Thread: Societal Norms Discussion

Originally Posted by Jonedangerousli

That is a rational argument. Both sides agree that once a live birth occurs it is wrong to terminate it. The problem with that particular argument (I agree with it btw, I believe that once the fetus, were it to be taken out of the womb, is capable of sustaining life it should not be aborted, prior to that point it is the same as any other mass of cells inside a woman's body. I don't have an exact # of weeks, fortunately I don't have to make that decision for myself, obviously, and I don't make policy for others) is that it assumes that a woman has ownership of her body. The debate is as much about control as anything else.

I certainly wouldn't want to start a debate with my wife over ownership of her body...

Wow, we went from sexual orientation to abortion in 2.1 posts! That must be a record, LOL.

I know!This is an amazing forum - I want to thank you guys. It is a real mark of the type of men who post here that we can have these discussions rationally, civilly, and respectfully. I personally am learning things I would not otherwise have an opportunity to learn. Thanks.

James.

At what "age" is it alive? Well we are traking its age. Why do that if it is not alive?? in Canada you can have an abortion at 22 weeks. (here is a photo of a 22 week aborted fetus CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!! http://www.headscarf.net/int_22WK_02.jpg)

at 12 weeks he or she has the ability to swallow and absorb and discharge fluids. Hands, now complete, are growing fingernails. Even tooth buds are appearing. here is a photo of an 11 week old fetus (not graphic) http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyon...1_weeks_1.jpeg

this child could have been aborted at this stage.

I don't see the logic behind stating "its not even a human until X week, so its okay to kill it" if left, without the intrusion of the abortion, the woman will give birth to a child.

Webster defines life as " a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction"

if a fetus has the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, then how is it not alive?

Originally Posted by Jonedangerousli

Help me out here. If your religion "rightly damns the practice of homosexuality" isn't it a conflict of interest for you to "have no problem" with its practice?
I agree with you on the IDEA of the death penalty for those who prey on children. We have to be careful with the PRACTICE of it, however.

I totally agree with this statement.
Regardless of whether death penalty is a solution or not, or even moraly justifiable, mistakes are made, and have been made in the past.
I have read up on the innocence project, and it is scary how many jail for life sentences and death sentences have been reversed (sometimes posthumously).

Given that there will be mistakes, I cannot support the death sentence because there is no possibility to reverse it. Saying 'whoopsie, whadda yer know, he was innocent after all. sorry' just doesn't cut it.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

If someones sexual orientation isn't a disease as you say why do we put pedophiles in therapy, pronounce them "cured" and release them back into society.

*Looks around* I think you are confusing me with someone else, like the government. I'm giving you my opinion. I don't make policy or even enforce it. Again, you are confusing the issue. I do not believe that sexual orientation equates to pedophilia. You are making that connection and then asking me why we don't treat them the same.

By the same token If we can't cure it we can't rehabilitate those guilty of it, so Why do we sentence them to prison rather than death and try to fix them.

See previous statement above. Taking your point in a different context, why do we not execute mentally ill people that are not capable of understanding why it's wrong to kill someone?

Interesting that "society" has made this decision, by what vote? when?

LOL, everything in society is not put to a vote. That goes back to the topic of this thread.

You are doing a great job of saying what we have always been taught about these two conditions. Yet the more you look at them side by side the more similar they seem at least in cause but what have been taught seems to contradict itself. Why?

Why what? Why does society do contradictory things? Please be more specific.

Originally Posted by mhailey

...

I don't see the logic behind stating "its not even a human until X week, so its okay to kill it" if left, without the intrusion of the abortion, the woman will give birth to a child.

Webster defines life as " a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction"

if a fetus has the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, then how is it not alive?

Ok - I'm not taking any particular stand here, I'm just trying out a logic.

All of those definitions are fine, but without the umbilical cord (ie the mother) a foetus does not appear to satisfy any of those definitions (except perhaps definition b, which is the least definitive of the bunch IMO). Technically, and no offense is meant here at all, a foetus more closely resembles a parasitic organism from a definitional point of view.

James.

