Are you pro-life and support oral contraceptives?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

which one can survive on its own? which one is providing nearly every basic function for the other? you think these two are in anyway seperate or equal?

So, you don’t think the baby becomes human enough to have the right to live until the umbilical cord is cut? Even then, unless the mother decides to use formula, the mother has to breast feed in order for the baby to survive. A one year old can’t even survive unless it is cared for by someone else. Nowadays, a fetus as young as 24 weeks can be either born naturally or taken by C-Section and has a better than average survival rate, however, I’ll admit a high morbidity rate. My point is, it’s alive at that point, it’s human, it can potentially survive on its own, however, it still requires care to live. When there are complications, machines might have to breathe for them. They’re still human beings. A fetus requires its mother to survive but is every bit as human as she. Your standard for life is not very realistic.

[Zenister 0]

its not a standard for 'life', its a standard by which you grant it the rights as a 'human'.

the requirements for a fetus to grow are quite a bit more than the 'care' a baby requires once it is born

until it can accomplish the most basic biological functions on its own, in the environment its species exists in for the majority of its life, it is not a separate member of that species, its only a potential one, if autonomous functions occur at 24 weeks (without heroic medical efforts which only replicate the womb it still requires to develop) then that is the point at which its should be considered a separate 'individual' with the same basic rights as an adult.

Until then it is completely dependent on its host (the mother) and she should have sole only say in what occurs to her, not you, not me not even the sperm donor, and certainly not any government or religious institution.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Lindsey 0]

Let me ask you this....suppose the mother is a cocaine addict. (This should've been on the OTHER thread, but it's locked now). Say she got pregnant while she was high, and her capacity for giving-a-shit about the blastocyst/embryo/fetus inside of her is impaired. That's just reality for a LOT of folks. I've seen a lot of crack babies this year, and it's friggin sad. NO CHANCE for those kids. Would it be better if they had been aborted, or should their "right" to life doom them to the life that's ahead of them? They can't choose....

Peace~
Lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Lindsey 0]

Okay...now let me ask this. Say 24 (that's a bit early) weeks is the time designated as the time a fetus can live outside the womb. So then say that a pregnant woman decides that, because society demands that she provide an environment for this life until it's deemed capable of living outside of her uterus, she will rupture her membranes at 24 weeks. The kid's on his/her own then, because it IS capable of life outside of her with medical assistance, and she never wanted the kid inside of her anyway.... What then?

I mean, I AM playing the devil's advocate, and I am a little toasted...take that into consideration....heh, heh, heh...

Peace~
Lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Let me ask you this....suppose the mother is a cocaine addict. (This should've been on the OTHER thread, but it's locked now). Say she got pregnant while she was high, and her capacity for giving-a-shit about the blastocyst/embryo/fetus inside of her is impaired. That's just reality for a LOT of folks. I've seen a lot of crack babies this year, and it's friggin sad. NO CHANCE for those kids. Would it be better if they had been aborted, or should their "right" to life doom them to the life that's ahead of them? They can't choose....

I don’t doubt that’s reality. Still, we’re talking about a human life here Lindsey. It has a right to live just like you or I. What you said is like saying we aught to inject wino street bums with something to kill them because they have no life and no chance to do anything but hang out in the gutter downtown for the rest of their lives. Their lives are, in the opinions of most, a miserable existence and they aren’t useful contributors to society. You know…put them out of their misery. You’re statement makes me think that you would believe they probably would have been better off if they had been aborted. That bum might be so out of his mind that he can’t choose either. However, he was given the chance to live. He had the potential to do something else with his life. He, in fact, has a right to life.

Quote

Okay...now let me ask this. Say 24 (that's a bit early) weeks is the time designated as the time a fetus can live outside the womb. So then say that a pregnant woman decides that, because society demands that she provide an environment for this life until it's deemed capable of living outside of her uterus, she will rupture her membranes at 24 weeks. The kid's on his/her own then, because it IS capable of life outside of her with medical assistance, and she never wanted the kid inside of her anyway.... What then?

24 weeks is the earliest that my wife said a fetus could be taken out and still potentially survive (not saying there isn’t a potential for complications). That’s why I used that number. Same argument as above applies, however. People are always going to do vile things. Just because there will always be people who will do those bad things doesn’t justify killing the baby as insurance that they might not do bad things such as in your example.

[pajarito 0]

You know...as a physician, you're obligated to follow the Hipocratic Oath, "First, do no harm." I see performing an abortion as being in direct contradiction with that. I understand that sometimes a decision has to be made to save the mother instead of the baby in extreme circumstances but to intentionally go in and kill a baby for what I would consider mostly completely selfish reasons seems completely against what it means to be a doctor.

[kpjumps 0]

I teach special education, resource (for kids who need an extra boost) in a title one (high poverty) school. Some of those crack babies are in my class and they are holding there own. I understand that it is years beyond when you are seeing them but they are holding their own in my class. Our day is scheduled to accommodate them, occupational and physical therapists are frequent visitors. Our classroom is designed to meet their needs. A psychologists helps me with their adaptive behavior plans. And I keep lots of aspirin in my desk!
But, they can and do hold their own.

