Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

What the fuck are you talking about, "religious beliefs"? Perhaps you're confusing me with that Republican fellow from Ohio. Though I cannot imagine why.

At any rate, although I can understand certain circumstances in which abortion would be necessary...rape, danger to the mother's life, severe fetal deformity being a few...I do not and cannot understand a grown woman who sleeps around, has five or six abortions all-in-a-few-years-work, and feels like none of it is a big deal. That does sound pretty sociopathic to me, and my quip about small animals was only half in jest. I really do wonder about these people...and I don't really give a shit who disagrees with me.

But none of this has to do with religion...just my own personal sense of right and wrong.

Sorry for jumping to conclusions...but I don't get it, if you don't believe something special like the creation of a "soul" happens at conception, why is the killing of an unfertilized egg no big deal, but as soon as it's fertilized killing it suddenly becomes tantamount to torturing animals, even if it has no more of a brain or consciousness than the unfertilized egg did?

Truth is, I have no idea when a soul enters a human body...and it isn't possible TO know. I do know that it's wrong to abuse one's self and others by sleeping around with a multitude of people and then using abortion as mere birth control. It's not that I'm not religious at all, it's just that I don't feel that religion is a prequisite for basic common sense.

But you do believe in some sort of supernatural soul, then? I would define that as a type of "religious" belief even if you don't subscribe to any particular religion. My point was that for science nerds like me who believe that human behavior can be explained purely in terms of the working of the physical brain, before the fetus is developed enough to have even the most rudimentary brain function (which can only happen when the synapses form, around the end of the second trimester) there's really no basis for seeing it as any worse to kill the fetus than to kill an unfertilized egg, or a person who is completely brain-dead, or a tree. I agree that a woman who has five or six abortions is pretty dumb because, hey, using a surgical procedure as a routine method of birth control isn't the brightest move, but there's no issue of it being immoral, from my brain-centric perspective.

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

Truth is, I have no idea when a soul enters a human body...and it isn't possible TO know. I do know that it's wrong to abuse one's self and others by sleeping around with a multitude of people and then using abortion as mere birth control. It's not that I'm not religious at all, it's just that I don't feel that religion is a prequisite for basic common sense.

But you do believe in some sort of supernatural soul, then? I would define that as a type of "religious" belief even if you don't subscribe to any particular religion. My point was that for science nerds like me who believe that human behavior can be explained purely in terms of the working of the physical brain, before the fetus is developed enough to have even the most rudimentary brain function (which can only happen when the synapses form, around the end of the second trimester) there's really no basis for seeing it as any worse to kill the fetus than to kill an unfertilized egg, or a person who is completely brain-dead, or a tree. I agree that a woman who has five or six abortions is pretty dumb because, hey, using a surgical procedure as a routine method of birth control isn't the brightest move, but there's no issue of it being immoral, from my brain-centric perspective.[/quote]


Jesse, in my opinion, your assessment is the correct one. This is the one I believe in. However I am an artist (and I say that in the most non-snobby way I can) and my capabilities to logically discuss morality are severely limited.
I applaud your scientific world view, for it can make something solid out of this folk tale-derived mush we are currently working with.

Originally Posted by Hon

Originally Posted by Hon's hon

What the fuck are you talking about, "religious beliefs"? Perhaps you're confusing me with that Republican fellow from Ohio. Though I cannot imagine why.

To DA -- You, sir, are no gentleman! :evil: :twisted: :x

"What the fuck are you talking about," "no gentleman!"? Perhaps you're confusing me with... aw, shucks, I'm flattered. :oops: 8)

I think DA shoudl invite his significant lover to the forum for a little "hon hon"

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

I think DA shoudl invite his significant lover to the forum for a little "hon hon"

What, in a vain attempt to try to get Saari jealous? I don't think the "fossil" Finn really cares! :lol:

Great New York Times story

For the record I think the fierce pro-choice advocates in our party are getting the wrong message.
People like Dean and clinton are NOT saying that we should take away a woman's right to choose. They ARE saying that abortion, anyway you look at it, it pretty awful and should be "safe, rare, and legal."
People need to understand that we understand that this is a weighty issue and we support these rights only because we understand that until we can accomodate our population with the quality of services they need, it is the only way to achieve a healthy population policy.
Right wingers, who are ideologically driven, don't have to work with reality. They just get to say "abortion is wrong" and that's it.

As for restrictions I think most Dems woudl approve late term restrictions that were WELL WRITTEN (unlike the partial-birth abortion ban).
I, however, do NOT support parental notification.
I think that is terrible - it puts the power back into the hands of good old mom and dad, instead of the woman who faces becoming a mom, say, at age 13. That's just ridiculous and not right. Your body, your choice.

That position I have no problem with.

Question: What should the minimum age of self-control of your body be?

You have 13 as a benchmark so far, which is quite below the age of consent. So maybe that has to change too to accomodate the consequences of unprotected sex accordingly.

Originally Posted by Andy '85

Question: What should the minimum age of self-control of your body be?

I think it's a mistake to set an age. People develop differently, and though we can agree that no ten-year-old is competent to make those kinds of decisions for themselves, it is the rare thirty-year-old who is not. Somewhere in between those ages, it's going to be a case-by-case thing.

Originally Posted by Andy '85

That position I have no problem with.

Question: What should the minimum age of self-control of your body be?

You have 13 as a benchmark so far, which is quite below the age of consent. So maybe that has to change too to accomodate the consequences of unprotected sex accordingly.

That's actually naturally decided because few women can concieve and carry a child before age 13-14.. I differ on your age for "age of consent."
I assume you mean it in terms of adults and teens - however I think most teens become active before the age of consent anyway.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Andy '85

That position I have no problem with.

Question: What should the minimum age of self-control of your body be?

