So abouyt the part I bolded. You think the parents should not let the daughter get the abortion to teach her a lesson? What about the child, who will most likely live a horrible life and be abused and neglected. I have not read any of this thread, but honestly choice is the way to go. People may say "but it's a life" well yes, but who cares? I may sound like a complete douche but it's true. You will kill a spider without thinking, but you couldn't do the same to a "human". It is better for the thing to never live than be abused and mistreated. Just my two cents.

 

 

 

I was thinking along the lines of you get to have the abortion but then your parents get to find out so you get your nice lecture you earned.

Even though you didn't even attempt to answer my question, I'll answer yours. Choosing who lives and dies is not a "right" by any sense of the word. Let's just throw out the whole fetus thing for a moment and assume we have a three month old baby. If the parents decide they no longer want-- Actually, scratch that-- If the parents decide they can longer afford to have that child, would you support their right to kill it? That is, after all, they're "choice". If you say no, then I'd love to know the standards by which you assume the "choice" to kill a three month old is less so than the "choice" to kill a fetus for the same reasoning.

 

 

 

Oh, and try to make the standards somewhat scientific

 

 

 

That's like asking us why it's worse to steal $10,000 than it is to steal $10. To put it simple: Fetus < Baby - just like - Masturbating < Genocide.

 

 

 

Maybe you don't understand where the ideals of pro-choice are coming from. I don't think it's a great thing to have an abortion but when you compare it to putting a child through a life of misery, it's the lesser of the two evils so it's an acceptable choice. I wouldn't say it's good to steal $10 but if you were put in a situation - let's say you had to feed your family or else they'd starve to death - the stealing isn't good but it's definitely the lesser of the two evils when comes to letting your family starve.

That being that the child has human cognitive functions, whereas the embryo/fetus does not.

 

 

 

babies develop their senses over the course of nine months, not instantly when they are born. Babies kick before they are born, so your argument only holds as a reason to allow early abortions(which I agree should be legal).

*Ahem*

 

 

 

I'm surprised that you were actually expecting a straight answer, given that your original question had no bearing on anything I'd said, and was verging on an ad hominem by implying that I am comfortable with murder.

 

 

 

Yeah... No. But thanks for playing. I asked the difference in choosing to kill a three month old and killing a fetus while using the same reasoning for both circumstances. No ad hominem anywhere in that question. People really shouldn't terms they don't understand.

 

 

 

Your equating abortion to the slaying of a newborn child is one which is, I suppose, necessarily slanted to prop up your opinion on the matter; however, it is ultimately fallacious in that there is a world of difference between a three month old baby and a safely abortable fetus.

 

 

 

That being that the child has human cognitive functions, whereas the embryo/fetus does not.

 

 

 

Remember when I asked to make your reasoning somewhat scientific? Of course not, because you didn't.

 

 

 

It's a well-known and generally accepted principle that newborns contain extremely limited "cognitive functions", far below those of a "normal" (My word) human, so therefore you should be perfectly comfortable with infanticide (See: Peter Singer's argument for abortion and infanticide).

 

 

 

Of course, that's a purely philosophical argument, but seeing as how you love to rely on philosophical arguments, and not scientific ones, I thought I'd just throw that one out there for you to mull over.

 

 

 

(:

 

 

 

It's all very well for you to condemn them as murderers, but people who abort are not necessarily the callous butchers that you seem to imply they are. It is far from a trivial choice for anyone but the most maladjusted of people.

 

 

 

Obviously, it can't be too hard of a "choice" considering that more than one in five pregnancies end in abortion (In Australia. 21.3% of pregnancies as of 2006, to be exact) and a little less than half of abortions performed are performed on women who already obtained one prior.

 

 

 

...Oh, and nowhere did I call anyone a murderer. Nice try, though.

 

 

 

It says that the magnitude of the effect is 2% for whites and 10% for blacks. That's not a big effect, and they also say that it's not enough to reach the replacement rate. Of course, with this kind of study the details are the most important, and we don't have those.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you're reading but it says that, as I quote verbatim, "Klerman estimates that making abortion illegal would increase white fertility by an additional 3 percent, still below replacement levels". Unless only whites now have abortions, I would say that's kind of a "No duh!" type answer. They might make up the majority of the population, but they don't make up the majority of abortions performed (I think) :P

 

 

 

Furthermore, 2% and 10% drops are substantial in the fertility rate. Since the replacement rate is approximately 2.1, and most industrialized countries float right around that cusp, I wonder how you came to the conclusion that they aren't (For example, Britain replacement rate is something like 2.075. Any kind of change would be significant one way or the other)?

 

 

 

That's like asking us why it's worse to steal $10,000 than it is to steal $10. To put it simple: Fetus < Baby - just like - Masturbating < Genocide.

 

 

 

Maybe you don't understand where the ideals of pro-choice are coming from. I don't think it's a great thing to have an abortion but when you compare it to putting a child through a life of misery, it's the lesser of the two evils so it's an acceptable choice. I wouldn't say it's good to steal $10 but if you were put in a situation - let's say you had to feed your family or else they'd starve to death - the stealing isn't good but it's definitely the lesser of the two evils when comes to letting your family starve.

 

 

 

So ummm... Explain to me again who are you to decide whether or not someone else's life is worth them living or not?

That being that the child has human cognitive functions, whereas the embryo/fetus does not.

 

 

 

babies develop their senses over the course of nine months, not instantly when they are born. Babies kick before they are born, so your argument only holds as a reason to allow early abortions(which I agree should be legal).

 

 

 

I said I wouldn't come back but I lied. If you want to get technical fetal brain development starts at 3 weeks after conception. By 5 weeks, the cerebral cortex has convoluted. At just 9 weeks old the fetus can hiccup and react to loud sounds. And by 32 weeks the fetus behaves almost exactly the same way as a new born.

I really don't see what's surprising about this. It's just a bunch of guys in suits pretending to make informed decisions like they've been bred to do from the campaigning cradle. :geek: Have to run, might drop by later to make a more detailed post.

Yeah... No. But thanks for playing. I asked the difference in choosing to kill a three month old and killing a fetus while using the same reasoning for both circumstances. No ad hominem anywhere in that question. People really shouldn't terms they don't understand.

 

I love how you bolded the part of my paragraph that you replied to, but still failed to read it.

 

 

 

I am supporting the parent's right to choose to get an abortion. I am not choosing for them by saying, 'You are unsuitable, get an abortion.'

 

 

 

Remember when I asked to make your reasoning somewhat scientific? Of course not, because you didn't.

 

 

 

It's a well-known and generally accepted principle that newborns contain extremely limited "cognitive functions", far below those of a "normal" (My word) human, so therefore you should be perfectly comfortable with infanticide (See: Peter Singer's argument for abortion and infanticide).

 

Children go through their first stage of cognitive development in the first two years of life (See: Piaget), not during the stages of pregnancy where it is safe to abort.

 

 

 

Though how you can hope to reduce it to a scientific debate is beyond me, as this is, at its heart, a moral issue for many people. Hard science will not account for a rape victim who lives with a constant reminder of the crime in the form of an unwanted child.

 

 

 

Obviously, it can't be too hard of a "choice" considering that more than one in five pregnancies end in abortion (In Australia. 21.3% of pregnancies as of 2006, to be exact) and a little less than half of abortions performed are performed on women who already obtained one prior.

 

Those statistics do not account for reasons why abortions were performed. You might also note that the top 20 countries in that list are Slavic or Latin countries that do not generally sport excellent standards of living.

 

 

 

Also, in your Australia example, you might note that the region with the lowest rate of reported legal abortions (Northern Territory, 4.9%) also happens to be the region which experiences the highest incidence of child abuse in the country.

Children go through their first stage of cognitive development in the first two years of life (See: Piaget), not during the stages of pregnancy where it is safe to abort.

 

 

 

Yes children go through their first stage of cognitive development in the first two years of life. However, fetus's cognitive development starts as early as 3 weeks after conception. Usually abortions are performed by 12 weeks but fetus's have already developed the ability to react to sounds and even hiccup at just 9 weeks.

That's interesting, Mel. Can you provide an outline and source for the cognitive structures that they form, viz. involuntary reflexes?

So ummm... Explain to me again who are you to decide whether or not someone else's life is worth them living or not?

 

 

 

How about you explain who are you to force someone to go through suffering and who are you to decide that no one should be able to make that choice? I'm only saying the choice should be there.

I love how you bolded the part of my paragraph that you replied to, but still failed to read it.

 

 

 

I am supporting the parent's right to choose to get an abortion. I am not choosing for them by saying, 'You are unsuitable, get an abortion.'

 

 

 

Ummm yeah... I'm thinking you're not reading. So, stated once again, no where did I state or imply that you were okay with murder. I asked you a question, which you somehow misconstrued as an ad hominem (How? I'll never know). Plus, you never got around to answering my question.

 

 

 

Remember when I asked to make your reasoning somewhat scientific? Of course not, because you didn't.

 

 

 

Children go through their first stage of cognitive development in the first two years of life (See: Piaget), not during the stages of pregnancy where it is safe to abort.

 

 

 

*facepalm*

 

 

 

Stay with me here. If you say it's okay to abort a fetus because it it contains limited "cognitive functions", yet it takes approximately two years (I've actually heard it's three, but we'll go with two) to develop significant, or even full, "cognitive functions", then you should be okay with killing a three month old because it does not contain the "cognitive functions" required in order to be human. That was the gist of my original argument. That's the gist of Peter Singer's argument for infanticide. That's the gist of the argument you unknowingly put forward. So, with that being said, I ask you the question again: "Why is it wrong to kill a three month old for the exact same reasons you would kill a fetus?". Go ahead and humor me with a rebuttal. It should be interesting, to say the least.

 

 

 

 

 

Though how you can hope to reduce it to a scientific debate is beyond me, as this is, at its heart, a moral issue for many people.

 

 

 

Wait, what? So, I can relegate any issue to one of personal morality? If that's the case, then why don't I have the right to decide to kill people at my leisure?

 

 

 

Hard science will not account for a rape victim who lives with a constant reminder of the crime in the form of an unwanted child.

 

 

 

You do realize that very few people will actually deny a woman access to an abortion if she's going to die otherwise or was raped, right? And you do realize that things such as ectopic pregnancies and rape account for, like, next to nothing when it comes for the reasons behind having an abortion, right? The overwhelming responses given are those of purely elective reasons (i.e., "I don't want children right now" or "I'm not mentally ready to have a child" or "I can't afford a child", etc.).

 

 

 

Also, in your Australia example, you might note that the region with the lowest rate of reported legal abortions (Northern Territory, 4.9%) also happens to be the region which experiences the highest incidence of child abuse in the country.

 

 

 

How did you find that statistic? I did a quick search and it appears that the Northern Territory does not publish abortion statistics.

 

 

 

How about you explain who are you to force someone to go through suffering and who are you to decide that no one should be able to make that choice? I'm only saying the choice should be there.

 

 

 

What is this? Answer a question with a question day? How about you answer the question I asked you first before trying to pose any questions yourself?

What is this? Answer a question with a question day? How about you answer the question I asked you first before trying to pose any questions yourself?

 

 

 

I did answer it. Here it is again:

 

 

 

How about you explain who are you to force someone to go through suffering and who are you to decide that no one should be able to make that choice? I'm only saying the choice should be there.

That's interesting, Mel. Can you provide an outline and source for the cognitive structures that they form, viz. involuntary reflexes?

 

 

 

Piaget's development theory revolves around the different stages of cognitive development in children aged 0 to 11+ years. He did this through observing, talking and listening to them and analyzing children's capacity to understand the world around them and also engaging in psychological tasks. Basically, theorizing that structures evolve in an organized and predictable pattern from the interaction between organism and environment. If you apply this theory to fetal development it's quite possible to argue that cognitive structures in a newborn had origins before birth.

 

 

 

Cognitive structures and other facts before 12 weeks.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

The eye, ear and respiratory systems begin to form four weeks after fertilization. K. Moore, Before We Were Born, 3rd ed., 1989, p. 278

 

 

 

Thumb sucking has been photographed at 7 weeks after fertilization. W. Liley, The Fetus As Personality, Fetal Therapy, 1986, p. 8-17

 

 

 

A woman cannot feel the fetus moving until 20/24 weeks because the inside of the uterus has no feeling. The fetus usually has to be at least a pound before the mother can feel the force on the outside wall of the uterus.

 

 

 

By the 11th week a fetus can "breathe" in amniotic fluid, however, irregularly. "Breathing" has been recorded as early as 10 weeks gestational age. Conners et al., "Control of Fetal Breathing in the Human Fetus," Am J. OB-GYN, April 1989, p. 932

 

 

 

A fetus can swallow at 11 weeks. Valman & Pearson, British Med. Jour., "What the Fetus Feels," 26 Jan. 1980, p. 233

 

 

 

"At eight weeks of life a tapping stimulus on the amniotic sac results in arm movements . . . the primitive brain receives the stimulus, selects a response and transmits the response as a signal to the arm." M. Rosen, "Learning Before Birth," Harpers Magazine, April 1978

 

 

 

"We know already that even embryonic nervous tissue is open to maternal communication via brain chemicals called neurotransmitters." Thus the mother's emotional state can affect the fetus from conception onwards. Shettles & Varick, Rites of Life, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983, pp. 87-89

 

 

 

Involuntary reflexes

 

 

 

 

The human brainstem is fashioned around the 6th7th week of gestation and matures in a caudal to rostral arc, thereby forming the medulla, pons, and midbrain. The medulla mediates arousal, breathing, heart rate, and gross movements of the body and head, and medullary functions appear prior to those of the pons, which precede those of the midbrain. Hence, by the 7th9th gestational week the fetus displays spontaneous movements, 1 week later takes its first breath, and by the 25th week demonstrates stimulus-induced heart rate accelerations.

 

 

 

Fetal Brain Behavior and Cognitive Development*1

 

R. Joseph

 

Developmental Review

 

Volume 20, Issue 1, March 2000, Pages 81-98

 

ScienceDirect

 

 

 

 

No one yet has proven that it knows that it exists. The cognitive development in the fetus has so far been proven to be involuntary. Btw my spell check isn't Australian so some z's and s's will be in the wrong places.

What is this? Answer a question with a question day? How about you answer the question I asked you first before trying to pose any questions yourself?

 

 

 

I did answer it. Here it is again:

 

 

 

How about you explain who are you to force someone to go through suffering and who are you to decide that no one should be able to make that choice? I'm only saying the choice should be there.

 

 

 

How does that answer my question? It doesn't. Hell, it doesn't even address my question. I specifically asked who you were to decide whether or not someone else's life was worth living. Responding with "It's a choice which should be there" is just a reiteration of the reason I asked the question in the first place.

What is this? Answer a question with a question day? How about you answer the question I asked you first before trying to pose any questions yourself?

 

 

 

I did answer it. Here it is again:

 

 

 

How about you explain who are you to force someone to go through suffering and who are you to decide that no one should be able to make that choice? I'm only saying the choice should be there.

 

 

 

How does that answer my question? It doesn't. Hell, it doesn't even address my question. I specifically asked who you were to decide whether or not someone else's life was worth living. Responding with "It's a choice which should be there" is just a reiteration of the reason I asked the question in the first place.

 

You want the answer? Here's the answer:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because we can.

 

 

 

Since ALL the other answers weren't good for you, we're all Satanic death lovers.

What is this? Answer a question with a question day? How about you answer the question I asked you first before trying to pose any questions yourself?

 

 

 

I did answer it. Here it is again:

 

 

 

How about you explain who are you to force someone to go through suffering and who are you to decide that no one should be able to make that choice? I'm only saying the choice should be there.

 

 

 

How does that answer my question? It doesn't. Hell, it doesn't even address my question. I specifically asked who you were to decide whether or not someone else's life was worth living. Responding with "It's a choice which should be there" is just a reiteration of the reason I asked the question in the first place.

 

You want the answer? Here's the answer:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because we can.

 

 

 

Since ALL the other answers weren't good for you, we're all Satanic death lovers.

 

 

 

I'm fairly sure this is a path you don't want to go down, so I'll let you change your answer. Because I'm nice.

 

 

 

Edit: Oh, and "All the other answers" being one.

How does that answer my question? It doesn't. Hell, it doesn't even address my question. I specifically asked who you were to decide whether or not someone else's life was worth living. Responding with "It's a choice which should be there" is just a reiteration of the reason I asked the question in the first place.

 

 

 

I am not deciding whether someone else's life is worth living because I never got anyone pregnant. Hence the "I'm only saying the choice should be there (for the parents which I am not)". That's why your question is a bad one - it's aimed towards me, a person who isn't in a dilemma concerning abortion. A better question would be, "Why should anyone decide whether their child's life is worth living or not?"

 

 

 

However, if I were to engage in intercourse and my partner was impregnated, it should be up to her and I to weigh the pros & cons and decide whether his/her life would be a pleasant one or if it would be easier on him/her not to be born. You know - the difference between a life of suffering and a life of happiness. In other words, if a parent can prevent a life of suffering for their children, it should be excusable. Note: They have not been born yet, so their life is nonexistent while the decision is being made, making it unequal to the death of a 3-month-old.

 

 

 

Now how about you answer my questions? Who are you to force suffering on another human being?

I am very glad that I came back to TIF today. I didn't know about this bill prior to checking, due to the fact that I'm not a fan of the news. I didn't read all of the posts, but I did read the actual text of the bill.

 

 

 

Personally, I hope this bill doesn't pass, mainly because of the underage thing. There are other ways of dealing ith an unwanted pregnancy, one of which is adoption. Also, not having the parents involved negates any form of parenting. Until a child is 18, the parents have the legal right to make decisions for the minor child, and by passing this bill, it makes it ok or a young woman to screw up, and not have to tell her parents, which is a load of BS. If it were my daughter, I would want to know about it, and personally, I would make her go through the pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption.

 

 

 

Did you know that it is alot easier for a newborn to get adopted than it is for any other age of child? In fact, most plans for newborn adoptions are made before the mother even gives birth.

 

 

 

I only agree with abortions when it puts the mother or the baby at a fatal risk. Any other reason, and it's morally wrong. You screw up, you gotta deal with it. If you don't want the child, at least have the baby and give it up for adoption, so someone who can't physically have kids has the chance to raise one.

 

 

 

And no, I'm not Catholic, or any kind of Christian. That's just my beliefs on the subject.

 

 

 

EDIT: It figures, Hillary Clinton has to be involved in this.

If it were my daughter, I would want to know about it, and personally, I would make her go through the pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption.

 

 

Pretty much the point of the bill is so parents can't do that. If the daughter thinks that the parent doesn't respect or trust them enough to let them make their own decision, they shouldn't have to tell the parent.

If it were my daughter, I would want to know about it, and personally, I would make her go through the pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption.

 

 

Pretty much the point of the bill is so parents can't do that. If the daughter thinks that the parent doesn't respect or trust them enough to let them make their own decision, they shouldn't have to tell the parent.

 

 

 

Then the bill is taking away parental rights, which makes parenting even harder. Kids are already getting screwed up, the government is just making it worse.

If it were my daughter, I would want to know about it, and personally, I would make her go through the pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption.

 

 

Pretty much the point of the bill is so parents can't do that. If the daughter thinks that the parent doesn't respect or trust them enough to let them make their own decision, they shouldn't have to tell the parent.

 

 

 

Then the bill is taking away parental rights, which makes parenting even harder. Kids are already getting screwed up, the government is just making it worse.

 

 

 

The parents should be doing their job better to educate their kids on how not to get pregnant in the first place. Any parent who forces their child to either; have an abortion or keep a baby when they don't want to, should not be parents in the first place. To me, that is as bad as forcing their children into arranged marriages against their will - forcing their child into a decision that will effect them for the rest of their lives.

Here is my final say in the matter - If a teenage girl is not mature or responsible enough to go about things the right way, then they are not mature or responsible enough to make the decision whether or not to keep a baby.

Here is my final say in the matter - If a teenage girl is not mature or responsible enough to go about things the right way, then they are not mature or responsible enough to make the decision whether or not to keep a baby.

 

But which takes more responsibility/maturity, having the child or not having it at all?

Here is my final say in the matter - If a teenage girl is not mature or responsible enough to go about things the right way, then they are not mature or responsible enough to make the decision whether or not to keep a baby.

 

 

 

You don't exactly have to be mature to realize your own immaturity. And I agree with what Nick said. If she's too immature, wouldn't that be an argument to use if you were to say she's an unfit mother and that abortion is acceptable?

I am not deciding whether someone else's life is worth living because I never got anyone pregnant. Hence the "I'm only saying the choice should be there (for the parents which I am not)". That's why your question is a bad one - it's aimed towards me, a person who isn't in a dilemma concerning abortion. A better question would be, "Why should anyone decide whether their child's life is worth living or not?"

 

 

 

However, if I were to engage in intercourse and my partner was impregnated, it should be up to her and I to weigh the pros & cons and decide whether his/her life would be a pleasant one or if it would be easier on him/her not to be born. You know - the difference between a life of suffering and a life of happiness. In other words, if a parent can prevent a life of suffering for their children, it should be excusable. Note: They have not been born yet, so their life is nonexistent while the decision is being made, making it unequal to the death of a 3-month-old.

 

 

 

Now how about you answer my questions? Who are you to force suffering on another human being?

 

 

 

You do realize that in the process of chasing your own proverbial tail, you never got around to answering the question, right? All you've done is say that you should have that choice, which we've already established you believe you should have, but have never tried bothering to explain who are you to decide whether or not someone else's life is worth living.

 

 

 

So... Answer the question? :P

 

 

 

But, just because I'll answer your question. It seems to me your position is that a woman's "choice" should be invoked after the fact. Never before it. My position is that a woman's "choice" should be evoked before the fact, never after it unless she wasn't given a "choice" prior to the act to begin with (Rape). Now, if you argue that a woman's "choice" occurs after pregnancy, any "choice" she makes is paramount to a fetus' right to live and/or assumes that a fetus' life is not worth living (Which you have yet to explain). However, I do not make that claim. I claim that a fetus' right to live is contingent on the "choice" she makes to engage in sex (If that fetus later decides it's life is not worth living, then it can choose to terminate it's own life). Since she actively makes the decision to participate in sex, then she actively granted that fetus the right to live and the right to decide it's own fate-- A right, which cannot be rescinded unless not doing so would result in the woman's death.