Abortion/ Note Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

decimatio · 29-08-2012 3:05am

professore wrote: »

Abortion should only be considered under the most extreme circumstances, i.e. unviable fetus or mother's life in danger. Why stop at "unwanted" babies? Why not unwanted old folks, travellers, criminals? That's my reason for being anti-abortion.

Except it's not a baby (yet). I do believe that abortion should not be taken lightly and that the potential human being does have rights but until its able to function independently from the mother than it's rights come second to the mothers.

By the way just to save us both some time responses aimed at arguing for the conciousness of the fetus are irrelevant to me. It doesn't matter if it is or isn't as long as its dependent on the mother as a life support machine so to speak.

As for criminals, I'm not against the death penalty. Old folks (anyone) should have the option of euthanasia available if they so choose.

Then again i'd argue that pregnancy itself should be restricted when the technology becomes available. Restricted on grounds of passing on genetic disorders, diseases, etc.

If we have the technology to show that the offspring of a couple has a high probability of having a serious disease then other methods of child production should be considered or even forced upon them.

I think it's immoral to bring a child into existence when you know that they will suffer or be disadvantaged because you and your partners particular combination of DNA produces such disorders or diseases.

People give far too much weight into paasing on their own DNA.

(Yes I'm in favour of eugenics in a certain fashion)

Penn · 29-08-2012 7:02am

Sin City wrote: »

No its not how I view pregnancy but I was making a point.
Its true the mother should not be forced through with an unwanted child, but untill we have means for keeping that life alive outside of the mother she is responsible for that life

Why is she responsible for that life though when it's something she did not choose and did not want, and actively tried to avoid? Isn't that unfair?

If I needed a kidney transplant and through some coincidence you were in the hospital and they discovered you were a match, are you then responsible for my life? Is it your responsibility to donate one of your kidneys to me even though you don't want to?

Sin City · 29-08-2012 8:19am

Penn wrote: »

Why is she responsible for that life though when it's something she did not choose and did not want, and actively tried to avoid? Isn't that unfair?

If I needed a kidney transplant and through some coincidence you were in the hospital and they discovered you were a match, are you then responsible for my life? Is it your responsibility to donate one of your kidneys to me even though you don't want to?

in my view yes she is responsible for.that.life . How did she activily avoid it ? chances are there was no protection used (failures with contraception is rare ) so unless it was.the immaculate conception or rape then she didnt try to avoid it .

your scenario doesnt make you responsible for the kidney suffer as you did not have a hand.in creating him . if however you did give the kidney and it was infected with aids then he has a responsiblItynot to pass it on

Sin City · 29-08-2012 8:25am

Jernal wrote: »

Why though? Why should something with potential be treated as if it is already that something? To use an analogy why should someone who could become the President of the United States be treated right now in this very moment as if he actually is the President of the United States. To suggest something that has potential should be treated as if it is the equivalent of something that reached that potential is ludicrous. A potential person is not a person.

In a formal sense :
Why is Potential X the equivalent to X?

at what stage would you class it as a person ? 20 weeks ? third trimester? birth?

What,stage would you class it as a lifeform?

then at what point would you consider it the taking off a life ?

what makes a person ? organ function ,brain function ? the ability to reason ?

fisgon · 29-08-2012 8:32am

Sin City wrote: »

at what stage would you class it as a person ? 20 weeks ? third trimester? birth?

What,stage would you class it as a lifeform?

then at what point would you consider it the taking off a life ?

Clearly it's a sliding scale. The older and more developed the foetus, the closer it becomes to personhood. It's certainly simpler to just say "it becomes a person at the fusion of sperm and egg", but it doesn't make it correct.

The situation is complex, the problem with many anti-abortion people is that they don't want to deal with complexity.

fisgon · 29-08-2012 8:38am

Sin City wrote: »

As I said Im an atheist with no church ideology, I dont declare that fetuses or adults for that matter have a soul or the pro life/anti abortion is mutally exclusive to the God Squad. As for your description, babies have been born without one or more of those organs(admittidly not all of them together) should they be labeled inhuman?

Exactly, not all of them together. No baby has ever been born in the history of humanity that was microscopic, and without all the various elements I mentioned, including a brain, a nervous system, internal organs, limbs and a gender. An embryo is clearly not a baby, and cannot be equated with a live, born human being, like you or I.

And sure there are non-believers on the anti-abortion side (though the vast majority are religious). But the argument still comes down to the same thing, that the foetus or embryo is a person from the very moment of conception. And that is what I am saying is unsustainable. If a soul isn't in the picture then you have nothing to back up this claim.

Penn · 29-08-2012 8:38am

Sin City wrote: »

in my view yes she is responsible for.that.life . How did she activily avoid it ? chances are there was no protection used (failures with contraception is rare ) so unless it was.the immaculate conception or rape then she didnt try to avoid it .

Friend of mine discovered she was pregnant when she was 6 months gone. She and her boyfriend always used condoms, and she'd had an implant in her arm as birth control (I'm not fully aware of what the implant is or does, but it's an alternative to using the morning after pill which she couldn't take for medical reasons (the implant had also been causing some irregularities with her periods which is why it wasn't until nearly the 6 month mark before it was discovered she was pregnant). They were actively trying to not get pregnant. Rare, but it can and does happen. And even then, what about cases of rape?

Sin City wrote: »

your scenario doesnt make you responsible for the kidney suffer as you did not have a hand.in creating him

No, but I have a right to life, don't I? And once you become aware you could save my life, and not doing so would result in my death, aren't you every bit as responsible for helping my right to life as a mother would be to her foetus? This even skips past the potential personhood debate as I am definitely a person, a person who you could save but choose not to. But as much as I would wish and hope you'd give me your kidney, I wouldn't hold you responsible for my death, because it's your choice and you have to make the decision which is best for you.

Same with the mother and foetus. If the mother did not choose to get pregnant and actively tried not to get pregnant (bearing in mind no contraceptives are 100% effective) but instead has this forced on her, does she not have a choice? Metaphorically speaking, why should she give up her kidney to when she does not want to? Why should she suffer the effects when she does not want to? Why should she have this forced on her when she really tried not to?

Why is the foetus's right to life more important than her rights, when we can't even agree on what rights a foetus has?

Sin City wrote: »

if however you did give the kidney and it was infected with aids then he has a responsiblItynot to pass it on

I was going to dismiss this remark as I felt it was too far removed from my example, but it does bring up another point:

What if the mother is HIV positive or has Aids and accidentally gets pregnant? Does she then have a responsibility to not pass it on? Is abortion then okay?

Sin City · 29-08-2012 8:39am

fisgon wrote: »

Clearly it's a sliding scale. The older and more developed the foetus, the closer it becomes to personhood. It's certainly simpler to just say "it becomes a person at the fusion of sperm and egg", but it doesn't make it correct.

The situation is complex, the problem with many anti-abortion people is that they don't want to deal with complexity.

ill deal with complexity all you want, I trained as a scientist, did a module on human development. so when.in your view does it become a person and when does it become a lifeform ? and then how do we define a lifeform ?

Rev Hellfire · 29-08-2012 9:13am

Sin City wrote: »

ill deal with complexity all you want, I trained as a scientist, did a module on human development. so when.in your view does it become a person and when does it become a lifeform ? and then how do we define a lifeform ?

Well we can put the life-form to bed right away, clearly as the farming industry demonstrates simply being a life-form does not convey a right to life.

professore · 29-08-2012 10:00am

Sin City wrote: »

ill deal with complexity all you want, I trained as a scientist, did a module on human development. so when.in your view does it become a person and when does it become a lifeform ? and then how do we define a lifeform ?

This is the core of the issue. Really what the abortion debate should be about is when does a bundle of cells achieve "personhood"? Some would say conception, some would say when it can feel pain, no-one seems to disagree that at birth the baby is a person, although logically this makes no sense, since arguments on here about living independently from the mother etc apply to a newborn baby just as well, since it can't take care of itself either.

Therefore the only way is for society to agree where the line should be drawn. Personally I would draw the line quite early but that's my opinion, as I'm very uncomfortable ending life in any form unless absolutely necessary.

Sin City · 29-08-2012 10:08am

fisgon wrote: »

Clearly it's a sliding scale. The older and more developed the foetus, the closer it becomes to personhood. It's certainly simpler to just say "it becomes a person at the fusion of sperm and egg", but it doesn't make it correct.

The situation is complex, the problem with many anti-abortion people is that they don't want to deal with complexity.

I never said it became a person. I said it became a potential/proto person, ie a person in development

Sin City · 29-08-2012 10:13am

fisgon wrote: »

Exactly, not all of them together. No baby has ever been born in the history of humanity that was microscopic, and without all the various elements I mentioned, including a brain, a nervous system, internal organs, limbs and a gender. An embryo is clearly not a baby, and cannot be equated with a live, born human being, like you or I.

No but there have been babies born with a few of these missing. Look at the aftermath of Chernobyl or Horishima and Nakasaki, many mutations have taken place which did mean that in a few cases not all of the organs , limbs etch deveolped and in a few cases some had a few of these missing. Are you saying that you wouldnt class them as people?

fisgon wrote: »

And sure there are non-believers on the anti-abortion side (though the vast majority are religious). But the argument still comes down to the same thing, that the foetus or embryo is a person from the very moment of conception. And that is what I am saying is unsustainable. If a soul isn't in the picture then you have nothing to back up this claim.

I think we should leave religious belief out of this. You seem to have an arguemnt of when the soul enters the body and try to claim that that doesnt happen as the soul doesnt exist when no one has made the point that it does (You havent offered any proof it doesnt exist btw pmsl)

Sin City · 29-08-2012 10:24am

Penn wrote: »

Friend of mine discovered she was pregnant when she was 6 months gone. She and her boyfriend always used condoms, and she'd had an implant in her arm as birth control (I'm not fully aware of what the implant is or does, but it's an alternative to using the morning after pill which she couldn't take for medical reasons (the implant had also been causing some irregularities with her periods which is why it wasn't until nearly the 6 month mark before it was discovered she was pregnant). They were actively trying to not get pregnant. Rare, but it can and does happen. And even then

I understand that contraception isnt 100% safe but Im sure both parties knew the risks and took a chance and were unfortunatly caught out

Penn wrote: »

what about cases of rape?

Rape in my mind is the grey area. I completely understand the points being made nad I empatise with the victim as this was not her fault, however it was also not the fetuses fault so why should it be denied a life because of the sins of the father?

Penn wrote: »

No, but I have a right to life, don't I? And once you become aware you could save my life, and not doing so would result in my death, aren't you every bit as responsible for helping my right to life as a mother would be to her foetus? This even skips past the potential personhood debate as I am definitely a person, a person who you could save but choose not to. But as much as I would wish and hope you'd give me your kidney, I wouldn't hold you responsible for my death, because it's your choice and you have to make the decision which is best for you.

No Im not responsible, I could be seen as a dick but in no way responisble as for instance Im not the only one who could be a viable donor. I have co connection to you , ie no bloodline. Dialysis will do the kidneys job untill a new one can be obtained. Now however if my child needed a kidney and they could have mine and live but I said no, then I would be responsilbe

Penn wrote: »

Same with the mother and foetus. If the mother did not choose to get pregnant and actively tried not to get pregnant (bearing in mind no contraceptives are 100% effective) but instead has this forced on her, does she not have a choice? Metaphorically speaking, why should she give up her kidney to when she does not want to? Why should she suffer the effects when she does not want to? Why should she have this forced on her when she really tried not to?

Why is the foetus's right to life more important than her rights, when we can't even agree on what rights a foetus has?

She in this case wasnt forced to have sex, she knew the consequences but when the inevitible happens she wants a get out of jail free card

Penn wrote: »

I was going to dismiss this remark as I felt it was too far removed from my example, but it does bring up another point:

What if the mother is HIV positive or has Aids and accidentally gets pregnant? Does she then have a responsibility to not pass it on? Is abortion then okay?

No its still not ok to abort under these circumstances.

My example was as out there as yours btw

Sin City · 29-08-2012 10:26am

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Well we can put the life-form to bed right away, clearly as the farming industry demonstrates simply being a life-form does not convey a right to life.

Are you saying that the farming industry is completly non biased in this? Surely the farming industry has something to gain from their definition of what rights to life (for animals presumibly ) are

Sin City · 29-08-2012 10:27am

professore wrote: »

This is the core of the issue. Really what the abortion debate should be about is when does a bundle of cells achieve "personhood"? Some would say conception, some would say when it can feel pain, no-one seems to disagree that at birth the baby is a person, although logically this makes no sense, since arguments on here about living independently from the mother etc apply to a newborn baby just as well, since it can't take care of itself either.

Therefore the only way is for society to agree where the line should be drawn. Personally I would draw the line quite early but that's my opinion, as I'm very uncomfortable ending life in any form unless absolutely necessary.

I would agree, but the trouble is where does one draw the line as to where life begins and if needed where life is protected

aidan24326 · 29-08-2012 10:43am

Sin City wrote: »

Also should we legalise euthanasia , mercy killings for when people become a burden? Other countries do it, should we follow suit?

Yes we should. It's ridiculous that any non-human animal can be put out of it's misery but a human can't no matter how much they're suffering.

Zamboni wrote: »

Human life is not as precious as it is made out to be.

But that's easy to say when it's not YOUR life we're talking about. I'm guessing your life is very precious to you, as is mine to me. Easy to say life isn't precious when it's somebody else's.

As for abortion the problem is in defining what exactly constitutes a life, and where you draw the line. It's a very complex issue and I doubt there will ever be any consensus on it. Basically because thete is no proper definition of life in the first place, and any attempt to frame one is riddled with problems.

Sin City · 29-08-2012 10:48am

aidan24326 wrote: »

Yes we should. It's ridiculous that any non-human animal can be put out of it's misery but a human can't no matter how much they're suffering.

[DELETED]

aidan24326 wrote: »

But that's easy to say when it's not YOUR life we're talking about. I'm guessing your life is very precious to you, as is mine to me. Easy to say life isn't precious when it's somebody else's.

As for abortion the problem is in defining what exactly constitutes a life, and where you draw the line. It's a very complex issue and I doubt there will ever be any consensus on it. Basically because thete is no proper definition of life in the first place, and any attempt to frame one is riddled with problems.

Hence the debate,

Yes life is very complex and there are problamtic details which leave both sides able to argue and win but that doesnt mean that just because no side can win that we should just carry on regardless

Zillah · 29-08-2012 11:32am

Sin City wrote: »

Your not a doctor are you ?

Id hate to see you if I broke my leg from a race

Go listen to the animal-like noises a person dying from stage four cancer makes and I predict you'll come back a little less dismissive. Life is very less precious when it is filled with inescapable indignity, terror and pain.

Sin City · 29-08-2012 11:34am

Zillah wrote: »

Go listen to the animal-like noises a person dying from stage four cancer makes and I predict you'll come back a little less dismissive. Life is very less precious when it is filled with inescapable indignity, terror and pain.

I agree, and I was just making a point, but this debate is about the fetal right to life, not the right to die of the terminally ill

aidan24326 · 29-08-2012 11:45am

Sin City wrote: »

[DELETED]

[DELETED] Where a person is suffering they should have the right to die. Ownership of one's own life and all that. I don't think anyone would want to end their own life because of a broken leg [DELETED]

I'm guessing you were making reference to horse racing. I suggest you inform yourself as to why horses who break their leg in a race are sometimes put down. There are reasons why it's the kinder option in many cases, and it's not a decision that's taken lightly.

Sin City · 29-08-2012 11:51am

aidan24326 wrote: »

[DELETED]Where a person is suffering they should have the right to die. Ownership of one's own life and all that. I don't think anyone would want to end their own life because of a broken leg [DELETED]

I'm guessing you were making reference to horse racing. I suggest you inform yourself as to why horses who break their leg in a race are sometimes put down. There are reasons why it's the kinder option in many cases, and it's not a decision that's taken lightly.

My aplogies, I actually misread the post and was thinking of another at the time, I withdraw my analogy. Aagain taking of ones life who is in pain is a grey moral area and not one I am comfortable with. Who makes the call, espcailly if the patient may not have their full factualties to make that decesion.

Now back to the abortion debate again

(Once again apologies to anyone I might have offended)

robindch · 29-08-2012 11:51am

Folks, just a quick reminder -- no personal or unhelpful comments on this emotive topic.

Thanks.

Zillah · 29-08-2012 11:53am

Ok, well, on topic: I cannot fathom the mentality that allows a person to presume to tell another person what can happen inside their own body.

"Your wombs belong to us, women." - Old Men.

Sin City · 29-08-2012 11:54am

Zillah wrote: »

Ok, well, on topic: I cannot fathom the mentality that allows a person to presume to tell another person what can happen inside their own body.

"Your wombs belong to us, women." - Old Men.

True enough, but its home and a life support system to your potential child

Bannasidhe · 29-08-2012 12:15pm

Sin City wrote: »

True enough, but its home and a life support system to your potential child

Potentially a life support system to a potential child = my body.

MagicMarker · 29-08-2012 12:28pm

robindch wrote: »

Folks, just a quick reminder -- no personal or unhelpful comments on this emotive topic.

Thanks.

Ah here for [DELETED] sake what the [DELETED] do you want [DELETED] [DELETED] want when there[DELETED] [DELETED] [DELETED] [DELETED][DELETED]? Well?

:P:pac:

Sin City · 29-08-2012 12:33pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Potentially a life support system to a potential child = my body.

it is indeed your body, but its.not.just your body if you know what I mean.

Zillah · 29-08-2012 12:34pm

Sin City wrote: »

True enough, but its home and a life support system to your potential child

The rights of a living, breathing, thinking human being with a personality vs the rights of a minuscule blob of goo with no more sentience than my phone. This is an easy choice for me. I think early term abortions should be entirely at the woman's discretion.

UDP · 29-08-2012 12:34pm

Sin City wrote: »

it is indeed your body, but its.not.just your body if you know what I mean.

It is while anything growing inside is 100% physically dependant on the host.

Mark Hamill · 29-08-2012 12:36pm

Jernal wrote: »

To extend your fat analogy. You don't force someone who gorged to excess, that doesn't want to be fat to remain fat. If the person want's to remove their fat they can try to do so via exercise, diet, surgery etc. In the woman's case she doesn't want the foetus or fat inside her, yet for some reason the foetus is given more privilege than fat. I don't understand that.

Probably on the basis that the foetus will, if everything goes right, become a human. But thats beside the point I was making, which was questioning the language used which implied that the foetus is, in any way, to blame for its own existence.

Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Comments

Abortion/ Note Thread Closing Shortly! ! !