Abortion

Dudess

K-9 wrote: »

Even if the Dads about, does it really matter? If Dad says Abortion and Mum says No way, is it still the womans body?

Very good point.

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

Very good point.

LOL. Correction. Very good question!

I don't know the answer to that one!

I like the idea of a Dad having an equal say to a mother over an abortion, but is it practical?

Kold

Where's the "I don't think I have the correct parts to warrant one" option?

K-9

The problem I have with the equal say point is, some will argue if a Mother has the final say over abortion, the father should also be able to abort, as in have parental abdication.

I feel uncomfortable with that, even though it's applying the same standard to both sexes!

thebullkf

K-9 wrote: »

The problem I have with the equal say point is, some will argue if a Mother has the final say over abortion, the father should also be able to abort, as in have parental abdication.

I feel uncomfortable with that, even though it's applying the same standard to both sexes!

don't think the father has the right to stop his partner having an abortion.

i believe the mother has the right to terminate.

if the mother gets pregnant and god forbid falls into a coma,what next??

does medical procedure take over? the law?the fathers decision?

(assuming the foetus is doing no harm to the mother)

if the father doesn't want the child..... and its carried full term,can he legally put him/her up for adoption?..(i think it might matter if couple are married-not sure though)

philologos

Dudess wrote: »

I do think doing this to a woman is nothing short of sadism.

Well if you feel the woman should carry the rapist's child to full term, then you're doing exactly what you claim you can't accept - superceding the rights of one over "another" (quote marks to indicate this isn't actually a person until a certain stage in the pregnancy, highly likely to be well past the point where a rape victim would have a termination).

I've explained the via media in terms of compromise. I can't change my standards on killing even if it is for rape. Death is death and it is as unreasonable during rape as not. Adoption allows for the mother not to have to keep the child, and it allows the child to live as it should within the world. I don't personally believe that anyone should have the right to abortion except in situations where the mother is likely to die so that both will die.

ibarelycare

Jakkass your points are all very well put across in this thread, you're actually making me think differently about abortion! I disagree with what you say about in cases where the mother is raped, but otherwise you're making a lot of sense to me!

philologos

ibarelycare wrote: »

Jakkass your points are all very well put across in this thread, you're actually making me think differently about abortion! I disagree with what you say about in cases where the mother is raped, but otherwise you're making a lot of sense to me!

The rape situation is a very hard one to speak about, it's usually brought in by pro-choicers at some stage of the debate to detract from the cases in the majority rather to the case of the minority. Obviously I find this to be horrible for the mother, however if I am also to consider the child a life I find that I can't really detract from this position if I am to be morally consistent. Someone would say if you have permitted it in case A, why wouldn't you permit it in case B? Of course they are right, because biologically there is no difference in the foetus. Just my view on it however, much respect for having an open mind

stovelid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My position on it would be that, while it might not meet with your personal definition of a "person", it most definitely is a living, growing human being.

This misses the issue that at this stage, the non-viable living, growing human being is inside the 'jurisdiction' of another (viable) human being. I'm not sure it's useful to compare them strictly as like.

As said, I couldn't really imagine myself ever acquiescing to the abortion of a healthy child that I had fathered, even though I feel that you must be in the situation to decide. I definitely feel that women should be allowed make their own choice (including termination of early stage pregnancy) on the matter, without censure or judgment.

I would have been unambiguously pro-abortion (as in a personal situation) even 10 years ago, but my view has changed gradually over the years. Maybe that's because I'm now in my thirties, and more settled so I would be even more sympathetic to the situation that a woman/couple younger than me might find themselves in.

And - purely imo - talk of making a woman carry a rapist's child to term is disgraceful in my eyes.

coffee_cake

stovelid wrote: »

And - purely imo - talk of making a woman carry a rapist's child to term is disgraceful in my eyes.

I agree but at the same time J is right - there's no biological difference between the feti. If she's traumatised enough to be suicidal about it they might have less of an issue with her going through an abortion then. I would hope. I'd probs have less respect for those making a blanket rape exception.

philologos

stovelid wrote: »

This misses the issue that at this stage, the non-viable living, growing human being is inside the 'jurisdiction' of another (viable) human being. I'm not sure it's useful to compare them strictly as like.

Children are under their mother and fathers juristiction for their entire childhood. Again, I don't see why there should be any difference in the situation for the unborn from the ones who are born. If you are going to justify killing by development at least be a bit consistent and advocate it outside the womb also. All of the standards that are placed on this child can be placed on children outside the womb to delegitimise their humanity. Location doesn't diminish any human rights due to the unborn. As for non-viable, what do you mean by this?

stovelid wrote: »

As said, I couldn't really imagine myself ever acquiescing to the abortion of a healthy child that I had fathered, even though I feel that you must be in the situation to decide. I definitely feel that women should be allowed make their own choice (including termination of early stage pregnancy) on the matter, without censure or judgment.

This is allowing the mother's rights to trump over the childs however. There are limits I draw to choice personally, I don't think it's warranted in any circumstance to choose about someone elses life.

stovelid wrote: »

And - purely imo - talk of making a woman carry a rapist's child to term is disgraceful in my eyes.

IMO, call me a disgrace then

It's not an easy opinion to have to draw up but if I am to be in any way consistent with my reasoning prior to when we hit the rape question this is the outcome I have to come to. Both are victims. Therefore we are still on the platform of equality.

JC 2K3

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.

You're making these statements as facts without arguing them. You must realise that life beginning at the moment of conception isn't a universally accepted truth.

There is no reason a sperm cannot be considered a person at a very early stage of development, with the next stage being fusion with an ovum. There's nothing necessarily special about fusion that's any more important than any other event in the development of a human.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

You're making these statements as facts without arguing them. You must realise that life beginning at the moment of conception isn't a universally accepted truth.

I'm strained to see how this makes any logical sense. I've explained my reasoning to another poster.

1. Growth is an attribute of life
2. A foetus is a growing human lifeform.
3. Therefore a foetus is human life.

It is up to you to define what life is on purely biological terms that is consistent not only for humans but for other animal life that holds that the foetus is not alive or that it is not a living lifeform.

There is no reason why different standards are justified inside the womb that aren't justified outside. As I say if you want to be morally consistent these norms should apply in all situations where they can be applicable. One poster said we should assess by value (ignoring the fact that value is subjective for now) why can't we determine what human life is invaluable outside of the womb? You have to admit this does seem a bit difficult to make sense of.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

There is no reason a sperm cannot be considered a person at a very early stage of development, with the next stage being fusion with an ovum. There's nothing necessarily special about fusion that's any more important than any other event in the development of a human.

Of course there is. A sperm doesn't develop into a baby but it is merely a pre-requisite for the growth process to begin. Without it such a growth process cannot occur. I would have thought that was rather straight forward actually.

Sam Vimes

stovelid wrote: »

This misses the issue that at this stage, the non-viable living, growing human being is inside the 'jurisdiction' of another (viable) human being. I'm not sure it's useful to compare them strictly as like.

Why does that matter? It's still a living, growing human being whether it currently needs another living being to survive or not. siamese twins often can't survive separately but that doesn't mean they don't have rights. Seems to me that issue is only raised because it allows people to justify abortion

JC 2K3 wrote: »

You're making these statements as facts without arguing them. You must realise that life beginning at the moment of conception isn't a universally accepted truth.

There is no reason a sperm cannot be considered a person at a very early stage of development, with the next stage being fusion with an ovum. There's nothing necessarily special about fusion that's any more important than any other event in the development of a human.

Sorry JC 2K3 but that's just wrong. There is plenty of reason to suggest that a sperm cannot be considered a person. That life begins at conception is so incredibly obviously true that the only reason there is even debate on this topic is that people don't want it to be the case so they can justify abortion.

If you want to argue that the life doesn't have rights because it's not conscious yet or whatever you can do that, that is a matter of opinion, but arguing that life doesn't begin at conception is quite simply wrong

JC 2K3

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you kill a homeless person or someone who lives alone in the woods the consequences for society would also be zero.

Well, you'd probably be losing someone with a lot of life experience, and I can't see a good reason for killing someone with no connection to society. But, yeah, pretty much.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My position on it would be that, while it might not meet with your personal definition of a "person", it most definitely is a living, growing human being. That is a fact. And they're called human rights, not "what Elliemental defines as a person-rights"

"person" and "human" are pretty much synonymous. This is a really hollow argument based entirely around the failings of the English language. In abortion debates, "person" is sometimes used as distinct to "human", because "human" would be a more scientific term and used to describe any cells with human DNA, whereas "person" would be used to describe the metaphysical concept of a conscious entity with a personality rather than in terms of a biological organism. To say that "they're human rights, not ["person rights"]" is to entirely miss the point of the other's argument.

JC 2K3

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That life begins at conception is so incredibly obviously true

Great argument :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Well, you'd probably be losing someone with a lot of life experience, and I can't see a good reason for killing someone with no connection to society. But, yeah, pretty much.

So you're saying it's ok to kill a homeless person?

JC 2K3 wrote: »

"person" and "human" are pretty much synonymous. This is a really hollow argument based entirely around the failings of the English language. In abortion debates, "person" is sometimes used as distinct to "human", because "human" would be a more scientific term and used to describe any cells with human DNA, whereas "person" would be used to describe the metaphysical concept of a conscious entity with a personality rather than in terms of a biological organism. To say that "they're human rights, not ["person rights"]" is to entirely miss the point of the other's argument.

I completely understand the person's argument. Person and human are synonymous in every case except abortion because pro choice people don't want them to be synonymous there because it wrecks their argument. Instead they come up with different definitions that apply only to this case that allow them to justify their stance

WindSock

Dudess wrote: »

Well if you feel the woman should carry the rapist's child to full term, then you're doing exactly what you claim you can't accept - superceding the rights of one over "another" (quote marks to indicate this isn't actually a person until a certain stage in the pregnancy, highly likely to be well past the point where a rape victim would have a termination).

Scary thing is, up until recently the rights of the foetus were greater than the rights of the woman, even if her life was in danger.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

"person" and "human" are pretty much synonymous. This is a really hollow argument based entirely around the failings of the English language. In abortion debates, "person" is sometimes used as distinct to "human", because "human" would be a more scientific term and used to describe any cells with human DNA, whereas "person" would be used to describe the metaphysical concept of a conscious entity with a personality rather than in terms of a biological organism. To say that "they're human rights, not ["person rights"]" is to entirely miss the point of the other's argument.

Pro-choicers are the master craftsmen of language to make their position. They avoid the word killing, but use the subtler "termination" instead. If anyone has been adding attachments to the actual point of the discussion it is certainly more the pro-choicers than the pro-lifers. Whether or not a human has x, y and z factors about it doesn't make it any less of a human life. It's utterly irrelevant whether it can do the tango or whether it can say the alphabet backwards. Again, a clear reductio ad absurdum but it's effectively what pro-choicers do when they attach notions so as to detract from the clear situation.

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Great argument :rolleyes:

I don't see any need to go into any more detail because saying life begins at conception is like saying gravity makes things fall. It is a fact and the only reason it's ever denied is the fact is inconvenient to some people

WindSock

Gravity makes things fall because of centrifugal force or something

If a newly concepted foetus can survive outside my body without me then fair enough. But it can't at the moment, therefore I say what happens inside my body is my ultimate decision. (bar curing cancer, etc)


Edit, and a homeless person doesnt grow inside me, the homeless person has nothing to do with me or my body and is capable of surviving without me. So I won't kill them.

spudington16

Jakkass wrote: »

Pro-choicers are the master craftsmen of language to make their position. They avoid the word killing, but use the subtler "termination" instead. If anyone has been adding attachments to the actual point of the discussion it is certainly more the pro-choicers than the pro-lifers. Whether or not a human has x, y and z factors about it doesn't make it any less of a human life. It's utterly irrelevant whether it can do the tango or whether it can say the alphabet backwards. Again, a clear reductio ad absurdum but it's effectively what pro-choicers do when they attach notions so as to detract from the clear situation.

Well, the word 'kill' implies there is a life to take away in the first place, which is really not the case in the very early stage of a pregnancy anyway - it's a collection of cells with the potential for life.

Using the word 'kill' obviously has negative connotations, so it's sensible to call it a 'termination' rather than a 'killing' because arguably you're terminating a biological process, not killing a person.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

Pro-choicers are the master craftsmen of language to make their position. They avoid the word killing, but use the subtler "termination" instead. If anyone has been adding attachments to the actual point of the discussion it is certainly more the pro-choicers than the pro-lifers. Whether or not a human has x, y and z factors about it doesn't make it any less of a human life. It's utterly irrelevant whether it can do the tango or whether it can say the alphabet backwards. Again, a clear reductio ad absurdum but it's effectively what pro-choicers do when they attach notions so as to detract from the clear situation.

You've been saying "reductio ad absurbum" throughout this whole debate.

Now I've sprung a reductio ad absudum on you, in post #163. You're thanking Sam Vimes who refuses to argue the point because it's apparently obvious that life begins at conception.

But Jakkass, what makes a sperm not a human and what makes a zygote a human? X, y and z factors?

WindSock

Ahh the mysteries of life :pac:

Sam Vimes

WindSock wrote: »

Gravity makes things fall because of centrifugal force or something

If a newly concepted foetus can survive outside my body without me then fair enough. But it can't at the moment, therefore I say what happens inside my body is my ultimate decision. (bar curing cancer, etc)

How about this scenario:

You're in a war and you and your friend are both injured, him far more gravely than you. The doctor on site makes a split second decision and stitches the two of you together. You then find yourself in a situation where if you detach another human from your body, you'll survive but he'll die. Does he then forfeit his human rights?

A far fetched idea I know but it's difficult to come up with a situation that's comparable to pregnancy. I'm making the point that what you just said is one of the dozens of different arbitrary lines in the sand that pro choice people draw that allow them to justify killing another human being. For you it's that it can't survive without you, for others it's when the brain develops, for others it's right up until birth, for others it's within the first few days, for others it's within the first few weeks. They're all just arbitrary lines that justify the unjustifiable

JC 2K3 wrote: »

You're thanking Sam Vimes who refuses to argue the point because it's apparently obvious that life begins at conception.

Here's a white paper on the topic
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=351:white-paper&catid=64:white-papers&Itemid=113

the summary:

Resolving the question of when human life begins is critical for advancing a reasoned
public policy debate over abortion and human embryo research. This article
considers the current scientific evidence in human embryology and addresses two
central questions concerning the beginning of life: 1) in the course of sperm-egg
interaction, when is a new cell formed that is distinct from either sperm or egg?
and 2) is this new cell a new human organism—i.e., a new human being? Based
on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into
existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a
second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of
events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic
development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm
or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific
evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the
life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of
conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and
independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life
or of human embryos.

and look here:
http://www.familydoctormag.com/sexual-health/251-when-does-life-begin-medical-experts-debate-abortion-issue.html

It's a pro choice article and they're saying that pro-choice people don't even claim that life doesn't begin at conception because everyone accepts that and they instead focus on when this life becomes a "human" by their definition of human.

You should email them and let them know that some pro-choice people do indeed claim that life doesn't being at conception

coffee_cake

I wish people would stop flinging around phrases like "life begins/doesn't begin at conception", it began a very long time ago

Sam Vimes

bluewolf wrote: »

I wish people would stop flinging around phrases like "life begins/doesn't begin at conception", it began a very long time ago

Indeed. So why don't we just go round murdering people? Life in general will continue after all

coffee_cake

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Indeed. So why don't we just go round murdering people?

Why don't you just go round making sense?

JC 2K3

Sam Vimes wrote: »

http://www.familydoctormag.com/sexual-health/251-when-does-life-begin-medical-experts-debate-abortion-issue.html

It's a pro choice article and they're saying that pro-choice people don't even claim that life doesn't begin at conception because everyone accepts that and they instead focus on when this life becomes a "human" by their definition of human.

Touché. The English language is really, really awful for discussing abortion.

By the biological definition of "life", it begins at conception. What I was referring to was what that article refers to as "human life", and what others refer to as "personhood" etc.

The question it not when "life", as it is biologically defined, begins, but rather when that life becomes worth protecting and why.

Sam Vimes

bluewolf wrote: »

Why don't you just go round making sense?

My response made perfect sense as a response to your post. Unfortunately your post made no sense. What was your point exactly?