Baby lives 45 minutes after legal abortion in UK

sara025

philologos wrote: »

I've answered your question on three occasions.

Only three occasions? Do you not understand yet that it takes waaaaaaay more than three times telling this lot before they even remotely come close to getting what you are saying!

steddyeddy

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

It can but it also prevents implentation of an egg which is fetilised and creates a mucus which forms on the uterus to try and prevent the sperm fertilising the egg.

My point was and is as some posters have stated on the thread that life begins at fertlisation then surely logically they cannot suport the use of the pill as as one of its primary functions is to stop the fertlised egg implenting itself in the womb .

Thereby denying that 'lifes' ability to continue.

Well as a biologist (correct me if your wrong I assumed you study biology) then dont you agree that a single cell is contained within the basic definition of life?

dr.bollocko

sara025 wrote: »

Only three occasions? Do you not understand yet that it takes waaaaaaay more than three times telling this lot before they even remotely come close to getting what you are saying!

And this is the kind of needless personal crap I was talking about.
Let's move on without the antagonism please. sara025 banned.

Seachmall

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well then surely aborting post 8-9 weeks is unethical. Ill just edit to say whatever about ethics abortion at nine weeks is ending a human life in my opinion so there may be choice involved but it is essentially choosing for two.

Well this is where I get stuck.

I don't think saying it's human (in the biological sense, i.e. an organism) is enough to assume it specific rights (e.g. the right to life). It has to be a person, not just a species of animal for it to be given an exemption from how we treat other living things/animals. I think I can provide those reasons for born children and adults, and developed foetuses, but not necessarily to undeveloped foetuses.


I think this post explains it best.


That's where I'm at. It's not intuitive but some people here seem to have an intuitive approach to opposing abortion that others (including me) don't. To be convinced I need something other than a subjective argument.

Sonnenblumen

Coming up on tonights show, TV3 reports on a case involving a late term abortion which took place in UK in 1994.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

It can but it also prevents implentation of an egg which is fetilised and creates a mucus which forms on the uterus to try and prevent the sperm fertilising the egg.

My point was and is as some posters have stated on the thread that life begins at fertlisation then surely logically they cannot suport the use of the pill as as one of its primary functions is to stop the fertlised egg implenting itself in the womb .

Thereby denying that 'lifes' ability to continue.

Well as a biologist (correct me if your wrong I assumed you study biology) then dont you agree that a single cell is contained within the basic definition of life?

I never gave my opinion ? Just curious as to how some posters have stated that they believe life begins at ferlisation then state they are pro contraception ?

As unpalatable as abortion is and we can argue when it becomes palatable or un on a time basis to sit within our moral code. Controlling the force of nature which is reproduction is no easy task.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

On your assertion that 'the only reason that abortion exists is because there has been a shift in sexual ethics in the last 50 or so years.' There were abortions being carried out in BC China, ancient Egypt and at the height of the Roman Empire. That doesn't really line up with your theory that abortion only exists due to post 1960's attitudes to sexual intercourse.

I should be clearer then. If people waited until they were in stable marriages before they entered into sexual relationships and kept sexual relationships within marriages, then there would be pretty much zero STD's if any, there would be pretty much no unplanned pregnancies and there would be pretty much zero perceived need for abortion. It is only because we've adopted a more liberal approach to sexuality that we have found ourselves in this situation in Western societies mainly. We claim that abortion is inevitable, and we really believe it, but is it really? Or is it simply that abortion is an easy solution to a deeper problem in terms of our thinking surrounding sexuality. The idea that 50 million people die in a single year through abortion should be shocking, but for most of us it isn't. It begs the question as to why it isn't, and why we aren't willing to do more to avoid this horrific reality.

strobe wrote: »

I agree completely that people should do their utmost to avoid sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies. I'd of course advocate the use of contraception and condoms and not want people to rely on rolling the dice in terms of their sexual health or risk of pregnancy. I've never had an STD or gotten anyone pregnant (that I know of :pac:). It seems to work. (Yes, yes... I know man. So does abstinence and monogamy, I'm all for that too if that's someone's cup of tea.)

The thing is, that ultimately it's down to behaviours. I think contraceptives do have a place actually, but ultimately they fail, and ultimately many STD's can spread irrespective of whether or not you wear a condom. However, in terms of the abortion issue I really feel that society cares more about conjugal rights than it does about the right to life. That really challenges me ethically, and it really makes me think about ways by which I can offer a different perspective to people in this issue, because believe it or not I really care about this, and I really care about other issues in society as a whole, and I feel I should probably do much more about them.

It's not so much about a cup of tea, it's that we've come to a point where we're unwilling to accept that the problem can't be brushed under the carpet with abortion. Even though abortion causes death, many people on this forum are also unwilling to accept that it causes a lot of pain and grief to many women as well. Is promoting abortion really pro-women's rights? Ultimately, I don't believe it is any more promoting women's rights than anything else given how many women I've met who are pro-life.

strobe wrote: »

I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone that wouldn't agree that they would like to live in a world where STD's and unwanted pregnancies are no longer matters of concern.

I would be hard pressed, but people seem to reject the actual solution in favour of shoving the problem under the carpet. Again, this is my opinion, but it would be hard from a personal perspective to suppress actual issue rather than the perceived issue.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

strobe wrote: »

On your assertion that 'the only reason that abortion exists is because there has been a shift in sexual ethics in the last 50 or so years.' There were abortions being carried out in BC China, ancient Egypt and at the height of the Roman Empire. That doesn't really line up with your theory that abortion only exists due to post 1960's attitudes to sexual intercourse.

