Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The best p[art about this story is that it went up for vote under special rules so even if it passed, it wouldn;t become law and move ontot he Senate.

Therefore, it was just a political stunt to make campaign commercials for this election year. Even in that regard, it was kind of weak as it was a non-recorded voice vote. Therefore, you can't even say Rep Every Man- D voted to allow women to kill babies of the "wrong" gender.

Weak political sauce all around.

speaking of the ethical side fraz,

what if the mom is on welfare and can not afford all the doctors appointments nor the cost of delivering the baby? nor could said mom afford to raise the kid?
What if the mom already has 11 kids and doesn't want to have another one?

Would you be OK with your taxes being raised to support welfare moms and their kids? so you would have to pay more in taxes for all the baby's clothes, food, housing, and education?

Its all part of the circle of life, if you think all abortions should be illegal for any reason, then you should also be for government programs to help care for all these children.

One essential question-does she own a wiener dog and treat it well? If no:
Say hello to Mr. Guillotine?

Kovnik Obama wrote:[
4) I'd be fine with my taxes going to actually raize kids. Thats the single best use I can think of...

Hehe. Razing children is exactly what the article is about.

Frazzled wrote:

speaking of the ethical side fraz,

what if the mom is on welfare and can not afford all the doctors appointments nor the cost of delivering the baby? nor could said mom afford to raise the kid?
What if the mom already has 11 kids and doesn't want to have another one?

Would you be OK with your taxes being raised to support welfare moms and their kids? so you would have to pay more in taxes for all the baby's clothes, food, housing, and education?

Its all part of the circle of life, if you think all abortions should be illegal for any reason, then you should also be for government programs to help care for all these children.

One essential question-does she own a wiener dog and treat it well? If no:
Say hello to Mr. Guillotine?

Even tho I replace wiener dogs with cats, I get the intention. Clearly the real ethical factor is our allegiance and dedication to the well-being of the superior furry species of this world.

@daedalus ; lool I knew there was something wrong with that ''z''. I'll keep it there for the comical effect

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

speaking of the ethical side fraz,

what if the mom is on welfare and can not afford all the doctors appointments nor the cost of delivering the baby? nor could said mom afford to raise the kid?
What if the mom already has 11 kids and doesn't want to have another one?

Would you be OK with your taxes being raised to support welfare moms and their kids? so you would have to pay more in taxes for all the baby's clothes, food, housing, and education?

Its all part of the circle of life, if you think all abortions should be illegal for any reason, then you should also be for government programs to help care for all these children.

One essential question-does she own a wiener dog and treat it well? If no:
Say hello to Mr. Guillotine?

Even tho I replace wiener dogs with cats, I get the intention. Clearly the real ethical factor is our allegiance and dedication to the well-being of to the superior furry species of this world.

@daedalus ; lool I knew there was something wrong with that ''z''. I'll keep it there for the comical effect

Exactly!

Kovnik Obama wrote:1) Hum, you actually mean to say that prenatal medical care isn't covered in the States? WTH kind of backward country are you talking about?

No, don't take facts about US healthcare from a Canadian.

sirlynchmob wrote:what if the mom is on welfare and can not afford all the doctors appointments nor the cost of delivering the baby? nor could said mom afford to raise the kid?

Don't get pregnant.

sirlynchmob wrote:What if the mom already has 11 kids and doesn't want to have another one?

Don't get pregnant.

sirlynchmob wrote:Would you be OK with your taxes being raised to support welfare moms and their kids? so you would have to pay more in taxes for all the baby's clothes, food, housing, and education?

No, I don't want to be forced to pay welfare in the first place.

sirlynchmob wrote:Its all part of the circle of life, if you think all abortions should be illegal for any reason, then you should also be for government programs to help care for all these children.

No, actually you don't. How about this: if you think government is responsible for taking care of children, you shouldn't be in favor of abortion for any reason.

biccat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:1) Hum, you actually mean to say that prenatal medical care isn't covered in the States? WTH kind of backward country are you talking about?

No, don't take facts about US healthcare from a Canadian.

So there is coverage, right?

Medicare covers prenatal care. Otherwise your insurance company provides care.

If you aren't eligible for Medicare and don't have insurance, there are plenty of charities that will provide prenatal care.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:1) Hum, you actually mean to say that prenatal medical care isn't covered in the States? WTH kind of backward country are you talking about?

