Abortion and Women's Rights

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights.  Murder is not a right. 

guess what? this is a moot issue (no, not THAT moot). the most they'll ever do is give this debate up to individual states. abortion will always be legal somewhere in the country, and for some medical reasons, it should always be legal. this is a rally issue for the right, as well as gay marriage. they wont ever pass anything difinitive because if they did they'd lose a key voting issue.

>>520 THANK YOU!! "But it looks a little like a human, and that tugs at my bleeding libertarian heartstrings like ever so many lonely kittens!" Humanity resides in and is shaped by the Central Nervous System's communication with the archiving gray matter - most pro-lifers don't realize even this.
>>521 Exactly. We've found common ground and we've established that liking your opponent to an animal is not constructive. Can we please give up now?

LAME! why do people humiliate themselves like this!

>>513
"The US is not a very meritocratic society, so maybe hard work should be encouraged?"

And hard work *isn't* encouraged here? What's your beef?

"Well, unwanted pregnancies and a lack of preventions of these harm society. It is in my interests to make sure women can strike back at such foolishness."

Its not foolishness.  The pharmacist believes he is doing the right thing.  If there's one thing that's really sick - its forcing a man to work for, or do something that he believes is wrong. 

Pharmacists don't owe anything to society.  They do not *have* to fill your niche if they don't wish to.  The decision to work or not, to do something or not, or anything along these lines is the most basic personal decision of all.  If you don't support this, you can't claim to be a defender of personal freedom in my book.

"Well, fortunately, men have been taught by society to not stick around after conception. Unless he signs a contract before conception, that little tumor belong completely to the woman."

If it belongs to the woman, then he is washed of responsibility of it, since it isn't his.  No more child support laws in this scenario.

In the other scenario, both parties are responsible for the result of having sex - and this means that the man must consent to the abortion practice before it is done, since the being is half his. 

This is logical.

"It's either murder or it aint."

Being forced to make that choice, I would say it is.  Anyway, you are nitpicking on details.  If the woman waited this long to get the embryo taken care of, that's too bad.

"Then he legally binds himself to care for that child 50 % until it's 18."

Of course.  If its half his responsibility, its half his responsibility.  I can agree here.  I guess we see eye to eye then on this.  

"If he didn't want to have a baby, he should have used contraceptives, and not given her his fluid."

"Nope, not having the right to do what you want with non-human outgrowths of your body is equal to not having the right to life."

No it isn't.  Since you have just stated this, I expect you to be able to back it up.  Explain. 

"A fetus without a unique human conscience is a cancer. If we ban abortion because of 15,500 babies, we will have to ban chemotherapy."

Do correct me if I'm wrong,  but I don't recall having said 'ban abortion entirely as a practice entirely because of an unrelated 15,500 babies'.  Those 15,500 are the number aborted after they could be considered 'human'.  I was under the impression that you found abortion after this point unacceptable.  (of course, making the exception for medical purposes, provided it is done in a humane manner)

Chemotherapy doesn't kill 15,500 babies a year, last I checked.  I don't see why banning it is in order.

"If the man doesn't sign up for child support or equal parenting, the tumor (I'll refer to fetuses without a unique human personality as benevolent tumors from now on) is hers hers hers."

That sounds entirely reasonable.  I suppose we see eye to eye here too.

"There is no looming Soc Sec financial crisis."

I think there is.  Whatever, no point in arguing over this since we'll know for sure in a few years eh?

"He shouldn't have to pay child support, no."

Since we see eye to eye now, I see no point in pressing this further.  Nothing more to say I guess.

"http://www.pnhp.org/  What these guys want."

Wow no thanks.  And you call yourself a libertarian? Hell, you call yourself a 'moderate' libertarian? What a bunch of baloney.  'Raise payroll taxes so the rich fuckers will have to pay for my medicare, lol! I'm a 'moderate-libertarian.'  Yeah right.

"Beg to differ. Collective responsibility exists."

How the hell could you possibly hold an unborn human fetus responsible for the ills of the world?

"Let's say you drag a rock onto your ship. After certain amounts of time this rock (it's magical) will become a living thing. If you wait until it is an organism, you are not allowed to throw it over board. Your analogies are still sub-par."

My analogy functioned for its purpose, and was thus a good analogy.  Anyway, you are arguing over semantics. 

"Rural, socially conservative cultures cause unwanted pregnancies."

No, people who don't use contraceptives or abstain cause unwanted pregnancies.  You are looking at the big picture when in reality, it is an individual's choice that determines whether or not a pregnancy is created or not, not the state's.

"The more of this, the more unwanted pregnancies. People's decisions are subject to environment, a molding of behavior that accumulates."

Environmental determinism? No.  You still fail to answer my unanswered questions about environmental determinism. 

"They can be all about them prayers and making each other be shaking on the floor and drinking wine and what-not them fellows do, but if they be coming to our here cities trying to bash my gay friends or telling mah daughter to stay at the stove there will be hell -ah say, ah say- hell to pay."

*loads his revolvers* yeeeeeehaw!
http://bin.4chan.org/k/src/1157272423266.jpg

>>517
"I have no compassion for those that shit on liberty and the ideas passed down by the founders. And I'm not a "liberal". Stop running to that word everytime you're confronted with your own inner failure. A shotgun shell has no political party."

Explain to me how I 'shit on the ideas of liberty.' 

>>520
"well, first of all, the fetus doesn't even get a nervous system till, like, 12 weeks into development (fact check that, i'm not sure, but it's well into it). any sane person would have aborted the fetus by then. if people abort in the right amount of time, the zygote should have only matured a week, maybe even two at the most. at that point, it's not really anything but a group of generic cells just starting to specialise."

Exactly.  And if they take so long to abort it that it gains consciousness or feeling, they are irresponsible lazy fucks, and that's tough shit if you ask me. 

"the only moral debate i see in this at all are those pretty much cutting up and scooping out fetuses after the second trimester. that shit is wrong. might as well chop off the head as it comes out."

I'm not sure when life starts, but this sounds about right.  I don't favor an absolute ban on all abortions, but I do favor a ban on all abortions that are performed too late in pregnancy with the exception of those done for *serious* medical reasons.

Also, since the being is partly the man's, and he is partly responsible for it, no abortion at all without his consent.

"people gotta be responsible first and formost, and nip this shit in the bud before it gets to be a real problem."

Agreed.

"sorry, but if i throw a seed into a fire, you can't say i just cut down a mighty 100 year old redwood."

Nobody is trying to say this.. I'm the big defender of human fetuses around here, and I don't say that anyhow.  I have no idea where you got this idea.

"and stop any bullshit about 'you're making the child suffer for your mistake'. sorry, there's no suffering here, cause there's no pain, because there's no nervous system to know pain, let alone a conciousness attached to those nervs."

If you have an abortion while the child is too late in development, and you don't do it humanely, you *are* indeed making the unborn child suffer for *your* mistakes, and I won't budge on this. 

"Pretty much, if you cant live outside the womb, and this is even with a lot of hightech medical equipment, you arent a human and shouldn't be one. not yet at least."

I disagree.  The fact that one can't become independent of the mother does not mean that it is not alive.  If the parents leave a young baby outside the mother, and don't feed it, it will die as well with no assistence.  The simple fact that one cannot exist outside and independent of the mother does not mean life has not begun.  There is more to it than this.. such as whether or not it can feel, is conscious, or can think.  This is what is important, not whether or not it can live on its own yet.

"this debate is pretty much over. only the loonies who think life begins at cell division are still up in arms about this."

Correction:  only radical pro-choice people are up in arms about who they *think* are 'loonies who think life begins at cell division' are still up in arms about this.

"i seriously wanna see statistics for how many abortions are preformed at what point of the development of the fetus."

15,500 abortions of fetuses that are old enough to be considered human lives occur per year, on average.  That's a rough figure, and it isn't acceptable.

STOP POSTING

"Its not foolishness.  The pharmacist believes he is doing the right thing.  If there's one thing that's really sick - its forcing a man to work for, or do something that he believes is wrong." Belief is worthless. convictions are not acceptable as justification. Reality is probabilistic, not subjective.
"If it belongs to the woman, then he is washed of responsibility of it, since it isn't his.  No more child support laws in this scenario." If he wants to have a say about abortions, he signs himself up for 50 % of parenting or child support if he decides to am-scray. That is logical.
" If the woman waited this long to get the embryo taken care of, that's too bad." Waiting is not the issue, availability and a slew of other factors apply. Life in America isn't easy.
"No it isn't.  Since you have just stated this, I expect you to be able to back it up." Life prerequires control of one's body, including add-ons to it. Void this and you void life. I've already explained that due to the universalizability maxim, the human rights are a diamond grid that can not function if one is favored above the others. Since human life is cast-iron in the women and dubious at best for a long time in the fetuses, the women win ethically up til a certain point. Social conservatism and religion causes amorally late abortions, not feminism.
"Do correct me if I'm wrong,  but I don't recall having said 'ban abortion entirely as a practice entirely because of an unrelated 15,500 babies'.  Those 15,500 are the number aborted after they could be considered 'human'.  I was under the impression that you found abortion after this point unacceptable." I've stated that, yes. What I find to be alarming is that most pro-lifers think that these 15500 deaths is justification for removing the right to own one's cancers from half of America. The right to body = Right to property = Right to life.
"Chemotherapy doesn't kill 15,500 babies a year, last I checked.  I don't see why banning it is in order." You've said that a complete ban is preferrable to no-limits abortioning, if you had to make the choice. I consider this unacceptable.
"Wow no thanks.  And you call yourself a libertarian? Hell, you call yourself a 'moderate' libertarian? What a bunch of baloney.  'Raise payroll taxes so the rich fuckers will have to pay for my medicare, lol! I'm a 'moderate-libertarian.'  Yeah right." Unfortunately,  I don't believe mercantile laws work everywhere.
"How the hell could you possibly hold an unborn human fetus responsible for the ills of the world?" Huh? I don't.
"My analogy functioned for its purpose, and was thus a good analogy.  Anyway, you are arguing over semantics." No, the analogy was not applicable, since there is a time period that you didn't introduce.
"No, people who don't use contraceptives or abstain cause unwanted pregnancies.  You are looking at the big picture when in reality, it is an individual's choice that determines whether or not a pregnancy is created or not, not the state's." Culture, gender and phenotype are partial determinants of behavior. They must be addressed.
"You still fail to answer my unanswered questions about environmental determinism." You mean that anecdote about you learning by yourself? One individual case? We are what we experience.

