The Problem with Legalized Abortion

Been a few hours, Juggs m'boy.You lookin' to answer any time soon?Howzabout you cut the sass and acknowledge your ignorance, and I'll dumb this down enough so that even you might understand it.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

well idk if ringo and nator are being emotive in our argument, but I'm certainly not emotive on a forum, and well thats just plain stupid [no offense to anyone on this forum who does such a thing]but as you said, I wont mind you, therefor continue on with my conversation with nator and ringo.sincerely yours, Amen.

---

"He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride."
[JOB 41:34]

quote:

---

Someone who studies Human behavior and can ID wither or not an individual is eligible for abortion.

---

Are you saying that every person who studies human behavior will have exactly the same, unambiguous opinion with each and every woman or girl they evaluate?And what if a woman goes through what you an I would call a rape, but she isn't distressed? Should she be allowed an abortion?What about a clinically depressed woman who has not been raped but is very, very distressed by an unwanted pregnancy? Should she be prevented from gettingan abortion?

quote:

---

Yes, but did they have protection during the sexual act?

---

Er, that's what using birth control means.No form of birth control method, even sterilization, prevents pregnancy 100%.

quote:

---

don't scientist consider condoms 99.9% protection from STD?

---

Nope: source

quote:

---

not to mention they have that little bubble where the male sperm is disposed, therefor no pregnancy should take place.

---

Again, no contraceptive, including sterilization is 100% effective.

quote:

---

Well if scientist are the the ones who say women mature faster then men, well for them to have sex[even unprotected sex] they should be mature enough to suffer the consequence.

---

Are you saying that EVERY SINGLE 14 year old girl is physically and psychologically mature enough to safely carry a pregnancy to term and give birth to it?Can you please show me where scientists say that ALL 14 year old girls are mature enough to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth to it?Also, just because girls mature faster than boys, ON AVERAGE (as in, not every single girl will be more mature than every single boy of the same age), it doesn't mean that ANY 14 year old girls are physically or psychologically mature enough to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth to it.

quote:

---

Sex is performed by 2 mature adults.

---

Or by barely pubescent children.

quote:

---

So if a 14yr old engages in something she isn't ready for, she should suffer the consequences for her actions or you can spoil her[like some parents do to their daughters] it is wrong for some to be rewarded for what they did was wrong, therefor their parents don't set a good example for their child.

---

So, you want to punish her for opening her legs by forcing her to give birth.Is that about right?

quote:

---

oh I'm sorry, do you want me to show sympathy towards young girls who will be disciplined for the wrongful actions they themselves committed? No Thank you, I will not even shed a tear for them.

---

How very compassionate and Christ-like of you.I am sure that Jesus would treat these girls in just the same way you would; with scorn and disdain.I am thankful that I am not a Christian like you.

quote:

---

What a cheap shot.

---

Not at all, that comment was based upon reality.Being ignorant of contraception and sexual physiology (and also feeling that sex is "bad" or "dirty") is a major factor in the contraction of STD's, having unprotected sex, and in unwanted pregnancy.Many, many Christians raise their children to be ignorant of sexual physiology, contraception, and to think that sex is "bad" and "dirty".

quote:

---

but I don't know what makes you think that Christians have something to do with this OP.

---

Christians seem to be behind every effort to dictate what happens inside my uterus.

quote:

---

I didn't know you were a woman. I thought you were a man.

---

Why would you assume I was a man?

quote:

---

If you think that its possible that a woman can be able to show no sign of extreme distress after being raped, I kid you not, you would have to be crazy or mentally ill to think such rubbish.

---

Sure, it is possible. There are women who are not "shattered" by a rape, but are instead royally pissed off. If a woman is drugged and is then impregnated by someone, and she has no memory of the act and there were no injuries, she may very well not be in anywhere near as much distress as a clinically depressed woman who has consentual sex that results in a unwanted pregnancy.Women are individuals. they respond in all different ways to experiences.

quote:

---

Have you ever interviewed any serial rapist victims? have you been a Victim of rape? What is your source? where did you get such rubbish?

---

Are you saying that every single woman in the world has an identical emotional reaction to any given experience?

quote:

---

Also I suggest nator that if you can't back up your theory on why I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the distress level between that of a rape victim and that of a non rape victim, you should also back off, that is until you finally get something worth backing up that theory of yours.

---

Two women go to a party with a date.Both of them get drunk.Both of them are pressured into having sex they didn't want to have by their dates.One of the women feels completely violated, cries for days, and calls the rape crisis center. She falls into a depression that requires professional help.The other woman chalks it up to having a really bad night and becomes incredibly pissed off, lets the air out of her date's tires, and spreads the word around town that this guy is a total schmuck. She goes on about her business.Both become pregnant as a result of this night.Both have been raped as per the legal definition, but only one of them is "distressed".Are they both allowed to get abortions, according to you? If not, which one can and which one can't, and why?

If they are taught and learn from a professional on Victimology Behavior, then yes they will. What is your definition of rape? She shouldn't be prevented to get the abortion, because she will be so distressed, she might have a miscarriage or worse, she might consider suicide to be 1 of her solutions. YES! I'm simply saying that if a 14yr old girl thinks she's mature enough to have sex, she should be mature enough to suffer the damn consequences! if your mature enough to engage in sex, your mature enough to give birth. like I said before, if the carriers life is threatened but the fetus will die anyway, then it is ok for the carrier to get the abortion. Maybe I should be more clear. SEX SHOULD ONLY BE PERFORMED BY 2 MATURE ADULTS. with everything action, there is a consequence Yes thats right I am actually compassionate about this subject, since alot of the time all abortion does is give people an excuse. scorn? I wouldn't leave these girls all alone, I'd help them along the way, if I had to take care of them or anything I wouldn't mind, but 1 thing I wont help them do is get a abortion. I could careless what the fuck say. Many Christians teach their children not to have sex before marriage.
and yes they are raised and told that sex is bad and filthy if they have sex before marriage. why are they taught this? because Christians believe in something called "sin". I thought nator was a guys name. sorry. to be royally pissed off is also a sign of distress! did you know that?! well no way! ya think? woman individuals that like to experience different things and also respond differently to some their experiences. I was asking you 4 simple questions.. please answer with a yes or no. thank you. The distressed 1 should be able to get a abortion, since she most likely have a miscarriage or commit suicide. The other seems to be fine, though she is very angry, but their seems to be no threat towards her own life. I wouldn't consider her to be a woman that would take her own life or have a miscarriage. but there is a chance she might damage the fetus anyway, she would probably be so angry she might drink alot or worse then that, she'll be a heavy smoker, so ya either way that baby=dead or probably could have really serious health issues when she gives birth to it. so yes both women should be able to get a abortion.sincerely yours, Amen.Edited by Amen., : noyb

---

"He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride."
[JOB 41:34]

If you are the sum of your genetic parts, and a fetus has all of the same DNA as you, then why doesn't a fetus have any rights? Why is a fetus not a person just like you, entitled to the same rights as you? Absolutely. Thanks for answering me.I really see your argument as being inconsequential since a somatic cell line is essentially no different than gametes. I for one am against cloning, which is basically the what the rage about SCNT comprises.Its the same as test tube babies. That is still a baby, just because it was not the product of natural conception, and therefore, should be entitled the same rights.So whether a somatic cell was infused in to an ovum is inconsequential. Your DNA is still your DNA, whether it is a gamete or somatic cell, the only difference being that in the wild, you need two gametes, a spermatozoa and an ovum, to begin the fertilization process.More than that, I am not the one that believes that we are only cells. That's far too narrow to call human beings. Since you do ascribe to this philosophy, this presents a conundrum for you. If we are just a mass of cells, then what is the difference between you and a blastocyst, zygote, or a fetus?We can extrapolate further to say that all organic beings are collocation of cells. What then makes us any different than barley, a nematode, or a chicken? You might say that the configuration is different, and the order of the genome is what makes organic material what it is.But that makes it all the more bizarre to make heads or tails of your position, being that a human fetus is almost identical to you. Why aren't they human beings?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

