The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Given the nature of the recent revival, the original thread has been closed. I have created this thread so that the discussion (i.e., the constructive debate about abortion) may continue, but I encourage those of you contributing to the debate to take a look at this post before you dive in (head first, I would assume).

I will be watching this thread closely.

Should abortions be illegal?...should there be tougher laws? ....or should we keep the laws we have now?

well in my opinion we should keep our current laws....I'm against abortions but that's my opinion and it should not affect the choices of other ppl....isn't it weird that the ppl who want tougher laws for abortions like Tony abbot are nearly all males?....that's crap! do they ever have to carry babies? do they have to go through 9 months of pregnancy?do they have to experience child birth?...NOOO!

Edit: How many abortions are there in Australia?

 

[mr_brightside]

blah. its a medical procedure.
who are politicians (predominately male at that) to tell women they can't have abortions?

seperate church and state and get medical professionals to do the decision making.

 

[ur_inner_child]

The previous thread contained a comment about how the majority of Australia does not support abortions, and that 'elitist politicians' write the laws despite the majority. I would like to point out this flaw.

I am not playing the 'majority card' (a majority's view does not always mean their view is correct) but I would, however, like to draw your attention to these two links:

Almost Two thirds of Australia Approve of Abortion (1998 Survey)

Almost two-thirds of all Australians (65%, up 8% since February 1996) approve of surgical abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies, while 25% (down 8%) disapprove and 10% (unchanged) are undecided, the Bulletin-Morgan Poll finds.

On the issue of whether abortion laws should be changed, 47% of Australians believe the laws should be changed to make it easier to obtain an abortion, while 38% believe the laws should be left as they are. Only 10% believe it should be made harder to obtain an abortion and 5% are undecided.

Poll Backs Abortion Laws (2005 Survey)

The push from some politicians and church leaders to curb abortions has received a setback, with polling showing that 56 per cent of Australians believe the present laws are "about right" and very few people wanting them toughened.

I would also like to point out that the two surveys ask different questions.

Do not assume that the number of supporters have decreased from 1998 - 2005.

To spice this up a bit, I imagined the United States to be a little more uptight about abortion, but nevertheless:

[URL="http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/pcc_detail.cfm?issue_type=abortion&list=2]Views on Abortion Have Not Changed Since the 1970's (2006)[/URL]

In a January 2006 CBS News poll, which asked, "What is your personal feeling about abortion?", 27% said that abortion should be "permitted in all cases," 15% that it should be "permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now," 33% said that it should be "permitted only in cases such as rape, incest or to save the woman's life," 17% said that it should "only be permitted to save the woman's life," and 5% said that it should "never" be permitted

 

[Generator]

That's a typical sample for such a political poll, bshoc, and though they don't claim to be definitive, they are reasonably representative.

bshoc - this isn't the thread, and I suggest that you watch your language, too.

 

[gerhard]

bshoc, please take an introductory stats course at unsw. you only need to survey 1000 people for the population the size of australia to get reasonable confidence intervals.

 

[bshoc]

0.00005% is neither reasonable or statistically significant.

 

[gerhard]

err, statistical significance doesnt work like that. any size sample can be statistically significant, provided that their is a large enough difference between the two results.

 

[Xayma]

0.00005% is neither reasonable or statistically significant.

The percentage is irrelevant. Each person is a discrete opinion so taking 5 out of 100 peoples opinions concerned on a subject is less statistically significant then 1500 out of Australia. The assumption is that the sample is representative of the population at large. Obviously if you took a sample from the readers of a pro-abortion woman's rights magazine, then you could claim the sample is bias. However, it might be statistically significant and a confidence interval could be made from it quite well where the total population is irrelevant.

bschoc, you seem to be opposed to the current laws however, as all abortions must be performed for the sake of health, mental or physical of the mother.

 

[gerhard]

0.00005% is not enough to even begin to determine anything about the population, thats less than some high shool student numbers, its agenda pushing and nothing more.

seriously, take stat1001

 

[Xayma]

No they do not speak for it. Which is why in statistics there exists a confidence interval. One could extend your argument to that Population/2 - 1 is not significant enough even if all supported one side. However, a confidence interval would be quite high, and confidence intervals take into account all those factors, 1407 would have quite a high confidence interval.

 

[gerhard]

Firstly I want you to admit that 1407 people in the country do not speak for the other 22 000 000.

Yes you are correct, we can infer nothing from this survey and any others that do not sample the entire population. Mathematical statistics is a complete lie, and a worldwide conspiracy, pushed upon us by the evil 'professers of statistics' or (PoS).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

- Bshoc I don't think you understand the scientific method.
You said...

You found out, considering there have been no studies (becuase in the end nobody can revert to a fetal stage and experience existance for themselves), you were lied to, and brainwashed, by agendists - not at all unlike those poofter rights activist judges.

In science it does not require for us to have 'absolute proof' in order to come to a reasonable conclusion. Just because we have no first hand accounts from fetus's of what they feel, does not mean we can not examine other evidence to decide whether based off of that we feel there is. Of course we can never know with absolute certainty, but that isn't that important, what is important is that we use the best knowledge available to us at the time to make our decisions.

- I don't think you understand statistics.
You said...

Firstly I want you to admit that 1407 people in the country do not speak for the other 22 000 000.

Do you not understand the nature of statistics? The very purpose is to give a rough approximation of the views of a greater population by using a sample to give a statistically significant result with a (small or large) margin of error.

More evidence...

most people dont realize it but probably 99% of your beliefs are determined by agendists rather than you.

Lol. Ad-hoc statistics make me <3.

And that you just don't seem to have any real clue about how the public feels....

Combine that with the fact that we never had a vote on abortion laws (decided for us by agendist judges, whereas had the entire population voted abortion would be illigal) -

See http://community.boredofstudies.org/2464718/post-3.html



- Biology

I don't think you have a basic grasp on the necessary biology to discuss this issue with any meaning, you seem to thinks that 1st trimester fetus's can feel pain where the vast majority of published researchers disagree with you. You can claim they're just activists or whatever, but that just puts you in the 'conspiracy nut' category with all the other people no one cares about.

You said...

If a brain and a nervous system do not constitute suffient structure for pain receptors, by you opinion, then what does?

Erm

the myelin sheath, the insulating cover on nerve pathways that is required for efficient conduction of pain signals, does not begin forming around nervous system cells (neurons) in the spinal cord until about 24 weeks, and not till after birth in most of the cerebral cortex.

Myelination begins at 6 months of gestation and continues into adulthood. This is the sixth and final stage of CNS development. The glial cells (those support cells that are part of the "conveyor belt") produce myelin. Myelin is a fatty covering that eventually coats and insulates many axons to provide for rapid impulse transmission. The cerebrum has both an outer layer (the "cerebral cortex") and an inner layer (the "cerebral medulla"). The cerebral medulla contains many bundles of myelinated axons which give it a white appearance (hence the name "white matter"). The myelinated axons fire more rapidly and efficiently than non-myelinated fibers. True maturity of the CNS only occurs after the Myelination process has fully developed.

http://www.pediatrics.emory.edu/neon.../dpc/brain.htm

They also back that claim up with;

Moore, Keith L. and T.V.N. Persaud. 2003. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. Saunders, Philadelphia, Penn. pp. 350

Morowitz, Harold J., and James S. Trefil. 1992. The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. pp. 119

Usable connections between the thalamus and the higher cortex don't begin to form until about 20 to 26 weeks, with significant development of neuronal activity continuing after birth

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA93C.htm

Chugani HT. Biological basis of emotions: Brain systems and brain development. Pediatrics 1998; 102: 1225-1229

Anand KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. New England Journal of Medicine 1987; 317: 1321-1329

Derbyshire SWG. Locating the beginnings of pain. Bioethics 1999; 13: 1-31

 

[banco55]

I'm one of those 47% who believes the law should be changed to make it easier to obtain abortions because our birth rate isn't low enough already.

 

[BradCube]

I'm really glad this thread was recreated, so thanks generator. I started reading the last one last night and got up to page 16 before it was time for me to get to bed.

It seems to me that the abortion issue, when discussed in regard to morality, must be a completely supportive or completely against decision. It does not make sense to simply change the moral status of abortion if the reason for conception changes (ie rape) or if the result of conception are unexpected (ie, a deformed child). If one is arguing that abortion is wrong because it is killing human life, then one cannot simply change the moral value because the reason or result of conception is undesired.

Any thoughts?

 

[banco55]

I'm really glad this thread was recreated, so thanks generator. I started reading the last one last night and got up to page 16 before it was time for me to get to bed.

It seems to me that the abortion issue, when discussed in regard to morality, must be a completely supportive or completely against in decision. It does not make sense to simply change the moral status of abortion if the reason for conception changes (ie rape) or if the result of conception are unexpected (ie, a deformed child). If one is arguing that abortion is wrong because it is killing human life, then one cannot simply change the moral value because the reason or result of conception is undesired.

Any thoughts?

True. The hardline catholic position is that in the case of rape abortion still shouldn't be allowed. In El Salvador the only exception to the prohibition against abortion is if the life of the mother would be endangered. The answer might be that those who believe it is killing human life have decided that politically they'd never get a full abortion ban so best to settle for what they can get. Though arguing along similar lines I think one of the logical conclusions of the pro-abortion people's arguments is that if you can abort in the first trimester why can't you abort in the last trimester?

 

[ur_inner_child]

I'm really glad this thread was recreated, so thanks generator. I started reading the last one last night and got up to page 16 before it was time for me to get to bed.

It seems to me that the abortion issue, when discussed in regard to morality, must be a completely supportive or completely against in decision. It does not make sense to simply change the moral status of abortion if the reason for conception changes (ie rape) or if the result of conception are unexpected (ie, a deformed child). If one is arguing that abortion is wrong because it is killing human life, then one cannot simply change the moral value because the reason or result of conception is undesired.

Any thoughts?

I agree, if one feels its murder, well then, murder is murder, no exceptions.

Which is why I was more accepting of robbie1's argument (he was consistent) than those who feel it is murder but allows exceptions for it.

The idea is inconsistent.

 

[scarybunny]

People's decision to abort would be based on their beliefs, and beliefs often defy simple logical laws. Yes, if you believe all killing is wrong, you should never abort under any circumstances. But people's beliefs don't work that way.

I guess there's a big grey area in the middle, between "do what you like" people who think early abortion is okay, and the "never abort ever" people. In this grey area are those people Bradcube is talking about, who think abortion is ok under some circumstances. I think the gist of their argument is that, if you've chosen to have sex you should deal with the consequences, but if you were forced into it then you shouldn't have to live with the effects. On the issue of severely deformed children, they might think that an abortion is better than a short life of pain...? I don't know.

Everyone really just has to accept that everyone has a different idea. You don't have to like their idea, but because this topic is so debated (not just on a moral level, but on a scientific level) there's nothing that makes your idea more valid than another persons.

 

[BradCube]

True. The hardline catholic position is that in the case of rape abortion still shouldn't be allowed. In El Salvador the only exception to the prohibition against abortion is if the life of the mother would be endangered. The answer might be that those who believe it is killing human life have decided that politically they'd never get a full abortion ban so best to settle for what they can get. Though arguing along similar lines I think one of the logical conclusions of the pro-abortion people's arguments is that if you can abort in the first trimester why can't you abort in the last trimester?

Yeah true, if we take the pro-abortion argument to the full extent also, why would it not be possible to abort as it is being born? Is the only difference the fact that it is no longer dependant on the life of the mother?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think one of the logical conclusions of the pro-abortion people's arguments is that if you can abort in the first trimester why can't you abort in the last trimester?

Well for me it's about creating a society with the maximum level of happiness/satisfaction. Therefore when deciding whether to allow abortion, it's a question of the pain of not allowing abortion, or the pain of allowing abortion. As up until the 3rd trimester it is a fairly certain thing that the fetus will not feel pain, I see no reason to disallow abortions or make it harder in the first two trimesters. As when it comes to the 3rd trimester, the question of whether they feel pain becomes more fuzzy, I feel it is appropriate that at the very least it should require more possible pain on the mother's side (i.e. that she was raped) to overcome the possible pain the fetus may feel.

again,

I think one of the logical conclusions of the pro-abortion people's arguments is that if you can abort in the first trimester why can't you abort in the last trimester?

If that is the logical conclusion you've drawn, why not draw that the logical conclusion is that you can kill anyone, anytime? Pro-abortion people's arguments generally rest on the development of the fetus and that's why often they do have a different view of late-term abortions.

 

[BradCube]

Well for me it's about creating a society with the maximum level of happiness/satisfaction. Therefore when deciding whether to allow abortion, it's a question of the pain of not allowing abortion, or the pain of allowing abortion. As up until the 3rd trimester it is a fairly certain thing that the fetus will not feel pain, I see no reason to disallow abortions or make it harder in the first two trimesters. As when it comes to the 3rd trimester, the question of whether they feel pain becomes more fuzzy, I feel it is appropriate that at the very least it should require more possible pain on the mother's side (i.e. that she was raped) to overcome the possible pain the fetus may feel.

If we are looking at it from the stance that our aim in life is to create a society with the greatest happiness then I see one problem with this argument. We have not looked at the possible happiness the new human could have if given the chance to be born. Simply not feeling pain does not mean there is not a possibility for greater happiness right?

NTB, did you mean to quote the same thing twice in your above post?