Life-at-fertilization initiative has hope in Miss.

• Osayidan wrote on 2011-10-18 11:24

  Quote from PoLkaTulK;624994:

  Thank you for the clarification.
  
  So the arguments are:
  
  People can do whatever they like to their property
  A woman's body is her property
  Therefore, a woman can do what she likes to her body
  
  A baby is a part of a woman's body
  A woman can do what she likes to her body
  Therefore, a woman can do what she likes to her baby
  
  Do I understand correctly?

  
  
  Pretty much. It's been determined scientifically that until a certain point in the pregnancy the fertilized egg isn't even "alive", no senses, no functioning brain, and lacking just about everything that makes a baby what it is. It's also until a similar point in time that it's considered medically safe to get an abortion. Legit doctors usually will not perform abortions after a certain period because it's too risky.
  
  So it's not like getting an abortion conflicts with the not-really-a-baby-yet's right to life.
  
  There's a difference between a proper medical abortion done during the correct moment of pregnancy, and deciding at 8 - 9 months that you don't want a baby anymore.
• Adelynn wrote on 2011-10-18 16:59
  Until the day when someone invents a way for the mother to not have to carry a burden they never asked for, no one but her has a right to say what she does with her body. I'm talking mostly about rape victims here, but I'm also talking about women who know that their child will not survive, and there could be some serious complications later on if they don't get their abortion.
  
  As for the people that can't keep their legs closed, that's a different issue entirely. They made the choice to be stupid. I'm a little on the fence about this because depending on who the person is, I don't know if I want the child to be born or not, considering what they may have to go through once they are born. It seriously depends on the parent/s.
  
  A cousin of mine got pregnant when she didn't expect it, but she had a job and so did her boyfriend, and they both do well enough to support her. They're not the best parents but they do alright. On the other hand, a different cousin of mine got pregnant and the guy ran off. Her family isn't really in the best situation but they do what they can. I also have a "friend" that's had more than two abortions because she just can't seem to get it through her head that she can't afford this and she's already in trouble with the police for something to do with drugs.
  
  So on the one hand I think, "You did this voluntarily, now take responsibility." On the other, "I'm not sure I'd want the poor kid to have parents like this, and there are already a lot of kids that need to be adopted."
• Kenny? wrote on 2011-10-18 19:32

  Quote from Kollin;624860:

  (hypothetical situation)So, if your wife was raped by her psychopathic brother and became pregnant with his child, you would keep the baby even if there is a severely high chance of the child having absolutely no normal life, being a vegetable till the day it dies, and your wife dieing while giving birth?

  
  Are you trying to start an argument or something? My opinion is my opinion. Stop trying to tell me otherwise.
• paladin wrote on 2011-10-18 20:17
  I do not support this movement
  The kinda implications are huge
  Also why do religious folks even romotely care about other peoples issues
  Fine a religious women gets pregnant via rape,she wont abort , no promblems
  A non religious women gets pregnant via rape,she aborts
  If this passes and aborition is banned, what other religious taboos will be passed?
  Will America be stoning anyone whos part of the lgbt community?
  Will atheists get exiled?
  I dont like the idea that religious beliefs are trying to be shoved down peoples throats just cuz a church has enough support and money to get it passed and people are guillable enough to be convinced
  America may be a crappy country but we have equal rights and freedoms, I do not want that to be lost for some religious zealots who want to impose so called gods will on everyone
• Kollin wrote on 2011-10-18 20:28

  Quote from Kenny?;625748:

  Are you trying to start an argument or something? My opinion is my opinion. Stop trying to tell me otherwise.

  
  
  There is a different between an argument and a discussion. This is a discussion. Nowhere in any of my posts did I try to tell you that your opinion was wrong.
• Leopher wrote on 2011-10-18 23:18

  Quote from Osayidan;625491:

  Pretty much. It's been determined scientifically that until a certain point in the pregnancy the fertilized egg isn't even "alive", no senses, no functioning brain, and lacking just about everything that makes a baby what it is. It's also until a similar point in time that it's considered medically safe to get an abortion. Legit doctors usually will not perform abortions after a certain period because it's too risky.
  
  So it's not like getting an abortion conflicts with the not-really-a-baby-yet's right to life.
  
  There's a difference between a proper medical abortion done during the correct moment of pregnancy, and deciding at 8 - 9 months that you don't want a baby anymore.

  
  
  Okay, I think I see. Let me label the premises of the two syllogisms:
  
  People can do whatever they like to their property (1)
  A woman's body is her property (2)
  Therefore, a woman can do what she likes to her body
  
  A baby is a part of a woman's body (a)
  A woman can do what she likes to her body (b)
  Therefore, a woman can do what she likes to her baby
  
  It seems that one of the arguments (premise a) comes down to the issue of when a fetus becomes a child (at which point the fetus is a separate person and not part of the woman's body). I don't see allot of opportunity for productive discussion about that topic, I've never seen it gone well in the past. However, I do think that it might be interesting to discuss premise 1 and possibly premise 2. I would consider premise 2 to be pretty obviously true, and I think most other people would too, but it may still be worth discussion. Premise 1, however, is a little more iffy in my mind. Is anyone interested in discussing it?
  
  Whether or not anyone is, I'll just ask the question: Can a person do whatever they like to/with their property?
  
  

  Quote from Cynic;624940:

  I'm really beginning to wish those religious people would all just die in a fire.

  
  
  Haha! Actually, at least thousands of them have at the hands of people who think the same way about them as you do!
  
  

  Quote from Cynic;624940:

  they're so ignorant to everything but their own daft beliefs.

  
  
  What makes their beliefs so daft? Being wrong is not the same thing as being daft. Is everyone who disagrees with you just daft? That's quite the fallacious personal attack there. :/ Mind picking at arguments instead of people?
  
  

  Quote from Kollin;625815:

  There is a different between an argument and a discussion. This is a discussion.

  
  
  Thank you for the distinction. I truly appreciate it. It bothers me when people conflate argument, debate, and discussion. It also bothers me that people attach such negative and unnecessary connotations to the first two.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2011-10-18 23:26

  Quote from Kollin;624860:

  (hypothetical situation)So, if your wife was raped by her psychopathic brother and became pregnant with his child, you would keep the baby even if there is a severely high chance of the child having absolutely no normal life, being a vegetable till the day it dies, and your wife dieing while giving birth?

  
  
  I would kill the rapist, not the baby. Besides, how many of those kinds of situations actually exist? Not many I'd wager. Most abortions involve some irresponsible teenage girl who thinks she's too cool for abstinence. A perfectly healthy woman killing a perfectly healthy baby is beyond barbaric.
• paladin wrote on 2011-10-19 00:26

  Quote from PoLkaTulK;625990:

  Okay, I think I see. Let me label the premises of the two syllogisms:
  
  People can do whatever they like to their property (1)
  A woman's body is her property (2)
  Therefore, a woman can do what she likes to her body
  
  A baby is a part of a woman's body (a)
  A woman can do what she likes to her body (b)
  Therefore, a woman can do what she likes to her baby
  
  It seems that one of the arguments (premise a) comes down to the issue of when a fetus becomes a child (at which point the fetus is a separate person and not part of the woman's body). I don't see allot of opportunity for productive discussion about that topic, I've never seen it gone well in the past. However, I do think that it might be interesting to discuss premise 1 and possibly premise 2. I would consider premise 2 to be pretty obviously true, and I think most other people would too, but it may still be worth discussion. Premise 1, however, is a little more iffy in my mind. Is anyone interested in discussing it?
  
  Whether or not anyone is, I'll just ask the question: Can a person do whatever they like to/with their property?
  
  
  
  Haha! Actually, at least thousands of them have at the hands of people who think the same way about them as you do!
  
  
  
  What makes their beliefs so daft? Being wrong is not the same thing as being daft. Is everyone who disagrees with you just daft? That's quite the fallacious personal attack there. :/ Mind picking at arguments instead of people?
  
  
  
  Thank you for the distinction. I truly appreciate it. It bothers me when people conflate argument, debate, and discussion. It also bothers me that people attach such negative and unnecessary connotations to the first two.

  
  
  Premise 1 has the issue do you go by scentific or moral proof
  Moral-Not going into that-religion will interject
  Scientific- osay already stated that by logical proof using signs of life, theres like a not living zone so to speak
  So either way premise 1 is not well suitable for discussion
  Premise 2 is more of a cultural norm, the idea of property well has been around for who knows how long?
• Osayidan wrote on 2011-10-19 00:48
  There's also the whole concept of property.
  Is your body considered your property, or does it go even beyond that?
  Your car, your house, your clothes, are your property. It can be taken away, stolen, lent to other people.
  Your body can't, at least not with our current technology.
  If material objects you can obtain through various means are considered property, then your body which you are born and die with can likely qualify for something much more precious than property, further validating the point.
• Leopher wrote on 2011-10-19 03:05

  Quote from paladin;626068:

  Premise 1 has the issue do you go by scentific or moral proof
  Moral-Not going into that-religion will interject
  Scientific- osay already stated that by logical proof using signs of life, theres like a not living zone so to speak
  So either way premise 1 is not well suitable for discussion
  Premise 2 is more of a cultural norm, the idea of property well has been around for who knows how long?

  
  
  I'm afraid I don't understand your second point (about the scientific side of premise 1). Premise 1 by itself has nothing to do with whether or not a fetus is scientifically proven to have a state of life and a state of non-life. It only has to do with whether or not people have the right to do what they wish with anything that is their property.
  
  Also, why is premise 1 only concerned with moral or scientific proof? It doesn't even seem like a scientific assertion to begin with. Once again, consider the statement by itself:
  
  A person can do what he likes to/with his body.
  
  Yes, I changed the wording from their to his since it's actually grammatically correct. His is jut referring to people. You could use her if you like. The statement appears to be philosophical to me, rather than religious or scientific. Do you understand why?
  
  I also think premise 2 is more than just a cultural norm. I read Locke's Second Treatise of Government recently, where he argues strongly for man's right to own property, including himself. You may or may not consider his arguments outdated (though something being old doesn't necessitate it's being false), but my point is that the idea of man's right to own himself is a little more than just a cultural norm.
  
  A question that comes to mind (related, discuss or ignore as you please): Is the potential or certain potential for life as valuable as life?
  
  

  Quote from Osayidan;626092:

  There's also the whole concept of property.
  Is your body considered your property, or does it go even beyond that?
  Your car, your house, your clothes, are your property. It can be taken away, stolen, lent to other people.
  Your body can't, at least not with our current technology.
  If material objects you can obtain through various means are considered property, then your body which you are born and die with can likely qualify for something much more precious than property, further validating the point.

  
  
  Hmmm, that's interesting. But will you agree that a person's body is at least their own property? Possibly something more, but at least that? Or would you like to classify a person's body into a whole new category of things separated from property? What might that category be?
• Osayidan wrote on 2011-10-19 13:46
  At least property, if we want to use standard terms for simplicity.
  
  Otherwise I think most can agree that your body is of greater value than mere property. Maybe with the exception of those crazy people who rather die trying to protect some physical objects from being damaged.
  
  Not much comes up on wiki about this under the article for property. Mostly just the views of some philosophers. the term "body" only shows up 6 times in the whole article.
• starpaw7 wrote on 2011-10-19 14:52
  Time to post then read article

  [Image: http://www.laymark.com/i/o/99.gif]

  
  
  

  The state already has several laws regulating abortions, including parental or judicial consent for any minor to get an abortion and mandatory in-person counseling and a 24-hour wait before any woman can terminate a pregnancy.

  
  
  That is the one of the biggest piles of garbage I have ever heard.
  I don't know what they exactly do in these "counselings", but it heavily reminds me of another news articles where some were trying to pass a bill to "help guide them to make a different choice".
  
  The entire purpose of this bill was not to give them information, but to try to influence them to not get an abortion; to make them grow a doubt.
  That right there makes me sick.
  
  
  
  

  Quote from Osayidan;624885:

  Like i'll always say, abortion is no one's concern except the woman with it inside her, and the doctor. The only say the doctor has is whether or not it's safe for the woman to get the abortion. Immediate family, and the potential father should also have say, but the final and absolute decision is the woman's.
  
  I don't understand how any other option can be accepted.
  
  Opinions can fly left and right and everyone's entitled to them, I personally don't think any woman should be getting abortions for having voluntary unprotected sex, or if she "changes her mind", but that in no way gives me the right to criticize or try to impose any laws.
  
  I don't see my first paragraph as an opinion, it's just how it is if you respect the fact that we're all human and have our rights. If, for religious reasons, you think the instant the sperm goes into that egg that there's a human life in there, then that's just too bad for you, don't get an abortion but leave everyone else alone.

  
  
  That right there.
  
  
  Although to some things I hear, on an irresponsible person becoming pregnant and they have to "deal with it":
  
  I have to disagree.
  I would rather that another human being not be used as an object to punishment another. That being said, unless they are fully able to take care of the child and raise them well (as in, not in a horrible setting and/or just plain horrible parents), I will agree inside my head with taking the abortion.
  
  However it's not as if I'll try to force it on them, or voice my opinion to them directly in a hope of changing it. That's their choice.
• TA wrote on 2011-10-19 15:04
  Ugh... I hate this hardcore pro-life crap. It's the woman's choice, not voters.
• Adelynn wrote on 2011-10-19 15:15
  I hate this as much as I hate people voting on who's allowed to get married.
• Chiyuri wrote on 2011-10-19 15:39
  Reading this topic amuse me.
  
  To the people who say people should mind their own business, I want you guys to look at this video *copy paste from another thread*
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVvmT9SKgrQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=82s
  
  
  Anyway.. on a personnal beleif, I agree with abortion but I have to mention how I also understand why those religious people are against it.
  My personnal belief is that only souls are importent and that humans get a soul somewhere around the first to second year of their life. Anywhere before the baby has a soul, I don't consider it a "person" nor do see it as any higher tha a random pet. So from my point of view, abortion doesn't harm rights of people so I don't care.
  But if I saw someone let say.. 21 years old looking getting attack on a path during the night by someone, I will react violently to this as I see it as a soul's rights been attack. Even if it's not my business, I will interfer.
  
  For those religious people.. they see an unborn baby as a "person" and will react for the same reason I would react to someone with a soul. Even if it isn't our business, we do what we can to prevent "sin" from happening.
  Of course.. having a similar way of reacting doesn't mean I agree with their religion.. I facepalm a lot when I read about christianity(less about other religion)