http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/tur...&NewsCatID=338

Interesting, Particularly the comments section.

Brilliant work by Turkey aiming to move back to restriction instead of forward to freedom. Looks like we're heading the same way once the mad monk gets in.

I was hoping to hear your thoughts on abortion more than however you think that this applies to Australia.

Women should have the choice and public facility to abort the fetus growing in their tummies if they wish to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

I was hoping to hear your thoughts on abortion more than however you think that this applies to Australia.

In the words of Clinton, abortion should be safe, legal, and as rare as possible.

There is rhetoric on both sides that is loony-toons stuff:

Anti-abortionists - "baby killers."

Pro-choicers - "It's my womb I'll do whatever I want with it."

Both arguments belie the underlying truth about abortion: it happens for a variety of complex reasons on a woman-to-woman basis. I think, and this is just my anecdotal opinion, that most women who contemplate terminating a pregnancy don't make a choice from a bolshie feminist perspective: they make the choice according to their reality which is based on their individual circumstances which can't then be extrapolated to generalise about all other women contemplating this procedure.

Eh, anti-abortion lot are generally retarded and making an argument about 'protecting' the chastity of women, rather than any sort of informed choice.

The very idea that some of them agree that rape and incest are reasons to terminate the child show that they really aren't about the foetus at all, it's about stopping women from being promiscuous. If it truly was about saying all life is sacred, then they must take the view that even babies formed from rape should not be aborted, either.

Once again, it's a throw back to a more repressed time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

In the words of Clinton, abortion should be safe, legal, and as rare as possible.

Abortion Freakout Baby Yeeeeeeeeeah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

I was hoping to hear your thoughts on abortion more than however you think that this applies to Australia.

What are your views on aborting fewsion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CircusMidget

What are your views on aborting fewsion?

I think a lot of people would like to abort fewsion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by austraboy

I think a lot of people would like to abort fewsion.

Aren't you thankful your parents didn't abort you so you could spread your hateful views!

My views on the matter align with the supposedly "retarded" who believe that it is wrong to terminate a life. However defined, I don't think the pro-lifers have made a case that abortion is not terminating a life. If everyone agrees that a foetus or embryo is a living human being, then I don't believe it is ok to abort.

Turkeys are like, big chickens

Do you eat eggs fewsion?

It's funny how the people most likely to be against abortion (religious types), are some of the most likely to support wars of aggression.

You can kill a person , so long as they are infidel / raghead / atheist / democrat etc. That bunch of cells with a barely formed nervous system is sacrosanct however, and if you try and kill it, I'll fucking bomb the nearest abortion clinic and execute the doctors.

I take it you're familiar with Pope John Paul II's views on the Iraq wars then given your statement dbb618? A quick google will sort that out.

"That bunch of cells with a barely formed nervous system" - wow! Has to be the most reductive and ignorant comment you've made. You don't have to be religious to marvel at the miracle that is human life. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find militant atheists describe life so cheaply as you have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Aren't you thankful your parents didn't abort you so you could spread your hateful views!

My views on the matter align with the supposedly "retarded" who believe that it is wrong to terminate a life. However defined, I don't think the pro-lifers have made a case that abortion is not terminating a life. If everyone agrees that a foetus or embryo is a living human being, then I don't believe it is ok to abort.

But that's the point, not everyone does agree that a foetus or an embryo is a living human being. They definitely have the potential to be human beings. I personally find late-term abortions troubling but in most instances, to my understanding, they are performed only when it becomes apparent that the woman's life may be in jeopardy (I'm not suggesting that is the only time they are performed).

Do you advocate making abortion illegal? Will you adopt the babies of women who do not want them for whatever reason?

The debate certainly goes there. It's not an issue about the unborn, it is an issue about the mothers right to choose.

I find it a convenient out that people would try to re-define what it is to be a living human being in order to justify abortions. We've probably barely scratched the surface of the knowledge of what embryos are capable of in terms of thinking, or feeling or of the other faculties they have that are one and the same with "living people". If you had to define what is a "living human being" to justify abortion, then I think you can justify euthanasia or eugenics with that same logic.

What's the purpose of asking your question at the end though? Shouldn't you be asking that if abortion was illegal would the women who had their children still want to give them up for adoption?

Pretty poor thought experiment anyhow.

I always find it amusing that men have such definitive opinions on abortion, which you know, is interesting because at the end of the day, if they decide they want nothing to do with the child, they can simply get up and leave, wash their hands completely of the situation.
Its all well and good for you to cast your judgement, but its not as if you are stuck with the consequences now is it?

Also, i dont think its relevent to include eugenics or euthanasia.

What exactly is the "consequence"? The gestation? The birth? The child?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

1. The debate certainly goes there. It's not an issue about the unborn, it is an issue about the mothers right to choose.

2. I find it a convenient out that people would try to re-define what it is to be a living human being in order to justify abortions. We've probably barely scratched the surface of the knowledge of what embryos are capable of in terms of thinking, or feeling or of the other faculties they have that are one and the same with "living people". If you had to define what is a "living human being" to justify abortion, then I think you can justify euthanasia or eugenics with that same logic.

3. What's the purpose of asking your question at the end though? Shouldn't you be asking that if abortion was illegal would the women who had their children still want to give them up for adoption?

1. It's an issue about both imo. I don't think it should be an issue that isn't discussed btw. I think it is an unfortunate modern horror story tbh (my value judgement) but one that becomes worse if you start banning it arbitrarily.

The issue of the inuterine potential life versus exuterine actual life are important discussions to have. There is no doubt that it is a complex issue that I don't think can ever be resolved while you will always have some people who think that life begins at conception and others who don't and one in which science isn't likely to answer to anyone's satisfaction.

2. I'm not seeking to re-define what human life is. There is not an equivocal answer to that question in any objective sense.

Are women's ovaries life?
Are men's sperm?
Is a blastocyst? Zygote? Embryo? Foetus?

Your answer will differ to many others.

But you clearly place a moral judgement on those views which differ from yours about what constitutes a human life

3. Shouldn't you be asking what kind of abortions will take place if, as it seems, you agree with it being made illegal? Or do you discount what could happen to a woman in a potentially life-threatening or future life-bearing situation because she doesn't happen to want the pregnancy she has (due to any number of factors you are unaware of) at that present time.

And btw I believe in voluntary euthanasia but I do not believe in eugenics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

What exactly is the "consequence"? The gestation? The birth? The child?

The entirety of the situation, including but not limited to those mentioned, also, if a woman were to chose to have an abortion, the consequence of that action as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

1. It's an issue about both imo. I don't think it should be an issue that isn't discussed btw. I think it is an unfortunate modern horror story tbh (my value judgement) but one that becomes worse if you start banning it arbitrarily.

The issue of the inuterine potential life versus exuterine actual life are important discussions to have. There is no doubt that it is a complex issue that I don't think can ever be resolved while you will always have some people who think that life begins at conception and others who don't and one in which science isn't likely to answer to anyone's satisfaction.

2. I'm not seeking to re-define what human life is. There is not an equivocal answer to that question in any objective sense.

Are women's ovaries life?
Are men's sperm?
Is a blastocyst? Zygote? Embryo? Foetus?

Your answer will differ to many others.

But you clearly place a moral judgement on those views which differ from yours about what constitutes a human life

3. Shouldn't you be asking what kind of abortions will take place if, as it seems, you agree with it being made illegal? Or do you discount what could happen to a woman in a potentially life-threatening or future life-bearing situation because she doesn't happen to want the pregnancy she has (due to any number of factors you are unaware of) at that present time.

And btw I believe in voluntary euthanasia but I do not believe in eugenics.

1. I agree that it's something that should be discussed. Not just in politics, but in here too. To my mind, I don't think the debate today has to do with the definitions of "living being" and more to do with women's rights (poor source but here goes http://womensissues.about.com/od/rep...ionArgumen.htm)

2. Don't these questions represent an attempt to redefine a "living being". I remember this (not the details of course) from year science classes. Under the heading "Biology" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life Surely a moral judgement is necessitated by what I see as the seriousness of the issue. Are moral judgements to be avoided?

3. To suggest that I wouldn't be concerned with those types of cases if it was made illegal is wrong. But, at the end of the day, can you legitimise the termination of a human being is what it comes down to for me. Understatement alarm - childbirth is nothing new, if it were made illegal it's not as though every unwanted pregnancy candidate will end up with a coathanger in a dark alley.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

You don't have to be religious to marvel at the miracle that is human life.

Why is human life miraculous? Why not the rest of the biota? To make that distinction suggests we develop in a magical way not similar to any other organism, which is obviously wrong. So by that reasoning you would be opposed to killing any and all living things. Everrrrrr.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

If you had to define what is a "living human being" to justify abortion, then I think you can justify euthanasia or eugenics with that same logic.

Now I know you're either trolling or a lost cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crabman

Why is human life miraculous? Why not the rest of the biota? To make that distinction suggests we develop in a magical way not similar to any other organism, which is obviously wrong. So by that reasoning you would be opposed to killing any and all living things. Everrrrrr.

simple minded bigotry imo. Sure, the human brain which gave rise to gods is pretty damn special, but so is photosynthesis and the eyeball.

You have to define where life starts - otherwise, you're committing mass murder every time you have a wank. Or a women is 'murdering' a human life every time she ovulates.

Is that really the argument? That even pre-fertilized eggs are 'human life'?

If so, then you I suppose we'd all better go report to the lock up.

If not, then where do you draw that line? As has already been mentioned, you need to draw it somewhere. It's not a human life when it's a small ball of cells. It certainly is when it's a fully formed human child about to be born.

Once again, completely removing the right to have an abortion is a crappy attempt at controlling women and their sexuality. If it was truly about the sanctity of life, then you have to argue that even women who are raped must bear that child. Or women who may potentially die in child birth.

If you don't hold that view then you're not really arguing for the sanctity of life and your other agenda has to be analysed.

Either way, it is retarded - especially in the sense that it's a retrograde move for society.

Making abortion illegal is a backwards move for women's rights.

The miracle of human life argument is so fucked, any gronk can make a child, it's no miracle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

The issue of the inuterine potential life versus exuterine actual life are important discussions to have. There is no doubt that it is a complex issue that I don't think can ever be resolved while you will always have some people who think that life begins at conception and others who don't and one in which science isn't likely to answer to anyone's satisfaction.

2. I'm not seeking to re-define what human life is. There is not an equivocal answer to that question in any objective sense.

Are women's ovaries life?
Are men's sperm?
Is a blastocyst? Zygote? Embryo? Foetus?

Your answer will differ to many others.

But you clearly place a moral judgement on those views which differ from yours about what constitutes a human life

3. Shouldn't you be asking what kind of abortions will take place if, as it seems, you agree with it being made illegal? Or do you discount what could happen to a woman in a potentially life-threatening or future life-bearing situation because she doesn't happen to want the pregnancy she has (due to any number of factors you are unaware of) at that present time.

And btw I believe in voluntary euthanasia but I do not believe in eugenics.

The Catholic church has decided that a "human life" begins at the moment of conception only when a bit of hanky panky takes place. They oppose in vitro fertilization and Pope Benedict justifies this by saying "the barrier protecting human dignity has been broken".

Personally, I have no problem with any of this. What I oppose however (and you too I'm guessing, and many others), is when any particular religious group forces their beliefs onto others. IMO humans should be free to choose their own beliefs, however even this creates a moral/ethical dilemma because we cannot be free say, to choose the belief that rape or murder are acceptable, on the grounds that it affects the dignity of another human life. So we must again revert to the question "what is human life?". Does a glob of stem cells have dignity that should be protected?

My belief is that human life (and therefore dignity which deserves to be protected) begins with the onset of consciousness and that does not happen until around 24-28wks gestation or so. There is a grey area so I'm happy with the 12 wk cut-off in general which is thus a solid buffer zone. Before that, a glob of stem cells may be a "potential life", but in that case, so is a sperm cell and an egg cell IMO and so is an ovum which has been fertilized in vitro. Can you just imagine the anti-monthly brigade...."menstruation is evil. Women should not have their periods. Once a month a potential life is destroyed because you didn't get married and knocked up. BABY KILLERS the lot of you". Oh but the men are far worse..... "wankers are BABY KILLERS. Millions of potential lives destroyed by internet porn"

Just read your post fangoriously. It's like whenever you have these sorts of threads, you get a bunch of people who have thought about the issue on various levels and apply a consistent ethical framework to their reasoning, and then they all sort of come to the same conclusions. Then you get a few people who, without applying much if any rational thought processing, simply believe above all else, in a book that was written by people 1500yrs ago which has been used as a propaganda tool for millennia to control societies and concentrate wealth and power to a select few. Since they haven't applied rational thought processing, they arrive at a set of conclusions which is riddled with contradictions. When they realise that a contradiction exists (eg: in vitro fertilisation creates human life), well then they just move the goal posts and make up some random justification such as Pope Benedict did when he said "the barrier protecting human dignity has been broken". Without the consistent ethical logic, the contradictions simply compound and continue..... what about the dignity of a rape victim then hey Pope Benedict?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madam Lasher

Making abortion illegal is a backwards move for women's rights.

The miracle of human life argument is so fucked, any gronk can make a child, it's no miracle.

This person knows.

Not only should abortions be legal, they should be encouraged when retard couples keep having babies they clearly can't support. Some say abortions are a tragedy when 'babies are killed', I say it's more of a tragedy when baby upon baby are born into a life of hardship, pain and inopportunity.

I agree also with the person that basically said the miracle of human life is the same as the miracle of all animal life. Did god not make all the living beings on our earth? Why is it ok to kill cows, chickens and sick dogs, but not ok to kill the human animal?

a (g)od didn't make jack shit. Nature and Evolution did. Humans evolved, then invented gods, then some weed smokers came up with the idea of a monotheistic creator/death cult God (probably because it was easier to keep track of than an entire pantheon).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

a (g)od didn't make jack shit. Nature and Evolution did. Humans evolved, then invented gods, then some weed smokers came up with the idea of a monotheistic creator/death cult God (probably because it was easier to keep track of than an entire pantheon).

I was being facetious genius

All about medically informed personal choices innit? And not draconian, myth based prejudice and subjugation.

Its not just turkey. I read somewhere that there has been a general trend going against abortion in western/developed countries over last two decades. The reasons were two fold - the ageing population and its associated conservatism and advances in medical science giving people greater insight into what is happing in the womb.

Has anyone responded to the biologist/scientific definition of a "living being"? Someone's mentioned consciousness as the mark of a living being, someone's even questioned whether a sperm cell is a living being (how so I'm not sure).

Why only be concerned about humans and not other living things that are killed? Well, I would put humans on a pedestal in the realm of living beings. I haven't seen any pigs, dogs, horses or apes posting in here that disagree. Dero13 might chip in, but in general, is that really a strong argument for denying the importance of terminating unborn humans?

The anti-Catholic bigotry is all well and good, and there surely is an issue of consistency with regard to its stance on abortion (rape and incest) which I acknowledge, however, like many have mentioned, should the pain inflicted on these women be necessarily extended in birthing the child of their attackers? It's a difficult one for sure.

Didjerijude, in relation to your post about consciousness being the marker of the commencement of life, how do you feel about significantly mentally impaired people, or any others who don't have consciousness of themselves as a living, breathing, functioning human being?

http://www.eurostemcell.org/factshee...thical-dilemma

Interesting discussion of embryonic stem cell research. Has implications for abortion as well.

You want science?

Science doesn't care if you are a pig or a human.

You want consistency from the papists?

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the death penalty is permissible in cases of extreme gravity. The Church teaches that capital punishment is allowed if the "guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined" and if the death penalty is the only way to defend others against the guilty party."

So it's ok to kill fully sentient and functioning human, but it is wrong to kill something which would die within a short period if taken from the womb and left to its own survival - a foetus which probably wouldn't be aware that it was alive, or was about to die anyway.

