posted
I wonder what Trek tie-ins there are, and if abortions are allowed in the future. The only episode that comes to mind is TNG: The Child, where Troi is impregnated by an unknown lifeform- It rapidly develops and they all gather around the conference table to discuss it. Worf suggests that the pregnancy must be terminated, Riker counters that Worf cannot assume the baby will be belligerent, and Worf declares that to be the safest assumption. Data then ponders that it would be best to study it- and Worf declares that it can still be studied in the laboratory after the fetus is aborted. Riker asks Pulaski if there is any risk to Troi if it is aborted, and then Troi firmly says she�s having the baby.
From this I would conclude that abortion is legal at least in the case of rape.
Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Abortion for the sake of convenience should not be legal. End of opinion.
Okay, that's sensible from your point of view, but what about this law in particular?
Do you think this (lack of a popular vote) is being handled correctly? Do you agree that a rape/incest victim should be legally bound to carry the unwanted child to term?
I'm not bashing you- I just want to hear your reasoning.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I won't comment on this specific law. I haven't seen its text, and I'm not a lawyer. Nor do I live in South Dakota, for that matter, so the specific law itself isn't particularly important to me.
I think that if the people of South Dakota object to this law, their legislators will be replaced in short order. I also believe that the legislators know this, and thus it is reasonable to conclude that, since politicians rarely act for the greater good at the risk of their own jobs, that the will of the people of South Dakota may well be being followed in this case. I don't know the law of South Dakota, but if it's anything like the systems with which I am familiar, this is in fact an issue the state legislature is within its rights to make law on. If the people dislike this law, it will be changed, they are not without recourse in the matter.
I have no firm opinion on whether victims of rape should be legally bound to carry the children. Incest, if unconsenting or under age, is rape and should be treated as such. Incest regarding consenting adults, though, should not be treated any differently than any other pregnancy with regards to abortion laws. I fail to understand why incest is considered a special case.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Because incest is almost always an abuse case. It involves sertious emotional damage done to a child's develoopment (usually by a sexually abusive parent).
As to the "law being changed", that's a hell of a lot tougher than it sounds once it's on the books.
Of course, the govonor could be like Jeb Bush and just ignore the results of a popular vote entirely, yet not be impeached because of overwhelming power of his party in both house and senate...
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"I think that if the people of South Dakota object to this law, their legislators will be replaced in short order. I also believe that the legislators know this, and thus it is reasonable to conclude that, since politicians rarely act for the greater good at the risk of their own jobs, that the will of the people of South Dakota may well be being followed in this case."
Depends upon whether the majority of the voters in SD are as politically malleable as the majority of the voters in the country seem to be. My guess : very probable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I too have always wondered why incest (as distinct from rape, which all child molestations would fall under) is mentioned as being a special justification for abortion. I suppose it's because individuals who are the product of incest carry a greater risk of posing dangers to the health of the gene pool. Of course, just how great that risk is is a subject of some debate.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Omega. You exect civil discourse in the Flameboard? That's not what the bloody thing is for! It's for pulling your opinion out and slapping people in the face with it. And an issue as charged as this one is guaranteed to be a Firebat convention (Starcraft ref.).
All that said, I try to take as pragmatic an approach to this subject as possible. Moral outrage doesn't impress a lot of people. Four thousand-yer-old moral guidelines that have been through many different translations are subject to enough skepticism that they can't be used as a hard-and-fast benchmark either.
I'd come down on the "only in cases of rape and incest, or if the mother's life is in jeopardy" side if we could ensure, as a society, that any children born of unplanned or unwanted pregnancies would recieve sufficient nurturing that they didn't end up adding to the country's ignorant, impoverished masses.
If you want to interfere further, like in this case by disallowing abortion even in cases of rape or incest, why don't we outlaw glasses, contacts, corrective eye surgery, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and all the other conveniences that interfere with what God obviously intended?
So far as I know in this society, we are -- for the most part -- no longer sequestering menstruating women, or forbidding them to touch food. Nor are we killing homosexuals. Who are we to decide which precepts are outmoded and which aren't?
Women have proven over and over, for thouands of years, that they will do whatever it takes if they really want an abortion. Even if they risk dying in the process.
I can't help but wonder how many things would be different if we woke up one day and it was the male of the species that got pregnant...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"If you fuck and have a baby. LIVE WITH IT! It's no ones fault but yours [the child] was conceived..."
Except, you know, when it's not. Heard of failing precautions at any time during your life, maybe?
So, bottomline it for us, should people who most probably can't support them be forced to have children they didn't want or plan for to begin with?
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
A little off track, but a recent headline over this side of the pond was that something like 45% of children in the UK are now born out of wedlock. Now before you make any assumptions, I'm not preaching the virtues of getting hitched, far from it.
My point is that in the 80's there was the big campaign about safe sex because of HIV and AIDS. People used contraception, and because of that teenage pregnancy was low.
The UK is supposed to have the highest level of teenage pregnancy in Europe (or at least the nice bits, and also France).
It seems to me that more people are not taking any sort of precaution whatsoever. So we are left with a problem - more and more babies.
And (this is just my view, so take it with a pinch of salt) alot of these sprogs are popping out of if not underage, young women, who are as thick as shit. They have sex without thinking any further ahead than when they need to be home for tea.
Thick teenage parents = thick babies who start fucking before they can shave, making more thick babies.
Think I'm crazy - take a look in any major town or city over here. The old chavs (say those that are 16) have all ready produced the next generation of chavs to take over from their scummy wanker lifestyles.
The nub of the issue is not to ban abbortion - I firmly belive that it is every womans right to have an abbortion upto the term that has been prescribed by experts, and not to be told what they can or can not do by people who are uninformed but mean well at best and onbstinant pricks with the IQ of wevils at the worst.
The real issue is that in todays society people are not thinking and not caring enough to prevent unwanted pregnancies. South Dakota is going to be up to its tits in dumbfucks having children who will themselves grow upto be dumbfucks not cos they got rid of abbortion, but cos they never drove home what 'If you fuck you will have a baby.'
I asked myself if I was getting smarter, or the world is getting dumber. My moneys the second.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "If you fuck and have a baby. LIVE WITH IT! It's no ones fault but yours [the child] was conceived..."
Except, you know, when it's not. Heard of failing precautions at any time during your life, maybe?
So, bottomline it for us, should people who most probably can't support them be forced to have children they didn't want or plan for to begin with?
Ah, but that leads us back to the issue of SIN, and the real reasoning for opposing a woman's right to choose...
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Mr. Beacon may have a somewhat rantish, foaming-at-the-mouth sort of style in expressing it, but the point he brings up is very relevant to at least the religious right's campaigns against abortion in the US.
If they were really interested in reducing the number of abortions, they would be interested in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. And, even if it is their belief that abstaining from sex is the only morally proper way to do that, they still know full well that that isn't going to happen. The best way to stop people (particularly teenagers) from getting inadvertently knocked up is to make sure they have contraceptives when (notice I didn't say "if") they have sex.
Instead, the religious right has made it part of their mission to take every opportunity to keep contraceptives out of the hands of those who need it. It's blatantly obvious to anyone giving the subject a moment's thought that such an action will increase the number of undesired pregnancies. And that will increase the number of abortions, whether it's legal or not.
Basically, the people running this movement have given no indication that they actually want to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies which lead to abortions. They've given every indication that they want to tell other people what and what not to do, based upon religious beliefs that the people affected may well think are complete shit.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Add to that the most zealous of the Right are the Born Again Christians. Like our President.
People who led a wild, sinful life and now regret it to the point where they'll tell everyone else not to have sex, not to drink, not to gamble, etc, because they already did it!
Fuck that noise.
I'd be seriously intrested to see how many of these far-right wingers were virgins when they got married: less than 1% would be my guess, yet, they'll tell everyone else how they should abstain....
Hypocricy aside, do you guys think the Supreme Court wil now strike down Roe vs.Wade? Most in the Right think not, and that they should have bided their time, but it's been an era of "I cant believe they got away with that shit!" politics...
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Hello everybody, I have certain views on this controversial issue, and have wondered for some time what other people would think of them. To start, I'll say that I'm an atheist abstaining guy (hell, I don't even date).
Let us consider abortion from an ethical point of view. Clearly, if abortion is murder (not just killing, we kill thousands of bacteria per day and nobody cares ), it should not be allowed, but if it is not murder, then no one should care what happens to the potential abortee.
Now, to determine if it is murder, we must start with certain standards. Killing a newborn is obviously murder, and a fetus a couple hours into being born is essentially identical to a newborn (a living feeling being), so just because a fetus is in the womb, should not prevent it from having rights that a baby has. Thus, aborting a fetus in this very late stage should be considered murder with the full penelty.
On the other side, a newly fertilized egg is one measily cell. The growth potential of the cell is irrelevant, all that matters is its current state (yes, it is "human life", but there is nothing special about that - it is just a worthless phrase). Smashing a handful of individual cells is not destroying a feeling being, so an abortion at this stage is surely acceptable, and preventing it should be illegal interference in other people's business.
The question is, where does one draw the line? When should an abortion be considered murder, and when should it be considered a regular legal activity? I would think that this line should be theoretically drawn at the point where the fetus can be considered a feeling being. I define this precisely as the ability to EXPERIANCE cost and/or gain (this is different from 'good' or 'bad' things happening to the fetus, though this might be obvious ). Though this is a precise definition, it is, of course, extremely difficult to actually determine. One would have to be able to consider questions such as, "Is the fetus in pain? Is the fetus content?". When the fetus' nervous system (including the brain) is sufficiently developed, then it should be able to experiance cost/gain.
Technically, the fetus thingie is called an embryo for the first eight weeks of pregnency. Several sources say that shortly after the embryo becomes a fetus, it can experiance pain, and that at about six weeks the embryo has detectable brainwaves. Therefore, I would say that at about this time is where the line should be drawn between murder and legal activity. Of course, different embryos develop at different rates, so a scientifically determined safety factor (eg, to make sure that an abortion does not take place when the embryo/fetus 'might' be considered a feeling being) is needed to determine the precise nature of the laws in this matter, but I'm not a biologist, so I have no clue on what this would be. I estimate that an abortion would be o.k. for at least a month.
quote:Originally posted by Neutrino 123: Hello everybody, I have certain views on this controversial issue, and have wondered for some time what other people would think of them. To start, I'll say that I'm an atheist abstaining guy (hell, I don't even date).
So, you're not getting laid now, but after you die you're fucked?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), it should not be allowed, but if it is not murder, then no one should care what happens to the potential abortee.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). Though this is a precise definition, it is, of course, extremely difficult to actually determine. One would have to be able to consider questions such as, "Is the fetus in pain? Is the fetus content?". When the fetus' nervous system (including the brain) is sufficiently developed, then it should be able to experiance cost/gain.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic