Abortion a human right?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27384
Printed Date: 29-May-2024 at 01:34
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Abortion a human right?
Posted By: Carcharodon
Subject: Abortion a human right?
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 21:37
|
Recently, in connection with the election to the EU parliament, a female politician here in Sweden said that she thinks that the right to abortion is a human right and should be considered so also internationally. Many women (and also men) here in Sweden agree with her point of view. But some people also disagree, especially religios christians. What do you think, is abortion a human right or is it something bad that should be forbidden?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 22:08
|
So, you want to get into a good one, don't you? Let's start. The rigth to live is a human right. ------------- |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 22:09
------------- Anfører |
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 22:25
Just interesting to hear what people think in this question.
Good so, but what if a woman gets pregnant because of a rape? Or if the bearing of a child threatens her own health or life?
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 22:30
I would note that only the second of your questions is salient given the gravity of pinguin's assertion. I might drop in from time to time; we've had this conversation on here before, but I couldn't find a thread in the last year, so it is fine to open another one. I'll come back if the discussion advances beyond the simplistic, rehearsed opening statements that debates on this topic so often begin with. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 22:38
I would note that only the second of your questions is salient given the gravity of pinguin's assertion. -Akolouthos [/QUOTE] The first question can be elaborated on since unwanted pregnancies as a result of rape also can have serious repercussions for the womans health. Suicide is not unheard of under such circumstances.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 22:49
Then by all means, elaborate.  I'd be a bit reluctant to kill one human being because of a remote and subjective potential threat to another, but various people have certainly sought to justify it often throughout history -- most recently in the case of the Iraq War. If you feel you can make a similar case here, feel free to do so. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 22:50
Come on. You live in an extreme developed and progressist country, don't you?
 Never heared about the pill of the day after? That's legal even in very conservative countries that don't accept abortion.
The vaccum cleaner today is only preffered for those that enjoy human sacrifices.  ------------- |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 23:01
| Until the baby is born the mother has every right to terminate the pregnancy. Simple as that. |
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 23:15
All countries have their flaws. No country is extremely developed. But if one shall brag about ones country Sweden has got rather good scores in different UN listings concerning health care, women liberation, equality, the caretaking of children and similar.
Nothing wrong with the pill of the day after. There are occasions though where it is impossible for a woman to resort to it.
Hmm, human sacrifice is somewhat hash word if you refer to abortion.
At the heart of this debate is of cource questions about when one can talk of a child, is it at the moment of conception, or is it when the cells in the embryo has diversified as much that they take on a human- like form? Or are even sperms and eggcells the progenitors to a later human and thus protectable?
The question many women asks and debates are if the embryo is a part of the womans body, and thus under her control, or if it is and individual of it´s own, thus beyond the womans control. Many people, at least here considers the embryo being a part of the womans body until a certain point in it´s development when it can be considered an individual.
And some women also refer to this as a question specifically for women, and that men ought to have no saying in these matters.
Or as the woman politician, referred to above, put it: "this is a matter for the woman herself to descide, no other people shall interfer in that, least of all the Pope."
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 02:30
Why they don't have the right to kill theirs babies after born? What's the difference? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 02:39
Oh yes. And in porn production as well
Balooney
True is hard.
I bet Romans believed killing gladiators for fun was a nice sport.
Obviously somewhere after conception, but not much. Perhaps no more than hours. Otherwise, if you move the limit there is no arbitrary limit. If you don't believe so, it is more honest and less hypocrite to allow mothers to kill chidren at any age. An idea feminist law should read:
When child can live by themselves, which is around 16 years old. So, women should have the right to kill theirs children at any age, and in the way they want.
Progressive, isn't?
A picture of Baal:
   ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 02:49
Regardless of whether it is or should be legal or illegal, its not a human right. I can't stand it when someone pulls a human right out of their arse then demands that everyone follow it as a "international human right". In Australia, its a human right to have a telephone. I'm sure it'd be much appreciated if we started given other countries moral lectures about telephones.
It takes two to make a baby there should be two who have a say. Of course, if the man abandons the woman that is his say. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 03:29
|
It's a human right.. I agree.. mutual agreement between two persons who involved and with valid reason.
------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 05:10
Once in a while we agree on something. Human life is sacred and even the doctor who was murdered by that nut case had a right to live. I wonder what part of Hell he is in? I wonder when they will start killing babies after birth because maybe they wanted a boy instead of a girl or maybe blue eyes. This is only my opinion but no it is murder plain and simple but say what you want I will not change my view but it is no wonder the western nations are dying and why they will be replaced with workers from 3rd world countries. How many aborted in the USA? Last I heard 45 million souls. It is reality in my country and I have to accept it but I believe the women should be required to go through counseling first and given all the options such as adoption first before she says yes to abortion. Will the time come when someone who has cancer will be killed, for the sake of mercy, even if they want to live. Ooops that did already happen in Florida-hmmmm Heck I am still young and if I should marry my new girlfriend we will have a quiver full of kids and love them. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 09:15
|
Murder, simple as that. Of course extreme cases need extreme measure (woman's health) but if the woman didn't want pregnancy why have sex in the first place? There are many methods to ensure that no pregnancy happens and these are simple, can be reversed and relatively cheap.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 09:31
Sweden is a very small player in the field of pornography. USA, Japan, Germany produces an incomparable larger amount. The attitudes against porn among young Swedes are also starting to get harder and harder. More than 50% of Swedes between 18 and 25 want to outlaw porn completely.
One can in that context also mention that prostitution (or more specifically the buying of sexual services) already is outlawed here.
So there are never circumstances when a woman has no access to such a pill?
To what deity are these alleged sacrifices done?
Unfortunately they did. Abortions though are not for fun but out of necessity.
The limit can look different in different countries and in different laws but will always be somewhat arbitrary. But it is considered reasonable to set it before the fetus gains any higher functions.
|
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 09:41
In principle I agree, it is better to use contraceptives, but if a woman gets pregnant and the child have no real future then abortion is an alternative.
I saw recently a program about prostitutes in the Phillipines. Some of them got pregnant in their "job". On the question why they didn´t use contraceptives they declared that God, or at least the church, didn´t like it. One can wonder if God, or the church, liked their job as prostitutes? On the question what they thought about the risk of being infected with HIV a couple of them looked surprised and asked what HIV was.
One can wonder if not abortion in some of these cases would be rather merciful instead of getting kids that are maybe already infected with HIV by birth and has no real future. But of course abortions are not legal in the Philippines.
|
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 10:21
|
No it's not a human right. Cahaya and Al Jassas covered what I wanted to say pretty well. 1)If a woman really wants to not get pregnant there are so many ways she can make sure. 2)A woman cannot kill a baby if the father does not agree. Since the baby has been concieved, it's not hers only, it's also part of its father. I'd say abortion should be allowed when baby is certainly going to suffer somehow if it's born: 1)baby was concieved after sex without consensus (rape). Mother doesn't want a baby of her rapist 2)baby's gonna have medical issues (retard, criple etc). If that's clear during pregnancy, it can be spared the torture of living. 3)mother and father below 16 (or 18, depends) years old. It's really mean to force a baby to have immature and irresponsible parents, who propably won't stay together (broke family). 4 -dubious-)any baby that its parents agree they don't want. What's the point of a baby getting born and have no parents to love it and care for it. Though I'd say, orphans fall also in this category, yet they often have quite normal lives. I'm not sure about No4 5)If child threatens mother's life. Mother is first priority always. ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 10:56
 I tend to agree. But I'll just add that human rights, whatever they may be, are only possessed by humans, so pinguin's point (and maybe the whole question as posed) is somewhat definition-dependent. Moreover allowing people to exercise their rights is not always a good idea (or a bad one for that matter).------------- |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 11:18
|
I don't think the issue is whether abortion is a human right but whether a foetus is a living breathing human who simply hasn't developed into one yet. The problem with abortion is that its strongest proponents are prepared to ignore the possibility that they are taking away a real life; and instead they spout empty rhetoric about the 'woman's body' and 'its only a bunch of cells'. The more important question is whether a foetus has human rights - which would mean abortion is a violation of human rights.
------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 11:22
No. Stop repeating that nonsense myth. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 11:32
Which is why I don't particularly like the title of the thread; posing the question in such a way glosses over a discussion that we need to have in order to actually discuss the question, and doing so will lead to more "Yes!"/"No!" responses than anything else -- we might as well have a poll. I think the assertion that the child in the womb is not human has become increasingly scientifically untenable, which is why we have seen the debate over terminology shift into what defines a "person" rather than what defines a "human". The term "human being" is, to a great extent, a scientific term, while the term "person" is a social and legal definition. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 11:40
|
I forgot the right of the father, if the father is a partner, spous etc, he has as much right to the kid as the mother.
By the way, why should abortion be a human right while circumcision is on the edge of being banned (at least in Sweden)? There is no comparison between murder and cutting a piece of useless skin yet somehow a dogged campaign against circumcision is all over europe while abortion is OK?
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 11:45
|
Here is a discussion between the politician I refered to in beginning of this thread and an opponent from the christian party in Sweden. The first of these women is in favour of abortion as a human right and the other is against.
Unfortunately the debate is in Swedish but the arguments are the usual that one hear in most of these dabates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0y9AvXwlr4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0y9AvXwlr4
|
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 11:53
Wether one can define abortion as murder or not depends on if we regard an undeveloped embryo as a person or not.
The qeustion of circumcision is a rather unrelated question. Maybe that discussion is not so much about the skin itself but about if we shall accept religious practises that affects people physically in a secular society.
|
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 12:06
I don't. It's the mother's right (with father's approval of course) to end the pregnancy if she doesn't want the baby. Also afaik you can't abort after some months when the baby is almost full formed so that should take care of the sensitive ones. You might think I am wrong but I don't think that a creature that lives off the woman's body is a person |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 12:52
Male circumcision is not on the edge of being banned - it's not even discussed. Female circumcision on the other hand, which in most cases have been shown to be a very dangerous practice, is banned. Many female organisations in Africa have sprung up to stop it. The aim to end this practices have also been adopted by the African Union. Anyhow, it's hardly comparable, as you say. |
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 13:21
I´m inclined to agree with you, but what I meant in above shown statement is that this is the way the reasoning goes in the debate. The time when one can call the embryo or fetus a person is disagreed about among many debatants.
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 14:24
I'll agree that a definition of "person" and the religious or scientific comparison of that with an embryo needs further clarification (on this thread). Without religious knowledge how would we know when an embryo becomes a person anyway? Being that circumcision is an adjunct to this discussion I'll hit upon that too. ...isn't it a secular citizen's right in choosing to keep his forskin or snip it off even if it were for health reasons? ------------- |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 14:25
|
We are in an age where the rights of those who cannot protect themselves are safeguarded in legislation, such as people with intellectual, physical and mental health issues. Nobody would argue that the protection of those that cannot be a voice for their own wellbeing in this sphere is wrong, yet there seems to be huge opposition when it comes to abortion. Time after time the justification 'it's my body' is thrown about, but what does that actually mean? Inside that body, which is undoubtedly yours, is an unborn child that is the product of two people, 23 chromosomes each. This unborn child, in a safe abortion, must also be interfered with by a doctor or other healthcare professional in order to abort it. Therefore, for me, 'it's my body' is a weak excuse, because for three reasons, your body is not the only thing involved.
The question as to whether the unborn child is sentient or not when the abortion takes place, the 'bundle of cells' people talk about, is another much quoted excuse. For me, the use of a condom is ok, because you are stopping the interaction between the sperm and the egg, just like having a blue dream at night also doesn't cause pregnancy. There is no fundamental ethical issue there. But, when the sperm meets the egg, and implants itself into the lining of the womb (because before implantation the pregnancy is almost impossible in terms of success) for me, the unborn child has the full potential for growth and must be protected.
The only reason why any of us are here to argue about the ethical, moral, and personal implications of abortion is because we were not aborted, and are lucky enough to have lived long enough for symbolic thought. It's easy to say you think abortion is ok when you are here to say it, but why should we have the right to decide who and when the next generation comes into being? We simply don't have that right. I am not religious, but on this one issue I think that we need to consider very seriously the moral impact of abortion, especially because those that we are victimising don't have the voice to give us their side of the story.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 15:57
This issue of male circumcision is one I haven't heard discussed before. However, your argument there would mean that any medical procedure should never be carried out on a child because it is every citizen's right to decide what should be done with his body. How about snipping out the tonsils and adenoids? Or amputating a gangrenous limb? Or repairing a hare lip or cleft palate? Should children be allowed to smoke on the grounds that as adults they might choose to? Should children not be vaccinated because it is a citizen's right to refuse vaccination?
You have a responsibility for the welfare and health of your children (and failing that the state has). Personally I was circumcised as a child, not for any religious reasons but because it was deemed a healthful practice at least back in the '30s. I don't know what current medical opinion is but I'm pretty sure it has helped me avoid some infections and irritations that I might otherwise have suffered from.
I don't see a parallel with abortion at all. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 16:04
|
By George I agree. Don't see how you could have seen it any other way but you did. In response to the great man-eating shark I created my post as a thought provoking alternative to his stance. Of course, we have a right as secular citizens to have a choice. Being that kids fall under the jurisdiction of their guardians it's the conscientious guardian who can make that choice as well. However, it looks as if you believe in the notion that medical procedures are not our choice and we don't have a say (I hope I misunderstood you). We are not forced to have a tonsillectomy or circumcision are we? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 16:10
|
Sorry. I guess i was suffering from a touch of the literals. Probably I should have been vaccinated against it as a kid
------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 16:13
 I thought so. You're still the wisest literal around!
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 16:22
Another pro-abortion semantic trick.
The matter is not if the child is a person or not. The problem is if it is a human being.
In my case, I am not going to judge the killings of babies that are practised by abortionist countries. I am only judging its HYPOCRESY.
If they allow to kill children inside the womb, why they send women to jail if they kill a four year old child? What's the difference? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 16:42
How can u categorize an incomplete form of human as a child? Unless abortion is done during the 6th - 9th mth of pregnancy.. In fact, it is dangerous for the mother to proceed with abortion procedure during that period. Seriously, I don't agree with abortion in some extend but if it is necessary why not. Sounds inhuman, no doubt. ------------- |
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 16:47
Genetically the fetus is a human being, but then genetically a sperm or an egg is half a human being. But I can agree that the limit can be somewhat arbitrary. But a fairly undeveloped embryo are maybe not more human than a sperm is half human.
But according to some even the sperms are sacred
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 17:01
That's false. You know that.
Don't speak balooney. Sperm is not more human than mucus. A human being starts at conception.
So, the problem really is if people (or woman in particular), have the right of getting rid of human beings if they please.
Why don't you guys accept something as simple as that and state in laws?
In Sweden, murder of human beings are allowed before 9 months of age
Or are you guys scared that by recognizing aborting is murder, you get the evil genious out of the bottle? Who is next? The grandmother? the idiot of the family? The Black or the Jew?
------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 17:02
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 17:05
|
Abortion is a sport of feminist, to display pride. Nothing else.
Killing and dispossing theirs babies in the garbage they show they are really women. Then addopts an African child or a pet when they grow old, so someone cares from them at the time.
There is not technical reason to resort to abortion these days, whatsoever, specially after the day-after pill. ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 17:13
|
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 17:23
B. What does adoption have to do with a woman having an abortion in your post above. You clearly don't understand the social stigma that abortion has (at least here in the US). Most women who have them done live in shame (whether self-imposed or imposed by their social group). Getting an abortion doesn't show that a woman "is a real woman." Again, you are sensationalizing and talking about things about which you do not know. C. You're ok with the morning after pill but not the abortive procedure? What do you think the morning-after pill is? It is essentially an abortion in a pill. Don't be a hypocrite, Pinguin.
|
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 17:48
That´s rather simplistic anti abortion propaganda.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 18:09
|
**mod chip on**
Guys tempers heating up, please assume good faith. I know opinions are divided on this issue and passions heat up, but lets act as the responsible adulys here.
**mod chip off**
So lets say we ban abortion. Then what? It won't go away, it'll only become the province back street practioners, with dubious qualifications and even more doubtful hygine. What will be the result, you'll see 16 year old girls having their utreus removed due to gas gangerene (and ending her chance of having a family ever) because of one abortion done by Dr. Dirtyneedles Cantgetjobelsewhere has gone badly wrong ------------- |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 18:16
If you didn't laugh you'd cry. ------------- |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 18:19
I agree with you there Spartan - technically speaking I am anti abortion. Principally on the grounds that its murder of the unborn in my eyes. However, before it was legal it was an utter disgrace. Women dying after sticking clothes hangers up themselves... Its something that has to be regulated and minimised as much as possible. In some ways its become something like a form of birth control, thats the real problem. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 18:28
|
Organised crime is of course licking its lips at the prospect of abortion being made illegal. ------------- |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 18:31
|
pinguin you remind me of the demagogues I see in TV. Until the baby becomes an organism capable of living outside the mother, she has every right to get rid of it, if it threatens her health/quality of life. When the baby is formed abortion is impossible anyway |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 18:34
Pinguin is hardly a demagogue. I can think of far harsher descriptions  ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 18:39
|
What did I say about avoiding personal attacks Vorian? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 19:14
Indeed. That's why abortion should be called murder. And that is it. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 19:15
Indeed. I remember you laugh about the Irish genocide, too. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 19:18
Don't repeat here, please, the religious mantra of the abortionists... or followers of Baal if you preffer ...
This is an aborted baby, if you haven't seen one:
**Edited by Seko** Pinguin, though the image you had provided (which has been removed) was fitting for your argument it was a CoC violation (graphic images). I hope you do understand. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 19:36
|
The traditional position in the English Common Law (also valid in the US after the revolution) was that abortion is allowed before the point at which the fetus demonstrates its life by moving around in the womb. When it 'quickens' to use the contemporary term.
The situation changed with statute in 1803 and there was a strengthening of the law in 1861, but it still only proscribed 'unlawful' termination of the pregnancy, leaving it open that there could be lawful termination: the case of Rex v Bourne in 1938 defined as one lawful reason concern for the life or health of the mother.
When the situation changed in the US I don't know, but there would necessarily be 9th Amendment issues involved. The Roman Catholic position only changed to considering life beginning at conception in 1869 (Pope Pius IX), until then life - 'ensoulment' was assumed to begin, as in England and the medieval and early modern world generally, when the fetus quickened.
Early Christianity, probably because of the influence of some Jewish thinkers, banned abortion, and as I udnerstand it, the Orthodox tradion kept to that, but St Augustine, St Jerome, Pope Innocent III and St Thomas accepted the Aristotelian concept of abortion being legitimate in the early stages - i.e. prior to ensoulment.
Majority Jewish thinking however takes the position that the fetus only becomes fully human on emergence from the womb: however, various schools interpret abortion as unacceptable, particularly after a quickening period, as being a interference with the emergence of a potential human. Abortion to save the mother is on the whole seen rather as self-defence on the part of the mother.
As I understand it, most Islamic schools accept that ensoulment happpens after 120 days in the womb, though not all accept that that makes abortion acceptable.
Most other of the world's religions, especially in the ancient world, seem to have found both abortion and infanticide acceptable.
As King John pointed out, advocating the morning after pill instead of abortion is sheer hypocrisy or ignorance. It is an abortifacient (when it works).
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 19:42
What he laughed at there was your pontification about something you obviously knew nothing whatsoever about. ------------- |
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 19:51
You cant murder a lump of cells, it´s like calling using a condom murder of a lot of sperms.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 20:03
That's false. We had that debate here long ago, and it acts against the implant of the fertilized egg on the womb. For people that believe the egg is not really a fetus before it implants, there is no problem of concience.
And it works. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 20:04
You, Carcharodon, are only a lump of cells. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 20:10
|
Thread closed for a cooling 24 hour off period.
------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2009 at 15:16
|
Thread re-opened. As a reminder please remember that insidiously flattering one another with personal attacks will only end up in a dreaded warning, otherwise please continue with the debates and keep your heads cool. ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2009 at 18:20
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2009 at 18:45
|
Moreover the pill sometimes results in the rejection of an implanted egg. ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2009 at 19:04
|
In regards to the religious aspects of the abortion debate I have done a little research. I am Jewish as many of you know, so I researched what my religion says on the issue. What I found seems to be split. Halacha (Jewish Law) defines when a fetus becomes a human being, it happens once the head emerges from the womb. It is interesting to note that modern-Judaism takes the position that abortion is permissible under a certain set of circumstances. Those circumstances are: abortions are permissible to save the mother's life or health and each case must be decided individually with a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law. According to the Talmudic tradition the fetus is seen as part of the mother and subhuman. The Talmud actually contains this expression ubar yerach imo (the fetus is as the thigh of its mother). Also found in the Talmud is this expression lav nefesh hu, meaning "it is not a person." The basis for these two statements is Exodus 21:22-24. In this chapter and verse what is described is causing a miscarriage while fighting, Exodus says if no injury is caused to the woman but she gives birth prematurely/miscarries the man who struck her only has to pay a fine to the husband of the woman. As you can see here an unborn child in the Jewish Tradition is part of the mother and not a human being. The Talmud goes on in two other passages about abortion, both passages imply that the fetus is part of the mother and not a separate entity. The first passage says if a man buys a cow and that cow is pregnant then he owns both the cow and the fetus. The second passage says if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, her conversion applies also to the fetus. I will do more research on the subject but it seems to me that Judaism does not see abortion in the same light as Western Christianity.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2009 at 21:30
|
Islam seems split even amongst the schools. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2009 at 22:10
|
Indeed as Sparten said, there is a huge difference between different legal schools in Islam about abortion. Each school has its own different views that conflict from the very liberal to the very extreme. For example I just looked two fatwas from two major scholars here in Saudi Arabia. both are considered on the right but one is more liberal than the other. The more liberal guy calls it murder and forbids abortion at all especially after 4 months where he calls it muder.
The other guy, who is in general more extreme, is the opposite. He consider it murder only after 120 days and before that he allows it in case of rape and medical reasons but forbids it if the woman wants abortion just for abortion's sake.
In other schools like the Hanafi school most scholars allow abortion with or without any reason as long as it happens in the first 40 days. Some even go as far as allowing it for the first 120 days even.
All in all, most scholars see no major problem in abortion in the first 40 days, between 40 and 120 is debatable and are unanimous in prohibiting abortion after 120 days.
Recent trends however tend to prohibit abortion completely not for any reason other than "why should we be so liberal when other people from other religions are extreme?"
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 11:24
Well, as far as I know the canonical prohibition against abortion has always held in both the East and the West, and that separate from the debate over the moment of ensoulment. Whether or not it has been considered "murder" has been the subject of discussion in the West on several occasions. Generally among the earliest fathers -- and here I am speaking from memory, so forgive me if I am mistaken -- the child was thought to be a separate human being from the moment of conception. Augustine did represent a shift in that, while still condemning the practice of abortion, he asserted a distinction between an animate and an inanimate child in the womb. Still, he suggested that the inanimate child may yet be given a place at the resurrection of the dead. Eventually, Thomas Aquinas drew further distinctions -- between several different stages of soul development -- vegetative, animal, and rational. Still, these distinctions had more to do with whether or not abortion and murder were the same criminal act; both affirmed that abortion was an offense against human life. The question of ensoulment is generally not discussed as much in the East, which does not view it as directly pertinent to the question over whether or not abortion constitutes murder. Saint Basil explicitly affirms that no "subtle distinction" is to be made between a formed and an unformed fetus, and that in both cases an abortion is a murder. Interestingly enough, Eastern theology holds an exception for cases in which a mother's life is at stake -- and suggests that she and her family should seek the counsel of her spiritual father, while keeping in mind that two lives are at stake. The Roman Church generally only holds an "exception" in cases where the principle of "double effect" would apply (eg. in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, if the fallopian tissue were already destroyed, it could be removed, which would have the result -- but not the goal -- of killing the child). Forgive me, but I am less familiar with Roman canon law post-Schism than I should be. Generally, the advent of modern genetic research has resolved the vestigial remnants of the debate over ensoulment, and it is now almost universally held in East and West that the soul is present from the moment of conception -- the East generally did not address the question with the same degree of philosophical sophistication; the West has come full circle on this, as the earliest fathers and apologists in both East and West tended not to speculate all that much about Aristotelian notions of ensoulment (cf. Tertullian, although, forgive me, I can't recall where). As for why the early fathers were so convinced, in contrast to some Jewish and Greek philosophers, that ensoulment took place at the moment of conception, I'm not entirely sure, but I could propose a hypothesis and an explanation of where it came from. From Apostolic times the Church has been opposed to what is often translated as "sorcery" in English editions of the Bible (as in Galatians 5: 19). The word is φαρμακεία, and it describes a wide variety of practices, of which administering abortofacients is one. Coupled with this is the fact that the early apologists found it necessary to affirm the Church's stance on abortion as a refutation of the charges of cannibalism and infanticide that were constantly levelled against the early-Christians by their pagan and Jewish critics. Thus, the principle that the child is ensouled from the moment of conception serves as a demonstration of the absurdity that Christians, who prohibited even the destruction of the child while yet in the womb, were would kill the child once it had been born, or to feast on human flesh during agape meals. I hope that adds a bit of perspective; feel free to ask me to clarify once I'm back with my books. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 13:37
Abortion a human right?No, its a civil right in most modern secular countries.The religious part is personal. This is not really about ethics as much as access to safe and clean facilities for women to make their choice. Make it illegal and you will force the desperate ones, that will do it anyway, into harms way. Such facilities should never be easy access points, but they must be made available. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 13:48
|
Akolouthos: "Coupled with this is the fact that the early apologists found it necessary to affirm the Church's stance on abortion as a refutation of the charges of cannibalism and infanticide that were constantly levelled against the early-Christians by their pagan and Jewish critics. Thus, the principle that the child is ensouled from the moment of conception serves as a demonstration of the absurdity that Christians, who prohibited even the destruction of the child while yet in the womb, were would kill the child once it had been born, or to feast on human flesh during agape meals. I hope that adds a bit of perspective; feel free to ask me to clarify once I'm back with my books. -Akolouthos " It is a bit ironic that today some Christian missionaries are accusing Native Americans in the Amazon region for infanticide. Also many times earlier missionaires has accused diverse indigenous peoples for cannibalism.
In the case of the infanticide charges, missionaries in Brasil are now acting for a law that makes it possible to remove native children from their parents. This is a part of a western tradition in removing children from their indigenous parents to gain control over their upbringing and education that earleir has been executed in both the US and in Australia.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 19:23
neither. why do Sith, i mean people, always think in absolutes? |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 19:57
Abortion is not a human right, but a cultural right of some nations. A nation can choose to forbid or restrict abortion due to religious or cultural grounds. This nation is not guilty of "violating human rights" anymore than Islamic countries violate human rights by restricting or banning alcohol.
The efforts of some "progressive" nations to define abortion as a fundamental human right is an example of cultural imperealism. Unfortunatly, the cultural view (abortion) that is being exported is nihhilism.
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 20:10
|
Take my word on it - something else was the case.
------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 22:04
Don't see what that has to do with the discussion, but okay. On a serious note, I am not familiar with the situation to which you have referred, but yes, that is a part of the Western tradition -- though it is not part and parcel of Christianity. Generally, as we have said before, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been fairly respectful of indigenous cultures, even incorporating those local traditions that can be incorporated into a Christian framework. Historically, Protestant missionaries have been less so; take the situation that existed among Alaskan natives until fairly recently. As far as the irony goes, I don't see it (at least not a great deal of it); the situations are quite historically distinct. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 22:07
I believe you. What was probably shown was the graphic murder of a human being.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 22:17
While I agree with your stance on the issue, and while I think that people need to be exposed to these images, this is not the place in which to do so. The CoC specifically prohibits graphic images in general. Most people on this forum are aware of what these images look like, even if some try not to think about the reality -- for those who are not aware, I would encourage them to look at some of the images. That said, we cannot post them on this forum anymore than we could post graphic pictures of any other murder, a war-zone, etc. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2009 at 22:31
|
^ I agree, such photos should not be shown here. I just had to point of the irony, a fetus is claimed by many to be simply a collection of cells yet photos showing abortion remains are considered graphic and similar to showing photos of murder victims.
|
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 08:44
If i may ask, was it Gudrun Schyman that called that a human right? She's the only one i can think of using those words. I wouldn't call it human right but a necessity for some people. If i personally had a problem with unexpected pregnancy, i would simply swallow it and take responsibility for my actions. It would really kill me, to think that i've killed an embryo just for a f*ck. And i'm not christian to take it to some theological theory. For me it's a matter of ethics and responsibility. On the other side, some very young people are standing with a dilema of being a parent while not being able to take care of themselves (personaly and financially). In that case a child might bring chaos in their lives and the option of keeping the baby requires nerves of steel and an "express growup". Some might say that back in the days youngsters became parents and grew up wonderful children and therefore people today should do the same. However, in our times the standards are different. You don't bring a child to the world if you can't provide it a quality of living, meaning that you have a job and you can support yourself. In such cases i understand the choise of some people that were "unlucky" or had "an accident" let's say. However, I strongly condemn people who frequently do not take precautions and are predetermined that if a child arrives they will make an abortion. Those are pittyful and usually they've done it more than two or three times in their lives. What is worrying is that someone in Sweden with influence said that and some people tend to take such things as a dogma ("Det är en mänsklig rättighet att göra abort!" some will claim with passion). The abortion rate is already high and i'm afraid if the term "human right" is passed to the people the rate will explode. PS: I lost a brother when i was a kid, that had never the chance to get born (for physical reasons not abortion) and that's why i feel i have a sentimental view on this subject and i know an unborn human is still a human with the difference we've never seen him/her. -------------  
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 20:41
|
Flipper: If i may ask, was it Gudrun Schyman that called that a human right? She's the only one i can think of using those words. Yes, it was indeed Gudrun Schyman. Here you can hear her debating this issue with Chatrine Pålsson Ahlgren from KD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0y9AvXwlr4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0y9AvXwlr4
|
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 20:55
|
Akolouthos: Don't see what that has to do with the discussion, but okay. On a serious note, I am not familiar with the situation to which you have referred, but yes, that is a part of the Western tradition -- though it is not part and parcel of Christianity. Generally, as we have said before, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been fairly respectful of indigenous cultures, even incorporating those local traditions that can be incorporated into a Christian framework. Historically, Protestant missionaries have been less so; take the situation that existed among Alaskan natives until fairly recently. As far as the irony goes, I don't see it (at least not a great deal of it); the situations are quite historically distinct. -Akolouthos Both Protestants and Catholics in different countries have now and then taken away indigenous peoples children just to raise them as Christians and to "civilize" them.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 21:58
Yes, I was drawing a historical generalization -- a valid one, I think. Incidentally, would you believe that the practice of taking children from their parents as a means of eultural domination predates Christianity? -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 22:03
It showed a small human being, decapitated and in pieces, but with limbs and body clearly visible as human.
A small being that lacked all rights and that was thrown in a garbage can.
That's all.
Sorry to shock people for shown how a "bunch of cells" looks like, after being decapitated. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 22:05
And the Pope acusses developed countries of massive infanticide as well. So what's the difference? ------------- |
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 23:00
|
The difference is that the christian accusasions can directly influence Native American peoples lives in that they get their children taken away from them (as I mentioned this is and old christian/western tradition to take away indigenous peopls children to be able to raise them as christians and to "civilize" them). When it concerns the developed countries they will not change their abortion policies just because the Pope wants that so his words in that case has not so much direct impact on peoples lives.
It seems that the Pope makes some strange statements in several questions, as the statement when he claimed that the using of condoms in Africa would lead to a worsening of the problem with people getting infected by HIV.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 23:20
|
I would allow any woman to have an abortion, given they see their fetus in pieces. That's the only condition I would put.
I found it ridiculous that abortionists use censorship to forbid the display of such crimes, just to protect the people who commit them. It is like to forbid murdered to see pictures of theirs dead victims. ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 00:18
2. The murdered can't see any pictures because they are the victims and by definition deceased. I believe you want your sentence to read: "It is like forbidding a murderer to see pictures of their dead victims." However, the point implied with this statement is not even close to comparable to abortion. By this I mean that a murderer viewing pictures of his/her victim(s) is tantamount to discovery (a legal principle whereby the prosecution in a case has to turn over to the defense all documentation, evidence, and witness lists). Pictures of murder victims (the murdered, if you will) are essentially evidence of a crime used to show the jury the affects of the actions of the accused; used much like video footage of a crime. It should be pointed out that pictures of murder victims are rarely used in trials. Pictures of dead fetus' are just meant to shock people, nothing more. Abortion is legal in many states and therefore a picture of a dead fetus is not evidence of a crime, it's like showing a child who had a compound fracture of the leg (that is a fracture where the bone is protruding from the skin). Both are gross and hard to look at but neither is evidence of a crime. 3. Not all people who are pro-Choice would actually get an abortion performed. Some would not be able to go through with an abortion but still think that the right of a woman to choose what her options are is tantamount to her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Please don't act like people just go into an abortion willy-nilly, that's just not the case. There are many things to consider when one is deciding whether or not to get an abortion and nobody makes those decisions easily. On this issue you are talking about things about which you don't know. It's ok to have an opinion about an issue such as this but it's not ok to make somebody, who has a different opinion and who has acted on what she decided was right for her, feel bad. The fact of the matter is she is already anguishing over what she is doing but ultimately the only one who knows if she is making the right decision is her. So, again, get off your high horse!
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 02:05
That's nonsense. I don't think you nor me nor most other AE users will be very happy to see photographs of open heart surgeries. Yet nobody has ever claimed that because open heart surgeries look gory they should be banned. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 02:05
|
What you don't understand, King John, is that people in Latin America has seen hundred of hours of reports on abortion, where the babies killed are shown literally. Most of those movies and reports have been filmed in North America, but sold overseas because showing there is forbidden.I wonder what your public would feel if the had the chance to SEE the truth. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 03:14
No doubt they can have an influence, but there isn't anything particularly "Christian" or "Western" about them. Indeed, they are methods that have been rather generally employed, throughout history, by "civilized" peoples against "barbarous" peoples as a means of exerting cultural hegemony.
Suffice it to say, by way of response, that the Pope represents the Roman Catholic Church, and as such is not my representative -- although I do generally consider him a better voice for morality and ethical standards than the sorts we have generally put in charge of such things in the modern era.
I understand that you have prepared criticisms which you've been dying to voice against every aspect of the Christian faith, but it would really be easier for all of us if you could keep them relevant to the context of our discussions. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 04:21
2. Show me one law that forbids those pictures being shown in the USA. When were these laws enacted? If you go to any Planned Parenthood you can see a number of protesters holding pictures of aborted fetuses; I've seen billboards on highways with pictures of aborted fetuses in the USA. The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that activists can show pictures of aborted fetuses. There is a planned parenthood not far from where I live (within 1 mile) that has protesters out front on a regular basis with pictures of aborted fetuses. There are a number of documentaries done on abortion that have been shown in the US. One was shown on PBS, if I remember correctly it was shown on a program called Frontline. What about films like Lake of Fire directed by Tony Kaye (the guy who did American History X)? That was shown in the USA and Canada with no law forbidding it from being shown. It opened in Canada in September 2005 and in the USA October 3, 2007 to critical acclaim. I mean even Fox News has produced a documentary on abortion called Facing Reality: Choice. So again you are talking about things about which you know nothing. Educate yourself before you open your mouth (or in this case type a response). 3. The public would be split just the way it is now, but it wouldn't change the minds of the pro-choice people. You seem to think that people don't know what they are doing when they have an abortion or just don't care and do it like they would make a sandwich. My point is this everybody who does this (gets an abortion) knows exactly what they are doing and agonize over the decision–nobody takes the decision lightly. Each person making the decision makes the right decision for themselves; just because you don't agree with it doesn't make your stance more "truthful."
|
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 10:55
Hehe, i knew it. I heard the discussion between them. However, i'm suprised that Gudrun is not troubled by the fact that Sweden is in the top 5 list of abortions together with Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary and Cuba. Lets note that Sweden, has good sexual education in schools and people in general are not ignorant on such matters. According to the numbers, one can guess many things like there are too many people not taking some things seriously regarding sex. To get an unexpected pregnancy can happen anyone basically. However, what excuse is there for people that do it 2 or 3 times and still don't act responsibly? Personaly i don't believe abortion should be banned. However, I strongly believe there should be legal consiquences for people that simply don't learn from their mistakes. Also, a human right is a heavy word for this process. As i mentioned before i see it as an unfortunate necessity for some individuals. Personaly for me an embryo is a human and my belief is based on personal experience. However, i don't expect everyone to agree with that. -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 11:46
|
Akolouthos: No doubt they can have an influence, but there isn't anything particularly "Christian" or "Western" about them. Indeed, they are methods that have been rather generally employed, throughout history, by "civilized" peoples against "barbarous" peoples as a means of exerting cultural hegemony.
I know the christians are not alone excerzising power against indigenous peoples but since the christian culture has been rather dominant in many places for a rather long period it´s not wrong to adress these issues.
Akolouthos: Suffice it to say, by way of response, that the Pope represents the Roman Catholic Church, and as such is not my representative -- although I do generally consider him a better voice for morality and ethical standards than the sorts we have generally put in charge of such things in the modern era. In some things that he know nothing about it would be better if he didn´t talk at all. Akolouthos. I understand that you have prepared criticisms which you've been dying to voice against every aspect of the Christian faith, but it would really be easier for all of us if you could keep them relevant to the context of our discussions. One can see the Popes statements about condoms in the same context as his talk about abortions so it´s rather relevant, especially since this thread is about abortion. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 12:03
No, it is not wrong to address these issues; what is wrong is the way in which you were doing it.
A fine instruction to all of us; sadly enough, I have seldom met anyone who heeded it.
I suppose you might be able to, but you'll still need to provide some context to get me on board. I suspect the comment has more to do with your desire to attack one of the most visible religious figures, rather than from a desire to better understand the question at hand. With regard to the issue you have raised, it would have been a rather simple thing to do. -Akolouthos |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 13:07
I think this is the most complete and unbiased answer so far. I basically agree with everything. If i had to add something, it would be that somekind of penalty should be applied to careless people that had already a abortion experience. A good point as well is that the father should agree as well with the abortion. If a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the baby against the fathers will, he will have to pay for that "unwanted child" (i hate to say this). So, in that case Gudrun Schyman should stick to her equality of genders idea. The fact that the baby is inside her body does not make it 100% her decision. As I said before, if it was about me, i would never kill my descendant. Even if it could f**k up my life, i would stand for my actions. There are 1230102391023910239 things that can f**k up my life and i will have to suck them up if i'm not careful. If i was younger and was unable to raise a child or give it a quality of living i would be glad to make a pair that can't have kids happy. In any case, abortion should not be illegal, nor should it be called a human right. We should educate people and make them understand that inresponsibility of such type, is a really bad thing. -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 13:31
Something else about Schyman that used as an argument "The woman should do whatever she wants with her body". But that does not apply to prostitution like some people wrote on the comments of the video. Meanwhile illegal prostitution has exploded, where young girls from Russia and the ex USSR countries are exploited for a peace of food. I dunno if you have seen that Russian movie about it? -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 15:02
|
The abortion topic shouldn't be focus from the religious point of view. There are many people that understand fetus are humans. And to get that it is not necessary to believe in God, but only in justice.
I am agnostic, for instance. And I was a member of freemasonry, once.
However, for me it is quite clear the biggest crime is not abortion itself, but to deny the "human citizenship" to unborn babies.
That has been the same tactic applied before the large genocides of history. First you take away the label "human" from your fellow hominids, and then you can kill them at will. That happened with Amerindians, Blacks, Jews, Russians and many other people in the past. Today the target are the babies.
That's what I think, anyways.
------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 15:18
You might as well draw the limit a little further and argue for a ban of masturbation. Those little creatures are potential humans too. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 15:26
Don't be silly. There aren't rational shifting of the limits a "little bit further" to ridiculize the quality of humans of fetus. You well know life start at the conception.
By the way, I have some excelent pictures of a so called "partial birth". There, a 9 month fetus is decapitated, in orden women excercise theirs rights. I can send you them by private e-mail if you like. There you can see the big smile of the "mommy"
------------- |
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 16:03
|
pinguin:
Don't be silly. There aren't rational shifting of the limits a "little bit further" to ridiculize the quality of humans of fetus. You well know life start at the conception.
Genetically and biologically both sperms and eggcells are half humans and they are as much alive as a fertilized embryo
|
Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 16:21
|
Akolouthos:
A fine instruction to all of us; sadly enough, I have seldom met anyone who heeded it. I suppose you might be able to, but you'll still need to provide some context to get me on board. I suspect the comment has more to do with your desire to attack one of the most visible religious figures, rather than from a desire to better understand the question at hand. With regard to the issue you have raised, it would have been a rather simple thing to do. A figure like the Pope has (unfortunately) a lot of influence on many catholic peoples minds. That is why he really shouldn´t talk about things he obviously doesn´t understand.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2009 at 17:40
I can't believe that you, a self-name deffender of Indian rights, is at the same time a man that denies humanity in small babies.
That's so contradictory, that makes me think your love for Indians is symply hypocresy. For you is OK to send yours unborn babies to the garbage can, but it is fine to deffend Indian lives.
Double standard?
------------- |