>>525 "Also, since the being is partly the man's, and he is partly responsible for it, no abortion at all without his consent." Then he needs to sign a contract before conception.
"I disagree.  The fact that one can't become independent of the mother does not mean that it is not alive.  If the parents leave a young baby outside the mother, and don't feed it, it will die as well with no assistence.  The simple fact that one cannot exist outside and independent of the mother does not mean life has not begun.  There is more to it than this.. such as whether or not it can feel, is conscious, or can think.  This is what is important, not whether or not it can live on its own yet." A unique collection of sensory impressions is the only differentiating characteristic.
"That's a rough figure, and it isn't acceptable." If what most pro-lifers want is a complete ban, my hands are utterly tied to my position, even if it means the slaughter of 15 k or so. Christianists cause unwanted pregnancies. The lack of abstinence or sexual irresponsibility is not the fault of feminists.

>>527
"Belief is worthless. convictions are not acceptable as justification. Reality is probabilistic, not subjective."

You can't talk about human rights while sitting there advocating forcing people to work for or do something that they think is wrong. 

People have the right to decide to work or not, or trade or not, and for that matter - they can decide to simply not trade with a certain person for whatever reason. 

There is no justification in forcing someone else to work for something that you believe is right, regardless of the fact that they believe it is wrong.  It is their property, and their work.  They can decide to sell it or not.  They don't have to.

"If he wants to have a say about abortions, he signs himself up for 50 % of parenting or child support if he decides to am-scray. That is logical."

Yep.  I'm fairly sure we see eye to eye here.  But the facts are, we have child support laws *now*, so until they are abolished, he has a say in abortions, since the decision was already made *for* him.  If he has responsibilities to the being, its part his, and that means no killing it without his consent.

"Waiting is not the issue, availability and a slew of other factors apply. Life in America isn't easy."

And I thought we saw eye to eye here.  I don't give a fuck if she had to drive a hundred miles to an abortion clinic or not, that's too bad.  If she wanted an abortion, she should have gotten it before the fetus became a human life (late stage abortions are wrong, remember?)  She's had plenty of time at this point, and you have said so yourself.

"Life prerequires control of one's body, including add-ons to it. Void this and you void life."

But is consciousness life? If so, what if you had a human who was conscious, yet somehow unable to control his body for some reason? He is still 'alive'.  Also, women control whether or not such growths begin in the first place, so one could say that the 'control' existed at that point and time. 

"I've already explained that due to the universalizability maxim, the human rights are a diamond grid that can not function if one is favored above the others."

And the grid cannot exist at all without the base of said grid - the right to life.  Thus, while it is a terrible decision to have to make, it must be made, and the right to life supercedes the others.

"Since human life is cast-iron in the women and dubious at best for a long time in the fetuses, the women win ethically up til a certain point."

Right.  I'm not saying 'ban all abortions,' I'm saying 'ban/restrict late term abortions'.  I was under the impression that you agreed with me on this.  Is this wrong?

"Social conservatism and religion causes amorally late abortions, not feminism."

No it doesn't, lazy bitches who screw around and wait 9 months to get an abortion cause ammorally late abortions. 

"I've stated that, yes. What I find to be alarming is that most pro-lifers think that these 15500 deaths is justification for removing the right to own one's cancers from half of America."

Not all women are dumb enough to let the 'cancer' get there in the first place.  The vast majority know to use contraceptives. 

I was the pro-lifer who mentioned that figure, and I never said it is a justification for removing the rights to all abortions, with the sole exception of a hypothetical scenario you offered, which really doesn't matter anyway, since it has no basis in reality anyway.

I used the figure to point out that there are simply too god damn many late term abortions right now, and there is obviously a problem here.  I doubt all of those occur due to *serious* medical reasons, and the laws need to be tightened I think.  That is *it*.  I am not advocating a complete ban on abortions, mmk?

"The right to body = Right to property = Right to life."

A decent argument.  Since that is your opinion, naturally you will stand with me against socialized medicine, social security, the FDA, the BATFE, and all the other unnecessary government organizations that violate the right to property?  This means incremental removal of said programs, in favor of individualism and property rights, if you are wondering. 

"You've said that a complete ban is preferrable to no-limits abortioning, if you had to make the choice. I consider this unacceptable."

Firstly, I consider it redundant since it was a hypothetical situation with no basis in reality to begin with.

And secondly, my grandfather, a chemist, had chemotherapy for a cancer he had, and I don't see why the treatment should be banned.  I don't see how chemotherapy as an overall practice relates to abortion.

"Unfortunately,  I don't believe mercantile laws work everywhere."

Singing a different tune here than you were above, when you were talking about the oh-so-sacred property rights to ones own body.  If you violate property rights for socialized medicine and social security, you are chipping away at property rights, and that includes the right to ones body, which, as you pointed out earlier, is closely related to abortion.  If you are going to be inconsistent in your support of property rights, then naturally you can't critisize me for doing the same.  That would be hypocritical.

"Huh? I don't."

