The difference between the death penalty and abortion

_

Jason P wrote:

scb wrote:

Okay, I think I understand.

I disagree with the part about people ignoring gut feelings or common sense (that one's pretty loaded) to justify their team's side. . . .

Yeah, I probably should have worded that differently as I can see how someone could find that insulting. As for the rest of your comments, I will review and comment at a later time because it's Friday and I have a swimming pool and some cold beers waiting for me. Enjoy the weekend!

Don't get me wrong - I think it is true for plenty of people, but just not true for plenty of others. I'm jealous of your pool and beer.

_

Jason P wrote:

No, what I was trying to ask deals more with how two separate issues intertwine into a much more complicated debate. Those issues are:

1) Defining life
2) Abortion and women’s rights

I think that those who fight for issue #2 are stuck in a conundrum over issue #1. They must define life as starting when a child leaves the womb, otherwise it leaves them open to attack from the Pro-Life groups.

I see that you are very well informed on this issue . . . much more then I will ever be. But I see a lot of your comments are centered on that there is no scientific proof of when a fetus becomes a human being.

I imagine most people reading this thread would believe that there is some point when the baby is alive and functioning while in the womb. But since it can’t be defined both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups maintain a best case / worst case scenario. (Pro-life = conception; Pro-Choice = birth). And neither side can give an inch of ground on their position for fear of weakening their stance. Thus, you have a lot of well-informed people that are ignoring their gut feelings so they can justify their view … and after awhile, that gut feeling probably fades away.

That is why I think this debate will never end. That is why I have chosen not to really get attached to either position because you sorta have to stab the common-sense portion of your brain with a Q-tip until you believe your groups stance vehemently (not aimed at you SCB, just anyone that takes a hard-line view of any major issue like abortion, gun rights, gay rights, etc.).

Maybe it would help if I rephrased my original post about why I think abortion is not analogous to the death penalty. I believe that, to the greatest extent possible, we should respect people's wishes about whether to live or die (presuming the person was in his/her right mind when making the decision). And when people can't communicate their wishes, since we have no choice but to make a decision for them, we should do our best to always do what is in their best interest.

(I realize this would get complicated if a fetus told us it wanted to live and the woman whose body is required to keep it alive disagreed, because they both have rights. But this is not a situation we will ever experience.)

So if a murderer wants to stay alive, we must respect his wishes. And if my grandma wants to die, I must respect her wishes. And if I had a husband who was in an accident and was in a coma on life support, I must pull the plug or not based on what I think he would want. And if I am pregnant, I should do what I think is in the best interest of my would-be child.

Edit to add: Again, this could never happen, but it would also get complicated if the will of the fetus conflicted with the best interest of, say, the woman's existing children. (And I think this scenario happens a lot - except that the fetus actually has no will.) I'm sure someone would argue that a murderer's will to live conflicts with the best interest of society, or some such thing, but I don't believe this. I think we sentence people to death only out of anger and revenge, which I don't think is ever acceptable.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

scb wrote:

Billy Pumpkin wrote:

I also found out after having "relations" with one woman that she had had 6 previous abortions (that this mutual friend KNEW about). SIX. How disgusting. Not to mention the permanent damage that gets done to your body after that many.

If women used abortion as their method of birth control and wanted 2 children, they would have 30 abortions by the time they were 45 years old. Have either of you known any women who have had 30 abortions?

Also, just because a woman says she would have an abortion if she got pregnant (or has had multiple abortions), it doesn't necessarily mean she intends to use (or was using) abortion as birth control. People have all sorts of different situations and mean all sorts of different things - and they don't always share their feelings & experiences with guys who fuck them and then talk shit about them on the internet.

And even if some women in the U.S. do use abortion as birth control, it's not the majority. So I don't know why people are always so quick to frame abortion in this context.

I wasn't framing abortion in this context. I was telling a personal story, ONE story. Never did I infer that this was the norm.

_

Billy Pumpkin wrote:

scb wrote:

Billy Pumpkin wrote:

I also found out after having "relations" with one woman that she had had 6 previous abortions (that this mutual friend KNEW about). SIX. How disgusting. Not to mention the permanent damage that gets done to your body after that many.

If women used abortion as their method of birth control and wanted 2 children, they would have 30 abortions by the time they were 45 years old. Have either of you known any women who have had 30 abortions?

Also, just because a woman says she would have an abortion if she got pregnant (or has had multiple abortions), it doesn't necessarily mean she intends to use (or was using) abortion as birth control. People have all sorts of different situations and mean all sorts of different things - and they don't always share their feelings & experiences with guys who fuck them and then talk shit about them on the internet.

And even if some women in the U.S. do use abortion as birth control, it's not the majority. So I don't know why people are always so quick to frame abortion in this context.

I wasn't framing abortion in this context. I was telling a personal story, ONE story. Never did I infer that this was the norm.

I didn't mean to suggest that you were.

fuck

dasvidana wrote:

So I'm coming in late to this discussion, but ........
Pro-life laws really try to control reproductive behavior by requiring women who become pregnant to remain pregnant (until something natural happens) by court of law. Some laws may have exclusions like health of the mother, rape/incest, point of viability, etc. But the law dictates the consequences of a woman's behavior, and exclusions to the law judge that behavior. "Well, if you were raped, then you can kill the fetus. But if you just got pregnant from your own irresponsibility, then you can't." If the law was really trying to advocate for the fetus, there would be no exceptions. Does the fetus really care how it got there? No, the law tries to control women, not advocate for the fetus.

I see the abortion issue similar to organ donation. When it comes to organ donation, in no other circumstance can the state require someone to donate a portion of their body to save another individual, even if that individual is their child. Parents aren't required to donate blood, plasma, bone marrow, kidneys, or any other organ to save their children. These things can only be taken from the parent with the parent's consent. But if a parent can't be forced to donate a portion of their body to save their child after birth, why would it be acceptable to force a woman to donate her uterus to save someone who is yet to be born? Conversely, if the law CAN mandate that a woman donates her uterus to save someone else, then, shoudn't we then mandate that the woman must also donate blood, plasma, etc?

this has to be the strongest argument i've seen so far in this thread. has anyone been able to counter this? i've only skimmed through this topic since it's so long and have been able to see counter points for both sides for the most part except for this post... i think it actually almost has me completely convinced.

i just have a question regarding when women get abortions (it was probably already covered so sorry): how often do women get abortions after the first trimester? i think once it passes a certain point (when organs develop and are prominent, there is obviously a point when the fetus could actually survive outside the womb, i think around 6-7 months, and i think even around 5 months its organs are quite developed, pain receptors and all) it becomes more cruel to the fetus since i think there is a difference between the above example:

in the above example, if your child dies because you refuse to donate your organs then that is a death as a result of you not doing anything. in other words, you are not actively killing your child. in the case of an abortion it's an actual action taken to kill the fetus. some may not find this difference noteworthy but i think it's still worth pointing out. it's almost like the difference of you watching someone die on the side of the street and not doing anything about it versus you pulling the trigger that killed him... (note "almost")

anyway, i never really read up on this issue so I'm not completely on a "side". I'm also not a woman so unless I get a chick pregnant this is not something that's really on my mind

If we really want to stop abortions, we should focus on the reasons why women seek abortion. To me, that is a more effective place to start than arguing over what a life is and whose life is worth saving.

sure, but many women seek abortions for fucked up reasons that can never really be "solved". certainly the government can and should do more to help these situations, but for people who consider abortion to be killing an innocent life it is meaningless to try to solve unsolvable issues like poverty, and all the other shit that people have to deal with that lead them to not want to have a child. i think it comes more as an issue of morality and for them it should just be stopped. it would be similar to saying "instead of making drugs illegal, we should focus on why people want to do drugs in the first place"

but then again, what the fuck do I know lol, I only came into this topic cause i'm bored, and i'm sure most of what i've written is not legible

_

_outlaw wrote:

i just have a question regarding when women get abortions (it was probably already covered so sorry): how often do women get abortions after the first trimester? i think once it passes a certain point (when organs develop and are prominent, there is obviously a point when the fetus could actually survive outside the womb, i think around 6-7 months, and i think even around 5 months its organs are quite developed, pain receptors and all) it becomes more cruel to the fetus since i think there is a difference between the above example:

13% of abortions in the U.S. occur after the 1st trimester.
0.07% occur at 24 weeks or later, which is when the fetus is potentially viable.

_outlaw wrote:

in the above example, if your child dies because you refuse to donate your organs then that is a death as a result of you not doing anything. in other words, you are not actively killing your child. in the case of an abortion it's an actual action taken to kill the fetus. some may not find this difference noteworthy but i think it's still worth pointing out. it's almost like the difference of you watching someone die on the side of the street and not doing anything about it versus you pulling the trigger that killed him... (note "almost")

Some might argue that it's more like stopping the life-sustaining measures you are giving to someone who was dying on the side of the street, at least as long as the fetus is dependent upon your body to sustain its life.

_outlaw wrote:

If we really want to stop abortions, we should focus on the reasons why women seek abortion. To me, that is a more effective place to start than arguing over what a life is and whose life is worth saving.

sure, but many women seek abortions for fucked up reasons that can never really be "solved". certainly the government can and should do more to help these situations, but for people who consider abortion to be killing an innocent life it is meaningless to try to solve unsolvable issues like poverty, and all the other shit that people have to deal with that lead them to not want to have a child. i think it comes more as an issue of morality and for them it should just be stopped. it would be similar to saying "instead of making drugs illegal, we should focus on why people want to do drugs in the first place"

A lot of people think that's what we should be saying.

fuck

scb wrote:

_outlaw wrote:

i just have a question regarding when women get abortions (it was probably already covered so sorry): how often do women get abortions after the first trimester? i think once it passes a certain point (when organs develop and are prominent, there is obviously a point when the fetus could actually survive outside the womb, i think around 6-7 months, and i think even around 5 months its organs are quite developed, pain receptors and all) it becomes more cruel to the fetus since i think there is a difference between the above example:

13% of abortions in the U.S. occur after the 1st trimester.
0.07% occur at 24 weeks or later, which is when the fetus is potentially viable.

ok, i guess that's not really as big of an issue as some try to make it sound. i do however wonder what circumstances lead to those abortions. in other words, i hope it's not "my boyfriend walked out on me and i can't do this alone" but i dont know really

_outlaw wrote:

in the above example, if your child dies because you refuse to donate your organs then that is a death as a result of you not doing anything. in other words, you are not actively killing your child. in the case of an abortion it's an actual action taken to kill the fetus. some may not find this difference noteworthy but i think it's still worth pointing out. it's almost like the difference of you watching someone die on the side of the street and not doing anything about it versus you pulling the trigger that killed him... (note "almost")

Some might argue that it's more like stopping the life-sustaining measures you are giving to someone who was dying on the side of the street, at least as long as the fetus is dependent upon your body to sustain its life.

right, my example wasn't the best. basically i was trying to say that one would be more like.. ok the best example i can think of is negligence vs malpractice.... obviously it's not really an example or similarity but if you can see the contrast between these two then you can definitely see a contrast between the argument of a woman not wanting to donate an organ to save a living son and a woman killing a living fetus

_outlaw wrote:

If we really want to stop abortions, we should focus on the reasons why women seek abortion. To me, that is a more effective place to start than arguing over what a life is and whose life is worth saving.

sure, but many women seek abortions for fucked up reasons that can never really be "solved". certainly the government can and should do more to help these situations, but for people who consider abortion to be killing an innocent life it is meaningless to try to solve unsolvable issues like poverty, and all the other shit that people have to deal with that lead them to not want to have a child. i think it comes more as an issue of morality and for them it should just be stopped. it would be similar to saying "instead of making drugs illegal, we should focus on why people want to do drugs in the first place"

A lot of people think that's what we should be saying.

uh... not really.... sure a lot of people think we should focus on why people wanna do drugs in the first place but i don't think they would argue to do that INSTEAD OF making drugs illegal....

_

_outlaw wrote:

scb wrote:

13% of abortions in the U.S. occur after the 1st trimester.
0.07% occur at 24 weeks or later, which is when the fetus is potentially viable.

ok, i guess that's not really as big of an issue as some try to make it sound. i do however wonder what circumstances lead to those abortions. in other words, i hope it's not "my boyfriend walked out on me and i can't do this alone" but i dont know really

Yeah, the so-called pro-life groups sure have this country duped.

What circumstances lead to which abortions? The 3rd trimester ones? It's mostly fetal abnormality, which is generally not able to be diagnosed until late in pregnancy. Sometimes it's to protect the life or health of the mother. There are only a few doctors in the country who do these procedures, and one of them was murdered last year. Here's a link someone provided in another thread, where some of his patients told why they chose abortion so late in their pregnancies: http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/kansasstories.html

_outlaw wrote:

Some might argue that it's more like stopping the life-sustaining measures you are giving to someone who was dying on the side of the street, at least as long as the fetus is dependent upon your body to sustain its life.

right, my example wasn't the best. basically i was trying to say that one would be more like.. ok the best example i can think of is negligence vs malpractice.... obviously it's not really an example or similarity but if you can see the contrast between these two then you can definitely see a contrast between the argument of a woman not wanting to donate an organ to save a living son and a woman killing a living fetus

I thought it was a good example of what you were trying to say. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were talking about the difference between passive decisions and active decisions, between inaction and action, right? Kind of like the difference between neglect and abuse, perhaps?

I just think there's a difference between actively choosing to STOP a helpful action (like providing life support) and actively choosing to do a harmful action (like shooting someone). To me, a good analogy would be that not donating an organ would be like never plugging a dying person in to life support and having an abortion would be like pulling the plug - but it's not analogous to taking a life that could sustain itself independently.

_outlaw wrote:

_outlaw wrote:

sure, but many women seek abortions for fucked up reasons that can never really be "solved". certainly the government can and should do more to help these situations, but for people who consider abortion to be killing an innocent life it is meaningless to try to solve unsolvable issues like poverty, and all the other shit that people have to deal with that lead them to not want to have a child. i think it comes more as an issue of morality and for them it should just be stopped. it would be similar to saying "instead of making drugs illegal, we should focus on why people want to do drugs in the first place"

A lot of people think that's what we should be saying.

uh... not really.... sure a lot of people think we should focus on why people wanna do drugs in the first place but i don't think they would argue to do that INSTEAD OF making drugs illegal....

Hmm... I thought there were huge campaigns to make drugs legal. :?

Regardless, I disagree about it being meaningless to address the problems that lead to abortion. I think it's the only way to decrease the abortion rate (certainly picketing clinics hasn't changed anything and making it illegal doesn't either), so shouldn't this be the primary focus of anyone who truly wants to decrease abortion rates?

he still stands

this video jumps around from topic to topic but largely discusses abortion and fundamentalist views on the death penalty... good for the *gasp* factor if nothing else: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5RU2LqA ... grec_index

WaveCameCrashin

scb wrote:

I'm starting this thread so the death penalty thread doesn't get hijacked talking about abortion.

Two of the primary differences between the death penalty and abortion are:

1. A fetus is not a person.

2. A fetus does not have a conscious will to live.

The death penalty, on the other hand, kills a person against his/her will.

This really makes me sick. does a fetus have a heart beat yes or no ? I think you know the answer to that question 23- 30 days after conception. How the hell do you know it doesn't have a conscious will to live ? WTF !!! :x :x This is why pro choice pisses me off. It's this type of flawed and plain bull shit thinking.

catefrances

prfctlefts wrote:

scb wrote:

I'm starting this thread so the death penalty thread doesn't get hijacked talking about abortion.

Two of the primary differences between the death penalty and abortion are:

1. A fetus is not a person.

2. A fetus does not have a conscious will to live.

The death penalty, on the other hand, kills a person against his/her will.

This really makes me sick. does a fetus have a heart beat yes or no ? I think you know the answer to that question 23- 30 days after conception. How the hell do you know it doesn't have a conscious will to live ? WTF !!! :x :x This is why pro choice pisses me off. It's this type of flawed and plain bull shit thinking.

do you want to know when a foetus has a heartbeat or when it is detectable???

sensi

In my view the minute the sperm meets the egg and fertilises it a human being has been created...OK that creation is just a bunch of cells doing what they have to in order to be a fully fledged human but it's conception...the start of life.

I'm not anti abortion...far from it...I believe a couple (or woman on her own) deserve the right to decide when they have a child for whatever reasons are important to them...I have two 'children' aged 20 and 16 and raising them hasn't been the easiest of jobs and I did it with a partner...my 'children' (let's call them the lads from now on) the lads were both healthy and able bodied and I had it relatively easy compared to some folk...some have to face the awful prospect of an early death and life of nothing but pain for their child...I believe if the mother knows in advance what kind of life her child will have she has the right to decide whether or not to allow it to go ahead...also if the mother was raped why should she have to carry that child and raise it as a reminder every day of her life?...if she can then that's wonderful...what if she thinks she can but decides she can't as soon as the child is born?

Abortion is always going to be a very hot debate.

The death penalty...well...I'm English so I'm never confronted with it unless I read about it happening in other countries...because of that I don't feel I'm equipped with enough knowledge to give a valid debate...all I know is that people have been hung here and later found to be innocent...I would want concrete evidence that a person was guilty before I even began to decide whether they should die or not...I don't believe that killing someone because they have killed is the answer...I was all for rehabilitation but recently, in England, there was a case where a young man was found guilty of possessing indecent images of children...the young lad in question had been given a new identity following his release from prison...he had been sent to prison for murdering a toddler when he was 11...he had a new life and continued to commit crimes...his rehabilitation cost thousands but didn't work.

I think locking someone up for life and them knowing they will never walk free again or make love again or go to a family gathering again is more effective...I wouldn't allow them access to TV or newspapers and I'd make them earn the right to hear music or read books...they would have to spend the rest of their days preferring death to the life they now have...that has to be a living hell on earth which they deserve...death is the easy way out for some.

I don't understand how the legal system works in America so I have one question...why is it that a person can get the death penalty yet wait years for it to happen?...if they have been served a death sentence why don't they just take them straight from court to the chair?...that's an honest question by the way as I know nothing about how this works.

_

he still stands wrote:

this video jumps around from topic to topic but largely discusses abortion and fundamentalist views on the death penalty... good for the *gasp* factor if nothing else: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5RU2LqA ... grec_index

That is an EXCELLENT clip. I've seen it before, because I've seen the whole documentary from which is was taken. Noam Chomsky is just so articulate, and he makes excellent points.

The #1 killer of children in the world is pneumonia and the #2 killer is diarrhea (no pun intended). Together they account for 40% of child deaths in the world. Pneumonia kills about 2 million children under the age of 5 per year. That's 5,500 deaths per day. That means a small child dies of pneumonia every 15 seconds. And the treatment costs $0.27. About 1.5 million children under age 5 die from diarrhea each year. Diarrhea. Can you imagine? That means more young children die from something we think nothing of than from AIDS, malaria, & measles combined. The treatment costs less than $0.10.

A chopped up baby sign to hold outside an abortion clinic costs at least $100. For the cost of just one sign that likely never changes anyone's mind about abortion, you could save the lives of 1000 little children. Yet, given the choice to save 1000 children or buy 1 sign, these people choose the fucking sign. And then they expect us to believe that saving lives is what they're all about. :roll:

_

sensi wrote:

In my view the minute the sperm meets the egg and fertilises it a human being has been created...OK that creation is just a bunch of cells doing what they have to in order to be a fully fledged human but it's conception...the start of life.

You don't think conception happens at implantation?

sensi wrote:

I don't understand how the legal system works in America so I have one question...why is it that a person can get the death penalty yet wait years for it to happen?...if they have been served a death sentence why don't they just take them straight from court to the chair?...that's an honest question by the way as I know nothing about how this works.

It's usually because the sentence is appealed - like they want to get a second opinion just to be sure it was an appropriate ruling or sentence before they actually kill the person. Our justice system works incredibly slowly and the appeals process can take forever.

sensi

scb wrote:

sensi wrote:

In my view the minute the sperm meets the egg and fertilises it a human being has been created...OK that creation is just a bunch of cells doing what they have to in order to be a fully fledged human but it's conception...the start of life.

You don't think conception happens at implantation?

No because the process of cell dividing starts immediately and by the time implantation has taken place cells have situated themselves where they need to be to form whatever organs they are to be...I was reading an article, in a British paper, that said up to 25 weeks the baby is in a perpetual state of sleep...like a coma and can't feel pain...that is why our government has decided 25 weeks is the cut off point for abortion...I've been pregnant twice and on both occasion the first proper limb movement was felt at around 25 weeks...prior to that I felt something but it was more rolling about than an obvious kick.

_

sensi wrote:

scb wrote:

sensi wrote:

In my view the minute the sperm meets the egg and fertilises it a human being has been created...OK that creation is just a bunch of cells doing what they have to in order to be a fully fledged human but it's conception...the start of life.

You don't think conception happens at implantation?

No because the process of cell dividing starts immediately and by the time implantation has taken place cells have situated themselves where they need to be to form whatever organs they are to be...I was reading an article, in a British paper, that said up to 25 weeks the baby is in a perpetual state of sleep...like a coma and can't feel pain...that is why our government has decided 25 weeks is the cut off point for abortion...I've been pregnant twice and on both occasion the first proper limb movement was felt at around 25 weeks...prior to that I felt something but it was more rolling about than an obvious kick.

I'd be interested in reading that article if you have a reference for me to look up.

So abortion is illegal after (at?) 25 weeks in England? Are those laws made on a nation-wide basis? Are there any exceptions? Just wondering.