Abortion and the Death Penalty

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Cazzo, Jul 18, 2008.

?

I am :

  1. For abortion and for the death penalty.

    16 vote(s)
    41.0%
  2. Against abortion and against the death penalty.

    3 vote(s)
    7.7%
  3. Against abortion and for the death penalty.

    11 vote(s)
    28.2%
  4. For abortion and against the death penalty.

    8 vote(s)
    20.5%
  5. Not sure.

    1 vote(s)
    2.6%
  1. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Well, it depends on the country I think.

    Wtf.. ? Really ?

    Yikes, that would be upsetting to say the least. I would definitely not agree to abortion after 24 weeks but preferably sooner.

    I didn't know that. Aren't there other methods ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: That's why they call it "expecting." Miscarriage and abortion are the same thing, it just depends on the woman's expectation of her pregnant condition. If she wants the baby and she aborts, it's called a miscarriage. If she finds herself unhappily pregnant and terminates the pregnancy electively, it's called an abortion.

    The abortion procedure (there are several methods depending of gestational age) is generally called a dilatation and evacuation (D&E). It is the same exact procedure as a dilatation and curettage (D&C). They can be used interchangeably, but for medical accuracy, it's best to specify the reason for doing the procedure.

    I'm sure you know this. I just thought I'd spell it out for the non-medical members.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,295
    Unlike you, I do not pretend to read minds. I have never known anyone, individually or as a society, to treat the product of an early miscarriage as if it were a child, dead or alive (in most cases, whether or not it is alive is not even determined). Have you ?

    So you agree that what you are talking about is the risk and sacrifice of the woman's life to a degree determined by others for the satisfaction of a "potential" defined by others.

    That's a start.
    Bullshit.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    I've never heard of anyone getting a miscarriage with a D&C.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Geez, thats awful.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,295
    Its more or less bullshit, Sam.

    Think a minute - the "morning after" abortion pill is required to be used before the sixth week, for example. Very late second and third trimester abortions (when a baby could cry) are not done frequently, or wholesale in abortion clinics, nor is the baby delivered alive during them. And so forth.

    MW will turn around in a minute and tell you how horrible the dismemberment and skull crushing of very late term abortions - the kind that are done to directly save the life of the mother or in some specific cases of extremely severe maldevelopment only, the kind that are done maybe a few dozen times in millions of pregnancies - is, and never register the contradiction with the accounts of the baby crying as the abortionist bashes its head on the counter.
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Most abortions I have seen have been done in the 11 to 12 week range. I wouldn't be surprised, if where it is legal to do it later, women wait until later.
     
  10. Cazzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    I can't imaging giving someone an abortion.
    What kind of person would want to do that ?
    You'd have to be VERY cold IMO.
     
  11. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    Agree with you there. Especially after the post about crying aborted fetus, I feel
    my stomach was really sick. I need to stay away from this thread for some time
    to keep my sanity. I feel really shame to be in the same group with human species.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,631
    I agree. The same thing goes for anyone who kills any animal, either for a living or for sport. They must all be heartless bastards! Didn't they see Bambi??? Or what about guys who operate electric chairs and purposefully fry other human beings alive. That's inhuman!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,295
    You don't have to guess. There are statistics - they've been counted. More than 90% of US abortions are done in the first trimester, for example.

    Of the remaining fraction, many have been unnecessarily delayed by various effects of abortion opponents - legal delays, unavailability of clinics, etc.

    Abortions done at a stage of pregnancy where the baby has a ghost of a chance of being able to cry, and by techniques that would deliver a live baby at that stage, are both rare and extreme, specialized, major, expensive, non-routine events. They are not done at whim, simply by demand, or routinely in abortion clinics, whether they are legal or not.

    And MW's post does not add up. We are supposed to imagine a crying baby having its brains removed using forceps ? Why in hell ? There have to be a hundred more convenient ways of killing a crying baby, even if your clinic has been taken over by evil Mengele clones. Having its head bashed against the counter ? One major circumstance behind late abortions is anencephaly - removing brains with forceps and bashing heads on counters isn't going to do the trick with those kids. Evil Doc better have a backup plan.

    Pah. The whole thing is inflammatory BS.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,519
    SAM:

    Netiher do I, as it happens.

    It seems that for a lot of people (probably yourself included) that the moment you have a human being. whether it is a one-celled blastocyst, six-week old embryo, or 8.5 month-old foetus, for some reason it should instantly be granted the same rights as all human adults (or at least young children).

    I don't see why. For reasons I have already explained, what is important is not the potential of something to become something else, but what the something is right now. Pretending that an embryo is a child is silly. It patently is not a child, although it might become one in future.

    Kadark:

    I noted this before.

    Essentially, your argument for the special status of human embryos rests entirely on the fact that they are members of the human species, and nothing else.

    I think that species membership is a simplistic way of determining the intrinsic value of a living being. It ends up undervaluing many valuable beings and overvaluing many undeveloped beings.

    That's right, because in the end species is all that is visible to you and all that matters. Our discussion indeed is over, because of your lack of moral sophistication.

    Why? If your view is that all human beings, from the moment of conception, have special moral value due to their membership of the human species, then why pretend that some human beings are more valuable than others? You don't really think that - you're not arguing for a sliding scale of sin in abortion. You have already stated you think that all abortion is immoral from the moment of conception. If abortion is murder, as I'm sure you think it is, how can murdering a six-month old foetus be any worse than murdering a six-week old embryo?

    You're seriously comparing a one-celled blastocyst to a newborn child. Why draw the line at the single cell?

    Why? We interfere with nature all the time in our daily lives. Why should the matter of conception or abortion be any different? And do you support birth control (contraception)? To do so would surely be hypocritical, since you advocate that nature needs to be allowed to takes its course.

    No. I was talking about my potential, as a human being, to become a millionaire, just as you are talking about the potential for a human embryo to become a child.

    Then reduce the odds, to 1 in 4, say. By your argument, having brought my 1-in-4 chance lottery ticket, I have a right to claim the prize before the draw, since I am a potential winner. The particular odds aren't important.

    Er.. no. My example demonstrates that a potential X is not the same as an X, and clearly does not have the same interests and entitlements as an X.

    Actually, I am interested in why you think that abortion is justifiable in the case of rape. If the life of the human being is paramount, shouldn't the foetuses interests dominate, even in the case of rape? Why do you make an exception and allow abortion in that case?

    Absolutely. Would you want to bring a child into the world if you knew you could not care for it adequately, or that it would not be happy or secure?

    I find your generalisations based on your underlying misogyny distasteful.

    Again, why those exceptions? How does rape suddenly obliterate the rights of the baby, which you argue is a precious human being?

    What I actually said was that both have equal responsibility for conception of the child. You misunderstood, it seems.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,519
    Oh, and another thing...

    Do you think that if a baby is born prematurely it should be put in an incubator, or given whatever other medical treatment it needs?

    What about if a problem is detected late in pregnancy, that can be cured by medical intervention?

    I suppose you would say "Let nature take its course. If the baby dies, it dies! Doctors should not intervene."

    Right?
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,519
    Oh, and another thing...

    Many women choose to become pregnant for "personal reasons". Some think that they will have a child to love them. Some think they will be personally more fulfilled if they have a child. Some think having a child will save their marriage.

    I don't hear you complaining about these kinds of "personal reasons".

    Also, women, when pregnant, are advised not to smoke, drink, take drugs, and do other things that may harm their unborn child. But some still do so for "personal reasons". And yet, there are no laws against taking heroin while you're pregnant, for example. Should there be, in your opinion?

    Why are some "personal reasons" perfectly valid for you, while other personal reasons are not acceptable? If you really believe that "nature should be allowed to take its course", then women should not be allowed to choose when or whether to have a child at all. Maybe it should be dictated to them that they must have a child - say when they reach 21. Why not have a law that forces every woman to have a child at 21? That would remove all those pesky "personal reasons" that are so invalid. After all, the woman's choice is unimportant. Right?
     
  17. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: Not so. Each of the states have differing laws regarding abortion rights. It's not the sole judgment of a particular "country".

    I don't like the law, but I cannot discriminate against it. Nobody likes abortion. Nobody. It's a putative decision, and it's entirely personal.

    Let's give women the pro-choice right, but let's not quibble about it. In the end, the woman should make the decision what happens within her uterus. That's the right thing to do.
     
  18. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: You need to check the laws of your area. It's different in different states.
     
  19. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: I really don't care what goes on in other countries.

    Wtf..? Really?

    Yikes, that would be upsetting to say the least. I would definitely not agree to abortion after 24 weeks but preferably sooner.
    *************
    M*W: Me neither, but life goes on or it doesn't. I'm only a medical practitioner. I don't judge people, I just perform a simple procedure for them. I don't like it. Nobody does. I'm not doing it for the money, I'm doing it for the impact that has on human decisions.

    *************
    M*W: There are other methods of terminating a pregnancy. Nobody likes it. It's disgusting, but I'm telling you the facts.
     
  20. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: I don't like it any better than you do. I'm just stating the facts as I see them. Abortion is a horrible way to eliminate human tissue, but it is the most convenient way. I don't like it, but I have to do my job as I see it. In fact, I absolutely hate to do this procedure, but I have a commitment to women who choose it. It's their body, and they can do with it what they wish whether I like it or not. I would much prefer delivering live babies to people who want them.
     

Share This Page