I am puzzled about the difference between potential life and life among humans. If all potential human life should have the same rights as post-birth humans as you seem to imply, wouldn't that result in the following:All miscarriages would result in murder charges, although I suppose one could get over if it was shown in court that the miscarriage was not due to any negligent behavior on the part of the mother. As others have pointed out, wouldn't proper enforcement of this law mean that we would have to hire hundreds of thousands of menstrual police to be sure that each unimplanted egg was not the result of maternal misbehavior.Once any artificial womb is invented, all women would be forced to have 50,000 children as that is the number of eggs, or potential humans, each woman is born with.And to be fair, since every sperm is also sacred, and once united with an egg, a potential human life, shouldn't male masturbation and nocturnal emissions also be prosecuted? Perhaps we could use a special unit of the menstrual police, like a sperm squad or something, with special training and all.Maybe to help relieve the onerous burden placed upon law enforcement such laws would entail we could teach it in the schools and churches to turn in offenders, even give them rewards like a pair of blue jeans. Hey they do it with drugs here and it worked to some degree against dissidents in the former Soviet Union.Have you considered the inevitable conclusions of your position?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

No, since a spontaneous abortion is not the same thing as an abortion. Plus there is that whole Roe v Wade thing that says you can. But then, this is all hypothetical I suppose. No. A simple papsmear, something a woman would get regardless after a miscarriage or an abortion, could yield clues. What? Who says that she would be forced to fertilize eggs? I'm all about pro-choice. If you don't want to be pregnant, then don't get pregnant. No, since sperm or eggs cannot make babies without one or the other. Yes... People would live. The end.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Juggs asks: Remember, Juggs, researchers were recently able to flip a few genetic switches and "turn" a skin cell into a totipotent cell.That means every cell in your body has the potential to become a zygote (without the benefit of having its nucleus injected into an ovum). All quotes not otherwise attributed are from:Page not found - Reason.comYou have the problem, Juggs.Not me.Since I don't consider a cell or a group of cells "human", I have no problem at all declaring a zygote a wad of undifferentiated cells and nothing more.Because my definition of human = a group of cells with genetic input and the appropriate biochemical pathways.Using your definition, each of your cells is a "child".And you've got bigger problems on the horizon, my friend. Animal produced human gametes that are then activated via SCNT or parthenogenesis = "child" in your book? A chimera = "child"? After all, it contains human DNA.And that's just the tip of the iceberg:Emerging technologies
(1) Cloning by embryo splitting
(2) SCNT”human somatic cell and human oocyte
(3) Heterologous nuclear transfer”hES cell nucleus and human oocyte
(4) Pronuclear transplantation”transfer of pronuclei from fertilized human oocyte to enucleated dor human oocyte
(5) Parthenogenesis”human oocyte activation
(6) Chimaera”generated by aggregation of individual viable blastomeres obtained from nonviable embryos
(7) SCNT”human somatic cell and enucleated animal oocyte
(8) Fertilization”mouse sperm generated in vitro from differentiating mES cells
(9) Gygenesis ” as for pronuclear transplantation but using two maternal pronuclei
(10) Androgenesis ” as for pronuclear transplantation but using two paternal pronuclei
(11) SCNT”mouse somatic cell genetically altered to remove implantation potential and enucleated mouse oocyte
(human material involved)
(12) Chimaera”injection of mouse blastocyst with mES cells
(human material involved)
(13) Fertilization”human gametes generated in vitro from differentiating hES cells
(14) Fertilization”human gametes produced in vitro
(15) Fertilization”human oocytes produced by animals containing human ovarian tissue grafts fertilized with human sperm
(16) SCNT”human somatic cell genetically altered to remove implantation potential and enucleated human oocyte
(or oocyte generated in vitro from differentiating hES cells)
(17) SCNT”human somatic cell genetically altered to remove implantation potential and enucleated animal oocyte
(18) Chimera”injection of hES cells into animal blastocyst
(19) Chimera”injection of animal ES cells into human blastocystYep. You're the one the problem, chum.You've chosen to define human as "a piece of DNA".Not me.ABE: You do realize, of course, that I could synthesize a lump of 10 trillion cells (estimated # of cells/body), all of human origin, and that would not be a "human", right?My definition includes genetic input and the appropriate biochemical pathways.You conveniently ignored half of my definition.Edited by molbiogirl, : spEdited by molbiogirl, : addn

quote:

---

A simple papsmear, something a woman would get regardless after a miscarriage or an abortion, could yield clues.

---

So, you're going to compel women to get manditory pelvic exams?

quote:

---

If they are taught and learn from a professional on Victimology Behavior, then yes they will.

---

I call bullshit.Prove it.And it would be great if you actually read what I wrote. Where in my above statement does it say anything about the woman being a "victim"?In jury trials where the psychological state of either the victim or the accused is material, it is commonplace for both the prosecution and the defense to call seperate psycholgists as experts. This is because for nearly every case, it is easy to find at least two experts who hold opposite views regarding the mental state of whomever they are evaluating.So, what was that you were saying about all experts will always return the same opinion?

quote:

---

What is your definition of rape?

---

Nonconsentual sex.

quote:

---

She shouldn't be prevented to get the abortion, because she will be so distressed, she might have a miscarriage or worse, she might consider suicide to be 1 of her solutions.

---

Right.Of course, and we could hospitalize her against her will to make sure she doesn't do any of these things. Not because we care about her, but becasue she might harm the pregnancy.You do realize that you have opened a whole world of ambiguity when you allow for abortion in the event of "mental distress", don't you?Exactly how "distressed" is distressed enough?

quote:

---

YES! I'm simply saying that if a 14yr old girl thinks she's mature enough to have sex, she should be mature enough to suffer the damn consequences!

---

But that is not an answer to the question I have asked.I didn't ask you what she "deserved" to have happen. I asked you about the reality of her actual physical and mental state.Just because a person "deserves" to suffer consequences (according to you) doesn't mean that they are psysically or mentally capable of doing so.

quote:

---

if your mature enough to engage in sex, your mature enough to give birth. like I said before, if the carriers life is threatened but the fetus will die anyway, then it is ok for the carrier to get the abortion.

---

Can you please show me where scientists say that ALL 14 year old girls are mature enough to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth to it?That is your claim. Please show me where scientists say this or retract.

quote:

---

Maybe I should be more clear. SEX SHOULD ONLY BE PERFORMED BY 2 MATURE ADULTS.

---

Where before you said, "is", you now say "should". That chnges the meaning of your statement significantly.Yes, in an ideal world, sex should only occur between two mature adults. Here in reality, that is not always the case. Why don't we deal with reality instead of wishing for a fantasy?

quote:

---

with everything action, there is a consequence

---

Is that the punishment Jesus would give?

quote:

---

Yes thats right

---

See, and LinearAq thinks that anti-abortion folks in general don't want to punish sluts. Here we have an example in this very thread of one who does, and he doesn't even try to hide it.

quote:

---

I am actually compassionate about this subject, since alot of the time all abortion does is give people an excuse.

---

This sentence doesn't make any sense. I have yet to see any compassion from you for girls and women, unless they are victims or mentally ill.Would Jesus want to punish sluts by forcing them to give birth?

quote:

---

scorn? I wouldn't leave these girls all alone, I'd help them along the way, if I had to take care of them or anything I wouldn't mind, but 1 thing I wont help them do is get a abortion.

---

Oh yeah? What are you doing today, right now, to help people in this situation? How many of them live in your house? How many medical bills have you paid for? How many unwanted children have you adopted?

quote:

---

Many Christians teach their children not to have sex before marriage.

---

...AND to be ignorant of sexual psysiology and contraception, thus making it more likely that the children, when they do start having sex (and they do, at the same rates as most ofther religious groups), they will not use protection, or not use it properly.

quote:

---

and yes they are raised and told that sex is bad and filthy if they have sex before marriage. why are they taught this? because Christians believe in something called "sin".

---

Yeah. And how is that working for you?In countries where a positive attitude towards sex prevails, and it isn't considered sinful to have sex outside of marriage, and the populace is knowledgeable about sex and contraception, and contraception is easy to get, there are very few STD's and unwanted pregnancies. The abortion rate is low.The highly-Christian, highly-religious US, by contrast, has some of the highest teen pregnancy, abortion and STD rates in the industrialized West.How is keeping kids ignorant of sexual physiology and contraception meant to reduce the need for abortion?Apparently, you people would rather pretend that your sons and daughters aren't going to have sex than do what is proven to be effective in preventing abortions.Ignorance is never good.

quote:

---

to be royally pissed off is also a sign of distress! did you know that?!