No, don't take facts about US healthcare from a Canadian.

So there is coverage, right?

Only if you can afford it. and I'm still an american, just living up in canada.

biccat wrote:Medicare covers prenatal care. Otherwise your insurance company provides care.

If you aren't eligible for Medicare and don't have insurance, there are plenty of charities that will provide prenatal care.

Thanks. I know there are cultural differences between the US and Canada (even more with the US and Québec), but I pretty much couldn't beleive someone would be turned down at a hospital once she is in labour.

Wouldn't there also be a few religious hospitals that could provide the care for free?

Kovnik Obama wrote:

biccat wrote:Medicare covers prenatal care. Otherwise your insurance company provides care.

If you aren't eligible for Medicare and don't have insurance, there are plenty of charities that will provide prenatal care.

Thanks. I know there are cultural differences between the US and Canada (even more with the US and Québec), but I pretty much couldn't beleive someone would be turned down at a hospital once she is in labour.

Wouldn't there also be a few religious hospitals that could provide the care for free?

Nothing is free down here, if you turn up at a hospital while in active labor, then the hospital has to deliver the baby. Otherwise they turn you away. But that just covers the birth and not the 9 months of prenatal care missed out on. If they deliver they will send you the bill and send it to collections (get it on your credit report) if you can't pay.

biccat wrote:If you aren't eligible for Medicare and don't have insurance, there are plenty of charities that will provide prenatal care.

ITT, Biccat endorses the services of Planned Parenthood.

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote:If you aren't eligible for Medicare and don't have insurance, there are plenty of charities that will provide prenatal care.

ITT, Biccat endorses the services of Planned Parenthood.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+prenatal

biccat wrote:

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote:If you aren't eligible for Medicare and don't have insurance, there are plenty of charities that will provide prenatal care.

ITT, Biccat endorses the services of Planned Parenthood.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+prenatal

http://pregnancy.about.com/od/prenatalcare/a/freeprenatalcare.htm

Kovnik Obama wrote:Adoption. It's still better than death.

I think this is more complicated. Naturally there will be many different opinions on this, but personally I feel that emphasis must be put to how the child will grow up and what kind of life it will lead, not the condition of the foetus. Before an unborn child starts to show higher brain activity it's nothing but a lump of organic material, a human-in-the-making. The thought that even a week old foetus is supposed to be regarded as a human being is dangerously close to what certain religious institutions proclaim regarding the use of condoms.

Personally, I believe the limit of viability works well enough as a threshold, which is why even in regions where it is not enforced by law, abortions commonly aren't done beyond this point.

Lynata wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Adoption. It's still better than death.

I think this is more complicated.

Naturally, it always is... In that form the argument is oversimplified, but the truth remains ; one cannot live any life of any type, good or bad, if he doesn't live.

Naturally there will be many different opinions on this, but personally I feel that emphasis must be put to how the child will grow up and what kind of life it will lead, not the condition of the foetus.

One should not prevent the other. One should be able to find a way to care about the existence of life AND the conditions of that life.

Before an unborn child starts to show higher brain activity it's nothing but a lump of organic material, a human-in-the-making.

You are nothing more than a lump of organic matter. If murder is wrong, as in taking the life of 'a lump of organic matter capable of higher brain functions', then what differentiate the killing of an comatose person (or someone under the correct drugs) from the killing of an unborn foetus?

The thought that even a week old foetus is supposed to be regarded as a human being is dangerously close to what certain religious institutions proclaim regarding the use of condoms.

I refuse the comparison, because it's an abusive one. There are clear differences between stopping the biological development of a live being and stopping the necessary conditions for that development to possibly start. The absence of a third being, for starters.

Personally, I believe the limit of viability works well enough as a threshold, which is why even in regions where it is not enforced by law, abortions commonly aren't done beyond this point.

Viability is a ridiculous test for the apparition of human life : if you ask 'what's alive?', and someone tells you 'What's alive is alive and viable', would you have understood anything to the concept of life?

Kovnik Obama wrote:You are nothing more than a lump of organic matter. If murder is wrong, as in taking the life of 'a lump of organic matter capable of higher brain functions', then what differentiate the killing of an comatose person (or someone under the correct drugs) from the killing of an unborn foetus?

So what do we do about animals? A cow has more sentience than a month-old-fetus.

Arguably, the crux of the matter has nothing to do with "life" but with some sacrosanct idea of "what makes a human". I do see your point and sorta understand your reasons for making it, but I just can't agree that a fetus even in its earliest stages of development should be considered the same as a fully developed human being. It's nothing but a collection of tiny muscles, skin and organs still attached to and dependent on the physiology of its "host", depending on how much time has passed. Society has no problem with people having surgery to remove their caecum, and until that "lump of organic matter" we are talking about is capable of higher brain functions I wouldn't necessarily see it as something different.

I say "necessarily" because I'm somewhat torn on the subject myself - I've just thrown this remark into the thread because I was surprised by how much it was taken for granted that a pregnancy becomes regarded as a fully protected human live at what seems to be the moment the egg is fertilized.

For the sake of the argument, though - I think the difference is that the comatose or drugged person already has exerted higher brain functions and has lived a life, to which the person will (hopefully) return. The difference is that in one case you're protecting the person that has been and will be, whereas in the other you are protecting a person that could become. This is also what led me to the "abusive" comparison, by the way, for whether you stop the development of a fetus before or after insemination does not seem that different to me. Also, what exactly is your definition of a "live being"? Before viability, a fetus is unable to live on its own and depends entirely on its host, just like any other organ of the mother's body. Do you consider the lung a live being, or the heart?
Crappy question, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make.

Lynata wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:You are nothing more than a lump of organic matter. If murder is wrong, as in taking the life of 'a lump of organic matter capable of higher brain functions', then what differentiate the killing of an comatose person (or someone under the correct drugs) from the killing of an unborn foetus?

So what do we do about animals? A cow has more sentience than a month-old-fetus.

True. See I don't actually attribute the absolute value to life for any other reason that I think it's the only value we can make absolute without becoming an absurd society, and for some reason, at least, it rings true. So beside the point that we are still carnivorous to a good degree, no, I don't think an animal's life as any more objective worth than ours. I still have needs for meat, so I will eat the creatures I'm naturally bent toward eating. I'll leave the others alone. If a beast decided to have a go at me, I wouldn't hold it against him. (I actually have this fantasy about dying like Pitt at the end of Legends of the Fall)

As I see it, I truly have no reason to want less humans on this earth.

Arguably, the crux of the matter has nothing to do with "life" but with some sacrosanct idea of "what makes a human". I do see your point and sorta understand your reasons for making it, but I just can't agree that a fetus even in its earliest stages of development should be considered the same as a fully developed human being. It's nothing but a collection of tiny muscles, skin and organs still attached to and dependent on the physiology of its "host", depending on how much time has passed. Society has no problem with people having surgery to remove their caecum, and until that "lump of organic matter" we are talking about is capable of higher brain functions I wouldn't necessarily see it as something different.

Because that caecum isn't a soon to be autonomous, self-regulating, expanding and possibly transcendent being. A hell of a lot of adults don't use many of their 'higher brain functions' any given week (ok, I jest)...

I say "necessarily" because I'm somewhat torn on the subject myself - I've just thrown this remark into the thread because I was surprised by how much it was taken for granted that a pregnancy becomes regarded as a fully protected human live at what seems to be the moment the egg is fertilized.

But that's not what I'm arguing. That would make a women who has killed her newly formed fetus by drinking a glass of wine the following day guilty of homicide. That's what happens when we let demagogues handled debates for too long ; people have problem starting the discussion from the beginning again, without falling in the same tropes. I think we should say there is a human being the second the mother realize that she is carrying a baby.

For the sake of the argument, though - I think the difference is that the comatose or drugged person already has exerted higher brain functions and has lived a life, to which the person will (hopefully) return. The difference is that in one case you're protecting the person that has been and will be, whereas in the other you are protecting a person that could become.

I don't see how that makes invalid one's claim on the right to live, while the other's still fine. There's no legal prescription on a life's worth.

This is also what led me to the "abusive" comparison, by the way, for whether you stop the development of a fetus before or after insemination does not seem that different to me.

On one side you have two elements of biological matters that have, separately, already attained their finality. On the other side you have the product of the encounter of those two elements, which, given enough time, will become it's own autonomous, self-regulating, self-expanding, experimenting being.

Also, what exactly is your definition of a "live being"? Before viability, a fetus is unable to live on its own and depends entirely on its host, just like any other organ of the mother's body. Do you consider the lung a live being, or the heart?
Crappy question, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make.

Nah it's a fine question. I already mentioned autonomous, self-regulating, self-expanding, experimenting (that one might be abusive considering some low forms of life). One of the problems with life is that physical, mechanical and biological science are completely allergic to all forms of finalist explanations. It's still totally common to hear that there are no example of finalist phenomenon in nature, at any degree, and that all such explanations are necessarily defective. At the same time, there's been models of 'intentional causality' produced in cybernetics, psychology and even in physics ever since the 1920s. So the real problem is that we haven't exactly even given ourselves the conceptual tools to define completely life.

So I would say that life is any self-regulating, autonomous material Gestalt (as in 'cohesive form'), but keep in mind that most biologist would disagree with me, because I am interpreting more than what Science supposedly allows me too, and that those that would are the intelligent design ones (which I am not).

Kovnik Obama wrote:True. See I don't actually attribute the absolute value to life for any other reason that I think it's the only value we can make absolute without becoming an absurd society, and for some reason, at least, it rings true. So beside the point that we are still carnivorous to a good degree, no, I don't think an animal's life as any more objective worth than ours. I still have needs for meat, so I will eat the creatures I'm naturally bent toward eating. I'll leave the others alone. If a beast decided to have a go at me, I wouldn't hold it against him. (I actually have this fantasy about dying like Pitt at the end of Legends of the Fall)

Consequent, I can respect that. I suppose it was a somewhat stupid point to make - we probably all talk of "human life" and not just "life".

Kovnik Obama wrote:As I see it, I truly have no reason to want less humans on this earth.

Even if it'd be unhappy humans? Wouldn't it be both more gentle as well as more efficient to spare a living being a likely painful existence (note: before said living being actually becomes a living being) whilst at the same time reserving the resources for those who (hopefully) feel loved? It's very simplified, of course, but I would believe that the majority of cases where the parents wish they could have aborted result in a less happier childhood than in cases where the parents themselves are happy about it. Family cohesion and all. This might even prevent crime - both from the prospective new human (kids growing up in a disjointed family are likely more prone to go to the bad than others), or from their parents (there have been an awful lot of baby murders in the news lately).

Kovnik Obama wrote:Because that caecum isn't a soon to be autonomous, self-regulating, expanding and possibly transcendent being.

A fetus before viability (at which point abortions are usually no longer done) is neither autonomous nor self-regulating nor transcendent. This is what will happen if you allow the fetus to grow into full human form (again, viability). As far as expansion is concerned, this goes for all organs in the body, including the caecum (it was created from a single cell at some point, after all).

Kovnik Obama wrote:I don't see how that makes invalid one's claim on the right to live, while the other's still fine. There's no legal prescription on a life's worth.

I'm argueing that in early stages a fetus doesn't count as "life", though.

Kovnik Obama wrote:On one side you have two elements of biological matters that have, separately, already attained their finality. On the other side you have the product of the encounter of those two elements, which, given enough time, will become it's own autonomous, self-regulating, self-expanding, experimenting being.

May become. Just like those two elements of biological matters.
I suppose this is largely a matter of interpretation, but as long as you can at least agree that there is some controversy here I think we'll be fine.

How many months into a pregnancy can you determine gender, anyway? and its easy to tell if they had the abortion because of it, if you have an abortion after you go and find out the gender, then you, and the doctor should be hit with the law

Lynata wrote:Even if it'd be unhappy humans? Wouldn't it be both more gentle as well as more efficient to spare a living being a likely painful existence (note: before said living being actually becomes a living being) whilst at the same time reserving the resources for those who (hopefully) feel loved?

I wouldn't assume life's worth of happiness from looking at the the parent's situation. And even if I could draw likely conclusions, I still don't think me, you, or the mother, or anyone as the right to make that kind of choice for someone else (in this situation, of course). If their life sucks so bad, then they'll always have the option to opt out of it later on. At least they'll have started with a fighting chance. And let's note that kids can and have grown up to be very decent adults in situations infinitly worse than that of the american lower middle class.