I should be clearer then. If people waited until they were in stable marriages before they entered into sexual relationships and kept sexual relationships within marriages, then there would be pretty much zero STD's if any, there would be pretty much no unplanned pregnancies and there would be pretty much zero perceived need for abortion. It is only because we've adopted a more liberal approach to sexuality that we have found ourselves in this situation in Western societies mainly. We claim that abortion is inevitable, and we really believe it, but is it really? Or is it simply that abortion is an easy solution to a deeper problem in terms of our thinking surrounding sexuality. The idea that 50 million people die in a single year through abortion should be shocking, but for most of us it isn't. It begs the question as to why it isn't, and why we aren't willing to do more to avoid this horrific reality.

strobe wrote: »

I agree completely that people should do their utmost to avoid sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies. I'd of course advocate the use of contraception and condoms and not want people to rely on rolling the dice in terms of their sexual health or risk of pregnancy. I've never had an STD or gotten anyone pregnant (that I know of :pac:). It seems to work. (Yes, yes... I know man. So does abstinence and monogamy, I'm all for that too if that's someone's cup of tea.)

The thing is, that ultimately it's down to behaviours. I think contraceptives do have a place actually, but ultimately they fail, and ultimately many STD's can spread irrespective of whether or not you wear a condom. However, in terms of the abortion issue I really feel that society cares more about conjugal rights than it does about the right to life. That really challenges me ethically, and it really makes me think about ways by which I can offer a different perspective to people in this issue, because believe it or not I really care about this, and I really care about other issues in society as a whole, and I feel I should probably do much more about them.

It's not so much about a cup of tea, it's that we've come to a point where we're unwilling to accept that the problem can't be brushed under the carpet with abortion. Even though abortion causes death, many people on this forum are also unwilling to accept that it causes a lot of pain and grief to many women as well. Is promoting abortion really pro-women's rights? Ultimately, I don't believe it is any more promoting women's rights than anything else given how many women I've met who are pro-life.

strobe wrote: »

I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone that wouldn't agree that they would like to live in a world where STD's and unwanted pregnancies are no longer matters of concern.

I would be hard pressed, but people seem to reject the actual solution in favour of shoving the problem under the carpet. Again, this is my opinion, but it would be hard from a personal perspective to suppress actual issue rather than the perceived issue.

So your solution to the whole abortion debate is that everyone should wait till they get married for that marriage to be perfect and then have planned children . ?That way there will be no abortion no stds 'nice idea' but i think you will find it falls firmly into the utopian ideal . It also smacks of another ism and leave no room for people who do not wish or cannot paticipate in confirming to your ideal social pattern.

Your actual solution is so flawed its a complete non starter.

strobe

philologos wrote: »

I should be clearer then. If people waited until they were in stable marriages before they entered into sexual relationships and kept sexual relationships within marriages, then there would be pretty much zero STD's if any, there would be pretty much no unplanned pregnancies and there would be pretty much zero perceived need for abortion.

I don't disagree man. If people only ever had sex with one person in their lives, after agreeing that they both wanted children, then there would be very few STD infections and very few unplanned pregnancies. That's an indisputable fact in my opinion.

And if nobody drove a vehicle there would be zero vehicular deaths on the road...

It is only because we've adopted a more liberal approach to sexuality that we have found ourselves in this situation in Western societies mainly.

Again, I know it's anecdotal but I, along with many others, have a liberal approach to sexuality and I, along with many others have never contracted an STD or been involved in an unplanned pregnancy. So I'd put forward for your consideration that it is not necessarily 'a liberal approach to sexuality' that is responsible for the high STD and unplanned pregnancy count but a liberal approach to sexuality coupled with personal irresponsibility.

We claim that abortion is inevitable, and we really believe it, but is it really? Or is it simply that abortion is an easy solution to a deeper problem in terms of our thinking surrounding sexuality. The idea that 50 million people die in a single year through abortion should be shocking, but for most of us it isn't. It begs the question as to why it isn't, and why we aren't willing to do more to avoid this horrific reality.

The thing is, that ultimately it's down to behaviours. I think contraceptives do have a place actually, but ultimately they fail, and ultimately many STD's can spread irrespective of whether or not you wear a condom. However, in terms of the abortion issue I really feel that society cares more about conjugal rights than it does about the right to life.

Well '50 million people die every year' is a statement based on your opinion on what constitutes 'people' and as you know not everyone shares that opinion. I don't really want to get into that argument... but that should shed some light for you on why it isn't shocking or viewed as a horrific reality to many. I'm not sure if I can agree with your inference that people who are pro-choice just ignore a shocking horrific reality 'cause they'd rather fuck around despite all the murder that can arise from it.

I'm sure some do. I'm sure some people see no difference between aborting a fetus and infanticide for example but just aren't that bothered that their actions could result in it. But I don't think that is widespread enough to support a general 'people are more concerned with 'free love' than they are with children dying due to it' hypothesis.

That really challenges me ethically, and it really makes me think about ways by which I can offer a different perspective to people in this issue, because believe it or not I really care about this, and I really care about other issues in society as a whole, and I feel I should probably do much more about them

I don't doubt your motivations in the slightest man. I fully believe you believe life begins at conception and that all human life is of equal value. I don't necessarily disagree.

It's not so much about a cup of tea, it's that we've come to a point where we're unwilling to accept that the problem can't be brushed under the carpet with abortion. Even though abortion causes death, many people on this forum are also unwilling to accept that it causes a lot of pain and grief to many women as well. Is promoting abortion really pro-women's rights? Ultimately, I don't believe it is any more promoting women's rights than anything else given how many women I've met who are pro-life.

Well the 'brushing murder under the carpet' thing I addressed above. I think you're mistaken in how most pro-choice people view abortion. Which I don't believe is 'ahh well if we want to ride around we have to expect a few kids will get killed in the process.'

Yes some women (and men obviously) experience a lot of pain and grief from abortion. Some women also experience a lot of pain and grief from not having the option of abortion too.

I'm not really sure what to say to the statement that you've met many women that are pro-life... it's really neither here nor there considering how many women I'm sure you've met that are pro-choice.

I would be hard pressed, but people seem to reject the actual solution in favour of shoving the problem under the carpet. Again, this is my opinion, but it would be hard from a personal perspective to suppress actual issue rather than the perceived issue.

I think your solution is (if I could be so lazy as to use the same analogy) equivalent to suggesting people don't drive vehicles in order to reduce the numbers of people killed in vehicular accidents. It'd work, but I think it's idealistic to the point of naivety to think it's achievable and doesn't take into account that a more realistic approach which makes fewer restrictions on hard fought personal liberties could yield actual results along the same lines.

RobbingBandit

I'll get my coat.

44leto

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

So your solution to the whole abortion debate is that everyone should wait till they get married for that marriage to be perfect and then have planned children . ?That way there will be no abortion no stds 'nice idea' but i think you will find it falls firmly into the utopian ideal . It also smacks of another ism and leave no room for people who do not wish or cannot paticipate in confirming to your ideal social pattern.

Your actual solution is so flawed its a complete non starter.

He also make the massive assumption that married women or married couples do not opt for an abortion. Which of course they do.

He also goes on to virtually call women who have abortions murderers. Which is quite outrageous.

blatantrereg

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Mod:

Lets cut out the needless personal stuff.

I don't really know why this story has re-surfaced but I think this thread is circling the drain at this point.

I posted this after I saw it after the Independent facebook app put a link to it in my feed there. I'd pretty much finished my post when I saw the date on it. I do prefer Terry's idea that I'm a spy though.

As the OP I'd be happy to see this closed. People are just using it to be annoying. Annoying people to the point that they close their account tbh. Here is a description of how:

1, Make outrageous statements, like defending infanticide.
2. Wait for emotive responses.
3. Misquote these responses and pretend they are reactionary responses against abortion in general. Ridicule poster.
4. Repeat.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

I don't disagree man. If people only ever had sex with one person in their lives, after agreeing that they both wanted children, then there would be very few STD infections and very few unplanned pregnancies. That's an indisputable fact in my opinion.

And if nobody drove a vehicle there would be zero vehicular deaths on the road...

Not a comparison. For many a car is a necessity. One couldn't say the same of what you're comparing it to.

strobe wrote: »

Again, I know it's anecdotal but I, along with many others, have a liberal approach to sexuality and I, along with many others have never contracted an STD or been involved in an unplanned pregnancy. So I'd put forward for your consideration that it is not necessarily 'a liberal approach to sexuality' that is responsible for the high STD and unplanned pregnancy count but a liberal approach to sexuality coupled with personal irresponsibility.

That's fair enough, I'm sure that's true in many cases, but it still doesn't tell me that it has been advantageous to humanity to adopt this approach. I guess it is just a game of probabilities, some people get lucky and other people don't.

strobe wrote: »

Well '50 million people die every year' is a statement based on your opinion on what constitutes 'people' and as you know not everyone shares that opinion. I don't really want to get into that argument... but that should shed some light for you on why it isn't shocking or viewed as a horrific reality to many. I'm not sure if I can agree with your inference that people who are pro-choice just ignore a shocking horrific reality 'cause they'd rather fuck around despite all the murder that can arise from it.

50 million human lives, are still lives irrespective of how you want to shove it under the carpet. Abortion takes away human lives. Again, that's pretty evident. A foetus is essentially just a younger than you and I.

strobe wrote: »

I'm sure some do. I'm sure some people see no difference between aborting a fetus and infanticide for example but just aren't that bothered that their actions could result in it. But I don't think that is widespread enough to support a general 'people are more concerned with 'free love' than they are with children dying due to it' hypothesis.

Given the world around us. I wish I could believe what you say is true, but it seems pretty evident that people do care more about their conjugal rights than the right to human life. There's 50,000,000 global cases every year support for it. Thinking about that, that is above some of the worst atrocities in human history many times over in a single year.

strobe wrote: »

Well the 'brushing murder under the carpet' thing I addressed above. I think you're mistaken in how most pro-choice people view abortion. Which I don't believe is 'ahh well if we want to ride around we have to expect a few kids will get killed in the process.'

Again, I wish I could think so. Abortion is simply the result of what society has created.

strobe wrote: »

Yes some women (and men obviously) experience a lot of pain and grief from abortion. Some women also experience a lot of pain and grief from not having the option of abortion too.

This brings the discussion to full circle, in most cases the reason why they have to go through that is because of decisions they have made far before that point.

strobe wrote: »

I think your solution is (if I could be so lazy as to use the same analogy) equivalent to suggesting people don't drive vehicles in order to reduce the numbers of people killed in vehicular accidents. It'd work, but I think it's idealistic to the point of naivety to think it's achievable and doesn't take into account that a more realistic approach which makes fewer restrictions on hard fought personal liberties could yield actual results along the same lines.

It's not a good analogy as I've said above. For many people their car is a necessity. This isn't a necessity.

Idealism is important some times. It helps put things into perspective. By the by, you can't really speak of liberties in terms of abortions. It's about the denial of human liberty to the unborn child. It's a human rights abuse.

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

So your solution to the whole abortion debate is that everyone should wait till they get married for that marriage to be perfect and then have planned children . ?That way there will be no abortion no stds 'nice idea' but i think you will find it falls firmly into the utopian ideal . It also smacks of another ism and leave no room for people who do not wish or cannot paticipate in confirming to your ideal social pattern.

Your actual solution is so flawed its a complete non starter.

I full well expect people to ignore it. My point was to point out what the real problem is. It's not whether or not people have an abortion, it's what comes before that point.

up for anything

philologos wrote: »

It is only because we've adopted a more liberal approach to sexuality that we have found ourselves in this situation in Western societies mainly.

Ah yes, a Western problem mainly. That's a load of tosh. Take a look at HIV figures in Africa, India and Asia, places that traditionally have a hard line attitude to sexual freedom and then take a look at the amount of children born with HIV. I think you'll find it that lax sexual morals are not just a situation found in 'Western' societies

philologos wrote: »

It's not so much about a cup of tea, it's that we've come to a point where we're unwilling to accept that the problem can't be brushed under the carpet with abortion. Even though abortion causes death, many people on this forum are also unwilling to accept that it causes a lot of pain and grief to many women as well. Is promoting abortion really pro-women's rights? Ultimately, I don't believe it is any more promoting women's rights than anything else given how many women I've met who are pro-life.

There are also a lot of women for whom it provides relief and happiness but who find it very difficult to come out and say so under the weight of general disgust and disapproval that emanates even from the pro-choice lobby.

I would hate and fear living again in a world where individuals have to live under rules formed by other people's 'consciences' rather than by common sense. A world where Sara025 defends her 'sacred' opinion without regard for others without being stopped by mods and where you allow that goddamn bible free rein again to cause chaos and distress and start shackling our children with purity rings, rather than freeing them with proper education.

desertcircus

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: You are a clump of cells also. I guess you're not a person either.

bluewolf: Life as a general concept began before conception. Life in the case of a particular human life, begins at conception. Surely this is hardly a fantastic argument. You're simply obscuring the general and the particular.

If a particular human life begins at conception, then identical twins are only half a person each. Wherever the dividing line is that marks the beginning of an individual life, it is emphatically not while the embryo can still split into multiple parts and become multiple individual lives.

Dyr

desertcircus wrote: »

If a particular human life begins at conception, then identical twins are only half a person each. Wherever the dividing line is that marks the beginning of an individual life, it is emphatically not while the embryo can still split into multiple parts and become multiple individual lives.

The second twin does'nt have a soul though, science innit?

therealgirl

blatantrereg wrote: »

I posted this after I saw it after the Independent facebook app put a link to it in my feed there. I'd pretty much finished my post when I saw the date on it. I do prefer Terry's idea that I'm a spy though.

As the OP I'd be happy to see this closed. People are just using it to be annoying. Annoying people to the point that they close their account tbh. Here is a description of how:

1, Make outrageous statements, like defending infanticide.
2. Wait for emotive responses.
3. Misquote these responses and pretend they are reactionary responses against abortion in general. Ridicule poster.
4. Repeat.

I have been following this thread (hoping for it to get somewhere interesting instead of the usual abortion battle) & I agree, the topic may be of old but it still brought up an issue that could have made a good discussion...only certain posters have used it to do as you have stated above unfortunately.
Thread should have been closed a long time ago, and moderated more efficiently I think.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

This brings the discussion to full circle, in most cases the reason why they have to go through that is because of decisions they have made far before that point.

Idealism is important some times.


I full well expect people to ignore it. My point was to point out what the real problem is. It's not whether or not people have an abortion, it's what comes before that point.

But not all people faced with the choice have made this decision themselves though have they ? victums of rape or incest or failed contraception can hardly be culpable when they have not directly caused the situation . what do you propose in these cases? its rhertorical really as to suggest it wouldnt happen would suggest rape or incest or accidental pregnancy dont exist .

Rape incest failed contraception do exist . your solution is inherently flawed as most idelistic situations are by there very definiton .

i find your whole approach is way too simplistic and unworkable. i would be more in favour of education and acess to more safe sex services . i still believe even with all these in place unfortunatley abortion will still be necessary not as a contraception device but as a last resort .

i think to suggest that most people who have had abortions have done so through reckless behaviour and a disregard for themselves or anyone else is disingenous tbh.

strobe

philologos wrote: »

Not a comparison. For many a car is a necessity. One couldn't say the same of what you're comparing it to.

It's a necessity for some people man. I start going fucking scatty without sex. Seriously. It has a noticeably detrimental effect on my day to day life and well being. Far more so than the lack of an auto mobile does. It's a perfectly apt comparison.

That's fair enough, I'm sure that's true in many cases, but it still doesn't tell me that it has been advantageous to humanity to adopt this approach. I guess it is just a game of probabilities, some people get lucky and other people don't.

Adopt this approach? This is where you're mistaken with your 'things have gone to rack and ruin since the sixties' stuff. People waiting to have sex until they meet one person they want to marry and then never having sex with anyone but that one person ever again has never been humanities approach.

Pre-marital sex has always existed in all cultures and so has adultery by the way. Even in Moses and Cos time and place they use to threaten people with skull smashing in to try and stop people doing it, coupled with the threat of an all knowing all seeing god that would know if they did it and be really really angry if they did... and people were still fucking around there and then.

Your idea that humans prior to circa 1952 didn't fuck around is based on? It may not have been as out in the open as it is today but it happened all the time, in all the places, across all the cultures... and in some of these circumstances abortion happened too.

50 million human lives, are still lives irrespective of how you want to shove it under the carpet. Abortion takes away human lives. Again, that's pretty evident. A foetus is essentially just a younger than you and I.

Given the world around us. I wish I could believe what you say is true, but it seems pretty evident that people do care more about their conjugal rights than the right to human life. There's 50,000,000 global cases every year support for it. Thinking about that, that is above some of the worst atrocities in human history many times over in a single year.

I don't want to shove anything under the carpet. Please don't put motivations or intentions on me that I don't hold when I haven't done the same to you man.

I was simply trying to put across a common pro-choice viewpoint to you and explain that it is probably not just a case of most pro-choice people deciding that children dying is acceptable if it means they get to ride a drunk stranger they meet in a club. I was giving you the benefit of doubt that you honestly thought that but to be honest I'm starting to think you're being disingenuous in feigning that belief in order to take shots and/or deliberately misrepresent the common pro-choice stance.

Again, I wish I could think so.[...] before that point.
.

The rest of the post is repetition of what you say above so I'll refrain from responding.

Wompa1

Out of interest did anyone here go see the Bodies exhibition?

Ron Paul in the States is a qualified doctor bis views on abortion are pretty interesting and well informed. But he seems a bit torn about it too. That life begins at conception because that is medically speaking when the lifecycle of the person would begin but he thinks you should be able to terminate in the first few days.

steddyeddy

Wompa1 wrote: »

Out of interest did anyone here go see the Bodies exhibition?

Ron Paul in the States is a qualified doctor bis views on abortion are pretty interesting and well informed. But he seems a bit torn about it too. That life begins at conception because that is medically speaking when the lifecycle of the person would begin but he thinks you should be able to terminate in the first few days.

Well thats my view regarding the termination. I think the termination should be carried about before the embryo becomes a fetus though.

philologos

up for anything: My point was that Western society has seen the most dramatic change. As for your point about Africa and hard core ethics on that matter, the evidence clearly doesn't suggest such. In praxis, evidently people don't follow that principle because if they did there would be less STD's.

strobe: It really isn't a necessity. It's a choice that people choose to make. For the record, I think a lot of it has to do with societal norms. If people got married earlier, there wouldn't be this prospect of waiting long times before expressing themselves sexually in a relationship. The perceived need to have a grandiose or an expensive wedding when a more humble occasion could be equally romantic put people off longer and longer before committing to one another. Or perhaps society has moved away from clear commitments to eachother who knows. What is clear is that a number of these factors are a reason why many Western societies have legalised the systematic taking of human life.

Jon Ancient Nature: Your post is quite fair in respect to rape, and incest. However, the vast majority of abortions do not fall under these criteria.

Ultimately, I believe that in situations like you have described, it is not the child's fault that they were conceived in such circumstances. We need to evaluate the human rights of both parties rather than just one. I wholeheartedly support easing the suffering of mothers through counselling, and guidance in respect to pregnancy. I just can't support killing, I feel nonetheless it would be profoundly unjust.

Failed contraception is different. You are taking a risk of pregnancy irrespective of whether or not you are using contraception. Both parties should be aware of this and be willing to deal with the possibility of pregnancy. Contraceptives fail, that's why I have suggested that it is far from a perfect means of dealing with this issue. Neither is abortion in so far as it involves the killing of a child from how I see it.

It's a tough call to make, but ultimately I can never support abortion-by-choice. I only support it in extreme circumstances to save a life. If it is a case of both parties dying without intervention, it is only right to save.

desertcircus wrote: »

If a particular human life begins at conception, then identical twins are only half a person each. Wherever the dividing line is that marks the beginning of an individual life, it is emphatically not while the embryo can still split into multiple parts and become multiple individual lives.

I don't see how this is a good argument for a pro-choice position.

There's quite a simple response. When this splits, it is an additional life. It's not problematic to the idea that the embryo is the beginning of human life, and in most cases one human life. In others it may split to form additional life.

This topic is simply something that I care about. I understand that people are going to oppose what I've said to the teeth. I expect it wholeheartedly. At least I've made my POV clear on the subject.

strobe

Well that really doesn't address the fact that your 'utopian' view of a world where people forgo pre-marital sex and never cheat has never existed and never will Philo (or that all unwanted pregnancies occur due to unmarried people having consensual sex). If your hope is that as few abortions take place as possible then you might want to be more open to realistic alternatives. I'll leave my involvement in the thread there I think.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

up for anything: My point was that Western society has seen the most dramatic change. As for your point about Africa and hard core ethics on that matter, the evidence clearly doesn't suggest such. In praxis, evidently people don't follow that principle because if they did there would be less STD's.

strobe: It really isn't a necessity. It's a choice that people choose to make. For the record, I think a lot of it has to do with societal norms. If people got married earlier, there wouldn't be this prospect of waiting long times before expressing themselves sexually in a relationship. The perceived need to have a grandiose or an expensive wedding when a more humble occasion could be equally romantic put people off longer and longer before committing to one another. Or perhaps society has moved away from clear commitments to eachother who knows. What is clear is that a number of these factors are a reason why many Western societies have legalised the systematic taking of human life.

Jon Ancient Nature: Your post is quite fair in respect to rape, and incest. However, the vast majority of abortions do not fall under these criteria.

Ultimately, I believe that in situations like you have described, it is not the child's fault that they were conceived in such circumstances. We need to evaluate the human rights of both parties rather than just one. I wholeheartedly support easing the suffering of mothers through counselling, and guidance in respect to pregnancy. I just can't support killing, I feel nonetheless it would be profoundly unjust.

Failed contraception is different. You are taking a risk of pregnancy irrespective of whether or not you are using contraception. Both parties should be aware of this and be willing to deal with the possibility of pregnancy. Contraceptives fail, that's why I have suggested that it is far from a perfect means of dealing with this issue. Neither is abortion in so far as it involves the killing of a child from how I see it.

It's a tough call to make, but ultimately I can never support abortion-by-choice. I only support it in extreme circumstances to save a life. If it is a case of both parties dying without intervention, it is only right to save.

desertcircus wrote: »

If a particular human life begins at conception, then identical twins are only half a person each. Wherever the dividing line is that marks the beginning of an individual life, it is emphatically not while the embryo can still split into multiple parts and become multiple individual lives.

I don't see how this is a good argument for a pro-choice position.

There's quite a simple response. When this splits, it is an additional life. It's not problematic to the idea that the embryo is the beginning of human life, and in most cases one human life. In others it may split to form additional life.

This topic is simply something that I care about. I understand that people are going to oppose what I've said to the teeth. I expect it wholeheartedly. At least I've made my POV clear on the subject.

your veiws are just to absolute . I think that life just isnt that way its not that black and white. I assume and correct me if im wrong that if the womans life was in danger then abortion would be acceptable
?
If so i suggest you do some research as many woman have in the past killed themselves rather than go through unwanted pregnancies, woman still in many countries do still continue to chose this option or continue to go to backstreet abortionists where its often their own lives and the childs that are ended.

you honestly believe that if people got married earlier all this would be avoided ? Its way too symplistic the world is simply not that simple.

In a bizarre way i wish i could believe that one day abortions werent necessary but unlike you not by imposing draconian measures , but because the powers that be finally can provide cheap 100% reliable contraception along with widespread education ,and also cure all disease and disability,and free the world of rape incest as well. That would be on my uptopian wish list however i am wise enough to accept its not going to happen.

We live in an imperfect world .

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

There's quite a simple response. When this splits, it is an additional life. It's not problematic to the idea that the embryo is the beginning of human life, and in most cases one human life. In others it may split to form additional life.

You have yet to answer my question. Are you using the word "human" in the biological sense of the word?

I'm not trying to arbitrarily debate semantics here but I think a clear and accepted definition of that term is important in these debates. Incorrectly using it leads to bad science and opens the doorway for emotional arguments over objective ones.

purplestuff

Nobody ''agrees'' to an abortion they choose it.A doctors not going to be 100% able to determine if the child is going to have a disability.They can say that there is a highly likely chance but at the end of the day it's the person carrying the foetus who has to make the decision.I don't agree with late term abortions but if somebody does and feels the need to have one then **** it.Who am I to pry into whatever a women does with the contents of her vagina?

Millicent

slippy wicket wrote: »

I would imagine that there has been a quantum leap in imaging technologies in the years since 94 to prevent such errors from happening.
In my opinion it is extremely selfish and illthought out to go ahead with a pregnancy which is going to result in a malformation .
The best thing for both parties is an immediate termination.

The argument for abortions in the case of disability make me uncomfortable as it is moving the debate dangerously closer to eugenics, IMO. Good blog post on the complications of argument for abortion as justified by disability here.

Unless there is a case where the child would not survive very long or would be severely underdeveloped/likely to have a hideous quality of life, I would not be comfortable suggested any "malformed" children should be aborted, nor would I accuse parents who kept such children of selfishness.

Xcellor

I grew up in quite a religious orientated family so my view of abortion was always. "It's wrong in the bible its considered murder".

Then I realised in the bible its considered OK to bash babies skulls and rejoice also.

Koded_AR_Rose

whether a person wants to get an abortion or not should be their decision and their decision only ... i don't understand how their are so may self righteous idiots out their who meddle in other peoples affairs... regardless of the time this pregnancy was aborted it was no ones business but the people themselves ..

Wompa1

Koded_AR_Rose wrote: »

whether a person wants to get an abortion or not should be their decision and their decision only ... i don't understand how their are so may self righteous idiots out their who meddle in other peoples affairs... regardless of the time this pregnancy was aborted it was no ones business but the people themselves ..

Unless it should be considered against the law which could be possible in the case of a late term abortion. Frankly speaking, I dont care much either way. The Planet is over populated as it is. An ex girlfriend of mine had a big group of Friends WHO would go for the morning after pill and give her address and found that funny...I dont like the fact that these measures can be exploited by brats like that but oh well. Irish society had taken a big slide in recent years anyway

Millicent

Wompa1 wrote: »

Unless it should be considered against the law which could be possible in the case of a late term abortion. Frankly speaking, I dont care much either way. The Planet is over populated as it is. An ex girlfriend of mine had a big group of Friends WHO would go for the morning after pill and give her address and found that funny...I dont like the fact that these measures can be exploited by brats like that but oh well. Irish society had taken a big slide in recent years anyway

You would rather they procreate?

Wompa1

Millicent wrote: »

Wompa1 wrote: »

Unless it should be considered against the law which could be possible in the case of a late term abortion. Frankly speaking, I dont care much either way. The Planet is over populated as it is. An ex girlfriend of mine had a big group of Friends WHO would go for the morning after pill and give her address and found that funny...I dont like the fact that these measures can be exploited by brats like that but oh well. Irish society had taken a big slide in recent years anyway

You would rather they procreate?

Was thinking more that Id rather If they had a sense of responsibility and some self worth..I dont care much If they use the pill but nobody should be cavalier about. Hopefully they just get syphllis and die instead. Life lessons

The King of Moo

Do a belief that life begins at conception and a pro-choice stance have to be mutually incompatible?