Yes you do.  'Collective responsibility!', you claim.  You said it in response to my saying that the fetus was innocent, if I'm not mistaken, and I interpret this to mean that you somehow think the fetus is responsible for the state of things as well (and is thus not innocent, somehow).

"No, the analogy was not applicable, since there is a time period that you didn't introduce."

This fails for irrelevancy. 

"Culture, gender and phenotype are partial determinants of behavior. They must be addressed."

No, environmental determinism as a theory is clouded with a good degree of doubt at best.  Again, if it was true, and individuals were composed entirely of experiances taken in from their surroundings, then groups of individuals who grew up in more or less similar environments would naturally grow up to become more or less similar people, which was not always the case.  Clearly, one's success or failure is *not* blamable on environmental determinism, but blamable upon individual choices. 

"You mean that anecdote about you learning by yourself? One individual case? We are what we experience."

Not just one individual case, *many* individual cases.  You not only offer no proof for your idea, but historically, it doesn't hold up. 

>>528
"Then he needs to sign a contract before conception."

If he doesn't need to sign a contract for child support laws (meaning the responsibility is legally his from the start) then he doesn't need to sign one before conception either pertaining to abortion.  With rights come responsibility, and if you are going to dish out responsibility, I expect you to be consistent and logical, and dish out the rights too. 

"A unique collection of sensory impressions is the only differentiating characteristic."

Are you refuting what I am saying? What are you trying to say exactly?

"If what most pro-lifers want is a complete ban, my hands are utterly tied to my position, even if it means the slaughter of 15 k or so."

Dude.. seriously, think about this a minute.  It doesn't matter what most pro-lifers *want* because they don't completely control the government.  There are moderate pro-lifers, and pro-choice democrats, and possibly moderately pro-life democrats, and who knows what other types of politicians whose support would be needed to pass legislation.  The result is that middle-of-the-road type legislation is passed, not what a given side *wants*. 

For example.. just because we got a reasonable number of libertarians in office doesn't mean social security, education, and all these other government programs will be privatized.

Since there are various differing factions in the government that must be reasoned with, we often end up with moderate legislation.  You don't need to worry about extremist pro-lifers who want to ban abortion entirely.

"Christianists cause unwanted pregnancies."

No, unwanted pregnancies are caused by individual decisions.

"The lack of abstinence or sexual irresponsibility is not the fault of feminists."

When did I ever say it was?

>>529 "You can't talk about human rights while sitting there advocating forcing people to work for or do something that they think is wrong." Yes I can. Or, I want to, more like.
"I don't give a fuck if she had to drive a hundred miles to an abortion clinic or not, that's too bad." Well, sheriff. Maybe, just maybe, that is why the poor aren't getting out. Because they are forced to have kids by logistic problems and economic hardship.
"If so, what if you had a human who was conscious, yet somehow unable to control his body for some reason?" Well, no outside entity is removing his right to move his body.
"And the grid cannot exist at all without the base of said grid - the right to life.  Thus, while it is a terrible decision to have to make, it must be made, and the right to life supercedes the others." There is no basis. It is a circle.
"Right.  I'm not saying 'ban all abortions,' I'm saying 'ban/restrict late term abortions'.  I was under the impression that you agreed with me on this.  Is this wrong?" You've said you'd ban all abortions instead of having them if you had to make a choice. I think that makes you diabolical.
"No it doesn't, lazy bitches who screw around and wait 9 months to get an abortion cause ammorally late abortions." Stop using the word "bitch". Anyone with common sense find you distasteful.
"Not all women are dumb enough to let the 'cancer' get there in the first place." Why do these gals get dumb, then?
"A decent argument.  Since that is your opinion, naturally you will stand with me against socialized medicine, social security, the FDA, the BATFE, and all the other unnecessary government organizations that violate the right to property?  This means incremental removal of said programs, in favor of individualism and property rights, if you are wondering." Well, I guess, why not? If this doesn't work out and these institutions have to be erected again, at least we gave it a very fair shot under perfect circumstances.  
"I don't see how chemotherapy as an overall practice relates to abortion." Fetus = Cancer until it has a unique human tabula.
"Singing a different tune here than you were above, when you were talking about the oh-so-sacred property rights to ones own body.  If you violate property rights for socialized medicine and social security, you are chipping away at property rights, and that includes the right to ones body, which, as you pointed out earlier, is closely related to abortion.  If you are going to be inconsistent in your support of property rights, then naturally you can't critisize me for doing the same.  That would be hypocritical." Of course it is hypocritical. I just think it won't work out.
"Yes you do.  'Collective responsibility!', you claim.  You said it in response to my saying that the fetus was innocent, if I'm not mistaken, and I interpret this to mean that you somehow think the fetus is responsible for the state of things as well (and is thus not innocent, somehow)." In this case, I mixed stuff up.
"This fails for irrelevancy." uh huh.
"No, environmental determinism as a theory is clouded with a good degree of doubt at best.  Again, if it was true, and individuals were composed entirely of experiances taken in from their surroundings, then groups of individuals who grew up in more or less similar environments would naturally grow up to become more or less similar people, which was not always the case.  Clearly, one's success or failure is *not* blamable on environmental determinism, but blamable upon individual choices." What causes the individual choices? Individuals act on their environment, then learn from the result. As such, environment (the outside) has a common effect on all inside it, but their reactions depend on previous experiences. If 10 people experienced the same things in the same order from day one, they would be very very similar, despite their genotypes. Since this never happens, environmental determinism is difficult to track and define.
"Not just one individual case, *many* individual cases.  You not only offer no proof for your idea, but historically, it doesn't hold up." I'm not saying that E D makes the individual redundant, but it makes her more predictable.

>>530 "Dude.. seriously, think about this a minute.  It doesn't matter what most pro-lifers *want* because they don't completely control the government.  There are moderate pro-lifers, and pro-choice democrats, and possibly moderately pro-life democrats, and who knows what other types of politicians whose support would be needed to pass legislation.  The result is that middle-of-the-road type legislation is passed, not what a given side *wants*." Well, I know. But as long as a ban is plausible I need to pull in the other direction.
"For example.. just because we got a reasonable number of libertarians in office doesn't mean social security, education, and all these other government programs will be privatized." Well, duh.
"No, unwanted pregnancies are caused by individual decisions." And the key to a stable culture is to see how individual decisions are shaped.
"When did I ever say it was?" Since you're all called Anon I dunno who you are, but I think I've read such sentiments somewhere here.

>>531
"Yes I can. Or, I want to, more like."

Ok, sure, then I'm going to sit here and point out your inconsistencies, then call you a hypocrit for fighting for the right to property only when it suits your personal desires to get even with the religious right, and ignoring it completely whenever it makes you happy.

"Well, sheriff. Maybe, just maybe, that is why the poor aren't getting out. Because they are forced to have kids by logistic problems and economic hardship."

Maybe they should have used a condom then, or gotten an abortion before the fetus becomes a live human being.  If they weren't prepared to drive to an abortion clinic, then they shouldn't have put themselves at risk for unwanted pregnancy by not using adequate contraceptives in the first place.

"Well, no outside entity is removing his right to move his body."

*laughs at the inconsistency of Xel's position*.  So pregnant women have property rights, but businessmen and the rich do not.   

"There is no basis. It is a circle."

Its more like a building.  The foundation is the right to live.

"You've said you'd ban all abortions instead of having them if you had to make a choice. I think that makes you diabolical."

I think the fact that you would sacrifice the right to life of 15,500 babies a year in the name of allowing women to remove something that their actions could have prevented from becoming a problem to begin with makes you diabolical.  They made a decision, and the result of said decision is that it is there.  They baby had no decision, but I guess this doesn't matter to you, since you think nobody is responsible for anything, its all the environment's fault.

"Stop using the word "bitch". Anyone with common sense find you distasteful."

Are you going to refute my statement, or just critisize me for using offensive language? 

"Why do these gals get dumb, then?"

I guess a small fraction of them decides it isn't their responsibility to keep themselves from getting pregnant if they don't wish to be pregnant.  This isn't rocket science, if they don't want to be pregnant, tell the guy to wear a condom, and use a couple different methods of contraceptives to prevent the pregnancy.  They didn't do this, and now they are pregnant.  I have no sympathy for them and their stupidity/irresponsibility.

"Well, I guess, why not? If this doesn't work out and these institutions have to be erected again, at least we gave it a very fair shot under perfect circumstances."

Ok, so now your position has changed.  Note taken.

"Fetus = Cancer until it has a unique human tabula."

Cancers can grow in the human body of its own accord, a fetus can't.  The fetus is brought about by the actions of the person in question.

"Of course it is hypocritical. I just think it won't work out."

I'll ignore this since you said you changed your position on the aforementioned issues I pointed out.

"What causes the individual choices? Individuals act on their environment, then learn from the result. As such, environment (the outside) has a common effect on all inside it, but their reactions depend on previous experiences. If 10 people experienced the same things in the same order from day one, they would be very very similar, despite their genotypes. Since this never happens, environmental determinism is difficult to track and define."

Well, tell me when you have solid proof, and I'll listen :).

"I'm not saying that E D makes the individual redundant, but it makes her more predictable."

That sounds reasonable.  However, I absolutely reject this 'i'm not responsible for my actions, its not my fault, blame something else!' kindof attitude, and don't buy it until I see real proof of said theory.

>>532
"Well, I know. But as long as a ban is plausible I need to pull in the other direction."

It isn't plausible.  There are quite simply too many moderates/centrists, and too many mixtures of politicians for anything super-radical to happen on the issue.  Plus, if an absolute ban is enacted, the repubs lose a big 'rally issue' that draws large groups of people to their cause, as a party.  I doubt they would be that strategically stupid.

"Well, duh."

Exactly, and just because we have a number of conservatives in office doesn't mean abortion will be banned either, for the same reasons, as well as those stated above.

"And the key to a stable culture is to see how individual decisions are shaped."

Ok, and part of what shapes individual decisions are laws.  So passing laws regulating it would be of great help in shaping said decisions.  I'll support you in fighting for deregulation of contraceptives (if there is any).  I have yet to see or hear of republicans in my area (and I live in a really strongly conservative area of the state) banning contraceptives.

"Since you're all called Anon I dunno who you are, but I think I've read such sentiments somewhere here."

So you are basing your judgement of one 'anonymous' by something another 'anonymous' has said.  Wonderful.  You have already made this mistake in the past in thinking I support the death penalty, which was really dead wrong.  Why would you repeat the same mistake?

"So pregnant women have property rights, but businessmen and the rich do not." I won't deny my wants are hypocritical. "Its more like a building.  The foundation is the right to live." Nah.
"I think the fact that you would sacrifice the right to life of 15,500 babies a year in the name of allowing women to remove something that their actions could have prevented from becoming a problem to begin with makes you diabolical." The situation is not plausible, but if one tied my hands and had to make a choice I would still have to choose the women's side. I don't care if they could have prevented the pregnancy, because there are many logistical factors that apply.
"They made a decision, and the result of said decision is that it is there.  They baby had no decision, but I guess this doesn't matter to you, since you think nobody is responsible for anything, its all the environment's fault." Never said its the environments fault, I am saying that the environment can't be forgotten if one wants to improve society.
"Are you going to refute my statement, or just critisize me for using offensive language?" I am argumenting that likening a human to an animal is for people with mullets.
"I guess a small fraction of them decides it isn't their responsibility to keep themselves from getting pregnant if they don't wish to be pregnant.  This isn't rocket science, if they don't want to be pregnant, tell the guy to wear a condom, and use a couple different methods of contraceptives to prevent the pregnancy.  They didn't do this, and now they are pregnant.  I have no sympathy for them and their stupidity/irresponsibility." This completely overlooks cultural factors, even though I agree.
"The fetus is brought about by the actions of the person in question." The embryo is. But I guess that is an unneccesary specification. What I am saying is that a society that makes clinics rare, people sexually immature and selfish, allows pharmacists to treat diploids like newborns, women dependent on men both emotionally and financially, does nothing to stem the flow of alcohol among kids, prevents good sex-ed, allows medicine costs to skyrocket and promotes a world-view where male promiscuity is promoted shouldn't be that shocked when some abortions don't occur quick enough.
"Well, tell me when you have solid proof, and I'll listen :)." Ever heard of "Little Emotional Albert"? Pavlov? That is what I am talking about - behavioral psychology.
"That sounds reasonable.  However, I absolutely reject this 'i'm not responsible for my actions, its not my fault, blame something else!' kindof attitude, and don't buy it until I see real proof of said theory." This isn't about blaming, this is recognizing that a society can't implement policies without recognizing the effects. If abstinence-only education causes more pregnancies, is it really that clever to punish the individuals?

>>534 "So you are basing your judgement of one 'anonymous' by something another 'anonymous' has said.  Wonderful.  You have already made this mistake in the past in thinking I support the death penalty, which was really dead wrong.  Why would you repeat the same mistake?" Because there is no way for me to differentiate between you?

>>536
If you have no way of knowing, then I would suggest you stop making such assumptions.

>>535
"The situation is not plausible, but if one tied my hands and had to make a choice I would still have to choose the women's side. I don't care if they could have prevented the pregnancy, because there are many logistical factors that apply."

Logistical factors like driving to an abortion clinic? Oh my, what a challenge that would be.  That certainly washes them of all the stupid decisions they made in the past, and justifies sacrificing 15,500 innocent human lives to compensate for all their dumb decisions, and especially the dumbest one of them all - waiting until late-term to have the abortion.

"Never said its the environments fault, I am saying that the environment can't be forgotten if one wants to improve society."

You did.  This is likely a reasonable conclusion you have written *here* though. 

"I am argumenting that likening a human to an animal is for people with mullets."

I'm not likening a human to an animal.

"This completely overlooks cultural factors, even though I agree."

Sounds like a more or less agreeable conclusion. 

"The embryo is. But I guess that is an unneccesary specification. What I am saying is that a society that makes clinics rare, people sexually immature and selfish, allows pharmacists to treat diploids like newborns, women dependent on men both emotionally and financially, does nothing to stem the flow of alcohol among kids, prevents good sex-ed, allows medicine costs to skyrocket and promotes a world-view where male promiscuity is promoted shouldn't be that shocked when some abortions don't occur quick enough."

Yes they should.  Women were given plenty of time to get an abortion before the fetus becomes conscious/can feel/etc.  There is an excessively large timetable for doing so.  I have no sympathy for those who postpone the decision that ridiculously long. 

"Ever heard of "Little Emotional Albert"? Pavlov? That is what I am talking about - behavioral psychology."

I've heard the terms 'Pavlov' and 'behavioral psychology' before.

"This isn't about blaming, this is recognizing that a society can't implement policies without recognizing the effects. If abstinence-only education causes more pregnancies, is it really that clever to punish the individuals?"

I'm saying that whether or not you punish individuals for a given action is unrelated to the fact that said 15,500 innocent late-term human fetuses have a right to life. 

"Logistical factors like driving to an abortion clinic? Oh my, what a challenge that would be." Why are unwanted pregnancies common in poorer areas, do you think?
"I'm not likening a human to an animal." Bitch = female dog. I told Kumori calling you a chauvinist pig was cliched and low albeit perhaps justified. You should follow suit.
"Yes they should.  Women were given plenty of time to get an abortion before the fetus becomes conscious/can feel/etc." Time is not the only critical asset.
"I have no sympathy for those who postpone the decision that ridiculously long." I don't need to feel sympathy with people to *understand* their problems.
"I've heard the terms 'Pavlov' and 'behavioral psychology' before." Was I assuming you hadn't?
"I'm saying that whether or not you punish individuals for a given action is unrelated to the fact that said 15,500 innocent late-term human fetuses have a right to life." Um, sure. I'm just trying to understand why these babies get aborted. Irresponsibility doesn't cut it, I don't rely on virtues or lack of them to view the world.

SHUT THE FUCK UP

I'm curious. Why do these foetuses have a right to life? What makes you assume existence is a right not a privelege?

>>541 Now who the hell are you? Once you have something, why not be allowed to keep it. Then it can be argued that the fetus has the "irresponsible bitch" to thank for having a life in the first place (she has basically been its mother since conception), which is another factor I really don't want to deal with here.

I'm not saying the mother shouldn't be allowed to keep the foetus. I'm just a bit pissed at all the religous conservatives saying that these foetuses have a right to life. What right to life do they have that the other 30 million odd sperm didn't have?

At the end of the day it is the mothers choice as to what to do with the child. No one elses. But there is no such thing as a "right to life".

SHUT UP STOP POSTING IN THIS STUPID ASS THREAD

SHUT THE FUCK UP SHUT UP


SHUT UP!

>>506
I came from a long family line with a history of diabetes. However, I don't have diabetes even though my parents do, and I'm 22 years old. Just as long as I don't gorge myself on sugar/salt like a fat person eating cake and kill my pancreas then I won't develop diabetes. So Kumori's arguement with health problems is quite valid. I love my mother for being a strong woman and warrior at heart, to have me despite the risk to her health.

http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/34576/
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/40612/

>>506
This Anonymous has been preaching for so long that it becomes an automatic reflex of him to just shut down all receiving information and to just shit out on everything against his views. People are amazingly stupid creatures, the joke about intelligence is wavering. Having a true conscience will set them apart.

THIS CAN STOP NOW! JUST STOP POSTING

I CAN IMAGINE HOW THIS HAPPENNED, YOU TYPE SOMETHING THEN SOMEONE RESPONDS WITH SOMETHING LITTLE LONGER THEN YOU THINK, WELL I TYPED THAT MUCH I MIGHT ASWELL NOT LET THIS THREAD DIE SO IMMA TYPE A LITTLE MORE ETC ETC..

Do you have anything intelligent to add or are you just rambling because you don't understand the subject matter?

So far we have been talking about when a fetus becomes a human being. The only thing mentioned thus far is a conscious.

One might argue that a fetus is not a person until higher level brain functions present. Only when higher level brain functions are present does one have the ability to form language and perform logical deductions. Elements that are often attributed to consciousness occur because the brain performs this higher level functions. Basic biological functions, such as breathing, occur as a result of lower level functions of the brain. It is the presence of higher level brain functions that makes a human being a person. Because higher level brain functions are not present in a fetus in the first and second trimester of pregnancy, it is not morally wrong to terminate the pregnancy during that period.

The latter position, that a fetus is not a person until there are higher brain functions, is the correct position. Consciousness is a quality that is undeniably a component of personhood. Being conscious is distinct from being potentially conscious. Between the point of potentially conscious and actually conscious, any number of things may occur, preventing the fetus from living the full life that it is thought persons should live. Perhaps the fetus will develop anencephaly, a disorder that results in a child being born without the cerebrum and cerebellum, parts of the brain responsible for higher brain functions and motor activity. Thus, until consciousness is actually achieved, it cannot be certain that fetus will achieve it.

From what I read, consciousness doesn't develop until the seventh month in pregnancy when the cerebrum starts developing, so some argue that it is morally wrong to terminate pregnancy at that time. But that time is only when it starts developing, there's still a window of problems that may occur, such as the possibility of the cerebrum malforming or not forming at all, or the cerebrum may develop a disorder and render the fetus at birth a vegetable or make it still born. The brain is still undeveloped even after birth.

So now we tackled consciousness. Let's tackle another factor. The fetal blood circulation.

The fetuses' blood circulation is not like ordinary human beings', it it completely alien to ours. The fetus doesn't have a pulminary circulation system like ours, instead, the fetus's veinous and arterial blood are mixed together from its one-way circulation. Only after birth does the fetus then immediately transfer to pulminary circulation and its ductus arteriosus withers away, and it becomes a human being. So aborting it wouldn't be morally wrong in this factor.

Another factor is the respiratory system. The fetus doesn't breathe like us, it doesn't breathe gases, but the liquid in the embryonic sac. In fact, this isn't real 'breathing' in a sense, it's the flucuation and current of the liquid inside the embryonic sac that gives the fetus the image of breathing. It's lungs don't function, and the fetal heart refrains from pumping blood to them. Only after birth does the lungs activate and the fetus breathes its first 'breath of life' of air from the outside, and the heart starts pumping blood to the lungs.


These factors make the fetus a human being only after birth.

>>550 Well, um. Hm. I think humanity resides in the cerebral matter, and nowhere else. Like life only exists on minuscule earth, humanity resides in laughably small and brittle compartments. I'd like to infer that apart from this I just can't disagree.

>>551 Yes, I'm more on the cerebral matter as well. But conciousness during the seventh month/third trimester hasn't be exactly pin-pointed where, or at what level, for all we know, the conciousness may just be like that of sea slug. So we use birth as a guarantee.

