Abortion

[Brambila]

You are right. If humans start being to volatile well just do a controlled burn and get rid of a few.

I'm not claiming that trees are the same as human beings.  I'm simply asking you to articulate what the difference is in your own words.  Then I'll tell you why I've been saying what I have.

You cant have it both ways. If you argue that biologically we should compare ourselves to trees, then you cant just arbitrarily say "but humans are different." But you also keep saying the same lame thing about no laws to not cut trees down. You continue to equate the 2 as being equal. If trees had as much value has humans then I would support a law to bar all cutting of trees. Hows that?

The claim that I am making is that, according to what we know of fetal development, the embryo is no more functioning or conscious than a tree and, while it looks like a human being, it does not exhibit signs of human life as we know it (i.e., the capacity for thought, action, or reason) at that time.  Therefore, comparing the aborting of something like that to the murder of a human being is not a correct analogy.

That's completely irrelevent. When you're in a coma, you don't have such abilities. When you're on a flat-line for brain surgery, you don't have such ability. There are many cases where humans cannot think, make actions, or reasons.

[Patunia]

You are right. If humans start being to volatile well just do a controlled burn and get rid of a few.

I'm not claiming that trees are the same as human beings.  I'm simply asking you to articulate what the difference is in your own words.  Then I'll tell you why I've been saying what I have.

You cant have it both ways. If you argue that biologically we should compare ourselves to trees, then you cant just arbitrarily say "but humans are different." But you also keep saying the same lame thing about no laws to not cut trees down. You continue to equate the 2 as being equal. If trees had as much value has humans then I would support a law to bar all cutting of trees. Hows that?

The claim that I am making is that, according to what we know of fetal development, the embryo is no more functioning or conscious than a tree and, while it looks like a human being, it does not exhibit signs of human life as we know it (i.e., the capacity for thought, action, or reason) at that time.  Therefore, comparing the aborting of something like that to the murder of a human being is not a correct analogy.

And yet a tree can not develope into a human being if even at some point in both their lives they have the same cognitive abilities. You cant make an argument like this and convince people who believe human life is sacred at any level. Why are they not right in believing that conception is the start of a human life? They arent wrong, I believe, because without conception there is no human life. Some babies are born without the cognative abilities of trees. Should we throw them away?

[Gabu]

That's completely irrelevent. When you're in a coma, you don't have such abilities. When you're on a flat-line for brain surgery, you don't have such ability. There are many cases where humans cannot think, make actions, or reasons.

But their brains still have some form of detectable activity in them, even if it's the slightest amount.  Embryos, on the other hand, exhibit basically the vital signs of a dead person for the first period of time.

You cant make an argument like this and convince people who believe human life is sacred at any level. Why are they not right in believing that conception is the start of a human life? They arent wrong, I believe, because without conception there is no human life. Some babies are born without the cognative abilities of trees. Should we throw them away?

Well, it evidently is a conflict of fundamental beliefs.  I personally don't equate the potential of life with life itself, because otherwise it would appear to me that the five million sperm who didn't get into the egg should also be called "murdered", since the sperm are a requirement for human life, and they died.  If you do equate the two, well, I don't know what to say.

If a baby was born with the vital signs that it had in the first few weeks, there is a word for that: stillborn.  The baby should not be thrown into the trashcan or something, but it would not be a living human being.  It would be, by all accounts, dead.

[nclib]

List all options that you agree with, and indicate how you voted.

I agree with Options 1-4, but support Option 1 most strongly.

NcLib, are you going to keep ignoring my posts? I've constantly asked you this question, and you have cosntantly ignored it. I will set it clear:

How can the fetus be part of the mother's body? If that's the case, the mother could have four arms, four legs, a penis and vagina, or two vagina, etc. In addition, it's impossible to have two different blood types, which happens in pregnancies.

I think I addressed this earlier, but anyway--

A tattoo is not part of someone's body, but laws mandating having tattoos or mandating tattoo removal would be a violation of bodily autonomy.

The woman has to provide her own body in order for the fetus to live.

In no other situation is someone expected to use their own body to ensure the life/health of an another individual.

[Patunia]

List all options that you agree with, and indicate how you voted.

I agree with Options 1-4, but support Option 1 most strongly.

NcLib, are you going to keep ignoring my posts? I've constantly asked you this question, and you have cosntantly ignored it. I will set it clear:

How can the fetus be part of the mother's body? If that's the case, the mother could have four arms, four legs, a penis and vagina, or two vagina, etc. In addition, it's impossible to have two different blood types, which happens in pregnancies.

I think I addressed this earlier, but anyway--

A tattoo is not part of someone's body, but laws mandating having tattoos or mandating tattoo removal would be a violation of bodily autonomy.

The woman has to provide her own body in order for the fetus to live.

In no other situation is someone expected to use their own body to ensure the life/health of an another individual.

Nice try, but doesnt hold up to the smell test. A fetus may rely upon a woman for its very survival, but it was said womans choices in life that now give her the responsibility to be a mother. People can choose to have a tatoo just like they can choose to do things that may or may not get them pregnant. Her choice ends once her earlier choices created a new responsibility for her.

[nclib]

And since a man participated in the conception also, perhaps he should have to live with his choices and lose control of his body for nine months...

[Patunia]

And since a man participated in the conception also, perhaps he should have to live with his choices and lose control of his body for nine months...

Ok.

[nclib]

[/sarcasm]

[Keystone Phil]

I am pro life. I am against abortion except in the most extreme cases. The only two exceptions: rape or if the life of the mother is at risk. (Abortions because of rape or life of the mother - less than 1%. That's why I refer to these exceptions as "extreme cases")

[Keystone Phil]

I am pro life. I am against abortion except in the most extreme cases. The only two exceptions: rape or if the life of the mother is at risk. (Abortions because of rape or life of the mother - less than 1%. That's why I refer to these exceptions as "extreme cases")

The option closest to my position would be pro life - reason #1)

[Nym90]

Option 3 for me. I don't like abortion, but making it illegal would be far worse than what we have now. I'm pro-choice as I don't feel that it's any of my business what the woman wants to do and making it illegal would not help matters at all.

Throwing women in prison and forcing poor women who can't afford to go to Canada to get an abortion to use a coat hanger doesn't make for a better America.

[Vincent]

And since a man participated in the conception also, perhaps he should have to live with his choices and lose control of his body for nine months...

Well a man can be forced to work to support the child (18 years of child support) this may require him to get a second job, with all the benifits of the job going to the child.

It is unfair that a man can run away alot easier and there are plenty of dead beat dads. In principal however I beilieve the argument holds up though.

[Brambila]

List all options that you agree with, and indicate how you voted.

I agree with Options 1-4, but support Option 1 most strongly.

NcLib, are you going to keep ignoring my posts? I've constantly asked you this question, and you have cosntantly ignored it. I will set it clear:

How can the fetus be part of the mother's body? If that's the case, the mother could have four arms, four legs, a penis and vagina, or two vagina, etc. In addition, it's impossible to have two different blood types, which happens in pregnancies.

I think I addressed this earlier, but anyway--

A tattoo is not part of someone's body, but laws mandating having tattoos or mandating tattoo removal would be a violation of bodily autonomy.

The woman has to provide her own body in order for the fetus to live.

In no other situation is someone expected to use their own body to ensure the life/health of an another individual.

So, if you and I were in Iraq, and I handed you my child to be responsible for since I was going to die, does that give you the right to kill it? In addition, the mess I got into in Iraq was partially because of you.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not in a flat line. A flat line is where there is absolutely no brain activity. But why does brain development define life? Simply because there's activity in the brain doesn't create a mind. Brain activity isn't reasoning, thinking, etc.

[raggage]

www.abortiontv.com

This is why abortions must be banned.

Regardless of how they are performed, and regardless of their legal status, point it they are going to happen anyway. Might as well make it as hygenic as possible, and not have women dying for something that in some cases they desperately need.

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not in a flat line. A flat line is where there is absolutely no brain activity. But why does brain development define life? Simply because there's activity in the brain doesn't create a mind. Brain activity isn't reasoning, thinking, etc.

A flatline indicates the absence of a heartbeat, not the absence of brain activity.  It is possible for people to recover from a flatline if the heart can be successfully jump-started.  If there is no activity in the brain whatsoever, however, then the person is dead.  That's what defines death.

[Patunia]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not in a flat line. A flat line is where there is absolutely no brain activity. But why does brain development define life? Simply because there's activity in the brain doesn't create a mind. Brain activity isn't reasoning, thinking, etc.

A flatline indicates the absence of a heartbeat, not the absence of brain activity.  It is possible for people to recover from a flatline if the heart can be successfully jump-started.  If there is no activity in the brain whatsoever, however, then the person is dead.  That's what defines death.

Thats not true. No hospital in the land will declare someone dead if they can keep the heart beating but there isnt any brain activity.

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not in a flat line. A flat line is where there is absolutely no brain activity. But why does brain development define life? Simply because there's activity in the brain doesn't create a mind. Brain activity isn't reasoning, thinking, etc.

A flatline indicates the absence of a heartbeat, not the absence of brain activity.  It is possible for people to recover from a flatline if the heart can be successfully jump-started.  If there is no activity in the brain whatsoever, however, then the person is dead.  That's what defines death.

Thats not true. No hospital in the land will declare someone dead if they can keep the heart beating but there isnt any brain activity.

I have to clear up one thing: what do you mean by brain activity?  Do you mean it as in the state of being conscious, or the state of there being any activity whatsoever being present in the brain?  Unconscious people still have activity in their brain.

Well, I looked it up and there are two requisites in the medical definition of "death":

1. The person must not be breathing.
2. The person's brain must be dead.

The second requirement is what occurs when the brain stops functioning and having any activity in it.

[Patunia]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not in a flat line. A flat line is where there is absolutely no brain activity. But why does brain development define life? Simply because there's activity in the brain doesn't create a mind. Brain activity isn't reasoning, thinking, etc.

A flatline indicates the absence of a heartbeat, not the absence of brain activity.  It is possible for people to recover from a flatline if the heart can be successfully jump-started.  If there is no activity in the brain whatsoever, however, then the person is dead.  That's what defines death.

Thats not true. No hospital in the land will declare someone dead if they can keep the heart beating but there isnt any brain activity.

I have to clear up one thing: what do you mean by brain activity?  Do you mean it as in the state of being conscious, or the state of there being any activity whatsoever being present in the brain?  Unconscious people still have activity in their brain.

Well, I looked it up and there are two requisites in the medical definition of "death":

1. The person must not be breathing.
2. The person's brain must be dead.

The second requirement is what occurs when the brain stops functioning and having any activity in it.

Yes. But any electrical impulses or the possibility of electrical impulses in the brain stem and a doctor will not declare death. But a persons bodily functions beyond brain activity can be maintined today with machines the issue has become a bit confusing. For all intents and purposes someone may actully be dead, but no doctor will make that assumption because of the fact that the possibility always exists that the person just may make some kind of recovery.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not in a flat line. A flat line is where there is absolutely no brain activity. But why does brain development define life? Simply because there's activity in the brain doesn't create a mind. Brain activity isn't reasoning, thinking, etc.

A flatline indicates the absence of a heartbeat, not the absence of brain activity.  It is possible for people to recover from a flatline if the heart can be successfully jump-started.  If there is no activity in the brain whatsoever, however, then the person is dead.  That's what defines death.

Yes, there are heart flat lines, but there are also brain flat lines, so that doctors can perform surgeries. This is where the "near death" experiences take place. Death isn't defined by no brain activity, but brain death. The embryo, however, never had a brain. Therefore, the embryo's brain never died, because it doesn't have a brain to kill!

But once again, brain activity doesn't mean that one can reason. If you're having very low brain activity (hence, in a coma), you're not reaosning, thinking, or are aware. You're simply having neurological electrons passing through your brains. It's like your nervous system.

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not in a flat line. A flat line is where there is absolutely no brain activity. But why does brain development define life? Simply because there's activity in the brain doesn't create a mind. Brain activity isn't reasoning, thinking, etc.

A flatline indicates the absence of a heartbeat, not the absence of brain activity.  It is possible for people to recover from a flatline if the heart can be successfully jump-started.  If there is no activity in the brain whatsoever, however, then the person is dead.  That's what defines death.

Thats not true. No hospital in the land will declare someone dead if they can keep the heart beating but there isnt any brain activity.

Yes they do. They will ask the family if they want to keep the body alive, but absent that the doctors will declare the person brain dead and have the body removed from life support. Doctors are very realistic and will advise families on the likelihod of survival, but they won't make utterly unrealistic decisions on their own.

[Brambila]

THat's true. Legally in California, when you're braindead, you're dead. However, the embryo isn't brain dead, because it doesn't have a brain to die.

[muon2]

I have to clear up one thing: what do you mean by brain activity?  Do you mean it as in the state of being conscious, or the state of there being any activity whatsoever being present in the brain?  Unconscious people still have activity in their brain.

Well, I looked it up and there are two requisites in the medical definition of "death":

1. The person must not be breathing.
2. The person's brain must be dead.

The second requirement is what occurs when the brain stops functioning and having any activity in it.

Also the person in question must be decaying, an embryo is growing.

I understand what you're saying Mr Fresh, but Gabu's point should be explored further. There certainly is a difference between growth and decay, but we should focus on what defines human life.

It is easy to confuse human life and living human cells. The root word is the same, but I want to use human life to mean that which has a fundamental right to live. As such I am ardently pro-life.

I would suggest that if I cut a few cells off your body you would not grant grant them status as an independent human life. My statement would still be true even if I put them in a biological culture and caused them to grow and multiply for an indefinite period of time. I believe that growing human cells by themselves do not define human life.

I would also suggest that those cells have the biological ability to create a clone if cultured in the proper fashion. Cloning is not science fiction, it causes great ethical problems when used in humans, but we must recognize the reality of the process. To do otherwise is akin to saying the Earth is flat. because of this biological reality, I must beleive that the possibility of a cell becoming human life does not give it the rights of existing human life.

Many will argue that a fundamental difference exists between clones and natural embryos based on a unique signature of DNA. That argument would work for the cases I listed above, yet has a fundamental problem. That problem is that natural identical twins share identical signatures of DNA. I cannot accept that only one twin has a right to life, so I must conclude that having unique DNA is not a requirement for human life.

I now find myself with the aforementioned conclusions and no clear definition. There is a well accepted definition for human death that Gabu listed. The difference I would make is not to define death but to define human life. For instance if an organism whose cells primarily contain human DNA exhibits living brain activity then that organism is human life and deserves the most fundamental right to life. This definition generally divides embryos from fetuses.

Using that definition I would draw the much the same conclusions as Gabu. Abortion involving a fetus with living brain activity should be prohibited. If the fetus is brain dead then abortion gives me no ethical difficulties. In the event that the mother's life is at risk, the doctor should make a decision as to how best to save both lives, and while doing so maintain the best chance of not losing both lives - much the same decision that is made when separating conjoined twins. This is the only case abortion is medically and ethically justified when the fetus has living brain activity.

I note that these are only my personal beliefs, and someone may have their own ethical problems with my views. I only ask that you think about the great variety of situations that may arise, and knowing that they are not always clear cut, ask yourself how you might resolve them.

[Bogart]

Pro-choice. Mainly for option 1.

[zachman]

To the question at hand- other. I'm against restrictions on abortions because I believethat if it were illegal population growth would increase to an unhealthy level. I also have some other alternate reasons which the pro-lifers would not care to hear.