This is appalling....and nauseating..and back to appalling

Let's Think wrote:

The activity that this doctor was engaged in is clearly against the law and he should be punished accordingly. What most abortion doctors do is within legal limits and considered a medical procedure by the government. Appeals to emotion are not going to work on me, nor should they work on anyone, in the case of legal abortion. Again, if you truly believe that abortion should be outlawed, you need to demonstrate how this policy will lead to less human suffering than the current policy (hint: it will lead to more human suffering).

So now the government gets to decide what is right and wrong? Great, that's just what we need. I guess if the government decides it's okay to take our rights away, then it's right because the government said it. It's only apalling if it's illegal, I guess would be what you are saying.

I don't get it when people make a distinction between a life in progress and a life that already is. Once that baby is bound to have a life and it's only a matter of time, then why should we treat it as if it didn't have rights? Where is the distinction between a human being and a pending human being? The only consistent position is to define life as beginning at conception and that the rights we use to protect human beings also apply to that human beings.

It would be completely inconsistent to argue that it's okay if it was a rape victim because the rights of one human being don't trump the rights of another. Much of this is based on the fact that it's easy to not look at a fetus or not have to see it and say "that thing doesn't have rights". What if you knew what the human was going to look like 10,20,50 years later?

If a woman gets raped, then that's too bad, but it doesn't justify anything. Shit happens, and as mean as that sounds, everybody has to play the cards they're dealt, and you can't just make an excuse because shit happened to you.

Let's Think wrote:

someone else wrote:

No, it's not "already dead". It hasn't had a chance to live yet. There is a very, very big difference. If you can't see that, then you have no right to discuss this.

Haha, you'll get it eventually.....hopefully.....

Enlighten me. Your air of superiority does not establish your correctness. You must defend your position just like anyone else.

Flagpole2 wrote:

Why worse than "normal" abortions? Result is the same....

Flagpole,

That's the # 1 reason I can't be a demcrat it leads to actions like these !

someone else wrote:

Let's Think wrote:

Haha, you'll get it eventually.....hopefully.....

Enlighten me. Your air of superiority does not establish your correctness. You must defend your position just like anyone else.

If you're talking about the supposed joke about the baby being eaten, then yeah, I get it.

someone else wrote:

I don't get it when people make a distinction between a life in progress and a life that already is. Once that baby is bound to have a life and it's only a matter of time, then why should we treat it as if it didn't have rights? Where is the distinction between a human being and a pending human being? The only consistent position is to define life as beginning at conception and that the rights we use to protect human beings also apply to that human beings.

Because I don't believe that this is a human life:

I do believe that this is a human life:

I do not consider the first to be a human life deserving of all the rights of a human. I do consider the second to be a human life deserving of all such rights.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think it's impossible to say where exactly the distinction between a human being and a pending human being is. Scientifically and morally.

I do think it is morally wrong to give that first picture the right to live that supersedes the woman's right to live, if it comes down to it.

I am pro-choice, but it is a position borne from stark reality.

But from a personal perspective I really abhor it - meaning that in my own life I would do everything in my power to prevent one from occurring (I am a male).

Obviously, being a male I might have no real say in the matter. This is a warning to guys who sleep around with women they either don't know or don't trust.

Fortunately, I lived a boring life, married to the same person for 27 years and have never had to deal with any of these challenges.

One thing that the pro-choice lobby doesn't like to talk about is the impact that abortions have on the women who undergo them and the community at large. Certain of my women friends who have undergone the procedure never really have recovered emotionally from it. At some level - not wanting to get into the politics - there is a form of a death involved. I have wondered about the correlations between abortion rates and the health and prosperity of the community - I suspect that there is a correlation between the two - the higher the rate the more pathologies which obtain is what I intuit.

I mention this because the ghastly doctor in Philadelphia raises these tough issues to the fore, and I wonder whether young men and women are getting the right practical advice. We historically have wrapped issues of sexual responsibility around religion and its appurtenant moralities - I wonder whether we now need to move away from that to talk about the very real impacts of sexual irresponsibility - impacts which even the toughest among us find difficult to manage. The religious message doesn't seem to stick in today's environment.

another average american wrote:

Because I don't believe that this is a human life:

I do believe that this is a human life:

How about these:

This more human?

Is it human when it "looks" human? Or when it comes out screaming?

That's exactly my point! It's impossible to know when the fetus becomes "human." Clearly, in my first picture, it is not what most people would call human. In my last picture, it is. Where does the transition happen? I don't know, and I don't think anybody can.

I do understand the position that since we can't possibly know when the transition happens, the only safe way to proceed is to consider the blastula human. I would completely agree with this if the mother weren't involved. As it is, we're attempting to balance the right to live of a human already living with the rights of a fetus to continue developing.

I think it's a very difficult and complicated issue, and there are no easy or blanket answers.

If I have a female family member who is raped and pregnant with the child of a black or Mexican (or white but especially a minority) felon with low intelligence, I would definitely support her getting an abortion.

Perhaps this issue could be fixed if we said you can have an abortion but once you have two abortions you have shown that you clearly are not responsible enough to have sex and use contraception so you are required to be sterilized. Seems like this would fix a big portion of the problems. But I know this is highly unlikely and controversial.

"I do understand the position that since we can't possibly know when the transition happens, the only safe way to proceed is to consider the blastula human. I would completely agree with this if the mother weren't involved. As it is, we're attempting to balance the right to live of a human already living with the rights of a fetus to continue developing."

Clearly you don't understand. One person's rights end where they infringe upon another's if the baby is a person then the mother has no right to abort.

I find it hard to believe that science cannot define the starting point of a life. One moment there are materials of two separate human beings, and a moment later there appears an organism of completely unique DNA that begins growing itself along the same course that will continue decades later. The APPEARANCE of the third organism and it's START OF GROWTH is the unique event. Any event afterwards are milestones that are no more significant than others. Brain waves starting, heart beating, scenery, breathing, eating, communicating, walking, financial independence: no one of these are categorically more significant than another. These are STAGES of life, not indicators. The proof of life is shown by an organism progressing along that trend or not. A bit like being a student does not require having received certificates, but by being IN THE PROCESS - that defines being a student.

Strictly in regards to the question of when human life begins, it is clear that it begins very close to the time of conception. Yes, no?

However, does applying this idea coarsely to policy improve the situation? I would emphatically say, NO. We will not be all happier and healthier if all pregnancies were brought to term. What does that mean? That solving the abortion issue won't be solved with policy. WHAT WILL HELP IS REDUCING UNWANTED PREGNANCIES. Any strategy that does that is a good one.

This is a lot like thinking reforming health care will make us all healthier. I will probably help in a portion of the cases, but the real solution, across the board, is living healthier lifestyles.

sfgsgd wrote:

"I do understand the position that since we can't possibly know when the transition happens, the only safe way to proceed is to consider the blastula human. I would completely agree with this if the mother weren't involved. As it is, we're attempting to balance the right to live of a human already living with the rights of a fetus to continue developing."

Clearly you don't understand. One person's rights end where they infringe upon another's if the baby is a person then the mother has no right to abort.

What about when the "baby" (fetus) is infringing on the mother's right to live? If either an abortion is performed or the mother dies, which life gets precedence? This is all under the assumption that the fetus has the same rights as an already-born human.

Rights are going to be infringed here, either the fetus's or the mother's.

You're the one who is advocating that the government gets to decide what is right and wrong if you support a ban on abortion. Such a decision would be the government deciding that abortion is wrong, and taking away our rights. Again you seem to think that I see nothing wrong with abortion. I do think abortion is wrong, but the right for a woman to choose up to a certain point in fetal development simply should not be legislated against. In other words, I believe the impact of banning abortion altogether has significantly more appalling consequences than the middle ground that is currently the law in most states.

You have chosen the arbitrary position that human life begins with conception because it supports your view. This is not an objective fact however, as the assignment of life as human is completely subjective. However, if a fetus is a human being, why is it not counted in the census? Why is there not a funeral when a miscarriage occurs?

As far as forcing rape victims to have a child resulting from the rape, that to me is much more appalling and immoral than abortion itself. But that's just me.

Oh yeah, if you still don't get the stomach joke, a developing fetus is not located in the stomach. It's located in the uterus. Jeez...

The thing about risking the mother's life may be a valid point, and it would really have to be the mother's choice, but would you point out to me why you believe like you do? Why is that blob of cells not a human life if it is bound to be? Like I said, it's the only consistent way to treat the subject. Just because a few cells looks foreign to you, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve the rights of a human, since it is bound to be one, and the process has already been set in motion. How do you defend your viewpoint?

You can easily justify this position because you have defined the embryo as having the potential for human life. The potential for human life is not human life. If you want to start saying that the potential for human life is equal to human life, then you could say that every sperm is a human life, or every egg is a human life. Thus masturbation (or even sex for that matter) would be mass genocide on an unprecedented scale.

I wish people could understand that you simply cannot make black and white distinctions when it comes to issues like abortion and where human life begins. The governmental policy that minimizes human suffering is simply a shade of gray.

SkierXAspen wrote:

Perhaps this issue could be fixed if we said you can have an abortion but once you have two abortions you have shown that you clearly are not responsible enough to have sex and use contraception so you are required to be sterilized. Seems like this would fix a big portion of the problems. But I know this is highly unlikely and controversial.

This idea greatly appeals to me. I also think that the same theory should apply to welfare recipients who have more and more kids to get more and more money from the government. That's even more controversial.

Yet again, a bunch of dudes discussing what a woman should do with her body and using big and meaningless words like "conception" "the beginning of human life" and "rights" hoping that somehow these abstract concepts will justify their meddling.

Somewhere a woman is pregnant and scared and faced with a tremendous and tragic decision. She can't know what is best in advance. And yet, she has to decide. Either way she decides, she will have regrets. That's the reality of the situation, and it can't be taken away by argument and appeals to "free choice" or a fetus' "rights."

You guys can keep watching your porn and discussing the origin of human life. It's cool by me if you get off on it. Just don't pretend your bullshit arguments have anything to do with a woman's decision.

k girl wrote:

Yet again, a bunch of dudes discussing what a woman should do with her body and using big and meaningless words like "conception" "the beginning of human life" and "rights" hoping that somehow these abstract concepts will justify their meddling.

Somewhere a woman is pregnant and scared and faced with a tremendous and tragic decision. She can't know what is best in advance. And yet, she has to decide. Either way she decides, she will have regrets. That's the reality of the situation, and it can't be taken away by argument and appeals to "free choice" or a fetus' "rights."

You guys can keep watching your porn and discussing the origin of human life. It's cool by me if you get off on it. Just don't pretend your bullshit arguments have anything to do with a woman's decision.

Refer to my previous posts on the subject. The best thing you can do right now, as a woman, is to know your place (it rhymes with itchin) and shut up while the men make the tough decisions. We will let you know when we have the problem figured out and you can then follow our directions.