>>552 But birth control is easy and cheap and 16-year olds that haven't been taught self-esteem, sex education or self-reliance can easily get to an abortion clinic all by themselves because this is America.

>>553 Nice one, Xel. Lol. A complete 180 of reality in America and commonsense.

>>539
"Why are unwanted pregnancies common in poorer areas, do you think?"

Because those people are evidently too fucking stupid to make good decisions, use adequate contraceptives, etc.  We actually have sex-ed right now, and they are still having large numbers of unwanted pregnancies. 
"Bitch = female dog. I told Kumori calling you a chauvinist pig was cliched and low albeit perhaps justified. You should follow suit."

It wasn't justified in the least.  I don't hate women, I just hate irresponsible murderers.

"Time is not the only critical asset."

If they don't have the ability to get to an abortion clinic, maybe they should have taken that into consideration before having sex without using adequate contraceptives. 

They have no right to destroy feeling/conscious human life due to their own irresponsibility or stupidity.

"I don't need to feel sympathy with people to *understand* their problems."

They caused their own problems via their own decisions. 

"Um, sure. I'm just trying to understand why these babies get aborted. Irresponsibility doesn't cut it, I don't rely on virtues or lack of them to view the world."

If the reason they are being aborted is due to stupid irresponsible people (it is), just tighten the laws, and they can tough it out.  They are screwing themselves over with their own dumb decisions, and they knew it at the time.  Too bad for them.

>>553
Sex-ed actually *is* taught in america.  Their mistakes are entirely their fault.

>>545
"I came from a long family line with a history of diabetes. However, I don't have diabetes even though my parents do, and I'm 22 years old. Just as long as I don't gorge myself on sugar/salt like a fat person eating cake and kill my pancreas then I won't develop diabetes. So Kumori's arguement with health problems is quite valid. I love my mother for being a strong woman and warrior at heart, to have me despite the risk to her health."

Kumori's 'argument' on health problems is *not* valid.  You apparently misunderstood it.  Kumori was saying that women who become pregnant while full of diseases that could jeopardize the health and life of her future children anyways so that she can fullfill her selfish desire to have children were 'brave' and acting in 'good conscience.'

This is not the case.  Women who know they are full of diseases, and become pregnant anyways (knowing full well that these diseases have a good chance of jeopardizing her children's well being and life) are *not* 'brave' or 'acting in good conscience.'

These women are gambling with the lives and health of their future children to satisfy *their* selfish desires to have their own children, when there are perfectly fine children availible for adoption with no health problems, that could be adopted resulting in *no* risk to the woman's future children's lives and well being.  They are irresponsible and uncompassionate.

>>550
"So far we have been talking about when a fetus becomes a human being. The only thing mentioned thus far is a conscious."

No, there were many other things mentioned, one of which (feeling) I can mention off the top of my head.  A fetus is genetically 'human.'  It has the organs of a human. Once it has certain properties such as consciousness/senses, it deserves legal protection.

"One might argue that a fetus is not a person until higher level brain functions present. Only when higher level brain functions are present does one have the ability to form language and perform logical deductions."

This is redundant.  When the fetus is conscious/has senses, it deserves legal protection. 

"It is the presence of higher level brain functions that makes a human being a person."

Your opinion.  This is *not* fact.

"Because higher level brain functions are not present in a fetus in the first and second trimester of pregnancy, it is not morally wrong to terminate the pregnancy during that period."

Again, it is genetically human.  If it has consciousness or senses, it deserves legal protection.

"The latter position, that a fetus is not a person until there are higher brain functions, is the correct position."

Your belief.  This is not factually supported.

"Consciousness is a quality that is undeniably a component of personhood."

One of them.  Thus, we can conclude that fetuses that have attained some degree of consciousness should not be aborted.  This is wrong.

"From what I read, consciousness doesn't develop until the seventh month in pregnancy when the cerebrum starts developing, so some argue that it is morally wrong to terminate pregnancy at that time."

If consciousness develops at that time, then that is when no more should be allowed, clearly.

"But that time is only when it starts developing, there's still a window of problems that may occur, such as the possibility of the cerebrum malforming or not forming at all, or the cerebrum may develop a disorder and render the fetus at birth a vegetable or make it still born. The brain is still undeveloped even after birth."

What a load of bullshit.  Yeah, people's minds don't develop until quite a while after birth, this doesn't give you the freedom to kill them. 
"Only after birth does the fetus then immediately transfer to pulminary circulation and its ductus arteriosus withers away, and it becomes a human being. So aborting it wouldn't be morally wrong in this factor."

Redundant.  Abortion should obviously no longer be allowed once the fetus has attained consciousness, and senses.

"Only after birth does the lungs activate and the fetus breathes its first 'breath of life' of air from the outside, and the heart starts pumping blood to the lungs."

Abortion should no longer be allowed once the fetus has attained consciousness/senses.

"These factors make the fetus a human being only after birth."

No they don't.  It is genetically human, and once it has attained consciousness/senses, abortion should no longer be allowed.

>>553
This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that said conscious fetuses have the right to live.

Consciousness does not imply right to live.  As long as there is capital punishment, the decision of whether all human life is sacred is an arbitrary one, and not decided on absolutes such as definition of life, etc.