Atheism & Abortion

Dades

That is interesting about the tests.
Thanks for the thread link, Thaedydal.

I think if tests can be done, parents have a right to know.

Dades

Hivemind187 wrote: »

As for their "valid argument" it is no more valid than flat-earthers, intelligent design, creationism or any of a thousand other nonsensical positions. Just because they "believe" it is a life does not quantify it as such, any more than beliving their are faries in your airing cupboard makes them magically appear. It is an invalid position.

Are you lumping people opposed to abortion in with flat-earthers? Does that include the several non-believers who have expressed their position as 'pro-life'?

Hivemind187

Dades wrote: »

Are you lumping people opposed to abortion in with flat-earthers? Does that include the several non-believers who have expressed their position as 'pro-life'?

I'm making an argument of equivalency. For the most part, perhaps not every case but certainly the vast majority, who support the die-hard "death to baby killers, no rights for women" position that is the heart of pro-life movements the position is as indefensible and as untenable as those arguments I listed.

There are those who are moderate who may support the pro-life position but they are either not thnking about hte issue, reacting emotionally to it or have an ulterior motive. Any one who says that they would have one themselves but wont force that position on someone else, is by definition, pro-choice.

Nevyn

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Yes well, considering that definition of "life" they should be arresting every woman whose body has ever flushed a zygote after the morning after pill.

Legally they can not as the emergency contraceptive pill also known as the morning after pill does not end a pregnancy it prevents one from happening in several ways one of which is to prevent a zygote from implanting in the womb
and triggering the physiological changes in the woman which mean she is pregnant.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

As for their "valid argument" it is no more valid than flat-earthers, intelligent design, creationism or any of a thousand other nonsensical positions. Just because they "believe" it is a life does not quantify it as such, any more than beliving their are faries in your airing cupboard makes them magically appear. It is an invalid position.

I think your rhetoric is getting too impassioned tbh and faires are more likely to be in the garden then in the airing cupboard.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Further, no matter how you try to spin it or re-define it (the proverbial rather than the literal you) it doesnt cahnge a simple fact that one group of people are demanding to impose their beliefs on another person.

This is one of the facts of living in society thankfully we do live in a democratic one.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The opinions of the mother do not appear to be to important to the types of people who go around with placards and make claims like "travelling abroad for an abortion is illegal and you will go to jail". They are imposing, or attempting to impose their beliefs on another person.

True many of them seem to lack any christian compassion.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Edit: While "conception" might be a biological stage it is just as arbitrary as any other point. The position that conception is the magical point at which life begins is nonsense since the gametes are alive before they fuse. Therefore, all these people have done is move the goal post slightly in relation to where we start to call something "alive" conveniently ignoring the facts.

They are the type of people who picket the vasectomy clinics tbh and you have to leave the zealots to it at a certain point but that does not mean that people who think that the proto person in the womb and the wonderous process that is gestation should not be interfered with are religous zealots.

Idealistically I am opposed to abortion, realistically until we have the provisions of proper education and contraception and supportive adoption systems it is still a fact of life for many women globally.

Boston

By your definition maybe. Abortions being illegal only serves to increase the number of back street abortions and/or abortions with no support mechanism. As a method to prevent abortions it is fundamentally flawed as it turns the issue into a taboo. So agreeing that you can't force people not to have abortions is not the same as saying someone has a right to choose one.

Rev Hellfire

Hivemind187 wrote: »

the vast majority, who support the die-hard "death to baby killers, no rights for women" position

Sensational, A career in tabloid headline writing awaits you!

But I don’t recall anyone on the ‘pro-life’ side suggesting the murder of abortionists or the stripping of rights from women. Rather they wish to confer rights to the foetus which depending of your philosophical outlook may or may not be a human.

This philosophical argument is really what is at crux of the matter, its not in my view a scientific one as most people seem to suggest.

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Yes well, considering that definition of "life" they should be arresting every woman whose body has ever flushed a zygote after the morning after pill.

I know. But then I don't agree with that definition of a "person" (I would avoid using "life" because it is alive, but then so is everything, human hair cells, bacteria, worms, sperm. Simply being alive has never been a criteria that we decide something is valuable)

Hivemind187 wrote: »

As for their "valid argument" it is no more valid than flat-earthers, intelligent design, creationism or any of a thousand other nonsensical positions.

Its valid because its what they believe.

As has already been discussed what is or is not a "person" is an ethical and philosophical question. Science won't tell you what is or is not a person, because science doesn't make ethical decisions. There is no scientific decision as to why life is valuable, since "valuable" is a human concept.

Therefore comparisons with say flat-earthers don't apply, since the nature of the roundness of the Earth is something that can be observed and defined.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Further, no matter how you try to spin it or re-define it (the proverbial rather than the literal you) it doesnt cahnge a simple fact that one group of people are demanding to impose their beliefs on another person.

As every single law in the history of the human legal systems has in the past.

That is how laws work, society decides what people can and cannot do, without facing punishment. You can't speed, you can't smoke in a work space, you can't burn someones house down, you can't rape someone, you can't murder someone.

Your argument, if I'm following this correct, is that anti-abortion groups come up with this stuff because they get a kick out of dictating to people. I honestly don't see any evidence of that, any more than (as I said) society making killing someone illegal so they can boss people around.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The opinions of the mother do not appear to be to important to the types of people who go around with placards and make claims like "travelling abroad for an abortion is illegal and you will go to jail".

Of course not. A mother can't kill her children after they are born, can she? They view the foetus as having the same rights as the child does after birth, so why would the mother's opinions have any bearing on the matter?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

They are imposing, or attempting to impose their beliefs on another person.

Just as society imposes the belief that killing an adult human is wrong onto murders.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

rather than a cold approch (which considering the range of different emotions people have regarding it seems the only logical method) then we are in major trouble.

Well "opinions" are all we have when discussing matters of ethics. But I would prefer if people took some time on this thread to think about why they hold the opinions they do. I would agree with you that being overly emotional when it comes to this subject isn't particularly helpful. It should be possible to argue and debate ethical opinions clearly.

I would hope that I've put forward my ethical position well to others.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Edit: While "conception" might be a biological stage it is just as arbitrary as any other point.

Biologically yes. But then every point is arbitrary from a biological point of view, since there is no scientific reason why life is valuable. For that you need to explore the question within an ethical point of view.

Perhaps Hive it would be helpful if you explored the question "Why is a human life valuable and worthy of protection" I imagine your answer won't be the same the anti-abortion groups, but it will at least get you thinking about the process by which they come up with an answer.

Nevyn

Boston wrote: »

By your definition maybe. Abortions being illegal only serves to increase the number of back street abortions

Which leads to women dying or being unable to have children or suffering from long term illness as a result.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKN0240981920071002

An outright ban on abortion in Nicaragua has caused the deaths of at least 80 women since it was imposed 11 months ago, Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=48142

Abortion rates are similar in countries where the procedure is legal and in countries where it is not, and the number of abortions worldwide is declining due to increased access to contraception, according to a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization and published Friday in the Lancet, the New York Times reports. The study also found that abortions were "safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely," according to the Times (Rosenthal, New York Times, 10/12).

Boston wrote: »

and/or abortions with no support mechanism.

Which leads to lack of medical check ups and follow ups and mental and emotional stress.

Boston wrote: »

As a method to prevent abortions it is fundamentally flawed as it turns the issue into a taboo.

I am pretty much convinced that it is the level of that taboo and the condemnation which results in the huge amount of stress which leads to the misery of post abortion depression which is always fun then the likes of the pro lifers trot out those numbers but never acknowledge the fact that they are a part of that problem.

Boston wrote: »

So agreeing that you can't force people not to have abortions is not the same as saying someone has a right to choose one.

Very true.

Boston

Thaedydal wrote: »

Idealistically I am opposed to abortion, realistically until we have the provisions of proper education and contraception and supportive adoption systems it is still a fact of life for many women globally.

I think that pretty much sums up my stance on this issue. Until the social issues that drive many women to abortions are solved, or at least addressed, abortions will always be a factor.

robindch

hivemind wrote:

that one group of people are demanding to impose their beliefs on another person

As others have said, it's no more "imposing beliefs" to enact a law prohibiting abortion (or conferring rights on foetuses) than to enact one prohibiting theft. You seem to be missing this point quite dramatically.

hivemind wrote:

there are those who are moderate who may support the pro-life position but they are either not thnking about hte issue, reacting emotionally to it or have an ulterior motive.

The kettle calling the pot black. Why are you so emotional about it yourself?

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Yes well, considering that definition of "life" they should be arresting every woman whose body has ever flushed a zygote after the morning after pill.

As for their "valid argument" it is no more valid than flat-earthers, intelligent design, creationism or any of a thousand other nonsensical positions. Just because they "believe" it is a life does not quantify it as such, any more than beliving their are faries in your airing cupboard makes them magically appear. It is an invalid position.

Further, no matter how you try to spin it or re-define it (the proverbial rather than the literal you) it doesnt cahnge a simple fact that one group of people are demanding to impose their beliefs on another person. The opinions of the mother do not appear to be to important to the types of people who go around with placards and make claims like "travelling abroad for an abortion is illegal and you will go to jail". They are imposing, or attempting to impose their beliefs on another person.

I conceed however that I may need to restructure my approch to their argument since so many believe in their twoddle that clutters the issue. If "opinions" are what will decide this matter rather than a cold approch (which considering the range of different emotions people have regarding it seems the only logical method) then we are in major trouble.

Edit: While "conception" might be a biological stage it is just as arbitrary as any other point. The position that conception is the magical point at which life begins is nonsense since the gametes are alive before they fuse. Therefore, all these people have done is move the goal post slightly in relation to where we start to call something "alive" conveniently ignoring the facts.

It's not actually about when something is alive, since, as you quite correctly say, there is complete continuity of life throughout the process - indeed, that's the point of it!

The question is when the zygote/foetus becomes a 'human being' or 'person'. In your view that only happens once the foetus is independently viable - up to then it's no different from an eye, or a finger. That's a logical viewpoint, but again it doesn't change the fact that 'person' and 'human being' are pre-scientific concepts, for which there is no formal scientific definition, or at least not one of any use here. That makes your definition neither more nor less valid than any other, no matter how strongly you may feel about it.

Further, and I really don't think you see this rationally, someone who believes that the foetus is a person has no rational option but to consider abortion murder, and no moral option but to have it made illegal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Thaedydal wrote: »

Legally they can not as the emergency contraceptive pill also known as the morning after pill does not end a pregnancy it prevents one from happening in several ways one of which is to prevent a zygote from implanting in the womb
and triggering the physiological changes in the woman which mean she is pregnant.

Yes, but the point is that these people tend to make the argument that life begins at conception which they define as loosely as the fusion of nucleii (hence the stem cell debate).

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think your rhetoric is getting too impassioned tbh and faires are more likely to be in the garden then in the airing cupboard.

There isa difference between rhetoric and keeping myself from getting really nasty with mild, if somehwat derisive humour. Plus I thought rhetoric didnt have to back itself up with consideration of the evidence, which I have done.

And if not faeries, elves then.

Thaedydal wrote: »

This is one of the facts of living in society thankfully we do live in a democratic one.

Another point against democracy really. Although continuing down this road will get us into a row over why democracy is not a free society. It doesnt change the point that a group, a minority group tbh, is being catered to and is enforcing its will on others.

Thaedydal wrote: »

True many of them seem to lack any christian compassion.

At least we agree on some points.

Thaedydal wrote: »

They are the type of people who picket the vasectomy clinics tbh and you have to leave the zealots to it at a certain point but that does not mean that people who think that the proto person in the womb and the wonderous process that is gestation should not be interfered with are religous zealots.

Sorry, wonderous? Exactly what, if anything, is so wonderous about gestation? Its a sodding bio-chemical reaction. There is no magic involved, a bit like eating then defecating.

