View Full Version : Abortion
kitana
03-10-2005, 11:39 AM
I think it is perfectly clear that you are talking about a psychological sympathetic sickness that is well known and has nothing to do with me saying that a baby is made from a woman's tissue, not a man's. A fetus doesn't eat. It doesn't have tastebuds (at least none that it utilizies). Fetuses do not have cravings because they don't eat - . Father's do not experience biological changes during pregnancy, except those that have psychological roots.
EEEKKKK! Hubby has taken over the keyboard, so this is gunna be him typing this comment. Take it away Luke!!!
Jenny, from the standpoint of modern science, you certainly seem well-versed on the biological and physiological end of the deal. Now, if you would, please take into consideration the fact that I am a total crackpot, yet am also a medically-educated crackpot. Now, as for the tastebud thing, I am forced to fall back upon the often ridiculed concept of genetic memory; DNA DOES, after all, contain every genetic code responsible for the resultant organism. In addition, I believe, as do others, that latent traits (I even go so far as to believe behavioral tendencies) are indeed either passed on or created through the mingling process of mother's and father's DNA.
OK! Now for the REALLY cracked part: While difficult to explain, it has nonetheless been proven scientifically that human beings possess an innate ability to influence things around them simply by being there and being who and/or what they are. In laboratory tests, (and I sincerely wish I could cite the source, but I have forgotten the name of the research group) experiments were conducted observed and unobserved, then compared down to the atomic level. The experiments consisted of chemical interreaction and the creation of enzymes. The interesting thing about this is that in the human-observed experiments 92% of the time, the process progressed in a completely different manner than the unobserved experiments.
Now while the end result was the same, the testing concluded that through some "force of will", the experiments were affected simply by the presence of an active observer. Now if this can hold to be true, how far-fetched is the idea that unconscious, genetically-inherent tendencies toward one thing or another can originate within a fetus, only to transfer to the mother herself? Is it not still an exercise of will, be it subconscious or unconscious, which ever you prefer, that could possibly be taking place?
I love to see all the intelligent people on this site, and I think I've broken down now, and am going to have to register....damnit...
By the way,Jenny, I agree with you in that the sympathetic reaction of the father [me...heh] was either psychosomatic, or something we haven't found a name for yet, but when psychosomosis occurs, the essential composition of the subject does in fact change, at least on some level, in order to demonstrate the newly-acquired state.
However I have to disagree in regard to the origin of the "tisues" you guys are speaking of, in that the fetal tissue, while nourished entirely by the mother as you say, IS yet the product of the merging of the DNA of the mother AND the father and therefore neither the mother's nor the father's entirely, but a new resultant strain altogether that maintains the genetic traits of both parents, in addition to new ones created by the merge.
(ok....breathe...)
Sorry for the thesis - I tend to ramble. Why I try to stay away from BBS and forums as much as possible...heh...
Uke
chrissy
03-10-2005, 12:27 PM
So all these people in the inner city, who already have like 8 children, should just keep on reproducing even thought they can barley afford clothes or food for them without food stamps and welfare. Also its not fair they they cant go to college and will most likely end up in jail. If these people could afford abortion they would. I dont understand how anyone could be so naive to be pro life.
Jenny
03-10-2005, 12:59 PM
No one said that the right thing is the easiest thing.
If women would get off the piss pot and be more open to LISTENING to what the father says instead of just "assuming" that everything he is doing is an intent to destroy her or ruin her life...maybe the argument would be a little less "venomous".
Okay, now you are just being ridiculous. I never said anything about all women assuming that men want to destroy them - nor am I discussing what the "right thing" is - like I am going to try to decide that for anyone (I can barely do it for myself). I asked a simple question (and I would be genuinely curious if you had an answer) about how to resolve a disagreement regarding the woman's body during the gestation period if we were not going to grant the woman primacy. The argument can be as venomous or civil as you please - the tone is not really relevant. Supposing that one could introduce a legal or social mandate that called for civil discussion - it has been discussed civilly, and no agreement is forthcoming. How do you think it should be resolved? How do you give the man equal weighting here?
Then, along those lines...fathers should have absolutely NO financial responsibilities to their children. If people get divorced...it's all on the mother from that point out. STOP TRYING TO COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT!! Biological imperative dictates that the MOTHER is the most instrumental in the role of well-being for the child...so, since the father has no "connection" during the gestation, then the same "equation" should be granted once birth occurs.
Again, you are being ridiculous. I am saying that a fetus is made out of the mother's tissue, and that therefore it is part of her body until such point that it is NO LONGER part of her body (you know, birth). I didn't say a thing about well-being for a child. As for "connection" - I have no idea how you would measure or evaluate that outside of the individual's feelings. I'm not saying that men do not love their children, and that they are not excited about becoming fathers - some are, some aren't. Some women are, some aren't. Again - individual feelings. I'm saying that one cannot grant a man control over a fetus without granting control over the pesky woman it is attached to. Child support has nothing to do with it.
Jenny
03-10-2005, 01:15 PM
^^^
Kitana's husband - I am not medically educated, I just know how to read, so I am not really sure what your point is. That the father's genetic code impact a baby? That being loved while "gestated" is a good thing? That a caring partner positively influences a fetus? Because, really, I don't think those are points anyone (including me, and I will argue about anything) is arguing. Although, if you just wanted to bring it to our attention - thanks. The centre of my argument is that the woman should retain full custody of her body, even while pregnant. If you have actually addressed this, then I will feel really silly when you point it out. By the way - I feel somewhat uncomfortable describing either a fetus or a baby as property, biological or otherwise. My point was that the fetus, certainly up until it is mature enough to be self-sufficient, is a part of a woman's body - not just luggage she is toting around under her dress. Or pants.
Jay Zeno
03-10-2005, 01:40 PM
OK! Now for the REALLY cracked part: While difficult to explain, it has nonetheless been proven scientifically that human beings possess an innate ability to influence things around them simply by being there ...
the experiments were affected simply by the presence of an active observer.
Well, sure, Heisenberg told us that in the 1920s.
However I have to disagree in regard to the origin of the "tisues" you guys are speaking of, in that the fetal tissue, while nourished entirely by the mother as you say, IS yet the product of the merging of the DNA of the mother AND the father and therefore neither the mother's nor the father's entirely, but a new resultant strain altogether that maintains the genetic traits of both parents, in addition to new ones created by the merge.
The mass that was contributed by the father to the new human was one cell. The mass that the new human acquires in his or her growth is supplied entirely by the mother. Does that help?
I have little inkling, however, what the thesis had to do with the advisability of abortion.
By the way - I feel somewhat uncomfortable describing either a fetus or a baby as property, biological or otherwise. My point was that the fetus, certainly up until it is mature enough to be self-sufficient, is a part of a woman's body - not just luggage she is toting around under her dress. Or pants.
Then the fetus certainly is, by that definition, biological property, with any human rights that he or she may have being completely subordinate;), up to and including willful death, to the mother's wishes. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, but clearly, that's "property."
SthnrnGrl77
03-10-2005, 01:45 PM
Very much prochoice, except LT abortion is pretty rough, however I think it is much, much less common that some people would want us to believe.
devilkitty
03-10-2005, 02:02 PM
I think we should just all agree to disagree.
BigGreenMnM
03-10-2005, 02:18 PM
So all these people in the inner city, who already have like 8 children, should just keep on reproducing even thought they can barley afford clothes or food for them without food stamps and welfare. Also its not fair they they cant go to college and will most likely end up in jail. If these people could afford abortion they would. I dont understand how anyone could be so naive to be pro life.
The person you described,with 8 children,isnt using the abortion system,she cant afford it remember.
Why would they need abortion to be legal if they dont use it anyways?
Its kinda like saying we need to keep abortion legal because men might be able to afford it some day.
BigGreenMnM
03-10-2005, 02:23 PM
Very much prochoice, except LT abortion is pretty rough, however I think it is much, much less common that some people would want us to believe.
By "rough"do you mean that you think LT abortions should be illegal?
It amazes me when people say they are pro choice,but think LTA's are wrong.
BigGreenMnM
03-10-2005, 02:28 PM
I think we should just all agree to disagree.
Lol i dont think we can.
I think the question will be put in front of us for real in our lifetime and everyone needs to know the issue from all angles so we can cast an edumacated vote.:)
I think roe/wade will fall and be replaced with a different ruling within 10 years.
tootsie
03-10-2005, 03:20 PM
I love chrissy's point! and i will feed off that. here's something to think about: so say a woman has been taking birth control for let's say 5 years, and she gets pregnant, does that mean she should have the baby even though she was taking birth control to prevent pregnancy?NO! now back to chrissy's point, it makes me ill knowing that i'm taking care of other people's children let's say 8 of them, i think it's bull that we have these people out there that just keep getting pregnant that can't afford it but still keep popping out kids. i think that you should get your tubes tied after having so many kids and not being able to afford it. point said, i'm going to ladies only.
chrissy
03-10-2005, 03:25 PM
The person you described,with 8 children,isnt using the abortion system,she cant afford it remember.
Why would they need abortion to be legal if they dont use it anyways?
Its kinda like saying we need to keep abortion legal because men might be able to afford it some day.
If there was a charity for these people to donate money so they could get abortions I would donate.
Jenny
03-10-2005, 03:33 PM
The mass that was contributed by the father to the new human was one cell. The mass that the new human acquires in his or her growth is supplied entirely by the mother. Does that help?
I have little inkling, however, what the thesis had to do with the advisability of abortion.
Well it has nothing to do with advising anyone of an abortion - I think I brought it up because I was premising that a fetus was part of a woman's body, and therefore had to be under her jurisdiction, not that of a man. Although, like I said, it is funny how everybody assumes that the man in question will always, inevitably want the chick to have the baby, so that he can look after it, and raise it or regularly visit and pay child support. Many guys just have a principle about abortion, and getting child support would be like pulling teeth, and many guys would want her (this hypothetical woman that we have impregnated to examine these social trends) to have an abortion. Does he get equal say then? Or does he only get equal say when he is demanding that she carry around a fetus for 9 months?
Then the fetus certainly is, by that definition, biological property, with any human rights that he or she may have being completely subordinate;), up to and including willful death, to the mother's wishes. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, but clearly, that's "property."
I fail to see how. I thought I was actually demonstrating something entirely different. I couldn't have done a very good job. Actually I just had another thread about body parts as property. I don't look at my body as property, and I find it really odd that other people do. I don't think one thinks of one's kidneys as property, although they are certainly part of one's body. Or one's... I don't know, foot. And I don't think assigning human rights to a collection of cells (regardless of how many men may look forward to the day when they get to hold a cuddly baby) is particularly rational.
Jenny
03-10-2005, 03:34 PM
If there was a charity for these people to donate money so they could get abortions I would donate.
There is, in New York. Here termination is covered by OHIP.
hardkandee
03-10-2005, 04:59 PM
If there was a charity for these people to donate money so they could get abortions I would donate.
Planned Parenthood?
BigGreenMnM
03-10-2005, 05:09 PM
I find little difference between funding terrorist to kill innocent lives,and funding abortion to kill innocent life.
Ok other then one is legal and the other isnt.
That in itself is odd to me./:O
SthnrnGrl77
03-10-2005, 06:35 PM
By "rough"do you mean that you think LT abortions should be illegal?
It amazes me when people say they are pro choice,but think LTA's are wrong.
No I think abortion period should remain legal. I think the PL people want us all to think that all abortions are like 6 months and above but that's not true. Would I have a LT abortion ? No, but I'm not going to try and stop anyone else from doing it! I do think it's a pretty harsh procedure, but at the same time I think they are very rare.
Jay Zeno
03-10-2005, 09:20 PM
Well it has nothing to do with advising anyone of an abortion - I think I brought it up because ....
And I wasn't criticizing your relevance, Jenny. I felt your "tissue donation" comment was relevant to the discussion at the time, and I agree with it. I didn't see where the semantic-style thesis by the guest husband advanced any particular argument or analysis.
I fail to see how.
And I can't explain it much more simply. By the principle stated, the human residing in the mom's body has no rights if the mom chooses to exercise termination. My dog is my property, and I can't kill it legally just because I want to. I fail to see how the fetus is not biological property under that concept. I guess we'll just disagree. :)
I don't think one thinks of one's kidneys as property, although they are certainly part of one's body. Or one's... I don't know, foot. And I don't think assigning human rights to a collection of cells (regardless of how many men may look forward to the day when they get to hold a cuddly baby) is particularly rational.
Well, I can donate my kidney. I'd think that makes it "biological property." It's biological, and it belongs to me (unless I give it away).
Sorry, but a fetus is more than a collection of cells. He or she has DNA distinct from the parents, has a brain that is providing autonomic and voluntary thought and movement, has a gender, and most likely has all the cellular and molecular information that it will ever have. If a fetus is a "collection of cells" then so are you and I, which is true, but we consider ourselves a bit more than just that.
However, embryos and pre-embryos fit the concept of "collection of cells" much better, and I wouldn't argue that, DNA or not.
AmericanDreams
03-15-2005, 08:41 PM
By the principle stated, the human residing in the mom's body has no rights if the mom chooses to exercise termination. My dog is my property, and I can't kill it legally just because I want to. I fail to see how the fetus is not biological property under that concept But said dog is not INSIDE your body. And actually you can legally end the dogs life, people have their animals put to sleep all the time.
BTW, I am not advocating putting said dog to sleep, just pointing out for the sake of discussion, that it can be done in a legal fashion
Jay Zeno
03-15-2005, 09:40 PM
I was making the property argument, not a comparative life/rights argument.
I can put my terminally sick dog to sleep. In fact, I've had it done. I cannot chop my healthy dog to pieces or give it a lethal injection without having exposure to animal cruelty laws.
This seems designed to turn what I'm saying into an antiabortion argument, and I am not arguing that.
AmericanDreams
03-15-2005, 10:35 PM
Oh I'm sorry, that is not what I was impling or meant to imply.