Reading that again, I can see how twisted Catholics can get , to the point where they can bomb an abortion clinic. They are defending unborn babies from the guilty doctors.

Don't preach about consistency if you can't manage it yourself.

Would you take a 6-month old and leave them to die simply because they wouldn't be aware it was alive? Given that it would die in a short-period when left alone. How about a significantly mentally impaired person who didn't have that knowledge? Someone in a coma?

Tell me how you justify your beliefs without rehashing your own personal opinions about the Catholic Church. What informs your opinions? Again, how are you defining a "living being"?

I would abort the whole catholic church

if I could find a big enough bucket

Is macc4 posting under a different alias today?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Would you take a 6-month old and leave them to die simply because they wouldn't be aware it was alive?

What the fuck are you on about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by weekender

What the fuck are you on about?

Quote:

So it's ok to kill fully sentient and functioning human, but it is wrong to kill something which would die within a short period if taken from the womb and left to its own survival - a foetus which probably wouldn't be aware that it was alive, or was about to die anyway.

If you can't connect the dots. Yes, it is very wrong to kill something "which probably wouldn't be aware that it was alive", especially if that is the basis for your decision.

I don't really care about the issue of when a foetus becomes a baby, it's all about restricting the freedom of a woman to decide want she wants to do with her own body that I'm against. I do consider the foetus/baby as part of the woman until it pops out.

In any case, it's just another case of Authority trying to change reality with idealism. Things like euthanasia and abortion are going to happen whether it's legal or not. The choice for authorities is whether or not to work with the problem to make it as safe as possible for the poor individuals involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

If you can't connect the dots. Yes, it is very wrong to kill something "which probably wouldn't be aware that it was alive", especially if that is the basis for your decision.

Answer the rest mate - your catholic buddies have stated that capital punishment is a-ok.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Has anyone responded to the biologist/scientific definition of a "living being"?

Didjerijude, in relation to your post about consciousness being the marker of the commencement of life, how do you feel about significantly mentally impaired people, or any others who don't have consciousness of themselves as a living, breathing, functioning human being?

What is your definition of a human being fewsion? You started the thread. How about you give you honest opinion first instead of waiting for others and then trying to pick out flaws

Regarding consciousness, for starters its pretty offensive to suggest that mentally impaired people do not have consciousness. Secondly, one does not need to be consciously awake to have consciousness. People whom are asleep have consciousness. People whom are in a coma have consciousness. For people whom are completely brain dead, it is only machines that keep them "alive". In that case, I have no problem with the machines being turned off, because leaving them on is what takes away their human dignity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

If you can't connect the dots. Yes, it is very wrong to kill something "which probably wouldn't be aware that it was alive", especially if that is the basis for your decision.

Your analogy is facile, for the reasons that Diji has justed stated, regarding an individual's level of consciousness.

Why should a diktat, no doubt originating from Rome or Buttfuck Iowa, dictate what a woman does with her own body?

aside : FourSquare confirms Buttfuck Iowa is a thing

https://foursquare.com/v/buttfuck-io...8b8540892e4918

I'm not trying to pick flaws in your approaches I'm trying to understand your point of view. I've stated what I think constitutes a living being and I don't know if that's changed at all. See post #21.

How are you understanding "consciousness" as well? It was not my intention to be offensive. If "consciousness" is used in the more general sense, similar to being "awake" (not exclusively) then the unborn should be afforded this protection as they too have consciousness. It's an interesting point though, discussed further here: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapte...33313chap1.pdf

Do you have a definition of what constitutes a living person that differs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi

Answer the rest mate - your catholic buddies have stated that capital punishment is a-ok.

Do you want an explanation of that position or are you just stirring?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Do you want an explanation of that position or are you just stirring?

Yes please. Sorry for the 'your catholic mates' too that was out of line.

But basically yes please explain how Capital Punishment be endorsed and abortion sin binned when they both break a fairly important commandment.

Quote:

"The power of population is so superior to the power of the Earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race"

do you agree with the above quote fewsion?