Abortion from a Atheist viewpoint

Zillah

I am against abortion entirely

Burial wrote: »

Anyway, I'm not atheist but I agree everyone should have their own choice

Including the cute baby that you're proposing that we murder!? Where's their choice?

Burial

Zillah wrote: »

Including the cute baby that you're proposing that we murder!? Where's their choice?

What cute baby? You mean the parasite that lives off another living creature? I don't won't that. Maybe you'd like it. I'm just glad I'm immune to this creature.

*EDIT*

Point being,
They can't speak,
Can't learn,
Can't live/grow on their own,
Can't develop,
Steal nutrients from the person.

They need someone else to support them. Therefore, it's upto the mother if she'd like to have it or not. We kill bacteria, virus', cats, dogs, pigs, cows, yet if they were pregnant it wouldn't matter. What makes a featus different? That it can someday evolve into something else? how do you propose we ask this featus? Rip it out and ask it? Wait til it's alive and ask it?

Not to mention that if the woman was to have the child, that she'd have to go through painful child-birth. Why limit everyone else? Pro-choice gives EVERY human alive the option then. Limiting it just doesn't make sense. If you have a job you hate you'd quit and get another.

Tbh, I'm more concerned about the fathers rights on this matter. I don't like that the woman can terminate it and I can't have it. I have no idea of the solution on this but that would be a much better debate imho...

Mark Hamill

Burial wrote: »

Point being,
They can't speak,
Can't learn,
Can't live/grow on their own,
Can't develop,
Steal nutrients from the person.

And which of these does not also apply to a month old baby?

Dades

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And which of these does not also apply to a month old baby?

"Can't learn"
But I do subscribe to your point.

Burial

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And which of these does not also apply to a month old baby?

They learn to speak, and learn actions. There is a difference between a month old baby and a month old featus, and I'm not saying thats the only one. That list I made isn't 100%. Can you tell me the difference between the featus of an animals vs a human one? Why is it that everyone accpets the animals forced abortion, yet reject a humans abortion?? Is it because everyone puts themselves in the featus' position?

Dades wrote:

"Can't learn"
But I do subscribe to your point.

My point or Mark hamills?

Dades

Burial wrote: »

My point or Mark hamills?

The one I quoted.

Mark Hamill

Dades wrote: »

"Can't learn"
But I do subscribe to your point.

Well, I don't know if this is true, and I hope people will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't playing music for a growing foetus supposed to help its development? Is that a kind of learning? Also do babies immediately start "learning" once they are born? I mean are the processes that develop speach and movement active from the moment they are born, do they take a while to start? or have they even begun to emerge before birth?

Burial wrote: »

They learn to speak, and learn actions. There is a difference between a month old baby and a month old featus, and I'm not saying thats the only one. That list I made isn't 100%. Can you tell me the difference between the featus of an animals vs a human one? Why is it that everyone accpets the animals forced abortion, yet reject a humans abortion?? Is it because everyone puts themselves in the featus' position?

As a vegetarian I am against animal abortion too.

Zillah

I am against abortion entirely

Mark Hamill wrote: »

but isn't playing music for a growing foetus supposed to help its development?

Praying to Jesus is supposed to cure cancer.

Ruskie4Rent

Burial wrote: »

What cute baby? You mean the parasite that lives off another living creature? I don't won't that. Maybe you'd like it. I'm just glad I'm immune to this creature.

Tbh, I'm more concerned about the fathers rights on this matter. I don't like that the woman can terminate it and I can't have it. I have no idea of the solution on this but that would be a much better debate imho...

I don't know how you are concerned about the fathers rights, when you consider the foetus to be a parasite that you are glad to be 'immune' from.

Burial

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So I suggest we:
1. Deal with one point at a time per post (or max 3). start with the Maths.
2. Try to use the inline quoting when appropriate.

If anything it's only fair to others who are reading.

So YOUR responsible for the 31 pages >-|

It's been like 3 hours and its so hard to go through everything... I'm only on post 239! 200 more to go

Burial

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

Nothing fits with my opinion in that pole. I am against abortion along with rape cases. In life threatening instances and so on a case can be made. If you believe a foetus is a human and is a life I don't think it should be punished for the crimes of it's father.

You can't honestly believe this? How much of a "life-threatening instance" before a case can be made? 100%? 25%? 1%? 0.000001%? Everyone will just claim suicide before/after the baby is born. Will abortion be acceptable then? The woman shouldn't be punished either for the crime of her attacker.

raah! wrote:

I don't understand why whether or not someone being raped has any affect on it. I think the abortion debate is about whether or not the foetus is a person. If it is a person, you can't kill it, if it isn't you can. Whether or not the woman was raped has no baring on this, murder is already illegal.

If you class the featus as not a person, then you can terminate it no bother. If it is classed as a person, then there is still a debate on whose choice it is.

Galvasean wrote:

Considering there has been proposed legislations to have abortion outlawed with exception of in cases of rape and incest such things are very much being taken into account on a wide scale.

Why must incest by allowed abortion? I believe in this very forum we agreed almost universally that incest agreed by two people is fine. So why allow them abort? Are babies born from this, not "real/normal" people? If one person didn't agree to sex in the first place that is rape. Incest isn't part of it.

Ok-Cancel-Apply wrote:

Well, as you can see I'm very much pro-choice. My reasons are that I don't think a woman's uterus is the property of the state, nor do I think a human embryo can be considered life, any more that your arm, heart, liver etc..
Also, I highly doubt that something with no developed brain or nervous system can suffer pain, or have a concept of what 'being alive' even is.

A woman should make their own choices. The state shouldn't be involved in their affairs. An embryo can develop into a human, which is why people are against it. Arms can't. Just because something doesn't have a concept of pain doesn't mean it hasn't the right to live. However, I generally agree with "being alive" thing, if you meant in that it had no brain or power to think for itself, and a plank of wood was roughly its equal.

iUsevi wrote:

Abortion is not just about zygotes. A zygote is a very early stage of the development. Abortions can be carried out at much later stages.

I think the pro-choice people would have to argue about abortion all the way up until the birth, if they approve of abortions.

ok-cancel-apply wrote:

Exactly! Where's the value? Some might say that abortion takes away potential for a life to develop, but like you said, so does masturbation, or indeed to decision to not have sex with somebody.

I agree, I mean condoms are a form of abortion then aren't they? So is menstration.

iUseVi wrote:

I don't know enough about embryology to make an informed judgement on abortion cut-off points. But in theory I am pro-choice.

I am the same.

limerick_woody wrote:

I would agree that there are not enough options. I voted pro-choice but that doesn't really cover it.
I think that abortion if justified for rape in all cases.
I would also contend that if the medical opinion is that the pregnancy, taken to full term would result in no quality of life for the baby - abortion is also justified.
I also feel that if the mother doesn't feel capable of rearing a child, perhaps because she is still a child herself, or feels she could offer no quality of life for the child, there is also a case to be made.
I wouldn't like to see 'abortion on demand', and i would like to see all abortions carried out as early as possible.

So basically if the mother wants the child, she can have it... Who would decide these cases on who gets an abortion? Someone who doesn't know her? A priest maybe? A td? Or are we going to put her sexual life up to a jury in a courtroom??

Malari wrote:

I'm pro-choice. And I think that is a better description than pro-abortion - the woman who is pregnant should have the free choice. Anti-abortionists don't call themselves "anti-choice" because of the obvious negative connotations!

Pro-choice people don't call themselves anti-life either....

Dades wrote:

wrote:

So, if a woman was not raped but the stress of pregnancy would be detrimental to her mental health, would you be pro-choice for her then ?

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but wasn't there already a choice in that situation?

No. If I use a condom and it is faulty, why must she suffer the consequences? Why if I use the pill but it is ineffective? I clearly didn't want a child and an unplanned pregnancy can still effect a womans mental health.

koth wrote:

I would be pro-choice. As a guy I don't think its my place to tell a woman what to do with her body. That said if I found out I got someone pregnant, abortion wouldn't be my first suggestion.

I think that it isn't (most of the time) just the womans decision. I think it's partly the mans decision also.

CerbrelCortex wrote:

I think he was referring to the point that it shouldn't be seen as a safety net for those that are irresponsible with their sexual endeavors.

Why? Reward others for practising safe sex and punish those who don't? The price to get the abortion done would hardly classify it as a "safety net". People who want abortions didn't plan to have a child. No matter how safe or not you were.

gramlam wrote:

Slightly off topic but, the wife is due soon and she was saying she heard that the unavailability of early scans in this country (unless paying for private scans) as compared with say the UK is down to anti-abortion/church influences about possible choices being made about abortions in the case of finding a problem early on.
Any truth to this??

Yes and no. In some countries they tend to see the sex of the baby and abort it if its female due to dowrys and the status of men. It might be a law from long ago i think.... Though I'm not too sure...

Dinobot wrote:

A point must be reached where the ball of cells no longer is and a human begins.

Is this before or after its still a parasite? I'm presuming that at birth the baby is ready to live independently from the mother?

Dades wrote: »

That step is a particularly big one, however. It could never happen by 'accident' - i.e. without a couple engaging in what nature intended as pro-creation.

Millions of sperm get flushed away every day as part of nature's process, but only around one in 4 zygotes terminate naturally over 9 months.

To paraphrase someone I can't remember who said something I can't remember: if you can't see the difference between a sperm and a zygote, you're just not looking hard enough.

So if we got rid of millions of zygotes it'd be ok? Can you see the difference betweem a sperm and a zygote? If you can, you can see a difference between a featus and a baby. Sperm can't come out by "accident" either. Please tell me the difference of a sperm and a zygote. Your arguement is only it's further on in the development of life.

Dades wrote:

think it's fair to say, left to it's natural devices, a sperm will never grow into a human.

A zygote, left to itself, will not grow. It needs another thing to survive. Same with the sperm. As I said above, only difference is its further on in its development.

Wicknight wrote:

A zygote is just a zygote. Remove it from the machinery of human reproduction it will die as quick as a sperm will (in fact quicker).
The idea that a sperm is some how of no value but a zygote just some how is of value is deeply flawed in my opinion.
I think the issue people have is that so many sperm die in the process of creating a human, and therefore people think that on average a sperm has no value.
But if one thinks about it another way, you cannot produce a zygote without a sperm. While millions of other sperms may die in the process of sex, the one sperm that joins with the egg is as valuable as the zygote itself.
Imagine a zygote. Now if you say that that is valuable, imagine it a second before conception, when it was sperm and an egg. Imagine the sperm touching the egg wall, a few milliseconds before it is about to burst through. How is that any less valuable than the zygote?
Why if you kill the sperm and egg in the second before it breaks the wall are you killing something of no value, but if you kill the zygote a second after this you are killing a valuable human being?
Or imagine a DELL computer (stick with me )
There is an interesting through experiment I first heard in college about considering when "your PC" is actually your PC.
All the components are on shelves in a big warehouse. While each monitor, hard-drive, CPU etc is in different parts of the warehouse, the ones that will form your PC, theoretical as it is at that moment of time, are present. If you rewound time to this point and destroyed say the CPU, you wouldn't get the same PC as you would before. Your theoretical PC is in this warehouse, even if the components are all over the place.
So say an engineer goes through the warehouse and picks out all your components. Is that now your PC? Do you now have a PC or it is still just components?
What if he places them in a box together? Is that your PC now?
What if they are all laid out on a table about to be assembled?
Or is it only your PC when it has been fully assembled?
It should be clear how this relates to the sperm, egg, zygote issue. At what point is it just sperms and eggs, and at which point is it a human. One can say that it isn't a human until it is a zygote, ie fully assembled. But that to me doesn't make much sense, since before that you know what sperm and what egg will form the zygote, in the same way you know what components will form your PC. Why is the collection of components not a PC?

Top quality post.

Wicknight wrote:

Because a belief in such a distinction muddies the waters as far as I'm concerned, as it really doesn't seem to be based on any ethical foundation that can expanded out to first principles.
It is like people who claim they are against abortion except in the case of rape, a position I think is highly ridiculous and not born out of any solid ethical or rational foundation but rather out of a human emotional need not to see a woman have to carry the child of a man who attacked her. It really has so little to do with any question of whether or not the child is to be considered a human being or not as to be almost utterly irrelevant to the ethics of abortion.
The same I think holds with the zygote and sperm/egg issue.
This, in my view, is an attempt by humans to simply place a pleasing place marker on the formation of the zygote as a stage in the machinery of human reproduction, because it is easier for us to understand or view.
It has no actual bearing on the issue, it is an arbitrary point in the cycle, chosen simply because humans understand things better as units where all the parts are joined or touching.
We have trouble thinking about units in terms of separated parts, as the Dell PC though experiment is supposed to demonstrate. Interestingly this doesn't work the other way around, if you take apart something like a PC our brains tend to still view it as piece of the one unit. This can be seen when one tries to expand out the logic behind saying the zygote is a human being. Imagine an adult who has his arm separated. Even separated people still refer to the arm as "my arm"
The point is that this tendency of humans to think of objects in this fashion is actually irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Another fantastic post.

Phototoxin wrote:

what happens if someone is on the dole. they are living off the state so by your logic the state should have the right to kill them.
the embryo has a full karyotype. It physically possesses everything it needs to be a human.
as for survival.. we cannot survive without air or food or water so why begrudge the embryo ?

Your logic is deeply deeply flawed. The state will never give painful birth to me. Nor will it not have to feed me or spend 9 months with me. The embyro is a parasite.

Zillah wrote:

Yes because being finanically dependent upon something is the exact same thing as being inside their body using their kidneys and liver to process your toxins.

Good post.

Mark Hamill wrote:

I haven't voted in the poll because I don't like the reasons you can give for or against abortion.
I think abortion should be available in hospitals in Ireland, but personally, I think it should only be used if there is serious harm to the mothers life if she continues with the pregnancy or possibly in the case of rape. Any other cases should be seriously discussed, with family members and case workers and anyone else that can help.
My whole reasoning behind this is very simple: its all about responsibility. No-one ever falls pregnant, you don't just fall on a guy and hey presto you're pregnant. There's always a choice involved. At some point you have said to yourself "I'm old enough to have sex". Thing is, if you think yourself mature enough to have sex, then you should be mature enough to deal with any possible outcome, and pregnancy is not just a possible outcome of sex, its the biologically intended outcome. Sure, you might not mean to get pregnant, you might use all the protection under the sun, but if it happens the step up to plate and act like an adult and take you responsibility. Thats what it means to be an adult, you have to deal with your responsibilities and if you get pregnant/get someone pregnant, then that child is now your responsibility.

So if we make a mistake, we should be punished? I'm sure there are spelling errors in this post. Does this mean I must now goto Jail? Your reasoning means that women will just claim rape and have an abortion. Why would you discuss mine/yours/her sex life out in the open with family members and strangers? Do you do that regularly? Then why would the mother have to do it? Because she wasn't raped? look at the post a few above you. It has a good arguement against rape being allowed abort. Somepeople don't choose to be pregnant but it happens. They choose to have sex, not get pregnant. By your logic, a smoker shouldn't be allowed medical care because it was there "responsibility" to look after their own bodies.

Mark Hamill wrote:

In the blood transfusion example it was the "person who is providing the blood"s fault that the other person is in the role of parasite the "parasite" didn't choose to be there, should that not be taken into account.
Likewise, an unborn baby doesn't choose to be concieved, its the fault of the two people who had sex, should that not be taken into account?

The two people having sex didn't choose to be pregnant. In the blood transfusion example, they have no right to my blood. Same with the zygote. They didn't get that right.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I'd actually agree with Mark on this issue. I find it very hard to understand why someone would want to have an abortion and not have an adoption.
Is it just selfishness?

You get blood back. Can I take some some by torture? Can I change your life for 9 months? Can I make you increase weight, size and make you hormonal? I'm sorry, but your arguement is flawed.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Secondly, as for the pro choice i.e. do I have the right to make that choice or does only the mother? Why should it be only the mother? The state is also involved. The state is involved in carrying out the abortion, the mother can't do it on her own. If the state is a stakeholder, well then surely I as a member of the state also have a choice in the matter.

I believe a man should have some say, but I don't know what. At the end of the day, it's the womans body, and it's her choice. It's not your decision to make for her. The state can refuse to give her an abortion. (I'm not going to argue why. But I 'm presuming its there to help and support its citizens, but I'm way too tired and my head hurts from reading this upto 30 pages...) However their are others that would do the abortion for a price.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Thirdly, surely why should the Mother have more choice than the baby?
Fourthly, if you agree with abortion, you need to delineate exactly when life begins and have some sort of logic for it otherwise you can't argue against infanticide.
The only reasons I see for legalising abortion is:
1. If it was completely banned, it would go underground and the thought of back street abortions is worse then medical trained professionals doing it.
2. In extreme cases, where it could be argued it's inhumane making the mother have a baby e.g. in the case of rape.

Its the mothers body. I can't decide I'm living off of you now because it'll help me live.
Wtf is infanticide? I presume you mean removal of parasites. Anyway, upto the third trimester does seem mean, but if the baby could be saved from then, it should be able to. But abortions should be legal. Life begins when it can last on it's own.

Why in the case of rape? The "baby" still has a right to live doesn't it? I thought you said a "baby"'s rights should be considered also...

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think there are two reasons for this:
1. One is the selfish gene type from Dawkins et al.
2. Secondly is your empathy rating. Perhaps if you have empathy, you cannot help but feel life is sacred.

wtf? the selfish gene... And empathy? Do you eat vegtables or fruit? I hope not. Think of the poor defenceless fruit you eat! I don't believe you think fruit is sacred.

Mark Hamil wrote:

If its not a living human being what is it, a rock?

Its a parasite.

Mark hamil wrote:

Why is it punishment to have to follow through with your responsibilities? Do you honestly believe that if anything goes wrong for you in life that you should get a do-over?

So your saying ANY mistake should be rewarded with life-altering consequences? Your saying that the failed internet business I started, I must now live a life of poverty and not amount to anything because that was my "responsibility" for being a failure? I have to live with the debt, yes. But I can start again. Your punishing people who have sex, when they didn't want it.

Mark hamill wrote:

And if an "immature 15 year old boy" goes and knifes someone, should they get off scott free because they came from a "broken and unstable home"? If someone doesn't want to have a kid then they can either not have sex or get a visectomy or tubal ligation.

No. They don't get off scot free. But having this mentality that killing is ok drilled into them for 15 years does change it. So by your logic those who have an abortion should just never have children? People mightn't want children now, but they might done the line. Your logic only worked when there was no abortion. Now there is. They have more than the options your describing.

Mark Hamill wrote:

Sometimes when you try to take responsibility it fails, things don't work out. Do you just give up straight away because its a hassle? Is that really taking responsibility?

They aren't giving up. They way the options and see that it'd be better NOT to have the child. Why isn't having an abortion taking responsibility? It's taking action against a problem. Having a child because you don't want it. THATS giving up responsibility on yourself and your future child.

Mark Hamill wrote:

Ok and these 2 consenting adults decide they don't want kids and get an abortion, but 5 years later decide they want kids and so get pregnant. What then? How do they tell their kid the only reason he/she is alive is because it was a convienient time for them to have kids. How would you feel if your parents told you that?

I'd be glad. Would you rather hear that you were an accident?

Tim robbins wrote:

It's not clear whatyour point is here.
Are you saying it's bad to be emotional or that there are no logical arguments against abortion, there are all just simply emotive arguments by assertion?

His point was clear. Saying something "has potential" means that anything that "has potential" has a right to take away rights from any living thing. Is that fine with you?

Tim Robbins wrote:

If the state provides the services, the state (i.e. the collective or democratic opinion of the citizens) should have some sort of say.

Can the state refuse Black people service? Can the state refuse by gender? No? Can the state refuse service to someone if it isn't paying taxes? Can the state refuse service to anyone who isn't a citizen?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Rape is the exceptional case. If you have to consider all factors. The intent. the consequence. The potentiality. The state. The mother. The father. The level of sentinence. The potentiality.
Then make you're decision.

So the state decides on our bodies? By your logic, the mother and fathers factor doesn't apply. All that applys in your example is just potentiality and intent and most importantly the state. Thats not right. Why does the state decide my parasite who isn't paying tax or contributing to the state in anyway is better than a current person who is paying tax and contributing to the society??

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well yes one would think the level of sentinence is different alright. But why not specify the time you are talking about instead of saying fetus, which is misleading. Actually could all you "pro-choicers" do that?

Its not misleading. Misleading would be calling it baby or parasite, which we're both guilty of. You please tell me what consitutes life. Keep in mind, you'll have to seperate an animal, parasites, zygotes, featus, and fruit. Yes fruit. Because they are near perfect example to zygotes except for "potential".

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well then like malarai, you need to stop to referring to it as fetus. Delineate as you obviously think killing a fetus one hour before birth is a no - no.

You think killing sperm is ok, yet a second before it touches the egg its ok to kill it, but after it isn't? Two extremes, but both valid.

