Abortion Ban in SD

[Midtowner]

How can we possibly legislate for things we don't even know or that may happen in the future? I mean, are we going to start making driving laws for hovercrafts?

Unless we can predict the future with substantial certainty, to legislate the future would be wrong.

[OkieBear]

Unless we can predict the future with substantial certainty, to legislate the future would be wrong.

Which is exactly why we should err on the side of caution.

[Luke]

As to these, there is a vast gulf of difference between a fetus and a human being. One is capable of consciousness, the other is not. One can survive without aid, the other cannot.

So then, consciousness is the defining factor? Survival without aid is the defining factor? If that's the case, then there are many others among us who need to be "aborted." What is it that makes a human life a human life?

Since what we're arguing is philosophy and not fact, there are no right answers, just a lot of people who think the other people are wrong

There are no right answers? That is absurd. Science relies on answers to be right and wrong. I am arguing from a scientific and philosophical position which has evidence. I am arguing that a preborn child is both alive and human at the point of conception. Prove to me that it is not. If it comes to opinion as to who is and is not alive, then there are a lot of other concerns for those among us, let alone the preborn. Some doctors are suggesting that a baby is not a full person until a month or more after birth. I know it sounds ridiculous, but it's been suggested.

And no one has ever told me that the loss of a test tube baby was murder.

I would consider that murder. In fact, that is why organizations like "Project Snowflake" exist. See: http://www.humanitas.org/news/news06232005.shtml

I have never heard that a test tube baby could be viable outside the womb. Test tube babies are conceived outside the womb and then implanted. Thus, they are still not viable (as in they will never be human beings) until they have had a symbiotic relationship with a uterus.

I agree with you on this part, actually. Test tube babies will not survive unless they are put in an environment which fosters that growth. Neither will a newborn, a toddler, children, and even some teens. Where do we draw the line?

Absent proper care, this is true. That's not the argument though. At the point of viability, at least for my own purposes, a fetus can survive outside the womb with the latest in medical technology. This still (if memory serves) places the point of viability somewhere around 21-24 weeks. I'd set the marker as low as 21 even though the chances of survival are slim there.

So, the life or death of an embryo is dependent on technological advances? Suppose we arrived at the technology that could support a zygote at conception, would you ban abortion then?

Here's where you're wrong. We already know that mom does not want a baby. This does usually not bode well.

I am arguing that a preborn baby at any stage after conception is a human life. If a preborn baby is a human life, then there is never going to be a good reason to end its life no matter how hard the circumstances. I'm sure there are families out there who have infants that they would rather not have after the fact. I know you wouldn't suggest that they be allowed to terminate the life of their child based on inconvenience. Again, you appeal to opinion and emotion. I'm appealing to facts.

So you would propose that we damage the life of the mother and the child by protecting a life which under my analysis never existed.

If I, in my analysis of you, deem you as never existing, can I end you? It's not a matter of what we deem or opine. What is the thing inside the woman? Science tells us that it is a human being from conception on.

Conservatives generally are against the intervention of the state in personal affairs. I guess you're not conservative? I've seen you claim as much.. here, I tend to think that you're not.

My point was this: that the government needs to be involved in a decision on whether or not it is OK to kill children is beyond me. It seems to be logical.

MR is different from comatose. And as far as the comatose, we do have the right to yank the feeding tube/cease other life support measures if the brain activity dictates that the patient is braindead. Terry Shiavo anyone?

The point is that if we have to look at someone's brain development and consciousness as signs of life, then there are a lot of ramifications that follow. Logically, those who are asleep (unconscious) are deemed not to be a human life because they are not conscious. Then we get into how much the brain should be developed before we determine it is a human life. The "brain capacity of a tadpole" needs to be quantified and then applied. If that's the case, perhaps a conceptus does have the "brain capacity of a tadpole." It's a slippery slope saying that one more developed brain is human and one less developed brain is not.

Killing a toddler and killing a fetus are two entirely different things.

How so? Logically, there are only a few differences: size, level of development, degree of dependency and location. Accepting any of these differences have ramifications that must logically be applied to those outside the womb.

