Hey guys, I'm new to the site, but I'm good friends with the Martian.

So I was browsing the site and I noticed that the politics section of the Cemetech Empire is woefully silent. And since I know you all have opinions and Martian/I would like to hear them, I attempt to revive this section of the forum.

So the first topic of discussion is abortion. I'll post a new topic each week for us to discuss. I'll also withhold my own comments until there are some arguments to refute/clarify.

Oh Kryptonite, you would have to pick that, wouldn't you?
These guys know I'm a bit of a liberal, so you can probably guess my position on the issue. I am pro-choice, and I feel that while a right to life is important, the right to choose is even more important. If we want our country to be as free as it's supposed to be, a certain procedure shouldn't be banned simply because of political reasons. Yes, I think there are many areas in which an abortion is not the right answer, but there are enough occassions when the procedure is unavoidable that it should be legal.

Ok, my opinion is, is that it is murder, unless it will kill the mother (100% sure that it will) and they are able to determine this relatively early. Otherwise, it is wrong on so many levels.

What if the child is the result of rape?

Out of all honesty, it is not the child's fault, but if taken care of early enough, (like within a few weeks) then it wouldn't be considered murder, because there would really be no life there at that stage.

Hmm, so you believe that the fetus is not life until a certain point? But that point is a while before birth then?

How long does it take for semen to penetrate the egg? I have never really looked into this that much, on the growth stuff...

Let's see - hours or less? I think that it's not life for a bit longer than that.

hmmm, I had heard somewhere that it can take up to 24 hours, but that isn't 100% positive...

Maybe you're right. Still, I think that for a couple of months it's not really "life", even if I was pro-life.

um u probly already kno that im pro-life, especially from my bush support

Ok, President Bill Clinton believed abortion should be rare, safe, and legal. To that extent I mostly agree with him. I think that right now our society is structured in a way so that the abortion debate can never come to a definite conclusion.

Martian and Freak kind of embody this admittedly sad fact given that they automatically tried to classify the debate on whether or not the fetus is a life. Yes that's an important, debate ending question. But there is no way to determine (at least now) when life begins or what constitutes life. No matter how many systems a person may try to create to determine the definition of a human "life", those systems will still leave situations where a person who has already been born doesn't fit the definition.

That being said, two things are important in my eyes that make it wrong to kill a fetus. First, by all genetic definitions that fetus will never be anything but a human being. Sure, it's not born yet, but at no point in its development will it be a reptile or a bird. It is endowed with the genetic make up that makes us human, and so deserves the same title. Since it isn't born, I think we should compromise and that both sides should refer to a fetus as a "developing human."

More importantly, if we can't determine that it is a life, why should we protect it? Two reasons are important and form the basis of the reason why I am certainly pro-life.
1) Society prides itself on protecting its weakest members. Yes, Darwin popularized the concept of "survival of the fittest" but society has, except in some extreme historical cases, always protected its weakest members. This is why we have such programs as Social Security, retirment funds, medicaid/medicare, etc. Bottom line: we protect our weak. That being said, it makes no sense, logically or legally to not protect the weakest members of our race: children, developing and born.
2) Society also has an overwhelming interest in that fetus being born and becoming a contributing member of society. We know the developing human will never be anything but human, and since it will eventually become a human there is a greater probability that the potential human that fetus is destined to become will also be a contributing member of society. So they contribute to our respective nations, and further enrich our culture.

The second point needs clarification, especially because some pro-choicers will definitely claim that we're violating a woman's right to her body for something that might not necessarily happen.
Numerous Supreme Court cases have shown that the State can restrict or with hold the rights of an individual if the individual's rights prevent society from fulfilling a necessary function or from surviving. Obviously the State's interest in its future (the developing human) can certainly overshadow the woman's right to go to Club Med for the weekend. In most cases, the looses outweight the gains.

I do believe, however, that a woman's right to life should be respected. A contributing member should be put above a potential member, but ONLY if the contributing member will die because of the birth. Only in that case can we allow such a grave loss to occur.

But since society can't agree and there are such a plethora of opinions about abortion, for now we should do our best to move toward a time when abortion isn't needed. Adoption programs should be easier, more available and open for younger parents. We should make sure that poor families who cannot handle the burden of another child do not feel that the only solution is to end the developing human's life. We should move toward a time when abortion is looked upon as a societal burden that was a terribly sad occurence and something no longer needed. Safe, legal, and rare, as Clinton once said. But hopefully, in the future, it won't have to be an option for desperate couples.

Feel free to call me 'Kerm.' And yes, I guess you're basically right about that.

Genetically, yes, but to play devil's advocate, evry dead skin cell that flakes off is also genetically human. I think that the point of what species it is may not be the relevant question, but what variety of the species, i.e. is it currently a viable human being?


How about if circumstances are such that if the fetus is born, its environment and upbringing would not make it a contributing member of society?

*Insert Kryptonite's post here*

How many times has a person raised in the slums worked hard, went to a prominent college, gotten a degree, and not only became a contributing member of society, but a major member of their society. And on this line, how many people have been born into very prominent and powerful families that waste their life and end up taking from the society that you would think that they would contribute greatly too. You can't determine to any great degree of accuracy what a fetus will become simply by what it may be born in too. You can make generalizations, but you can not be sure that fetus that is being aborted will not become a CEO, the President, or even the local street cop. All are positions that contribute to society in one way or another that may be filled by someone once deemed "undesirable".

I am pro-life except when the life of the mother is threatend. Aborition is not a fix to your irresponsibility (rape not included).

Rape is the woman's irresponsibility?? How??

He's not saying that at all, Kerm. I think he meant he doesn't consider a child that's concieved as a result of rape to be a case in which abortion should be permitted.

A few things I wanted to respond to: 1) Yes, every dead skin cell does have the genetic code of a human being, so it is part of that human. Obviously no one is going to argue that a dead skin cell should be respected in the same way as a fetus, that's just a tiny bit ridiculous.
2) Godfather's right that a person's circumstances do not determine their future. Everyone is born with the potential to be a contributing member of their respective society. That being said, it is that potential that you erase when you abort a pregnancy. Sure, some people are beaten down by the circumstances of their life, but I'm positive you wouldn't argue that they are worth less than other human beings. Even those born into terrible conditions have the potential to make something of themselves.

Ah, you're right, I misread his post.

I know it's absurd, I was using the absurdity to show how the argument that a ball of undifferentiated cells is any more a human.
Hmm, in a way that makes sense. OK, I'll go with you on that.

rape is in no way the fault of the woman. I am simply saying that instead of aborting the fetus, put it up for adoption. Abortion should be a life saving (for the mother) operation, not a life taking one. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

I understand completely, that makes sense, even if I don't exactrly agree with you. You're definitely entitled to your own opinion!

The only this you haven't clarified Kerm, is the idea that the "ball of undifferentiated cells" you refer to has a potential and will undoubtedly become a human being.

How is abortion justified in destroying that potential?