Should the government stop abortions?

[devonin]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

If the government manages to abolish the option of abortion, Im going to assume there will be nothing stopping Americans of going somewhere that allows it? Anyone aware if Canada does? If it's an important enough issue, it will still get done. Is there anything legally preventing the movement of unborn children over national borders, something required similar to a passport? I figure if this pushes into fruition, those who are willing to commit to abortion will have other options.

That would depend entirely on how the law forbidding it in the USA was phrased. If they somehow managed to pass a law stating that unborn fetuses were-humans- with all the rights of a person, if you went into Canada and had an abortion you could then legally be charged with committing murder, and the US could theoretically try to have you extradited back for trial.

However, there is -no- chance that such a law could be passed. If they made a law forbidding the procedure of abortion, it would be just that, forbidding the procedure. This would have the effect of moving abortions underground, into unsafe, unsanitary conditions, rather than stopping them.

For that reason alone, abortion should remain legal, and anti-abortion movements should be dedicating their time to trying to educate women to their point of view, and convince them that they -shouldn't- do it, rather than try to make it so it is against the law.

Edit: To Guido, but to everyone in general: If the fetus is a human, child from the instant of conception, do you think that a family ought to gain all the legal, financial and medical benefits of "having a child" from the moment of conception onward as well? There's a surprising number of benefits given to parents with a child legally and economically.

[OrganisM]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

anti-abortion movements should be dedicating their time to trying to educate women to their point of view, and convince them that they -shouldn't- do it, rather than try to make it so it is against the law.

Sounds like a great solution, but who's to say that the women won't simply be plugged up with vicious propaganda to stop them from wanting to have an abortion?

Oh, wait, that's already going on.

EDIT: In case you haven't noticed, stretchy, I am actually trying to contribute. Thus the reason for this very post. I'm not trying to be an ass, so please don't BBQ my ass every time I get a little frustrated. And I mentioned the topic being over-debated all of twice. Did you even read any of my other posts? I rather think I did contribute something.

[stretchypanda]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Organism, this thread really seems to be going well, but all I see you contribute is, "RAWR THIS ARGUMENT IS OLD AND TIRED I SEE NO POINT DISCUSSING IT FURTHER PS HERE ARE MY OLD RECYCLED IDEAS ON THE SUBJECT."

People in this thread are, for once, engaged in a mature discussion on a very hot topic. Just because you have seen it over and over again is a) no reason people who want to talk about it can't and b) certainly no reason for you to go stomping around waving whatever little complex you have about people debating topics that have already been debated.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

When they combine, however, a new, unique life is formed. It is human (not to Kilga: there's no question here, either)

Uh, no, there most certainly is. We went over this in my Contemporary Moral Problems class just last semester, and there is no universal agreement on when exactly the sperm/egg combo is considered "human life".

You're more than welcome to declare that human life begins as soon as the sperm touches the egg, just be aware that not everyone agrees, and given people who argue that it is or is not human life do so based on definitions that their scientific beliefs came up with in the first place it's pretty stupid to say one side is definitively correct.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Uh, no, there most certainly is. We went over this in my Contemporary Moral Problems class just last semester, and there is no universal agreement on when exactly the sperm/egg combo is considered "human life".

It's genetically human. That newly-created zygote isn't a proto-kitty or some new species; it's human.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

It's genetically human. That newly-created zygote isn't a proto-kitty or some new species; it's human.

See again the difference between "human life" and "a living human" or at least, see again the difference that some of us make between "life that is genetically homo sapiens sapiens" and "A human being"

As I said earlier, and I don't think you responded directly to it:

We simply have differing definitions of what consitutes a "human" then. I don't think a freshly laid egg is a chicken, any more than I think my sperm is thousands of humans. "Life" begins at conception, but we end the life of things -far- more advanced up the chain than a 2-week old zygote all the time, and think nothing at all of it.

I disagree with late-term abortion for every single reason you've quoted as why you oppose abortion, I just simply don't think it is valid logic to apply that same reasoning all the way back to the instant of conception.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

So if it's genetics that defines humanity, what about human genetic experiments on animals like that mouse that grew a human ear on its back? Or what about organ transplants where the donor is an animal?

[OrganisM]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

So if it's genetics that defines humanity, what about human genetic experiments on animals like that mouse that grew a human ear on its back? Or what about organ transplants where the donor is an animal?

Well, as to the organ donor, that doesn't mean anything. Implanting an organ does not change your genes (duh!). It just so happens that certain parts of certain animals function similar to human parts, so the transplant can happen.

[frankiesmithra24]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

I agree with Vavv. Women have the right to say no or not, but men have some responsiblities as well. Men should wear condoms even if the woman doesn't want them too. I say that all female teens should go on the pill abd use condoms too. Just to make safer.

[devonin]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

You know, I'm starting to think that the phrasing of the question is all wrong here. by asking "Should" the government stop abortions, we're losing ourselves in the morass of "Is abortion right, wrong, neither or both"

Instead ask: Does the government have the -right- to make abortions illegal, and the only question is "Is there a point at which the fetus has rights that -supercede- that of the mother's right to control her own body" and whether you think abortion is right or wrong, I'm much more apt to say that "The government has no right to say one way or the other" than I am to say "The action itself is morally ok or morally not ok, so they should or shoudln't."

[AOL_blows911]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

You know, I'm starting to think that the phrasing of the question is all wrong here. by asking "Should" the government stop abortions, we're losing ourselves in the morass of "Is abortion right, wrong, neither or both"

Instead ask: Does the government have the -right- to make abortions illegal, and the only question is "Is there a point at which the fetus has rights that -supercede- that of the mother's right to control her own body" and whether you think abortion is right or wrong, I'm much more apt to say that "The government has no right to say one way or the other" than I am to say "The action itself is morally ok or morally not ok, so they should or shoudln't."

Good point. It was an interesting discussion, to say the least, but an off-topic one. Having already brought up what I consider to be "human life", I think that the government should hold no sway over what the mother and father do before that stage. That is to say, before the embryo is developed enough to sense its surroundings and recognize stimuli. However, I believe that the government should allow abortions for special cases. A law for that would be hard to phrase, to say the least...one of those "the mother and child will both die" or "the child will live in constant pain and die young" situations would be what I consider to be "special". True, the parents had 2-3 months (depending on the individual pregnancy) to come to a decision as to whether to have an abortion, but if the child being born would be fatal to the mother, the child, or both, then a later-stage abortion would seem justifiable.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Well, as to the organ donor, that doesn't mean anything. Implanting an organ does not change your genes (duh!). It just so happens that certain parts of certain animals function similar to human parts, so the transplant can happen.

The point is that it introduces new genes to the system, the genes belonging to the animal the organ was taken from.

[xWnLx Crisco]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

I will be honest I only read the first page and a couple of this pages....

For the person who said that all females should be on a pill and all males should be wear a condom........

Do I hear Genocide?...........Also who is going to pay for that? The government? lol


I can't beleive some people said that it a female got raped that its their "problem" to deal with it.

Also to the people who are trying to fight that a fetus will have a "right" that just makes me laugh.

What rights do the kids have that ARE BORN when they get put into adoption agencies? What rights do you under the age of 18 years old in United States have with out an adult consent?

If you can't answer that question........its none.

If a female decides that she made a bad decision or it wasn't her decision at all in the first place she has every right to do what she wants to do.

Until you actually have the first or sometimes second hand experience you have no right to tell a pregnant female what she has to do. Its the same as saying we should kill all prisoners that have a sentence over 30 years. Well have you ever been to prison? I am not saying that it is or is not a good idea I am giving out an example.

Over all, for those who want to press their beliefs on people and won't take no for an answer..........Keep it to yourself because no one cares about your religous babble or fetus "rights".

[Relambrien]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

This argument is rather invalid. The point of saying something along the lines of, "The child could turn out to be the next Einstein!" is not to point out specifically that it will develop revolutionary theories in the fields of physics and derive equations that can link small amounts of matter to astronomical amounts of energy, leading to the creation of an outrageously efficient and catastrophic bomb. It is, rather, to say that any child has the potential to bring forth revolutionary ideas and enlightenments to help mankind. Because of this, it should be given a chance, regardless of the path it follows.

What I said was an example, similar to what you are saying. The whole Einstein thing is representative of the ability to create something revolutionary and great. My retort is representative of the ability to create something horrific and destructive.

My point: Just because it COULD develop into something great doesn't mean it WILL. As far as I'm concerned, it's equally likely that the unborn fetus could be a Mother Theresa as it could be a Hitler. Thus, arguments on the basis of "Well it could develop into something great" are much less relevant than one would think, as it is equally likely that "It could develop into something the world was better off without."

That was just for verification; I'm going to take my leave from posting in this thread now (unless someone else interprets my wording in a way I did not intend). There are people more passionate about this topic than me, so I would probably only cause more problems if I posted more points.

Good luck with the debate

[devonin]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

For the person who said that all females should be on a pill and all males should be wear a condom........Do I hear Genocide?...........Also who is going to pay for that? The government? lol

You have a very interesting definition of the word genocide, in that your definition is actually wholly wrong in every respect. Further, why not the government? The Canadian Government's health care system does in fact provide birth control and condoms to people who cannot afford them.

What rights do the kids have that ARE BORN when they get put into adoption agencies? What rights do you under the age of 18 years old in United States have with out an adult consent?

If you can't answer that question........its none.

So...are you under 18? If so, I'm going to kill you without adult consent...since you have no rights apprantly, I woudln't even get in trouble!

Until you actually have the first or sometimes second hand experience you have no right to tell a pregnant female what she has to do.

Are you really comfortable displaying your prejudices so openly?

Its the same as saying we should kill all prisoners that have a sentence over 30 years.

Er...no it isn't the same at all, in fact it's almost the exact opposite. For your comparison to hold, you would have to claim that a human being convicted of a crime actually ceases to be human, and loses all access to human rights. Since your point extends to fetuses to say that they aren't human.

Over all, for those who want to press their beliefs on people and won't take no for an answer..........Keep it to yourself because no one cares about your religous babble or fetus "rights".

You uh...do realise that you are pressing your beliefs on people and won't take no for an answer right?