Abortion

The_Minister

Jimbo wrote: »

Let me get this straight.

You believe parents should have the right to kill their newborn baby if it's disabled?

The mind boggles.

Historically infanticide is not unusual. In fact, it occurs in most cultures at some point or another http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide. Finding it to be repugnant was pretty much a Christian thing.

Note: I do not favour infanticide.

philologos

Hamiltonion wrote: »

A pleasure, I enjoy a reasoned debate;)

It's a pleasure to discuss with others who are willing to at least listen.

Hamiltonion wrote: »

Location has nothing to do with it, I'd completely concede everything but for the fact that the fetus cannot survive, even fir a second, outside the mothers body. If the fetus could be delivered and live at 2 weeks things would be different, however, as a dependant the chice lies with the mother and she has every right, due to the prnciple of bodily integrity. At 8 months this may not be the case but as long as the fetus has not yet developed the facuties needed to survive outside of the womb it holds true

As for location. Your main point is that the child needs to be in the foetus to survive. However this is also applicable outside the womb as I've previously demonstrated. The child needs essential foods to survive, protein to grow, calcium for the formation of bones in any meaningful sense or to at least prevent against future osteoperosis. If we are to argue from development the child needs several things from it's parents in the real world to be able to develop as healthy human beings both mentally and physically. I have yet to see what is so different about this, apart from the fact that the biological tie isn't so visible. However we aren't arguing about visibility we are arguing about human rights. Location or dependence generally doesn't affect human rights, it certainly doesn't in this case either.

If you can provide a decent cited case that clearly shows me where in international human rights is it acceptable to do x, y and z that would be a great step forward in the discussion. Until you can do that there is no reason why location or dependence ever supersedes the human rights of the individual.

Wagon

TheZohan wrote: »

Your friends are realists.

If your g/f gets pregnant chances are she'll want to keep it, you won't have a choice in the matter.

He's only the father. What does his opinion matter?



That's not sarcasim. I wish it was.

brummytom

Elliemental wrote: »

You're using your experience of one person, and generalising that onto the rest of the population.
Your letting your personal emotion cloud your judgement. You think abortions are nasty, so no one else should be able to have one.

Maybe so... though do you feel there is any problem in personal experience shaping one's opinions?

In contrast to my earlier post; during easter a really close friend of mine (also 15) seriously thought she was pregnant (turned out to be a false alarm eventually). As I was the only person, other than her boyfriend, that she told, we had many long chats about what she would do.

Though I know she's young, I truly do believe that all babies deserve a life ("All life must be protected and respected from conception to natural death") and although many young women feel alone and helpless, there's plenty of help avalialble out there.

Elliemental wrote: »

Tell me, what have you got against choice?

Should someone be able to control whether someone lives or dies?
So you believe in choice? If i choose to go and kill my younger brother because I can't bear growing up with him, that's grand is it?

I don't mean that last bit in a mocking way, I would honestly like to know where you draw the line at choice

Hamiltonion

I'v to get offline so this will be my final post for a while, be interesting to see how the argument progresses.

In my above points I'v proven how location is not the issue at hand, dependence, lack of faculties and bodily integrity are. For a closing statement I'd like to bring this to your attention, how come in a situation where it boils down to the life of the fetus or the mother it is the medica status quo to save the mother? Because the fetus is dependant and would not survive without the mothers body. Hence the mother has a greater right to life and henceforth a greater right to bodily integrity as her faculties are in place to survive in the outside biotic environment

philologos

Hamiltonion wrote: »

I'v to get offline so this will be my final post for a while, be interesting to see how the argument progresses.

Fair enough it's been a pleasure to speak with you but I just cannot agree, it isn't logically sound and it is based on discrimination.

Hamiltonion wrote: »

In my above points I'v proven how location is not the issue at hand, dependence, lack of faculties and bodily integrity are. For a closing statement I'd like to bring this to your attention, how come in a situation where it boils down to the life of the fetus or the mother it is the medica status quo to save the mother? Because the fetus is dependant and would not survive without the mothers body. Hence the mother has a greater right to life and henceforth a greater right to bodily integrity as her faculties are in place to survive in the outside biotic environment

Dependence, lack of faculties and bodily integrity are all things that can be questioned outside of the womb for the reasons I have already stated.

Dependence: Children are dependant on their mother and father for a very long time after they have been born.

Lack of faculties: This is merely based on the child not being as developed as the other. I could put categories x, y and z on a child. Just because a child does not have qualities x, y and z should we regard them as inferior to the adult that does have qualities x, y and z. Or in reductio ad absurdum form, if I said that you lacked faculties if you couldn't cycle, this doesn't in reality mean that this is a defacto reason for denying someone their rights. Their rights still transcend this traditional barrier that you have placed in your own subjective understanding of what is human. Objectively that child would have been considered human due to it being a different biological entity from sperm and zygote which has formed into a child and has grown.

Bodily integrity: This all depends on how you view the biological entity of the mother and the child. Are they one or are they two? The fact that I use they seems to suggest that they are two in the semantics of it all. You say that dependance over rules the fact that the foetus is different biologically from the mother. However being comprised of a different sperm and zygote and displaying some different chromosones from the side of the father this would imply that there are key differences between them. Also if you are going to argue this and from dependence you are using a circular argument.

These have no bearing on actual human rights in the real world in any sense.

By faculties you mean the mother is more developed so the mother has the defacto right. However, what determines development. Age? Mental abilities? Physical development? There is so much ambiguity in that respect that it would lead is no further to coming to a conclusion than when we started.

andrew

In my opinion, while a foetus is still inside the womb it isn't technically living, and so abortion is fine.

In saying someone is alive, I mean that their heart is beating, they posess bodily functions etc. So in that sense a foetus, or a person in a coma is 'alive.' However a foetus isn't 'living.' They have no conception of the outside world, aren't self aware, can't experience life in any way shape or form that is meaningful to their existance. They're basically just floating there, alive only in the strictly biological sense of the word. I think that, if someone is just 'alive' (whether it be a person in a coma or a foetus, though obviously we're talking about foetus' here) then their life is basically worthless, and has value not in of itself but only in relation to those related to it. So if those related to it (ie. the mother and father in this case) don't want it, then I don't see the problem in aborting it, (or, to continue the comparison, turning off the life support machine which feeds people in comas).

philologos

andrew wrote: »

In my opinion, while a foetus is still inside the womb it isn't technically living, and so abortion is fine.

Yes it is living, I don't know how it wouldn't be considered to be living. Check out this reasoning:

1. Growth is an attribute of life, things do not grow without being alive.
2. The foetus in the womb is growing.
3. The foetus is alive.

Makes perfect sense to me. In biological terms things do not grow without being alive. Would you disagree and if so present your reasoning to suggest such.

andrew wrote: »

In saying someone is alive, I mean that their heart is beating, they posess bodily functions etc.

This is the argument from development. You are arguing because the foetus doesn't have attributes x, y and z, that it cannot be constituted as life. This is fallacious reasoning almost as bad as saying "It doesn't look like a child therefore it isn't". At that stage of human life it is perfectly normal that a child doesn't have x, y and z, just as I don't expect a newborn to be able to speak or cycle a bike. Again this is clearly reductio ad absurdum, but those examples have about as much credence in this discussion as anything else you are raising. You are saying that mother is more developed than child, therefore mother should have the right to mute any rights that are afforded to the child. That's discrimination pure and simple. As ethical actors it would seem more reasonable to come to a compromise. Which is the option of adoption in this poll.

andrew wrote: »

So in that sense a foetus, or a person in a coma is 'alive.' However a foetus isn't 'living.'

These are based on subjective opinions rather than anything that is based in biology. If you can find anything to suggest that I am wrong from a reputable source I will concede this point.

andrew wrote: »

They have no conception of the outside world, aren't self aware, can't experience life in any way shape or form that is meaningful to their existance.

