Abortion

[leibowde84]

Okay, what would you tell a 13-15 year old about drugs, rape, murder, sodomy, etc. so that they can make reasoned decisions about those things?

I would tell them the truth and how to mitigate social and medical risk associated with such things. In the case of criminal activity, I would also urge them to consider the risk that comes along with being imprisoned. Do you think that would be a bad idea?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Um, the birth rate peaking had to do with the reduced numbers of abortions!

The abortion rate in the US is now lower than at any time since Roe vs. Wade:

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2014/05/05/

Obviously, statistics on abortion are tricky when abortion was illegal, but even in the 50s and 60s, abortions were more common than you probably realize.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So... sex education is for kids over 17-18? Be consistent. Be reasoned.

So... sex education is for kids over 17-18? Be consistent. Be reasoned.

Sex education should start as soon as the kids are old enough for school.

At a young age, what's being taught should be very basic (e.g. "boys have penises, girls have vaginas", and "if someone touches you in a bad way, tell your parents, a police officer, or your teacher", and "respect other people's bodies"-type messages). It should progress from there in an age-appropriate way.

 

[SomeRandom]

So... sex education is for kids over 17-18? Be consistent. Be reasoned.

That's ridiculous. You don't wait until kids are most likely sexually active to teach safe sex. It's like waiting until a lady has three periods before you teach them about menstration. You're a bit late to the game if you do that.

 

[viole]

Bene, grazie (ok that's all I know lol)

You need this one too, unless you are proficient in hand waving language: "una birra, per favore".

Oh well, maybe not

I believe abortion, outside of necessity, is immoral but it's also part of my religion, then again, religion influences all my personal beliefs, as religions and political/secular/feminist ideologies influence other people. However, having said all that, there is something which makes me follow the rulings of my religion i.e. the fact that they are in line with inherent, human morality. We all know it's wrong to kill, even a psychopath but he chooses not to follow his morality but to delve into his own impulses and desires. It is the same with abortion, if anyone and everyone sat down to think about what abortion implies, especially with the 24 week cut off point, our conscience should be horrified but because certain "modern" ideologies tell us to ignore that and just dive into what is wrong, we follow that without a second thought, although our personal conscience is likely on fire.

Yes, if the rulings of a religion are in line with inherent, human morality, then it is obvious that we agree with them. That is basically how some of them originated. But I digress.

So, while I agree that 24 weeks is a bit too late (we Swedes set the limit at 18), I don't agree that obliterating a couple of one day old reproducing cells is murder, while it still technically an abortion. Therefore, when we talk of the moral value of abortion, we should define what we mean. Is destroying a blastocyst that can easily be confused with the one of an amoeba, wrong?

So, something between one day and 24 weeks is the moral limit. Do we agree?

Having said all that, as a Muslim, I am also told to follow the laws of the land and respect them ,as long as they do not impinge upon me as a Muslim and the law of abortion does not. As a doctor, one day, I may have to carry out such an act, who knows? I would not be happy for it and I would quietly make prayer for both the mother and unborn child but it is something I'd have to ... or go practice medicine somewhere else, which probably seems likely with the way this government is acting towards the medical profession.

Anyway, that's my two pence on all this.

Come to Switzerland. Doctors are very well paid and there are not enough of them.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

Okay, what would you tell a 13-15 year old about drugs, rape, murder, sodomy, etc. so that they can make reasoned decisions about those things?

It's like you're not even trying to be reasonable. We're talking about natural bodily functions here - not crimes that bring harm to other people.

But yeah, kids should be taught about the dangers of drugs in the same way they're taught about the dangers of unsafe sex because teenagers are in the age group where they're going to be exposed to that stuff within their peer groups.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If I had to sit through DARE and that McGruff dog and stuff as a kid, other kids can too...

 

[columbus]

So... sex education is for kids over 17-18? Be consistent. Be reasoned.

This sort of thing kinda makes me crazy.
People who, like myself, vehemently oppose elective abortion also oppose effective steps to reduce them. What is with that?
From defunding PP to acting like sex ed is encouraging irresponsible behavior, it's almost like people want abortion to continue so they have something to feel self righteous and angry about. This makes me very annoyed.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

This sort of thing kinda makes me crazy.
People who, like myself, vehemently oppose elective abortion also oppose effective steps to reduce them. What is with that?
From defunding PP to acting like sex ed is encouraging irresponsible behavior, it's almost like people want abortion to continue so they have something to feel self righteous and angry about. This makes me very annoyed.
Tom

I agree. The irony is painful.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This sort of thing kinda makes me crazy.
People who, like myself, vehemently oppose elective abortion also oppose effective steps to reduce them. What is with that?
From defunding PP to acting like sex ed is encouraging irresponsible behavior, it's almost like people want abortion to continue so they have something to feel self righteous and angry about. This makes me very annoyed.
Tom

For the life of me I can't understand the people that oppose BOTH contraception and abortion. It seems to me that if you are strongly opposed to abortion that you would be all in favour of the availability of contraception for all because obviously that is going to significantly cut down the number of unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

You need this one too, unless you are proficient in hand waving language: "una birra, per favore".

Oh well, maybe not



Yes, if the rulings of a religion are in line with inherent, human morality, then it is obvious that we agree with them. That is basically how some of them originated. But I digress.

So, while I agree that 24 weeks is a bit too late (we Swedes set the limit at 18), I don't agree that obliterating a couple of one day old reproducing cells is murder, while it still technically an abortion. Therefore, when we talk of the moral value of abortion, we should define what we mean. Is destroying a blastocyst that can easily be confused with the one of an amoeba, wrong?

So, something between one day and 24 weeks is the moral limit. Do we agree?



Come to Switzerland. Doctors are very well paid and there are not enough of them.

Ciao

- viole

Hahaha, no "birra" for me

Ok, onto the serious stuff. In terms of me being a muslim, the issue is not as cold or as sterile as modern science and "oh it's just a ball of cells" (which it's not) but rather, when does life begin? It is regarded, by most scholars in Islam, from almost all schools of thoughts, that the beginning of true life, a sentient life (beyond that of animals or plants) is the presence of a soul and this is breathed into the foetus at some stage. Some scholars say it's at the 120 day mark (4 months), others say it may be as early as the 40th day. On that I can not comment, as scholars obviously have a greater knowledge than me.

So, my official line is this, that 24 weeks is too long, as is 18, a cut off point of 16 weeks would be better BUT, the abortion argument for too long as been about "is it right or wrong?" and not enough about the value of human life, which has led to British society, and I assume many other western nations have a nonchalant view of abortion. So much so, that a number of clinics I have visited, I have met numerous young women, strikingly young in fact, who come, get an abortion and go home like it was a mole removal. I even know some women personally who have had abortions and to them it was nothing more than swatting a fly and yet many of these women are vehemently angry or opposed to the eating meat or the cutting down of rain forests .Yet human life means nothing?

I'm not saying all the women I have met have been like this, it's important to point that out but the majority have.

And this is my biggest concern, violence is already so common place and we've become desensitised to it. I hope the same does not happen to our understanding and value of human life.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The rain forest exists as independently living beings, as do the animals who became meat (I eat meat ... I think veganism is a diet that is just for kicks if not medically necessary). However, until viability, one cannot reasonably accept the individuality of an embryo, especially when the mother is sitting right there. After all, the cases where zygotes split into multiple ones, or fuse, or whatever ... there have been no real satisfactory theological explanations from the pro-life folks as to how many "people" we have. Are identical twins one person or two? What about conjoined twins? Chimeras? Etc? After all, there was just one conception in most of those scenarios, right? So there was just one ensoulment according to some people and yet that's not how life worked out. I feel we should let biology and psychology inform us about when we become "we".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hard to believe this thread continues!

Can we not all agree on the following? Just two points:

1. Both sides of this issue do not want to kill babies. Therefore, a key difference is when you think it's a baby, not a foetus.

2. Bodily autonomy sounds splendid except for two exceptions:

a) This is now the only human right guaranteed by ending a life form (like, I can't say, I have the right to property that my slave makes for me!)

b) Bodily autonomy is no excuse for sins of the flesh (my wife loves me faithfully but I have autonomy so I cheated on her, after all, I'm not part of a married couple, I'm autonomous!)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hard to believe this thread continues!

Can we not all agree on the following? Just two points:

1. Both sides of this issue do not want to kill babies. Therefore, a key difference is when you think it's a baby, not a foetus.

No, that's not the key difference. The bodily autonomy argument still works whether or not the fetus is considered a baby.

2. Bodily autonomy sounds splendid except for two exceptions:

a) This is now the only human right guaranteed by ending a life form (like, I can't say, I have the right to property that my slave makes for me!)

In many cases that have nothing to do with abortion, you have rights that could cost a person their life.

b) Bodily autonomy is no excuse for sins of the flesh (my wife loves me faithfully but I have autonomy so I cheated on her, after all, I'm not part of a married couple, I'm autonomous!)

Adultery is legal in most places. I also don't see how it's relevant.

 

[McBell]

1. Both sides of this issue do not want to kill babies. Therefore, a key difference is when you think it's a baby, not a foetus.

The medical field already has set definitions for both baby and fetus.
Seeing as the legal field will be using the medical field definitions....

a) This is now the only human right guaranteed by ending a life form (like, I can't say, I have the right to property that my slave makes for me!)

There are several rights that can end in a legal killing.

b) Bodily autonomy is no excuse for sins of the flesh (my wife loves me faithfully but I have autonomy so I cheated on her, after all, I'm not part of a married couple, I'm autonomous!)

Bodily Autonomy has a specific definition that your above "example" does not fit into.

Seems a big problem here is that you do not know the definitions of the words you use.

 

[LuisDantas]

For the life of me I can't understand the people that oppose BOTH contraception and abortion. It seems to me that if you are strongly opposed to abortion that you would be all in favour of the availability of contraception for all because obviously that is going to significantly cut down the number of unwanted pregnancies.

To the best of my understanding, there are still many (far too many) people who somehow hope or believe to discourage young people from even considering having physical intimacy somehow, and acknowledging that it is ok to at least talk about contraception or abortion would jeopardize that goal.

I think that is dangerous and naive, but apparently there are many such people.

 

[Quintessence]

Hard to believe this thread continues!

Says the person who necroed it, as the last post before yours was December 2015...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Says the person who necroed it, as the last post before yours was December 2015...

Sorry, I didn't look at the dates when I'd posted. I apologize.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, that's not the key difference. The bodily autonomy argument still works whether or not the fetus is considered a baby.


In many cases that have nothing to do with abortion, you have rights that could cost a person their life.


Adultery is legal in most places. I also don't see how it's relevant.

1. The bodily autonomy argument is not accepted by both the pro-life and pro-choice sides. Not killing babies, is.

2. I have rights that are ONLY preserved by the taking of another's life that are not abortion rights? A smoker cannot guarantee someone breathing in secondhand smoke will die of smoke inhalation. That's all I got. What were you thinking of?

3. I'm less concerned with the legality of abortion or adultery than the moral force of these acts. "Autonomy" has its place, but that place is rarely the workforce, the military, marriage or parenthood. My kid won't stop making noise at 10 AM, and I can't sleep, and its affecting my body--should I just euthanize the child and be done with it? Of course not!

 

[McBell]

1. The bodily autonomy argument is not accepted by both the pro-life and pro-choice sides. Not killing babies, is.

At best you are simply wrong.
At worst you are a bold faced liar.
At this point in the "discussion" I do not know which it is.

2. I have rights that are ONLY preserved by the taking of another's life that are not abortion rights? A smoker cannot guarantee someone breathing in secondhand smoke will die of smoke inhalation. That's all I got. What were you thinking of?

"can not guarantee"?
What are you talking about?

3. I'm less concerned with the legality of abortion or adultery than the moral force of these acts. "Autonomy" has its place, but that place is rarely the workforce, the military, marriage or parenthood. My kid won't stop making noise at 10 AM, and I can't sleep, and its affecting my body--should I just euthanize the child and be done with it? Of course not!

Again you reveal you do not understand what "bodily autonomy" is.