Abortion

RDM_83 again

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No. My 16 weeks was more said with countries in mind that did not already have abortion on demand. For example in Ireland. If I was campaigning with the pro choice movement in Ireland I would probably nail my colors to the mast at around 16 weeks.

I'm sorry but is that position not fairly hypocritical in that by not wanting a reduction of the term limits in countries such as the UK (rare as they are) your holding the position that even in your own opinion there is the possibility of some negative response to the fetus it should be allowed.
e.g. By not opposing this your prioritising different levels of conciousness/ capacity to feel 'pain' but since this is legally allowed its ok.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My argument tends to target the difference between having things like conscious and self awareness in ANY form.... and having absolutely none at all. Therefore the problem that infants have "less" of it is not really a problem I think my position suffers from.

Also not a problem if your strict in your 16 weeks limit but there is the issue that
"The first neurones to link the cortex with the rest of the brain are
monoamine pathways, and reach the cortex from about 16 weeks of gestation. Their activation could be associated with unpleasant conscious experience, even if not pain."


http://65.57.252.248/abortion/fetal_pain/BJOGfetalpain1999.pdf

argirl

tomtherobot wrote: »

But what is it if it's not contraception? All's i'm hearing is it's complicated or it's a difficult choice, explain?

If it's not killing and it's not contraception what is it? And please don't bring in these extreme medical emergencies that's very unfair on those people.

Just shut up.

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

You seem to lack emotion. Whats your problem with emotion?

I think we can do without the personal ad hominem comments and insults here thanks. Lets stick to the posts and the arguments without making personal comments about the posters.

cynder wrote: »

Why do you agree with abortion?

Because I can see no arguments against it. I am a firm believer in the mantra "Innocent until proven guilty" and if I can see no arguments for disallowing people to do X, then I will defend their right to do X. Simple as that.

Unless, and until, someone presents to me some cogent arguments, data, evidence or reasoning for why abortion should be prevented before, say, 16 weeks then I will continue to campaign and debate for their right to do so.

cynder wrote: »

It's stopping the natural order of things, stopping nature take its course

So?

I do not mean to be short with you but really: So?

We stop nature taking its course all the time. We immunize against flu for example. We help infertile couples conceive. We combat darkness at night using electric lighting. We artificially increase the yield of crops massively by using our technology. We combat the "natural" order of things all the time. Why should we not???

cynder wrote: »

You criticise me for having an emotional response for opposing abortion, yet the woman who has an abortion is doing it because she is influenced by her emotions.

I did not criticize anyone for having an emotional response. This is now the third time already I have had to pull your words out of my mouth and it is becoming rather tiresome now.

What I did criticize is the use of "Arguments from emotion" fallacies in the abortion debate. Massively different.

daisybelle2008

cynder wrote: »

You criticise me for having an emotional response for opposing abortion, yet the woman who has an abortion is doing it because she is influenced by her emotions.

Terminating a pregnancy is an 'emotional' issue for you. You are 'emotionally' opposed to abortion, I am 'emotionally' in favour of it. How do you know whose emotional response is 'right' or 'wrong'.
How do you know your emotions are superiour to mine on this issue? You only know what feels right or wrong to you.

You cannot know that abortion is 'wrong' for anyone else but yourself. If I am in a situation that I want to terminate a pregnancy, and it felt right for me, then, I would like the opportunity to have an abortion. That is why I am pro-choice. I want any women when she is in the exact situation to have the freedom to choice what feels right for her, be that abortion or continuing the pregnancy.

Ultimately if you don't want an abortion, don't have one, but you absolutely have no idea if it is right for me or not, how could you? To impose your opinion on me makes no sense. What makes it more 'right' or 'wrong' than mine.

cynder

So even though the fetus will grow into a Human, it doesn't deserve a chance at life.


So if we terminate all these potential humans ( all) nothing will be lost?



Oh except of course humanity.


And your pension

eviltwin

cynder wrote: »

So even though the fetus will grow into a Human, it doesn't deserve a chance at life.


So if we terminate all these potential humans ( all) nothing will be lost?



Oh except of cause humanity.

Do you mourn the many more babies lost through miscarriage?

You can't stop women wanting abortions, we'd all love to see only planned, wanted pregnancies but that's never going to happen. We have to be mature here and address the issue, in the days this thread has been up hundreds of women have made that journey. Talking about the rights and wrongs isn't helping them find alternatives. If you care so much why not do something practical to help them.

nozzferrahhtoo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm sorry but is that position not fairly hypocritical in that by not wanting a reduction of the term limits in countries such as the UK (rare as they are) your holding the position that even in your own opinion there is the possibility of some negative response to the fetus it should be allowed.

No no contradiction or hypocracy here at all. Perhaps I could be clearer however.

The reason is that I have an absolute upper limit in my mind as to when abortion becomes a problem for me. You are right, and perhaps I answered too hastily, that I would likely lend my voice to those wanting to reduce limits which go above my personal cut off. Where _exactly_ that cut off is I am not 100% sure even myself but yes it is around 24 weeks.

What I meant though is that when campaigning for abortion rights in other countries which do not have them yet, I would be perfectly ok with a law coming in at that upper limit. However for subjective and political reasons only I would pin my colors more readily to a campaign aiming for a law at 16 weeks. The reasons are that it removes many of the "What if" arguments leveled against 24 weeks, the lower the number you campaign for the more people who are likely to fall in line with you politically AND given 88% abortions happen before 12 weeks and nearly 95% before 16 I find 16 actually serves what most people want and 24 weeks is just superfluous to requirements anyway.

So my choice of 16 over 24 is subjective and politically motivated but if Ireland came in with a 24 week law tomorrow I would likely not argue against it. If they came out with a 30 week one then yes, I most likely would lend my voice to reducing it and I apologise if I answered that too hastily before.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

"The first neurones to link the cortex with the rest of the brain are monoamine pathways, and reach the cortex from about 16 weeks of gestation. Their activation could be associated with unpleasant conscious experience, even if not pain."

But when are they activated? The line above does not say. In fact the wording of it is kind of misleading. It tells you the neurons link at 16 weeks to the cortex, but not when they are actually activated. One could read the above as saying they are activated at 16 weeks... or one could read the above as saying they reach the cortex at 16 weeks but are activated some time later and at THAT point there may be conscious experience.

Certainly if such were to be established as true I would be more than willing to pull back my personal abortion cut off limits. Right now it is a lot of "What iffery" and as the next line in your link says "Research in these areas is urgently required." The link also says however "The physical system for nociception is present and functional by 26 weeks and it seems likely that the fetus is capable of feeling pain from this stage".

Also K.J.S. Anand, a researcher of newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM say "intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks."

So yes I am more than amenable to data that tells us that subjective experience and consciousness arises earlier than we thought. Until it gets past the "what if" stages however I am content with my current position.

Khannie

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

You cannot know that abortion is 'wrong' for anyone else but yourself. If I am in a situation that I want to terminate a pregnancy, and it felt right for me, then, I would like the opportunity to have an abortion. That is why I am pro-choice. I want any women when she is in the exact situation to have the freedom to choice what feels right for her, be that abortion or continuing the pregnancy.

Ultimately if you don't want an abortion, don't have one, but you absolutely have no idea if it is right for me or not, how could you? To impose your opinion on me makes no sense. What makes it more 'right' or 'wrong' than mine.

It's so easy to extend this argument to point out how ridiculous it is. Let's pretend you're the victim of a horrific crime. You feel in your situation that it is right that you should be allowed to commute a death sentence on the person who committed the crime against you. By your logic, you should be allowed to, yet we as a society dictate that it is not allowed.

We impose our opinion (as you put it) based on our beliefs of what is right or wrong all the time. The entire law books are rules about what you can or cannot do because people generally agree that they are right or wrong. Abortion is the only area that I can see where people insist that the person should be allowed do what they want despite morally disagreeing with it themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

So even though the fetus will grow into a Human, it doesn't deserve a chance at life.

You do not know it will grow into anything actually. Neither of us can tell the future. And in fact nature is a great abortion doctor itself with a much larger % of pregnancies terminating themselves before 12 weeks then you likely guess.