Originally Posted by mhailey

At what "age" is it alive? Well we are traking its age. Why do that if it is not alive??

in Canada you can have an abortion at 22 weeks. (here is a photo of a 22 week aborted fetus CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!! http://www.headscarf.net/int_22WK_02.jpg)

at 12 weeks he or she has the ability to swallow and absorb and discharge fluids. Hands, now complete, are growing fingernails. Even tooth buds are appearing. here is a photo of an 11 week old fetus (not graphic) http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyon...1_weeks_1.jpeg

this child could have been aborted at this stage.

I don't see the logic behind stating "its not even a human until X week, so its okay to kill it" if left, without the intrusion of the abortion, the woman will give birth to a child.

Webster defines life as " a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction"

if a fetus has the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, then how is it not alive?

This is one of those times that we are going to have to agree to disagree. You have a well-reasoned argument that supports your view. You believe that the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the woman in whose body it is growing. I believe that until the point the fetus can sustain life outside that woman's body the woman's rights outweigh the rights of the fetus. I believe my position to be a valid compromise between two contradictory positions. You could take this to an extreme and say that a child can't support its own life until several years without intervention. When I was younger my father told me in no uncertain terms that he brought me into this world and he could take me out. I believed him.

you beat me to my counter point. Viability is not survivable on its own. Viable is able to live while hooked up to countless tubes in the hospital, under special lights and in a special incubator. Therefore the fetus is not completely viable at 12 weeks, nor at 20 weeks, nor at 25 weeks. The hospital is acting as the woman’s umbilical cord and giving this child everything that it needs to survive. The question becomes how do you define viable, and when is it reached? How can it be said that on this day the fetus it is a mass of cells that the mother can chose to discard, and on the next day it is a person worthy of protection?

and my dad still says that to me and I'm 32

Also, one last question, what e rights of the woman are so fundamental and important that are deserving of protecting to the point that a life has to be extinguished. is it to keep her figure? to not have to go through the hassle of the adoption? What are these "rights"?

Nothing condescending is implied through these posts. I am truly curious as to what right for the woman is being protected through the abortion. If it is the right to do what she wants with her body, then why don't we have the constitutional right to ingest crack, cocaine, crystal meth?

Originally Posted by mhailey

The question becomes how do you define viable, and when is it reached?

That is THE question, which was my original statement on this subject. I don't have a concrete answer. The good news is that I don't have to. I'm not making policy, I don't vote based on a person's position on the subject, and I'm never ever going to have to make (or be a party to) the decision.

We can debate this issue until the cows come home (damn, somebody had to mention Rosie in this thread, why'd it have to be me? ) and never come to a satisfactory conclusion. It is good to have the debate, however, since it does have at least one positive quality: It sometimes requires us to think!

and my dad still says that to me and I'm 32

Well, I'm 45 now and I've pretty much grown out of doing things that would make him say that to me now. (I heard it a lot when I was younger, though)

Originally Posted by mhailey

Also, one last question, what e rights of the woman are so fundamental and important that are deserving of protecting to the point that a life has to be extinguished. is it to keep her figure? to not have to go through the hassle of the adoption? What are these "rights"?

It is THE fundamental right we all have as humans. The right of ownership of our body. It is the most basic right all people have. It is the "Life" part of this famous statement:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

There is a reason that the framers listed Life first. Without the right to our body all other rights are immaterial. I realize that you'll use this point in your argument for the fetus as well. As I said, there is a conflict here that will never be resolved.

Nothing condescending is implied through these posts.

None taken. I am operating under the premise that we are all rational adults, with the ability to discuss matters freely and openly. You have the right to your opinion, as do I.

I am truly curious as to what right for the woman is being protected through the abortion. If it is the right to do what she wants with her body, then why don't we have the constitutional right to ingest crack, cocaine, crystal meth?

That's an interesting question. The easy answer is that we do. The constitution does not address drugs, including tobacco and alcohol. On a question of rights vs. laws however it's not so simple. I believe that you have a right to do anything that you want with your life, your body, and any extension of it you may have, so long as you do not forceably interfere with another person's rights. Again, I realize you can make the same argument for the fetus. From a purely theoretical standpoint until the point that a baby is severed from the woman's body it still remains a part of her life, but I'm not arguing that she be able to abort a fetus at 8.9 months. I realize it is a compromise, but we compromise our rights constantly.