Abortion

[normaM]

Or we could discuss who's sperm planted that fetus.
Never understood why men who are against abortion simply don't practice safe sex
Prolly why even those the ones who fire the bullets don't take the Birth Control

Men who are against abortion? Do an Odin

[OKkayak]

Or we could discuss who's sperm planted that fetus.
Never understood why men who are against abortion simply don't practice safe sex
Prolly why even those the ones who fire the bullets don't take the Birth Control

Men who are against abortion? Do an Odin

Wouldn’t a guy getting getting a vasectomy effectively be pro active? If your chamber ain’t loaded.

[Silverstarqueen]

What I am comparing is people of either gendre having a choice as to what to do with their reproductive equipment. What is ridiculous is that it would be anyone else's business what someone does with their own body as far as surgical treatments go. A woman should have the same ability to make medical or surgical decisions about her body as a man does. The fact that those decisions might have different repercussions for a woman than a man is irrelevant. Since men are not forced to carry any pregnancy to term, they have a lot of opinions about restricting this basic right for those who do.
Interestingly the bible does not condemn abortion (most of the objectors do so on religious grounds), and even the Catholic church did not recognize the fetus as a person until after birth. So who started all this commotion over abortion?

An abortion is a bit more than dealing with one's reproductive organs, if you want to discuss female reproductive organs than discuss forms of female sterilization and don't compare it to removing a (possible) existent being.

You might view the fetus as a being. The Catholic church, and many cultures, did not , until it was born, could breathe, and in some cultures had to be of a certain age (which is really just splitting hairs at that point), or could prove it could survive at least the neonatal period. So according to our laws, the fetus is not a "being", until it is born. Otherwise you could not perform any abortion, regardless of how justified some people thought it might be. As soon as you allow that maybe some abortions are okay, you have accepted that the fetus is not a person. That's why the anti-choicers want the tiniest embryo to be declared a person with all the same rights as anyone else. I'd like to know how many people really believe that. If someone gets a D&C four weeks after their last period, and happen to destroy an embryo which would be smaller than a grain of rice, is it a person or not? That's really the only question. Because according to the pro-lifers, that grain of rice is a person
.
But if it is not a person, then destroying it is no more momentous than a vasectomy for a man, probably less so, since the woman will still maintain her ability to have another pregnancy at another time. Why aren't anti-choicers protesting vasectomies, since they prevent thousands/millions of potential "beings" from ever being conceived or born. After all, God killed Onan simply for spilling his seed on the ground.I wonder what God would have done then if he had got a vasectomy instead?

[OKkayak]

You might view the fetus as a being. The Catholic church, and many cultures, did not , until it was born, could breathe, and in some cultures had to be of a certain age (which is really just splitting hairs at that point), or could prove it could survive at least the neonatal period. So according to our laws, the fetus is not a "being", until it is born. Otherwise you could not perform any abortion, regardless of how justified some people thought it might be. As soon as you allow that maybe some abortions are okay, you have accepted that the fetus is not a person. That's why the anti-choicers want the tiniest embryo to be declared a person with all the same rights as anyone else. I'd like to know how many people really believe that. If someone gets a D&C four weeks after their last period, and happen to destroy an embryo which would be smaller than a grain of rice, is it a person or not? That's really the only question. Because according to the pro-lifers, that grain of rice is a person
.
But if it is not a person, then destroying it is no more momentous than a vasectomy for a man, probably less so, since the woman will still maintain her ability to have another pregnancy at another time. Why aren't anti-choicers protesting vasectomies, since they prevent thousands/millions of potential "beings" from ever being conceived or born. After all, God killed Onan simply for spilling his seed on the ground.I wonder what God would have done then if he had got a vasectomy instead?

There is no unanimous rule, either morally, politically or scientifically at when a fetus is considered a sentient and thus abortion laws vary greatly from country to country. Sperm, or an egg is a different story, in that case, there is a pretty clear and standard consensus across the board with a few religious or cultural differences. Until science can and does, come up with a conclusive standard at which point between fertilization and birth a fetus is considered a being, your comparison is wrong.

[Silverstarqueen]

Here is one of the few cases where a man is charged with homicide (murder), under our laws, because he caused the death of a baby. Note, he caused the death of a baby (an actual person) that's the difference. Not charged with killing a fetus.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal ... -1.4569336

If a fetus was considered to be a "person", then no abortions could be performed, it would be murder under the law, even if someone felt there was some justification for it, such as saving the life of the mother. You can't kill one person to save another unless possibly that person was attempting to kill someone, and even then you would be in a boatload of legal hot water. If a fetus was a "person", even a woman planning with her doctor to have an abortion would be conspiracy to commit murder. Yet doctors who regularly perform abortion are under no such legal threat. They are not, under the law, considered to be killing a human being.

[OKkayak]

If a fetus was considered to be a "person", then no abortions could be performed, it would be murder under the law, even if someone felt there was some justification for it, such as saving the life of the mother. You can't kill one person to save another unless possibly that person was attempting to kill someone, and even then you would be in a boatload of legal hot water. If a fetus was a "person", even a woman planning with her doctor to have an abortion would be conspiracy to commit murder. Yet doctors who regularly perform abortion are under no such legal threat. They are not, under the law, considered to be killing a human being.

So, why do the laws keep changing then? I think pretty much most of the civilized countries can agree that taking another human life (after birth) is murder but why can't they come with the same consensus on a fetus?

[alanjh595]

When does LIFE begin?

A Catholic may say, "Life begins at the moment of conception".

A Anglican may say, "Life begins at the moment of birth".

A Jew may say, "Life begins when the last child leaves home, and takes the dog with them".

I apologize to any/all religions that I may have offended. If they can't come into agreement as to when life begins, how can the agree upon what IS life?

[Silverstarqueen]

[quote="OKkayak"
So, why do the laws keep changing then? I think pretty much most of the civilized countries can agree that taking another human life (after birth) is murder but why can't they come with the same consensus on a fetus?[/quote]

I think there is disagreement because since at least Biblical times the fetus was not a person until it was born (alive).
Which is why you can't baptize a baby unless it is born alive.
Then the phenomenon of trying to prevent abortion by certain groups required this new idea that the fetus was a person from the moment of conception.
In countries where the Catholic faith is most common the attitudes toward reproductive choice have been slower to change because of their religious beliefs, not necessarily based on the bible.
A lot of our laws have come (indirectly) from biblical commandments or the beliefs of those times.
Nowadays, a larger percentage of the population don't subscribe to any particular religion or the bible.

I am not familiar with beliefs other than the christian ones, but likely their laws follow from their beliefs and scriptures also.

[Glacier]

Not sure why Silverstarqueen keeps brining religion into the conversation. Yes, you can make theological arguments for abortion, but who cares. Most people these days aren't all that religious.

[Silverstarqueen]

Not sure why Silverstarqueen keeps brining religion into the conversation. Yes, you can make theological arguments for abortion, but who cares. Most people these days aren't all that religious.

The question was asked, why so many differing opinions in different countries on abortion. A large part of the reason for that is because of differing opinions based on previous, religious thought. So in largely catholic countries you have a different attitude toward allowing abortions. (Maybe also in Muslim countries, as I said, I am not sure where they stand on it, or other countries which have a strong religious influence.

[OKkayak]

I think there is disagreement because since at least Biblical times the fetus was not a person until it was born (alive).
Which is why you can't baptize a baby unless it is born alive.
Then the phenomenon of trying to prevent abortion by certain groups required this new idea that the fetus was a person from the moment of conception.
In countries where the Catholic faith is most common the attitudes toward reproductive choice have been slower to change because of their religious beliefs, not necessarily based on the bible.
A lot of our laws have come (indirectly) from biblical commandments or the beliefs of those times.
Nowadays, a larger percentage of the population don't subscribe to any particular religion or the bible.

I am not familiar with beliefs other than the christian ones, but likely their laws follow from their beliefs and scriptures also.

Religions and cultures aside, not even the medical and scientific communities can come to a common consensus.