Where should the line be drawn on abortion?

[Vidi]

^^^inappropriate.

Its not inappropriate and its NOT trolling.

His point is that what another woman does with HER body is her own business and not yours.

So the question to you is: By what right do you claim to force your beliefs on another person?

( There is a very good logical answer to that question. I am hoping you actually come up with it. )

 

[koshergrl]

"Grief stricken and under heavy sedation, she was unaware that within half an hour of her baby's death a detective from the city's homicide branch had arrived at the maternity ward and had begun asking questions.While Shuai was embarking on a journey into bereavement that continues to this day, the Indianapolis authorities were also setting out, albeit along a very different path. On 14 March last year Shuai was arrested and taken into custody in the high-security Marion County prison, where she was held for the next 435 days, charged with murdering her foetus and attempted feticide. If convicted of the murder count she faces a sentence of 45 years to life."


Indiana prosecuting Chinese woman for suicide attempt that killed her foetus | World news | guardian.co.uk



You're obligated to protect your baby. You probably aren't going to be prosecuted unless you actually kill it, though.


Again, do you have a point?

 

[Vidi]

So pregnant women should not be allowed to smoke, or drink during the pregnancy? How about playing sports? Might harm the fetus. Should she do anything stressful? Might harm the fetus...

Different argument.

No it isn't. If the woman smokes through her pregnancy, how is she protecting her baby? She isn't. You said she is obliged to protect it, but then you say she isn't?

I agree with Kosher on this one.

IF a woman decides to carry to term, then, in my opinion, she has accepted the responsibility and therefore would be obliged to protect that child until birth.

 

[Avatar4321]

Just to throw some controversy into the mix. It seems to me that abortion is the symptom of the problem and not the direct problem. The direct problem is the breakdown of the traditional family and Men & women running away from taking responsibility for their actions.

Granted if we have to draw a line for abortion, if you had a choice in the actions that made the child, you should take responsibility for the child. If you didn't, there are much better options to abortions, but I think we could discuss more flexibility there. Not really sure why a little child should suffer for someone elses choices or crimes.

But like I said, we need to address the underlying issues. not just debate about the symptoms.

 

[newpolitics]

I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.

I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:

1) Aborting a fetus within a week of conception is not murdering a child.

2) Aborting a fetus after 8 months of gestation, that could survive outside the womb, is murdering a child.

The debate I'm interested in is where between point 1 and point 2 should that line be drawn? At what point in the pregnancy has the mother forfeited the right to 'choose' so to speak?

When it has a central nervous system and accompanying brain. Conception and heart-beats are too early. 24 weeks sounds good, and the women must be allowed to choose before then. Nobody using theological motivations should be allowed to change laws concerning this, because this is not based on science. Science and the medical establishment must be the deciders of this.

 

[Steelplate]

yeou're right avatar....things were so much nicer in the 50's when things were cheap, jobs were plentiful and good paying and people's stress level wasn't nearly what it is today.You don't think that the financial decline of a large percentage of our population has something to do with issues like divorce, single parenthood, and promescuity? It all works hand in hand.,..I believe.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This would be a better country if Republicans cared more about babies than fetuses.

This would be a better country if we had the courage to do the hard work needed to solve difficult problems like abortion, not take the lazy, easy way out by simply ‘banning’ it, and violating our Constitutional principles in the process.

 

[Vidi]

yeou're right avatar....things were so much nicer in the 50's when things were cheap, jobs were plentiful and good paying and people's stress level wasn't nearly what it is today.You don't think that the financial decline of a large percentage of our population has something to do with issues like divorce, single parenthood, and promescuity? It all works hand in hand.,..I believe.

I think some people look at those things as causes and other look at them as effects.

And I think the truth is somewhere in between.

 

[Intense]

I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.

I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:

1) Aborting a fetus within a week of conception is not murdering a child.

2) Aborting a fetus after 8 months of gestation, that could survive outside the womb, is murdering a child.

The debate I'm interested in is where between point 1 and point 2 should that line be drawn? At what point in the pregnancy has the mother forfeited the right to 'choose' so to speak?

When it has a central nervous system and accompanying brain. Conception and heart-beats are too early. 24 weeks sounds good, and the women must be allowed to choose before then. Nobody using theological motivations should be allowed to change laws concerning this, because this is not based on science. Science and the medical establishment must be the deciders of this.

All of our Laws are based and Rooted in Consent of The Governed. It is not for you to say what motivations should effect other peoples positions.

 

[koshergrl]

But law does not dictate a right. Our founding fathers believed that rights are bestowed by God, regardless of the law of the land or anything else, and that a good government protects those rights.

And that is, in fact, the consensus of the world...that rights exist regardless of what the law dictates, and laws that violate those rights are in fact laws that oppress and violate humanity.

The law making it legal to abort is one of those laws, along with laws that dictated the legality of slavery, and laws that allow tyrants to butcher and murder their people, or laws that allow the strong to kill and subjugate the weak. Those are bad laws, and regardless of the fact that they are laws does not change the fact that the people they are enacted against have a right to be protected from them. Even if it means going against the law that dictates the legality of the oppression.

 

[koshergrl]

^^^inappropriate.

Its not inappropriate and its NOT trolling.

His point is that what another woman does with HER body is her own business and not yours.

So the question to you is: By what right do you claim to force your beliefs on another person?

( There is a very good logical answer to that question. I am hoping you actually come up with it. )

By the same right that any human has to force their beliefs upon another when they are protecting the vulnerable. We all have the right, and the obligation, to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and to stand for what is right. If nobody ever forced their beliefs upon anyone, then nobody would ever be held accountable for hurting others. Obviously, the person who is doing the hurting believes they have a good reason for what they do...they are imposing their "belief" upon the person they harm. We impose our "beliefs" upon people when we prevent them from doing it. We don't live in a world where everybody just ignores what everybody else is doing based on "I can't impose my beliefs on them".

 

[Vidi]

But law does not dictate a right. Our founding fathers believed that rights are bestowed by God, regardless of the law of the land or anything else, and that a good government protects those rights.

And that is, in fact, the consensus of the world...that rights exist regardless of what the law dictates, and laws that violate those rights are in fact laws that oppress and violate humanity.

The law making it legal to abort is one of those laws, along with laws that dictated the legality of slavery, and laws that allow tyrants to butcher and murder their people, or laws that allow the strong to kill and subjugate the weak. Those are bad laws, and regardless of the fact that they are laws does not change the fact that the people they are enacted against have a right to be protected from them. Even if it means going against the law that dictates the legality of the oppression.

Im sorry but thats not entirely accurate.

The Founders believed that SOME rights were unalienable. Unalienable rights ( life , liberty, pursuit of happiness ) were God given. But OTHER rights were given through law. This is why God is mentioned in the Declaration, but not once in the Constitution except with the phrase " In the year of our Lord " which is only signifying the date.

 

[Noomi]

Different argument.

No it isn't. If the woman smokes through her pregnancy, how is she protecting her baby? She isn't. You said she is obliged to protect it, but then you say she isn't?

I agree with Kosher on this one.

IF a woman decides to carry to term, then, in my opinion, she has accepted the responsibility and therefore would be obliged to protect that child until birth.

Yet she refuses to answer my question as to whether it is okay for a woman to smoke and drink through her pregnancy.

 

[koshergrl]

I know that. But we are talking about life.

 

[Noomi]

I believe if a woman is pregnant, she is obligated to protect her child until birth, yes. And after birth, until the baby is safely placed with someone else who will provide for it.

So pregnant women should not be allowed to smoke, or drink during the pregnancy? How about playing sports? Might harm the fetus. Should she do anything stressful? Might harm the fetus...

Would you like to make a point?

Meanwhile;
Indiana prosecuting Chinese woman for suicide attempt that killed her foetus | World news | guardian.co.uk

Well, you said that a woman is obliged to protect her fetus, did you not? Therefore I assume you believe that because this woman did not protect her fetus, she should be punished.

 

[koshergrl]

No it isn't. If the woman smokes through her pregnancy, how is she protecting her baby? She isn't. You said she is obliged to protect it, but then you say she isn't?

I agree with Kosher on this one.

IF a woman decides to carry to term, then, in my opinion, she has accepted the responsibility and therefore would be obliged to protect that child until birth.

Yet she refuses to answer my question as to whether it is okay for a woman to smoke and drink through her pregnancy.

Not to the point where it harms the baby. And I posted a link that showed that women are prosecuted for doing things that harm/kill their unborn children.

 

[Noomi]

I know that. But we are talking about life.

Yes, life which can be harmed from the mother smoking.

Is a pregnant woman who smokes protecting her unborn child? Yes or no?

 

[Noomi]

I agree with Kosher on this one.

IF a woman decides to carry to term, then, in my opinion, she has accepted the responsibility and therefore would be obliged to protect that child until birth.

Yet she refuses to answer my question as to whether it is okay for a woman to smoke and drink through her pregnancy.

Not to the point where it harms the baby. And I posted a link that showed that women are prosecuted for doing things that harm/kill their unborn children.

I don't think they should be, but then, when I see a pregnant woman smoking, it makes me mad. If you choose to have your baby, you must want it to be as healthy as possible, and I hate it when women just smoke and drink and assume the baby will be okay.

 

[koshergrl]

I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.

I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:

1) Aborting a fetus within a week of conception is not murdering a child.

2) Aborting a fetus after 8 months of gestation, that could survive outside the womb, is murdering a child.

The debate I'm interested in is where between point 1 and point 2 should that line be drawn? At what point in the pregnancy has the mother forfeited the right to 'choose' so to speak?

When it has a central nervous system and accompanying brain. Conception and heart-beats are too early. 24 weeks sounds good, and the women must be allowed to choose before then. Nobody using theological motivations should be allowed to change laws concerning this, because this is not based on science. Science and the medical establishment must be the deciders of this.

That's exactly what proponents of negative eugenics say, and it's wrong. Pure science and medicine do not see right or wrong, and should never be the "only" ones to decide ethical decisions upon which people's lives hang.

 

[Noomi]

I understand full well that nothing pulls extremist automatons from all sides out of the woodwork faster than an abortion thread, but since we now have a clean debate forum I'm going to try anyway.

I ask that if you wish to participate in this debate you first concede the following two points:

1) Aborting a fetus within a week of conception is not murdering a child.

2) Aborting a fetus after 8 months of gestation, that could survive outside the womb, is murdering a child.

The debate I'm interested in is where between point 1 and point 2 should that line be drawn? At what point in the pregnancy has the mother forfeited the right to 'choose' so to speak?

When it has a central nervous system and accompanying brain. Conception and heart-beats are too early. 24 weeks sounds good, and the women must be allowed to choose before then. Nobody using theological motivations should be allowed to change laws concerning this, because this is not based on science. Science and the medical establishment must be the deciders of this.

That's exactly what proponents of negative eugenics say, and it's wrong. Pure science and medicine do not see right or wrong, and should never be the "only" ones to decide ethical decisions upon which people's lives hang.

But then who should be the ones to decide?