Sensitive Issue

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-01-2007
Sensitive Issue
Tue, 05-01-2007 - 6:55pm

I think that one thing that everyone can agree on here, is that abortion is one of the hot topics of the day that can rile everyone up. I hope that we can all maintain our civility - because I am about to say some things that people generally don't agree with here.

There are a few things to establish before one can enter into the abortion debate. The first of which - is there a right answer to this problem. Well, most people would say no. Everyone has "the answer that is right for them." Well then I would ask you, why are you even debating this. If every discussion ultimately comes down to "it doesn't matter anyway. You do what you want and I'll do what I want." Why are you even wasting each other's time? There is no point to discussion unless someone is right. Therefore, there is truth and that truth is objective and can be found by the human mind.

The second big issue is whether or not the fetus is human or not. I would say that it is absolutely human because of all the reasons that we have all heard before. It has a heartbeat, it has movement, it has characteristics and physiological aspects that can only be attributed to humans.

But is it a person? Well, that's a stupid question because a human is a person and a person is a human. At what point do we separate the two? If you look up "person" in the dictionary the very first definition is "human." Where did we get the idea that these two ideas can be differentiated?

Even if this doesn't convince you... you have to admit the logic of this next arguement. There are four possibilities here:
The fetus is human and we know it.
The fetus is human and we don't know it
The fetus is not human and we don't know it
The fetus is not human and we know it.

If the fetus is a human and we know it, then what right do we have to take the life of another human being? This country is constantly talking about rights and political correctness and not offending any group of people, and yet they are prejudice against a critical group of people: our offspring. Apparently, our offspring are subhuman. Apparently the government has the right to decide that if a woman wants to take the life of her child it's ok, because that child is not human. How is that any different from Hitler deciding that Jews were not human and that anyone who wanted to kill them could. How is that any different from slave owners who decided that black people were not human and they could be beaten and abused. Does our country not raise up against these terrible views and fight bloody wars to stop the inhumane activity. Why then is it better to say that an infant child is not human and can be killed on a whim?

However, if this fetus is human and we don't know it..or if the fetus is not human and we don't know it, how irresponsible is it to decide to take our chances? That is the same thing as someone tearing down a building without checking to make sure it is empty first.

The only way that abortion would be at all acceptable is if the fetus is not human and we know it. I would challenge each and every one of you to prove to me that this fetus is not human. And I want something besides, "well it's just a medical fact" or "everyone can decide for themselves." When I have proof that has been shown through repeated experiments and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I will renounce my views. But that will never happen, because a human is a human and a person and has constitutional rights to life and protection from violence.

Abortion is wrong. Under all circumstances. There are times when a woman is expecting and it is a terrible ordeal. I understand the devastation that comes from rape that results in pregnancy and I understand that sometimes a woman's life is in danger. But there are many ways to work around these other than committing another disgraceful act.

Please be polite in your responses. =)


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2005
Tue, 05-01-2007 - 7:01pm

There is NOT always a way to working around a mother's life being in danger.

Perosnally, I do not beleive in abortion. However, if my death were certain, I would not leave my children motherless. I think that is irresponsible. Also, I do not think I could carry a pregnancy that resulted in rape.

That is why I am pro-choice. I do not pretend that it is not tkaing a life but there are cicumstances in which the mother trumps the fetus.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-18-2004
Tue, 05-01-2007 - 7:18pm


You're joking, right? Here are some of your quotes -




Comments like these, not to mention your very *screen name*, are highly inflammatory. You'll get polite responses when you write a polite original post.


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2006
Tue, 05-01-2007 - 7:23pm

My thoughts exactly.


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-01-2007
Tue, 05-01-2007 - 7:27pm

I agree that it is a difficult situation when the mother's life in danger. My own mother had this issue. The baby was about 27 weeks along and my mother's life became severely endangered. The doctors did an emergency c-section and did everything they could to save the baby. The baby did not live, but it was given every chance possible. Both lives are equally important and equal protection should be given to both of them.

Rape is a difficult issues as well and my heart goes out to anyone in that situation. However, one man's violent act does not justify someone else's violent act. There are situations that come up in life where one's character is tested. A woman may never want to look at that child, and it's understandable. But there is always adoption. The rape issue is purely emotional. It saddens us to think about it and so we want to make exceptions for people. Sometimes people just have to deal with what life gives them. Perhaps people should make more effort towards teaching about safety and apprehending rapists rather than killing what is still a human life.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Tue, 05-01-2007 - 7:30pm


Division 3 - Homicide: Suicide: Concealment of Birth: Abortion

156. When a child becomes a human being A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not and whether the umbilical cord is severed or not.


(Hansard Extract)

Currently a human being is defined in section 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada as follows: A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed,
(b) it has independent circulation, or
(c) the navel string is severed.


In current United States law, at the moment of birth a biological being becomes a human being. By contrast, in declaring in 1973 that abortion is a permissible medical procedure, the U.S. Supreme Court said, "The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." (Hardin 1982:138) The transition to the status of full humanity is viewed not as a biological fact, but as a legal or cultural fact. There is a practical aspect pointed out by Retired Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark: the moment of birth is known, but the moment of conception is speculative. "...the law deals in reality not obscurity--the known rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation." (Swomley 1983:1)


DISCUSSION POINT: What is a human being?

What do the Courts say about this?

The courts have asked this question in relation to the foetus and a corpse. In this context the courts are very much guided by medical opinion, and less by moral principles. The central question they ask themselves is at what stage in the process of birth does a foetus become a person, and at what stage in the process of death does a person become a corpse. Essentially the courts have decided that foetuses and corpses are not persons.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Tue, 05-01-2007 - 7:32pm

congrats. you ended your debate before anyone responded.

i invoke GODWIN'S LAW

Godwin's law

Godwin's law (also Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (i.e. certainty).
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.

Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. See "Quirk's exception" below.

Godwin's law is named after Mike Godwin, who was legal counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the early 1990s, when the law was first popularized. (Godwin is now the legal director at Public Knowledge.)

Finding the "meme" of Nazi comparisons on Usenet both illogical and offensive, Godwin established the law as a "counter-meme," a term Godwin expressly uses in his 1994 article about Godwin's Law (see external link below). The law's memetic function is not to end discussions (or even to classify them as "old"), but to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or is simply a rhetorical overreach.

Many people have extended Godwin's law to imply that the invoking of the Nazis as a debating tactic (in any argument not directly related to World War II or the Holocaust) automatically loses the argument, simply because the nature of these events is such that any comparison to any event less serious than genocide, ethnic cleansing or extinction is invalid and in poor taste.

Richard Sexton maintains that the law is a formalization of his October 16, 1989 post

You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participents (sic) drags out Hitler and the Nazis.
Strictly speaking, however, this is not so, since the actual text of Godwin's law does not state that such a reference or comparison makes a discussion "old," or, for that matter, that such a reference or comparison means that a discussion is over.

Objections and counter-arguments
One common objection to the invocation of Godwin's law is that sometimes using Hitler or the Nazis is a perfectly apt way of making a point. For instance, if one is debating the relative merits of a particular leader, and someone says something like, "He's a good leader, look at the way he's improved the economy", one could reply, "Just because he improved the economy doesn't make him a good leader. Even Hitler improved the economy." Some would view this as a perfectly acceptable comparison. One uses Hitler as a well-known example of an extreme case that requires no explanation to prove that a generalization is not universally true.

Some would argue, however, that Godwin's law applies especially to the situation mentioned above, as it portrays an inevitable appeal to emotions as well as holding an implied ad hominem attack on the subject being compared to, which are classic logical fallacies. Hitler, on a semiotic level, has far too many negative connotations associated with him to be used as a good comparison to anything besides other despotic dictators. Thus, Godwin's law holds even in making comparisons to normal leaders that, on the surface, would seem to be a reasonable comparison.

Godwin's standard answer to this objection is to note that Godwin's law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate semantic impact.

When discussing with actual neo-Nazis, Godwin's law should not typically apply, as Hitler is bound to come up on one or the other side of the argument sooner rather than later. It is also interesting that, among Nazis, a "reverse Godwin's law" exists where, as an argument devolves into a flame war, there is an increasingly greater probability that one or the other side will invoke a comparison to Jews as an insult, much the same as a comparison to Hitler or Nazis is regularly an insulting one.

Fundamentally, Godwin's Law serves to exclude normative considerations from a positivist discussion. Frequently, a reference to Hitler is used as an evocation of evil. Thus a discussion which is proceeding on a positivist examination of facts is considered terminated when this objective consideration is transformed into a normative discussion of subjective right and wrong. It is exacerbated by the frequent fallacy, "Hitler did A, therefore A is evil." (Reductio ad Hitlerum) However, as noted, the exceptions to Godwin's Law are when Hitler is invoked in a positivist manner (i.e. objective facts) that does not have a normative dimension and is therefore permitted.

Other laws and corollaries
Various addenda to Godwin's law have been proposed by Internet users, though the original reference to Nazis remains the most popular. Addenda to the law include:

• Newman's corollary as restated by Gordon
Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is the primordial discussion topic. Any time the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.

• Morgan's corollary to Godwin's law
As soon as such a comparison occurs, someone will start a Nazi-discussion thread on alt.censorship.

• Case's corollary
If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to 1 (i.e. certainty)

• Sircar's corollary
If the Usenet discussion touches on homosexuality or Heinlein, Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.
Note that this rule may seem identical to the previous, but they differ slightly in that the Case corollary states probability, while the Sircar corollary also includes a time limit. These two rules are sometimes incorrectly cited as the same and attributed to both authors.

• Guy's corollary
If a Usenet discussion mentions Godwin's law as a conterrebuttal to a mention of Hitler/Nazis, then the probability of Godwin's law being disputed is equal to 1.

• Van der Leun's corollary
As global connectivity improves, the probability of actual Nazis being on the Net approaches 1.

• Miller's paradox
As a network evolves, the number of Nazi comparisons not forestalled by citation to Godwin's law converges to zero.

• Quirk's exception
Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.'s_law

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2005
Tue, 05-01-2007 - 7:33pm

You are wrong. Sometimes there is no chocie but to either let the mother die or perform an abortion.

I do not think I have the right to tell anyone they *have* to carry a baby or what to do with their bodies.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2005
Tue, 05-01-2007 - 7:36pm


Now you just seem completely out of it. Are you kidding me? Why don't you just tell a rape victim it is their fault?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2006
Tue, 05-01-2007 - 7:48pm

I would have died.


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-01-2007
Tue, 05-01-2007 - 8:00pm
I understand that people say these things - but where is their proof? Is it just the fact that they say it that makes it true? I know I would love it if things became true because I said them. Unfortunately, it doesn't exactly work that way. I still need proof.