That's a stupendeferousical word there.

Heh heh, thanks.

Actually, this does mean that the mother has a *****. It's just inside her womb. You intend to prove that because you can transplant an organ, it means that there is life?

No, what I am saying is that ***** is her son's. Not hers. They are two separate beings deserving of all the rights any person outside the womb has. The location of the son should have no bearing on his rights.

If you die, but in doing so donate your organs, does that mean that you are still legally alive? Please don't let anyone with an agenda for murder hear about this loophole you've discovered.

Body parts are not human beings. Human beings have the inherent capacity at conception to begin a developmental process that will continue through all stages (embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, preteen, teenager, young adult, adult, elderly) unless stopped naturally or artificially. These stages are all part of the process that every human being goes through (unless it is ended naturally or in the case of abortion, unnaturally). And throughout this process, the life in discussion is never NOT a living human being - different stages of humanity, indeed, but always a human being.

It all comes down to "what is it?" I argue that it is a human life. If it is not a human life, then what is it? A fish? Seriously, if the thing growing inside a woman becomes a "human life" at a magic day in the womb, what is it before then?

Lastly, Midtowner, I enjoy a good reasonable debate online. They're so rare though. I just want to say thanks for keeping it at a rational, non-emotional debate level. It's rare on the internet nowadays. Keep it up.

[Midtowner]

Please explain your conclusion... That we must legislate to avoid a current harm that may only be ascertainable in the future?

Pregancies are for approximately 9 months. If there are substantial changes in technology, we can account for those, however, we should not toss aside the right of a woman to determine what goes on in her own body because of some arbitrary designation that you're making. Give me justification for your arbitrary designation and then we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, we have fertile ground on which we can agree to disagree.

[Luke]

Men often do not realize what it means to be pregnant, especially if the pregnancy is unwanted, be it because the birth control failed or because the woman was raped. How dare anyone tell me I have to carry a child to term even though the child was fathered by a rapist!

The same emotional argument could be used to excuse beating women. "Women just don't understand how it is to be a man and have to put up with a nagging, demanding woman in the house."

Obviously, I'm being facetious. But, I hope you grasp the point. It really doesn't matter what type of emotion is involved or what type of excuses there are. There is no right to beat up women.

By the same token, we would all agree that it doesn't matter what type of situation a woman is in. She has no right to take the life of an inconvenient toddler. Likewise, since the baby inside her womb is a life deserving protection, it doesn't matter what the argument is. It is not ok to kill a human being.

I know I digress from the real conversation here, but I often feel like men just don't "get it" because it doesn't happen to them!

"Again, women just don't understand how hard it is for men to live with a woman." (facetious)

I'm not saying that partial-birth abortion is okay, or even abortion past a certain time...but to abort within the first month or two to me is not murder because the child is barely anything at that point.

Just because a 4 year old girl has a more undeveloped reporoductive system than a 21 year old co-ed doesn't make the 4 year old any more worthy of death. Of course not. The level of development is beside the point. From the moment of conception, it is a living human being in an early stage of life.

I understand there will always be those who won't understand my point of view or my beliefs, but they step all over them regardless.

Likewise.

If we as a nation decide abortion should be illegal, how many women are going to start travelling to Mexico and get it done down there, risking their lives and infection?

Using this logic, we should pass laws to make it easier for robbers to get to a safe in a bank. After all, we don't want them to get hurt. Of course not. Stealing is a crime that needs to be prevented. And if, as I contend, the baby inside a woman is a human being, then there is no good excuse to kill it.

Why do we in America seem to be on such a moral high horse when so much of the world has accepted this?

Consensus doesn't make an issue moral. There was a time in American history when the majority of people thought Blacks were not equal with others. There was a time when women couldn't even vote. The majority, we see now, was morally wrong. I have no doubt that one day we will see abortion in the same light.

What if the woman's life is at risk--can we not abort then? Do we value the life of a child that may or may not survive over the life of the woman? How can we make that judgement call?

This is a very real, very tough scenario. There is no good answer in this situation. In my opinion, the husband and wife should talk about it and come to a conclusion. It would be immeasurably difficult to follow through with either decision.

[Midtowner]

So then, consciousness is the defining factor? Survival without aid is the defining factor? If that's the case, then there are many others among us who need to be "aborted." What is it that makes a human life a human life?

No Luke, consciousness matters to a lesser degree (but it is a consideration). The tipping point on my scales is the point at which the fetus becomes viable without parasitic reliance on the mother. It is at that point that we're talking about two distinct lives -- not one that is reliant on the other to exist. If the mother simply wishes to have the thing in her body removed, and it has no chance of living otherwise, that really can't be murder. When you take something out that could otherwise survive, we're on ethically shaky ground.

I don't support the D&E procedure for that reason.

There are no right answers? That is absurd. Science relies on answers to be right and wrong.

No, science doesn't care what is right or wrong. That's morality. Morality is philosophy. We are engaging in a morality debate, not a scientific one. These designations are completely arbitrary and unscientific. Medicine has even struggled with the question as to when the real time of death for a patient is -- is it when they're braindead? Is it when the heart stops? These aren't scientifically answerable questions -- they're judgment calls.

I am arguing from a scientific and philosophical position which has evidence. I am arguing that a preborn child is both alive and human at the point of conception.

No proof could possibly be given that you are either right or wrong. What is "alive" and what is "human" is open to debate.

Some doctors are suggesting that a baby is not a full person until a month or more after birth. I know it sounds ridiculous, but it's been suggested.

I believe that suggestion takes its roots in cognitive ability. It's an interesting theory, it merits discussion, but I don't think these doctors were ever specifically advocating that we euthanize infants.

I agree with you on this part, actually. Test tube babies will not survive unless they are put in an environment which fosters that growth. Neither will a newborn, a toddler, children, and even some teens. Where do we draw the line?

You're talking about nurturing, I'm talking about the possibility of an organism to sustain itself even with all available technology at its disposal. Your objection is founded on an entirely different proposition than what it is that you're trying to refute.

So, the life or death of an embryo is dependent on technological advances? Suppose we arrived at the technology that could support a zygote at conception, would you ban abortion then?

Show me the technology, and we have a new debate. For now, the magic number (questionably) seems to be 21 weeks. You can't suggest that we curtail the rights of a woman to have an abortion now because of technology that may come in 20 years or may never come. Whether she has the abortion now or not, this future event is irrelevant to the situation at hand. As far as I'm concerned and for the same reasons, so is the argument you're proposing.

I am arguing that a preborn baby at any stage after conception is a human life. If a preborn baby is a human life, then there is never going to be a good reason to end its life no matter how hard the circumstances. I'm sure there are families out there who have infants that they would rather not have after the fact. I know you wouldn't suggest that they be allowed to terminate the life of their child based on inconvenience. Again, you appeal to opinion and emotion. I'm appealing to facts.

I'm arguing it's not. We're also both arguing opinion. What is human, and what is alive are again open to interpretation.

If I, in my analysis of you, deem you as never existing, can I end you? It's not a matter of what we deem or opine. What is the thing inside the woman? Science tells us that it is a human being from conception on.

I'll consider this answered above.

My point was this: that the government needs to be involved in a decision on whether or not it is OK to kill children is beyond me. It seems to be logical.

This is an emotional appeal that attempts to distort the argument. You first have to prove that we're talking about children. We're not. You are, but I'm not. I just don't buy the premise you're proposing.

The point is that if we have to look at someone's brain development and consciousness as signs of life, then there are a lot of ramifications that follow. Logically, those who are asleep (unconscious) are deemed not to be a human life because they are not conscious. Then we get into how much the brain should be developed before we determine it is a human life. The "brain capacity of a tadpole" needs to be quantified and then applied. If that's the case, perhaps a conceptus does have the "brain capacity of a tadpole." It's a slippery slope saying that one more developed brain is human and one less developed brain is not.

The law already has a method of dealing with invalids such as Terry Schiavo. It's okay to remove them from life support. If it would make you feel better, we could simply remove a fetus' life support and see how it does... You're arguing with a lot of 'perhapses.' It's not a slippery slope argument at all. I'm not saying if X, then Y. I'm saying simply X.

Refer to the above fallacy paradigm

I'm not prepared to give scientific fact as to the actual mental capacity of a 21 week old fetus. My guess is that you aren't there yet either.

No, what I am saying is that ***** is her son's. Not hers. They are two separate beings deserving of all the rights any person outside the womb has. The location of the son should have no bearing on his rights.

You say they're two seperate beings, I'm saying that if one part of a being is completely dependent on the other that your argument that they are 'seperate' is impossible to prevail on.

Body parts are not human beings. Human beings have the inherent capacity at conception to begin a developmental process that will continue through all stages (embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, preteen, teenager, young adult, adult, elderly) unless stopped naturally or artificially. These stages are all part of the process that every human being goes through (unless it is ended naturally or in the case of abortion, unnaturally). And throughout this process, the life in discussion is never NOT a living human being - different stages of humanity, indeed, but always a human being.

Body parts are as dependent on their host as a fetus is. What occurs in the future is irrelevent as far as I'm concerned. Your same logic could be applied to a sperm or an egg. It doesn't appear to be a rational opinion to me. We apparently disagree on that point though and I'm perfectly willing to accept that.

It all comes down to "what is it?" I argue that it is a human life. If it is not a human life, then what is it? A fish? Seriously, if the thing growing inside a woman becomes a "human life" at a magic day in the womb, what is it before then?

I'd simply say that it's not a human life. It's certainly not a fish. It's not even a life until that magic point at which it is viable.

Lastly, Midtowner, I enjoy a good reasonable debate online. They're so rare though. I just want to say thanks for keeping it at a rational, non-emotional debate level. It's rare on the internet nowadays. Keep it up.

My pleasure.

[Luke]

Morality aside, this won't happen.

This is precisely why it is an inevitability.

[MadMonk]

Pregancies are for approximately 9 months. If there are substantial changes in technology, we can account for those, however, we should not toss aside the right of a woman to determine what goes on in her own body because of some arbitrary designation that you're making. Give me justification for your arbitrary designation and then we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, we have fertile ground on which we can agree to disagree.

I maintain that the life of the child begins as conception. This is no more arbitrary than your designation of 21 weeks and seem more logical to me. As stated above, at the point of conception there is a distinct DNA set created from the mother and father. If DNA can be used to identify one person from another, could you not, at conception consider the fetus a person? It has a seperate identity. Yes, it is completely dependent on the mother, but that is irrelevant to its identity as a human being. At the point of conception (either wanted or not), the mother becomes responsible for the life of another. Her right to make decisions concerning her body then becomes secondary to the right of the child to live. As you know, this is just opinion, but it seems a logical conclusion to me.

[Luke]

No, science doesn't care what is right or wrong. That's morality. Morality is philosophy. We are engaging in a morality debate, not a scientific one.

My fundamental argument is a scientific one, not a moral one. The "thing" inside a woman at conception is a human being. That is a scientific reality. There has been no legitimate scientist to step forward to say that it is not a human being. To argue that the offspring of two human beings is anything but a human defies logic.

[Side thought: I would wager money that the majority of people who are pro-choice would have serious issues with me removing the embryos of a recently conceived seal.]

[Midtowner]

My fundamental argument is a scientific one, not a moral one. The "thing" inside a woman at conception is a human being. That is a scientific reality. There has been no legitimate scientist to step forward to say that it is not a human being. To argue that the offspring of two human beings is anything but a human defies logic.

[Side thought: I would wager money that the majority of people who are pro-choice would have serious issues with me removing the embryos of a recently conceived seal.]

A scientist could comment on that, but this is a qualitative analysis, not a quantitative one. Qualitative at some level, and especially on this question calls for a judgment question at some point. A judgment question tips the scales in favor of this being a philosophical rather than a scientific question.

[Luke]

A scientist could comment on that, but this is a qualitative analysis, not a quantitative one. Qualitative at some level, and especially on this question calls for a judgment question at some point. A judgment question tips the scales in favor of this being a philosophical rather than a scientific question.

With all due respect, I would really be interested in your response. Do you concede that the "thing" in a mother's womb is a Homo Sapiens?

I can understand why it would be hard to acknowledge that fact. I mean, if it is a human being then you're saying that you support it's death when you favor abortion. And that is understandably not an easy moral dilemma to try to get out of. Legitimizing the death of 4,000 human beings per day would be immensely difficult.

[GrandMaMa]

This is the first step in overturning Roe Vs. Wade. Your thoughts?

.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law
By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer 56 minutes ago


Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.
Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.
"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.
The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday.
The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.
South Dakota's abortion ban is to take effect July 1, but a federal judge is likely to suspend it during a legal challenge.
Rounds has said abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees.
Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.
Rounds previously issued a technical veto of a similar bill passed two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.
The statement he issued Monday noted that this year's bill was written to make sure existing restrictions will be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses. After the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety.
About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach clinics.

If a woman says that if she cannot have an abortion, she will take her own life, I wonder if that would constitute ample legal justification for an abortion? I thought that the Supreme Court sits to interpret the law, not change it...

[Midtowner]

With all due respect, I would really be interested in your response. Do you concede that the "thing" in a mother's womb is a Homo Sapiens?

It's a philosophical argument to make. The answer to your question is what must a thing be in order to be a human being? We then procede down the road of qualitative analysis. This involves deciding what elements are essential to make something human.

You might pose that this debate ends with DNA. I don't think it ends with DNA. I can take your kidney out, it gas your DNA, but it is not a human being -- and without your kidney, you are still human.

I do think that a determinative factor here is that a being must be able to live in order to be human. Potential to live and actual capability are two entirely different things. I will even go so far as to argue that if we can hook a machine up to it and make it live, it's alive. Consequently, if we have to rely on the life of another to preserve the life of the being, it lacks a necessary quality to be human.

-- of course, that's just my opinion, and as I have shown, this is philosophical and not scientific. It all boils down to what you think is human. I will commend you though, most people don't think through it that far.

I can understand why it would be hard to acknowledge that fact. I mean, if it is a human being then you're saying that you support it's death when you favor abortion. And that is understandably not an easy moral dilemma to try to get out of. Legitimizing the death of 4,000 human beings per day would be immensely difficult.

Not really, you say they're human beings, I say they're not. They're simply growths that may at the election of their carrier be removed. Their having DNA is of no consequence whatsoever to me.

And also, I don't "favor" abortion. I favor the option to use it where needed. I think a child can be a blessing in the proper situation. I favor the choice of birth. Where that is not desired, then there are other things that may be done.

[Luke]

The answer to your question is what must a thing be in order to be a human being?

Indeed, it comes back to the question I posed originally: What is it? At the point of conception, what is it?

I'm using science to contend that it is a human being from the point of conception.

[Midtowner]

Luke, again, science does not rule on points of philosophy. I went to considerable effort to show you this distinction.

[GrandMaMa]

I maintain that the life of the child begins as conception. This is no more arbitrary than your designation of 21 weeks and seem more logical to me. As stated above, at the point of conception there is a distinct DNA set created from the mother and father. If DNA can be used to identify one person from another, could you not, at conception consider the fetus a person? It has a seperate identity. Yes, it is completely dependent on the mother, but that is irrelevant to its identity as a human being. At the point of conception (either wanted or not), the mother becomes responsible for the life of another. Her right to make decisions concerning her body then becomes secondary to the right of the child to live. As you know, this is just opinion, but it seems a logical conclusion to me.

And what makes you so sure that life doesn't always exist, long, long before that particular conception and that maybe, just maybe, the purpose of that life (this time around) was served in only say...........5-6 monthes inutero? And, it just because the physical tissues leave it's present host, may not mean anything except a job well and truly done...by both the host and the parasite. We all attempt to make judgements without really knowing any real facts, so it's all subjective anyway.

[MadMonk]

And what makes you so sure that life doesn't always exist, long, long before that particular conception

Because I define life in physical terms, not those of metaphysical fantasy. Egg meets sperm, makes a new human. To me at least, it doesn't get any more complicated than that.

and that maybe, just maybe, the purpose of that life (this time around) was served in only say...........5-6 monthes inutero?

This time around?
In any case, if the "life" ends naturally, so be it, but to intervene and kill it is not a natural event. If you agree that it is a life we are talking about, do you think we should have the right to extinguish that life? Where do you draw the line? Maybe a murderer should go free because the "life" he killed was meant to die at that particular time - "this time".

And, it just because the physical tissues leave it's present host, may not mean anything except a job well and truly done...by both the host and the parasite. We all attempt to make judgements without really knowing any real facts, so it's all subjective anyway.

Parasite? That's an...interesting choice of words. The facts that I have stated concerning conception are not in dispute. What is in dispute is the point at which a combination of human egg and human sperm becomes enough of a human being to deserve to live.

So, where exactly do you stand on this issue? With such a seemingly mystical view of things, I'm interested in how you view abortion.

[GrandMaMa]

Because I define life in physical terms, not those of metaphysical fantasy. Egg meets sperm, makes a new human. To me at least, it doesn't get any more complicated than that.

Precisely! You define matters as you comprehend them. Metaphysical is not necessarily a fantasy, it may, in fact, be more real than what you might define REAL. So, am I hearing you correctly to say that when Ms Egg meets Mr Sperm, whether it be in a petri dish, a test tube or a fallopian tube, life begins? Physical life or metaphysical life or don't you think that is important? And if that point isn't important, why is this discussion any more important than stepping on a cockroach, or worming your animals of creatures that are using them to survive?
[/B]

This time around? If that concept confuses you or the issue, I will remove it's reference, but to me, personally, I feel that it has relevance.

In any case, if the "life" ends naturally, so be it, but to intervene and kill it is not a natural event. I didn't say NATURALLY, nor did I imply it. We all, whether we admit it or not, provide the opportunity for other individuals every day to make choices, some good, some not so good, some are just to learn by. If you agree that it is a life we are talking about, do you think we should have the right to extinguish that life? From where are rights granted? What real rights do we have, certainly we have rights to survive, don't we? Where do you draw the line? Maybe a murderer should go free because the "life" he killed was meant to die at that particular time - "this time". I would think not, I would think that he did something wrong and will or should be punished, good lesson don't you think? He was given the choice not to kill as well, but he chose differently.


Parasite? That's an...interesting choice of words. Why do you consider it an interesting choice of words..look up the definition..it doesn't necessarily need to be detrimental, it doesn't necessarily need to be a negative. The facts that I have stated concerning conception are not in dispute. What is in dispute is the point at which a combination of human egg and human sperm becomes enough of a human being to deserve to live. Well, according to your simple physical calculations, they have lived, once they met and embraced

So, where exactly do you stand on this issue? With such a seemingly mystical Mystical? Just because I dare to suggest that there just may be something outside the box that could have bearing? view of things, I'm interested in how you view abortion.

Firstly, I don't think that you could ask that question to a million people, couched the way that you did and get someone to say, yeah, I am for it, I think it's the thing to do, I think that it's a great thing! But, neither are a lot of things that we are forced to do in life, just to survive. Of course, I personally could not nor would ever say that I am for abortion. Is it sometimes necessary, yes!!!!!!!!

Should someone be able to dictate to another how to deal with the issue of their own life or body? No!!!! You simpley cannot know what went into making the decision to go forth with what no woman would choose to do just for the hell of it.