---

So angry women can also get abortions?

quote:

---

well no way! ya think? woman individuals that like to experience different things and also respond differently to some their experiences.

---

OK, you agree with me here, but you have been making absolute statements about how ALL women react to certain situations. You have claimed that ALL 14 year old girls are mature, when that is certainly not true. You have claimed that ALL women who are raped are at a maximum level of stress, when that is not even knowable and almost certainly not true.You maybe should think through your position a little more.

quote:

---

The distressed 1 should be able to get a abortion, since she most likely have a miscarriage or commit suicide.

---

OK, what if a woman is not quite depressed enough to be suicidal, but is still getting professional help for a moderate depression?

quote:

---

The other seems to be fine, though she is very angry, but their seems to be no threat towards her own life. I wouldn't consider her to be a woman that would take her own life or have a miscarriage. but there is a chance she might damage the fetus anyway, she would probably be so angry she might drink alot or worse then that, she'll be a heavy smoker, so ya either way that baby=dead or probably could have really serious health issues when she gives birth to it. so yes both women should be able to get a abortion.

---

So what about a woman who did consent to sex, comes up pregnant, and becomes really angry about it?What if there is a chance that she would damage the fetus by drinking or smoking a lot so the baby would have health issues after birth?Can this woman also have an abortion?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Unfortunately that is the case, but I was speaking about and honest stalemate. Many times when an argument is pursued two equally logically valid positions can be identified. They both rest on some initial premise which is neither true nor false. A good example is what's going on between me and fgarb in the Bush v Gore thread. What started as an argument I think has revealed two initial positions which are valid, but differ.I think that is the case in this instance... though molbio seems hesitant to actually respond to your points lest she legitimate the possibility you have an equally valid position. But in actuality, doesn't your position logically view humans as clumps of cells? More than clumps of cells in importance, true. But doesn't it treat simple clumps of human cells as identical to massively differentiated clumps of human cells?Haha!!! Let me pick up the banner, where molbio seems to have dropped it and lead the charge.I too could be said to view humans as being more than clumps of cells. But to be semantically consistent with the argument so far, I view Persons and being more important. I realize you are asking what is the difference between a person and a human, which is fair. Too bad this is where I see everyone stalemating.The simple clump of a zygote is human (something molbio erroneously quotes the dictionary to deny), and is alive, but it is not a person. That is to say it is human cellular life, not human personal life. The difference comes when that cellular life reaches a point of differentiation and complexity that it has reached a capacity for independent life, as RAZD might put it fulfilling criteria to prove one is not dead independent from its host. I would also want to add the ability of consciousness, awareness.Thus to my mind a Person could very well revert to merely a large, complex, differentiated clump of human cellular life... say through a massive stroke... or not yet have developed into a Person.Persons have rights (to my mind) and while nonpersons may be treated with respect or preserved, their considerations should not be primary to a person. They have no equal rights. Some opponents try to make the argument that that is like slavery, however I would then point out that if a clump of human cellular life were capable of being a slave (performing such functions) than it would by definition have to be a person... so that argument fails straight away.Unfortunately I cannot get a strong hold against your position. If you cannot see this distinction, or agree with it, there is no logical reason you must abandon your own. It seems consistent and valid.And you have some nice counters.I think my main thrust would have to be bringing up potential problems, complications, based on your theory. Molbio's later points about hybrid vectors for human cellular life or components (though not the first thing she mentioned regarding cloning), or where Nator is heading now.I can't imagine expecting women to get pap smears to prove innocence of fetal-homicide. And wouldn't that have to be done after every menstruation?Its that kind of practical issue which makes it harder, from a legal standpoint. Of course moral is separate from legal.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

If you're referring to the original Chinese siamese twins that gave us the expression, their condition was anything but "incurable". Shhh... just between us two, I think crash has an ego problem. Just so you don't misunderstand me, I am not a moral relativist. I'm a moral absolutist. Why and how? It's a very very long story.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Tease.Either tell the story or shut up about it.You've dangled this "don't ask, it's a long story, you don't wanna know" schtick a dozen times.Either take off your clothes or leave the room.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------