Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Morgase

professore wrote: »

The difference is the person with advanced Alzheimers will never improve, whereas the developing embryo will.

For abortion itself, it depends where you draw the line. I don't want a Monty Pythonesque "Every Sperm is Sacred" law either. I think we need to define when life begins. Probably somewhere around 6-7 weeks judging by this graphic.

http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-7-weeks

We're in agreement that some sort of line needs to be drawn, I'd put it later myself but that's a different argument.

Sarky

professore wrote: »

the morning after pill which BTW I don't consider abortion.

Why not?

MagicMarker

professore wrote: »

there's plenty of perfectly good contraceptive methods out there and the morning after pill which BTW I don't consider abortion.

Why?

MisterEpicurus

Sin City wrote: »

But again , if left alone the foetus will become a child
Where the sperm at inside a condom will not become a child as it needs the female half to develop.

So yes the fetous is a potential person

Im an atheist by the way

Nice to know you're an atheist. Thanks for that useful information

But do you not see your inconsistency? Why shouldn't parents be forced not to use contraception as it reduces the amount of potential children in the same way they're forced not to have an abortion for this reason?

Don't you agree that forcing people to act in your favour is equally as morally reprehensible, maybe more, than the moral highground you're aiming to stand on?

Improbable

Sin City wrote: »

I was using a condom as an example , I believe that as long as contraception works and no pregenacy occurs then the pp wont have existed to argue the toss

That's not really answering my question.

professore

I see no difference in killing a 2 month old baby and aborting a fetus after 2 months. One is as much a human being in my eyes as the other. I'd be interested to hear any counter arguments.

Morgase

professore wrote: »

That's the point in bold. There is more than "you" in consideration. My children are very expensive and I'm sure directly responsible for some health problems in my wife and I, but I wouldn't consider getting rid of them for convenience sake.

If you are responsible, there's plenty of perfectly good contraceptive methods out there and the morning after pill which BTW I don't consider abortion.

I suppose that's where we disagree - I don't see it as a person.

On your second point, the thing is that no contraception is perfect. I'm doing my best, but what happens if it fails? I just suck it up for the next 18+ years?

Zamboni

professore wrote: »

I see no difference in killing a 2 month old baby and aborting a fetus after 2 months. One is as much a human being in my eyes as the other. I'd be interested to hear any counter arguments.

Ok.
No they are not the same.

Sin City

seamus wrote: »

Absolutely. If someone wants to leave, let them go.

Don't see what that has to do with abortion though?

One is the ending of a functioning human life, the other is not. Yes, the embryo/foetus may grow to a point where it can sustain its own life, but equally it may not. And more importantly, it cannot while it is still an embryo.

True enough Seamus, its a symbiotic life form , but it still a life which should have its life respected.

As for your last point there that it cannot survive on its own, you could say the same thing of a newborn, if you left it alone it too would die

Both euthanasia abortions taking off life and can be seen as murder by some

MisterEpicurus

professore wrote: »

I see no difference in killing a 2 month old baby and aborting a fetus after 2 months. One is as much a human being in my eyes as the other. I'd be interested to hear any counter arguments.

You're making a false equivalence.

The fetus cannot survive in the natural world and hence you're forced to agree it's not a baby in the sense that the 2 month old one is which can actually survive.

fitz0

professore wrote: »

"Minimum wage of €1.27, say NO to abortion":D

"European Army Conscription, say NO to abortion."

Bannasidhe

Firstly, I cannot see myself as ever deciding to get an abortion but that does not give me the right to judge others who have taken this difficult decision.

What deeply disturbs me about a lot of the debates about abortion is that women are reduced to being little more than mobile incubators with personal control over their own bodies becoming a matter of debate.

Seriously - are anti-abortion people really saying that women's rights to control what happens their bodies should be temporarily suspended should that woman become pregnant regardless of the circumstances?

What if we were to debate forced castration (physical not chemical) of any man found guilty of a sexual offense regardless of the circumstances?
Yes - that is extreme but for some women becoming pregnant can seriously impact on their long-term health, for some women becoming pregnant can be fatal. Contraception is not 100% effective.

Do these women abstain from sex until after the menopause as my aunt had to do when she was informed that her body physically could not cope with any more pregnancies? She was 38 at the time...

professore

Morgase wrote: »

I suppose that's where we disagree - I don't see it as a person.

On your second point, the thing is that no contraception is perfect. I'm doing my best, but what happens if it fails? I just suck it up for the next 18+ years?

Adoption? Than it's just 9 months.

Sin City

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Nice to know you're an atheist. Thanks for that useful information

Just so Im not accused of doing what the church says

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

do you not see your inconsistency? Why shouldn't parents be forced not to use contraception as it reduces the amount of potential children in the same way they're forced not to have an abortion for this reason?

My point on this is that the contents of say the condom is not a pp, just like my sheets or the bedroom floor etc are not going to be pp as you need the other ingridents to become a pp, once the zygot is formed a pp is in production,

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Thus, don't you agree that forcing people to act in your favour is equally as morally reprehensible, maybe more, than the moral highground you're aiming to stand on?