But no, all I hear when you tell me X will grow into Y is you telling my that X is not Y now. If the fetus will "grow into a human" then what you have implicitly just told me is "The fetus is not human".

As such, I do not see why it deserves "Human Rights" if even you do not call it "Human".

cynder

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

You criticise me for having an emotional response for opposing abortion, yet the woman who has an abortion is doing it because she is influenced by her emotions.

Terminating a pregnancy is an 'emotional' issue for you. You are 'emotionally' opposed to abortion, I am 'emotionally' in favour of it. How do you know whose emotional response is 'right' or 'wrong'.
How do you know your emotions are superiour to mine on this issue? You only know what feels right or wrong to you.

You cannot know that abortion is 'wrong' for anyone else but yourself. If I am in a situation that I want to terminate a pregnancy, and it felt right for me, then, I would like the opportunity to have an abortion. That is why I am pro-choice. I want any women when she is in the exact situation to have the freedom to choice what feels right for her, be that abortion or continuing the pregnancy.

Ultimately if you don't want an abortion, don't have one, but you absolutely have no idea if it is right for me or not, how could you? To impose your opinion on me makes no sense. What makes it more 'right' or 'wrong' than mine.

I think 2 referendums in Ireland and in both irelands majority voted no.


It's a democracy. I'm not the only one....


Majority rules... You want an abortion the UK isnt far away.

eviltwin

Khannie wrote: »

It's so easy to extend this argument to point out how ridiculous it is. Let's pretend you're the victim of a horrific crime. You feel in your situation that it is right that you should be allowed to commute a death sentence on the person who committed the crime against you. By your logic, you should be allowed to, yet we as a society dictate that it is not allowed.

We impose our opinion (as you put it) based on our beliefs of what is right or wrong all the time. The entire law books are rules about what you can or cannot do because people generally agree that they are right or wrong. Abortion is the only area that I can see where people insist that the person should be allowed do what they want despite morally disagreeing with it themselves.

The difference being women can get abortions by going overseas or doing it themselves at home. They have a choice. In your example your confined to the laws of the land.

A better example would be the many cases where victims of crime ask the courts not to jail the culprit. I often wonder how someone who was wronged do that but as RDM_83again says its their decision to make, they should be respected for it.

eviltwin

cynder wrote: »

I think 2 referendums in Ireland and in both irelands majority voted no.


It's a democracy. I'm not the only one....


Majority rules... You want an abortion the UK isnt far away.

Out of interest if the laws changed to allow abortion would you accept that?

charlietheminxx

cynder wrote: »

I think 2 referendums in Ireland and in both irelands majority voted no.


It's a democracy. I'm not the only one....


Majority rules... You want an abortion the UK isnt far away.

Those referendums were 10 and 20 years ago respectively. I was 15 when the last one was held. Some of our youngest voters were only 8 at the time. The electorate changes and I think it could be a different story now.

Khannie

eviltwin wrote: »

Out of interest if the laws changed to allow abortion would you accept that?

Sure what choice do you have? Except to move.

If a majority voted to alter the constitution to rule out abortion, would you accept that?

Khannie

eviltwin wrote: »

The difference being women can get abortions by going overseas or doing it themselves at home. They have a choice. In your example your confined to the laws of the land.

Ah that old chestnut..."sure they can still get it....we should just bring it in here". Doing it themselves at home is illegal btw (unless you're counting the MAP).

eviltwin

Khannie wrote: »

Sure what choice do you have? Except to move.

If a majority voted to alter the constitution to rule out abortion, would you accept that?

Yes I would.

cynder

eviltwin wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

So even though the fetus will grow into a Human, it doesn't deserve a chance at life.


So if we terminate all these potential humans ( all) nothing will be lost?



Oh except of cause humanity.

Do you mourn the many more babies lost through miscarriage?

You can't stop women wanting abortions, we'd all love to see only planned, wanted pregnancies but that's never going to happen. We have to be mature here and address the issue, in the days this thread has been up hundreds of women have made that journey. Talking about the rights and wrongs isn't helping them find alternatives. If you care so much why not do something practical to help them.

Yes it's sad, but a natural occurrence, we all die at some point. A termination isn't natural.

Someone who is killed in a car crash at 22 is worse than someone who dies from a heart attack at 80. The 80 year old got to live their life, the 22 year old only had a short time.

Why can't the women have the baby they have made, look after the baby they made, live up to thier parental responsibilities.

They don't want to, they want the life they had before and a baby is inconvenience.

eviltwin

Khannie wrote: »

Ah that old chestnut..."sure they can still get it....we should just bring it in here". Doing it themselves at home is illegal btw (unless you're counting the MAP).

No my point was that you can't stop women having abortions. Its nothing like the example you gave.

Khannie I know women who have ended up in hospitals after a home abortion, not once were the police ever informed.

Mickeroo

cynder wrote: »

Yes it's sad, but a natural occurrence, we all die at some point. A termination isn't natural.

Someone who is killed in a car crash at 22 is worse than someone who dies from a heart attack at 80. The 80 year old got to live their life, the 22 year old only had a short time.

Why can't the women have the baby they have made, look after the baby they made, live up to thier parental responsibilities.

They don't want to, they want the life they had before and a baby is inconvenience.

If you had to choose between saving a fetus in the early stages (say first 16 weeks) of pregnancy or the 22 year old, which would you choose out of interest?

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

So even though the fetus will grow into a Human, it doesn't deserve a chance at life.

You do not know it will grow into anything actually. Neither of us can tell the future. And in fact nature is a great abortion doctor itself with a much larger % of pregnancies terminating themselves before 12 weeks then you likely guess.

But no, all I hear when you tell me X will grow into Y is you telling my that X is not Y now. If the fetus will "grow into a human" then what you have implicitly just told me is "The fetus is not human".

As such, I do not see why it deserves "Human Rights" if even you do not call it "Human".

I can tell you one thing the baby I saw in me at 8 weeks, I knew it was a baby, at 19 weeks I was told my baby was a girl. At 39 weeks she arrived and is soon to be 13.

My 8 week fetus wasn't going to be a dog or a cat, or a cow or a monkey, it could only ever be human.

eviltwin

cynder wrote: »

Yes it's sad, but a natural occurrence, we all die at some point. A termination isn't natural.

Someone who is killed in a car crash at 22 is worse than someone who dies from a heart attack at 80. The 80 year old got to live their life, the 22 year old only had a short time.

Why can't the women have the baby they have made, look after the baby they made, live up to thier parental responsibilities.

They don't want to, they want the life they had before and a baby is inconvenience.

Women have abortions for all sorts of reasons, don't presume you know, its clear you know very little about the thought process that goes into making such a difficult decision.

Khannie

eviltwin wrote: »

No my point was that you can't stop women having abortions. Its nothing like the example you gave.

I could say the same about drugs. Different countries have different laws on drugs, some a lot more relaxed than ours. We should never base our laws on what you can do in another country.

By your logic we should have the most lenient laws in all cases. "ah sure you can get heroin on a prescription in Switzerland, we should do that too because you could travel for it it you wanted" (source).

eviltwin wrote: »

Khannie I know women who have ended up in hospitals after a home abortion, not once were the police ever informed.

That doesn't mean that no crime has occurred or that the police shouldn't have been informed. Aborting a foetus is still a crime to the best of my knowledge. The right to life of the unborn child is still guaranteed in this country (except under exceptional circumstances - life of the mother etc.).

Stark

cynder wrote: »

I can tell you one thing the baby I saw in me at 8 weeks, I knew it was a baby, at 19 weeks I was told my baby was a girl. At 39 weeks she arrived and is soon to be 13.

My 8 week fetus wasn't going to be a dog or a cat, or a cow or a monkey, it could only ever be human.

My sperm could only ever be a human. Doesn't mean I don't feel guilty about flushing it down the toilet or feel that any woman should be obliged to carry it through to being a human. I don't care for "potential" personally. Just because a couple who have had an accidental child answer you "no" to the question "do you wish you could go back in time and use better contraception" doesn't mean contraception is wrong. I feel similarly to undeveloped stages like zyogte/embryo. Only when it can feel something do I think you can start to argue about whether it should be given rights over someone's bodily integrity.

eviltwin

Khannie wrote: »

I could say the same about drugs. Different countries have different laws on drugs, some a lot more relaxed than ours. We should never base our laws on what you can do in another country.

By your logic we should have the most lenient laws in all cases. "ah sure you can get heroin on a prescription in Switzerland, we should do that too because you could travel for it it you wanted" (source).




That doesn't mean that no crime has occurred or that the police shouldn't have been informed. Aborting a foetus is still a crime to the best of my knowledge. The right to life of the unborn child is still guaranteed in this country (except under exceptional circumstances - life of the mother etc.).

Its similar to the drugs situation ie drugs can't legally be obtained but if someone wants to take them they can. I've no time for drugs personally but if I see someone doing them I'm not going to judge. Its their choice. Same with abortion.

Having an abortion isn't a crime, its the act of preforming the abortion that is illegal. I don't know the legal standing for a woman who tries to carry out an abortion here herself, I know in the two cases I am aware of the women were treated with compassion and support, the police were never informed.

Mickeroo

Khannie wrote: »

I could say the same about drugs. Different countries have different laws on drugs, some a lot more relaxed than ours. We should never base our laws on what you can do in another country.

By your logic we should have the most lenient laws in all cases. "ah sure you can get heroin on a prescription in Switzerland, we should do that too because you could travel for it it you wanted" (source).

Discussion for another thread but we could a learn a lot from policies like that and those in portugal. Just because something is illegal here doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned. I don't agree with our drug laws at all for example, its better that we think for ourselves rather than saying our laws are our laws and thats that. If people actually thought like that we still wouldn't be able to buy condoms here.

I'm not challenging your personal views on abortion here I just don't see the logic of what you said there.

cynder

Mickeroo wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

Yes it's sad, but a natural occurrence, we all die at some point. A termination isn't natural.

Someone who is killed in a car crash at 22 is worse than someone who dies from a heart attack at 80. The 80 year old got to live their life, the 22 year old only had a short time.

Why can't the women have the baby they have made, look after the baby they made, live up to thier parental responsibilities.

They don't want to, they want the life they had before and a baby is inconvenience.

If you had to choose between saving a fetus in the early stages (say first 16 weeks) of pregnancy or the 22 year old, which would you choose out of interest?

Are you asking about a pregnant 22 year old?

If the 22 year old pregnant woman dies, the baby could die too, I have heard of cases where a woman has died she has been kept alive and the baby delivered alive a few days or more later.


Tbh I would risk my life to save someone else, if they are known or unknown to me.

Be they a child, pregnant, black, male, female, catholic, atheist, Muslim and so on.

If I saved a woman and found she had an abortion because she didn't want a child, I would be a bit annoyed that she didn't give her child a chance. But I would hope that if she ever got pregnant again that she showed some compassion to the unborn baby. And give it a chance at life.

smokedeels

Can we all just put our abortion stance in our signatures and move on?

Mickeroo

cynder wrote: »

Are you asking about a pregnant 22 year old?

If the 22 year old pregnant woman dies, the baby could die too, I have heard of cases where a woman has died she has been kept alive and the baby delivered alive a few days or more later.


Tbh I would risk my life to save someone else, if they are known or unknown to me.

Be they a child, pregnant, black, male, female, catholic, atheist, Muslim and so on.

If I saved a woman and found she had an abortion because she didn't want a child, I would be a bit annoyed that she didn't give her child a chance. But I would hope that if she ever got pregnant again that she showed some compassion to the unborn baby. And give it a chance at life.

Never mind.

cynder

eviltwin wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

I think 2 referendums in Ireland and in both irelands majority voted no.


It's a democracy. I'm not the only one....


Majority rules... You want an abortion the UK isnt far away.

Out of interest if the laws changed to allow abortion would you accept that?

I live by the laws of the land, if it ever did get accepted in Ireland I wouldn't avail of it.


My views would still be the same.

Just because there is no law saying a 5 year old cant mind a 2 year old , would I ever leave a 5 year old minding a 2 year old.

In Ireland there is no minimum age in which a child can babysit.

Des Carter

eviltwin wrote: »

I've no time for drugs personally but if I see someone doing them I'm not going to judge. Its their choice. Same with abortion.

I am the same, I dont care what people do to themselves, its their own bodies and their own lives and everyone should be allowed do what they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect another person.

However in terms of abortion it is taking the life of another human being and to me that is completly wrong regardless their age.

eviltwin

cynder wrote: »

I live by the laws of the land, if it ever did get accepted in Ireland I wouldn't avail of it.


My views would still be the same.

Just because there is no law saying a 5 year old cant mind a 2 year old , would I ever leave a 5 year old minding a 2 year old.

In Ireland there is no minimum age in which a child can babysit.

I wasn't asking if you would have an abortion... :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

I can tell you one thing the baby I saw in me at 8 weeks, I knew it was a baby, at 19 weeks I was told my baby was a girl. At 39 weeks she arrived and is soon to be 13.

"I just knew" is not really an argument. It emotionally and subjectively meant something to you. That is great for you. But hardly admissible in what is, after all, an abortion debate thread.

If that is what you felt then great, more power to you, but it does not make it objectively so and it is certainly not a useful argument if someone were to try and employ it as anti abortion rhetoric.

nozzferrahhtoo

smokedeels wrote: »

Can we all just put our abortion stance in our signatures and move on?

:P Can we all just learn not to open threads we do not want to see/read/reply to and just move on?

Khannie

Mickeroo wrote: »

Discussion for another thread but we could a learn a lot from policies like that and those in portugal.

I agree, generally. Not familiar with the Portuguese ones.

Mickeroo wrote: »

Just because something is illegal here doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned. I don't agree with our drug laws at all for example, its better that we think for ourselves rather than saying our laws are our laws and thats that. If people actually thought like that we still wouldn't be able to buy condoms here.

I agree.

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm not challenging your personal views on abortion here I just don't see the logic of what you said there.

I'll try to be clearer. Simply because it is available in another country does not mean that we should allow it here. It being available elsewhere should actually have no bearing on our laws. Other countries have other laws. If you allow their laws to dictate what we allow then by extension the most lenient laws of every land should be applied here simply because I can travel to avail of them.

Khannie

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"I just knew" is not really an argument. It emotionally and subjectively meant something to you. That is great for you. But hardly admissible in what is, after all, an abortion debate thread.

But sure your argument is based entirely on the same values. You try to be all "sciencey" and objective about it, but realistically you're saying it's human because it displays a set of characteristics that you entirely subjectively define as showing human life. Her characteristics on what define a human are just different from yours.

Mickeroo

Khannie wrote: »

I'll try to be clearer. Simply because it is available in another country does not mean that we should allow it here. It being available elsewhere should actually have no bearing on our laws. Other countries have other laws. If you allow their laws to dictate what we allow then by extension the most lenient laws of every land should be applied here simply because I can travel to avail of them.

Ok well I agree with what you're saying in that case. We shouldn't change our laws just because they're different to other countries.

Unrelated: Portugal decriminalised all drugs about ten years ago, thats what I was referring to.

cynder

Khannie wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"I just knew" is not really an argument. It emotionally and subjectively meant something to you. That is great for you. But hardly admissible in what is, after all, an abortion debate thread.

But sure your argument is based entirely on the same values. You try to be all "sciencey" and objective about it, but realistically you're saying it's human because it displays a set of characteristics that you entirely subjectively define as showing human life. Her characteristics on what define a human are just different from yours.

Looks human! Has human DNA.

An ape, chimpanzee, monkey have different jaws, different spines, different hands, different DNA.


human head, hands, toes, limbs, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, mouth, nose.

All these can be seen in the scans,

Human DNA is unique.

If blood is found at a crime scene they test it to see if it's human DNA. A fetus has the same DNA, human DNA. Not donkey DNA,


sperm doesn't have feet, hands, a heart, nose, spine, eyes. And so on.

At 8 weeks you can see a good bit. The scans are getting more and more detailed.

Stark

cynder wrote: »

sperm doesn't have feet, hands, a heart, nose, spine, eyes. And so on.

Neither does an embryo.

cynder

Stark wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

sperm doesn't have feet, hands, a heart, nose, spine, eyes. And so on.

Neither does an embryo.

At 5-7 days after fertilization the heart and brain begin ti develop.

18 days after fertilization an embryo has a heart beat.


Brain activity is there from week 6 of menstrual cycle.

At week 6-8 after menstruation it has facial features it has arms and legs,

A single sperm is not like the above, it dies off after a few days.

A zygote has DNA from both parents, sperm does not.

Pace2008

cynder wrote: »

A zygote has DNA from both parents, sperm does not.

So if this renders them as viable humans, why does no one try to stop them from dying en masse except when it comes to abortion?

cynder

Pace2008 wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

A zygote has DNA from both parents, sperm does not.

So if this renders them as viable humans, why does no one try to stop them from dying en masse except when it comes to abortion?

Let nature take its course and what will be will be.

On the other hand if someone could find a way to stop miscarriage, there would be a hell of a lot of happy people out there.

Pace2008

cynder wrote: »

Let nature take its course and what will be will be.

Is that the attitude you adopt when someone gets cancer or a deep infection?

Khannie

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed, I also wonder how useful this approach is given that day to day changes are so slight. It would be like trying to pick the point red becomes purple on a rainbow.

The issue is that legally we do need to draw a line in the sand. This "no True scotsman" approach can be used no matter what time frame you pick. 2 weeks, 20, 40, you can always ask "What about the day before/after that"??

So I would not reject time based conclusions entirely just because of that. None of them will be perfect and the only other option is an all or nothing approach of reject abortion entirely at any stage.... or allow it at any stage.

So I mulled this for a bit, as it's a good point. Eventually though I had to come to the conclusion that it is flawed. The problem with defining an arbitrary (and they're all arbitrary based on one thing or another that is also fairly arbitrary) time based solution is that you have to be willing to prosecute those who break that law. So what you're saying by drawing this line in the sand at 12 weeks or whatever is that one day later and you consider it something worth prosecuting over, so it's not a small line.

Initially I thought to myself "well what about the right to vote?". That's an example of a line in the sand that is time based (I do try to see both sides / am open to altering my position with a strong enough argument). Referendum is on the day when you're 17 years and 364 days? Tough. No vote. We might do well to make exceptions to this though. In the US for example they sometimes blur the line and try minors as adults and in certain circumstances that seems right to me. Certainly it seems like a good idea for the opposite to happen - if someone with the mental capacity of a child commits a crime, I don't believe it's right to punish them as an adult, so adulthood is not a hard and fast line in the sand.

In the absence of the ability to draw a hard and fast line with a damned good reason (and simply "we should draw some line" is a poor reason) and with people surely believing that very late term abortion is wrong, we need to look towards the other end of the spectrum. I believe in that case that the best line is no line (i.e. that abortion should be rejected, or based on something that is not time based but clearly measurable like implantation or heartbeat or whatever).

cynder

Pace2008 wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

Let nature take its course and what will be will be.

Is that the attitude you adopt when someone gets cancer or a deep infection?

After all avenues of treatment have been exhausted yes. Sometimes prolonging the inevitable is worse, You can't live forever. At least they got the chance to live.

Stark

Pace2008 wrote: »

Is that the attitude you adopt when someone gets cancer or a deep infection?

That cancer has human DNA and therefore the right to run its natural course! :mad:

(Only being party facetious here. For many women the feeling of having an unwanted parasite growing inside you, feeding off your insides is just as terrifying as having a cancerous lump. That's why you see deaths and serious injuries from women desperately trying to perform home abortions in countries without abortion services or plane trips to England).

MOC88

I haven't made my mind up on all this tbh but I still feel I was me when I was a week old chemical ball

As a matter of interest please don't shoot me but would people consider a voluntary free contraceptive measure ie. the staple in the arm for girls (is there any counterpart for males that we could implement?) and if you get pregnant then you get the whole chebang as per social welfare or if you don't get it and get pregnant you get welfare but much reduced - or would this be unfair/unbalanced or extremely disrespectful?

whatever happens I think it is a bit of a joke how some men walk away and take no responsibility and don't have to help- should be something to prevent this (yes I am a man)

Pace2008

cynder wrote: »

After all avenues of treatment have been exhausted yes. Sometimes prolonging the inevitable is worse, You can't live forever. At least they got the chance to live.

So you're saying that cancer patients do deserve life-saving/preserving treatment. But this doesn't seem to zygotes that fail to implant. No one is doing anything to drastically reduce the rate of zygote death because, as far as I can see, no one really views them as human beings.

A couple trying to conceive may "kill" many zygotes in their attempts and think nothing of it. I'm sure if they wanted to they could take expensive measures to greatly improve their chances of successful implantation, but no one does apart from couples with fertility issues, presumably because no one really cares. Yet when it comes to a child who has already been born, or is in the later stages of pregnancy, there is no amount of money a parent would not spend to save their baby, even if there were only an outside chance of their child living.

Does this not suggest to you that there is a stage in development when a new human life is not considered valuable?

Mickeroo

Khannie wrote: »

So I mulled this for a bit, as it's a good point. Eventually though I had to come to the conclusion that it is flawed. The problem with defining an arbitrary (and they're all arbitrary based on one thing or another that is also fairly arbitrary) time based solution is that you have to be willing to prosecute those who break that law. So what you're saying by drawing this line in the sand at 12 weeks or whatever is that one day later and you consider it something worth prosecuting over, so it's not a small line.

Initially I thought to myself "well what about the right to vote?". That's an example of a line in the sand that is time based (I do try to see both sides / am open to altering my position with a strong enough argument). Referendum is on the day when you're 17 years and 364 days? Tough. No vote. We might do well to make exceptions to this though. In the US for example they sometimes blur the line and try minors as adults and in certain circumstances that seems right to me. Certainly it seems like a good idea for the opposite to happen - if someone with the mental capacity of a child commits a crime, I don't believe it's right to punish them as an adult, so adulthood is not a hard and fast line in the sand.

In the absence of the ability to draw a hard and fast line with a damned good reason (and simply "we should draw some line" is a poor reason) and with people surely believing that very late term abortion is wrong, we need to look towards the other end of the spectrum. I believe in that case that the best line is no line (i.e. that abortion should be rejected, or based on something that is not time based but clearly measurable like implantation or heartbeat or whatever).

I'm only being hypothetical here as my knowledge of the specifics of fetal development is pretty limited. I would say rather than drawing a specific line in the sand where you can't abort afterwards it should be on basis of assessment for each individual case. I'm guessing each fetus would have slight differences in terms of how quick or slow they develop, so it would make sense to me to carry out a series of tests on each individual fetus.

So for example rather than saying "well this fetus is however many weeks and one day old, we can't abort" or "this fetus is however many weeks(-1) and 6 days old we can abort" it would be a case of "this fetus is however many weeks old but it's neural development is slower/quicker than usual we can/can't abort".

I'd imagine it would probably cost a lot more money to do it that way but it would make more sense to me than going by nothing more than a time window. To use the voting analogy you suggested, rather than just having people vote when they're 18 have teenagers sit a test and if they show they're savvy enough let them vote earlier or if they fail don't let them vote until they pass.

Just a thought i had after reading your post.

cynder

Stark wrote: »

Pace2008 wrote: »

Is that the attitude you adopt when someone gets cancer or a deep infection?

That cancer has human DNA and therefore the right to run its natural course! :mad:

(Only being party facetious here. For many women the feeling of having an unwanted parasite growing inside you, feeding off your insides is just as terrifying as having a cancerous lump. That's why you see deaths and serious injuries from women desperately trying to perform home abortions in countries without abortion services or plane trips to England).

The baby comes out after 9 months, in most cases pregnancy does not kill.

Cancer does not go away after 9 months.

Stark

cynder wrote: »

The baby comes out after 9 months, in most cases pregnancy does not kill.

And in cases where it does kill? Pregnancy is not without its risks. The slightest hint of legislation to deal with cases where the mother's life is in risk and suddenly everyone is geared up to oppose it.

Plenty of cases of suicide because mothers would rather die than continue to have their body violated. That's why doctors provide abortion services, not to end life but to provide a necessary medical service. But I guess they get what they deserve for having sex :rolleyes: