The abortion debate

[Guest GhostRanger]

In South Dakota they passed a bill banning abortions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The abortion law came as the result of a year-long, comprehensive South Dakota task force report that studied the effects of abortion on America over the last 33 years. Every aspect of abortion was analyzed, and over 3,500 pages of scientific research were collected. Fifty-four national and international experts testified, and thousands of affidavits were collected from women who had been hurt by abortion. Both sides were given equal time and an equal number of expert witnesses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The results of their 72 page report concluded two things:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Abortion terminates the life of a separate, distinct, living human being which can now be proven scientifically with DNA evidence and research in the field of molecular biology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Abortion hurts women , causing major physical, mental, emotional and spiritual consequences that can be devastating to their lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 72 page report:

 

 

 

Source

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Without reading most of the topic, here's my opinion:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't beleive in abortion any time after the nervous system starts to develop, I beleive that's 11 weeks?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before that though, I'm fine with it. It shouldn't be used as a contraceptive at all, though, only when it's really needed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have to draw the line somewhere, our brain (cheif of our nervous system) is what seperates us from lesser animals, so, that's where I think it's just to draw it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, to anyone saying it's the "Woman's right to choose, because it's her body" needs to DIAF. If you're referring to the fetus as "her body" that's obviously idiocy, if you're talking about what the fetus does to the body, too bad. There are a lot of people wanting healthy american babies, and if you couldn't take care of it by 11 weeks, or better yet, far sooner, too bad.

 

 

 

If you didn't know about it until post-11 weeks, that's unfortunate. You could also have died in a car accident on your way to work, though. Count yourself lucky.

[Death_By_Pod]

In South Dakota they passed a bill banning abortions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The abortion law came as the result of a year-long, comprehensive South Dakota task force report that studied the effects of abortion on America over the last 33 years. Every aspect of abortion was analyzed, and over 3,500 pages of scientific research were collected. Fifty-four national and international experts testified, and thousands of affidavits were collected from women who had been hurt by abortion. Both sides were given equal time and an equal number of expert witnesses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The results of their 72 page report concluded two things:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Abortion terminates the life of a separate, distinct, living human being which can now be proven scientifically with DNA evidence and research in the field of molecular biology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Abortion hurts women , causing major physical, mental, emotional and spiritual consequences that can be devastating to their lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 72 page report:

 

 

 

Source

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The chairwoman of a state task force that studied abortion said Tuesday she is disappointed with the panel's final report and the process used to write it because the document is not balanced and fails to address some issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The final report was authored by a few people on the task force, and it is less than completely objective and factual. It is biased and opinionated," said Dr. Marty Allison of Pierre.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Allison said she agrees with the report's call for a ban on abortion, with further restrictions on abortion in South Dakota until a ban can be accomplished. But the report does not reflect all the information that the task force gathered from experts and the public on both sides of the issue, and it does not deal with preventing unintended pregnancies and other important issues, she said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Even though I'm pro-life and it's a pro-life report, I couldn't support the entire document because of those reasons," Allison told The Associated Press.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The process through which we came to the final report, through our meetings we had, I was disappointed with that. It's not reflective of all the information we spent so much time gathering," the physician said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/article ... 18961b.txt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of the 17 members that served on that board only 4 were medical doctors and only one is a gynaecologist. Two of the doctors are staunch pro life supporters which shouldn't even be on the board (testimony from people who supported a pro choice stance were not used due to admitted bias).

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

I don't beleive in abortion any time after the nervous system starts to develop, I beleive that's 11 weeks?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's the difference between having no nervous system, and a developing nervous system which is not in use? You could use the logic to argue against abortion. You shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t abort the foetus because a child starts to develop.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

 

 

 

 

I don't beleive in abortion any time after the nervous system starts to develop, I beleive that's 11 weeks?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's the difference between having no nervous system, and a developing nervous system which is not in use? You could use the logic to argue against abortion. You shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t abort the foetus because a child starts to develop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The nervous system is in use, though, however primitively..

[issy2]

Without reading most of the topic, here's my opinion:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't beleive in abortion any time after the nervous system starts to develop, I beleive that's 11 weeks?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before that though, I'm fine with it. It shouldn't be used as a contraceptive at all, though, only when it's really needed.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it was 18, according to the BBC, which is four months and probabky enough time to decide whats best for mother and child. :D

[Guest GhostRanger]

@Death_by_pod: The case has held up in court...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moving along... abortions weren't legal. Enter Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade made precedent for the court to give women the right to have an abortion in America. Before Roe v. Wade having an abortion was impossible. The case was based around the idea that Norma McCorvey was raped and therefore, should be permitted an abortion. Funny thing is, she was never raped. Later, she admitted to lying in her case and has since then been very active in the pro-life campaign.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if you think the case in South Dakota was unfairly bias, how about the cornerstone case for abortion that was based entirely on a lie?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@GSW: I guess we have to draw a line - but the simplest line for me seems to be DNA. There is new DNA at conception, therefore, I see a new being. Not that we could convince each other of our opinions on that though! :P

[mad4u689]

"When the nervous system starts to develop" is fairly arbitrary, unfortunately, as well. According to, say, childdevelopmentinfo.com, within the first month "Nervous system begins to arise, first in form of neural groove.", and within the second month, "Forehead very prominent, reflecting precocious development of brain in comparison to rest of body."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to nlm.nih.gov (a fairly trusted source), in week 3 there is "beginning development of the brain, spinal cord, and heart" and in weeks 4&5, "the brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From an admittedly fairly biased webpage at vanderbilt.edu, "Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). H. Hamlin, 'Life or Death by EEG,' JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120. Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, 'appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation,' or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can measure brain waves, does that mean the baby is feeling enough that you can't murder it? There is no clear answer, but I believe you should err on the side of NOT murdering :P Therefore, I think that abortion should not be allowed after 4 weeks after conception, which is before most people choose to have an abortion. Therefore, I consider myself pro-life.

[Nadril]

In South Dakota they passed a bill banning abortions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The abortion law came as the result of a year-long, comprehensive South Dakota task force report that studied the effects of abortion on America over the last 33 years. Every aspect of abortion was analyzed, and over 3,500 pages of scientific research were collected. Fifty-four national and international experts testified, and thousands of affidavits were collected from women who had been hurt by abortion. Both sides were given equal time and an equal number of expert witnesses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The results of their 72 page report concluded two things:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Abortion terminates the life of a separate, distinct, living human being which can now be proven scientifically with DNA evidence and research in the field of molecular biology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Abortion hurts women , causing major physical, mental, emotional and spiritual consequences that can be devastating to their lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 72 page report:

 

 

 

Source

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A bit on topic about that, but I live in south dakota (going to school here). I belive they are doing another vote on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, there are a lot of anti-abortionists on our campus green, have a bunch of pictures of "mutulated fetus's" up. Wish they could come up with a better argument than "it's morarly wrong!".

[assassin_696]

I believe the choice should entirely be with the mother. This I think is fairly obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm also for abortion, on all counts. For several reasons. Basically, before abortion was legalised in the UK you would get "backstreet abortions" which were unofficial and often involved vinegar and hosepipes, nasty nasty. These were dangerous and would often lead to the death of the mother. Basically, no matter what the law says, people will try and have abortions, often with devastating consequences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't have a problem with the morality of abortions either, however I do think that abortions shouldn't be carried out after the baby could be considered independant, i.e. if you were to remove that baby from the womb it could survive reasonably independantly. Before this point the baby could be considered dependant on the mother, and in my eyes, not truly a separate human being, and it is therefore the mothers choice as to whether or not she wants to bring this baby into the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, abortions can be very traumatising, and so there should be proper counselling and advice for the mother if she is considering an abortion

[Guest GhostRanger]

A bit on topic about that, but I live in south dakota (going to school here). I belive they are doing another vote on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, there are a lot of anti-abortionists on our campus green, have a bunch of pictures of "mutulated fetus's" up. Wish they could come up with a better argument than "it's morarly wrong!".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, there is a vote happening this election.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the Genocide Awareness Program you're talking about, or I would assume it is. You need a better reason than killing is morally wrong? The reasoning is the same reason that killing any other human is wrong. Do we need better reasons to outlaw abortion than we need to outlaw murder? That seems ridiculous to those of us who believe it is a human.

[Death_By_Pod]

@Death_by_pod:

 

 

 

So if you think the case in South Dakota was unfairly bias, how about the cornerstone case for abortion that was based entirely on a lie?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@GSW: I guess we have to draw a line - but the simplest line for me seems to be DNA. There is new DNA at conception, therefore, I see a new being. Not that we could convince each other of our opinions on that though! :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't change the fact that anti-abortion bills violate the 14th amendment nor does it change the fact that women get raped and as a result of the rape, could possibly become pregnant. Even if the decision is overturned (all challenges so far have failed) there is legislation put into place in some states which protect abortion, so overturning woe vs wade will not help anti-abortionist activists. Whereas on the other hand the Dakota report makes a claim to authority, which it clearly does not have (lacking in medical doctors, bioethicists and psychologists on the board).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to where you draw the line, all the cells in your body are a new beings. Every time the body copies it's own DNA (which is does constantly), it makes re-encoding errors leading to the DNA not being a 100% copy of the original. So how different should DNA be to be considered a new being?

[Tigra00]

In South Dakota they passed a bill banning abortions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The abortion law came as the result of a year-long, comprehensive South Dakota task force report that studied the effects of abortion on America over the last 33 years. Every aspect of abortion was analyzed, and over 3,500 pages of scientific research were collected. Fifty-four national and international experts testified, and thousands of affidavits were collected from women who had been hurt by abortion. Both sides were given equal time and an equal number of expert witnesses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The results of their 72 page report concluded two things:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Abortion terminates the life of a separate, distinct, living human being which can now be proven scientifically with DNA evidence and research in the field of molecular biology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Abortion hurts women , causing major physical, mental, emotional and spiritual consequences that can be devastating to their lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 72 page report:

 

 

 

Source

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You forgot to mention that those women CHOSE to do it, however. And if by "physical" pain, you actually mean they have permanent damage to their bodies...That would be some quck doctor's fault who didn't know what he was doing. I'd be willing to wager most women are perfectly fine afterwards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people need to get abortions. Unless you're going to start a fund up to take care of the children who needed to be aborted, I suggest not whining about abortions. Do you wish to take care of the children of rape, incest or just plain old accidents? How about the doctors bills and funeral expenses of those who die or are permanently injured during birth?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People get abortions for a reason. People don't just up and abort babies for sport. :-s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Maybe you should start a crusade against the CAUSE of abortions, not against people who get abortions - that'll never work. So go ahead and teach teen's not to have sex before marriage, teach men not to rape (without a condom, at least? lol..) and teach fathers not to mess around with their daughters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem solved!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and teach women not to be such wussies during pregnancies so they stop dying during birth. You have lives to save!

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

@Death_by_pod:

 

 

 

So if you think the case in South Dakota was unfairly bias, how about the cornerstone case for abortion that was based entirely on a lie?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@GSW: I guess we have to draw a line - but the simplest line for me seems to be DNA. There is new DNA at conception, therefore, I see a new being. Not that we could convince each other of our opinions on that though! :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't change the fact that anti-abortion bills violate the 14th amendment nor does it change the fact that women get raped and as a result of the *, could possibly become pregnant. Even if the decision is overturned (all challenges so far have failed) there is legislation put into place in some states which protect abortion, so overturning woe vs wade will not help anti-abortionist activists. Whereas on the other hand the Dakota report makes a claim to authority, which it clearly does not have (lacking in medical doctors, bioethicists and psychologists on the board).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to where you draw the line, all the cells in your body are a new beings. Every time the body copies it's own DNA (which is does constantly), it makes re-encoding errors leading to the DNA not being a 100% copy of the original. So how different should DNA be to be considered a new being?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually it does, because before Roe v. Wade - anti-abortion bills did NOT violate the 14th Amendment and plenty of legal scholars and judges still dissent with the opinion that they violate the 14th Amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most pro-lifers (anti-abortionists as you call them) want first and foremost Roe v. Wade overturned so that it CAN be voted on like regular laws, as you suggest. Conservatives for life arguing from a judicial standpoint are making the claim that having an abortion is not a constitutional right and therefore, we should be allowed to vote on the law like most other laws. My personal opinion is that I want to be able to vote in favor or against abortion laws - if my opinion loses then that's how it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the Dakota report makes a claim to authority it doesn't have, the court will eventually rule against it. Roe v. Wade made an appeal to evidence that didn't exist. Period. That seems just as dangerour or more dangerous than what the South Dakota case has done. You also say every attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade has failed - you fail to realize it is very difficult to overturn court precedent. The problem? The case was based on a lie, and therefore, should have never made it through - and especially not become precedent. You make the point that the case is flawed in S. Dakota because the evidence presented is flawed. The case wouldn't have to exist at all if Roe v. Wade didn't happen - and Roe v. Wade was just as flawed as this case. Roe v. Wade is the root of the entire problem - should be overturned, and abortion laws should be handled like any other law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DNA reencoding errors is not the same thing as creating new DNA. Creating new DNA when a new person is created is not an error, whereas DNA encoding errors are errors. DNA can be used in court to identity and therefore, should be a basis for human identity. Are you going to argue that the new DNA of an embryo is only a DNA encoding error, despite that the DNA will then begin to replicate the "error" instead of trying to replicate the previous DNA? Plain and simple: When new DNA is created, it's not just an error because the being will continue to grow and attempt to encode the same NEW DNA it has. A DNA encoding error doesn't do that - because it's an error.

[dusqi]

Interestingly, they used to carry out operations on children younger than about 1.5 years old (before language) without anaesthetic, because they weren't considered conscious yet.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Interestingly, they used to carry out operations on children younger than about 1.5 years old (before language) without anaesthetic, because they weren't considered conscious yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Kant would argue that those under the age of 14 aren't rational adults, and therefore have no moral value.

[warri0r45]

im not really in favour of abortion, but if the mother/father dont want the child, theres no use in bringing that child into the world unloved. Ethical debate on the part of the feotuses (cant spell it) life/rights just clouds the issue. As long as it is disposed of humanely, no-one is hurt (assuming the parents dont want the child)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experimentation on embryos (in the stage where they have 50-150 cells) on the other hand, i believe, should be open slather. the potential medicinal benefits of embryonic stem cells is just too huge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate unfounded ethics blocking sound scientific research in this way...

[jackattack]

i think its murder and wrong but, i dont control other peple and they can do whatever they want as long as its legal. and you dont want people doing it with a coathanger. plus you can dump the baby at someones doorstep, a church or a fire dept,hostpital,ect. so i dont see why youd get one.

[BlueTear]

 

 

 

DNA reencoding errors is not the same thing as creating new DNA. Creating new DNA when a new person is created is not an error, whereas DNA encoding errors are errors. DNA can be used in court to identity and therefore, should be a basis for human identity. Are you going to argue that the new DNA of an embryo is only a DNA encoding error, despite that the DNA will then begin to replicate the "error" instead of trying to replicate the previous DNA? Plain and simple: When new DNA is created, it's not just an error because the being will continue to grow and attempt to encode the same NEW DNA it has. A DNA encoding error doesn't do that - because it's an error.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I'd hardly describe a fertilized cell as a DNA error, I'd like to point out that erroneous DNA can replicate itself and grow just the regular kind; we call it cancer. DNA encoding errors continues to grow despite being encoding errors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm also kind of curious as to how the statement about DNA being a basis for human identity connects to twins. After all, they're hardly the same being?

[BlueLancer]

It's impossible to have an absolute stance on abortion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. If the child is a "mistake", I believe the woman has no right to kill the baby because instead of taking a pill, she waited for too long before making her decision. In my opinion it's murdering the baby inside you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. If the woman was raped, she absolutely should be allowed an abortion. It's a huge personal humiliation and the woman may not even be prepared for a baby in her life, she has had her own plans and possibly doesn't even have enough money to keep the baby alive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So is there a difference since in both cases, the Embryo dies? Yes, because if you could ask the Embryo would he/she want to be born to a mother that will have to give him up for adoption/child care, live with the fact his father is a rapist sitting in a jail, would you really want to be born?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, that's hypothetical since you can't ask it questions (I didn't say him or her because it's possibly not determined yet). If you just want the best for the child, in #2, abortion should be allowed. I know I would not want to be born in that situation.

[thedepressedsquirrel]

 

 

 

If the Dakota report makes a claim to authority it doesn't have, the court will eventually rule against it. Roe v. Wade made an appeal to evidence that didn't exist. Period. That seems just as dangerour or more dangerous than what the South Dakota case has done. You also say every attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade has failed - you fail to realize it is very difficult to overturn court precedent. The problem? The case was based on a lie, and therefore, should have never made it through - and especially not become precedent. You make the point that the case is flawed in S. Dakota because the evidence presented is flawed. The case wouldn't have to exist at all if Roe v. Wade didn't happen - and Roe v. Wade was just as flawed as this case. Roe v. Wade is the root of the entire problem - should be overturned, and abortion laws should be handled like any other law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roe v. Wade was not based on evidence that didn't exist. Roe's rape claim was not used at all during the case by either side, since all of the attorneys involved found her story to be questionable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roe v. Wade was about a pregnant woman who wanted to abort her baby. Nothing else matters in a judicial sense. The fact that she later decided to have the baby or that she lied to the press about being raped does not make this case any less valid.

[Illps3Ill]

ABORTION = MURDER

 

the baby is human, and seperate from mother

 

they sometimes have different blood types

 

they have different DNA

 

they can act, and react

 

 

 

I agree with you completley...if you dont wanna have a child, then dont, its compltley wrong to abort a child, in my opinon it should be completly against the law,if they dont love the babi give it to someone who cant have one, or put it up for adoption, give it to a family that loves him and dont neglect it..its still alive, it may not seem stupid to most ppl but it is a problem. DONT ABORT BABIES. :evil:

[Rebdragon]

Jesus Christ that's one hell of a bump. And not a very good one either.

 

 

 

Eh, if people want to discuss it, no sense in reporting the topic, but geez Ill, if you're going to bump a topic this old and dead, at least add something to it :| .

[Nadril]

Yeah seriously.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you completley...if you dont wanna have a child, then dont, its compltley wrong to abort a child, in my opinon it should be completly against the law,if they dont love the babi give it to someone who cant have one, or put it up for adoption, give it to a family that loves him and dont neglect it..its still alive, it may not seem stupid to most ppl but it is a problem. DONT ABORT BABIES.

 

 

 

You ever hear of something called an 'accident' or a 'broken condom'?

 

 

 

Accidents happen to those who do try and be careful, and they shouldn't be penalized on the small chance of that happening.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, time and time again until a certain stage (I forget when, its here in the thread somewhere) a fetus has no actual means of thinking or feeling harm at all, I.E aborting it is just as much of 'wasting a life' as masterbation is.

[warren211]

The Bible is outdated and can no longer be applied to a modern society. The earth no longer is flat and doesn''t have four corners. Do not use the bible to justify your anti abortion crusade.

 

 

 

The Bible is not a text book. don't treat it as so. Its strictly on matters of faith.

 

 

 

 

 

I think that abortion is murder. after all, why is it legal to kill the baby before it leaves the womb, but once its born it then becomes a crime to kill it? Its a human from its conception. if its not human, what is it?

 

 

 

The only exception i'd say in abortion is in rape. the baby is born because of a malicious crime, not an act of love. other then that, even as an "accident", theres no excuse. don't have sex if you're not ready for the kid. Babies these days are treated as consequences, not gifts. They're "accidents" or even objects that you might not like and throw away. Want the pleasure of sex? go ahead, tiger. Don't wanna use protection? thats fine too. Got a kid because of it? Kill it.