Abortion Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next

The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

View previous topic :: View next topic

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:44 am
Message
Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington Hey Reepicheep! I know this was a mistake, but your quote about the Santorum rape issue was not made by me, it was made by Taral. Right now it quotes me as saying that, lol.

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:12 pm
Message
Reepicheep Master Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 5958 Location: Sailing into the unknown Oh gosh. My bad. Sorry about that, it was a long post. _________________ Where sky and water meet, Where the waves grow sweet, Doubt not, Reepicheep, To find all you seek, There is the utter east.

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:24 pm
Message
Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington Life Is The Path wrote: I think we can all be certain that the thing growing in a human woman is indeed human Well I am glad we agree on that much. That is a vital to the arguments I have been making. Quote: So I don't think that we should be granting human rights solely on that, but rather on when it is alive or not. I agree. I am arguing that a unique human being is alive since conception, as the overwhelming majority of scientific texts and sources will agree with. You seem not to want to base your rights on being alive though, so much as whether various parts of the body are functioning (brain, heart, etc). This would be called an argument from a development standpoint, which I have beat to death already, but I would be more then happy to give you links, books, etc if you wish to look up more on the topic. Quote: At 12 weeks the brain and heart are at a point where they're capable of functioning. This is actually not true. About eighteen days after conception the heart is forming. At twenty-one days the heart is beating and pumping blood through the body. By thirty days, the brain is present. At forty days, the child's brain waves can be recorded. This is at about 5-6 weeks, before the earliest abortions take place. I don't think these things are what makes us human, since its a slippery slope argument, but you seem to. If that's true, then you ought to be pro-life, because nearly all, if not all, abortions kill a child with a beating heart and functioning brain. Quote: DNA DOES NOT DECIDE ALL. The EXPRESSION OF DNA is important. The expression of DNA is directly based on DNA. It is in no way more important. You would not have expression of DNA without existence of DNA. Once the a child's DNA sequence is complete, it is human, it will not become anything else. Various conditions or fatalities will not change that fact. It will simply be a human who did not form correctly, or a deceased human, but a human nonetheless. Taral-DLOS wrote: But if a person can have an abortion and not be thrown in jail (as is true in Canada and most US states, I believe), then she is not committing murder. That's fairly black-and-white. Laws can be wrong. If we were to never question the law, then restrictions on abortion could have never been repealed to begin with. Clearly, no one believes that the law is the highest moral authority, always right, never changing. So it would be unfair to make it so for abortion. ---- Last edited by Autobon on Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:56 pm; edited 2 times in total

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:27 pm
Message
Salaris Vorn Moderator Joined: 02 Feb 2008 Posts: 2039 Location: New York, USA Reepicheep wrote: If being pregnant/having a baby is dangerous to the mother’s health, I agree that the state cannot tell the mother not to have an abortion simply because the state cannot force someone to give up their life or choose between two lives. That said, I will always commend a mother who puts her baby before her personal health as a hero. So if I understand right you would agree that in a situation where the woman's health is threatened the state has no right to say an abortion can't happen because it could unintentionally cause a situation where the state decided two deaths was preferable to only one (since we can't know whether the baby could be stillborn or have something like a neural tube defect in which case the death of the mother was needless). Assuming I've got you right then we agree so far. Quote: No. Either pro-choice or pro-life is right. If neither are right, one is closer to the mark than the other. If you don't believe this there's no point in debating. Now just an observation here but we have established a case where pro-choice is right BUT that doesn't mean it is impossible for pro-life to be right in non-life threatening situations. (You guys have done a very good job at discussing the merits of both sides in non-life threatening situations and I'll leave you to carry on with that discussion). My point is that there is a gray zone where the clear cut black and white breaks down. I'm not trying to question your beliefs or draw a conclusion that only one side is right. Take my comment as you like, whether you agree, disagree or elect to just ponder it is your call. And to all you guys I want to commend you on keeping it civil. Keep it up! _________________ Last edited by Salaris Vorn on Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:27 pm
Message
Old Master Ben Administrator Joined: 10 Nov 2007 Posts: 2254 Location: Georgia I wanted to jump in and make a suggestion. This debate could be greatly improved if links were used to provide the source of the facts that each side presents. Just a thought.

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:40 pm
Message
Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington Salaris Vorn wrote: Reepicheep wrote: No. Either pro-choice or pro-life is right. If neither are right, one is closer to the mark than the other. If you don't believe this there's no point in debating. Now just an observation here but we have established a case where pro-choice is right BUT that doesn't mean it is impossible for pro-life to be right in non-life threatening situations. My point is that there is a gray zone where the clear cut black and white breaks down. Pro-life is still the position consistently. If the mother and child were both going to die from the pregnancy for example, you would decide to save a one of the lives, but it is still a pro-life position. You are acting to save a life, not terminate one. I believe this is what Reepicheep is trying to say and certainly what I believe. Quote: I wanted to jump in and make a suggestion. This debate could be greatly improved if links were used to provide the source of the facts that each side presents. Just a thought. I have provided names, books, and sources for much of my stuff, as have others, and agree that it makes for a better debate. ---

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:37 pm
Message
Reepicheep Master Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 5958 Location: Sailing into the unknown Salaris Vorn wrote: Reepicheep wrote: If being pregnant/having a baby is dangerous to the mother’s health, I agree that the state cannot tell the mother not to have an abortion simply because the state cannot force someone to give up their life or choose between two lives. That said, I will always commend a mother who puts her baby before her personal health as a hero. So if I understand right you would agree that in a situation where the woman's health is threatened the state has no right to say an abortion can't happen because it could unintentionally cause a situation where the state decided two deaths was preferable to only one (since we can't know whether the baby could be stillborn or have something like a neural tube defect in which case the death of the mother was needless). Assuming I've got you right then we agree so far. Sort of. I said that the state cannot (i.e. should not) be able to choose between two lives. If only the baby or the mother are likely to survive, the state can't choose which one lives and which one dies. That's the only case legally that I would agree with abortion. However, like I said, I think it is a mother's duty (or a father's!) to put their child before themselves, but I don't expect the law to demand heroism. Salaris Vorn wrote: Reepicheep wrote: No. Either pro-choice or pro-life is right. If neither are right, one is closer to the mark than the other. If you don't believe this there's no point in debating. Now just an observation here but we have established a case where pro-choice is right BUT that doesn't mean it is impossible for pro-life to be right in non-life threatening situations. (You guys have done a very good job at discussing the merits of both sides in non-life threatening situations and I'll leave you to carry on with that discussion). Good catch! I guess my official position would be that a baby should never be aborted legally, unless the pregnancy/birth can have life-threatening effects on the mother. So, like you said, my position is neither orthodox pro-life nor orthodox pro-choice, however my final position is still an absolute. I also said it's possible 'one is closer to the mark than the other' and in my final position pro-life is closer because the situation where pro-choice would be (legally, not morally) acceptable would be the exception to the rule. EDIT: Oops. I missed this: Autobon wrote: Pro-life is still the position consistently. If the mother and child were both going to die from the pregnancy for example, you would decide to save a one of the lives, but it is still a pro-life position. You are acting to save a life, not terminate one. That's correct. Save as many lives as possible. _________________ Where sky and water meet, Where the waves grow sweet, Doubt not, Reepicheep, To find all you seek, There is the utter east.

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:41 pm
Message
illogicalRogue2 Administrator Joined: 01 Sep 2009 Posts: 2845 Location: ....last know presence was near the Tingel Arm.. Taral-DLOS wrote: Determining that an unborn fetus is a person -- or is not a person -- is a moral imposition, which neither you nor I nor the legislators have a right to do. I think of situations. I mean as I said I'm personally against abortions. But I'm also against people telling anyone what they can and can not do with their own body. But those who see abortion as murder period, I think of situations where a rapist rapes a young girl (say 11) and due to this the rapist has MURDERED this girls childhood. Is choosing an abortion the right thing? (again I'd choose no, but to take away the choice, well it opens too many doors. You can't monitor people 100% of the time, whose to stop little Susie from "tripping into a chair" or "Getting jumped in a fight") But to me a Government telling you what your own personal beliefs should be is WRONG. If it was my Daughter I'd be in an even harder position than if it was my wife who chose to go through with one. One one hand I want my daughter to maintain her youth and innocence as long as possible, and if some person decided to kill that a part of me feels that it's a case of the eye for an eye. That by ending the pregnancy she might be able to maintain what little of her innocence she might still have. But it's never going to be a clean and clear cut solution. Not when dealing with people's personal beliefs. I mean most the Holy Wars were all fought for these reasons so I can't see mankind evolving enough to be able to solve this one. To me pro-choice is the closet situation where everyone wins. Those who don't want to ever have an abortion don't have to, and those who feel the choice is right FOR THEM can. Because even if it WAS OUTLAWED those who CHOOSE to have one will find a way. That was a major reason for planned parenthood in the first place- to end alley abortions that were killing both mother and child. Death is never pretty, never neat, nor easy. But there will always be a part of me that resents being told what I can and can not do. Perhaps this is my male side at play- for as I've said it's not my body thus it's not my choice. I'd like to think that due to the baby's dna being 50% mine that it gives me more right to say, but it gets back to the monitoring. If I want to keep the baby and my lady does not- what is to stop her from "tripping" and smashing her stomach into something? All I know is it's a tough decision. I do envy those who can just draw a line like Capt Picard- here this line and no further- about the situation, but I can't. I hold out that for those who choose it it has to be right for them. Some may say adoption is the solution, but even that has draw backs- kids get abused and killed in the adoption system all the time, plus if the woman pregnant is a raped child the trauma of birth and the rape will have forever changed (or even killed) who the child was before the attack. My wife always says God doesn't give us anything we can't handle. And God has a plan. For me Gods plan has both heart warming things, and heart breaking ones. I call it life. Life can't 100% be quantified. _________________ -Bring on your thousands, one at a time or all in a rush. I don't give a damn. None shall pass. - -To become a Jedi, it is not the Force one must learn to control but oneself. - -Podcasts: Star Wars Beyond the Films, The Star Wars Report, & EUCast

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:22 am
Message
Life Is The Path Master Joined: 10 Sep 2010 Posts: 3405 Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo! Autobon wrote: Life Is The Path wrote: I think we can all be certain that the thing growing in a human woman is indeed human Well I am glad we agree on that much. That is a vital to the arguments I have been making. Actually, now that I've read Taral's answer, I retract this statement, in favour of his explanation. Quote: I agree. I am arguing that a unique human being is alive since conception, as the overwhelming majority of scientific texts and sources will agree with. You seem not to want to base your rights on being alive though, so much as whether various parts of the body are functioning (brain, heart, etc). My science books argue differently. But I just said I'm basing my belief to give human rights on when a baby is considered alive, and to determine that, I base that on when two vital components are present (though other vital organs are there, too) and functioning at above animal capacity. Quote: This is actually not true. About eighteen days after conception the heart is forming. At twenty-one days the heart is beating and pumping blood through the body. By thirty days, the brain is present. At forty days, the child's brain waves can be recorded. This is at about 5-6 weeks, before the earliest abortions take place. I don't think these things are what makes us human, since its a slippery slope argument, but you seem to. If that's true, then you ought to be pro-life, because nearly all, if not all, abortions kill a child with a beating heart and functioning brain. From wikipedia (sorry OMB, I looked on the NHS website, and couldn't find my usual text format webpage - instead I found a slideshow - so I'm using this as my back up): Quote: Weeks 9 to 16 Fetus attached to placenta, approximately 12 weeks after fertilization. The fetal stage commences at the beginning of the 9th week. At the start of the fetal stage, the fetus is typically about 30 millimetres (1.2 in) in length from crown to rump, and weighs about 8 grams. The head makes up nearly half of the fetus' size. Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen. The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation. Fetuses are not capable of feeling pain at the beginning of the fetal stage, and may not be able to feel pain until the third trimester. At this point in development, uncontrolled movements and twitches occur as muscles, the brain and pathways begin to develop. This topic seems to be winding down, so I'll be bowing out now. Nice chatting with you. On to more fun topics! EDIT: Sorry, forgot to thank Cerrinea for her input. Thank you! You've provided some very interesting information. I didn't know about the 'lizard brain'. _________________ I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it. These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:09 am
Message
Reepicheep Master Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 5958 Location: Sailing into the unknown illogicalRogue2 wrote: I think of situations. I mean as I said I'm personally against abortions. But I'm also against people telling anyone what they can and can not do with their own body. But those who see abortion as murder period, I think of situations where a rapist rapes a young girl (say 11) and due to this the rapist has MURDERED this girls childhood. Is choosing an abortion the right thing? (again I'd choose no, but to take away the choice, well it opens too many doors. You can't monitor people 100% of the time, whose to stop little Susie from "tripping into a chair" or "Getting jumped in a fight") But to me a Government telling you what your own personal beliefs should be is WRONG. If it was my Daughter I'd be in an even harder position than if it was my wife who chose to go through with one. One one hand I want my daughter to maintain her youth and innocence as long as possible, and if some person decided to kill that a part of me feels that it's a case of the eye for an eye. That by ending the pregnancy she might be able to maintain what little of her innocence she might still have. But it's never going to be a clean and clear cut solution. Not when dealing with people's personal beliefs. I mean most the Holy Wars were all fought for these reasons so I can't see mankind evolving enough to be able to solve this one. Well, I agree with Autobon that there is a hierarchy of rights: 1) Life, 2) Liberty, 3) The Pursuit of Happiness. So while it may be wrong to legally to tell a woman what to do with 'her own body' (impinging on Right #2), it's more wrong to destroy an individual's chance at life (impinging on Right #1). The situation you described is a terrible one and I wish we didn't have to be discussing what to do in these situations. There's no 'perfect' solution in these situations so we just have to go with the lesser evil. As a side note, I had a bizarre nightmare not too long ago that murder was made legal. I was watching it on the news and the speaker was saying the reason was that, by making murder illegal, we're being unfair to people with psychopathy*. The abortion situation reminds me a little of that. Yes, freedom is awesome, but when deciding laws it should always follow that freedom shouldn't be allowed if it harms others. In the case of abortion, I think it does. *It is presumably 'unfair' to those who follow a death cult as well, but my subconscious didn't feel like mentioning them. _________________ Where sky and water meet, Where the waves grow sweet, Doubt not, Reepicheep, To find all you seek, There is the utter east.

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:27 am
Message
Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington Life Is The Path wrote: I'm basing my belief to give human rights on when a baby is considered alive, and to determine that, I base that on when two vital components are present (though other vital organs are there, too) and functioning at above animal capacity. You keep changing your definition for "alive." Let me just quote what you first said here: Life is The Path - "This is at the point where a phoetus gains a brain, and takes its first heartbeats. At this point it is considered alive." But now you maintain that the brain and heart must function at above animal capacity (so even babies who have already been born are not persons). In effect, you have proven my point. See how easy it was to move that definition of life? You have no foundation on which to base it on, therefore you change it to reflect what opposing arguments might have to say. I am not saying you do this on purpose, but it happened nonetheless. So again, conception, the overwhelming scientific community agrees, is when a unique life is first initiated. Its DNA sequence provides both the actual and potential biological characteristics for a human being (and for no other species). From here on it is simply a matter of development and if you wish to draw an arbitrary line at some point in this process, then you must be prepared to answer the slippery slope you have created. Life Is The Path wrote: Actually, now that I've read Taral's answer, I retract this statement, in favour of his explanation. Taral's answer in simple terms, boils down to the fact that the baby must develop based on its DNA. The expression of DNA is based on human DNA, not that of any other species (and any unfortunate abnormalities such as cancer do not turn it into another species either). That is why we do not have an epidemic of cats being born of human mothers. As for the development itself, I have argued as to why it matters not. If development were to be the standard of personhood, then only fully grown adults in perfect health could be considered as such. ------ Last edited by Autobon on Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:59 pm; edited 4 times in total

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:15 pm
Message
Taral-DLOS EUC Staff Joined: 23 Nov 2010 Posts: 1237 Location: Ontario, Canada [quote="Autobon"]That is why we do not have an epidemic of cats being born of human mothers.quote] ...YET. There was a great Doctor Who a few years back, where a catman and a human woman had a healthy litter of kittens. Not relevant, just fun _________________ It was the year of fire… the year of destruction… the year we took back what was ours. It was the year of rebirth… the year of great sadness… the year of pain… and the year of joy. It was a new age. It was the end of history. It was the year everything changed. The year is 2261. The place: Babylon 5.

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:56 pm
Message
Queen Padmè Skywalker Master Joined: 17 Jul 2009 Posts: 4926 Location: Sitting in front of a fireplace on Naboo exchanging pathetic dialogue with Anakin I remember those kittens! That was "Gridlock", wasn't it? I don't really have any interest in getting into the debate here as both sides are doing just fine without my input, but I've seen a few people bring up the, "If you don't believe in abortions, don't get one," thing. I just want to point out that if someone sees abortion as the same as murdering a child, they're going to become upset when anyone has it done. It would, in their minds, be the same as hearing about a person murdering their toddler and not being held responsible for it. Just a thought, not sure if relevant at this moment. If not, ignore me. Carry on. _________________ All things die, Anakin Skywalker, even stars burn out. So this is how liberty dies....with thunderous applause. Those without swords can still die upon them The world is a mess and I just need to rule it.

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:52 pm
Message
Taral-DLOS EUC Staff Joined: 23 Nov 2010 Posts: 1237 Location: Ontario, Canada Yes it was I have a question though. It is targeted to the men of the thread, but women should feel free to answer too. So you have a girlfriend (or someone you sleep with on occasion). Everything is wonderful. But a mistake happens. Despite your best efforts, birth control fails, and she gets pregnant. SHE weights the pros and cons, and decides to get an abortion. What do you do? Note: the answer "I would never sleep with someone who is pro-choice" is not an acceptable answer to this question. Because people can change their minds. _________________ It was the year of fire… the year of destruction… the year we took back what was ours. It was the year of rebirth… the year of great sadness… the year of pain… and the year of joy. It was a new age. It was the end of history. It was the year everything changed. The year is 2261. The place: Babylon 5.

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:37 am
Message
Dog-Poop_Walker Master Joined: 28 Jan 2012 Posts: 686 Location: Official Med. Grove Troublemaker TD, I don't understand the point of this question? The answer seems to be pretty forgone depending on your position, with really only two options to choose from, and so does not represent a real intellectual hurdle or difficult moral choice. If you oppose abortion you would try to convince her to do otherwise. If you were unable to, supposing that the strength of your conviction doesn't entail you try to forcible stop her, then you would certainly end your relationship with this person. If you supported abortion, or believed it is her choice alone, then you would accept it and go on as before.

The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 11 of 12		All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next

Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

Jump to: Select a forum Main ----------------Holonet NewsSpaceport Feedback & Suggestions The Star Wars Galaxy ----------------Aush's EU CantinaThe Movie SagaThe Clone Wars Animated TV SeriesThe Expanded Universe: Literature & Media Characters of the Expanded UniverseGamingCollecting  The Community ----------------Creative WorksThe Mos Eisley CantinaThe Meditation Grove Activity Center---------------- The LibraryThe Library's ArchivesRoleplayingBook Club Discussion EUCantina.net Exclusives----------------The Official Forum of Solo SoundVIP Chats  EUCantina Miscellaneous----------------Jobs  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum