Abortion Debate

[lookout123]

Pets are killed by owners all the time, or - perhaps more often - taken to clinics to be killed.

uh-oh, you just had to go there, didn't you?

*sees garnet entering room carrying soap bax and flame thrower*

[garnet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

uh-oh, you just had to go there, didn't you?

*sees garnet entering room carrying soap bax and flame thrower*

Hey! I've been a good girl lately! I'm learning slowly but surely how to play nicely with others.

(just don't start another PETA thread......pleeeeeeze!)

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm not sure that's true. I remember some anti-abortion congressmen tried to pass such a law recently, but I don't know what the status is. I think the usual charge would be forcing a miscarriage, rather than murder.Pets are killed by owners all the time, or - perhaps more often - taken to clinics to be killed.

Here in La., it's fetuscide. I don't know about other states.

I'm not referring to people who bring sick pets to be put down, or vicious or rabid animals (I think that people who kill perfectly healthy pets should be flogged. If you can't take care of a pet, don't get one, IMO). I'm talking about people who abuse their animals or kill animals. I can't tell you how many people I know who have had pets poisoned by neighbors, or the like.

In La., if you abuse or kill an animal, or are found to be engaged in animal fighting, you can be fined and/or imprisoned for animal abuse, if you're caught.


Sidhe


Interesting how we treat animals as compared to how we treat murderers and babies....we'll put down a rabid animal because it's a danger to society, but not a human who is a danger to society. And the animal didn't even kill. We'll protect animals from abuse and death at the hands of caretakers, but not babies.

Pathetic.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

Here in La., it's fetuscide. I don't know about other states.

I'd guess that they are trying to get as close to banning abortion as they can without attracting the Supreme Court.

I'm not referring to people who bring sick pets to be put down, or vicious or rabid animals

How about animal shelters? If they can't find a loving family for the animal, they'll kill it (depending on the shelter).

Interesting how we treat animals as compared to how we treat murderers and babies....we'll put down a rabid animal because it's a danger to society, but not a human who is a danger to society. And the animal didn't even kill. We'll protect animals from abuse and death at the hands of caretakers, but not babies.

The reason rabid animals are killed is that they are considered less important than people, and therefore not worth life imprisonment. Babies are more protected than animals, and fetuses are less. Animal fetuses have no protection at all.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

Interesting how we treat animals as compared to how we treat murderers and babies....we'll put down a rabid animal because it's a danger to society, but not a human who is a danger to society. And the animal didn't even kill. We'll protect animals from abuse and death at the hands of caretakers, but not babies.

Pathetic.

Sorry, just can't help myself on this one. It all goes back to what your definition of "baby" is. If you kill a human infant (and get caught) you're going to the slammer for a looooong time. If you kill a kitten or a puppy, you get a slap on the wrist (if anything).

Lots of pro-lifers hate PETA because we protect animals instead of unborn "babies." I've never understood the connection. We get tons of mail from those people. I don't get why they're wasting their time bitching at us instead of doing something useful--like helping pregnant teenagers and abused children.

[Radar]

Now, let’s get this thing cranked up. How do you define personhood?

Sentience. (total self-awareness...something no other animal besides humans have and is measured in alpha brain waves which are present even in those who are in a coma and are not brain dead)

Although there really is no need to define it. That decision is only up to one person, the host (pregnant woman) of the parasite (fetus).

Note: I'm not using the word parasite in a derrogatory manner. It is merely an accurate biological description of the parasitic relationship between the fetus and the pregnant woman. A fetus is a non-human because it does not have sentience.

Some things are often confused with human life so let me make a short list of things that are not human life.

• a beating heart
• reflexive actions (sucking thumb, response to stimuli, kicking, etc)
• the shape of a human being
• fingers, toes, arms, legs or other body parts
• human dna

None of these alone or even combined constitute a human life but even if the fetus did have human life (defined only by sentience/alpha waves) it would not give it any claim to the body of the host/pregnant woman. Nobody on earth has any claim on our bodies but ourselves, not even something that may be living inside us, even if it is a human.

I don't have any moral compunction what so ever about abortion. In my eyes it's akin to having a wart, a tumor, or a tapeworm removed or having a limb amputated. It's no more or less important.

I've thought about becoming an abortion doctor just so one of the services I offered would be free abortions to those under 18 without any notification of parents, guardians, husbands, boyfriends, etc. I'd even offer a free ride to and from the clinic if they lived nearby.

And I'd sleep well at night knowing I did the right thing in helping salvage real existing human life, not merely the potential for one. I put the lives of the living above those who might live later.

[Undertoad]

How would you feel about it in the 7th month then, once the fetus has at least the capacity for sentience, and perhaps has it in some way we don't fathom?

[Kitsune]

How would you feel about it in the 7th month

7th month? Man, if only I had some audio for you guys...



( straight to hell!)

[ladysycamore]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

How would you feel about it in the 7th month

7th month? Man, if only I had some audio for you guys...



( straight to hell!)

*CRINGING!!!*

OH god no...

[jane_says]

I thought the Yahoo group was trying to yank some chains, too, and then I noticed they'd been at it since 2001, with a lot of the same members. I thought that was quite a while to be at the same crusade. I read some of the stories too, and they were quite explicit sexually. They post real videos of abortions and claim to get off on it. The one thing that made me believe it was real was that they weren't actively promoting it. It was a private group, or whatever you call the ones you have to get persmission/password from the person who runs it before you can see it. (I quit the group after I'd read all I could take).

[Lady Sidhe]

I am pro-choice in only two cases: if the mother's life is in danger, or if the child will be born with a birth defect that will shortly kill it or will make it so that there is no quality of life at all for the child.

When it comes to the "oops, I fucked up/I don't have time or money for a child" type of abortions--uh-uh. There are way too many people out there who are willing to pay all doctor bills in order to adopt for that to be an excuse. When it comes to rape or incest, all I can say is that I personally would not have an abortion, for the above-mentioned reason. It's not the baby's fault who the father is. There is no reason to make the child pay for the sins of the father.

I think that abortions should be allowed until brain waves start. It is at this point that the fetus is conscious and can feel pain. I also think that menstrual extraction is an acceptable method of abortion. Invented by a female OB-GYN, it keeps a woman from having to go through her period each month by extracting the menstrual debris via vacuum. This means that if an egg has been implanted, the egg gets sucked out as well.

I've talked to several pro-choicers about this on abortion debate forums, and I still don't understand their reasoning. It's all about them. Considering that most places have free clinics in which one can procure free birth control, there's no excuse. Granted, birth control can fail, but at least one is attempting to prevent a pregnancy and is taking responsibility for that. I'm all about responsibility and having to deal with the consequences of one's actions, as everyone well knows.

The main reason I'm pro-choice is just as Wolf said--back-alley abortions kill too many people. It should be made safe. BUT, I also think that if a woman is allowed to have an abortion, that she should be required to take birth control. It should be mandatory.

I also think that the men should have a say in the abortion issue. After all, it takes two, and fathers just don't have any rights nowadays when it comes to children--at least they have no rights if they aren't currrently married to the mother of the child. I think that if the father wants the child and says he will take care of it, then she should have to have the baby. It shouldn't die because she'll be inconvenienced by its presence.


Sidhe

[Lady Sidhe]

Incidentally, LadySyc, I love your AmishRakeFight link. Meant to tell you that about a hundred years ago when I first saw it, but forgot. I've sent it to so many people, mostly because I knew they'd appreciate it just as much as I did, and send it on.



Sidhe

[jaguar]

The real problem is the strange notion that human life is somehow magically sacred, if people are that worried about 'people' dieing they should asked to sell their posessions to feed starving wretched kids in africa before that can claim some sort of moral high ground about abortion.

[ladysycamore]

Originally Posted by jaguar

The real problem is the strange notion that human life is somehow magically sacred, if people are that worried about 'people' dieing they should asked to sell their posessions to feed starving wretched kids in africa before that can claim some sort of moral high ground about abortion.

A big amen from me on that one.


Or for those who say, "Every child is a wanted child"...where are they when the woman doesn't want her child? I don't see anyone lining up to take in that "wanted" child.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by ladysycamore

Or for those who say, "Every child is a wanted child"...where are they when the woman doesn't want her child? I don't see anyone lining up to take in that "wanted" child.

I don't understand your point here. It is well known that there are very long waiting lists for adoption in the US.