You have 13 as a benchmark so far, which is quite below the age of consent. So maybe that has to change too to accomodate the consequences of unprotected sex accordingly.

That's actually naturally decided because few women can concieve and carry a child before age 13-14.. I differ on your age for "age of consent."
I assume you mean it in terms of adults and teens - however I think most teens become active before the age of consent anyway.

The tricky thing is that if a young teen is too young to make a decision to have or not have an abortion, she sure as heck is too young to be raising a child. Yet like it or not, such young teens who don't have abortions overwhelmingly end up raising their children, rather than giving them up for adoption.

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

What the fuck are you talking about, "religious beliefs"? Perhaps you're confusing me with that Republican fellow from Ohio. Though I cannot imagine why.

At any rate, although I can understand certain circumstances in which abortion would be necessary...rape, danger to the mother's life, severe fetal deformity being a few...I do not and cannot understand a grown woman who sleeps around, has five or six abortions all-in-a-few-years-work, and feels like none of it is a big deal. That does sound pretty sociopathic to me, and my quip about small animals was only half in jest. I really do wonder about these people...and I don't really give a shit who disagrees with me.

But none of this has to do with religion...just my own personal sense of right and wrong.

Sorry for jumping to conclusions...but I don't get it, if you don't believe something special like the creation of a "soul" happens at conception, why is the killing of an unfertilized egg no big deal, but as soon as it's fertilized killing it suddenly becomes tantamount to torturing animals, even if it has no more of a brain or consciousness than the unfertilized egg did?

Truth is, I have no idea when a soul enters a human body...and it isn't possible TO know. I do know that it's wrong to abuse one's self and others by sleeping around with a multitude of people and then using abortion as mere birth control. It's not that I'm not religious at all, it's just that I don't feel that religion is a prequisite for basic common sense.

But you do believe in some sort of supernatural soul, then? I would define that as a type of "religious" belief even if you don't subscribe to any particular religion. My point was that for science nerds like me who believe that human behavior can be explained purely in terms of the working of the physical brain, before the fetus is developed enough to have even the most rudimentary brain function (which can only happen when the synapses form, around the end of the second trimester) there's really no basis for seeing it as any worse to kill the fetus than to kill an unfertilized egg, or a person who is completely brain-dead, or a tree. I agree that a woman who has five or six abortions is pretty dumb because, hey, using a surgical procedure as a routine method of birth control isn't the brightest move, but there's no issue of it being immoral, from my brain-centric perspective.

Hey, I'm a science nerd, too! I suppose it's just that I tend to see the physical brain as "hardware" and the soul, if you will, as the "software". And I have no idea when the software is "uploaded"...but once there's a heartbeat and rudimentary brain activity, abortion strikes me as wrong unless there is some compelling reason for it.

About the quintuple and sextuple aborters, it's also dumb from a strictly pragmatic point of view. My understanding is that multiple abortions tend to increase the likelihood of miscarraiges later on. Those women may find it difficult to get pregnant at all when the time comes for them to circle their wagons.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

As for restrictions I think most Dems woudl approve late term restrictions that were WELL WRITTEN (unlike the partial-birth abortion ban).
I, however, do NOT support parental notification.
I think that is terrible - it puts the power back into the hands of good old mom and dad, instead of the woman who faces becoming a mom, say, at age 13. That's just ridiculous and not right. Your body, your choice.

It's not ridiculous...but it's a catch-22 of sorts.

On one hand, you need parental consent for a minor to have any other type of surgery... hernia repair, heart bypass, cancer biopsy, etc...which always carries at least some risk. As parents are ultimately responsible for their underaged kids, why should an abortion be any different?

On the other...and this is a horrible thought...what if Dad, or Mom's husband, is the one responsible for the young lady being pregnant in the first place? In such a case, requiring parental consent would be turning power over her life to her abusers!

There really aren't any easy answers here.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Hey, I'm a science nerd, too! I suppose it's just that I tend to see the physical brain as "hardware" and the soul, if you will, as the "software". And I have no idea when the software is "uploaded"...but once there's a heartbeat and rudimentary brain activity, abortion strikes me as wrong unless there is some compelling reason for it.

Well, if by "software" you mean something like "the pattern of activity created by neurons exchanging signals" that would be my view too. But again, the synapses don't form until the end of the second trimester, until then any firing of neurons would be random, with no way for one neuron to pass information to another by firing--it'd be like a circuit board where all the logic gates are in place, but there are no wires connecting them to each other. So "brain activity" in the sense of waves of neurons causing one another to activate in a steady rhythm, and perhaps beginning to respond to sensory signals in some meaningful way (by altering the connection strength between neurons at the synapses where they connect), does not begin at all until the end of the second trimester, so in "software" terms I would say there's no difference between a fetus in the middle of the second trimester and a single fertilized egg. Here are some good articles on fetal brain development:

Abortion and Brain Waves
Brain Waves

This goes well with my idea that the fetus be considered pre/non-human in the first trimester, semi-human in the second, and human in the third. This goes along with my belief in a soft version of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", or as I prefer, "ontogeny approximates phylogeny" (all fancy ways of saying that the development of the individual in some crucial ways outlines the basic structural development of the species in evolution).

Therefore I would like to see abortion as legal in the first trimester, illegal but not fully murder in the second, and murder in the third. As for "life of the mother" issues in the third, all attempts must be made to have the baby born alive and stay that way.

This position would royally piss off both the right-to-lifers and the pro-choicers, which tells me it's a pretty good solution.

Yep, honking off the extremists on both sides of an issue equally is usually a pretty good indicator of having reached a conspicuously fair and even-handed compromise position - one that probably would, in fact, satisfy the majority of people, and defuse an otherwise polarizing situation.