Abortion, should it be illegal?

[Tom Yum]

...to be such a misogynist .....

What do you call a guy that only hates psycho beotches ?

miss-you-gynist....jj.

You've got style and good humor.

[Bjjexpertise@be]

I also understand that pro-lifers approach the debate from a different perspective. They see the unborn child as somebody who can potentially become an adult human being with all the rights an adult human being has, and therefore to kill a foetus is a violation of its rights. I disagree with that, and do not treat somebody as an autonomous, adult human until they actually become that. It is the reasoning behind why you don't sentence a 5-year-old to life in prison and/or the death penalty if they kill somebody. I do not ascribe rights to a being until they are either outside the womb or exhibit signs of conscious life - which happens at the 2nd or 3rd trimesters.

If you pick up any biology text book you will find that a fetus is considered a living that at conception. So don't living beings have rights too?
What difference does it make if the being is inside or outside the womb?
What do you mean by exhibiting signs of conscious life? If you mean the babies ability to think, researchers have proved that the baby has brainwaves 43 days after conception.

[Tom Yum]

What do you mean by exhibiting signs of conscious life?

A good example is Osopardo at the Xtacy Cabaret on Friday evenings, when they serve $1 bottles and $1.50 you call its.

[Bjjexpertise@be]

Of course that's osoporado [chuckles] won't be now would it..hehe..no siree...hehe

[Mulan]

If you pick up any biology text book you will find that a fetus is considered a living that at conception. So don't living beings have rights too?
What difference does it make if the being is inside or outside the womb?
What do you mean by exhibiting signs of conscious life? If you mean the babies ability to think, researchers have proved that the baby has brainwaves 43 days after conception.

Well, one difference is that while inside the womb it is not an autonomous being capable of interacting with the outside world and is completely dependent on the woman it happens to be inside of. This has been argued to mean that the baby is entirely a part of the mother's body and as such nobody except the mother can make decisions about it. This is not necessarily the stance I take, but it is still a very relevant one.

By conscious life I mean ability to feel pleasure and pain, ability to suffer, ability to recieve and interpret sensory input, to be aware of its surroundings; ability to be sentient. Are you trying to say that a fertilized egg has the same rights as an adult human being? That would demonize a lot of contraceptives. And it would then become a case of the rights of one adult human being (the mother) vs the rights of another adult human being (the foetus). I value all life and do not place any special emphasis on human life, adult or embryonic. But the rights I ascribe to any form of life are dependent on what is relevant to the capabilities of that lifeform's present state, not its potential in the future.

I already said I'm not getting into the trimester debate. It's just not my topic/area of interest. If you want to argue about it, wait till somebody who is more educated on the subject and has a strong opinion on the matter posts here. I think both sides have very strong arguments, and that is why I'm pro-choice. I really see this topic as a draw, and therefore to be left for individuals to decide for themselves, and deal with the real or apparent consequences for themselves.

And that, no one can argue; because most people who've formulated that opinion have done so to accommodate their own convenience and are usually unwilling to entertain the idea that they might be wrong, that life is life, no matter what the stage of development might be. It's that kind of thinking that had white people arguing a couple of centuries back that negroid africans were not really humans and were probably living a better life as slaves than if they had been left out in the wild.

This is a very weak argument/analogy and I hope you never use it with somebody who is passionate about the topic, cause they'll tear it to smitherines. I already mentioned above how I see the rights issue so I won't repeat it here. Suffice to say, it is in no way similar to arguments used by white people two centuries ago. While there are no discernable differences in the capabilities, awareness, or sentience of white people and black people, there are very discernable difference in the capabilities, awareness, and sentience of adult humans and fertilized eggs or embryos. The disagreement lies in the fact that pro-life types concern themselves with potential rights, while pro-choice types concern themselves with what rights are relevant in the present moment.

[osopardo]

A good example is Osopardo at the Xtacy Cabaret on Friday evenings, when they serve $1 bottles and $1.50 you call its.

(from somewhere under the table) "Bottle! Bring me another waitress!"

[Bjjexpertise@be]

Well, one difference is that while inside the womb it is not an autonomous being capable of interacting with the outside world and is completely dependent on the woman it happens to be inside of. This has been argued to mean that the baby is entirely a part of the mother's body and as such nobody except the mother can make decisions about it. This is not necessarily the stance I take, but it is still a very relevant one.

The baby has it's own world, the womb, and it moves it kicks and it reacts to sounds. STudies show that if you read to him/her, they pick up on a language faster (in this case english) and do better in English classes.
So if it's dependant on a woman she can do whatever she wants? So once the baby is born, the baby is still dependant on it's mother so she can drop kick it or do whatever the heck she wants with it?

I didn't read through the entire thread, don't have the time I'll read through it later then respond to the rest.

[Mulan]

The baby has it's own world, the womb, and it moves it kicks and it reacts to sounds. STudies show that if you read to him/her, they pick up on a language faster (in this case english) and do better in English classes.

Again, not touching trimester debate. Wait till somebody who cares shows up.

So if it's dependant on a woman she can do whatever she wants? So once the baby is born, the baby is still dependant on it's mother so she can drop kick it or do whatever the heck she wants with it?

Learn to read entire paragraphs. I am basically throwing out various arguments, not necessarily my own. Is I DO NOT HAVE A STRONG OPINION ON THE ISSUE SINCE BOTH SIDES HAVE GOOD ARGUMENTS, THEREFORE I'M PRO-CHOICE, not clear enough for you? But anyhow, the above argument is not simply that the fetus is dependent on the mother, it is that the fetus is dependent on the mother because it is part of her body. That is the difference.

[osopardo]

I DO NOT HAVE A STRONG OPINION ON THE ISSUE SINCE BOTH SIDES HAVE GOOD ARGUMENTS, THEREFORE I'M PRO-CHOICE, not clear enough for you?...

No, that makes no sense at all. You don't have a strong opinion on the issue yet you, (a) pick a side, (b) clearly state your reasoning for picking that side and (c) defend your choice?

It's as if you do have strong opinion but don't wish to discuss it, yet you do discuss it....

Nope, sorry, I just don't get it...

[Mulan]

No, that makes no sense at all. You don't have a strong opinion on the issue yet you, (a) pick a side, (b) clearly state your reasoning for picking that side and (c) defend your choice?

It's as if you do have strong opinion but don't wish to discuss it, yet you do discuss it....

Contrary to what you may believe, there is no "pro-abortion" side, there is only "pro-choice," which is mostly made up of people who would not want to have an abortion themselves, but understand that there are circumstances that might justify it. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need abortions, but this aint a perfect world. Pro-choice is the acknowlegement of people's right to choose what they, after exploring all the options, feel is right for them. I don't know how you can even call it a "side."

I do answer when somebody quotes me and asks me a direct question. I think ignoring direct questions is insulting. But, much like HandtoHand, I think I will indeed stop posting here too. As far as I'm concerned, the pro-life "side" are just people who chose not to have an abortion, and I really have no qualms with them.

Have fun flaming each other.

[osopardo]

... there is no "pro-abortion" side, there is only "pro-choice," which is mostly made up of people who would not want to have an abortion themselves, but understand that there are circumstances that might justify it. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need abortions, but this aint a perfect world. Pro-choice is the acknowlegement of people's right to choose what they, after exploring all the options, feel is right for them. I don't know how you can even call it a "side."

Too convenient. Which is what this whole discussion really is all about, making a "choice" out of convenience rather than what is right.