Another clear bit of fallacious reasoning. You are arguing that just because a human life doesn't have attributes that you do that it isn't human life. I could think of numerous examples with a newborn that wouldn't have with you. Does that mean that the parents have the right to slaughter the newborn?

andrew wrote: »

They're basically just floating there, alive only in the strictly biological sense of the word. I think that, if someone is just 'alive' (whether it be a person in a coma or a foetus, though obviously we're talking about foetus' here) then their life is basically worthless, and has value not in of itself but only in relation to those related to it. So if those related to it (ie. the mother and father in this case) don't want it, then I don't see the problem in aborting it, (or, to continue the comparison, turning off the life support machine which feeds people in comas).

It's pure nonsense though. These things are all to be expected of human life at that age. Development, location, dependence on mother. All these things aren't things that generally hinder human rights outside of the womb. Why should we adopt a totally different irrational understanding for within the womb. I think consistency should be key. What is true inside the womb from your argumentation is pretty much true outside the womb also but you apply a different standard. Why though? What is the difference. I can show you there is clear affinity in how you could argue for infanticide under the same reasoning you are arguing for abortion. Do you support infanticide and if not why not?

rainbow kirby

I am pro-choice, and am in favour of abortion on demand up to 20 weeks. I do not believe that any woman should ever be forced to go through with a pregnancy that she does not wish to go through with.

While it is extremely unlikely that I will ever be faced with the situation, I would have no problem personally with terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

Novella

Deleted User wrote: »

so if bad luck struck we would decide to take the trip the england for an abortion.


* I know this is a touchy subject so try keep it civil folks, I would like to hear some real opinions on this without risk getting the thread locked, thanks.

That's not bad luck, that's carelessness.

Luck is a chance happening, or that which happens beyond a persons control. Is getting someone pregnant out of your control? No.

andrew

Ok, so what you're saying is that

1. Growth is an attribute of life, things do not grow without being alive.
2. The foetus in the womb is growing.
3. The foetus is alive.

So your criteria for considering the foetus to be living are basically that it is a foetus and that it's growing inside the mother. But I think that this is too wide and liberal a definition of living. I think that for something to be considered living it need have certain attributes beyond that. Yes, this could be reduced to 'you can't cycle a bike, therefore you're not living' but thats absurd, whereas I don't think my line of reasoning is absurd.

Why should we consider a foetus as living just because it has the biological characteristics of life? What's wrong with limiting our conception of life to something which is conscious, self aware, developing mentally not just physically etc. Foetuses are none of these things while inside the womb. I don't see why certain levels of development shouldn't be a basis for affording certain rights. We regularly afford rights on the basis of development: children have differing rights to adults.

IMO, the only thing which differentiates a foetus from a tumour is that when you remove the foetus it becomes a living person. Then and only then, when it has begun to be able to percieve the world around it in a meaningful way, is actually living and worth protecting. Until then it's basically a tumor with (potential. So that's why I don't support infanticide. I don't think that you can be 'living' while still in the womb. Life is something which is just biological, it's a lot more than that.

Yes it's subjective, but why isn't it a valid reason to deny the foetus its right to 'life.' TBH I don't think there exist objective criteria on which you can base life, which is why I think people should be allowed to chose. What harm accrues to society from killing a foetus which they don't deem as living?

In advance of any "would you support killing X then", where X is an individual in a coma, or really really really mentally retarded (i'm talking really really really retarded here, as in conscious only in the most primitive sense of the word) then yeah, killing them would be fine by me also.

Terry

toiletduck wrote: »

If anyone can resolve the debate of abortion to a satisfactory conclusion for both sides then it's definitely the posters of AH.

Abortion is fine for some and here's why;
Some cannot afford to raise a child properly or do not want to raise a child at all.
Adoption?
Plenty of kids to go around.
If you want to adopt, then you take the first child that comes along and not a hand-picked one from Malawi.

Murder?
My earliest memory is from the age of 4. That's when I developed OCD. Awesome, isn't it?

For the good of the child?
Yes.
If you can't afford to keep a child, then don't have one. Or use a ****ing condom FFS.


Right.
They are all debatable.
Here's the deal.
If I was aborted, would you know?
I certainly wouldn't.

There are millions of potential people who never lived.
They could have been the next Einstein or the next Hitler.
Chances are they would have just lived a normal life.
We'll never know, but do you really care?
Do you really care that someone who never existed doesn't exist?

Should we all just have sex now in order to try to create what might be?

**** this. None of you anti-abortionists, or pro abortionists know what will happen.. Nobody knows.

In the words of Kevin Smith: A woman's body is her own ****ing business.

That is word of Terry. Praise be upon him.

The_Minister

AFAIR babies can experience pain, fear etc in the womb, so it's not really correct to depict them just sitting their.
Why do you think they kick?

Terry

The_Minister wrote: »

AFAIR babies can experience pain, fear etc in the womb, so it's not really correct to depict them just sitting their.
Why do you think they kick?

They like music?
If they are in pain or fear in the womb, then isn't that a form of torture?

JC 2K3

Terry wrote: »

There are millions of potential people who never lived.
They could have been the next Einstein or the next Hitler.
Chances are they would have just lived a normal life.
We'll never know, but do you really care?
Do you really care that someone who never existed doesn't exist?

+10000000000

Novella

Terry wrote: »

**** this. None of you anti-abortionists, or pro abortionists know what will happen.. Nobody knows.

I'd like to think that people having unprotected sex are educated enough to know that it could lead to an unplanned pregnancy and therefore, not take the risk, as opposed to fobbing it off as "bad luck".

philologos

andrew wrote: »

Ok, so what you're saying is that

1. Growth is an attribute of life, things do not grow without being alive.
2. The foetus in the womb is growing.
3. The foetus is alive.

Yes, that's what I'm saying

andrew wrote: »

So your criteria for considering the foetus to be living are basically that it is a foetus and that it's growing inside the mother. But I think that this is too wide and liberal a definition of living. I think that for something to be considered living it need have certain attributes beyond that. Yes, this could be reduced to 'you can't cycle a bike, therefore you're not living' but thats absurd, whereas I don't think my line of reasoning is absurd.

I don't think many of my opinions are very liberal
For something to be considered alive, it seems pretty straightforward biologically, but you want to add some philosophical means of assessing life as well as the traditional biological one that is used? This is the very thing that is obscuring the discussion though, don't you think?

andrew wrote: »

Why should we consider a foetus as living just because it has the biological characteristics of life? What's wrong with limiting our conception of life to something which is conscious, self aware, developing mentally not just physically etc. Foetuses are none of these things while inside the womb. I don't see why certain levels of development shouldn't be a basis for affording certain rights. We regularly afford rights on the basis of development: children have differing rights to adults.

Well, biologically is the primary means by which we assess defacto life. Anything else is just attaching feelings, emotions and philosophical opinions to the debate. I personally could add in all the Judeo-Christian principles I believe in to the discussion but it can also be explained by coming at a secular angle with it. I have chosen to do this for this discussion.

Consciousness is something that is to do with development. A human life at this stage in the process is expected to be without conscience because it is something through the biological growth process of life that it will gain. Just because consciousness hasn't been developed yet doesn't mean that it is not human life it just means that you are adding personal factors onto what you consider to be a life further than the biological definition would usually go. Just because someone considers factors x, y and z to be factors that must be a part of human life doesn't mean that is the way in all actuality. When we look at it your argument is coming down to:

"The mother is more developed than the child, as such I think that her rights automatically supersede the rights of the child."

People can claim to be more developed than others the whole way throughout life though, and people actually are more developed in life than others. Does this mean that the more developed should always restrict the rights of the lesser? Do you have any idea how chaotic that would be in reality?

andrew wrote: »

IMO, the only thing which differentiates a foetus from a tumour is that when you remove the foetus it becomes a living person. Then and only then, when it has begun to be able to percieve the world around it in a meaningful way, is actually living and worth protecting. Until then it's basically a tumor with (potential. So that's why I don't support infanticide. I don't think that you can be 'living' while still in the womb. Life is something which is just biological, it's a lot more than that.

Biologically a foetus is different to a tumour. This is just obscuring the discussion further surely? We know that a sperm and an ova fuse together to form a zygote and from that point on that the biological process of life begins, this is really enough to assess what life is without having to bring in other factors. Many of my friends who are pro-choice, and many on this thread infact have already accepted that abortion is killing, it's pretty hard to see it any other way really if you consider life to be a process which forms biologically from the point of fusion until the point when the individual dies.

As for perceiving the world, this all comes back to development. If a child is allowed to develop it will perceive the world, just as it will learn the alphabet if it goes to school. More and more of these attributes being added in just detract from the relevance of the discussion. None of these things have any bearing on what human rights should be afforded to individuals.

andrew wrote: »

Yes it's subjective, but why isn't it a valid reason to deny the foetus its right to 'life.' TBH I don't think there exist objective criteria on which you can base life, which is why I think people should be allowed to chose. What harm accrues to society from killing a foetus which they don't deem as living?

I'd argue the biological definition is the best we can use without attaching all these different attributes onto it which have no bearing on the process of how the child actually develops from fusion until birth and from birth until adolescence, and from adolescence to adulthood to death.

andrew wrote: »

In advance of any "would you support killing X then", where X is an individual in a coma, or really really really mentally retarded (i'm talking really really really retarded here, as in conscious only in the most primitive sense of the word) then yeah, killing them would be fine by me also.

A situation where X is in a coma is radically different to a situation where an unborn child which has every opportunity to live a fulfilled life is being denied their full right to do so. At least in situation X said individual has had somewhat of an opportunity. You aren't comparing like with like.

In the situation of the coma the consciousness has ceased to function on a permanent basis.

In the situation of the foetus the consciousness is developing to a stage whereby it will be fully operable.

Situation 1, no potential.
Situation 2, abundance of potential.

Iang87

eh abortion if you want it, no abortion if you dont want it.

Could it not be simple as that without ridiculous campaigns and high horses riding in trying to control everyone and make them think lik them

Terry

Novella wrote: »

I'd like to think that people having unprotected sex are educated enough to know that it could lead to an unplanned pregnancy and therefore, not take the risk, as opposed to fobbing it off as "bad luck".

The words "Bad" and "Luck" do not appear in my post.
Where did you get that from?

I once had a chick tell me that I got her pregnant.
She wanted to have an abortion.

I was confused as to how to react.
I'd love a child of my own, but I'm not going to force a woman to carry a child that she doesn't want to carry.

In the end it was her decision as it was her body.

Turns out she was just a bit mad and wasn't pregnant at all, but that's neither here nor there.

Dudess

Novella wrote: »

I'd like to think that people having unprotected sex are educated enough to know that it could lead to an unplanned pregnancy and therefore, not take the risk, as opposed to fobbing it off as "bad luck".

Well accidents can happen. In those situations, for me, very early stage abortion makes huge sense.

Novella

Novella wrote: »

That's not bad luck, that's carelessness.

Luck is a chance happening, or that which happens beyond a persons control. Is getting someone pregnant out of your control? No.

For the record we are extremely careful with contraception, i'm also aware that no contraception is 100%
So if both of us were using protection + she was on the pill, and she still managed to get pregnant I would definitely consider that bad luck

philologos

Iang87 wrote: »

Could it not be simple as that without ridiculous campaigns and high horses riding in trying to control everyone and make them think lik them

I know! Condemning people to death without any consent before they even get the chance to experience the world? That is coercive isn't it?*

* N.B I realise that you meant it from a pro-choice angle, but it's a notable thing to think about the hypocrisy of statements like these. I'm just pro human rights. Everyone should have the same chance to live as I did.

Iang87

Jakkass wrote: »

I know! Condemning people to death without any consent before they even get the chance to experience the world? That is coercive isn't it?*

* N.B I realise that you meant it from a pro-choice angle, but it's a notable thing to think about the hypocrisy of statements like these. I'm just pro human rights. Everyone should have the same chance to live as I did.

but why have you the power to tell me how it should be or choose for me.

What you gonna do wait til the kid is 18 til its legally allowed answer for itself ask it if it wants to live or not

Terry

Jakkass wrote: »

I know! Condemning people to death without any consent before they even get the chance to experience the world? That is coercive isn't it?*

* N.B I realise that you meant it from a pro-choice angle, but it's a notable thing to think about the hypocrisy of statements like these. I'm just pro human rights. Everyone should have the same chance to live as I did.

Never had a **** then?

philologos

Iang87 wrote: »

but why have you the power to tell me how it should be or choose for me.

What you gonna do wait til the kid is 18 til its legally allowed answer for itself ask it if it wants to live or not

I don't have any power apart from to advocate human rights for the unborn.

Two peoples rights involved here. Only pro-lifers consider both sets of rights. Pro-choicers want to mute the rights of the unborn.

1. Rights of the mother to not have the child.
2. Rights of the child to life.

Obvious compromise: Adoptive services.

It's about what is fair for both involved, not about what is fair for one. I don't believe that forced death is warranted or is fair and is entirely coercive. If only pro-choicers would try their argumentation from the the rights of the child rather than the rights of the mother. They would start to see our perspective very quickly.

If you cannot get an answer to consent I don't think people should have the right to assume an answer on the unborn. Blatently violating human rights isn't something that I see as positive within society. Seeking compromise is the mature way to deal with it instead of resorting to barbarism surely?

K-9

Wagon wrote: »

He's only the father. What does his opinion matter?



That's not sarcasim. I wish it was.

His opinion will matter, her opinion will also matter.

philologos

Terry wrote: »

Never had a **** then?

Problem: Sperm and ova do not constitute human life on their own because they do not develop into fully fledged babies.

Opinion: Sperm and ova are merely pre-requisites to human life rather than being human life itself. It is only when the sperm and ova fuse to be a zygote that the growth process actually begins.

stovelid

If I had a say in the matter, I honestly don't think I could ever acquiesce to a healthy child of mine being aborted.

I'm still pro-choice though.

Terry

Jakkass wrote: »

Problem: Sperm and ova do not constitute human life on their own because they do not develop into fully fledged babies.

Opinion: Sperm and ova are merely pre-requisites to human life rather than being human life itself. It is only when the sperm and ova fuse to be a zygote that the growth process actually begins.

Yeah, that's great.

So tell me, what gives you the right to comment on how a woman should deal with an unwanted pregnancy?

Who are you (or any pro-life or SPUCkers) to tell someone how to live their lives or what to do if they become pregnant?

How does an abortion have an affect on you?
Does it have any affect on your life in any way at all?
If so, then how?
If how, then please give me a deatailed explanation, because I'd love to hear how someone having an abortion changes your life.

If not, then why the **** do you care?
It's not like you are performing the abortions yourself. You made the choice not to abort foetii (Is that the plural?).

Who are you to pass judgement on those who chose to abort a foetus?

spudington16

Jakkass wrote: »

Obvious compromise: Adoptive services.

If you cannot get an answer to consent I don't think people should have the right to assume an answer on the unborn. Blatently violating human rights isn't something that I see as positive within society. Seeking compromise is the mature way to deal with it instead of resorting to barbarism surely?

Hang on...

Firstly, you're advocating adoption as a flawless, win-win scenario, when that's not quite the case. The biological mother is faced with a certain degree of social stigma for giving up her own child, as well as the personal feelings and psychological repercussions that such a decision can have on a person. Also, the effects on a woman's body of carrying a baby to term have to considered.

Secondly, as regards the child, I can't imagine how it would feel being brought into a world knowing it was out of necessity and not love, and that your natural mother never wanted to have you.

That hardly sounds like a great compromise to me.


It's a bit of a stretch to say it's "blatently [sic] violating human rights" too; whether the foetus can be considered a 'life' in the same way a person is considered alive is a matter of personal and philosophical opinion, as opposed to other rights which are clearly defined in laws.