Abortion [Originally started in Topic: Re: Oslo Bombing]

[polar]

A lot were shotty at best?  wtf.  They were put on DEATH ROW dude!!  corruption or not.  There were plenty found innocent after George W fried them by DNA evidence. There are many more because the cases stop at death.   The system doesn't work... its that simple.  So I can't support the system with my vote.   Now you want things "Swiftly" done in which that leaves more room for corruption.  What  about the future 1000's of lives that don't make CNN that were due 'swiftly'??   They can't even get it right slowly.

Now personally....  in this case looks like its a 'slam dunk'.   Myself ....   yea I'd expect to die legally if that was me. In fact I'd sign off on that.  21 years is a joke imho. and I wouldn't mind if he was off'd in a reasonable timeframe if the guy is 'sane'.  but where do you draw the line?  'Death Penalty' has already been abused. If there was a new system in place, I already said I would be open to it to think it through. 


In a failed system of course.  1 innocent life I would never want to be on death row.

Do you want to pay for it?   [edit]
 

at least you're consistent.  i usually laugh at those who support abortion but are against the death penalty

[dman1991]

at least you're consistent.  i usually laugh at those who support abortion but are against the death penalty

I gather from this that those arguing against the death penalty are for abortion in certain cases, like rape, etc?

[polar]

I gather from this that those arguing against the death penalty are for abortion in certain cases, like rape, etc?

i can't speak for others, but i don't agree with abortion in any case

[mooney]

at least you're consistent.  i usually laugh at those who support abortion but are against the death penalty

Seems i along with everyone else missed this moronic statement. Can we have him back just for this?

[dman1991]

Did he get banned? Btw, why do you consider that statement moronic?

[Sean]

Did he get banned?

haha no.     maybe the reality of him becoming a father is kicking him in his already crazy SOB head hmmmm  and something like that.....    perhaps a melt down?       come on ol' pal... tell me to wanker off now.  We're all equals here and see ?   we're not robots

[mooney]

Did he get banned? Btw, why do you consider that statement moronic?

well he isn't here to clarify, but typically people who are opposed to both do so on the grounds that they are one and the same. This only works if you decide that an abortion is killing a 'baby'. Which is simply not true. Then they will argue that, 'well, it has the potential to become a baby - a human, with a central nervous system etc...'. Well by that logic you have to be opposed to condoms etc... Killing an already living, full developed human being in the name of 'justice' is not in any way on the same level as killing something that has the 'potential' to be a human being. Concern for those already in existence seems like a more worthy cause.

It's a matter of suffering, basically. Who suffers more, Troy Davies and his family, or an embryo aborted before a nervous system has developed? Or for that matter (hypocritically i'm not a vegetarian but...) swap davies' name with 'a pig' or 'a cow'... who suffers more in that scenario? a mother having a baby they don't want will likely suffer too. A cluster of embryonic cells almost certainly do not suffer.

[dman1991]

I wouldnt say its moronic to consider it killing a baby, just a difference in philosophy. At what point does abortion stop being ok? Is late term abortion any different that early? Where do you draw the line? Who is to know what could have become of the embryo, is it up to us to play god, or whatever sort of fate you may believe in? What if a baby that wasnt wanted could potentially turn out to be the next Gandhi?

Of course, I agree in womens rights, and their right to choose, but the same logic could be applied to abortion. We may not know if Davies was guilty, and it almost surely seems he wasnt, but at the same time we may not know what is to become of the fetus. I do not think any case like the Troy Davies case should be up for execution, but I certainly think there should be exceptions for a death penalty.

Also back to the mother suffering, wouldnt there be some psychological ramifications of having an abortion? Mental anguish?

[Sean]

I took it more as an off the cuff one liner complement with an off the cuff stereo-vibe sogginess to it.  and leaning on mooney's more looking at it from different angles.

   now you know why I didn't respond to it.


gonna separate this out from the Oslo thread into a new one.


ps. I never stated that I know of,  if I am for abortion or not. I already stated my reasoning with FAQ for 'death' sentence.

[jcarter125]

if abortion is not killing a baby, maybe it's killing the chance of somebody to be born and live.

[mooney]

I wouldnt say its moronic to consider it killing a baby, just a difference in philosophy.

It's not philosophy. It's biology. It's simply inaccurate - or at best, premature - to call a bunch of cells without a nervous system a 'baby'.

At what point does abortion stop being ok? Is late term abortion any different that early? Where do you draw the line? Who is to know what could have become of the embryo, is it up to us to play god, or whatever sort of fate you may believe in? What if a baby that wasnt wanted could potentially turn out to be the next Gandhi?

At what point does it stop being ok... well I'm not a biologist. My best guess would be when it starts to develop a nervous system etc... I'm sure you can google it. I'd be interested to know if you do.

As for Gandhi, well, firstly, what about that embryo that turned out to be a crazy Austrian with a mustache'... Clearly that can go both ways. The point is, as i stated, the 'potential Ganghi', or the more commonly used, 'potential Beethoven' argument is totally illogical and actually defeats itself. If you are opposed to killing 'potential', you must be opposed to contraception. You can't have it both ways. You must also be opposed to someone opposing rape... in other words, any chance of fertilization must be taken or else you are 'potentially' killing Gandhi, MLK (or Pol Pot)... 'Potential' simply doesn't work here.

Also back to the mother suffering, wouldnt there be some psychological ramifications of having an abortion? Mental anguish?

Quite possibly, but ultimately, as the already existing human with a central nervous system and the body to home the potential child, it should be her choice. I'm not arguing getting an abortion is an easy decision for a woman, im sure it is very tough indeed.

if abortion is not killing a baby, maybe it's killing the chance of somebody to be born and live.

in accordance with YOUR own logic then, so does resisting rape, wearing a condom, or passing up any chance of copulation that may lead to a humans existence.

[2NaFish]

if abortion is not killing a baby, maybe it's killing the chance of somebody to be born and live.

i got a lingering glance off a hottie on the bus today. the chance to get my leg over and make a baby was lost when she got off and i didnt make a move.

murder is wrong.

[dman1991]

I wouldnt say its moronic to consider it killing a baby, just a difference in philosophy.

It's not philosophy. It's biology. It's simply inaccurate - or at best, premature - to call a bunch of cells without a nervous system a 'baby'.

At what point does abortion stop being ok? Is late term abortion any different that early? Where do you draw the line? Who is to know what could have become of the embryo, is it up to us to play god, or whatever sort of fate you may believe in? What if a baby that wasnt wanted could potentially turn out to be the next Gandhi?

At what point does it stop being ok... well I'm not a biologist. My best guess would be when it starts to develop a nervous system etc... I'm sure you can google it. I'd be interested to know if you do.

As for Gandhi, well, firstly, what about that embryo that turned out to be a crazy Austrian with a mustache'... Clearly that can go both ways. The point is, as i stated, the 'potential Ganghi', or the more commonly used, 'potential Beethoven' argument is totally illogical and actually defeats itself. If you are opposed to killing 'potential', you must be opposed to contraception. You can't have it both ways. You must also be opposed to someone opposing rape... in other words, any chance of fertilization must be taken or else you are 'potentially' killing Gandhi, MLK (or Pol Pot)... 'Potential' simply doesn't work here.

I have read through a few sources, and none can actually pinpoint when the unborn fetus begins to think. Some say it has been witnessed that they can feel pain around 16 weeks, but nothing is exact, there is still much to be discovered about an adults CNS, let alone an undeveloped one.


I must ask, you think it is ok to abort a being that has never had a chance to live, but it is not ok the carry the death penalty on a fully developed adult who was proven 100% beyond a reasonable doubt guilty in an act of absolute evil causing mass casualty?

[2NaFish]

I must ask, you think it is ok to abort a being that has never had a chance to live,

How can it be a 'being' if it has not yet lived? I appreciate what you're getting at, but what mooney says about potential stands and what you've presented is just another wording of the same point i feel.

[dman1991]

I must ask, you think it is ok to abort a being that has never had a chance to live,

How can it be a 'being' if it has not yet lived? I appreciate what you're getting at, but what mooney says about potential stands and what you've presented is just another wording of the same point i feel.

At what point does potential change to actuality? When I say a chance to live I mean beyond the womb, at what point it becomes a being with feeling and senses seems to be up for debate from a biological standpoint.

[2NaFish]

you're right, it is absolutely up for debate, but if you present it as 'in favour of abortion' versus 'against the death penalty' you're creating a false debate.

[mooney]

I have read through a few sources, and none can actually pinpoint when the unborn fetus begins to think. Some say it has been witnessed that they can feel pain around 16 weeks, but nothing is exact, there is still much to be discovered about an adults CNS, let alone an undeveloped one.


I must ask, you think it is ok to abort a being that has never had a chance to live, but it is not ok the carry the death penalty on a fully developed adult who was proven 100% beyond a reasonable doubt guilty in an act of absolute evil causing mass casualty?

In England the cut off point for an abortion is 24 weeks, and in 2007, "According to the Department of Health, there were 193,000 abortions in England and Wales last year. Of that total, 89% were performed in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7044066.stm

Like i said, i'm not a biologist. But 24 weeks seems fairly reasonable from what i can gather. As to the death penalty... I think you mentioned "playing god" right? are you not contradicting yourself here? If i'm to oppose 'mass casualty', ya know, murder, illegal wars, etc... I have to be consistent. It's not good enough to kill the killer. It's still killing. It's entirely hypocritical and completely undermines the justice system. That's without mentioning mistakes (maybe Troy Davies is an example).

Am i to assume that, should someone find themselves on death row, you'd be willing to allow them to live, providing they can give evidence showing that they were once an embryo too? On one hand to want to preserve life, and the other you want to take it? I dont get it? I dont understand why you'd prioritise a bunch of cells over a human being.

[Robbie]

I have my opinions but it's hardly the place to discuss

[dman1991]

Ugh nobody even bothers to read anymore, why bother...

I said the death penalty should be reserved and extremely particular. I agree that Daives should not have been executed. I do not agree that Anders Brevik should be fed and clothed everyday.

I also thought I agreed with womens right, though the more I look into this issue the more I feel abortion is just wrong. What does it really solve? It has turned into a negative out as opposed to a positive for society.

Here is what I think is a good question. What do you think would be better, a society with or without abortion? Abortion is legal nowadays, yet we still have fucked up people. Do you think that if it were illegal things would be worse?

[2NaFish]

Here is what I think is a good question. What do you think would be better, a society with or without abortion? Abortion is legal nowadays, yet we still have fucked up people. Do you think that if it were illegal things would be worse?

Back street, illegal abortions wouldnt make things better, no.

[Rocket Queen]

Ugh nobody even bothers to read anymore, why bother...

I said the death penalty should be reserved and extremely particular. I agree that Daives should not have been executed. I do not agree that Anders Brevik should be fed and clothed everyday.

I also thought I agreed with womens right, though the more I look into this issue the more I feel abortion is just wrong. What does it really solve? It has turned into a negative out as opposed to a positive for society.

Here is what I think is a good question. What do you think would be better, a society with or without abortion? Abortion is legal nowadays, yet we still have fucked up people. Do you think that if it were illegal things would be worse?

What kind of reasoning is this? Aborting is legal yet we have fucked up people? What is your point?

Women will, and are, performing self inflicted abortions whether or not it is legal. Societies were abortion is illegal usually have a less equal view of women and their reproductive rights and result in back alley illegal and extremely dangerous and painful abortions, as 2na said.

No one wants to be in a situation where an abortion is required. But many are, and it is sometimes the best for both the undeveloped cluster of cells and its carrier and potential mom, to abort.

Countries were abortion is legal do not encourage people to terminate pregnancies, this is a last resort. They usually have a support system in place to help women make a suitable decision and help them carry out their pregnancy if they choose to keep it. Countries where it is illegal often do not have a well developed support system, which often results in complete desperation on the woman's part, and sometimes sketchy dangerous abortions, chronic health issues, shame, pain and fear.

[dman1991]

Yea I was just throwing some rhetorical questions out there and was not in a good mind frame, i agree the logic is flawed in some of that last statement. What gets me is the excuse that I cannot handle a baby, I am not ready for this, typical irresponsible approach. I agree it is necessary in certain cases, but at the same time it is an easy out for irresponsible actions.

Rq, I have read a few things about when the fetus begins to sense and feel, and have seen a few conflicting reports, with one saying pain has been witnessed as early as 16 weeks. Mooney and I were discussing when the appropriate cutoff time is for abortions, or if it is even known.

If 24 weeks is ok, whats the difference between that and 1 month out of the womb? Should we be allowed to decide that a 1 month old may have a worse life if it is alive rather than dead? I mean, the baby wont remember anything and we have given ourselves to power to determine whether or not a life should happen, and to determine what the best outcome is for the future. If someone has a serious disease detected early should we just off them to ease the suffering of the subject and his or her family?

[mooney]

Ugh nobody even bothers to read anymore, why bother...

I said the death penalty should be reserved and extremely particular. I agree that Daives should not have been executed. I do not agree that Anders Brevik should be fed and clothed everyday.

I also thought I agreed with womens right, though the more I look into this issue the more I feel abortion is just wrong. What does it really solve? It has turned into a negative out as opposed to a positive for society.

Here is what I think is a good question. What do you think would be better, a society with or without abortion? Abortion is legal nowadays, yet we still have fucked up people. Do you think that if it were illegal things would be worse?

Ignoring names (i was using troy merely as an example, not with any intent of discussing his case, just to clear up), 100% absolute proof is sort of impossible (if we're being really strict about our 'proofs' and 'truths'). The death penalty is flatly hypocritical. That's  really not up for discussion. I haven't mentioned the word compassion yet, but im sure you've heard this a million times so i dont think i need to address it.

I know you're just hypothesising, but surely abortion being illegal would be massively worse. Firstly for the reasons already stated (backstreet abortions, a mother being forced to give birth to a child they dont want, and all associated problems), but secondly - and at this point i should stress i dont think of nor condone abortion as a kind of throw-away method for birth control, like, "oh shit, im up the duff, best pop off to clinic" - you know, like a condom or something... - but the earth of over populated, running low on resources, environment is heading in a pretty bad way etc... I dont know how many abortions take place per year in the world - legal or otherwise. But i imagine forcing pregnant women to go through with a birth would have some negative effects in this respect too. It's a little out of left field, and it's hardly my primary concern on this issue, but maybe worth considering, since you mentioned the effects on society etc... Plus, according to your hypothesis, wouldnt more people in the world generally increase the likely hood of more fucked up people - just by sheer numbers...? Let alone a child raised unwillingly, i'd imagine, is more likely to become a "fuck up"... Maybe?

If 24 weeks is ok, whats the difference between that and 1 month out of the womb? Should we be allowed to decide that a 1 month old may have a worse life if it is alive rather than dead? I mean, the baby wont remember anything and we have given ourselves to power to determine whether or not a life should happen, and to determine what the best outcome is for the future. If someone has a serious disease detected early should we just off them to ease the suffering of the subject and his or her family?

Im not fully sure of what you are asking? Do you mean a one month year old baby as in, born on the 1st of jan, and applying your Q on the 1st of feb? why would i suddenly decide to kill a baby? I dont advocate murder. Like i said, abortion only ='s murder if you decide a cluster of cells is a 'baby' - which is inaccurate. a month year baby is a baby. with a CNS etc... and would suffer. It's a no brainer really. Unless im misunderstanding your point?

[mooney]

jesus, i started writing that 2 hours ago, left the room, forgot about it until now... realised i hadnt finished it, rushed the last sentence and hit send without proof reading. I sound like horsey! "a month year baby is a baby"? wtf? replace 'year' with 'old'. I cant be arsed to rectify the monstrosity that is the first section. Maybe someone can derive amusement from it instead, if nothing else.

[dman1991]

My main point here is biology cant decided exactly when the fetus develops its central nervous system. I have to do another google when I get more time, but an article I read talked of cases in which 16 week old fetus were shown to be pulling away from prodding, hence feeling discomfort, which could mean its central nervous system has started to develop.