Abortion and why it's wrong

To me the issue is accurately determining when a bunch of cells becomes a human being. At the moment of conception there are two cells. Two is not a human being. After division - four cells. Four is not a human being. Those cells, if they continue to divide and specialize, have the ability to become a human being. But, since you can not exhibit the ability to become something you already are, at that moment they are not a human being therefore termination is not murder.

The problem is in legislating potential. You cant do that. Potential is only one possible outcome. If you assume any one potential is definite you are lying. It is only in retrospect that you can say with any certainty which potential endured to become reality.

If we are to attempt to legislate potential then we may as well lock up the whole planet now because each and every one of us has the potential to commit a crime of some kind. Just lock us all up now and be done with it. But that cant happen. So we are left to try to determine when a growing bunch of specializing cells becomes a human being. Once we define that moment, we can end the discussions and enforce the applicable laws.

a reply to: windword

I hate obama care. how long has it been since they passed it? I've read article upon article and well, part of the problem is that you have one side twisting the facts in a way to suit them and they other side is twisting the fact to say something different! "We've got to pass it to know what's in it heck!! They've passed it, and I still can't figure out how the danged thing works!
As near as I can tell, the exchanges can have plans included that cover elective abortions, but they have to have at least one plan that doesn't cover it. States can also elect to not offer any plans that include it and somewhere between 20 or 30 states have done that. And well, there has to be an extra charge to pay for the abortion coverage that is to be kept separate from the federal funds.
But, I have some questions I really would like answered...
first, can someone who is getting their insurance from their private employer elect not to have coverage that includes elective abortions? or do they have to just say no thank you and go out and find a different coverage and pay full price for it? is so, would these people who are griping about their subsidized plan having it be willing to do that if their employer provided one that included it?
and well the birth control thing still bugs me, as far I as I know it's still required to be included in any insurance policy that is acceptable in the gov't eyes. so, well, since the businesses that have a moral issue regarding birth control have been accomodated, are the exchanges accomodating the people who have the same moral issue?
increasing our wages and lowering the healthcare cost so that we don't need the tax payer money would so much easier to accomplish than making this nightmare work!

a reply to: dawnstar

But, I have some questions I really would like answered...
first, can someone who is getting their insurance from their private employer elect not to have coverage that includes elective abortions?

I guess that would depend on the state that you live and your employer. There are a number of states that require abortion coverage, and other that don't so, you have to purchase a "rider" if you want that kind of coverage.

a reply to: windword
there are states that require it? I am getting old, I remember a time when you were lucky if your health insurance covered birth control... don't think I ever was covered for elective abortions.
but that isn't what I am asking really, what are the chances that if my employers decides one an insurance policy that covers elective abortions that I can force him to offer me one that doesn't?

a reply to: dawnstar

what are the chances that if my employers decides one an insurance policy that covers elective abortions that I can force him to offer me one that doesn't?

Nil in California.

Abortions Must Be Covered By Health Insurance Companies In California

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Health insurance companies in California may not refuse to cover the cost of abortions, state insurance officials have ruled in a reversal of policy stemming from the decision by two Catholic universities to drop elective abortions from their employee health plans.

Again, it would depend on the state and your employer. Some employers only have one plan to offer, others have several plans to offer. I' really not an expert on the up to date laws from state to state, and they keep changing and getting shot down by courts and appealed, blah blah blah!

But, the bottom line is that abortion is legal and is sometimes a basic medical necessity, and insurance companies have been covering it without question, for the most part, until the ACA made it mandatory that employers provide their employees' with basic health care coverage that includes womens' reproductive needs.

originally posted by: PageLC14
I don't know. If it were possible to communicate with a cow I wonder how it would feel about us killing them for food.

Haha

a reply to: ForteanOrg

If we could communicate with a cow on such a level that we could ask it such things, we would probably not kill it. On the other hand, there have been (and maybe there still are) tribes that eat humans, so it's possible to consume an entity that has the same or better intelligence. And, as one thinks, would rather live than be served.

And it may even be worse than you think it is. You, as a good ATS member, of course know the motto "gustates similis pulles"

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
To me the issue is accurately determining when a bunch of cells becomes a human being. At the moment of conception there are two cells. Two is not a human being. After division - four cells. Four is not a human being. Those cells, if they continue to divide and specialize, have the ability to become a human being. But, since you can not exhibit the ability to become something you already are, at that moment they are not a human being therefore termination is not murder.

The problem is in legislating potential. You cant do that. Potential is only one possible outcome. If you assume any one potential is definite you are lying. It is only in retrospect that you can say with any certainty which potential endured to become reality.

If we are to attempt to legislate potential then we may as well lock up the whole planet now because each and every one of us has the potential to commit a crime of some kind. Just lock us all up now and be done with it. But that cant happen. So we are left to try to determine when a growing bunch of specializing cells becomes a human being. Once we define that moment, we can end the discussions and enforce the applicable laws.

The earliest surviving babies born early is 22 weeks ...

www.en.wikipedia.org...

So I would think 20 weeks (5 months) would be a viable cut of date?

Personally I think 16 weeks is more than enough.


In the UK the law allows terminations for 'medical reasons' up to 24 wks.

However the majority are performed much earlier.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
To me the issue is accurately determining when a bunch of cells becomes a human being. [...] Once we define that moment, we can end the discussions and enforce the applicable laws.

Spot on! I briefly touched on this in one of my previous posts; the foetus bones do not start hardening until the 12th week, its sex can not be determined then yet and critical interconnections in the brain haven't been made yet. So, most countries limit the period in which an abortion can be done to roughly 12 weeks.

A more pragmatical reason to limit abortions to 12 or less weeks is that up to the 12th week you may use curretage (suction) to remove the foetus; after that you often have to use Finks (in fact: breaking up the foetus into smaller pieces).

I'd like to add that I never met any doctor that 'advocates' abortion. Like euthanasia, an abortion is usually seen as the last resort.

Religion should, and does not have jurisdiction over anyone's body. You're clearly having trouble separating your personal beliefs from other peoples personal choice; two vastly different things. Also, your attacking of people who have chosen to abort a unwanted pregnancy disgusts me, you need to respect the fact not everyone shares your archaic religious ideology. The fact you are a male and don't have the faintest idea of what women go through further nullifies any incorrect points you've attempted to make in the first place.

-One bemused male.

originally posted by: Badams
Religion should, and does not have jurisdiction over anyone's body. You're clearly having trouble separating your personal beliefs from other peoples personal choice; two vastly different things. Also, your attacking of people who have chosen to abort a unwanted pregnancy disgusts me, you need to respect the fact not everyone shares your archaic religious ideology. The fact you are a male and don't have the faintest idea of what women go through further nullifies any incorrect points you've attempted to make in the first place.

-One bemused male.

And welcome to ATS ...



Its like I said in a previous post ....

Those who disagree due to moral and religious views "NEVER CEASE TRYING

TO FORCE THEIR VIEWS ON TO OTHERS!"

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
I've said my piece earlier in this thread. But I've read every post since. Clearly, no matter how logical, the Pro-Choicers are never going to sway the Fetuses Are More Important than Women-ers. So to the latter group I pose this:

Let's say you get your way and abortions are outright banned. What do you have to say about the inevitable increase in crime, poverty, suicides, abused children, abused spouses, increased natal and maternal deaths, strain on the already over-capacity world population, increased amount of unpaid child support, increase in teenage pregnancies resulting in births, increase in single struggling mothers without support systems, increase in illegal and much more dangerous abortions, additional strain on the healthcare and welfare systems, increase in children born severely deformed/defective, increase in infant and child mortality? There would probably be even more negative long term results, these are just the ones off the top of my head. Do you have any thoughts on any of this? Or do you think is God going to magically prevent all that from happening because you 'saved the babies'?

......still waiting. Come on Pro-"Life"ers don't get all shy now. Lets see your side of the debate all the way through.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

As I said you can rationalize it any way you wish, make whatever excuse you want, but in the end you have terminated a human being. You can then never know what that being might have contributed or caused, what path he or she might have taken. To me that is tragic, and murder.

a reply to: xizd1

...........but in the end you have terminated a human being

Correction: "but in the end you have terminated a POTENTIAL human being."

No need to cry over what could have or might have been. Better to look to the future and move forward.