Tim Robbins wrote:

1. The poll (abortion polls never are) was very well worded so I picked the one that closest represented my views.
2. I said in another post. I would consider many factors. Some factors, that many "pro - choicers" such as location I would not consider.

You didn't respond to the issue. You just side-stepped it. Why is incest bad enough to allow abortion? Two consenting adults.

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you say it's ok to kill fetuses, you are saying it is ok to kill children.

No. Abortion is not accepting to kill children. That like saying not giving everything you own away means you accpet suffering in the world...

Tim Robbins wrote:

The brain is there from week 11. I don't think you've really thought about this. You just pulled 24th week out, then you say the sooner the better, even though you say you trust "medical experts" about the 24th week. Sounds like a contraction and you haven't thought this through.
As for "higher brain development". What about a severly handicapped person should they face the chopper because they don't have "higher brain development".

Answer my issue to you two or so quotes up. Is it ok to remove a brain-dead parasite before the 11 weeks?

Malari wrote:

Why can't you get it out of your head that a person who has been born and grown up is NOT the same as a foetus. You keep making the same argument!

Agreed. Tim Robbins, actually develop an arguement. You haven't said when its human either. Yet you claim potential is enough. Monkeys have potential to be human millions of years down the line, but they aren't human.

Tim robbins wrote:

As for having an abortion "end off". Why are you ruling out adoption? Surely you know a few people who are adopted, and their families? Does that not even challenge your certitude?

it's a pity adoption happens AFTER prenancy not before it. I'm sure there are loads of women who'd transfer their featus to someone else. Your for adoption, but for abortion if it's rape or incest but not if it's upto the 11th week? yet you say everyone should live with the responsibility and the state should have a say? Odd...

Mark Hamill wrote:

Why stop there. How much potential does a newborn baby have? Its still completely requires an adult to ensure its survival (a lactating women if that adult doesn't have access to the right new born baby food). Newborns can't survive by themselves, toddlers can't, the odds are extremely stacked against 6,7 or 8 year olds surviving completely by themselves.

Can the newborn baby survive without the use of the mothers body or the fathers body ??? Yes. Obvious difference. Your thinking that toddlers can't survive by getting food because they can't make money. They can survive outside the females body and not be a parasite.

Mark Hamill wrote:

Any talk of "higher brain function" being the marker is pretty hypocritical, as its still making the issue all about potential. Higher brain function may effectively come into being at 24 weeks, but babies don't tap dance their way out of the womb. New born babies don't cogitate on anything when they're born, no more than an animal would anyway. They wont walk or talk untill about about 18 months (give or take a few) and even then its incredibly simplistic for another year or two. Higher brain function may turn on (so to speak) but its not like it makes the child immediately any more human because of it.

Actually, having just argued that point. You've said a baby of two years old is hardly human. So it's not inhumane to abort it. Now, they were asked a timelimit on when to say it's ok to terminate. They gave one. however, I don't agree. It's only human if it can survive outside the females womb, and the brain is functioning. Theres other points but I really can't think of any. My brain hurts from typing the same stuff again and again...

Tim robbins wrote:

You are just avoiding the issues. By hightlighting the one hour before, it shows you have problems delineating. Or if you don't perhaps you'd like to tell us when / where / why the delineation is?
Hypothetical, and thought experiements play a huge role in ethical philosophy because they challenge the soundness of arguments. So bear that in mind before you ask other people for logical arguments.

And you don't have a prolem with abortion until it develops a brain. You are now avoiding the issues.

dynastal wrote:

To me it is a women's issue. It's her body. Sorry my opinion offends the opposite sex, but that's how it is. Don't like it, go get a sex change

I don't agree. Women talk of not having rights and not being treated fair, but there's no talk of the inequality when it comes to children/babies/abortions? I'm of the opinion that it's the womans body so her choice. I have more opinions on the matter but I'm not going into depth in them right now...

Tim robbins wrote:

This is what I meant by selfishness. Here is an example, where someone thinks that other people, Father and Fetus being the most obvious are excluded from decision.

Thats like saying marrying this rich guy will be better for my family but not for me, because I'd rather do whats best for my family because my opinion doesn't matter to me. If you toss the coin and look at it from the fathers point of view, it'd be selfish to not allow her do what she wants.


Ok, I'm ignoring post 220 to 244 because Tim wasn't doing anything constructive. He was just ignoring peoples points and not responding to them.

Tim robbins wrote:

Mark, do you ever think that there's a bit out of sight, out of mind going on here. People think because they don't see a fetus, killing it is not the same as killing a baby?

That is something constructive! removing a parasite and killing a baby are different. One still requires living off of another thing. If the original living thing died, then the parasite would die too. If I shot a mother in the head an hour before child-birth and came back after a day, would the featus still be alive? no. If I left a baby for a day and came back would it still be alive? Yes. Next logical step your going to ask me. Straight out of the womb, would it survive. No it would need food. It needs to learn from it's parents how to get this and what to do. The featus can't do this.

Mark hamill wrote:

And at what stage do you think a foetus starts wanting a career, to travel, and more? 11 weeks after conception? 24 weeks? How about after birth? Have you seen a baby a few weeks old? All they do is eat and sleep and cry if they get hungry, cold or soil themselves. If you justify abortion on the basis of the foetus not having any desires beyond the the basic animal desires, then you have to include infants.

The babies are learning. Featus aren't. Featus are parasites. They aren't sperate entity's to the thing its living from.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am sorry you find me condesending. I just find it very irratating that people can have such strong opinions on such a serious life / death issue and couldn't give a toss about how much / little research they do.
What are your motives in this thread? To challenge your own views or just make a bit of noise?

Your ignorance is irratating.

Tim Robbins wrote:

To have a debate and examine my own opinions.

You haven't examined your own opinion. In fact you've ignored others valid arguements. I'm looking for a debate, but a debate where there'll actually be agreement on who made the better arguement/case.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes life is sacred, but rape is the ultimate evil. So they sort of cancel each other out.

Murder? Manslaughter?

MistressMord wrote:

my definition of evil is answering a question with a question.

Common theme for TimRobbins.

TimRobbins wrote:

That begs / raises the question is this an out of sight out of mind issue.

No. Its a discussion. I don't want to waste bandwidth to see those. I would find it disguisting. Just like posting a video of an abortion. I don't care what it looks like.

PDN wrote:

If abortion is perfectly OK, and the foetus is just a clump of cells, then why should a picture of that clump of cells be a matter of such sensitivity?

Is heart surgery ok? Would a picture of someone tearing someone heart out be ok? Yes, but I don't want to see it. I shouldn't be forced to see it because I'm not of your viewpoint.

Tim robbins wrote:

The probability of reaching personhood changes.

But zygotes before featus are all less then the one with the more probability of reaching personhood? Thats a tad bit contradictory..

Gegerty wrote:

Another reason is this: how many potential Einsteins have been aborted?

how many were a Hitler?

gegarty wrote:

I'm saying let nature take its course.

So then your of the view that contraception is abortion?

Mark hamill wrote:

It seems to me that this argument stems from people thinking that a foetus grows into a human child. I do not believe the foetus grows into a human child, I believe that the foetus is a human child and merely grows, and needs the love and protection of its parents every step of the way.

Great post. Sums up both sides really...

Mark Hamil wrote:

Because killing a baby is not a valid way of dealing with becoming pregnant. Where the responsibility lies is the crux of this argument. IMO (and others too), the responsibility lies in the hands of the parents but the responsibility is to the child.

Your view they are killing a baby, in mine they are removing a parasite. They were responsible in preventing a child. Now they must endure it because they're pregnant? Surely the responsibility doesn't stop after the child but until they are adults. So therefore adoption shouldn't be an option, unless they are doing an easy fix for their problem. Their intent was neither to get pregnant in the first place. Same as a rape victim. Yet others allow it for rape but not unplanned.
Anyway the responsibility isn't to the "child". It's in the hands of the mother. She can decide if it is or isn't what she wants.

gegerty wrote:

does a foetus not have its whole life ahead of him?

Not outside the womb.

Mark hamill wrote:

A zygote is a human in everything but timeline.

Mark Hamil wrote:

a zygote needs a womb and nutrients

Zillah wrote:

But it has a soul. Magic is the answer. Magic is always the answer.

Made me laugh. I needed it especially after my mind has taken a beating from this thread...

Mark Hamill wrote:

If I remember correctly one of those killed in the omagh bombing was a pregnant woman carrying twins (she was 7 months in, I think), and the twins where counted among the victims. Does anyone think that the unborn twins should not have been counted among the victims, or should not be counted as equal to the rest of the dead.

People generally do that to show the horror of the action. The omagh bombing was awful and she wanted the children. (I'm presuming) And they destroyed that for her.
Tbh, I think that was more politcally and media focused rather than classiffing them as life. Ireland was also alot more Catholic and Catholic would tend to view featus' as babies.

ph wrote:

Given that we as a state would investigate the death of a child, should we investigate all miscarriages? Should all miscarriages be reported to the police so that a proper investigation be carried out?

Yes and no. If its was an accident than no. If it was intentional (ie the fathers doing) than yes. Essentially its like robbing the mother of something she had. If you broke a friends window ye'd hardly tell teh police? If you broke someone else's window, (Someone you didnt know) then they'd probably tell teh police.

*NOTE*
I have to leave for home, so I have no internet. I've stayed extra hours after work to write this.. So, I haven't read over it. I want to, but I can't. I also didn't go in depth into some things and that I apologise. But I really had to get this done before I left.

Burial

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well, I don't know if this is true, and I hope people will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't playing music for a growing foetus supposed to help its development? Is that a kind of learning? Also do babies immediately start "learning" once they are born? I mean are the processes that develop speach and movement active from the moment they are born, do they take a while to start? or have they even begun to emerge before birth?

They do start to learn on their own. While inside the womb, their primary goal is to have all the features of a human. Like a cake analogy someone gave before. There speech and movement are able for use before the birth. However, they don't use them. I think (I can't back this up) that when in the womb they are just developing human features. It's only outside do they really use them.

I honestly don't know about that music to a featus thing...

wrote:

As a vegetarian I am against animal abortion too.

Ok, and I'm sorry for that huge post. My point about animal abortion is that most people accept it because it won't be human. I'm saying if they use the exact logical thinking, abortion should be ok for humans.

Ruskie4rent wrote:

I don't know how you are concerned about the fathers rights, when you consider the foetus to be a parasite that you are glad to be 'immune' from.

Well i'm using "parasite" only because others choose to use "babies". If I wanted a child and my partner wanted an abortion, I'd gladly take the child if I could. My original post was sarcism. Noone likes parasites living off them. (Tapeworms) but because it has potential to be a baby it has more rights and more sympathy. How? Why can't the mother choose?

Zillah

I am against abortion entirely

Holy shit dude.

Dades

Sweet Jebus, Burial, you're going to make my life difficult for a while.

I may just sit back, with a bucket of water and a big stick to hand.

5uspect

I think this thread should be aborted...

Mark Hamill

Did you answer every single post in this thread?:D

Burial wrote: »

Your view they are killing a baby, in mine they are removing a parasite. They were responsible in preventing a child. Now they must endure it because they're pregnant? Surely the responsibility doesn't stop after the child but until they are adults. So therefore adoption shouldn't be an option, unless they are doing an easy fix for their problem. Their intent was neither to get pregnant in the first place. Same as a rape victim. Yet others allow it for rape but not unplanned.
Anyway the responsibility isn't to the "child". It's in the hands of the mother. She can decide if it is or isn't what she wants.

I went through each of posts you quoted and your resposnses to them, but this seems to cover most the issues (if it doesn't, just point it out and I'll respond to them too).
You said above that "they are responsible in preventing a child" and its true, but with all responsibilities you have to take the good with the bad. You take responsibiblity in trying not to get pregnant while having sex and if you don't, the great it worked, but if you do then you have to be responsible to the child. You have to take the blame for the good outcomes aswell as the bad outcomes.
Unfortunately I think this will just keep boiling down to how you see the foetus. I don't see it as a parasite, besides the fact it doesn't do any inherent harm to the mother, the need for nutrients and safe haven does not end after birth, it merely changes its method. (Besides there are people on the dole who are equally as "parasitic" as a foetus should they be aborted )

As to adoption, sometimes that is the best thing for the child and the most responsible thing to do.

Rape is a complicated issue. I fully admit that I am at a loss as to how abortion should be aproached in the case of rape. On the one hand I don't like the idea of the child being aborted because of the crime of one of its parents. But I also understand that the mother wasn't a willing participant in the intercourse, so the repsonsibilitiy to the child isn't necessarily hers. I, obviously, don't think the responsibility should be given to the rapist and I wouldn't ever consider the forcing of the mother to go full term to be morally acceptable. All in all its an issue in which I have no definite opinion, which is why I wouldn't agree in having absolutely no abortion clinic in Ireland, as there are cases where it can be argued for.

Mark Hamill

Burial wrote: »

They do start to learn on their own. While inside the womb, their primary goal is to have all the features of a human. Like a cake analogy someone gave before. There speech and movement are able for use before the birth. However, they don't use them. I think (I can't back this up) that when in the womb they are just developing human features. It's only outside do they really use them.

Have you just shown that a foetus does actually develop, something you said it didn't do in this post?

Burial wrote: »

I honestly don't know about that music to a featus thing...

Neither do I, hence I was asking (tbh, I think its kind of a fad that some people do because they think it will make their kids smarter, I've no idea if it actually works)

Burial wrote: »

Ok, and I'm sorry for that huge post. My point about animal abortion is that most people accept it because it won't be human. I'm saying if they use the exact logical thinking, abortion should be ok for humans.

I get your point her (and I agree with it), I was just pointing out that I don't agree with premise in the first place

Shinji Ikari

Undecided

Galvasean wrote: »

This was brought up in another thread. Rather than veer way off topic I felt this could use a thread of its own.
There's a poll. It's public so people will be able to see what you voted for. I do this (much like my poll in the Christianity forum) so people the poll is not aimed do not skew the results.
People of religious faith feel free to join the discussion, but please refrain from voting.