Not forcing anyone, I am giving my opinion and not forcing anyone to follow it, anyway giving some one an opinion on preserve life is morraly responsible however I wouldnt be so sure about the morality of taking life

professore

Zamboni wrote: »

Ok.
No they are not the same.

Why not?

MagicMarker

Why do you not consider the MAP an abortion professore?

Zamboni

professore wrote: »

Why not?

It's funny because I've been waiting for you to tell us why they are the same.

professore

Sarky wrote: »

Why not?

You have to draw a line somewhere. I draw it at 6-7 weeks.

professore

Zamboni wrote: »

It's funny because I've been waiting for you to tell us why they are the same.

Both are not conscious and self-aware viable human beings if left to their own devices. Now why is there a difference for you between the two? I'm genuinely interested.

Sarky

But as soon as the zygotes fuse the embryo has the potential to become a human. Just as much as a fully implanted foetus. Why the exception?

MagicMarker

professore wrote: »

You have to draw a line somewhere. I draw it at 6-7 weeks.

Why do you see no difference between a baby and an 8 week old fetus, but a 7 year old fetus is okay to abort?

What's the difference between a 7 week old fetus and an 8 week old fetus?

Morgase

professore wrote: »

Adoption? Than it's just 9 months.

No, just no. As I said, I don't want to put myself through the bodily hardship that is pregnancy for "just" nine months.

Gurgle

Sin City wrote: »

have to say im against abortion myself , except.in extreme circumstances . just to add that my.opinion has no religious ideology or teaching behind it.

Likewise, I'm against abortion on purely moral grounds.

Take all the religious nonsense out of it, and you're down to the simplest of questions:

When does a sperm + egg form a human being?

In my view, the only non-arbitrary answer is at conception.

'Pro Choice' advocates can give all kinds of dates to use an arbitrary cut-off time for abortions, such as when the zygote becomes an embryo or even at (or after) birth when the baby first draws breath.

The justification is (usually) that it's not a person until e.g. the heart starts beating, the lungs are mature, the kicking starts etc.

But I have never been able to shake the feeling of 'isn't that convenient'.

doctoremma

Gurgle wrote: »

When does a sperm + egg form a human being?

In my view, the only non-arbitrary answer is at conception.

I don't think that's the only non-arbitrary measure we can use to define when a fertilised egg becomes a human being. However, it's fair to say that it's the only non-arbitrary measure with a concrete moment allocated to it.

MagicMarker

Gurgle wrote: »

Likewise, I'm against abortion on purely moral grounds.

Take all the religious nonsense out of it, and you're down to the simplest of questions:

When does a sperm + egg form a human being?

In my view, the only non-arbitrary answer is at conception.

'Pro Choice' advocates can give all kinds of dates to use an arbitrary cut-off time for abortions, such as when the zygote becomes an embryo or even at (or after) birth when the baby first draws breath.

The justification is (usually) that it's not a person until e.g. the heart starts beating, the lungs are mature, the kicking starts etc.

But I have never been able to shake the feeling of 'isn't that convenient'.

So why is it okay to kill a human being under extreme circumstances such as rape (I assume this is the kind of circumstance you refer to) but it's not okay under other circumstances? Surely it's not the human being's fault that it was conceived because of a rape?

UDP

Gurgle wrote: »

Likewise, I'm against abortion on purely moral grounds.

Take all the religious nonsense out of it, and you're down to the simplest of questions:

When does a sperm + egg form a human being?

In my view, the only non-arbitrary answer is at conception.

'Pro Choice' advocates can give all kinds of dates to use an arbitrary cut-off time for abortions, such as when the zygote becomes an embryo or even at (or after) birth when the baby first draws breath.

The justification is (usually) that it's not a person until e.g. the heart starts beating, the lungs are mature, the kicking starts etc.

But I have never been able to shake the feeling of 'isn't that convenient'.

I contend it is when the baby is able to live outside of the womb.

doctoremma

UDP wrote: »

I contend it is when the baby is able to live outside of the womb.

With or without medical intervention?

joseph brand

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly, I cannot see myself as ever deciding to get an abortion but that does not give me the right to judge others who have taken this difficult decision.

Exactly.

I have no intention of getting a tattoo. Other people want them. Go ahead.
Same with piercings. Not my thing. Who am I to judge?

[DELETED] religious folks believe that we'll all be getting abortions and having abortion parties if they are made available. An abortion is a very difficult choice for a woman. One she will have to live with for the rest of her life. But it's her choice.

[DELETED]

UDP

doctoremma wrote: »

With or without medical intervention?

With medical intervention. The earliest baby born I believe is at the 21 week mark so I would say maybe 16 weeks or so being the maximum which would be subject to change as our medical capabilities get better.

Zamboni

professore wrote: »

Both are not conscious and self-aware viable human beings if left to their own devices. Now why is there a difference for you between the two? I'm genuinely interested.

Just because something shares the odd characteristic does not mean it's the same. By that logic I can say that you are the same as a 2 month old baby because you both have noses. Your logic is flawed.