1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Will Roe VS Wade be overturned

Discussion in 'The OT' started by tomcrown1, Mar 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    The example of taking the newborn and giving it to a new home is only equal to an example of removing an embryo/fetus and implanting it inside another woman to see if it can survive. Surrogate parents have done this, so it can be moved to another "host" and survive, just like taking a newborn and giving it to new parents.

    Neither is self-sufficient... both can survive and thrive if given an alternative home.
     
  2. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002

    The key there might be the term "Extraordinary means." But I doubt that we will all agree on a definition.
     
  3. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I was mainly trying to illustrate why the "when is it human" and "when is it life" arguments are really difficult by arguing devil's advocate.

    Truth is, I have no idea just when something becomes human, and I am not sure we ever will know this... but I'm not sure it is 100% important in the abortion discussions.

    I think it is enough to consider that if left to normal evolution, whatever "it" is will become a human baby eventually.

    Probably also worth stirring the pot to say that some of the folks who jump up and down and swear they should be responsible for their own bodies are the same people who clearly weren't responsible for their own bodies in the events that led up to the pregnancy! Funny how *that* responsibility is frequently dodged.
     
  4. AcuraCL

    AcuraCL Godfather

    350
    0
    Dec 12, 2005
    And nobody has any qualms about terminating them, do they?
     
  5. tomcrown1

    tomcrown1 Hall Of Fame

    1,576
    0
    Jan 16, 2006

    So man is now GOD, we can create from non living matter One-Cell Living animals:confused:
     
  6. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    So man is now GOD, we can create from non living matter One-Cell Living animals

    Almost, but not quite. We have created several virii "from scratch", but not yet more complicated life.
     
  7. ntexasdude

    ntexasdude Hall Of Fame

    2,684
    0
    Jan 23, 2005
    32 cells, 64 cells, 128 cells????........the genetic coding for a complete individual is completely contained in the egg and the sperm. When the sperm penetrates the membrane and fertilizes the egg cell division begins. What differentiates a mass of 32 cells from a mass of one million?
     
  8. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I remember when they used to say that babies don't feel pain, so when babies were crying or something during a post-birth operation like circumcision... the doctors would very assuredly say that the baby wasn't crying from *that* pain.

    With time we learn we were wrong about lots of things.
     
  9. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    The same thing that "differentiates" us from other lifeforms, our higher ability for cognitive and abstract thought. Although it is doubtful that even "a mass of one million" has reached that "differentiation". Our DNA may make us "human" tissue. It does not make us "human beings". In my book anyway, it is not immoral or inhuman, nor should it be illegal, to end the life of a brain-dead baby any more than it was to end the "life" of a brain dead Terri Schiavo simply because their DNA may be "human".

    My dad used to tell me a worm was incapable of feeling "pain" as the fishing hook skewered it. He was my dad so I humored him, but I don't think I ever actually believed it. I never believed the worm's reaction was a conscious one though, that the worm was capable of such higher comprehension, regardless of its age, maturity or "life experience".

    Our DNA is not what makes us human, our capacity to understand and investigate DNA(and other things) does. That ability is not present in 32 or even a million cells with human DNA. Giving the maximum benefit of the doubt, it's hard to argue that potential is present much earlier than the last few months of pregnancy.
     
  10. ntexasdude

    ntexasdude Hall Of Fame

    2,684
    0
    Jan 23, 2005
    But my argument, the same as millions of others, is where do you draw the line? If complete genetic coding (that makes us who we are) is present in a single sperm and a single egg and cell division begins at the moment of conception, then when "exactly" do we become people? If not 32 or 1 million then maybe 10 billion or 100 billion? Do we have to weigh a pound or so and have a brain visible on an ultrasound or an x-ray to be considered viable? Or, do we consider a 32 cell tissue mass to be a human or a future human or just a bowl of Jello? Can science detect the first nueron that fires from the brain and travels down the spinal cord and declare that the cell mass is now a human? Can we put a date on it, say 12 weeks, and say it's okay to abort before that first nueron fires? What about babies who develop in 10 weeks or 11 weeks. Do we run run the risk of killing a human being by abortion at exactly 12 weeks because it developed a few days earlier than average? Remember, who you are and who I am and who our kids are and will ever be is contained in a single male sperm and a single human egg. The human genome has been decoded. Developing babies don't somehow suck characteristics out of the mother. She is only a host. The dna of the father and mother determined who the child is when they were still in their mother's wombs. It's a fact and can't be argued.

