Abortion from a Atheist viewpoint

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

I'm curious as to why people are going to great lengths to not see an inherent distinction between a zygote and a sperm.

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.

BurnsCarpenter

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

I don't think the PC analogy is valid.
We're talking about an individual sperm or an egg equating to a zygote.
The sperm and the egg together pre- and post-fertilisation would be the equivalent of the PC components before and after assembly.

To use the analogy, the monitor and keyboard on different shelves of the warehouse are certainly not a PC.
All of the pieces laid out on the table ready for assembly are arguably the early stages of the PC.

Dades

wicknight wrote:

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.

So the reason one might be at pains to deny there being an inherent difference between a sperm and a zygote, is to deny those that would make it THE arbitrary point at which a 'life' exists?

All that seems to do is force the necessary arbitrary point down the cycle to some other time, when the actual point is far more difficult to discern - such as vital organs, nervous system etc.

I'm not saying conception should be the point - only that at least it's a discernible one!

aidan24326

I am against abortion entirely

Dades wrote: »

I'm curious as to why people are going to great lengths to not see an inherent distinction between a zygote and a sperm.

Some other opinions would be good.

Regarding this PC idea, I would imagine the only relevant part is the hard drive - depending on whether or not there is information contained on it. But I just don't buy the analogy in general.

I agree with you. I don't think it's a valid argument to say that a sperm and a zygote are no different. They are fundamentally different in that a zygote has all the material in place to become a living human being, yes it needs a womb but all the genetic material is there, wheras a sperm is nothing of any significance until it fertilizes an egg. Now I'm not anti-abortion, I just think it's silly to liken what are two fundamentally different biological specimens.

The whole abortion issue is and will be impossible to resolve until there's a clearer understanding of what exactly constitutes a life, and what are the fundamental differences between a zygote, embryo, foetus and even a newborn baby. There are some very tricky questions and very little agreement as to the answers, even among experts in the field, and I think this whole debate will rumble on for a long time to come.

Dades

aidan24326 wrote: »

There are some very tricky questions and very little agreement as to the answers, even among experts in the field, and I think this whole debate will rumble on for a long time to come.

Absolutely.

The problem is we are trying to apply our subjective human concepts of morality and 'life', to a biological process that pays no heed to either.

gramlab

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

I think using this sort of analogy could lead you all the way back to molecules and atoms if you wanted to keep going down that road.

Within society you will find endless variances of opinion on a subject like this. What makes me curious is if the OP was written with the mind that athiests would see this issue more from a non-religious stance rather than a moral one.

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

Dades wrote: »

I'm not saying conception should be the point - only that at least it's a discernible one!

So is birth... And if it's just an arbitrary, discernible point we're looking for, this is a much more convenient one.

Now as you were saying you don't think conception should be the point, I don't necessarily think birth should be the point either, though I do believe it's a much more practical one, and and given that I don't believe in a soul and value people on their personhood, i.e. their lives ex utero, rather than simply the fact that they are a living organism with human DNA, I can't come up with a rational reason to oppose abortion during any stage of pregnancy. That said, I'd be more inclined to support a limit of 24 weeks or so, simply because I think leaving the decision to have an abortion so late is silly and also possibly indicates an irrational change of mind by the parents, and also to appease the many who happen to oppose abortion only in the third trimester.

Zombrex

BurnsCarpenter wrote: »

We're talking about an individual sperm or an egg equating to a zygote.

That is kind of my point. People focus on the individual sperm because we, as humans, have trouble thinking about "units" as anything other than single physical entities.

In reality the sperm/egg combination that forms the zygote is as necessary and important to the formation of a human being as the zygote. You can't have a zygote without them.

But because they are not physically joined together people dismiss them, together as two separate an unconnected parts, as being of little worth, but then say that the zygote is of extreme value.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the sperm/egg are of extreme value, but then I don't think the zygote is of any particular value either. But if you are measuring worth based on the ability to produce a new human, the sperm/egg pair are of no less importance or value than the zygote.

BurnsCarpenter wrote: »

All of the pieces laid out on the table ready for assembly are arguably the early stages of the PC.

Exactly. And removing any individual part stops that PC from being that PC.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

All that seems to do is force the necessary arbitrary point down the cycle to some other time, when the actual point is far more difficult to discern - such as vital organs, nervous system etc.

That doesn't really matter.

A point doesn't have any particular ethical merit simply because it is easy to discern.

Zombrex

gramlab wrote: »

I think using this sort of analogy could lead you all the way back to molecules and atoms if you wanted to keep going down that road.

Possibly, if one has an ethical "first principle" they wish to go back to. that isn't necessarily a bad thing. We are after all simply molecules and atoms, a reason I think there is much inherent value in say a zygote.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

A point doesn't have any particular ethical merit simply because it is easy to discern.

Actually I've been saying that all along. I'm not inclined to give conception 'ethic merit'; the only reason I posted was that I thought it was wrong to say that a sperm and a zygote are equal. It may be a philosophical one, but I feel there is a definite inherent difference.

I voted as "undecided" due to the lack of a reasonable discernible point at which to say it is wrong. In reality however, my indecision puts me in the pro-choice (or abstain) camp.

Unlike with a lot people and the Lisbon treaty, I wouldn't vote "no" in a referendum just because the issue was cloudy. *

* controversial!

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Actually I've been saying that all along. I'm not inclined to give conception 'ethic merit'; the only reason I posted was that I thought it was wrong to say that a sperm and a zygote are equal.

Well depends on what you mean by equal. Obviously they aren't physically equal, in the same way that a zygote isn't physically equal to the embryo.

But in the argument of what is a "human being" I see little reason to pick the zygote over the sperm/egg that formed the zygote. They are both equally in terms of either being a human being or not being a human being.

Dades wrote: »

Unlike with a lot people and the Lisbon treaty, I wouldn't vote "no" in a referendum just because the issue was cloudy. *
* controversial!

:eek:

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

They are both equally in terms of either being a human being or not being a human being.

That, I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on. :pac:

Bottle_of_Smoke

I am against abortion entirely

I'd say it's okay up to the point the foetus develops a nervous system.

If I did believe in a soul etc I don't see why rape cases would be allowed, not like the foetus committed rape, and even if the ydid I'm not sure where I stand on capital punishment.

argolis

I am against abortion entirely

/\
| Freddie Kruger
|
| Pro-abortion
|
. Pro-choice <-- Me
|
| Pro-life
|
| Dana
\/

Zombrex

Who would win in a fight, Dana or Freddie ... now that would be worth paying to view

argolis

I am against abortion entirely

Not sure, but I wouldn't like to be exactly in the middle. Razor sharp claws and a melted face on one side, Freddie Kruger on the other. Scary. :pac:

Standman

I am against abortion entirely

In my opinion a womans pregnancy is hers to do with what she wishes. They baby is living off of her body, it physically depends on her to survive. If she should want to cut the lifeline it should be her choice no matter how immoral anyone else may think it is.

Phototoxin

I am against abortion except for in cases of rape

In my opinion a womans pregnancy is hers to do with what she wishes. They baby is living off of her body, it physically depends on her to survive. If she should want to cut the lifeline it should be her choice no matter how immoral anyone else may think it is.

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 ?

Dades

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.

Hmmm. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :pac:

Zillah

I am against abortion entirely

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.

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.

Standman

I am against abortion entirely

If I hit a man in my car by freak accident or due to my own negligence and I agreed to hook myself up to him and supply him with a constant flow of blood to keep him alive, I should have the right to change my mind. If you think that is immoral, that's fine, but morals are not = law. It is my body, my blood, my decision. Even if you think I have a moral obligation to do so, that does not in any way translate to a legal obligation. The same goes for pregnant women, no matter how immoral you may think it is it's none of your damn business.

Zillah

I am against abortion entirely

Standman wrote: »

If I hit a man in my car by freak accident or due to my own negligence and I agreed to hook myself up to him and supply him with a constant flow of blood to keep him alive, I should have the right to change my mind. If you think that is immoral, that's fine, but morals are not = law. It is my body, my blood, my decision. Even if you think I have a moral obligation to do so, that does not in any way translate to a legal obligation. The same goes for pregnant women, no matter how immoral you may think it is it's none of your damn business.

While I agree with the sentiment, your argument is a little all over the place. You claim that morals (aka what one ought to do) is irrelevant, and that only the law matters. Which is an odd thing to say considering that the law is how we express how we think we ought to behave and in Ireland it is in fact illegal to have an abortion.

Not to mention that you seem to be making a moral argument yourself: You ought to be allowed change your mind in the car crash scenario.

Also, your comment "no matter how immoral you may think it is it's none of your damn business" seems strange when we consider our reactions to rape or murder of other individuals.

Zombrex

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 ?

I don't think that is what he means.

Imagine someone is living off your blood (there is a technical name for that, an active blood transfusion between two people, think it is sometimes used in war zones).

Do you have the right to stop that transfusion, and if you do and the person who needs your blood dies, are you responsible for their death.

Even considering that the foetus is to be considered a person, does the woman have the right to refuse to allow her body to be used to sustain the life of another person. And if she does refuse, is she responsible for the death of the other person who needs her body.

aidan24326

I am against abortion entirely

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think that is what he means.

Imagine someone is living off your blood (there is a technical name for that, an active blood transfusion between two people, think it is sometimes used in war zones).

Do you have the right to stop that transfusion, and if you do and the person who needs your blood dies, are you responsible for their death.

Even considering that the foetus is to be considered a person, does the woman have the right to refuse to allow her body to be used to sustain the life of another person. And if she does refuse, is she responsible for the death of the other person who needs her body.

Then why not confer no rights at all on the unborn, other than the right to not be made suffer unduly i.e a woman is always free to abort at any stage of pregnancy, while the embryo/foetus is living inside her womb (abortion can be done with minimal suffering at any stage of pregnancy)

That would solve the whole problem. No absolute right to life until you're free of the umbilical cord. That's where your argument is headed.

In the blood transfusion example the person providing the blood has no obligation to continue doing so imo, the other person is effectively in the role of parasite.

Standman

I am against abortion entirely

The argument I am making is solely directed towards abortion laws and nothing else. The reason I gave the example of knocking down a man in a car is because I wanted to differentiate abortion from murder, which is what many anti-abortionists view it as.

In my opinion there is a big and fairly obvious difference between laws against abortion and laws prohibiting murder and rape. And just on a side note doesn't our constitution say it will not block any of it's citizens from travelling to another country to preform an abortion? I must have missed the part where it says the same about murder and rape. That definitely suggests to me that there even the writers of that article realised there is a huge moral difference between abortion and murder.
What I would ask you is : Do you think that denying someone a lifeline in the form of blood transfusions/umbilical cord is the same as murder?

I do not think so, for the simple reason that I don't believe anyone else but yourself should be allowed to make decisions on where or to whom you give your own bodily fluids.

Galvasean

I am against abortion except for in cases of rape and also incest

Phototoxin wrote: »

as for survival.. we cannot survive without air or food or water so why begrudge the embryo ?

Begrudge is an odd choice of words.

*grumbles*
Damn freeloadin' foetuses, comin' over here, moochin' off the state, taking our women...*

Zombrex

aidan24326 wrote: »

Then why not confer no rights at all on the unborn, other than the right to not be made suffer unduly i.e a woman is always free to abort at any stage of pregnancy, while the embryo/foetus is living inside her womb (abortion can be done with minimal suffering at any stage of pregnancy)

I'm not sure what you mean by confer no rights

A person has rights based on what they are (in my opinion). A foetus has rights of a human person if it is considered a human person (again in my opinion). When that happens is up for debate obviously.

It is not necessary for the fetus to have no rights, or even less rights than a child or adult, for the idea about the woman's rights expressed above, to apply

aidan24326 wrote: »

That would solve the whole problem. No absolute right to life until you're free of the umbilical cord. That's where your argument is headed.

Well firstly it isn't my argument. There are a few potential flaws in the argument that I can see, such as the idea of parental responsibility (eg. should a mother be forced by law to give blood to her dying 5 year old more than a stranger?).

But again it is not necessary for a fetus to have no rights. You have plenty of rights, but you can't have my blood just because you need it.

aidan24326 wrote: »

In the blood transfusion example the person providing the blood has no obligation to continue doing so imo, the other person is effectively in the role of parasite.

That is the point.

The fetus has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the length of the pregnancy.

Does the woman have the right to terminate this relationship, as she could with an adult, irrespective of any rights the fetus may or may not have as a person?

It is an interesting question because it applies even if we consider the fetus a person with rights straight from conception.

Galvasean

I am against abortion except for in cases of rape and also incest

Wicknight wrote: »

The fetus has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the length of the pregnancy.

I really don't like that particular word directed at the fetus, but alas it is correct.

Malari

I am against abortion entirely

Well that's what a foetus is - an obligate parasite. I think it's a good description.

Dades

In the same way humans are all just parasites on mother earth. *

* Thanks to Agent Smith.

Mark Hamill

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.

aidan24326 wrote:

In the blood transfusion example the person providing the blood has no obligation to continue doing so imo, the other person is effectively in the role of parasite.

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?

Dave!

I am against abortion entirely

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.

You think that 'as punishment' is a good reason for forcing someone to bear a child? Is that likely to encourage a healthy and positive parent-child relationship?

That's one of the sillier reasons I've heard.

Sorry immature 15 year old girl from broken and unstable home, you had sex (you, a child, who is not yet responsible) -- now you have to carry a baby for 9 months and squeeze it out of you.

Sure could you not just let them have the abortion, but give them a flogging afterwards?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.

Well you apparantly consider it a living human being inside the pregnant woman. Not everyone does. These people, when they accidentally get pregnant, may have an abortion. Surely that's dealing with their responsibilities?

If you get a car and write it off, it's your responsibility so deal with it. Okay, I'll claim off the insurance company and buy a new car -- sorted

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thing is, if you think yourself mature enough to have sex, then you should be mature enough to deal with any possible outcome

Of course. But how is deciding to have an abortion immature? Sounds like a pretty mature way of dealing with an unintended outcome to me.

Malari

I am against abortion entirely

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.

What a ridiculous attitude. The protection IS taking responsibility. Would you also prevent someone from taking a morning after pill if you have sex while on the contraceptive pill, and oops, suffer a gastric upset which means you are at risk from pregnancy because your last pill is null and void?

I'm not just talking about some 15 year old who gets pregnant out of ignorance, I'm talking about two consenting adults in a long term relationship who have discussed having children and don't want any.

You still think continuing with the pregnancy is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do? What a joke.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Malari wrote: »

You still think continuing with the pregnancy is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do? What a joke.

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?

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.

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.

Zombrex

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?

You are on a slipperly slope if you start determining things based on fault.

For example, how much fault does as person have to have before it is ok to break the right to bodily integrity?

If I crash my car into you, can you take my blood or kidney. If didn't repair the traffic lights that caused another person's car to crash into you can you take my kidney?

Malari

I am against abortion entirely

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?

It's not selfishness to not want a baby. Giving up an actual child after birth is totally different from terminating a pregnancy. You can't just compare the two.

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.

A stakeholder? I really don't understand what you mean here.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Thirdly, surely why should the Mother have more choice than the baby?

Because the mother is probably an adult with a fully developed nervous system, who has effects on people around her, has relationships, a job, family, has contributed to society, etc. A foetus is not. It is a potential human. Again, don't see how you equate the two.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

Same kind of argument as the last point. An infant is NOT a foetus. I don't have to delineate anything. I can just agree with abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and not at say, 24 weeks if I want.

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

Not really. What's so precious about life? I find personhood and the state of being part of society to be what merits one's protection against murder, and a fetus in utero doesn't fit that definition to me.

Zombrex

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?

One could just as easily ask why would someone want to use a condom rather than have an adoption. Selfishness?

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?

I presume you are asking should the father have the right to stop the woman from having the abortion (rather than forcing the woman to have the abortion, which is forcing another person to have an invasive medical procedure).

That is a difficult issue, because after all the father doesn't have to carry to term the baby nor give birth to it. While I believe that the mother ethically should consider the fathers views as equal to her own, I think legally it would be difficult to justify forcing women to carry children they don't wish to.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

In a pro-choice context the State isn't a stake holder, the State is a provider of a service.

The State is no more a stakeholder than in say your heart operation, and I can no more object to that.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Thirdly, surely why should the Mother have more choice than the baby?

The foetus lacks the ability to make a choice, so the issue is rather null and void. Are you talking about a guardian making the choice they feel is in the best interests of the child?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

If by "life" you mean personhood (biological,life never stops in the first place) I would agree with that, though the "exactly" isn't necessary if someone is prepared to air on the side of caution.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

Both of those are really really bad reasons to legalise abortion.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Not really. What's so precious about life? I find personhood and the state of being part of society to be what merits one's protection against murder, and a fetus in utero doesn't fit that definition to me.

I believe life is sacred. Not in religious sense but in a humanist sense. Of course if you don't then my arguments fall apart as that is the axiom in my argument. So when does life begin, at conception at birth or somewhere in between.

That's a tough question, but I would veer towards the conception side of the spectrum. It's not just about beginning, it's about potentiality.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well this is the crux of the issue. I believe life is sacred.

Perhaps you should expand on that a bit more, as I imagine you don't believe the bacteria in your stomach is sacred.

If you believe human life (in the biological sense) is sacred the next question would be why is it sacred.

OK-Cancel-Apply

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

LOL you could use that one to justify just about anything being legalised! Heroin is dealt in backstreets, people swap needles etc. Dog fights take place underground, unregulated and dangerous. Triad/Mafia finger slicing takes place outside the law, and I wouldn't say they sterilise their knives!

Malari

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I believe life is sacred. Not in religious sense but in a humanist sense. Of course if you don't then my arguments fall apart as that is the axiom in my argument. So when does life begin, at conception at birth or somewhere in between.

That's a tough question, but I would veer towards the conception side of the spectrum. It's not just about beginning, it's about potentiality.

Well that's where we differ because I would agree with JC 2K3 on the actual contribution of people to society, rather than the potential contribution of a foetus that might go to term. Even if I'm not pregnant, my life is more important than a foetus.

OK-Cancel-Apply

I am against abortion entirely

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I believe life is sacred. Not in religious sense but in a humanist sense. Of course if you don't then my arguments fall apart as that is the axiom in my argument. So when does life begin, at conception at birth or somewhere in between.

That's a tough question, but I would veer towards the conception side of the spectrum. It's not just about beginning, it's about potentiality.

Isn't that what the bible is getting at when it says not to 'spill your seed' on the floor?

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Wicknight wrote: »

One could just as easily ask why would someone want to use a condom rather than have an adoption. Selfishness?

No. Because the egg has no potentiality on its own. The foetus has potentiality.

In a pro-choice context the State isn't a stake holder, the State is a provider of a service. The State is no more a stakeholder than in say your heart operation, and I can no more object to that.

The state is a stakeholder. My heart operation would be funded by state and tax payer.

The foetus lacks the ability to make a choice, so the issue is rather null and void.

I think this is a little more complicated that that.
Firstly we are back to causality versue free will debate. Secondly, if free will exists, when does it begin. The foetus / unborn baby may very well be actively making a choice to live and survive, killing it is just denying it that choice.

Both of those are really really bad reasons to legalise abortion.

Well if perhaps you're too lazy to say why or I am too lazy to check if you already have.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

LOL you could use that one to justify just about anything being legalised! Heroin is dealt in backstreets, people swap needles etc. Dog fights take place underground, unregulated and dangerous. Triad/Mafia finger slicing takes place outside the law, and I wouldn't say they sterilise their knives!

LOL argument by analogy.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Wicknight wrote: »

If you believe human life (in the biological sense) is sacred the next question would be why is it sacred.

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.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Isn't that what the bible is getting at when it says not to 'spill your seed' on the floor?

No potentiality is used in many philosophical debates. No need for the Bible.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Malari wrote: »

Well that's where we differ because I would agree with JC 2K3 on the actual contribution of people to society, rather than the potential contribution of a foetus that might go to term. Even if I'm not pregnant, my life is more important than a foetus.

If you're a sponger i.e. not a net contributer to society is the foetus worth more than?

If you are mentally handicapped, do you contribute to society or should you face the chopper?