Rex Kickass Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 26, 2006 -> 09:15 AM) Oh, I agree with you on that aspect. I was leaning more towards when the personal decision is made as to when the egg becomes a life. I haven't read all the posts in this thread.. anyone have a stance on eptopic (sp?)pregnancy...? When that is terminated, is that abortion also? Does the SD law make the ectopic pregnancy termination illegal as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 12:39 PM) Simply making abortion illegal will not stop abortion -- it will just make it less safe for women who want them to get them. Worst.Arguement.Ever. We have laws to prevent chaos in society. Making ANYTHING illegal, doesn't prevent people who REALLY want to do it, from doing it anyway. Guns are illegal in the city of Chicago, have you seen them completely disappear? All it did was prevent the law abiding citizens who have legitimate uses for them from getting them... Now instead of going through the legal means of obtaining a gun, a person would have to go to a gang member or some other illegal operation selling weapons. That sure as hell isn't safer. Does that mean we should roll back all of the gun laws in Chicago, and just give them to every man, woman, and child who might want them, because now it is less safe for some people who want a gun? That arguement is terrible, and the logic behind it is completely flawed when you take it and apply it to anything else, why does it seem to hold so much water with abortion? I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 26, 2006 -> 02:03 PM) Worst.Arguement.Ever. We have laws to prevent chaos in society. Making ANYTHING illegal, doesn't prevent people who REALLY want to do it, from doing it anyway. Guns are illegal in the city of Chicago, have you seen them completely disappear? All it did was prevent the law abiding citizens who have legitimate uses for them from getting them... Now instead of going through the legal means of obtaining a gun, a person would have to go to a gang member or some other illegal operation selling weapons. That sure as hell isn't safer. Does that mean we should roll back all of the gun laws in Chicago, and just give them to every man, woman, and child who might want them, because now it is less safe for some people who want a gun? That arguement is terrible, and the logic behind it is completely flawed when you take it and apply it to anything else, why does it seem to hold so much water with abortion? I don't get it. There is a difference between a firearm and a medical procedure, firstly. Secondly, with abortion -- the history has been that the women who had the influence/money to get abortions done when it was illegal still got them done. The poor tried to get them but it was in a very unsanitary/unsafe set of conditions. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft967nb5z5/ -- source info. There was no significant drop in the performance of abortions by merely making it illegal. Mere prohibition does not solve the problem -- which is the point I was trying to get to in the previous post that was cherry picked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 25, 2006 -> 08:38 PM) So was I. After an egg becomes an embryo, it is capable of growing, but not capable of survival on its own. In fact, some embryos wind up being created but not successfully implanting themselves in the proper spot, and thus wind up not surviving. Hard to call that murder, IMO. Just like it's hard to call the tens of thousands of frozen embryos which are created and destroyed at fertility clinics murder since they're simply not viable on their own. We have people hooked up to respirators that are incapable of surviving on their own, but do have the potential to live if their body can heal. Wouldn't pulling the plug on them be considered murder? Those "embryos" do have the potential for life, and we are effectively pulling the plug on them. We are taking a step to destroy life. So, at what point does it become murder for you? Edited February 27, 2006 by vandy125 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 QUOTE(vandy125 @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 10:21 AM) We have people hooked up to respirators that are incapable of surviving on their own, but do have the potential to live if their body can heal. Wouldn't pulling the plug on them be considered murder? Those "embryos" do have the potential for life, and we are effectively pulling the plug on them. We are taking a step to destroy life. So, at what point does it become murder for you? Why is that anyone's business but his own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 10:26 AM) Why is that anyone's business but his own? Way to completely change the topic. I know that you will probably go off on me, but a lot of personal opinions are given, especially in this forum. I was trying to make a counterpoint to his argument about them not being able to survive on their own. Just because of that we were not calling it killing or murder or whatever. Suddenly the issue turns into "its all a matter of personal opinion and no one can tell anyone else anything." Once you start saying that, how is it possible to say anything of consequence? Balta is a good poster who states what he thinks and I respect that. If he wants to say that its his own business, he has that right and should go ahead. Edited February 27, 2006 by vandy125 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 QUOTE(vandy125 @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 10:38 AM) Way to completely change the topic. I know that you will probably go off on me, but a lot of personal opinions are given, especially in this forum. I was trying to make a counterpoint to his argument about them not being able to survive on their own. Just because of that we were not calling it killing or murder or whatever. Suddenly the issue turns into "its all a matter of personal opinion and no one can tell anyone else anything." Once you start saying that, how is it possible to say anything of consequence? If he wants to say that its his own business, he has that right and should go ahead. Why would I go off on you...? And I changed the topic? What business is it of yours, mine, anyone's, on when life begins to him, you, me, etc, etc.. ? How is that - his PERSONAL belief - relevant to the argument? From what I have read of Balta's comments.. his stance is pretty clear without giving any further details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 QUOTE(vandy125 @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 10:38 AM) Balta is a good poster who states what he thinks and I respect that. If he wants to say that its his own business, he has that right and should go ahead. Nice cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 10:44 AM) Nice cover. Thanks, I sent you a PM, we can talk about it there if you wish rather than start a big ole messy thread argument (I hate those). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 QUOTE(vandy125 @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 10:45 AM) Thanks, I sent you a PM, we can talk about it there if you wish rather than start a big ole messy thread argument (I hate those). I responded. Pretty much the same thing I said above. I just think this matter can be discussed without getting to deep into personal specifics. JMO, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Wow, all this over little-ol me. Ok, on the "On a respirator" issue. I'll agree that the person cannot survive on his or her own in that case. So, what does happen in that case? Well, hopefully, the person has at some point indicated his or her wishes. That is something which obviously cannot happen with an embryo. But, I think an even more interesting line of thought is this one...in the event that a person has not indicated their wishes...if a person cannot survive without life support, to whom does the decision fall as to whether or not life support should be continued? The closest family. So, in some cases, we do make legal exceptions which would allow for the termination of life without the consent of the actual person, when the actual person cannot give his or her consent. Unless of course Bill Frist passes a law giving the woman's uterus the right to challenge its case in federal court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:25 PM) Ah! One of the great ironies around here. Conservatives in favor of capital punishment and against abortion. Liberals opposed to capital punishment and in favor of abortion. The only real difference is that the unborn are totally innocent ... always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Why isn't it a violation of the Hippocrtatic Oath for a doctor to kill a baby in the third tri-mester? Because they call it a fetus?????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 The one thing I wish people would realize is abortion is a debate that goes beyond personal beliefs and whether or not the unborn are truly individual living people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 09:26 AM) Why isn't it a violation of the Hippocrtatic Oath for a doctor to kill a baby in the third tri-mester? Because they call it a fetus?????????? Your objection to the comparison between the death penalty and abortion, that the unborn are innocent while those on death row are not, does hold some water IMO. However, this comment is fully, 100% open to that line of attack. The hippocratic oath requires, in its fullest form, doctors to take life under no circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 11:08 AM) Wow, all this over little-ol me. Ok, on the "On a respirator" issue. I'll agree that the person cannot survive on his or her own in that case. So, what does happen in that case? Well, hopefully, the person has at some point indicated his or her wishes. That is something which obviously cannot happen with an embryo. But, I think an even more interesting line of thought is this one...in the event that a person has not indicated their wishes...if a person cannot survive without life support, to whom does the decision fall as to whether or not life support should be continued? The closest family. So, in some cases, we do make legal exceptions which would allow for the termination of life without the consent of the actual person, when the actual person cannot give his or her consent. Unless of course Bill Frist passes a law giving the woman's uterus the right to challenge its case in federal court. Excellent point on the respirator. Going along with your thoughts on this, I think that brings up the point of how good a chance the person has of survival and a functional life. In the case of an embryo, there is usually an excellent chance of survival and a functional life. So, IMO, it would be like pulling the plug on someone who has a good chance at a life still worth living. The difference being that the embryo hasn't even been given a chance to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Except the person on the respirator has their whole life to lose, while an embryo has nothing to lose as they have never lived (in any meaningful way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I'm not going to read through all the 7 pages but my opinion on abortion is that it's not the child's fault the parents have some fun one night, don't punish them for the parents mistakes. If it's going to save the mother that's one thing, and about rape, that's another, but if abortion is ever completely banned except for the health of the mother and rape, then there will be a lot more rape cases coming up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 09:35 PM) Except the person on the respirator has their whole life to lose, while an embryo has nothing to lose as they have never lived (in any meaningful way). Now this makes no sense. The person on the respirator in most cases doesn't have much of a life left to lose. The embryo is at the very beginning of life and therefore has much more to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 04:47 AM) Now this makes no sense. The person on the respirator in most cases doesn't have much of a life left to lose. The embryo is at the very beginning of life and therefore has much more to lose. Jim's mom, and the rest of the family, would disagree with you there. Exceptions to every rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 04:58 AM) Jim's mom, and the rest of the family, would disagree with you there. Exceptions to every rule. Which is why I threw the words "in most cases" into my sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 05:01 AM) Which is why I threw the words "in most cases" into my sentence. I'm gonna guess that "most" folks on respirators are not done living their lives, nor are their loved ones ready to let them go. The comment seemed a bit insensitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 05:07 AM) I'm gonna guess that "most" folks on respirators are not done living their lives, nor are their loved ones ready to let them go. The comment seemed a bit insensitive. I apologize, but it is also a bit realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 05:28 AM) I apologize, but it is also a bit realistic. What's realistic...? That most people on respirators have lived enough so it's ok to take them off..? Is there a stat on that? And have you lived enough? Are you OK with being taken off one because you "don't have much life left to lose"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 12:29 AM) I'm not going to read through all the 7 pages but my opinion on abortion is that it's not the child's fault the parents have some fun one night, don't punish them for the parents mistakes. If it's going to save the mother that's one thing, and about rape, that's another, but if abortion is ever completely banned except for the health of the mother and rape, then there will be a lot more rape cases coming up. I have to ask those of you who are in favor of banning abortion (or pro-life or whatever we are calling it today) a question. If your stance is that the fertilized egg is life immediately, then why the rape exception? That makes no sense to me. If I believed that life started at conception (which I am still open to, I am not dead-set on this topic yet), then to me, the ONLY logical exception that would be acceptable is when the mother's life is on the line. If conception occurs via rape, that life (if it is one at that point) is still a life, regardless of what action created it. The crime itself is horrific, but if life is to be protected no matter what, than rape cannot be an exception in my view. So can you explain that, please? The rape exception just doesn't sit well with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts