the guilt from killing a child on her conscience. An abortion, however, is irreversible (unless it fails, but that's another issue entirely). As it's impossible to know the level of regret that will be felt until after the abortion has taken place, I feel it in the best interests of both the mother and child that the pregnancy take its course, unless there is a medical reason why the birth of the baby threatens the life of the mother.

Rape and incest I leave up to the mother (I'm against automatic abortions without seeking the mother's consent in these cases, however). That said, in cases of consensual sex that resulted in conception, the above sums up my stance.

I understand you point, I really do. I think that if you have sex, you should be ready to deal with whatever happens. Unfortunately not everyone thinks this way, and some women will not realize how big an impact a baby will bring til they find out they are pregnant. I firmly believe that abortion should always be a last resort, and given the utmost consideration before it happens, because in my book, it is taking a life. However, it is still the woman's choice to use such a method, and it is between her and God, or whatever belief system she has.

I am totally against women being guilted into avoiding an abortion, or taking the choice away from them. Having been pregnant, and seeing the affects of several difficult pregnancies on close friends and family, and also seeing the utter destruction of a child's spirit for being unwanted, I am pro-choice.

[erbiumfiber]

So you're cool with saying Society owns the retarded 12 year olds's womb until she has a baby she doesn't want? I'm not.

I've done my part. I wanted to get married and have the baby. My gf at the time didn't. I stood by her. It was the right decision.

Uh, are you referring to me? Or one of the earlier posters?

Because I'm clearly pro-choice... (e.g., see statements such as "the greater good [of society] is served by permitting abortion...")

[lesqueletterouge]

I can respect ErbiumFiber, STSparky, Soku, and tygressvirgo's views on abortion because they are very definite on their points which the fetus/child/creature/cells become a human and have based their views on that. What I can't respect are the people who plain mock the people who hold the view that life begins at conception and then are very unclear on at which point the fetus becomes a baby. Some of the Pro Choice arguments people that try to make a demarcation that it's only a baby once it can sustain it's life apart from the mother make no sense. A child can't sustain it's life apart from it's parents until what like when they hit puberty and can fend for themselves? So what about in the future when scientific progress allows us to grow a fetus in an artificial womb from 1 month into the pregnancy does that suddenly change the point at which a fetus becomes a human? The whole point about the fetus being part of the mothers body is also ridiculous. Just because they are physically attached does not make it part of her body. According to your logic a baby is not technically a human until the doctor cuts the embellical cord attaching the child to the mother in the hospital.

Trying to argue this with science because that really isn't what this is about. The societal taboo on killing humans is a philosophical and moral point any way you look at it.

So to sum up what I was saying the fetus definitely is a different creature apart from the mother, whether that can be considered a human is a philosophical and moral point. If you think it is a human from conception theirs the argument that erbiumfiber put forth is a valid one because we as a society deem their are certain instances where it is allowed to kill a fellow humans if this is one of those cases is another philosophical and moral debate.

And one more thing if you're gonna argue the pro choice side be definite about when you think it becomes a human like Stssparky has done.

[erbiumfiber]

Thank you, I'm glad someone understood what I was trying to say...

[stsparky]

Uh, are you referring to me? Or one of the earlier posters? Because I'm clearly pro-choice... (e.g., see statements such as "the greater good [of society] is served by permitting abortion...")
No - SoKu I think. We're cool.