As for the zealots, well, they are probably the thing I worry about least. Their inane and babbling nonsense undermines their position, its the quite middle classes that secretly agree with these nut-bars that worry me. they are the happy little bosom in which the extremist and vocal point of view can seek refuge. Moderate fence sitters are just as bad.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Idealistically I am opposed to abortion, realistically until we have the provisions of proper education and contraception and supportive adoption systems it is still a fact of life for many women globally.

Idealistically you are opposed to abortion. Thats fine, its a personal ideal. If you want to impose that personal ideal on another person then you are curbing their right to live o their personal ideal.

However, I am with you on the education and proper provisiosn for contraception. the fact that most kids are taught about where babies come from but very little about STI's is a disgrace. But thats another topic.

Sorry, wonderous? Exactly what, if anything, is so wonderous about gestation? Its a sodding bio-chemical reaction. There is no magic involved, a bit like eating then defecating.

As for the zealots, well, they are probably the thing I worry about least. Their inane and babbling nonsense undermines their position, its the quite middle classes that secretly agree with these nut-bars that worry me. they are the happy little bosom in which the extremist and vocal point of view can seek refuge. Moderate fence sitters are just as bad.

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote: »

I know. But then I don't agree with that definition of a "person" (I would avoid using "life" because it is alive, but then so is everything, human hair cells, bacteria, worms, sperm. Simply being alive has never been a criteria that we decide something is valuable)

Agreed. "Life" is too loose a definition and it is used, cynically by the better educated pro-lifers, to manipulate the feelings of others into supporting their position.

Wicknight wrote: »

Its valid because its what they believe.

Thats not good enough. I admit that its only my opinion that its not good enough, but in a very real sense saying their argument is valid because they believe it is the same as justifying ID because its proponents believe it.

Wicknight wrote: »

As has already been discussed what is or is not a "person" is an ethical and philosophical question. Science won't tell you what is or is not a person, because science doesn't make ethical decisions. There is no scientific decision as to why life is valuable, since "valuable" is a human concept.

Science can't tell you what is a human/person/life but it can tell us what is not. The problem is that the lines start to blur too much at a certain point. Science has a major value in this argument because through science we can understand the things we are talking about (cells, foetus, hos, infant, parasite etc) and through that understanding gain a better perspective on the reality of this question.

Human life has no actual value, this is a point of reality, however philsophically we get a little obsessed with tying to be nice rather than doing what is best for society.

Wicknight wrote: »

Therefore comparisons with say flat-earthers don't apply, since the nature of the roundness of the Earth is something that can be observed and defined.

As I said above, it does apply. there is more too this argument so I will come back to it later.

Wicknight wrote: »

As every single law in the history of the human legal systems has in the past.

That is how laws work, society decides what people can and cannot do, without facing punishment. You can't speed, you can't smoke in a work space, you can't burn someones house down, you can't rape someone, you can't murder someone.

Ah, this is where we have a problem. Those "laws" are protecting individuals who have taken the responsibility to cater to their own existance. They do not protect things that do not exist.

Wicknight wrote: »

Your argument, if I'm following this correct, is that anti-abortion groups come up with this stuff because they get a kick out of dictating to people. I honestly don't see any evidence of that, any more than (as I said) society making killing someone illegal so they can boss people around.

My argument is that these people are attempting (and suceeding) in imposing their will on others. Whether they get a kick out of it or not, whether they sincerely believe they are doing it out of christian charity is irrelevant, the fact is that they are dictating what can and cannot be done by a person to their own body. Something that in our modern age is gradually become less andless acceptable.

Considered logically, since the foetus is a product of the body creating it, one would have difficulty drawing the line. it is a product of the body, we are allowed tell you what to do with that body, we say you cant destroy a part or product of that body, you can't cut your hair.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course not. A mother can't kill her children after they are born, can she? They view the foetus as having the same rights as the child does after birth, so why would the mother's opinions have any bearing on the matter?

Well, yes she can but she shouldnt. The difference here is that if the child is taking responsibility to breathe and continue its own life then it has earned that right and no one then has a right to interfere. See my other posts on this particular subject.

The mother (host) is producing the foetus (parasite) therefore it is her decision.

Wicknight wrote: »

Just as society imposes the belief that killing an adult human is wrong onto murders.

Again, it is taking the right to continue living from an entity that has taken the responsibility onto itself to continue doing so.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well "opinions" are all we have when discussing matters of ethics. But I would prefer if people took some time on this thread to think about why they hold the opinions they do. I would agree with you that being overly emotional when it comes to this subject isn't particularly helpful. It should be possible to argue and debate ethical opinions clearly.

I would hope that I've put forward my ethical position well to others.

In my opinion you have.

Wicknight wrote: »

Biologically yes. But then every point is arbitrary from a biological point of view, since there is no scientific reason why life is valuable. For that you need to explore the question within an ethical point of view.

Perhaps Hive it would be helpful if you explored the question "Why is a human life valuable and worthy of protection" I imagine your answer won't be the same the anti-abortion groups, but it will at least get you thinking about the process by which they come up with an answer.

I have Wick, and unfortunatly, it hasnt changed my position. I'll come back to this since my lunch break is over.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Fair enough. Would you equally empathise with a mother who wished to kill her 6 year old son who was conceived through a rape?

Well ehh no! After 6 years, the 'incident' will have been nearly 7 years old. By that time she would have gotton to know her child, raised it, bonded with it etc etc. I would understand if she wanted to put her child up for adoption though. If there was resentment for the child in such a way 6 years on, then IMO, the mother would need help, psychologically speaking. When a child is born, there is absolutely no 'grey area' that to kill it is murder. Some people though, can convince themselves that abortion is not murder. If they dont want the child, then they can allow themselves to be convinced that its not a child.

On a completely different note, did anyone go to see Gunther Von Haagens BodyWorks exibition? He had a series of foetus' at different stages. Apart from the trauma of seeing these poor babies, for me it really put another nail in the coffin for abortion.

Nevyn

JimiTime wrote: »

i don't think its that simple. I'd like to know their motivation. The person who would allow abortion may have a better and more honourable motivation to why they'd allow it. I still would not vote for them though. If the anti-abortion canditate was all pomp and bombast I think I'd refrain from voting. however, on the grounds that the anti-abortion candidate is anti abortion for the right reasons, i.e. Understands that not all abortion canditates are cold hearted murderers, but at the same time cannot in good concience allow abortion to take place when they have the power to stop it in their juristiction. I'd give them my thumbs up.

Well there is the fact that a large proportion of the country who are Catholics in fact auto excommunicated themselves when they voted for the right to travel and if they vote for a candidate that passe the bill.

Sorry, wonderous? Exactly what, if anything, is so wonderous about gestation? Its a sodding bio-chemical reaction. There is no magic involved, a bit like eating then defecating.

Can't say I agree, we know a certain ammount about the process but there is a lot we don't know and having gestated myself twice it is wonderous and remarkible process and I never mentioned magic.

Tar.Aldarion

I think that from the moment the foetus will continue to grow into a baby, it is a 'baby'. Ie, it is alive. Unhindered it will grow into an adult human, it is just a human at an earlier stage of development than another human. It is interminable argument as to when the foetus actually becomes a 'human' for most people, if I held that stance, I would err on the side of caution and not kill the foetus. Because the foetus can not feel pain at some point, and has no brain activity it should be ok to kill it? I do not agree. Surely it won't feel it's death, but similarly, I could kill any human painlessly and it would be unaware of the death. So it is not about the pain of the death for me. Ah but I see, it does not deserve the title 'human' until it has the features in a later stage of development then?

If life is defined around sentience, then for the first 3.5 months of pregnancy there isn't a whole lot to talk about. Synapses which allow brain function won't start becoming functional until the foetal period,(It is an embryo for the first 3 months, not a foetus.) only a third of the neurons are formed at this stage that there will be in a new born baby, so there is nothing sentient there, as far as we can prove.

We have to dehumanise the foetus to make abortion morally acceptable. The moment that we accept the foetus is human then abortion becomes murder by definition. And so we begin to invent criteria, which allow us to dehumanise the foetus and make the procedure acceptable. So the choice is there, do you think it is a human or not? I do, most may not.

Abortion can be moral, but only if you accept that it is acceptable to kill a human in certain circumstances, that's if you consider it to be human. For me it is, 'Forget the “foetus isn’t a human being” line, because it just fails to hold water and is simply an attempt to make something acceptable within our Judeo-Christian moral framework that frankly can’t be made acceptable unless we choose to fudge the definitions a bit.'

If the brain activity of an embryo or early foetus, has negligible difference to that of someone in a vegitative state on full life support.
Do people here believe they both deserve the same regards, or not?
Why?

I would not force somebody not to have an abortion, it is not my right to put my beliefs forcibly on others. It should not be a law.
However, I would do my best to dissuade them. As I have said before, Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive.
Wasn't it the opinion in the holocaust that they were not real people either? ;-)

A lot of people I have talked to hold the view that believe the child to just be a lump of cells, then they should have no qualms about abortion...no matter how many times somebody does it.
Yet they are also against abortion as a form of contraception, why is this?

If one says, 'it is my womb, I can do whatever I want, to hell with what other people think'.
True enough for those who hold that we are not dealing with two lives, but if they do, well then they are duty bound to step in.
Not saying I agree, but rather I understand. I do however believe that abortion interferes with at least two lifes, not one.

Class Assignment:
Discuss:
To quote a medicine lecturer from last year, 'any race that is killing thousands of it's own species every year is in a very sad state of affairs indeed.'
Also. I think most people are pro-choice, but at what point does a father have a right to the child?
Back in the day in greece(I think.) you needed express permission of the father and if an abortion is to be carried out in an equal relationship, do you think that should be the case today?
Obviously th father being the spouse of the mother, that is.

JimiTime

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well there is the fact that a large proportion of the country who are Catholics in fact auto excommunicated themselves when they voted for the right to travel and if they vote for a candidate that passe the bill.

TBH, I have little time for Catholocisim.

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Thats not good enough.

For what?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I admit that its only my opinion that its not good enough, but in a very real sense saying their argument is valid because they believe it is the same as justifying ID because its proponents believe it.

No it's not, because life on this Earth is either intelligently designed or it isn't.

On the other hand what is to be a considered a human "person" is a completely objective decision, since a "person" is an ethical concept. It has no relation to the natural world.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Science can't tell you what is a human/person/life but it can tell us what is not.

Only if you define what a "person" is in the first place.

Science cannot tell us what a "person" should be, and to say that something isn't a person you first have to have a definition of what a "person" is to compare it to.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Science has a major value in this argument because through science we can understand the things we are talking about (cells, foetus, hos, infant, parasite etc) and through that understanding gain a better perspective on the reality of this question.

Certainly. But science isn't going to tell you what should or should not have rights.

That is for us to decide.

Science can educate us to when a foetus develops the properties that we have decide should have rights, but it can't tell us which properties should or should not have rights or what rights they should have.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Ah, this is where we have a problem. Those "laws" are protecting individuals who have taken the responsibility to cater to their own existance. They do not protect things that do not exist.

Exactly. Which is why the anti-abortion groups are arguing that the "person" already exists in the foetus.

You seem to be arguing that the anti-abortion groups don't believe that the foetus is a person any more than a pro-abortion person does, yet they (under the desire to control people) are still arguing that it should be protected by rights.

If that is what you are arguing, again I don't think that is true at all.

The anti-abortion groups are saying that the person exists in the foetus and that this person has the same rights as every other person.

You can disagree of course (I disagree up to a certain level of brain development), but it seems rather silly to be arguing that they don't actually believe what they claim to believe.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Whether they get a kick out of it or not, whether they sincerely believe they are doing it out of christian charity is irrelevant

Well you brought that up as a motivation for why they would be doing this, so you implied it was relevant.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

, the fact is that they are dictating what can and cannot be done by a person to their own body. Something that in our modern age is gradually become less andless acceptable.

It is not becoming "less and less acceptable" to tell people they cannot murder other people. :rolleyes:

Where are you getting this from?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The mother (host) is producing the foetus (parasite) therefore it is her decision.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "parasite", if that is to be used in a scientific meaning or in a emotive meaning, but the foetus isn't a parasite from a biological point of view.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

In my opinion you have.

Well I've strong objections to your idea that a life form has to "earn" the right to person hood, the right be protected (does this apply to other areas of human existence?) through the act of breathing. I can see quite a few ethical problems with that position. The idea that anyone has to earn rights if very unsettling.

But that is a different topic.

The reason I first started discussing this with you was to object to your suggestion that the anti-abortion groups were motivated by the desire to control people, rather than the desire to protect the person they believe exists in the foetus.

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I think that from the moment the foetus will continue to grow into a baby, it is a 'baby'. Ie, it is alive.
...
Obviously th father being the spouse of the mother, that is.

Was that copied and pasted from some where?

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote: »

My argument is that these people are attempting (and suceeding) in imposing their will on others.

We call that society.

the fact is that they are dictating what can and cannot be done by a person to their own body.

For the nth time this thread...that is correct in the same way that we dictate that you cannot use your body to kill another human being, to steal from another human being, etc. without being held accountable for it.

That it is your body is not the issue here...it is the extent to which others are impacted by your actions.

They are of the opinion that your actions do not impinge merely on your own body, but on the body of another - that of the unborn child. The question is not whether or not the expectant mother has a right to do with her own body as she chooses, but rather whether or not she has a right to do with the body of her unborn child as she chooses.

The difference here is that if the child is taking responsibility to breathe and continue its own life then it has earned that right and no one then has a right to interfere.

I assume you accept that by your own stance it is unacceptable for you to impose this opinion on the rest of society - telling them whether they do or do not have a right to interfere.

Those who argue in favour of allowing society to make these impositions on others....they could take such a stance, sure. But you've argued that its wrong to impose your one to impose their view of how society should work onto others.....so I assume that means that while you believe the above is how society should work, society can never be made to work that way.

Tar.Aldarion

Wicknight wrote: »

Was that copied and pasted from some where?

Little bits are posts from other abortion threads that I have posted it and paraphased etc and that medically stuff psi wrote a while back, whilst TC likes to use dehumanise a lot, heh. I'm in class but I did write most of that, yes.

karen3212

Scofflaw wrote: »

Further, and I really don't think you see this rationally, someone who believes that the foetus is a person has no rational option but to consider abortion murder, and no moral option but to have it made illegal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But by making abortion illegal, are they not causing more suffering. I would rather see all their money spent on making unwanted pregnancy less likely in the first place. I would see the law at the moment in Ireland immoral as it causes more suffering and death.

I don't know, but awareness is a big factor in my being pro-choice.

If the being is not aware of it's having a life, then surely we should err on the side of caution, and end it's life if it will only suffer by having a life.
It might sound ridiculous but when I hear people in the country say that it's better to put an animal down rather than let it suffer, I think they are right. The animal is not aware of it's life, and I mean it wouldn't suffer by having an idea it will die, then if it is suffering it's better to end it's life.

If I wanted to put down a born child, then I think there are quite a few people who would suffer because of that decision, even though that child itself might not have any awareness of it's being alive and what it would loose by dying.

If by protecting the foetus by law we are causing a great deal of suffering to the mother, and perhaps to the potential child,and it's life then I think it's better if we have abortion legal.

Nevyn

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Class Assignment:
Discuss:
To quote a medicine lecturer from last year, 'any race that is killing thousands of it's own species every year is in a very sad state of affairs indeed.'

Other species do it, other mammals from the new rex of a lions pride who kills the off spring of the former rex,
dolphins who kill their off spring then the fish stocks are low, badgers that cull the litter or in some cases the entire litters in the badgers set when resources are low.

Abortion is nothing new, there were Egyptian scroll that detailed how do preform different types of abortions.

Tar.Aldarion

Things are there to be changed when people become smarter and evolutioary psychology plays less of a role.

It does not matter how long it was done, that does not make it right or wrong. <Insert some generic example like the choice to keep slaves for thousands of years etc>. We are evolving to be 'above' other animals, are we not? I'm not claiming abortion is a new thing.

Nevyn

Yes, we evloved to stop there being off spring through stopping and then proventing pregnancy from occuring.

It is the refinment of such proceedures that have saved lives and fertility and as for the numbers I honestly can't say that they are more then what they used to be , no one can as records for such things have only been kept from when it was made legal in differnt countries after it was only made illegal after the trun of the 1900s.

Sangre

Hivemind I think you've descend into totally irrationality. Not in your own stance, but in your total inability to see the stance of anyone else, especially regarding imposition of ideals on others and the definition of a person.

Anyway, I've a hypothetical situation for most (including Hivemind), what about if medical science began so advanced that a foetus could survive outside the womb at say 6 or 4 or 3 months? Could society as a whole allow the abortion of a clump of cells that they reasonably know will have a good likely of suriving onto full development.

karen3212

Sangre wrote: »

Anyway, I've a hypothetical situation for most (including Hivemind), what about if medical science began so advanced that a foetus could survive outside the womb at say 6 or 4 or 3 months? Could society as a whole allow the abortion of a clump of cells that they reasonably know will have a good likely of suriving onto full development.

But you still have to take that clump of cells away from the mother, how would you do that? Would she be willing to let society look after, and feed her child? Would she suffer interminably not knowing how her child is being treated by society? I'm assuming the mother has given her child/clump of cells away in this case.

Sangre

Well I'll assume that the foetus would only be removed from the mother if it was essential for either its or the mother's survival. Lets just assume its possible, rather than what use it is put to in futuristic medicine.

Even pro abortionists are against abortion near full term. I wonder would opinions change if a foetus could survive outside the womb as early as say, 3 months?

Scofflaw

Sangre wrote: »

Well I'll assume that the foetus would only be removed from the mother if it was essential for either its or the mother's survival. Lets just assume its possible, rather than what use it is put to in futuristic medicine.

Even pro abortionists are against abortion near full term. I wonder would opinions change if a foetus could survive outside the womb as early as say, 3 months?

Nope. Even if it becomes possible to grow zygotes to 'birth' artificially, my position would still be that the embryo is still not a human person by any definition that does not rapidly become ridiculous. It is probably possible to sustain the existence of a finger or other arbitrary body part indefinitely outside the body, but that does not constitute an argument for their having rights. Indeed, I suspect it is easier to keep a finger alive than an embryo, so the embryo is less 'independent' than a finger.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

@Wicknight

Please try to understand what I mean by the term "earn". It is not that I am implying some kind of monetary value or similar economic standard to the concept of rights. What I mean is, at the point which a foetus takes the responsibility of continuing its own existence (I use breathing externally from the mothers body or the separation of the umbilical cord as an example but its a little more complex than that really) under its own power it has taken that responsibility from the mother on to itself and as such no longer depends on the altruism of the mother to sustain it. It is at this point that the infant has the right to continue to breathe and perform all of the various functions of living without interference from an another individual (or group) by virtue of not burdening them or relying on them for these things.

I understand that a lot of people are finding this hard to grasp but its really quite simple.

As for describing a foetus as a parasite, broadly, it is. The foetus develops by taking nourishment, oxygen and hydration from the mother while making use of her blood, kidneys, liver and digestive system - in return it offers nothing. Agreed that phylogenetically they are the same and as such the term "parasite" is not applicable but it is the relationship that I am describing rather than the foetus itself - you dont seriously think I am calling a foetus a liver fluke do you?

I still stand by my point that regardless of what spin or angle people are approaching this question from it boils down to the right to choose and the imposition of ideals on another person.

Whether it is the law or not is irrelevant to this discussion since it is about the ethics, religious implications and stand point of the pro-choice vs. pro-life campaigns.

I am stating, quite clearly, that no person should have the right to tell another person what to do with their own body and the products of that body. This does not extend to the daft argument of "using your body to rob someone or kill someone" since you would be then imposing yourself, uninvited onto another person and damaging them or their property - more specifically, that which they maintain and hold claim to. A mother can conceivably lay claim to the cells produced within her own body and as such should have the right to decide what to do with those cells without the interference of the state, religion or busy-bodies.

Oh, and I was pointing out that the idea of imposing your ideals on another individual is becoming less and less popular not the prohibition against murder.