Legalize Abortion?

[reclamador]

---

abortion na woi... hahaha wala ka kahibaw nga pila ka million ang nangamatay nga bata ana...

dili na abortion bro. but that is what the church says is an unnatural method of contraception mao nga dili ang church ana.

NO TO ABORTION !!!

[giddyboy]

abortion na woi... hahaha wala ka kahibaw nga pila ka million ang nangamatay nga bata ana...

hahaha. basin sa sunod ipatuman gyud sa ubang tawo sa Church ug fake pro-lifers sa ilang gusto, ma aresto nata ani ky lagi "Preemptive Abortion" daw ang paggamit sa condom...ma chargan nata ug Frustrated Multiple Homicide...hehe..and all menstruating mothers should not flush their million dead cells aw babies in the toilet but should get proper burial na...hehe

ok enuff na aning joke. seryoso raba kau ang uban nato dre aning isyuha...hehe

NO TO ABORTION! YES TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH! YES TO INFORMED CHOICE OF FAMILY PLANNING METHODS!

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

No. Dependence does NOT imply ownership. Even infants are totally dependent on others. That does not mean those others own the bodies of the infants. The unborn child is a separate, unique person. You have no right to play God with his life. Your logic is simply wrong.



The probability is irrelevant. If the risk to the other person can be avoided, then it should be avoided. One murder is one too many. Abortifacient contraceptives are never necessary especially since there are non-abortifacient alternatives.

No to abortion; no to the abortion-promoting RH bill!

hahahaha.. you speak of the unborn as if its really a person or a human being... granted a fetus is living organism but whats the diffrence between a fetus getting nourishmnt from the woman and another parasite in a woman's body?

ang kagaw sa lawas ug mga kuto sa buhok sa usa ka taw kay parehas ra sa usa ka fetus... they thrive on the food and nour9shment they get from their host... hahahahaha!

the mother is the host, the fetus is the parasite... hahahahaha! the mother as the host does not own the fetus, but as a host have the right to terminate it... parehas sa pagtang-tang sa mga worms sa usa stomach sa usa ka taw...

kung mu-istorya ta ug sakit ug dili kay ang worms di ay wal day gisakitan sa pag ebict sa stomach... kung mu-istorya ta about soul kahibaw ba gyud ta na wla or naa ba gyud soul ang living organism... hahhahaha!!! :P

[giddyboy]

hahahaha.. you speak of the unborn as if its really a person or a human being... granted a fetus is living organism but whats the diffrence between a fetus getting nourishmnt from the woman and another parasite in a woman's body?

ang kagaw sa lawas ug mga kuto sa buhok sa usa ka taw kay parehas ra sa usa ka fetus... they thrive on the food and nour9shment they get from their host... hahahahaha!

the mother is the host, the fetus is the parasite... hahahahaha! the mother as the host does not own the fetus, but as a host have the right to terminate it... parehas sa pagtang-tang sa mga worms sa usa stomach sa usa ka taw...

kung mu-istorya ta ug sakit ug dili kay ang worms di ay wal day gisakitan sa pag ebict sa stomach... kung mu-istorya ta about soul kahibaw ba gyud ta na wla or naa ba gyud soul ang living organism... hahhahaha!!! :P

ahehe. dili ing ana ang sakto nga logic...kanang fetus pre, na porma nana after implantation. so para nako, human life nana...killing it would be abortion and considered crime under our Phil abortion law including that separate RH Bill.

what i consider not yet a human life is kanang sperm ug fertilized egg nga wapa na implant sa uterus...

[Luskan]

Based on a website.....

What is abortion?

Abortion is the removal of a fetus from the body of its host (a pregnant woman) which typically results in the death of the fetus.

What is the essential issue concerning abortion?

The essential question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have an inalienable right to be in the body of its' host against the host's will?

Doesn't a fetus have a right to be in the womb of its host?

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is only in there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time. Rights are not permissions; permissions are not rights. This permission is given by the woman, because it is her body -- and not the fetus's body, and certainly not the government's body.

To give a fetus "rights" superior to a pregnant woman is to eradicate the woman's right to her body. The principle here is: any right that contradicts the right of another cannot be a right, as rights form an integrated whole. Contrary to the opinion of anti-lifers (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig.

Why is abortion not murder?

Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not a human being -- it is a potential human being, i.e. it is part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being, i.e., such as when "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics.

Isn't the fetus "life", and therefore has a right to life?

You are equivocating on the term "life" which is a concept that includes everything that is living. Dogs are "life" but they do not have rights. What about ants? So are trees "life", yet they do not have rights (contrary to the mouthing of man-hating environmentalists). Rights only apply to human beings, and not to human tissue.

Rights apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason (unlike dogs, trees, ants -- and fetuses). Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings -- and not parts of beings -- survive by reason. Please keep in mind what a right is: a right is a moral sanction for freedom of action in a social context. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host. The only action it must take is nothing, i.e., wait for itself to develop using the sustenance provided by its host.

What is the capitalist view on abortion?

Given the above, under capitalism abortion is an inalienable right. Any one who advocates the outlawing of abortion -- like Steve Forbes -- is an enemy of individual rights, and thus of capitalism.

Do children have no rights?

Children, unlike fetuses, do have rights. A new born child, unlike a fetus, is a physically separate entity. A child is an actual human being, with a capability to reason, and thus a child has the same right to life as any adult. However, the application of this right differs in practice from that of an adult, as a child's conceptual faculty is not fully developed. That is why a six year old does not have the right to choose to enter into a sexual relationship -- and an adult does.

Abortion is pro-life; anti-abortion is anti-life and anti-capitalist

[mannyamador]

again u r misleading us here. the Consti lagi did not say fertilization is the moment of conception.

YOU are misleading us again. The Commissioners took a vote and they clearly ASSUMED that conception beginms at fertilization. That is an established fact. Again, I will quote an eyewitness, Commissioner Bernas himself:

The unborn's entitlement to protection begins "from conception," that is, from the moment of conception. The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization. There is however no attempt to pinpoint the exact moment when conception takes place. But while the provision does not assert with certainty when human life precisely begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.

Like I asked before: What part of "conception takes place at fertilization" or "necessary to take the safer approach" can't you understand?

and u also perfectly assume that pro-RH peeps are the only ones who don't like this poll?

The RH side has put up misleading polls before and no one complained. Now that a poll is out that exposes the link between the RH bill and abortifacients, you throw a tantrum. What are you worried about? There are supposed to be more of you RH fanatics here, right? So it's not even likely that your pro-RH-bill side will lose in this poll. Quit whining. Grow up and get over it.

you speak of the unborn as if its really a person or a human being

That's because he IS a human person. Let's throw the question back at you: What's the difference between a newly-born infant (or almost-born infant) that is totally dependent on the mother and a parasite? The location? That's absurd.

If we follow your twisted logic, then you cannot establish the unique humanity of a newly-born child either (or adults for that matter). That's crazy.

And you STILL haven't been able to refute Peter Kreeft's quadrillema. See URL below.

The Apple Argument Against Abortion
The Apple Argument Against Abortion by Peter Kreeft

NOTO ABORTION! NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL!

[Luskan]

Anti-Abortion "Pro-Life" Movement is Anti-Life
by Christian Beenfeldt (June 8, 2006)

The recent ban on abortion in South Dakota is a victory for the "pro-life" movement--and thus, anti-abortionists claim, a victory for "the sanctity of human life." But is it?

The South Dakota law bans abortions in all cases except saving the life of the mother. Consider what this would mean for human life--not the "lives" of embryos or primitive fetuses, but the lives of real, living, breathing, thinking women.

It would mean that women who wanted to terminate a pregnancy because it resulted from rape or contraceptive failure--or because the would-be father has abandoned her--or because the fetus is malformed--would be forbidden from doing so. It would mean that they would be forced to endure the misery of unwanted pregnancy and the incredible burdens of child rearing. It would mean that women would be sentenced to 18-year terms of enslavement to unwanted children--thereby suffocating their hopes, their dreams, their personal ambitions, their chance of happiness. And it would mean that women who refused to submit to such a fate would be forced to turn to the "back-alley" at a staggering risk to their health. According to a World Health Organization estimate, 110,000 women worldwide die each year from such illegal abortions and up to six times as many suffer injury from them.

Clearly, anti-abortionists believe that such women's lives are an unimportant consideration in the issue of abortion. Why? Because, they claim, the embryo or fetus is a human being--and thus to abort it is murder. But an embryo is not a human being, and abortion is not murder.

There is no scientific reason to characterize a raisin-size lump of cells as a human being. Biologically speaking, such an embryo is far more primitive than a fish or a bird. Anatomically, its brain has yet to develop, so in terms of its capacity for consciousness, it doesn't bear the remotest similarity to a human being. This growth of cells has the potential to become a human being--if preserved, fed, nurtured, and brought to term by the woman that it depends on--but it is not actually a human being. Analogously, seeds can become mature plants--but that hardly makes a pile of acorns equal to a forest.

What can justify the sacrifice of an actual woman's life to human potential of the most primitive kind? There can be no rational justification for such a position--certainly not a genuine concern for human life. The ultimate "justification" of the "pro-life" position is religious dogma. Led by the American Roman Catholic Church and Protestant fundamentalists, the movement's basic tenet, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that an embryo must be treated "from conception as a person" created by the "action of God." What about the fact that an embryo is manifestly not a person, and treating it as such inflicts mass suffering on real people? This tenet is not subject to rational scrutiny; it is a dogma that must be accepted on faith.

The "pro-life" movement tries to obscure the religious, inhuman nature of its position by endlessly focusing on the medical details of late-term abortions (although it seldom mentions that "partial birth" abortions are extremely rare, constituting 0.17 percent of all abortions, and often involve a malformed fetus or a threat to the life of the mother). But one must not allow the smokescreen to distract one from the real issue: the "pro-life" movement is on a faith-based crusade to ban abortion no matter the consequences to actual human life--part of what the Pro-Life Alliance calls the "absolute moral duty to do everything possible to stop abortion, even if in the first instance we are only able to chip away at the existing legislation." This is why it supports the South Dakota law, which is the closest the movement has come to achieving its avowed goal: to ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy, including the first trimester--when 90 percent of abortions take place. As the Pro-Life Alliance puts it: "We continue to campaign for total abolition."

The "pro-life" movement is not a defender of human life--it is, in fact, a profound enemy of actual human life and happiness. Its goal is to turn women into breeding mares whose body is owned by the state and whose rights, health and pursuit of happiness are sacrificed en mass--all in the name of dogmatic sacrifice to the pre-human.

[giddyboy]

YOU are misleading us again. The Commissioners took a vote and they clearly ASSUMED that conception beginms at fertilization. That is an established fact.

again, show me the exact words where in our Constitution says fertilization is moment of conception. wala! that's the established fact!

i don't have a beef w/ "some" of the priests who helped made the 1987 Consti to assume that they believe it is fertilization. but hell i do with those who confuse an assumption with a Constitutional provision.

the fact that they, as a whole, and in fact evidence is the Consti itself, did not specify it is simple indication that they too respect other people who believe life begins at implantation.

again, which part of the fact we see today can't u understand? did u see all those selling condoms, pills and IUDs being arrested here sa Pinas? wala. so what does that mean?

The RH side has put up misleading polls before and no one complained. Now that a poll is out that exposes the link between the RH bill and abortifacients, you throw a tantrum. What are you worried about? There are supposed to be more of you RH fanatics here, right? So it's not even likely that your pro-RH-bill side will lose in this poll. Quit whining. Grow up and get over it.

in fairness, the poll asking "what is the role of the Church in reproductive health bill?" is not misleading. it is in fact neutral. in fairness again, the poll asking "do u agree with how the church is handling this RH bill issue? is not misleading. again, that was neutral.

and i didn't throw a tantrum. im only concerned and want to show the poll error that is misleading. and as a member here, i do have a right to do that, right? so quit being such an arrogant p*ick like most anti-lifers out there will u? istorya.net is not owned by u anyway...

[mannyamador]

The Apple Argument Against Abortion
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-mo...hood_apple.htm

13. The Argument from Skepticism

The most likely response to this will be the charge of dogmatism. How dare I pontificate with infallible certainty, and call all who disagree either mentally or morally challenged! All right, here is an argument even for the metaphysical skeptic, who would not even agree with my very first and simplest premise, that we really do know what some things really are, such as what an apple is. (It's only after you are pinned against the wall and have to justify something like abortion that you become a skeptic and deny such a self-evident principle.)

Roe used such skepticism to justify a pro-choice position. Since we don't know when human life begins, the argument went, we cannot impose restrictions. (Why it is more restrictive to give life than to take it, I cannot figure out.) So here is my refutation of Roe on its own premises, its skeptical premises: Suppose that not a single principle of this essay is true, beginning with the first one. Suppose that we do not even know what an apple is. Even then abortion is unjustifiable.

Let's assume not a dogmatic skepticism (which is self-contradictory) but a skeptical skepticism. Let us also assume that we do not know whether a fetus is a person or not. In objective fact, of course, either it is or it isn't (unless the Court has revoked the Law of Noncontradiction while we were on vacation), but in our subjective minds, we may not know what the fetus is in objective fact. We do know, however, that either it is or isn't by formal logic alone.

A second thing we know by formal logic alone is that either we do or do not know what a fetus is. Either there is "out there," in objective fact, independent of our minds, a human life, or there is not; and either there is knowledge in our minds of this objective fact, or there is not.

So, there are four possibilities:

1. The fetus is a person, and we know that; The fetus is a person, but we don't know that; The fetus isn't a person, but we don't know that;

2. The fetus isn't a person, and we know that. What is abortion in each of these four cases?

In Case 1, where the fetus is a person and you know that, abortion is murder. First-degree murder, in fact. You deliberately kill an innocent human being.

In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don't know that, abortion is manslaughter. It's like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street at night or shooting toxic chemicals into a building that you're not sure is fully evacuated. You're not sure there is a person there, but you're not sure there isn't either, and it just so happens that there is a person there, and you kill him. You cannot plead ignorance. True, you didn't know there was a person there, but you didn't know there wasn't either, so your act was literally the height of irresponsibility. This is the act Roe allowed.

In Case 3, the fetus isn't a person, but you don't know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. You ran over the overcoat or fumigated the building without knowing that there were no persons there. You were lucky; there weren't. But you didn't care; you didn't take care; you were just as irresponsible. You cannot legally be charged with manslaughter, since no man was slaughtered, but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence.

Only in Case 4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. But note: What makes Case 4 permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not, your overcoming of skepticism. So skepticism counts not for abortion but against it. Only if you are not a skeptic, only if you are a dogmatist, only if you are certain that there is no person in the fetus, no man in the coat, or no person in the building, may you abort, drive, or fumigate.

This undercuts even our weakest, least honest escape: to pretend that we don't even know what an apple is, just so we have an excuse for pleading that we don't know what an abortion is.


NO TO ABORTION. NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL.
http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/

[mannyamador]

i don't have a beef w/ "some" of the priests making the Consti to assume, or propose that they believe it is fertilization. but the fact that they, as a whole, and in fact evidence is the Consti itself, did not specify it is simple indication that they too respect other people who believe life begins at implantation.

Wring again. The Commission as a body assumed that conception begins at fertilization. It wasn't just a "few" priests. It was the will of the body as a whole. The Commission took a vote on it.

I quote Bernas AGAIN:

The unborn's entitlement to protection begins "from conception," that is, from the moment of conception. The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization. There is however no attempt to pinpoint the exact moment when conception takes place. But while the provision does not assert with certainty when human life precisely begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.

did u see all those selling condoms, pills and IUDs being arrested here sa Pinas? wala. so what does that mean?

It means we lack an enabling law against abortifacients. The act of "Violating the Constitution" does not carry an immediate penal provision. You need an enabling law or a law with a penal provision to punish someone. That's how the law works. But don't worry, an anti-abortifacients law is in the works.

in fairness, the poll asking "what is the role of the Church in reproductive health bill?" is not misleading.

It was quite misleading in that it was taken to imply support/non-support for the RH bill and you know it. Even the comments of you and your cohorts showed that.

and i didn't throw a tantrum. im only concerned. and im even smiling...

Looks like you have nothing to worry about then. You have the numbers to back you up, right?