|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Aug 18, 2011 19:03:06 GMT -8
What choice does the twin get? www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy.html?pagewanted=7&_r=3&ref=magazineHere are some "Highlights" and *commentary* "But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.” "She felt that twins would soak up everything she had to give, leaving nothing for her older children. Even the twins would be robbed, because, at best, she could give each one only half of her attention and, she feared, only half of her love. Jenny desperately wanted another child, but not at the risk of becoming a second-rate parent. “This is bad, but it’s not anywhere as bad as neglecting your child or not giving everything you can to the children you have,” she told me, referring to the reduction." *Is the answer to child neglect, to kill the child?* * It is painful that her answer to not being a "second-rate parent" is to kill one of her kids. How about giving the child up for adoption?* "The procedure, which is usually performed around Week 12 of a pregnancy, involves a fatal injection of potassium chloride into the fetal chest. The dead fetus shrivels over time and remains in the womb until delivery." *The unborn at 12 weeks: www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-12-weekswww.medicinenet.com/fetal_development_pictures_slideshow/article.htm"Though Berkowitz insists that there is no clear medical benefit to reducing below twins, he will do it at a patient’s request. “In a society where women can terminate a single pregnancy for any reason — financial, social, emotional — if we have a way to reduce a twin pregnancy with very little risk, isn’t it legitimate to offer that service to women with twins who want to reduce to a singleton?” *The logic works. That is why "ideas" are important and have long range ramifications.* "Consider the choice of which fetus to eliminate: if both appear healthy (which is typical with twins), doctors aim for whichever one is easier to reach. If both are equally accessible, the decision of who lives and who dies is random. To the relief of patients, it’s the doctor who chooses — with one exception. If the fetuses are different sexes, some doctors ask the parents which one they want to keep." *Yes, sex selection doesn't only happen in China.* "Many studies show the vast majority of patients abort fetuses after prenatal tests reveal genetic conditions like Down syndrome that are not life-threatening. What drives that decision is not just concern over the quality of life for the future child but also the emotional, financial or social difficulty for parents of having a child with extra needs. As with reducing two healthy fetuses to one, the underlying premise is the same: this is not what I want for my life." *That is the crux of the issue: "This (extra child) is not what I want for my life." |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 19, 2011 21:27:57 GMT -8
When I was a fetus, I was supposed to be twins. At some point I consumed the other. I feel that this makes me twice the man, and I made the choice for my mother because god damn it if that food stealing bastard was gonna get half of my attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 22, 2011 16:54:50 GMT -8
It may surprise the right wingnuts on here but I agree. These are very selfish woman who are more concerned about their own time than raising kids. I am very much pro-choice but it really pisses me off when some idiot like these woman can be used by the anti-choice side.
I find it really unfortunate that they decided to breed and I feel sorry for their kids once they discover their twins were eliminated.
And no, Pooh, I am still pro-choice and will always be pro-choice but there are limits.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by markyc on Aug 22, 2011 20:02:47 GMT -8
People dont want to "play god" but isnt it already playing god when a woman artificially creates a baby. If they never "created" the baby in the 1st place, she would have no need to abort it. We have a place where they play god everyday, its called a hospital. I see very little difference between abortion and a pacemaker, both are "playing god"
|
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Aug 23, 2011 6:22:52 GMT -8
People dont want to "play god" but isnt it already playing god when a woman artificially creates a baby. If they never "created" the baby in the 1st place, she would have no need to abort it. We have a place where they play god everyday, its called a hospital. I see very little difference between abortion and a pacemaker, both are "playing god" A pace maker saves a life, an abortion takes a life. That is the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Aug 23, 2011 6:33:39 GMT -8
It may surprise the right wingnuts on here but I agree. These are very selfish woman who are more concerned about their own time than raising kids. I am very much pro-choice but it really pisses me off when some idiot like these woman can be used by the anti-choice side. I find it really unfortunate that they decided to breed and I feel sorry for their kids once they discover their twins were eliminated. And no, Pooh, I am still pro-choice and will always be pro-choice but there are limits. =Bob Hi Bob Good to hear, that you see some limits to abortion. As a "right wingnut, anti-choice, fundamentalist" also think there are cases where an abortion is warranted. Would you be for or against a law that would make it illegal to have an abortion in the above circumstances? |
|
|
|
Post by markyc on Aug 23, 2011 8:16:11 GMT -8
People dont want to "play god" but isnt it already playing god when a woman artificially creates a baby. If they never "created" the baby in the 1st place, she would have no need to abort it. We have a place where they play god everyday, its called a hospital. I see very little difference between abortion and a pacemaker, both are "playing god" A pace maker saves a life, an abortion takes a life. That is the difference. Both are "playing god", if it is wrong to "play god" and stop a pregnancy from happening then it should be just as equally wrong to try and prolong someones life by artificial means. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Aug 23, 2011 11:02:14 GMT -8
Hi Markyc
It's not wrong to end a pregnancy (that is kill an unborn child) because you are "playing god."
Abortion is wrong because you are killing an innocent human being without proper justification.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 23, 2011 23:20:11 GMT -8
Hi Markyc It's not wrong to end a pregnancy (that is kill an unborn child) because you are "playing god." Abortion is wrong because you are killing an innocent human being without proper justification. hmmm... a human being you say? can i freeze a human being without killing it? how many human beings do you know that have to live inside and off of another? |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Aug 24, 2011 7:06:20 GMT -8
Yes, you can freeze a human being at the embryo stage of development. You and I lived inside our mothers womb, then outside our mothers womb.
You are human based on who your parents were. Two human parents don't reproduce a different type of being then themselves. The human embryo will develop into a human fetus, into a human newborn, into a human toddler, human child, human teenager, human adult, human senior. He or she always remains human.
Are you saying that a unborn child (inside the womb) is not human, then when they are born, they become human?
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 24, 2011 19:45:27 GMT -8
Im saying that if a fetus/child/human/embryo/etc. is not viable outside of its mother, no one but the mother - including congress, police, doctors, preachers or you - has any say in what happens to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 24, 2011 19:46:04 GMT -8
(edit) Except the father, he gets a 49.9% vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Aug 24, 2011 21:24:16 GMT -8
Hi Aztecc
You're right, we currently don't have any say in what happens to the unborn. Viable or not.
So you are OK with killing unborn human beings as long as they are non-viable?
Are you against aborting viable unborn human beings?
It is a dangerous and arbitrary idea to limit a human beings value based on their "viability."
That is: viable human = save. Non-viable human = can kill.
My children, esp at the newborn stage were totally dependent (Non-viable) on my wife and I for their survival, and I don't think we should have been able to kill them if we didn't want to care for them.
My Dad in his old age was totally depend (Non-viable) on his family for his survival. I don't think we should of had the right to kill him if we didn't want to take care for him.
I think human beings have intrinsic value. That is, they are valuable because of the type of being they are.
I think the concept is even "Constitutional" if that helps. "All men (not talking about male, but humans) are created equal (not talking about equal in ability but in value), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 25, 2011 8:49:04 GMT -8
If the mother, being the person with sole responsibility to birth and raise the child, wants to terminate pregnancy before the "human" is viable outside the womb, I am okay with her making that decision. It is something that she will have to live with the rest of her life, but it is solely her choice none the less.
I am much more against late-term abortions, when the "human" could live outside the womb with the support of anyone. I still go back and forth on this one though, for numerous reasons. I default to it's no one's choice but the mother.
How do you feel about babies conceived through rape? Or incest? Or when we can tell the child will have terminal diseases? Hell, how about the socialist welfare recipients who are a drain on society and spit out kids like pancakes?
The difference between your final comparisons and my argument... Anyone could and someone would be willing to take care of your newborn, or your father. No one but the mother can birth that "human" when it can't live outside the womb. I think that difference is all that matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Aug 25, 2011 12:19:41 GMT -8
Hi Azteccc
The mother in your example can give the child up for adoption. If she has an abortion, she gets to "live with the decision the rest of her life", but the unborn child doesn't get to live.
That is the problem.
I guess when it comes to "viability" we are going to have to agree to disagree. I think parents have a moral responsibility to care for their children. The more helpless, the more our responsibility to take care of our child.
In regard to rape, incest, the mothers life is in danger, and the like. I think an argument can be made for extraordinary circumstances. That is, the circumstances are so extraordinary, an abortion is permitted.
Having said that, my son actually has a friend who is the product of a rape. He is a great kid, enjoying a wonderful life, with two adoptive parents that love him like their own. I think the Mom that gave birth to him and put him up for adoption did an amazing thing. I bet you (I'm guessing) that knowing that something good came out of something horrible brings the Mom some level of comfort. But I don't think you can ask everyone to do something so honorable.
But abortions for those types of reasons are extremely rare. The vast majority of abortions are done for social/economic reasons. This is just ridiculous. We just can't justify killing human beings for these reasons.
Really, the vast amount of abortions come down to the same idea that had the mom in the article kill her son or daughters twin. Think about that!
"This is not what I want for my life."
Well how about the child's life?
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 25, 2011 23:09:30 GMT -8
So you are okay with murdering a human in some circumstances? Who decides the circumstance? The problem here is regulating morality.
I have the same viability argument with a couple friends every now and again, but almost universally people accept that there are circumstances that merit legal abortion.
Many of those people are like you, however, and say it should only be extreme cases. Well, the then contrarian position of small government conservatives wanting the government to regulate and enforce laws upon morality and individual rights. I.e. "I'll tell you what is extreme enough."
It therefore follows, at least in my logic, that if it is EVER okay, it has to be no one's choice but the mother's.
|
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Aug 26, 2011 7:29:49 GMT -8
Hi Aztecc
No, I'm not OK with it, I understand that some cases are extreme. In almost all difficult moral circumstances, there are exceptions to the rule.
We HAVE decided the circumstances you can take an innocent unborn child's life.
Any circumstance the mom wants.
(I bet in that same argument you have, almost universally everyone accepts there should be limits on abortion. And that after they probably haven't heard a good argument for the full humanity of the unborn).
And we already say what is extreme enough. You can't kill the child when it is ALL the way born. You can kill it if it is not all the way born.
Regulating Morality is not the problem. We already do that. Can't steal, murder, drive drunk, build house unsafe, speed, hate crimes, etc. EVERY law regulates morality.
This is your current view as I understand it:
The unborn are human beings.
It is hard to decide how we should limit abortion, therefore we should not limit abortion.
If it is EVER OK to do an action it is always OK to do an action.
It is sometimes OK to have an abortion (for example : life of the mother) Therefore it is always OK to have an abortion.
Does that really make sense to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 26, 2011 16:33:49 GMT -8
Hi Aztecc No, I'm not OK with it, I understand that some cases are extreme. In almost all difficult moral circumstances, there are exceptions to the rule. We HAVE decided the circumstances you can take an innocent unborn child's life. Any circumstance the mom wants. (I bet in that same argument you have, almost universally everyone accepts there should be limits on abortion. And that after they probably haven't heard a good argument for the full humanity of the unborn). And we already say what is extreme enough. You can't kill the child when it is ALL the way born. You can kill it if it is not all the way born. Regulating Morality is not the problem. We already do that. Can't steal, murder, drive drunk, build house unsafe, speed, hate crimes, etc. EVERY law regulates morality. This is your current view as I understand it: The unborn are human beings. It is hard to decide how we should limit abortion, therefore we should not limit abortion. If it is EVER OK to do an action it is always OK to do an action. It is sometimes OK to have an abortion (for example : life of the mother) Therefore it is always OK to have an abortion. Does that really make sense to you? I wont argue "If it is EVER OK to do an action it is always OK to do an action. " since you knew as you were typing that it was not an accurate analysis of my view here. It is hard to limit abortions, because of people like you who consider it murder. It is not. Plain and simple, period. If it were up to me, a woman would have the right to do whatever she pleased with her body. Until the baby is born, it is still her body. But in the interest of reasonable compromise, I think a time limit is reasonable (for my own moral compass I think viability is the cut off here). Who would you appoint to create the limits? If you could provide a definite answer I think it would be interesting. Congress? Judges? The answer is unequivocally government in some form or the other (since that is really the only way to make it work). I see hypocrisy in the ban abortions through government crowd, who also happen to be pro death penalty, small government, less regulation people. You're not ok with it, but concede there are circumstances (extreme) when you support murdering unborn humans? Who decides this?!?!?! The answer is on a case-by-case basis, the mother, the only one who has a stake in the matter. And on a side note, we have faaarrrr from decided that any time a woman wants an abortion she can have one. Look at all the crazy midwest governors effectively closing all abortion clinics to this day. If you don't believe this is happening, just look it up, or I can provide links. Either way, abortion rights are being stripped left and right since the small government tea party religious dimwits have increased government regulation over a woman's health. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Aug 26, 2011 18:45:44 GMT -8
Hi Azteccc
Actually, I do think that is your view.
This is what you wrote:
"It therefore follows, at least in my logic, that if it is EVER okay, it has to be no one's choice but the mother's."
If abortion (the action) is EVER okay, it has to be on one's choice but the mother's (action is always OK).
How am I misunderstanding this?
How is abortion not taking the life of an innocent human being?
The unborn are human beings
The unborn are innocent
Abortion kills the unborn
Which part of the above is incorrect?
It is simply not true that "until the baby is born it is still her body." The unborn is a separate body living inside the mothers womb. There are clearly two bodies involved when it comes to pregnancy.
I'm glad you would limit abortions until "viability." But I think you are seriously mistaken that viability makes a moral difference in the humanity of the child.
You would decide limits on abortion the same way you decide other laws.
Side note on death penalty/small government/less regulation:
Death penalty = the just killing of a guilty person
Abortion = unjust killing of an innocent human being.
That is the difference.
Small government/less regulation:
Governments job is to protect the innocent
Unborn are innocent
therefore government intervention is warranted.
Yeah those "religious dimwits" they are stopping abortions, we only have about 1.3 million a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Aug 26, 2011 19:45:23 GMT -8
I forgot to address this:
"You're not ok with it, but concede there are circumstances (extreme) when you support murdering unborn humans?
Who decides this?!?!?! The answer is on a case-by-case basis, the mother, the only one who has a stake in the matter."
Your again missing the point. The mother is NOT the only one who has a stake in the matter. Can you guess who else does? The unborn child. He has a big stake. His life, his only life, is on the line.
|
|
