106 replies to this topic

[Renmauzo]

Littiz, on Dec 20 2002, 04:34 PM, said:

@Renmauzo:
You're right that we cannot consider "potential" crimes, but don't confuse beings NOT
in existance with beings already created, who started their own cycle of life, and their run
towards mature life and death.
It's the 3 weeks deadline that I cannot logically accept (though I can understand the reasoning).
Of course, I'm sure the being wouldn't suffer much at this stage, but for my concern about
definitions, it's still a human being. You'd kill it in the first 3 weeks...
Why not 3 weeks and 1 second?
Are brainwaves so different?
Who decides the deadline?
Is the deadline the same for every new "instance" of child?
Assuming the deadline is correct, have you precise enough clocks to decide when a fetus becomes a child?
And how long does this transition last?
Again, I believe the only start we can recognize is THE start.

About the environment subtopic, I'm in line with Renmauzo, such a reasoning leads nowhere.
Why don't we go killing all the poor and derelicts then? And what about murders, sexual abuses,
violences that happen in the "good society" ?? Are you so sure environment says it all, Quitch?
Maybe poorness can push more to thievery than else, while all the rest remain innate.
Do a thief deserve death? Even before he may actually become a thief?
And if you slaughter this mob of children just to kill some potential criminals
(assuming for the moment that those deserve death), what about the others?
Those who would have lived their simple and troubled lives, still maybe one day
warmed by friends, love, the simple pleasure of debates, or the rare presence of
someone to hug, just for a moment?
We have to preserve them, no need for them to become great artist or something (right Chev? )

Quote

There are far more consistant reasons for and against abortion besides potential.

I don't think we need reasons for or against anything. We have only to know if we are
speaking about homicides or not. The rest follows.

EDIT: I fear we're no more speaking only about the mod, Serje, my friend

So its not their potential, but rather (and I summarize here) "We should not interfere with natures due course" This is another reason against abortion, although its not one I share. For one, were we to adhere to this we could not treat diseases or genetic conditions; because were we to do so wed be violating this maxim. Ah you may say, I mean we should not interfere with nature when there is potential involved (IE a combination of the two), however this is exactly what abortion is; so you are in fact saying we should not abort because abortion is wrong. Either way I dont beleive in potential or "nature" for these reasons.

[Littiz]

Waitwaitwaitwait.
Never spoken about the course of Nature. Pointless, ALL is nature, in my PoV.
About the common interpretation of Nature, we interfere with its course everytime,
even the use of preservatives would qualify...
But I won't say anything against such things!

I summarize myself:
If a fetus is a human being (and I believe it is), AND if common laws defend life
of innocent humans above all else => abortion is to be rejected by the same laws.

All other considerations are marginal.
Then, if you ask me, I do find it innatural that a mother may want to kill his
child, I believe only humans are capable of such a desire, but that's another story.
(don't consider me a fanatic, anyway, I'm only one who doesn't take things for granted )

[alustriel]

Littiz, on Dec 21 2002, 08:17 AM, said:

All other considerations are marginal.
Then, if you ask me, I do find it innatural that a mother may want to kill his
child, I believe only humans are capable of such a desire, but that's another story.
(don't consider me a fanatic, anyway, I'm only one who doesn't take things for granted   )

That's not entirely true. Many animals will abandon their offspring to die, or eat them, if times are bad. Not to mention in the case of marsupials and other species, harsh times of little food/water will cause the fetus to be aborted and/or reabsorbed into the body.

The first instance is what you term "unnatural" but it happens very frequently none-the-less; the second, is nature's way of aborting when times would not be optimal for the survival of the young. Sure humans are supposed to be above heeding such primal instincts as killing young, but there are direct parallels between the animal kingdom's definition of hard times and the case of a 12 or 13 year old girl that is mostly incapable of caring for an infant, either physically, mentally, or emotionally. When you get down to the absolute bottom line, laws aside, there is little *biological* difference. I'm not speaking moral or judicial either.

Not all women/girls that get pregnant live in a happy family or have supportive family to assist them through the hard times. A great deal of them are living a lifestyle involving drugs and alcohol which in the end can be devastating to a fetus. Why is there such a moral outcry about abortion but not nearly as visceral a reaction to crack addicts that have child after addicted child. Children with birth defects, both physical and mental, that many times only leads to a poor outcome in life. Horrible living conditions with little or inadequate food and the constant danger that the mom will get up and leave the child behind at any time due to the lure of drugs. How is abortion wrong, but force feeding a child drugs all through pregnancy is a better solution? I personally think it's reprehensible to put a child through that when maybe abortion would have been the lesser of the evils....

[chevalier des Trois-Tours]

Hmm... Anyone thought what happens emotionally to those 13 to 18 might-have-been mothers when they someday realise the full spectrum of what they did / was done to them? Well, not only 13 to 18. Adult women are known to have committed suicide after thinking more about the subject. Cases of (partial) insanity happen more often.

If you deliberately kill someone who can't defend himself, no matter how you justify yourself before yourself or others, it will get you some pretty nice day. Of course if some feelings are left in you and there is only oneyou.

[Renmauzo]

chevalier des Trois-Tours, on Dec 22 2002, 03:11 AM, said:

Hmm... Anyone thought what happens emotionally to those 13 to 18 might-have-been mothers when they someday realise the full spectrum of what they did / was done to them? Well, not only 13 to 18. Adult women are known to have committed suicide after thinking more about the subject. Cases of (partial) insanity happen more often.

If you deliberately kill someone who can't defend himself, no matter how you justify yourself before yourself or others, it will get you some pretty nice day. Of course if some feelings are left in you and there is only oneyou.

Yeah Chev, that hits closer to home than you may think. My own mother had two abortions before having me and my sister. The emotional baggage she carries is incredible.

[alustriel]

And again.... you talk about the emotional baggage caused by abortion, but make no mention of the emotional baggage carried by the child after what they've been put through, nor the emotional turmoil felt by a mother that might later clean up her life and have to face the fact that they mothered a child that is in an institution being cared for because they'll never grow up to be able to care for themselves. All of this directly due to the actions of the mother. I'm going to be honest here. I would have far MORE guilt on my soul about that than I would about aborting a 2 week old ball of cells. And at 2 weeks, it is little more than that.

[chevalier des Trois-Tours]

Renmauzo: I hope it wasn't too close. Sorry if this caused pain to you.

Lady A: I also would feel more guilty for killing a man alive a thousand times than for killing him dead once. But we can't assume the man actually prefered the second way.

[Renmauzo]

chevalier des Trois-Tours, on Dec 22 2002, 05:03 AM, said:

Renmauzo: I hope it wasn't too close. Sorry if this caused pain to you.

Lady A: I also would feel more guilty for killing a man alive a thousand times than for killing him dead once. But we can't assume the man actually prefered the second way.

No worries, I cant say it causes pain; it does evoke some serious thought though.

[Renmauzo]

alustriel, on Dec 22 2002, 04:45 AM, said:

And again.... you talk about the emotional baggage caused by abortion, but make no mention of the emotional baggage carried by the child after what they've been put through, nor the emotional turmoil felt by a mother that might later clean up her life and have to face the fact that they mothered a child that is in an institution being cared for because they'll never grow up to be able to care for themselves. All of this directly due to the actions of the mother. I'm going to be honest here. I would have far MORE guilt on my soul about that than I would about aborting a 2 week old ball of cells. And at 2 weeks, it is little more than that.

I tend to think the idea wasnt that one may or may not cause more pain than the other, but any way you slice it having an abortion is going to cause emotional issues. Whether thats less than having the child or not is up to debate, but if anything its a testament to practicing safe sex--or none at all.

[Littiz]

Quote

Not all women/girls that get pregnant live in a happy family or have supportive family to assist them through the hard times. A great deal of them are living a lifestyle involving drugs and alcohol which in the end can be devastating to a fetus. Why is there such a moral outcry about abortion but not nearly as visceral a reaction to crack addicts that have child after addicted child. Children with birth defects, both physical and mental, that many times only leads to a poor outcome in life. Horrible living conditions with little or inadequate food and the constant danger that the mom will get up and leave the child behind at any time due to the lure of drugs. How is abortion wrong, but force feeding a child drugs all through pregnancy is a better solution? I personally think it's reprehensible to put a child through that when maybe abortion would have been the lesser of the evils....  

If the same girl under extreme pressures kills someone with a gun, nobody says she did
a good thing. She will probably be largely forgiven by law, she will be helped because
of her age, but the point is, despite forgiveness which she surely may deserve, nobody
will tell her:
"Good, you did the right thing. You may do it again if you need"

One thing is comprehension, help and forgiveness, one thing is stating that homicides are legal.
If that is the problem then I could say, let's spend more in structures to help those girls in need,
than in laws and clinics for abortions.

[Queen_Akasha]

Weighing in against my better judgement...

First off, let me state that I believe that if women/men are *mature* enough to have sex, then they ought to be prepared for whatever consequences that come along with it. If a pregnancy results, it is because of actions and choices that you and your partner made. And technically, if you think about it, the primary function of sex is to produce offspring. It hapenes to be pleasurable to ensure that our species will not die out.

Secondly, just because a woman is pregnant does NOT mean that she will have to raise the child. There are pleanty of childless couples out there who are looking for children to adopt. My Aunt and Uncle are one of them. Adoption is by far the least selfish choice, seeing as how you will be able to give your child a better life and also eventually be able to get back to your own.

Thirdly, if you have ever seen pictures or read descriptions of an actual abortion procedure, it would turn your stomach. Partial Birth Abortion (3rd trimester) is particularly repulsive. There is no excuse for that sort of abortion. It is far too late in the pregnancy to use the excuse of "I don't want to be a mom" or "Health reasons" which should have already been discovered. And if anyone argues for aborting retarded children a word of caution: this theory was also favored by none other than Hitler. Not exactly poster-boy of the year. If you have ever known children with disabilites you would know that they are beautiful little people, just like everyone else.

That being said, I am squeemish about making abortions illegal. The problem with that is people are probably going to do it anyway, with possibly higher health risks. What I would like to see happen is for all women considering an abortion be educated thouroughly on all the facts and the risks, just as they would for any other operation. Right now, abortion clinics are not held up to the same standards as other medical facilities.

Believe me, I have heard every possible "pregnancy senario" there is. My mom has worked with pregnant women/teens for twenty years. When it comes down to it, abortion is just another *quick fix*, which are rarely the best way to go about things.

[Eocine]

What about in the cases of Rape and child Abuse? should they have to carry that child?

[Queen_Akasha]

Like I said, I would not want to make abortion illegal. If a woman is raped, I can understand her wanting to abort the baby. However, she should do this WELL before the third trimester. However, I personally would not get an abortion, even if I were to be raped. I would most likely carry the child to term then give him or her up for adoption. After all, it is not their fault.

I don't understand what you mean about child abuse...explain?

[Eocine]

Say a girl who isn't physically ready to give birth gets pregnant and giving birth would jepordise her life?

this question isn't really aimed at you Queen A mainly at the people above.

[Renmauzo]

Eocine, on Dec 22 2002, 01:16 PM, said:

Say a girl who isn't physically ready to give birth gets pregnant and giving birth would jepordise her life?

this question isn't really aimed at you Queen A mainly at the people above.

With modern medical technology its really a moot question; however, if the life of the mother is endangered, I suppose it would be entirely up to her--most mothers that want to have children would generaly take the risk.

[Queen_Akasha]

I know its not to me but I am answering anyway so hehehe

What I said before about rape, same rules apply. However, it is not ALWAYS a certainty that the woman and child *will* die when the doctors say they will.

Real Life Example:

My mom is friends with a woman named Beth. Ten years ago, Beth became pregnant. One problem: she had cancer. She was undergoing radiation treatments at the time. The doctors told her she would have to get an abortion for the radiation treatments to continue. They said if she chose to try to carry the baby to term, the baby and her would most likely die. She chose to end the radiation treatments so she could carry her child.

Ten years later her cancer is completely in remission and her little girl is doing just fine. This one had a happy ending.

I am in NO WAY saying that every woman should make the choice Beth made, or be forced too. I just think its a little example that shows that the medical profession is not always right, and black and white do not exist; only shades of grey.

[Renmauzo]

Thats astounding that someone would get pregnant knowing they have cancer, I wonder did she become pregnant accidentaly?

[Queen_Akasha]

Renmauzo, on Dec 22 2002, 08:36 AM, said:

Thats astounding that someone would get pregnant knowing they have cancer, I wonder did she become pregnant accidentaly?

It was an accident, yes.

[Littiz]

@Queen Akasha:
I agree about the "practical" considerations about laws, but I was simply speaking from
an ideal PoV. Laws, lawyers and politicians often cry out the absolute value of life, then
they should remain coherent with that. The point, once more, is defining what is "human".
All the answers then come naturally. In the case of rape... Let's make an example.

You witness a car accident, the guilty one flees. Nobody else's around, the victim lays
on the street.
Sure, the accident wasn't caused by you, but still you're supposed to help the victim,
call for medics, wait there and do what you can to help the injured.
It is stated, to be clearer, that the value of a life weighs higher than your time, your work
and all the duties you have to lose standing there, even if you are not guilty.
Extending the concept (which doesn't come from me in the first place), pregnant girls, even
if unwilling, should be considered like the keepers of the new life, the only persons who
can help the being 'till the time comes when somebody else can take care of it.
Of course, they should even be supported in all the possible ways by the rest of the society.

In case there's risk for both, mother and child, to die...
Well, TWO lives are in peril, so, at last, we have a circumstance which really worths to
be debated.
Here I'm open to opinions, though I have to say, the story of Beth was beautyful.