    These questions will never be answered. Science will never provide a definitive answer to when we transform from a tissue mass into a human and thus when abortion transforms from a medical procedure to murder. I believe abortion is the most devisive issue mankind will ever face and we will never, ever have a satisfactory answer. I suppose it all boils down to our conciousness. If we abort are we comfortable with the possibilty or reality that we are killing a human.? It's something we have to ask ourselves.
     
  11. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    One-celled animals exist in nature, but most people do not consider them "human."

    When DO we become human? IS it as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg and the DNA joins? Is a human defined by the DNA that says it is human? Then what of the person who is missing chromosomes, the fetus with defective DNA. Are they not human? In nature many abortions occur without human intervention. We call them miscarriages, but the term used on most death certificates is spontaneous abortion. Is this God's way of keeping the non-humans out of the gene pool?

    For most of you, this is a subject about which you may have strong feelings. You may lobby your representatives to act according to how you feel or believe. But unless you are facing a pregnancy in your wife or daughter, or the death of someone in your family, you are only peripherally involved, and you are attempting to force your beliefs on others. Individuals come to me not dealing in terms of how things should be in the perfect world, or an issue involving someone else who needs to deal with the "consequences" of their bad decisions, but their own very messy lives. They come to me for advice, guidance, comfort, and hope. Damn, I so often envy my father when he entered the ministry in 1952. It was easy then. Abortion was illegal, old people who were sick died, babies born way too early, generally because they had physical problems, died, and you offered comforting words and didn't have to worry all that much about the ethics. Now, the ethics of when we become human and when we stop being human is a tremendous problem for those in the fields of medicine and religion. For many of us, the simple answers don't seem very complete. For some of you, what you understand of scientific discoveries simplifies things. But for many others of us, the scientific knowledge we have today further complicates things. The old understanding, from the Bible, of when a baby was human, when it had a soul, was when it drew it's first breath. That was when the nephesh, the breath of God, the breath of life, entered into the baby. How many of you still accept that Biblical answer? Another old understanding of when the soul entered the baby, when it was human, was when it "quickened" or began to move. How many still accept that understanding? But another old understanding was that right from the beginning the "baby" looked like a tiny, tiny human. Now we know that in the beginning it looks nothing like a human, and in the earlier stages it looks much more like a fish. In the past, there would have been no question that the weird, fish looking thing was NOT human. Now many assume it is fully human. But we are still left with the question, what does it take to be human? Is it JUST a matter of DNA, or is there something more that it takes to be a human. And if that is missing, is the being that has some element missing, not human? It isn't as easy for me as it is for some of the rest of you, because I have to deal with individuals living out their pain. Its not so black and white when you are dealing with a real life person in agony over decisions that have to be made, with decisions that have already been made, as when you are dealing with the nameless, faceless, "THEM" that make bad decisions. At least I don't find it so very black and white, and I still struggle with the questions, because I need to somehow get it right, as best I can. I don't have the luxury of making decisions based on what I would like to be right, because people are depending on me. Pray for me. (Don't tell me what you think is the obvious answer you are sure is right, I already know what you think, and the reasons why.) Pray that the next time I face one of these situations I be given the words to say, the words that will give both of us understanding.

    It's almost 2 in the morning. I need to go to sleep, and this is pretty rambling. It reflects the continual process I go through in trying to determine as best I am able the truth, according to the information we/I have. If this doesn't make sense to you, I apologize. It doesn't always make sense to me either.
     
  12. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Agreed... but they are most certainly alive. There are some who argue that the embryo is not alive or a life form. I cannot argue when it becomes human... but I can argue that it is always alive.

    I can't speak to everyone's motives... but there are those who consider humans a higher life form, and that it is ok for us to treat lesser life forms as such, and not afford them the same rights and considerations as we reserve for ourselves. I think those people find it very important to be able to declare what is and is not human... because then they can more easily defend their decision. If it isn't human, then they didn't kill a person... they killed a thing, or a lesser animal.

    In the adult/human world... it is tough for us to justify murder... but if we kill someone in self-defense or to protect a loved one or if it happens quite accidentally, then we can rationalize and explain and take comfort in the choices we make that sometimes hurt others.

    So if we could emphatically declare that a fetus was not human... then it would make some of the guilt go away. IF there were no guilt at all associated with abortion, then there would be no arguements about it or reason to defend it.

    I can say, and I believe, that the difficult choice to abort after a rape/incest OR when the life of mother and/or child is at stake... is one that can be understood, whatever the choice is, and accepted by most. And though the woman who survives that procedure may feel guilt all of her life, she and others around her can find lots of reasons to support the decision.

    But there are other cases... where there is no apparent danger to mother or child, and the pregnancy was the result of consentual sex... and it seems that it is these cases where some feel the most need to defend their choice, and it is that need to strongly defend the choice which I think most reveals that sense of guilt about the choice in those people.

    The reason I weigh in on these discussions is not to force my belief on others. Truth to tell, being a man I can't have an abortion since I can't bear a child... so unless the woman is someone I know, then you are right that it only affects me on the periphery. But I like to share my thoughts so others can see where I'm coming from, and I like to hear others thoughts to see their motivations as well.

    In the cases I understand the decision, I can offer words of support or encouragement if they are wanted. In the cases where I don't understand the decision, it isn't my business nor would I try to make a person feel any more guilty than I know she would already feel.

    The only places I tend to want to force my opinions on others is when their beliefs intrude upon mine. For instance, people that want the state or someone else to pay for their abortion. Why should I pay for something I don't believe in for someone I don't even know? Or if I was with a woman, and she wanted an abortion but I did not and she did not want to allow me any say in the matter, that would be a problem for me.

    But I don't try and pile guilt on others... and I wouldn't meddle in other people's business or choices unless their choice somehow directly affected me.
     
  13. ntexasdude

    ntexasdude Hall Of Fame

    2,684
    0
    Jan 23, 2005
    First off, I want to thank Bogy, HDMe, jonstad and the others who have posted their most serious heartfelt opinions and beliefs in this thread. This is the most important debate anyone will EVER have and it's also one that will NEVER be be solved. Whether we be Atheist, Evangelical Christian, Muslim, Orthodox Jew, Buhdist or whatever, this issue is one that our personal religion and science cannot and will not ever answer. The answers for all of us lie within our hearts and what we are willing to accept as acceptable.
     
  14. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    This is the most important debate anyone will EVER have and it's also one that will NEVER be be solved.

    Actually I think it can be solved. The development of artificial wombs would put an end to abortions leading to the death of the fetus. It would however start a brand new issue of who will pay for all those unwanted kids.
     
  15. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Perhaps. But it is one that can be almost entirely solved, and many more progressive, dare I say "enlightened" nations have! At least to the extent abortion is not the burning, devisive issue it is in this nation.

    The key appears to be to reduce the demand for abortion, NOT abortion on demand. And the way to acheive that seems to be by providing universal and comprehensive sex education(including abstinence:D) and wide availability of free or extremely low cost birth control devices and methods. Nations that adopt such policies find their abortion rates plummeting, often to the point of being difficult to measure accurately.

    I know I sound like a broken record here, but we don't live in a society anymore where chastity belts and chaining our daughters to their bed posts is an acceptable method of insuring their virtue. Most would consider such tactics as child abuse and rightly so. Societies that do condone such draconian measures also don't bother to educate their daughters, or allow them to vote, consider the very sight of female flesh as "sinful" to the point of covering every square inch in public, and often sell their daughters to the highest bidder! The result for the male population is young men and boys so frustrated they all too often are willing to strap explosives to their bodies for a chance at a virgin(or 72) in the afterlife.

    It is a misnomer that anyone "favors abortion". Depending on how the question is framed though, polls consistently indicate most of us "favor" the option remain available in some reasonable context and with some reasonable limitations. What that context and limitations are is open to debate. But since Roe v Wade became the law of the land, the general consensus has been that somewhere around the end of the second trimester, the option of "abortion on demand" should be limited by law. This seems reasonable enough to me. But I am certainly open to entertaining a different schedule. Perhaps five months, or even four and a half, half way through term? I suppose that I am biased, but I have a hard time accepting that a half, or even two thirds formed fetus has anything but the POTENTIAL to become a fully formed individual "human being:.

    But the problem then becomes that a woman may not even know she is pregnant until the third or fourth month, giving her very little time to consider her options and make what for many must be an excruciatingly difficult decision.

    Broken record time again!

    The way to reduce abortions is to provide sex education and contraceptives to those most likely to experience an unwanted pregnancy. "Abstinence only" does not seem to work. Study after study shows that such programs result in no fewer unwanted pregnancies, and in many cases more!

    So let's get "enlightened". Chastity belts and locked bedroom doors are no longer a viable option. And of course they never completely eliminated unwanted pregnancies or the desire to abort such pregnancies anyway.
     
  16. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Interesting thought. However artificial wombs are still decades away likely. Still the problem is NOT who will pay for all those unwanted kids. Given that the average cost to an adopting family is like $12000, we are either a much wealthier middle class ($12K to adopt is not an inexpensive option) than libs want to admit a, or there are plenty of people who WANT children far more than abortion promoters or apologists want to admit. I suspect there are plenty of adoptive parents who would stand in line, pay the expectant mother's medical fees, .... to adopt those "unwanted" babies, and give them a very loving home.

    Since you mention it, the danger with "artificial wombs" I think would be abuse - using them as spare parts or drones for a future state gone wrong.
     
  17. tomcrown1

    tomcrown1 Hall Of Fame

    1,576
    0
    Jan 16, 2006
    Let us deny that teens have sex and lets us deny that babys born to teens are either 1 throwen in the garabage 2 aborted by a butcher or 3 if the teen is lucky she would have understanding parents who will help her raise her child. Yea no Sex ed for teens because it leads to teens having sex thus no sex ed no teen having baby problem solved lets now take away the right to aboration. If a mom life is on the line never mind,the baby must be born, problem solved. The birth of the baby comes above everything.
     
  18. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Let us deny that teens have sex

    That's just a nonsense rant, and I suspect you know it. While you're at it, lets deny boys rape girls, than kids poke their arms with needles to inject drugs, ... etc. Just because some people err, does not mean we excuse it or make light of different consequences. Babies still get dumped in the trash, despite a law that allows the birth mother to "no questions asked" drop the child off at any fire station,... etc. The problem isn't the law. And the view that abortion is somehow a remedy for teen pregnancy is silly and flawed. Teens will have sex you say? I say, some teens will have sex before marriage, just like some will do other stupid things. Killing another person (the baby) will not "fix" the problem. And studies show that in general abortion impacts and hurts the mother-to-be, far worse than if she had the baby. The exercise of self discipline is not impossible, just currently unpopular with the liberal culture. The abstinence movement is gaining ground.

    For years, statistics have shown teenagers growing more and more sexually active. But religious and public health activists say the tide is turning. New data from the Centers for Disease Control show the number of high school students who say they've had sex fell 16 percent during the 1990s. In the meantime an increasingly organized movement has appeared, telling teenagers to wait until marriage.
    http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/01/29_horwichj_abstain/
     
  19. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Lots of teens also drink alcohol before the legal age... How's that drinking education working out?

    And lots of teens still smoke too... How's that anti-smoking campaign working out?

    Maybe we should provide breathalizers and cigarette filters to teens too? I mean, if you can't educate them and you can't use abstanance as a model... might as well help them out right?

    Sex is no different than these other things... They see adults doing it on TV or in a movie or on the street or in their homes... and they are curious and want to try it... kids want to learn about and try whatever they see adults doing.

    If more parents would talk to their kids and actually care about their kids... many problems could be minimized. The sad fact is that people who have children aren't always that attentive... but that doesn't mean everyone should just have abortions instead of kids. How would that work out for the future of the human race?
     
  20. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Well, you can quit smoking or drinking or even using narcotics much easier than you can "quit" a child. And anti-drinking and smoking campaigns DO seem to work at least to an extent. And while it is probably preferable that people don't drink or smoke at all, if they do, the least we can do is to try to get them to do so responsibly. If you're going to drink, don't drive, and don't get dead drunk. And if you're going to smoke, two cigarettes a day is a better option than two packs.

    And in this sense, the same applies to sex educaion. We can encourage kids(and adults) not to have sex at all. But that's not going to stop everyone, nor prevent all unwanted pregnancies. Total abstinence except for intentional conception is not only unrealistic, but I think most of us would agree also undesirable, at least for adults.

    Given that, our goal should be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by all means available, certainly including abstinence. And no one is arguing abortion should be anything but an extreme last resort when all of the above has failed either by negligence or accident(failure of birth control device or method).

    Arguments that abortion is murder from a religious standpoint are tenuous to say the least. At best the Bible deals with the question periferally and indirectly with no clear direction apparent one way or the other. The legal aspect usually deals with "viability", the ability of the fetus to reasonably survive outside the womb, artificial or not. And the adoption reasoning is a red herring. The premise that women should be forced to have babies so someone else can adopt them is patently absurd. And in such a case, just as we now have with some surrogate mothers, women and young girls will be enticed and/or coerced to become pregnant simply to reap the financial reward of SELLING their baby!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page