It's very simplified, of course, but I would believe that the majority of cases where the parents wish they could have aborted result in a less happier childhood than in cases where the parents themselves are happy about it. Family cohesion and all. This might even prevent crime - both from the prospective new human (kids growing up in a disjointed family are likely more prone to go to the bad than others), or from their parents (there have been an awful lot of baby murders in the news lately).

Horrible people doing horrible things shouldn't be where we look when we start making laws (or in this case, even just morals) for average people. That parent might learn to love their kid later on. Also, there's plenty of crappy families today, without the kids becoming psychos.

A fetus before viability (at which point abortions are usually no longer done) is neither autonomous nor self-regulating nor transcendent. This is what will happen if you allow the fetus to grow into full human form (again, viability). As far as expansion is concerned, this goes for all organs in the body, including the caecum (it was created from a single cell at some point, after all).

Which is not surprising, because the caecum sprouts from a live being ; it's going to share a few caracteristics with it's 'host', or 'originator', or whatever term is appropriate. Eventually, the baby will share all it originator's caracteristics (or it should, and if we are face with a case of handicapp, then I can see the option being valid at that point) All that remains is a question of time ; because the fetus will gain autonomy, while the caecum won't. And kids up to 4-5 are in no way 'viable', if we extend the sense of the term beyond the purely 'medical' meaning. They are as dependant on another's attention to survive, it just becomes an external matter.

May become. Just like those two elements of biological matters.

Yeah, but in one case the 'may' depends solely on the meeting of two biological elements (which are legally defined as property of the being from which they originate), while on the other, the 'may' depends on your action toward making impossible a biological process initiated in one (separate but inrecognised) being.

I suppose this is largely a matter of interpretation, but as long as you can at least agree that there is some controversy here I think we'll be fine.

Of course, I'm not saying (and will never say) that this is an problem of the Pro-Choice being 'blind to the truth'... We were pretty much all born into this issue, it's perfectly normal for there to be a large division on the subject. And anyway, the most important thing, I think, is to steal this debate from the fundamentalists (I would say on both sides, but there's so many more on the Pro-life side ).



@Exalted Pariah : from the beginning with a genetic test, or from the 10th week by visual confirmation

Im tired of hearing "Adoption is an option" IT always isnt, First alot of the time the parents want a baby that is the same race as the child,
Second, they will look for a child of parents that have shown good grade or genes. No ones going to adopt a baby that has a predisposition to diabetes, heart disease or obesity.

I think you meant ''It isn't always''... unless you believe there as never been an adoption?


... that's what foster homes are for...

Ain't great, but again, beats a hole in the ground in my book.

hotsauceman1 wrote:No ones going to adopt a baby that has a predisposition to diabetes, heart disease or obesity.

People want babies of any race, color or health. Hell even a no-legged baby with feet growing out it's eye sockets would probably get adopted almost immediately. It's the older kids that sit around in the system not getting homes. No way a newborn is just going to sit around the shelf gathering dust.

I honestly wouldn't care one second if the kid I was set to adopt had diabetes. Obesity is something I would beat the hell out of him, Ben Stiller style, so he might end up hating me

Jesting aside, minor health issues shouldn't stop a parent planning on adopting. I don't think such a person would think like that... Maybe they would prefer certain origins, as in 'Oh let's adopt a little x because there's currently a lot of crap happening in that country'. Or someone who would say ' Oh let's adopt a kid born here, because we should take care of our problems first'. It's all sophistry, yeah, but it simply isn't sophistry like 'let's adopt a kid because we can take care of a kid, but hey, let's not adopt a sick kid'.

I mean, it's not like diabetes is as bad as Down syndrome...

Phototoxin wrote:It's tongue in cheek but also has a ring of truth - with feminists pushing for more access to abortion/birth control its unborn girls who it's mostly used on.

Ultimately I do think that liberals will be 'out bred' by more conservative, 'pro-life' people.

(Also feminazi ≠ pro-choice in my book. Again ironic use, feminists = usually pro-choice, feminazis = men need to be ground into a pulp and used to further the Matriarchy! Heil Vagina!)

We have to catch up with the Chinese and the problems they're looking at with not enough women somehow, don't we?
Personally I think an arbortion for the sake of convenience is murder.