I'm pro-choice but I also believe that life begins at conception. It's quite undeveloped of course, but human life it is. I think if we somehow had never come up with the concept, we'd never be splitting hairs about when exactly human life begins. Sure, there's a big difference between a person at one week and at twenty-eight weeks, but I don't we need to look for a cut-off point between non-human life and human life.

I believe that abortion, including late-term abortions in exceptional circumstances, should be available to all women.
I think that rather than trying to argue whether either a child or a clump of cells is aborted, we should acknowledge that a life is ended, but still justify it, by weighing up the rights of the foetus/embryo/clump of cells and its experience of life to date, with the rights and experience of life of the mother.
What's being ended is an undeveloped life with no real experience of any substance, and ideally, little or no awareness or sensitivity.
We weigh this up against the mother's right not to have the child for whatever reasons such as not being able to provide a strong environment for it, the situation of conception, health risks to one or both, her suitability as a mother etc, and I think few people would argue against ending the brief, undeveloped, inexperienced life.

I think many pro-choice people don't talk in such terms as it seems to be straying towards moral relativism and it's based upon weighing up the rights of one person against another, which doesn't sit too well with many people's consciences. Therefore people make as many arguments as possible for why the aborted foetus isn't really a life, as that makes the issue more black and white, which is also how our brains tend to work. We instinctively tend to see things, initially at least, as either right or wrong.
But the world isn't based on such binary oppositions, and it presents us with more complex issues like this which we tend to try to see as right or wrong.

But I think the pro-choice side would be more persuasive overall if more people were to say "Look, we don't have to keep coming up with arguments for why it's not really a life that's being ended. Abortion does involve ending a life, which isn't ideal, but it's an underdeveloped one with no real experience, and the mother's rights trump those of the child at that stage. Now you could argue that the rights of a mother trump a five-year old, for example, but that's why most countries that legalise abortion also have an upper limit that stops the abortion of more developed foetuses/children, except in certain cases where the life of one or both is threatened, for example."

I'm sure there are some holes in my argument that some better-informed, or at least less-tired people can point out, but I still think that a more nuanced, honest approach similar to the above would be beneficial to pro-choice believers overall and make them more convincing.

philologos

Seachmall: Yes, it is a human life. It's formed of human ova and sperm. I've asked you repeatedly as to how it isn't human.

I've answered this very question multiple times on this thread already if you search back. It is you who has not answered me yet.

ebixa82

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: Yes, it is a human life. It's formed of human ova and sperm. I've asked you repeatedly as to how it isn't human.

I've answered this very question multiple times on this thread already if you search back. It is you who has not answered me yet.

A human life is one that could, even if born extremely prematurely, eventually survive.

A fertilised egg, embryo, early stage foetus are not a human life (yet).

philologos

ebixa82 wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: Yes, it is a human life. It's formed of human ova and sperm. I've asked you repeatedly as to how it isn't human.

I've answered this very question multiple times on this thread already if you search back. It is you who has not answered me yet.

A human life is one that could, even if born extremely prematurely, eventually survive.

A fertilised egg, embryo, early stage foetus are not a human life (yet).

This simply isn't true biologically. Growth and development are intrinsically attached to the concept of life. That begins at conception.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: Yes, it is a human life. It's formed of human ova and sperm. I've asked you repeatedly as to how it isn't human.

I'm asking specifically about the biological term.

• All humans are animals.
• All animals are organisms.

Therefore,

• All humans are organisms.

Do you agree with that deduction?

I've answered this very question multiple times on this thread already if you search back. It is you who has not answered me yet.

I'm assuming your question that I haven't answered is "How can life formed of a human sperm and a human ova be anything but human?"

I haven't addressed it because A) my point about it not being human in the biological sense nullifies the question and it's not up to me to disprove your claim of it being human (it's up to you to prove it).

desertcircus

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: Yes, it is a human life. It's formed of human ova and sperm. I've asked you repeatedly as to how it isn't human.

I've answered this very question multiple times on this thread already if you search back. It is you who has not answered me yet.

How can something qualify as a human life when it retains the possibility of splitting into two or more parts? Whatever it is that makes us human, it absolutely is not there at the moment of conception, or else identical twins are only half of a person. The existence of monozygotic twins means it's factually impossible for a newly formed embryo to be a human life in any understood meaning of the phrase. If an embryo can still split into two parts, it is manifestly not yet a human life.

Stark

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: Yes, it is a human life. It's formed of human ova and sperm. I've asked you repeatedly as to how it isn't human.

It's not a human. It's a template for forming a human. Hence it can be used to create one human, two humans, even multiple humans. The same template exists in every cell of your body yet we don't go shouting "murderer" every time someone cuts their fingernails or exfoliates or whatever.

philologos

Stark wrote: »

It's not a human. It's a template for forming a human. Hence it can be used to create one human, two humans, even multiple humans. The same template exists in every cell of your body yet we don't go shouting "murderer" every time someone cuts their fingernails or exfoliates or whatever.

One can say it's a template, but honestly that's disingenuous. I find the whole pro-choice approach to this argument to be dishonest.

What is biologically formed of human ova, and sperm is human. It would be absurd to say that it is anything else.

Also, what grows, and develops as a biologically unique organism as a result of being formed of these constituent parts to birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death is a life.

It's not that difficult. A pro-choice person earlier in the thread had at least the honesty to claim that was destroying life. Although I profoundly disagree with them, at least they were honest about it. I respect that in and of itself.

desertcircus wrote: »

How can something qualify as a human life when it retains the possibility of splitting into two or more parts? Whatever it is that makes us human, it absolutely is not there at the moment of conception, or else identical twins are only half of a person. The existence of monozygotic twins means it's factually impossible for a newly formed embryo to be a human life in any understood meaning of the phrase. If an embryo can still split into two parts, it is manifestly not yet a human life.

I don't see how that is "manifest".

What is manifest is that the embryo is a life. Dead things don't grow, dead things don't develop in the same way as an embryo does.

What is manifest is that the embryo as an individual person is biologically unique from its parent and from any other.

Unless we're willing to change the whole definition of life for the sake of this argument, it's pretty clear at least to me that this understanding you present is mistaken.

desertcircus

philologos wrote: »

What is manifest is that the embryo is a life. Dead things don't grow, dead things don't develop in the same way as an embryo does.

What is manifest is that the embryo as an individual person is biologically unique from its parent and from any other.

Unless we're willing to change the whole definition of life for the sake of this argument, it's pretty clear at least to me that this understanding you present is mistaken.

The embryo is not an individual person; that's not a position or an argument, that's basic logic. Given any sensible definition of "individual" (based as it is on the idea of being indivisible), something that can still end up becoming two or more human beings is logically incapable of being a human being itself. Given that a single embryo can split and subsequently become two lives, only two options are possible:

1. People born of the same embryo - monozygotic siblings - are less than a whole individual person and only add up to one person.

2. Whatever it is that defines a life as something separate to a living collection of cells is not present at the moment of conception.

I literally cannot see a way around this that doesn't involve an appeal to time travel. Either a person is formed at the moment of conception and therefore identical twins are one half of a person each, or identical twins are separate and whole human beings and therefore whatever it is that defines them as separate and whole human beings was not present when the implanted embryo split in two.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

One can say it's a template, but honestly that's disingenuous. I find the whole pro-choice approach to this argument to be dishonest.

What is biologically formed of human ova, and sperm is human. It would be absurd to say that it is anything else.

Also, what grows, and develops as a biologically unique organism as a result of being formed of these constituent parts to birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death is a life.

It's not that difficult. A pro-choice person earlier in the thread had at least the honesty to claim that was destroying life. Although I profoundly disagree with them, at least they were honest about it. I respect that in and of itself.

In your accusations of pro-choicers being disingenuous you are willfully rejecting scientific fact and continue to use a term which you either fail to understand or intentionally misuse.

You are being disingenuous.

This, for me, isn't a question of pro-choice/pro-life anymore. You are throwing accusations around that you are guilty of. You refuse to accept this which completely devalues any argument you may be able to present as you have demonstrated you are incapable of taking an objective and unbiased position.


If you want to address my deduction above I'll respond, otherwise I'm done.

philologos

No, I'm not rejecting "scientific fact". It is clearly wrong to say that the foetus is not a human life. It is the pro-choice side of the argument who are clearly denying that a life formed of a human sperm and ova is human life at all. That's simply a lie.

You're usually intellectually honest, but in this case many on the pro-choice side need to suppress the truth in respect to what is human, and what is alive. Those are fundamentals.

Again - What other species is a human foetus (formed of human sperm and ova) other than a human?

Again - How is the embryo dead, if it is grows and develops through life to birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death?

By the by, there are plenty of medical arguments for conception as the beginning of life.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

Again - What other species is a human foetus (formed of human sperm and ova) other than a human?

"Species" is a term used to classify organisms.

It's not an organism.
It's not a species of animal.
It's not an animal.
It's not a human.

It's a cellular structure.

Again - How is the embryo dead, if it is grows and develops through life to birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death?

Nobody suggested it was dead.

By the by, there are plenty of medical arguments for conception as the beginning of life.

That link also provides satisfactory counter-arguments.

44leto

philologos wrote: »

No, I'm not rejecting "scientific fact". It is clearly wrong to say that the foetus is not a human life. It is the pro-choice side of the argument who are clearly denying that a life formed of a human sperm and ova is human life at all. That's simply a lie.

You're usually intellectually honest, but in this case many on the pro-choice side need to suppress the truth in respect to what is human, and what is alive. Those are fundamentals.

Again - What other species is a human foetus (formed of human sperm and ova) other than a human?

Again - How is the embryo dead, if it is grows and develops through life to birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death?

By the by, there are plenty of medical arguments for conception as the beginning of life.

It maybe the beginning of the process to life but it is not really a life, its a collection of developing cells, so it has the potential to be a human life and it certainly is not conscious on any level.

So what the anti-choice people should be asserting is after conception a human life may happen, the fertilized egg has to get through the first hurdle and go through the greatest abortion clinic and that is the womans body.

So if you choose to see a fertilized egg as a human life, that is absurd.

philologos

No, it's alive. It's alive because it is a unique biological entity formed of human sperm and ova which grows and develops through to birth, childhood, adolescence and death. As far as I can tell it is dishonest to argue otherwise. Another pro-choice / pro-abortion person has argued on this thread that it is the killing of an unborn child. I respect that honesty even if I disagree with their position. I respect that they didn't feel that they had to lie to argue for their position.

If you find biological reality to be absurd, that is your choice, not mine.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

If you find biological reality to be absurd, that is your choice, not mine.

Says the man rejecting biological fact...

Jesus Christ, this frustrating.

philologos

Seachmall: I know, it is frustrating. It's not just frustrating but tragic, how people choose to deny the truth to justify abortion.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: I know, it is frustrating. It's not just frustrating but tragic, how people choose to deny the truth to justify abortion.

Now I know you're trolling.

Back against the wall; begin the troll.

philologos

The thing is, it's hardly trolling to simply point out that human life begins clearly at conception. You've conceded that it is life, but bizarrely you've stepped back from saying it is human despite the fact that it is precisely human in so far as it is a human embryo. What else is it? What other species?