Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion
Options
Comments
-
So tell me, what gives you the right to comment on how a woman should deal with an unwanted pregnancy?
1) Well, this is a thread on a discussion board, and others are also discussing the issue. I assume by extension as a poster on this board I should have a right to discuss it
2) So tell me, what gives you the right to say what should happen with another persons life particularly in a life or death situation?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?
Who are you (or any pro-choicer) to tell someone that they should live or die?How does an abortion have an affect on you?
It may not have an effect on me but I understand that the unborn have a right to live and that this is worthy of defence.Does it have any affect on your life in any way at all?
No, but the cause is worth defending so that other people may have the right to live. This argument is purely fallacious as if blacks or Jews were being persecuted it doesn't affect me, yet I can still understand that that is wrong, just as much as abortion is.
If so, then how?If not, then why the **** do you care?
I care because I believe that all people are worthy of dignity and rights. This includes the unborn.It's not like you are performing the abortions yourself. You made the choice not to abort foetii (Is that the plural?).
I'm quite aware of that.Who are you to pass judgement on those who chose to abort a foetus?
Who are you to suggest what should happen with someone elses life to the point of death?0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,372 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 3262
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?
Can they? I doubt babies can feel fear in the womb. Isn't kicking just a reflex reaction?
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?
No, I don't think it's obscuring the discussion, I think it's an important part of the discussion. I don't think you can discuss abortion without talking about the value of the foetus in the womb. That's what I'm talking about - I don't think that the foetus in the womb has any value because it isn't 'living'.
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 JJudeo-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.
You can't seperate this debate from feelings, emotions and philisophical opinions. A biological definition of life itself is meaningless. Biology just says what is and what isn't. Biology says that a Zygote is a zygote, and if left to grow it will turn into a human being. Humans determine the worth that zygote has and say that it's wrong to kill it. You're putting feelings into your argument when you say that a foetus shouldn't be killed, a judgement which I think is probably a part of your Judeo-Christian principles.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."
Yeah, that's an accurate description of my argument. A foetus hasn't developed enough to be considered living, therefore it shouldn't be afforded the rights we afford to living people.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?
No it doesn't. I'm not saying that a mother should abort the foetus, I'm saying that she should be allowed to if she wants to,because there is no societal harm in doing so.
You're misrepresenting my argument when you say this means i'm saying that the more developed should always restrict the rights of the lesser. No this doesn't mean that the more developed should always restrict the rights of the lesser. It means that, when it comes to mother and foetus, the mother should be able to restrict the rights of the foetus. I don't think there's any burden on me to show why it'd always be ok for those who are more developed to restrict the rights of the less developed.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.
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.
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.
I don't think potential matters. The Zygote/foetus could become a human, but it isn't. As Terry said, there are millions of potential people who don't exist for whatever reason. I don't think that a foetus should be afforded any rights just because its very close to to realising that potential.0 -
No, I don't think it's obscuring the discussion, I think it's an important part of the discussion. I don't think you can discuss abortion without talking about the value of the foetus in the womb. That's what I'm talking about - I don't think that the foetus in the womb has any value because it isn't 'living'.
I don't understand why you don't take these values outside of the womb. Why can't we have legal freedom to define the value of a baby, a toddler, a teenager to determine if they are valuable enough to keep alive on the earth? If this standard cannot be held outside of the womb I see no reason why the situation should be of necessity any different inside it. It's this lack of affinity in reasoning that ends up weakening the pro-choice position. As for it "not living", that's nonsense as biologically it clearly is living.You can't seperate this debate from feelings, emotions and philisophical opinions. A biological definition of life itself is meaningless. Biology just says what is and what isn't. Biology says that a Zygote is a zygote, and if left to grow it will turn into a human being. Humans determine the worth that zygote has and say that it's wrong to kill it. You're putting feelings into your argument when you say that a foetus shouldn't be killed, a judgement which I think is probably a part of your Judeo-Christian principles.
Of course you can. If a foetus is biologically a human life, therefore it should be given the same value as other human lives. It seems to be the only way to consistently rule on this without having different standards for within the womb than outside of. A zygote is a form of human life, just as an adult is a form of human life. They are a part of the same life cycle. The zygote forms into the foetus and the foetus grows into a child, the child develops into an adult through adolescence, and the adult grows old and dies.
I say a foetus shouldn't be killed for reasons which can be both argued on Judeo-Christian grounds and on entirely secular grounds. The entirely secular grounds are this. We are a common species. Humans are the only species that can relate to eachother. We should see a common level of respect for life amongst our own species. We should be aiming to do to others as we wouldn't want done to ourselves as we are in common humanity. I personally would not like to be killed, I can therefore assume that another human entity also would not like to be killed. I personally like to have the autonomy to give consent on matters that could affect my life, I should also assume that others should have the autonomy to give consent on matters that could affect their lives and particularly not to assume any answer upon them. I think this is entirely reasonable to anyone of any creed.Yeah, that's an accurate description of my argument. A foetus hasn't developed enough to be considered living, therefore it shouldn't be afforded the rights we afford to living people.
Yes, but this is just putting frivolous criteria onto what life is when we can already determine what life is biologically.No it doesn't. I'm not saying that a mother should abort the foetus, I'm saying that she should be allowed to if she wants to,because there is no societal harm in doing so.
A human life killed. That's societal harm to me anyway. It is violating the common nature of human ethics to respect one another as you would like to be respected yourself.You're misrepresenting my argument when you say this means i'm saying that the more developed should always restrict the rights of the lesser. No this doesn't mean that the more developed should always restrict the rights of the lesser. It means that, when it comes to mother and foetus, the mother should be able to restrict the rights of the foetus. I don't think there's any burden on me to show why it'd always be ok for those who are more developed to restrict the rights of the less developed.
It's effectively what you have argued in this post and in other posts. Yes the mother should always be able to restrict the rights of the lesser (the foetus) in this case. This is despite the fact that there are 2 sets of rights to be considered if we are to consider the foetus a separate human biological entity and a separate life.
If you are going to be discussing this on a forum, you surely should be open to questions though? (On the burden issue). You don't have to respond to me at all on my questions I will understand. I have found our discussion to be quite thought provoking so I will thank you for that However, I do believe that if we are going to advocate one standard concerning within the womb on development we should apply this to the greater outside norm if it is to be valid at all. Otherwise if it isn't it should be discarded.I don't think potential matters. The Zygote/foetus could become a human, but it isn't. As Terry said, there are millions of potential people who don't exist for whatever reason. I don't think that a foetus should be afforded any rights just because its very close to to realising that potential.
I'm merely clarifying that a foetus or a zygote is nothing like an individual in a coma. We know that foetuses and zygotes constitute human life. That's personally enough for me to determine anyway.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement