Abortion: where do you stand? (2 Viewers)

[Slagathor]

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
That's a very big assumption. I don't see why it can't be called a life just because it's dependant - it has its own genetic identity, and at 10 weeks, the heart starts to beat, IIRC.

That's not an assumption, that's what modern medical science concluded and that's what Dutch laws are based on. At that point in the growing process that it's still legal in Holland to have it removed, it's less of a life form than a plant.

Less than a plant.

That's pretty significant. Such a tiny little thing that has the potential to completely destroy a woman's life depending on the circumstances. I really don't think it's wrong to have it removed at that point in time.

Though I admit it's not the type of decision that needs to be taken light-hearted. It needs to be really thought through, action and consequences need to be examined. But in case of, for example, rape; it's inhumane NOT to offer a woman the option of having it removed in order to try and move on with her life. Which will already be hard enough!

As for a man's right to impose such a decision, I think men have as much right to decide the ethics of their country as women, even if the case in question does have much more impact on women. While it's legal, of course the woman should make the decision, not questions asked, or fingers pointed, but she has to be aware of the consequences, and the options too.

Fair enough. I can agree on that but I really don't think men have the right to forbid women such things. That's ludicrous.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[mikhail]

++ [ originally posted by Erik ] ++
That's not an assumption, that's what modern medical science concluded and that's what Dutch laws are based on. At that point in the growing process that it's still legal in Holland to have it removed, it's less of a life form than a plant.

Less than a plant.

That's pretty significant. Such a tiny little thing that has the potential to completely destroy a woman's life depending on the circumstances. I really don't think it's wrong to have it removed at that point in time.

You say "it" (your emphasis), but it's genetically male or female. A newborn baby is far more helpless and probably not more intelligent than a dolphin, but killing the one is murder, the other is fishing. Arguements based on a child's current state of development assume that humanity is aquired - I don't believe it is. I'm far from alone.

Though I admit it's not the type of decision that needs to be taken light-hearted. It needs to be really thought through, action and consequences need to be examined. But in case of, for example, rape; it's inhumane NOT to offer a woman the option of having it removed in order to try and move on with her life. Which will already be hard enough!

Abortion is a very difficult situation, even to deal with in a debate, but I've stated my opinion on it already here.

 

[Slagathor]

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
You say "it" (your emphasis), but it's genetically male or female. A newborn baby is far more helpless and probably not more intelligent than a dolphin, but killing the one is murder, the other is fishing. Arguements based on a child's current state of development assume that humanity is aquired - I don't believe it is. I'm far from alone.

Believing humanity isn't acquired is denying a baby grows from nearly scratch inside the woomb if you ask me.

That's the miracle of life; that something as complex and amazing as a human being can grow from virtually nothing. And when it's still in the state of nothing, there's nothing wrong in removing it for the sake of the well being of the woman in question.

Abortion is a very difficult situation, even to deal with in a debate, but I've stated my opinion on it already here.

I read through it and I disagree but it's been discussed already so I won't react again here.

 

[mikhail]

++ [ originally posted by Erik ] ++
Believing humanity isn't acquired is denying a baby grows from nearly scratch inside the woomb if you ask me.

That's the miracle of life; that something as complex and amazing as a human being can grow from virtually nothing. And when it's still in the state of nothing, there's nothing wrong in removing it for the sake of the well being of the woman in question.

No, it doesn't. The question is at what point does it aquire life? And is it human at that point?
To answer the first, it is alive from the moment it has a genetic identity, as it can grow from that point to an adult without further input beyond feeding and safety.
The second is the debated issue - I feel that it is human by virtue of sharing enough of its genes with the rest of us. Others suggest it must have actually have grown to a recognisable state - but I think that is a very 1-D view of humanity, which smacks of the kind of mentality that lets white people justify to themselves their hatred of black people because they look 'different' by an arbitrary standard. If you read early accounts of British (an other) explorers in Africa, they regard black people as less than human.

 

[Slagathor]

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
The second is the debated issue - I feel that it is human by virtue of sharing enough of its genes with the rest of us.

And I don't. I guess that's an unbridgeable canion right there.

Others suggest it must have actually have grown to a recognisable state - but I think that is a very 1-D view of humanity, which smacks of the kind of mentality that lets white people justify to themselves their hatred of black people because they look 'different' by an arbitrary standard. If you read early accounts of British (an other) explorers in Africa, they regard black people as less than human.

I agree, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't yet look human so it isn't human? That's ludicrous.

 

[mikhail]

++ [ originally posted by Erik ] ++
And I don't. I guess that's an unbridgeable canion right there.

I agree, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't yet look human so it isn't human? That's ludicrous.

It's a tricky one alright. What do you feel makes a child human? Age alone seems an insane division to me, and I don't think you see it that way either, so what change makes it become human?

 

[Slagathor]

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
It's a tricky one alright. What do you feel makes a child human? Age alone seems an insane division to me, and I don't think you see it that way either, so what change makes it become human?

I'm not an expert but if I recall correctly, Dutch law is based on the age of 12 weeks (or 10, not sure) because at that age it's officially recognised as a human being by medical science. It involves the existence of a blue-print of a human brain and the near completion of a human heart about to beat. I think those are fine criteria.

Something without a brain and a heart that's beating isn't human yet in my eyes. It's technically speaking not even alive yet and even if you disagree on that last part, surely you have to agree that it's way of living in no way resembles that of any human.

But the minute it has those characteristics, I would consider it murder for it to be removed through abortion and I welcome adoption as a possible solution.

 

[mikhail]

I understand your position, but I think something which will have a brain in six weeks has as much right to life as something which will have a brain in six hours. That, perhaps, is the last uncrossable divide. That said, our points of view are closer than they appear!

 

[Slagathor]

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
I understand your position, but I think something which will have a brain in six weeks has as much right to life as something which will have a brain in six hours.

Perhaps and I admit that abortion becomes a much more difficult issue as time passes but if a law must be made on it you have to have a clear line somewhere where you can base it on. And the line that Dutch laws drew up I can live with and, for the largest part, agree with too.

That, perhaps, is the last uncrossable divide. That said, our points of view are closer than they appear!

Perhaps. At least we both value human life

 

[River]

Something that was in the newspapers today
----------------------------------------------------------
HE’S no longer than a little finger, but these amazing pictures show a foetus “walking” just 12 weeks after conception.

The incredible womb scan images were captured by a professor who believes the small “steps” may represent a giant leap in our understanding of foetal development.

The baby’s walking motion is actually a reflex action as its tiny brain is incapable of intentionally moving muscles.

But Professor Stuart Campbell, of London’s Create Health Clinic, said: “Now we can document these movements and use them to evolve pre-natal milestones just like the post-natal ones we use to check children’s development.”

 

[Respaul]

I saw that on the tv this morning... quite interesting and definately questions what we have been told in the past

 

[River]

Using the latest scan technology, Prof Campbell has also pictured a foetus with its eyes open at 18 weeks. Previously it was thought that only happened at around 26 weeks.

The images could lead to a greater comprehension of children born with brain damage.

But anti-abortion campaigners said they also proved a foetus was much more than “a blob of jelly”.

 

[mikhail]

Thanks River. That's some interesting stuff. Still consider it "less than a plant" Erik?

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

++ [ originally posted by Shadowfax ] ++
I saw that on the tv this morning... quite interesting and definately questions what we have been told in the past

i was thinking the same thing

 

[gray]

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
You say "it" (your emphasis), but it's genetically male or female. A newborn baby is far more helpless and probably not more intelligent than a dolphin, but killing the one is murder, the other is fishing. Arguements based on a child's current state of development assume that humanity is aquired - I don't believe it is. I'm far from alone.
Abortion is a very difficult situation, even to deal with in a debate, but I've stated my opinion on it already here.

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
No, it doesn't. The question is at what point does it aquire life? And is it human at that point?
To answer the first, it is alive from the moment it has a genetic identity, as it can grow from that point to an adult without further input beyond feeding and safety.
The second is the debated issue - I feel that it is human by virtue of sharing enough of its genes with the rest of us. Others suggest it must have actually have grown to a recognisable state - but I think that is a very 1-D view of humanity, which smacks of the kind of mentality that lets white people justify to themselves their hatred of black people because they look 'different' by an arbitrary standard. If you read early accounts of British (an other) explorers in Africa, they regard black people as less than human.

Thanks John, I've missed you mate.

I've been busy for the past couple of weeks, and you haven't failed to take over my watch in such discussions as these

 

[Loppan]

It's up to the woman what she wants to do and no one else

 

[Sarah_old]

++ [ originally posted by Fliakis ] ++
i'm for abortion. its not right from child's point of view, but shit happens, if 14yr old gets pregnant, she cant just give a birth, she's nor ready for that neither mentally nor physically. shit, even if you're over 20, sometimes a unwanted child can ruin one's life for good.

I agree. There was a case here (at least I remember reading it in the papers some long time ago). A 14 year-old down-syndrome girl - who's still playing with dolls (!) - actually got pregnant and gave birth! She didn't even realize who the baby was after that. I don't remember her having a perfect family anyway. I feel in this case, abortion would have been the best option.

-S-

 

[mikhail]

++ [ originally posted by Sarah ] ++
I agree. There was a case here (at least I remember reading it in the papers some long time ago). A 14 year-old down-syndrome girl - who's still playing with dolls (!) - actually got pregnant and gave birth! She didn't even realize who the baby was after that. I don't remember her having a perfect family anyway. I feel in this case, abortion would have been the best option.

-S-

Tell that to the baby.

 

[sallyinzaghi]

I think abortion is totally wrong. Of course my religion is against it but even so I believe it is wrong. I think of it like murder. There's life in you and you're just gonna throw it away. If the mother is so selfish thinking she can't take care of her child, that's NO reason to get abortion, because she should've been more careful in the first place or could just deliver the baby and let the hospital take care of it or something. It's plain WRONG. You have to face the consenquences of what you do.

Of course there are cases about women who are RAPED then got pregnant, and some think considering the case they can resolute to abortion but I just feel it's wrong :frown:

 

[3pac]

if killing a 1 week old fetus is murder,

then why arent all guys whacking off arrested, the sperm die too?