I wonder from time to time how many men would adopt a more objective way of looking at this whole issue if it actually affected him personally, and I mean, if he had to make the choice about his own body. I have scrubbed in on necessary D and C's and believe me, there is life, physical and metaphysical when that fetus is expelled. You would be surprised to see how developed they are and their reactions to stimuli and to comfort, even though they may only have minutes more to live, yes, live. So, please don't judge me as cynical or a mystical airy fairy who live in a world of What if's. ALL CONCLUSIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE, THEY ARE OPINIONS, AND THEY WILL AND DO CHANGE AS YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES AND YOUR AGE CHANGES AS WELL

[OkieBear]

I wonder from time to time how many men would adopt a more objective way of looking at this whole issue if it actually affected him personally, and I mean, if he had to make the choice about his own body.

I find it interesting that abortion has become THE issue for modern feminists (and those politicians who pander to them) when the early women's rights campaigners, such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were adamantly opposed to it, and saw it as murder of a baby and exploitation of women. They saw it as a way for men to act like jerks and not have to take responsibility for their actions. How things have changed, and not for the better.

[Midtowner]

Abortion, were it not for the battle against gay rights would be THE issue for Bible thumping neocons... It goes both ways.

[OkieBear]

Abortion, were it not for the battle against gay rights would be THE issue for Bible thumping neocons... It goes both ways.

That's because us bible thumping neocons see it the way early feminists did, as killing an unborn child. I thought most good catholics were on the same page regarding abortion?

[MadMonk]

Precisely! You define matters as you comprehend them. Metaphysical is not necessarily a fantasy, it may, in fact, be more real than what you might define REAL.

I comprehend them based on concrete proven facts, not belief is something that is currently unprovable. The key word in your above statement is "may". What you state is no more concrete or provable than if I were to say we are decendents from an alien race. That may well be, but I'm not willing to adopt a lifestyle with that in mind and I'm certainly not willing to make laws based on those assumptions.

So, am I hearing you correctly to say that when Ms Egg meets Mr Sperm, whether it be in a petri dish, a test tube or a fallopian tube, life begins? Physical life or metaphysical life or don't you think that is important?

Exactly! Is that so hard to comprehend? I am speaking purely of the physical since anything else would simply be conjecture.

And if that point isn't important, why is this discussion any more important than stepping on a cockroach, or worming your animals of creatures that are using them to survive?

Surely you can see that human life does not equate with that of an insect? If you can't see what makes human life different then we have nothing more to discuss.

This time around? If that concept confuses you or the issue, I will remove it's reference, but to me, personally, I feel that it has relevance.

Although I'm sure it is important to you, your belief in the ethereal, spritual aspects of life is irrelevant to the arguments that I am presenting.

I didn't say NATURALLY, nor did I imply it.

Correct. I made that distiction because the abortion of an otherwise viable baby is not a natural event.

We all, whether we admit it or not, provide the opportunity for other individuals every day to make choices, some good, some not so good, some are just to learn by.

Um...okay. So, how does that make the killing of another innocent human life acceptable?

From where are rights granted? What real rights do we have, certainly we have rights to survive, don't we?

We have rights in nature. However, our rights are a product of our form of government. Among other things, we have the right to life. This is precisely my point. Who/what gives you or anyone else the right to end the life of another innocent human being?

Where do you draw the line? Maybe a murderer should go free because the "life" he killed was meant to die at that particular time - "this time".

I would think not, I would think that he did something wrong and will or should be punished, good lesson don't you think? He was given the choice not to kill as well, but he chose differently.

So how is that any different if someone chooses to end the life (a.k.a. kill) a human fetus (a.k.a. baby)?

Parasite? That's an...interesting choice of words.

Why do you consider it an interesting choice of words..look up the definition..it doesn't necessarily need to be detrimental, it doesn't necessarily need to be a negative.

I find it interesting because I believe you chose the words host and parasite for the effect of dehumanizing the mother-child connection. How many people would normally call a mother a host and the child a parasite?

So, where exactly do you stand on this issue? With such a seemingly mystical view of things, I'm interested in how you view abortion.

Mystical? Just because I dare to suggest that there just may be something outside the box that could have bearing?

Perhaps mystical was a poor choice of words so I withdraw them. How about spritual?

Firstly, I don't think that you could ask that question to a million people, couched the way that you did and get someone to say, yeah, I am for it, I think it's the thing to do, I think that it's a great thing! But, neither are a lot of things that we are forced to do in life, just to survive. Of course, I personally could not nor would ever say that I am for abortion. Is it sometimes necessary, yes!!!!!!!!

Thank you. I agree that there are some cases where if the mother's life is put in danger it is acceptable, but it is a choice between two evils and would be a difficult decision.

Should someone be able to dictate to another how to deal with the issue of their own life or body? No!!!!

I generally agree, but when you have the life of another to consider, the mother's (excuse me, host's) wishes become secondary.

You simpley cannot know what went into making the decision to go forth with what no woman would choose to do just for the hell of it.

I don't make the claim to. I never implied that it was an easy decision to abort, only the wrong one; and one I believe is not rightly her's to make.

I have scrubbed in on necessary D and C's and believe me, there is life, physical and metaphysical when that fetus is expelled. You would be surprised to see how developed they are and their reactions to stimuli and to comfort, even though they may only have minutes more to live, yes, live. So, please don't judge me as cynical or a mystical airy fairy who lives in a world of What if's. ALL CONCLUSIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE, THEY ARE OPINIONS, AND THEY WILL AND DO CHANGE AS YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES AND YOUR AGE CHANGES AS WELL [/B]

I have seen my two dead 12-week-in-utero sons (yes sons) expelled from their mother's womb after they died in-utero. I know how well developed they were. I also have no doubt in my mind that they were humans and that they deserved to live as much as they did and that there was no good reason for them to die. However, it was something we had no control over. Its not fair, but that's the way things sometimes go in life.

If I have offended you concerning your spritual beliefs I'm sorry. I am trying to make the point that, even if spritual matters are excluded from the discussion, there are very good reasons for not allowing abortions to take place. I don't disagree that time can change opinions because mine has changed over the years. However, whether there is life at conception is not opinion, its fact. My age and circumstances will not change that.

[Luke]

Luke, again, science does not rule on points of philosophy. I went to considerable effort to show you this distinction.

I understand that science doesn't rule on points of philosophy. And I understand that a portion of the abortion debate comes to philosophy.

However, for the purposes of finding some common ground, I'm going to step away from the abortion debate momentarily. I'm going to try to use only science to make a point.

(If we're going to split hairs then technically the only philosophy I am assuming is really a meta-philosophy which we all tend to hold to anyways - namely, that science is a valid and intellectual standard for studying our physical world.)

That said, animals reproduce after their own kind (If I'm not mistaken, this is called the Law of Biogenetics). I am appealing to this scientific principle when I simply ask: what is the entity that is within a woman after conception? Science has an answer. It is a Homo Sapiens. And it seems from the past few posts that you are having a hard time acknowledging this scientific fact. Now, regardless of the abortion debate or philosophy, I find it hard to believe that anyone (unless they disregard science) would disagree.

Once this is established, we'll have some common ground and try to work from there.

Thanks for keeping it civil. A rarity on the internet nowadays.

[Midtowner]

I comprehend them based on concrete proven facts, not belief is something that is currently unprovable. The key word in your above statement is "may". What you state is no more concrete or provable than if I were to say we are decendents from an alien race. That may well be, but I'm not willing to adopt a lifestyle with that in mind and I'm certainly not willing to make laws based on those assumptions.

Mad, although you weren't discussing it with me, there is no way of saying that there are facts when there is anything still debatable. It may not be a debatable point four you, however, please allow for the possibility that the universe does not unfold according to your opinions on "facts."

[MadMonk]

Mad, although you weren't discussing it with me, there is no way of saying that there are facts when there is anything still debatable. It may not be a debatable point four you, however, please allow for the possibility that the universe does not unfold according to your opinions on "facts."

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but the fact I was referring to is that life (as we currently know it) is created when conception occurs. What part of that can still be debated? I am very open to any evidence that suggests a different definition. However, simple faith or belief that life is defined differently is not evidence. If we are to wax philosophical about the nature of life and truth, then everything becomes relative to each person's viewpoint. Right and wrong no longer exist. That's not the reality I live in (or would want to).