Oh a controversial topic my favourite! Interesting to note Chris Hitchens is anti abortion. I'm an atheist of course but I voted I am against abortion except in the case of rape and incest....and obviously when there is a threat to the Mothers life. I don't buy this Its not fully sentient line to be honest. Using that logic the value of life should be based on a persons consciousness and intelligence. Does a retard have less right to life then Stephen Hawking? As for the argument that in the early stages of pregnancy it has no consciousness and does not feel pain. Well yeah but come on its going to turn into a baby if its not aborted is'nt it? Anyway there is enough contraceptives to avoid these situations. Also if young people just drank in moderation and stopped popping E like their smarties these little mistakes would be less likely to occur. Yeah I'm probably going to get a roasting from my fellow atheists judging by the polls but thats my opinion.

There was a debate on Dawkins net recently, it stemmed from an article about Catholic hospitals in Australia threating to close due to proposed new abortion laws, and one poster argued that a woman should have the right to abort a foetus until it leaves the Mothers womb. Almost everyone bar one poster, who was also an atheist, praised her. Thats one of the reasons I don't post there anymore. If your deviate from the stereotypical atheist values your branded a closet theist...sheep. Too many elitist egos on there recently also.

Orion

5uspect wrote: »

I think this thread should be aborted...

I hear you brother

Shinji Ikari

Undecided

Macros42 wrote: »

I hear you brother

Before I'm verbally hung drawn and quartered for my previous post.:D

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

Also if young people just drank in moderation and stopped popping E like their smarties these little mistakes would be less likely to occur.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say young people should be "popping E like smarties", I agree with the sentiment that if everyone did E instead of getting hammered, we'd be a lot better off in many respects.

However I disagree with your views on abortion.

Zillah

I am against abortion entirely

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

As for the argument that in the early stages of pregnancy it has no consciousness and does not feel pain. Well yeah but come on its going to turn into a baby if its not aborted is'nt it?

And sperm will turn into a baby if you combine it with an egg instead of wiping off with a wet cloth, what's your point?

Anyway there is enough contraceptives to avoid these situations. Also if young people just drank in moderation and stopped popping E like their smarties these little mistakes would be less likely to occur.

Completely irrelevant. You're essentially proposing measures that would mean this issue would crop up less often than it does, you're not actually commenting on the matter at hand.

If your deviate from the stereotypical atheist values your branded a closet theist...sheep. Too many elitist egos on there recently also.

I really don't think you'll get that attitude here. You'll probably have people disagreeing with you but that's about it.

Err, I mean...BLASPHEMER!

Burial

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Did you answer every single post in this thread?:D

Pretty much... The one's against abotion mainly... I read the one's for, and quoted the one's i liked. I think my post mostly sums up the entire thread...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Burial wrote:

Your view they are killing a baby, in mine they are removing a parasite. They were responsible in preventing a child. Now they must endure it because they're pregnant? Surely the responsibility doesn't stop after the child but until they are adults. So therefore adoption shouldn't be an option, unless they are doing an easy fix for their problem. Their intent was neither to get pregnant in the first place. Same as a rape victim. Yet others allow it for rape but not unplanned.
Anyway the responsibility isn't to the "child". It's in the hands of the mother. She can decide if it is or isn't what she wants.

I went through each of posts you quoted and your resposnses to them, but this seems to cover most the issues (if it doesn't, just point it out and I'll respond to them too).

I'm not reading my huge post, the thought of reading that again scares me....

*shudders*

So, I'm just going to say yes, it probably does...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You said above that "they are responsible in preventing a child" and its true, but with all responsibilities you have to take the good with the bad. You take responsibiblity in trying not to get pregnant while having sex and if you don't, the great it worked, but if you do then you have to be responsible to the child. You have to take the blame for the good outcomes aswell as the bad outcomes.

Yes but there is a flaw in this arguement. When does your responsibility stop? When they are born? When they are provided with care? My point was if they were to properly take "responsibility" then they'd have to take care of the child up until adulthood. This is hardly fair, as this is essentially a punishment, even if this was never their intention and they took the right precautions.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

[Unfortunately I think this will just keep boiling down to how you see the foetus. I don't see it as a parasite, besides the fact it doesn't do any inherent harm to the mother, the need for nutrients and safe haven does not end after birth, it merely changes its method.

Yes, but I don't agree its a child or baby either. So if you get to use a word that has more influence then featus or zygote, or even just calling it, "it", then I should be able to use words that has more influence to my point.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

(Besides there are people on the dole who are equally as "parasitic" as a foetus should they be aborted )

But that is different. I realise it's a joke, but it's in a debate where the end goal is trying to prove your theory, and mine is to prove mine. As I've said before, I've to prove why they deserver to live and not a featus. As do you have to prove why a tapeworm/fruit/plants/zygote in animals should get less treatment than something of similar value.

Anyway, the people on the dole aren't parasitic to a person. Maybe to the Governments wallets, but they don't need to eat, live, or rely on the Government to physically be. If the Government collapsed tomorrow, they wouldn't die. They can also think, speak, learn, do things on their own. (Not an exclusive list) However, I'm aware of the point your raising.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As to adoption, sometimes that is the best thing for the child and the most responsible thing to do.

Why is it? Surely being responsible to the child doesn't end because it is out of you. Let's say in this scenario. An orphanage that is overcrowded, under-staffed and under-financed. Rich parents who can afford to keep the child and raise it, but decide that they don't want to keep it as it's too much of a bother. How is it better in this scenario for the child to goto an orpahage? Alas, the reverse scenario (Rich orphanage, poor family who want to keep it but can't) is it better they give up the child?

You can't say responsibility ends when it comes out.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Rape is a complicated issue. I fully admit that I am at a loss as to how abortion should be aproached in the case of rape. On the one hand I don't like the idea of the child being aborted because of the crime of one of its parents. But I also understand that the mother wasn't a willing participant in the intercourse, so the repsonsibilitiy to the child isn't necessarily hers. I, obviously, don't think the responsibility should be given to the rapist and I wouldn't ever consider the forcing of the mother to go full term to be morally acceptable. All in all its an issue in which I have no definite opinion, which is why I wouldn't agree in having absolutely no abortion clinic in Ireland, as there are cases where it can be argued for.

The problem is, many women would abuse that system. They'd argue that they were raped and get an abortion. Besides most women who are raped don't want to come forward sometimes. So to have to goto someone and tell them why and have them review to see if your case is enough to warrent an abortion isn't fair. (I'm saying they HAVE to review every case, because they can't just go "why do you want an abortion?" "Rape", then everyone who wants an abortion would just get one.) You could hardly think that putting someone's sexual history up for review against other strangers is hardly fair? And why shouldnt responsibility fall onto the rapist? This arguement is essentially your reasoning against abortion. The rapist must now take responsibility to the child (As you argue) Yet it must first be in the womans body for 9 months. You can hardly say there is a different case between the woman who used contraception and the woman who was raped. (Except how the sperm got there, and since sperm isn't really part of the development of a child and has no potential, then how a zygote doesn't matter) Both are carrying somethign they don't wish to have. How about a woman who is pregnant from a man, but gets raped by another man? Would she be allowed this abortion?



I don't think you said this, but a thread before completely changed my stance on incest. I really am at odds as to why anybody would object to it. (Two consenting adults, not forced or manipulated)
Anyway, my point is incest shouldn't be a cause to allow abortion for all of you who are pro-life. (If it isn't consenting adults that weren't forced or manipulated then its rape)


*EDIT*

Mark Hamill wrote:

Burial wrote:

They do start to learn on their own. While inside the womb, their primary goal is to have all the features of a human. Like a cake analogy someone gave before. There speech and movement are able for use before the birth. However, they don't use them. I think (I can't back this up) that when in the womb they are just developing human features. It's only outside do they really use them.

Have you just shown that a foetus does actually develop, something you said it didn't do in this post?

What I meant by post #453 isn't that it won't develop physically, (being honest it was a quick list I made) but take it out of the womb, and it won't grow beyond what it is. (i.e. take it out of the womb before any sort of brain has developed. It won't develop that on its own. It needs to be in the womb to do it. I don't know why, and biology isn't anywhere close to my strong subject, but I do know that they won't survive. I'm aware they do actually go from sperm+egg to human and they grow arms, legs, lungs, etc.

*EDIT2*

I had a tiny discussion about this recently with a friend. She believed that if she was pregnant she wouldn't have an abortion because it's not fair to the child. I asked if her cat got pregnant what would she do? She said she'd get it aborted and make sure it couldn't get pregnant again. I asked her whats the difference between her and her cat? She was clueless to answer me. But yes, I acknowledge that you got the point I was raising before.

Mark Hamill

Burial wrote: »

Yes but there is a flaw in this arguement. When does your responsibility stop? When they are born? When they are provided with care? My point was if they were to properly take "responsibility" then they'd have to take care of the child up until adulthood. This is hardly fair, as this is essentially a punishment, even if this was never their intention and they took the right precautions.

For the most part you are right, people should take care of their kids until aldulthood (and the people who take of their kids out of love will continue to care after adulthood). There are some cases, though, where the most responsible thing is to let more capable people take care of the children.
I don't know why an atheist would see this as a punishment. The only punishment I can see is to the foetus, for daring to be formed against the odds, and adding the responsibility of a child to someones future.
If you get into a boxing ring, wearing all the headgear, the gum shield and the gloves, but you end up with a broken jaw, do you see that as a punishment? No, its merely the undesired outcome, which you have to deal with. You can't say "well I don't want a broken jaw, I took precautions, therefore I'm not dealing with it".

Burial wrote: »

Yes, but I don't agree its a child or baby either. So if you get to use a word that has more influence then featus or zygote, or even just calling it, "it", then I should be able to use words that has more influence to my point.

Things is, parasite, zygote, featus or baby, its still human, and I don't believe in the killing of humans, least of all because it makes someones life harder.

Burial wrote: »

Why is it? Surely being responsible to the child doesn't end because it is out of you. Let's say in this scenario. An orphanage that is overcrowded, under-staffed and under-financed. Rich parents who can afford to keep the child and raise it, but decide that they don't want to keep it as it's too much of a bother. How is it better in this scenario for the child to goto an orpahage? Alas, the reverse scenario (Rich orphanage, poor family who want to keep it but can't) is it better they give up the child?

You can't say responsibility ends when it comes out.

You've just shown that each scenario needs to examined seperately. The responsibility is to make sure the child has the best upbringing it can get, so you'd have to examine whether or not the parents are capable of taking care of the child and raising it in a good enviroment. There are some cases where the child staying with original parents might be bad for the child, so adoption could be the best thing for it. I don't believe there is a black and white solution to this.

Burial wrote: »

The problem is, many women would abuse that system. They'd argue that they were raped and get an abortion. Besides most women who are raped don't want to come forward sometimes. So to have to goto someone and tell them why and have them review to see if your case is enough to warrent an abortion isn't fair. (I'm saying they HAVE to review every case, because they can't just go "why do you want an abortion?" "Rape", then everyone who wants an abortion would just get one.) You could hardly think that putting someone's sexual history up for review against other strangers is hardly fair? And why shouldnt responsibility fall onto the rapist? This arguement is essentially your reasoning against abortion. The rapist must now take responsibility to the child (As you argue) Yet it must first be in the womans body for 9 months. You can hardly say there is a different case between the woman who used contraception and the woman who was raped. (Except how the sperm got there, and since sperm isn't really part of the development of a child and has no potential, then how a zygote doesn't matter) Both are carrying somethign they don't wish to have.

This is why I avoided discussing rape, its very complicated. On the one hand, I'm sure there are women who would abuse that system and claim rape to get an abortion, but this might make men a damn sight more careful about who they have sex with. As to women who are actually raped having to go through a review precedure, that may necessarily be a bad thing. More rapes would be reported, so more rapists would be caught. it would be hard for the women, sure, but I think dealing with rape, withe help of a mental health councellor would be better for them in the long than keeping the rape bottled up for so long.
I don't think the responsibility should be given to the rapists to look after the kid, or make decisiions on its wellbeing, but things like financial responsibility, then yes, the rapist should be made responsible (while in prison, of course)

Burial wrote: »

How about a woman who is pregnant from a man, but gets raped by another man? Would she be allowed this abortion?

If a woman is already pregnant, then she wont get pregnant by another man, so why would she get an abortion because of the rape?

Burial wrote: »

I don't think you said this, but a thread before completely changed my stance on incest. I really am at odds as to why anybody would object to it. (Two consenting adults, not forced or manipulated)
Anyway, my point is incest shouldn't be a cause to allow abortion for all of you who are pro-life. (If it isn't consenting adults that weren't forced or manipulated then its rape)

Well assumin that incest was actually has been shown to give a large increase in the chance of birth defects in every child birth (some thing I don't know, if anyone can confirm or refute this, then please do), then I would think that the best thing would be sterilisation, so that no kids can be conceived and then if they really wanted kids, then they could adopt.

Burial wrote: »

What I meant by post #453 isn't that it won't develop physically, (being honest it was a quick list I made) but take it out of the womb, and it won't grow beyond what it is. (i.e. take it out of the womb before any sort of brain has developed. It won't develop that on its own. It needs to be in the womb to do it. I don't know why, and biology isn't anywhere close to my strong subject, but I do know that they won't survive. I'm aware they do actually go from sperm+egg to human and they grow arms, legs, lungs, etc.

Leave a baby in a shopping centre, with all the food, clothing, medicine etc that it could possibly need to grow, but absolutely no-one is allowed into the supermarket. Will it continue to grow? Will it even survive? Sure, essentially anyone allowed into the supermarket could take of it, but it wouldn't survive by itself.

Burial wrote: »

I had a tiny discussion about this recently with a friend. She believed that if she was pregnant she wouldn't have an abortion because it's not fair to the child. I asked if her cat got pregnant what would she do? She said she'd get it aborted and make sure it couldn't get pregnant again. I asked her whats the difference between her and her cat? She was clueless to answer me. But yes, I acknowledge that you got the point I was raising before.

Surely your friend should get her cat neutered before it could get pregnant? (if nothing else it would mean only one vet visit, not two, saving her a lot of money)

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Things is, parasite, zygote, featus or baby, its still human, and I don't believe in the killing of humans, least of all because it makes someones life harder.

The problem with that thinking is that sperm is human, though most people see no problem at all killing sperm.

And before someone says a sperm can't develop or grow I would think about that for a minute and ask how any of us got here if a sperm can't develop or grow. If it is wrong to kill a foetus because it could grow into a child surely it is equally wrong to kill a sperm that could equally grow into a child?

Malari

I am against abortion entirely

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem with that thinking is that sperm is human, though most people see no problem at all killing sperm.

And before someone says a sperm can't develop or grow I would think about that for a minute and ask how any of us got here if a sperm can't develop or grow. If it is wrong to kill a foetus because it could grow into a child surely it is equally wrong to kill a sperm that could equally grow into a child?

Or, in the age of cloning, almost any other cell in your body for that matter.

Mark Hamill

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem with that thinking is that sperm is human, though most people see no problem at all killing sperm.

And before someone says a sperm can't develop or grow I would think about that for a minute and ask how any of us got here if a sperm can't develop or grow. If it is wrong to kill a foetus because it could grow into a child surely it is equally wrong to kill a sperm that could equally grow into a child?

Sperm only contains half the chromosones required to make a human, therefore its not human. A sperm is not the same as the foetus as if you give the sperm the xact same conditions/nutrients as the foetus it still wont grow as it doesn't contain the necessary number of chromosones to become a child (hence sterile woman don't get pregnant while having unpretcted sex, as there is no egg to fertilize)

Burial

Malari wrote: »

Or, in the age of cloning, almost any other cell in your body for that matter.

I believe we should ignore this fact when discussing abortion, mainly because it isn't a natural process.

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem with that thinking is that sperm is human, though most people see no problem at all killing sperm.

And before someone says a sperm can't develop or grow I would think about that for a minute and ask how any of us got here if a sperm can't develop or grow. If it is wrong to kill a foetus because it could grow into a child surely it is equally wrong to kill a sperm that could equally grow into a child?

If you saw sperm as human, then to kill a featus would most definatly be murder in your eyes. (as a consequence contraception would most definatly be a no) If you saw sperm as not-human and the same for a featus you would have no problem with removing a featus. If you think the sperm is human and the featus isn't then your logis is flawed... If you think the sperm isn't human but the featus is, then this is the area that is under discussion. It's a tough area to crack, but It's further along in the development process. (One thing I always wonder, does sperm have a brain? Ie difference with a zygote? Surely killing of one should approve killing of the other... But if it's only for chromozomes then why isn't genetically altered things allowed?) Anyway, going to the cake analogy, eggs don't make a cake, but they are a vital ingredient into the mixture that makes the cake.

If you couldn't understand the last part, because it is confusing, I'm saying sperm can help make a zygote, but it alone isn't enough to sustain itself, or on it's own produce a zygote. The same is for a zygote, it needs something else to survive, something you view as unliving. The womb. (Eggs + Milk still don't make a cake) Even at that, it still needs nutrients for it to grow into a featus. After this point, it solely relys on its host. (To complete the mixture) It can't survive on its own without the host, though eventually it will stop needing the host.

In a nutshell, I'm saying you can't class anything as human until it physically becomes human in the womb. Before this point it is just a development process. (Enough so surgically it can be removed, however I don't think women should have it forcibly removed if they want it aborted, however this debate isn't about that.)

*EDIT*

Mark Hamill I will reply to your post when I can get internet. I've wasted too much time yesterday debating this issue, so expect my reply sometime tonight...

*EDIT2*

What I meant by this:
"In a nutshell, I'm saying you can't class anything as human until it physically becomes human in the womb. Before this point it is just a development process."

Was that if you view sperm as nothing more as a development process then zygotes, etc are just another stage of the development process.

Mark Hamill wrote:

Sperm only contains half the chromosones required to make a human, therefore its not human. A sperm is not the same as the foetus as if you give the sperm the xact same conditions/nutrients as the foetus it still wont grow as it doesn't contain the necessary number of chromosones to become a child (hence sterile woman don't get pregnant while having unpretcted sex, as there is no egg to fertilize)

You don't classify sperm as human because it contains half the nessicary chromosones. Therefore you view somthing has human when it has the exact amount of chromosones? What would seperate a cat from being human? Just because it doesnt have the EXACT same conditions and nutrients doesn't make it not have the potential to be human. It needs one more thing to make it human. I do believe that babies take the immune system of a mother, so if that was the case, a baby and a featus are two different things, because if they were under the exact same conditions the featus wouldn't survive.

As for the chromosones issue, the chromosone is just part of a unique structure of human dna. Do you feel that in labs when they add the complete chromosones to create a unique structure of dna, in an unsurvivalable environment, that the scientists are killing humans? Or do you feel they are removing the chance for future potential humans?

aidan24326

I am against abortion entirely

There are too many unanswered questions to get anywhere near a satisfactory conclusion to the abortion issue, and people may never agree on it. To summarise:

1.What does it mean to be human?
2.Does the fact that a clump of cells contains all the necessary genetic ingredients to become a human give it some right to protection?
3.Do we draw a distinction between an embryo in a lab and one already in the womb, and if so why?
4.At what point in its development does the embryo/foetus become something recognisably human?How do we even measure this? See question 1
5.If we see the foetus as a parasite, then in what way is the new-born baby so different? It needs almost constant care and supervision.
6.Since we can't currently say at what point a foetus becomes 'human', should we just draw a line at birth altogether? No universal right to life until the umbilical cord is cut?
7.On the other hand, the foetus/child both developed the potential to become human at the moment of fertilization, why is the unborn foetus more deserving of protection than the embryo? Surely it's just an accident of timing and luck that one has made it further than the other.

I believe until we can answer these questions and others the abortion debate will go on and on and round and round because we just don't know what it truly means to be 'alive' as a human being.

Personally I believe to be alive (as a human) requires consciousness, self-awareness, a functioning mind. Does that mean that someone who is severely retarded or brain damaged is less alive? I suppose it does. Yet the foetus who can hear, feel, respond to voices, music etc is not entitled to any protection, while someone who is effectively a vegetable still has all the same rights to life as every other living person?

I've always considered myself pro-choice. But where do we draw the line? At what stage can we say to a woman it's too late, you can no longer abort your baby? Is it always the woman's right to choose? If not then why?

Sorry for all the questions, but I'm just trying to summarise on how hopelessly complex an issue this is, and that this thread could probably run to 1000 pages and still get nowhere.

Goodshape

I am against abortion entirely

Pro-choice.

I think the issue should constantly be debated (incl. when does life start, does the embryo feel, etc.) but while the debate is ongoing the choice should be available.

Personal opinion -- I'd find it hard to "shed a tear" for the loss of an embryo which has no experience, concept or idea of life.

Tar said above that the child shouldn't suffer for the sins of the father (re: a rape case)... but what about the suffering of the mother with an unwanted pregnancy and unwanted child... or the suffering of being the unwanted child.


//edit..
Wow.. page 13?? I only the first page before replying.. didn't see the others.