I have one little girl, who despite fetal alcohol syndrome and crack addiction at birth, is an amazing artist. She competes in our district with the high school students. Did I mention she is ten? I'd bet money I'll see her work in a gallery someday. I know my life has been enriched because I have known her.

edited because I can't spell aspirin!

________________

Your character will ultimately determine your destiny.

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

pro-life/pro-choice, this has always been a difficult issue for me. I hate the idea of killing unborn babies (and, yes, at a certain point, that is what I consider them!), and I think that beyond a certain point, it should not be allowed (late-term abortions). I don't know exactly where i'd draw that line...

As for birth control pills that make the lining of the uterus unable to be attached to, I don't like the idea, but I don't know if i'm completely opposed to it. I would personally need to do a lot more research to form a definite opinion of the morality of them.

But, having said that, I think that the right to choose is important. Especially seeing that many will do what they please anyhow (ie, deliver at home and dump baby, or abort by other means or in other states/countries that may be less safe). And, therefore, the right to choose to use birth control is also important! And, considering that this isn't the primary function of the birth control pill, I don't think that I consider them that horrendous. (I myself am on birth control, so it would also be pretty hypocritical for me to state otherwise.) I am curious now as to how my birth control works, exactly. I was told it inhibited ovulation.

Angela.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

You know...as a physician, you're obligated to follow the Hipocratic Oath, "First, do no harm." I see performing an abortion as being in direct contradiction with that.

i suppose removing tumors and warts is in direct contradiction as well? your certainly causing harm (to tissue) in both and yet because there is no potential for future development that is a more valid reason?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 3,006]

>"First, do no harm."

Doctors turn off life support equipment under certain conditions, killing the patient. They almost kill people with radiation and chemicals that do incredible harm to patients in an attempt to kill something else (cancer.) They perform risky operations and sometimes kill people when they fail. They occasionally sacrifice one conjoined twin to save the other. They are quite conversant with "doing harm" to get a desired result.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Doctors turn off life support equipment under certain conditions, killing the patient. They almost kill people with radiation and chemicals that do incredible harm to patients in an attempt to kill something else (cancer.) They perform risky operations and sometimes kill people when they fail. They occasionally sacrifice one conjoined twin to save the other. They are quite conversant with "doing harm" to get a desired result.

Bill you have to be one of the best I've seen in a long time at taking what someone meant, turning their words around and making a point with something that is so far away from the person's original point that its almost not the same conversation.

If I had a "liberal master debater of the year" medal, I'd give it to you.


These debates get too heated for anyone's good, especially when carried out on the internet. So *poke* I hit it with my 10' stick, I'll carry on now.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I am curious now as to how my birth control works, exactly. I was told it inhibited ovulation.

You are correct. If you want to know the details, read the whole thread. We discussed that in a lot of detail earlier.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

i suppose removing tumors and warts is in direct contradiction as well? your certainly causing harm (to tissue) in both and yet because there is no potential for future development that is a more valid reason?

You see...these are the types of responses that are so incredibly illogical and asinine that they really don't warrant a response. I think, to most, they pretty much demonstrate for themselves that they are ridiculous.

[wmw999 2,456]

There is no agreement.

To Zenister, from what he's posted, there is no human until it's viable -- he very possibly thinks your assertion that a fetus is, in fact, a person is equally illogical.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Doctors turn off life support equipment under certain conditions, killing the patient. They almost kill people with radiation and chemicals that do incredible harm to patients in an attempt to kill something else (cancer.) They perform risky operations and sometimes kill people when they fail.

All types of patients mentioned above made the choice to undergo the risky procedures or to sign a "do not resuscitate" order. Even though they might not have been another option because they would eventually have died otherwise, they still chose to accept the risk. You don't have to sign a DNR, accept chemotherapy, or chose a risky operation where they might die in the process. An aborted baby didn't get a choice.

Quote

They occasionally sacrifice one conjoined twin to save the other. They are quite conversant with "doing harm" to get a desired result.

Sometimes decisions have to be made by physicians such as the one you mentioned. Just like sometimes they have to save the mother at the expense of losing the baby in certain circumstances. They certainly shouldn't, according to the Hippocratic Oath, traumatize more than they absolutely have to get the desired result. I'd say killing a fetus unless you absolutely have to (i.e. the most extreme of circumstances), in reference to abortion, is, in fact, in direct contradiction.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

There is no agreement.

To Zenister, from what he's posted, there is no human until it's viable -- he very possibly thinks your assertion that a fetus is, in fact, a person is equally illogical.

Wendy W.

Ok...I guess I'm just at an impass with someone like Zennister. It's a shame IMO, however, when it appears that certain people have such disregard for, what I consider, human life.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

To Zenister, from what he's posted, there is no human until it's viable

It becomes potentially viable at around 24 weeks and, therefore, human according to even his standard. He doesn't agree that, even though it is human at that point, that it should be granted rights as a human (i.e. right to life). He is still for the woman being able to abort after that point. He thinks that, even though it is human, that it doesn't gain those rights as a human (i.e. right to live) until it can survive in our environment on its own. Before that point, he compares the killing the fetus with that of freezing the wart off your finger.

Quote

He very possibly thinks your assertion that a fetus is, in fact, a person is equally illogical.

By the way, it doesn't cease to be called a fetus and then called a baby until it is born. These are just semantics. You can also call it a parasitic organism and be very accurate. It makes it easier to kill that way.

[Lindsey 0]

Paj, my friend....I appreciate your concern about my ehtical obligation, but I assure you that I am entirely capable of addressing those issues and that I do take my responsibilities seriously. I think I mentioned in an earlier thread that neither will I perform abortions nor would I ever (barring strange unforseen situations) have one because I feel that abortion is wrong. HOWEVER, I also feel that it is wrong to impose my morality on others or to be so self-righteous as to believe that my thoughts about this issue are superior to MANY people's in our society. That's why I believe that a woman should always have the right to choose....

Quote

You know...as a physician, you're obligated to follow the Hipocratic Oath, "First, do no harm." I see performing an abortion as being in direct contradiction with that. I understand that sometimes a decision has to be made to save the mother instead of the baby in extreme circumstances but to intentionally go in and kill a baby for what I would consider mostly completely selfish reasons seems completely against what it means to be a doctor.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

To Zenister, from what he's posted, there is no human until it's viable

It becomes potentially viable at around 24 weeks and, therefore, human according to even his standard. He doesn't agree that, even though it is human at that point, that it should be granted rights as a human (i.e. right to life). He is still for the woman being able to abort after that point. He thinks that, even though it is human, that it doesn't gain those rights as a human (i.e. right to live) until it can survive in our environment on its own. Before that point, he compares the killing the fetus with that of freezing the wart off your finger.

Quote

He very possibly thinks your assertion that a fetus is, in fact, a person is equally illogical.

By the way, it doesn't cease to be called a fetus and then called a baby until it is born. These are just semantics. You can also call it a parasitic organism and be very accurate. It makes it easier to kill that way.

i love how you know what i think. I suppose that is how you also know what is best for every mother/fetus and are willing to make decisions for them.

you continue to use the words 'potentially viable' when the only potential it has comes from the mother, not the fetus. Its not viable until it can survive on its own.

Even premature births are not 'viable' until they breathe on their own. If the doctor takes an emergency premature birth off life support are they committing murder? Did the baby ever have a life apart from that extended to it by the machine? Does it have life apart from that granted by the womb? it has potential life and equally potential rights, but it has neither without its host.

if it cant breathe in our environment it isn’t a functioning member of the human race at the most basic standard level, and it never was to be granted the rights of one. Everything we are discussing is semantics. Birth is the process by which a fetus transitions to our environment, until it can survive that transition it is a fetus. Once it can live on its own its a baby and should be granted rights as an individual. Its really not very difficult to distinguish the difference.

Quote

Main Entry: vi·a·ble
Pronunciation: 'vI-&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita -- more at VITAL
1 : capable of living; especially : capable of surviving outside the mother's womb without artificial support
2 : capable of growing or developing
3 a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately b : capable of existence and development as an independent unit c (1) : having a reasonable chance of succeeding (2) : financially sustainable

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 3,006]

>All types of patients mentioned above made the choice to undergo
>the risky procedures or to sign a "do not resuscitate" order.

Often, no. A spouse or parent can decide to discontinue life support if they believe chances for recovery are slim. Parents can decide that their children undergo risky procedures even if the child objects. This is because, as a society, we believe parents and spouses have a special relationship with the spouse/child and can make decisions for them when they are unable to - even if the decision results in their death.

>I'd say killing a fetus . . . is, in fact, in direct contradiction.

So is removing a feeding tube from someone unable to feed themselves. Yet sometimes we do it, because we believe that a parent or spouse can speak for a comatose or unconscious spouse/child.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

....I think I mentioned in an earlier thread that neither will I perform abortions nor would I ever (barring strange unforseen situations) have one because I feel that abortion is wrong. HOWEVER, I also feel that it is wrong to impose my morality on others or to be so self-righteous as to believe that my thoughts about this issue are superior to MANY people's in our society. That's why I believe that a woman should always have the right to choose....

Now HERE'S the voice of wisdom people.....listen and learn. Thanks, Lindsey.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Ron 10]

Quote

But, if you're against abortion and on the pill or are with someone on the pill, isn't that hypocritical?

No, one is preventive, the other is not.

Anyone who thinks using birth control is abortion, must also take the stance that condoms are bad.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[crozby 0]

Damn. I scanned this thread and thought PhillyKev had returned to DZ.com. Then i noticed the dates on the posts...

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Damn. I scanned this thread and thought PhillyKev had returned to DZ.com. Then i noticed the dates on the posts...

Man! Not sure why this one got dug back up but, glancing back over it, it was a good one.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Abortion, whether right or wrong, is a choice. If my girlfriend got pregnant, I would never want her to do that, but that doesn't mean I have any right to tell other people not to do it.

How about the baby it kills? What choice did he/she have? what about his/her rights?