Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

frag420

La Fenetre wrote: »

The point human life begins. Why should human life not be respected from then on ?

Which is when exactly? What has to happen for it to be classes human life?

Conception?
When it grows limbs?

When? Do you know?

La Fenetre

Delirium wrote: »

and is that fertiization/implantation/other?

Any Biologist will tell you, human life begins at fertilisation.

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

But you haven't answered the question,

Why should human life not be respected from the point it begins, and if not why ?

What other point should a human life be respected from instead, an why ?

frag420

La Fenetre wrote: »

Any Biologist will tell you, human life begins at fertilisation.

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

But you haven't answered the question,

Why should human life not be respected from the point it begins, and if not why ?

What other point should a human life be respected from instead, an why ?

Fertil bloody isation!!!!

You are equating rights between a grown woman and a sperm thst son a race and has burrowed it's way into an egg!?

Are you for real? Serious?

La Fenetre

frag420 wrote: »

Fertil bloody isation!!!!

You are equating rights between a grown woman and a sperm thst son a race and has burrowed it's way into an egg!?

Are you for real? Serious?

The human life cycle begins at fertilisation, not sperm production.
A sperm is not a human life.

Tell us, if not it's beginning, at what point should human life be respected from, and why then and not before ?

frag420

La Fenetre wrote: »

The human life cycle begins at fertilisation, not sperm production.
A sperm is not a human life.

Tell us, if not it's beginning, at what point should human life be respected from and why then and not before ?

I never said a sperm is a human life. Why do you keep doing this shirking, it's really pathetic!!

I'm no scientist but doesn't fertilisation mean when the sperm wins the fallopian games and reaches the egg first and burrows into it and hey presto......a fertilised egg, FERTILISATION!!

I've no idea when human life begins but I still support the right for a grown woman to choose what she wants to do with her own body!!

Please don't come back with " what about the rights of the unborn" as you keep doing that sbsshsun it's getting boring.

So are you equating the rights of a grown woman to that of a fertilised egg??

Yes or no?

Delirium

La Fenetre wrote: »

Any Biologist will tell you, human life begins at fertilisation.

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

But you haven't answered the question,

Why should human life not be respected from the point it begins, and if not why ?

What other point should a human life be respected from instead, an why ?

I can't agree that a fertilised egg should be guaranteed to be allowed develop in the womb even if the woman doesn't consent. That would mean that all frozen embryos would be required to be implanted ASAP by that reasoning.

The next stage would be implantation, but its not even developed basic organs so don't see why that should be the point either.

Personally, viability is where I wouldn't be comfortable allow abortion at (or after). It's currently 26 weeks for a >90% viability rate.

Given that most countries with legal abortion have the majority of the abortions happen under 13 weeks, I'd allow for it without restriction.

PopePalpatine

Delirium wrote: »

I can't agree that a fertilised egg should be guaranteed to be allowed develop in the womb even if the woman doesn't consent. That would mean that all frozen embryos would be required to be implanted ASAP by that reasoning.

Also, the morning after pill would have to be banned.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

I can't agree that a fertilised egg should be guaranteed to be allowed develop in the womb even if the woman doesn't consent. That would mean that all frozen embryos would be required to be implanted ASAP by that reasoning.

The next stage would be implantation, but its not even developed basic organs so don't see why that should be the point either.

Personally, viability is where I wouldn't be comfortable allow abortion at (or after). It's currently 26 weeks for a >90% viability rate.

Given that most countries with legal abortion have the majority of the abortions happen under 13 weeks, I'd allow for it without restriction.

... and therein lies the slippy slope of moral relativism AKA its allright as long as it's not being done to me!!!
Why not kill born babies? ... they are totally dependent on an adult Human Being for survival ... and a lot more demanding of time and effort then were before they were born!!! ... so how can we justify killing unborn babies (on the supposed negative impact they are causing their mother) ... and roundly condemn the same woman who kills her born child for making all of the demands that a baby undoubtedly makes on its parents?
The answer is that we simply can't do so morally - and therefore practically all intentional killing of unborn children is morally repugnant.

If we are going to justify killing unborn babies with genetic defects ... as the genetic screening lobby would do ... why not kill born babies, or indeed adults with these defects?
None of this is morally justifiable.

Lets face facts ... new Human life, like all other new life in sexually reproducing organisms, begins at fertilisation ... undeniable physical and scientific FACT.
The rights accorded human life logically apply to all Human life. Where there are competing rights (as may happen between a pregnant woman's life and the life of her unborn Human child) then these rights may have to be assessed under law. In principle this is no different to the competing rights of a burgler and a householder who confronts the burgler or a parent and a needy, unruly born child.
In the case of the burgler, the householder has a right to use reasonable force to defend his life and property and those of his family. If the burgler is no threat and is running away at the time, the housholder cannot legitimately injure the burgler or threaten his life. If the burgler is rushing up the stairs at the householder with a knife in his hand, the householder has the right to defend his own life, possibly up to and incuding killing the burgler, if no other options are reasonably available.

In the case of a 'normal' pregnancy, there can be no moral justification for abortion ... as it is analagous to a burgler running away from a householder. The baby represents no threat to the life of the mother ... and the benefit to the mother (removing the need to see the pregnancy to term) is tiny in comparison to the benefit to the baby (it's very life).
However, if a pregnancy is seriously threatening the life of the mother (and there are no options available to mitigate the threat to the mother's life) ... analagous to a burgler coming at a householder wielding a knife ... than abortion may be morally justified.
If abortion is proposed as a form of back up contraception ... then it has no moral justification whatsoever... as it is analagous to a parent killing an unruly born child, just because it is 'annoying' them. The moral/legal right of the parent to not be 'annoyed' (by a pregnancy or an unruly born child) is tiny in comparison to the rights of the child (to life itself).
As for frozen embryos ... these are no different IMO to any other Human in suspended animation ... for example, a person under general anaesthetic ... and anybody creating or handling Human embryos, should treat them accordingly and with the same respect.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Lets face facts ... new Human life, like all other new life in sexually reproducing organisms begins at fertilisation ... undeniable FACT.

I'm not aware of suggesting that humans don't reproduce sexually

The rights accorded human life logically apply to all Human life. Where there are competing rights (as may happen between a pregnant woman's life and the life of her unborn Human child than these rights may have to be assessed under law. In principle this is no different to the competing rights of a burgler and a householder who confronts the burgler or a parent and a needy, unruly born child.

Not so as frozen embryos aren't illegal and/or required for all to be implanted into a womb.

In the case of the burgler, the householder has a right to use reasonable force to defend his life and property and those of his family. If the burgler is no threat and is running away at the time, the housholder cannot legitimately injure the burgler or threaten his life. If the burgler is rushing up the stairs at the householder with a knife in his hand, the householder has the right to defend his own life, possibly up to and incuding killing the burgler, if no other options are reasonably available.

In the case of a 'normal' pregnancy, there can be no maral justification for abortion ... as it is analagous to a burgler running away from a householder. The baby represents no threat to the life of the mother ... and the benefit to the mother (removing the need to see the pregnancy to term) is tiny in comparison to the benefit to the baby (it's very life).

Actually, one can argue that it immoral to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.

However, if a pregnancy is seriously threatening the life of the mother (and there are no options available to mitigate the threat to the mother's life) ... analagous to a burgler coming at a householder wielding a knife ... than abortion may be morally justified.
If abortion is proposed as a form of back up contracetion ... then it has no moral justification whatsoever... as it is analagous to a parent killing an unruly born child, just because it is 'annoying' them. The moral/legal right of the parent to not be 'annoyed' is tiny in comparison to the rights of the child (to life itself).

So you wouldn't allow for abortion where a fatal abnormality is detected?

frag420

So if a woman died as a direct result of being pregnant, the fetus caused so much harm that the mother died......as they are equal then surely the fetus should be charged with manslsughter no??

Is that the equality you are talking about? Equal between a grown woman and an egg with a randy sperm in it? Or is it only little bits equal?

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Also, the morning after pill would have to be banned.

... and /or perhaps both women and men should behave more responsibly when it comes to sex, in the first place !!!

It always amazes me that everybody is (rightly) discouraged from drinking (even one drink) and driving ... yet in the same pubs condoms are freely available ... to presumably encourage 'legless drunks' (of both sexes) to engage in 'spur of the moment' sexual encounters ... with vastly increased risks of pregnancy from such encounters (even with condoms).
It's the moral equivalent of hanging the keys to a fleet of cars in the toilets of every pub !!!
... even drunks who would never dream of taking a car or a person home, could be tempted to do so with car keys and condoms made freely available to them.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... and therein lies the slippy slope of moral relativism AKA its allright as long as it's not being done to me!!!

How's it moral relativism? I don't have a time machine so I can't say I'm okay for someone to abort me

That being said I think that abortion should have been available to my mother should she have wanted to do so.

Why not kill born babies? ... they are totally dependent on an adult Human Being for survival ... and a lot more demanding of time and effort then were before they were born!!! ... so how can we justify killing unborn babies (on the supposed negative impact they are causing their mother) ... and roundly condemn the same woman who kills her born child for making all of the demands that a baby undoubtedly makes on its parents?
The answer is that we simply can't do so morally - and therefore practically all intentional killing of unborn children is morally repugnant.

I don't support infanticide as the child can be placed with a responsible adult for care if the parent(s) can no longer care for it.

If we are going to justify killing unborn babies with genetic defects ... as the genetic screening lobby would do ... why not kill born babies, or indeed adults with these defects?
None of this is morally justifiable.

A fertilised egg and 20 year old person with a mental/physical impairment are two very different entities.

If abortion is proposed as a form of back up contraception ... then it has no moral justification whatsoever... as it is analagous to a parent killing an unruly born child, just because it is 'annoying' them. The moral/legal right of the parent to not be 'annoyed' (by a pregnancy or an unruly born child) is tiny in comparison to the rights of the child (to life itself).

actually, forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes would be considered immoral by a lot of people.

As for frozen embryos ... these are no different IMO to any other Human in suspended animation ... for example, a person under general anaesthetic ... and anybody creating them or handling Human embryos, should treat them accordingly.

There is no legal obligation for a woman to implant all frozen embryos and attempt to carry them to term, so they're not the same as any other human in suspended animation or sedated.

AFAIK, legally they can even be destroyed if requested.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... and /or perhaps both women and men should behave more responsibly when it comes to sex, in the first place !!!

Many would say that deciding to have (or not) is taking responsibility for her actions. Just because you don't agree with a persons choice doesn't make them irresponsible.

J C

frag420 wrote: »

So if a woman died as a direct result of being pregnant, the fetus caused so much harm that the mother died......as they are equal then surely the fetus should be charged with manslsughter no??

No ... the baby does not have the capacity to cause manslaughter ... but this doesn't affect the babies right to life ... no more than the right to life of a born baby is affected by its incapacity to be a murderer.

frag420 wrote: »

Is that the equality you are talking about? Equal between a grown woman and an egg with a randy sperm in it? Or is it only little bits equal?

How does the fact that she is a 'grown woman' have anything to do with her moral right to kill her child?
The fact that she is a 'grown woman' increases her moral culpability, actually, if she kills a child.

Overheal

J C wrote: »

... and /or perhaps both women and men should behave more responsibly when it comes to sex, in the first place !!!

If the condom is not 100% effective, the vasectomy is not 100% effective, and all forms of contraceptive for women are themselves not 100% effective, I'm going to have to disagree with that whole premise.

J C wrote: »

Lets face facts ... new Human life, like all other new life in sexually reproducing organisms, begins at fertilisation ... undeniable physical and scientific FACT.

Typing in all-caps doesn't make your statement any more correct. In fact, there is not a consensus on this

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/

How does the fact that she is a 'grown woman' have anything to do with her moral right to kill her child?
The fact that she is a 'grown woman' increases her moral culpability, actually, if she kills a child.

Its a fetus, not a child. Stop trying to conflate this discussion with that nonsense.

eviltwin

J C wrote: »

... and /or perhaps both women and men should behave more responsibly when it comes to sex, in the first place !!!

It always amazes me that everybody is (rightly) discouraged from drinking (even one drink) and driving ... yet in the same pubs condoms are freely available ... to presumably encourage 'legless drunks' (of both sexes) to engage in 'spur of the moment' sexual encounters ... with vastly increased risks of pregnancy from such encounters (even with condoms).
It's the moral equivalent of hanging the keys to a fleet of cars in the toilets of every pub !!!
... even drunks who would never dream of taking a car or a person home, could be tempted to do so with car keys and condoms made freely available to them.

I'd actually see abortion as a responsible decision in a lot of cases

J C

Delirium wrote: »

How's it moral relativism? I don't have a time machine so I can't say I'm okay for someone to abort me

So would you prefer if you were never born??
Anyway, for the rest of us, who definitely prefer to have been born, your point is totally moot.

Delirium wrote: »

That being said I think that abortion should have been available to my mother should she have wanted to do so.

I'm very clear that she should not have had such a right ... as I enjoy being alive and I'm not so selfish or hypocritical as to deny the same right to any of my siblings either.

Delirium wrote: »

I don't support infanticide as the child can be placed with a responsible adult for care if the parent(s) can no longer care for it.

The very same logic applies to bringing pregnancies to term and then placing the child for adoption, if the mother cannot or will not care for it.

Delirium wrote: »

A fertilised egg and 20 year old person with a mental/physical impairment are two very different entities.

Only in terms of age ... but not in terms of potential.
Age is not a reason to justify killing anybody.

Delirium wrote: »

actually, forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes would be considered immoral by a lot of people.

Forcing a parent to not mistreat their child is quite legitimate.
... and the undoubted inconvenience of following through with a pregnancy, is a tiny sacrifice in comparison with the alternative ... which is the sacrifice of the life of the baby.

Delirium wrote: »

There is no legal obligation for a woman to implant all frozen embryos and attempt to carry them to term, so they're not the same as any other human in suspended animation or sedated.

There is a moral responsibility on anybody creating new Human Beings to care for them in the same way as all other Human Beings.
One possible solution would be to only create two/three babies in assisted human reproduction and implant them all. Of course, this wouldn't allow genetic screening (with all of the moral issues that comes with that particular form of eugenics).

Delirium wrote: »

AFAIK, legally they can even be destroyed if requested.

Legality is something a fallen humanity sometimes uses to allow immorality. 'Legal' doesn't always equal 'moral' or 'just'.

J C

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd actually see abortion as a responsible decision in a lot of cases

Why?

frag420

@ JC/Fenetre/Cattolico (when ever you come out of hiding)..a question for you all...

If my neighbour decides tomorrow morning that she wants and abortion......how will this affect you? Will it prevent you from working? Will it prevent you from caring for your family? Will it really affect you in any way? Now I have asked this before and did not get an answer so perhaps one of you would be decent enough as to answer this question!!

Also if I gave you her name and told you she was leaving on a specific flight from a specific airport at a specific time to have an abortion........would you reach out to her to maybe stop her or give her an alternative to abortion?

Overheal

So would you prefer if you were never born??

Did you not see The Butterfly Effect?

Only in terms of age ... but not in terms of potential.
Age is not a reason to justify killing anybody.

Whens your birthday? Your conception date? You're again conflating the issue willfully and flaccidly.

eviltwin

J C wrote: »

Why?

There are a lot of people out there who shouldn't have kids, who are not fit to take care of an animal let alone a child. I take your earlier point regarding contraception, preventing pregnancy should be the priority, but there are people out there who won't spend money on the basic necessities of life so expecting them to use contraception is a bit much.

J C

Overheal wrote: »

If the condom is not 100% effective, the vasectomy is not 100% effective, and all forms of contraceptive for women are themselves not 100% effective, I'm going to have to disagree with that whole premise.

Used correctly by sober adults most forms of artificial contraception is practically 100% effective.
... and if one in a million becomes pregnant due to contraceptive failure then kiling the resulant baby isn't morally correct.
If you engage in sex, you have to accept the possible consequences ... which include pregnancy, for the woman involved.

Overheal wrote: »

Typing in all-caps doesn't make your statement any more correct. In fact, there is not a consensus on this

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/Its a fetus, not a child. Stop trying to conflate this discussion with that nonsense.

It is a physical and scientific fact that new life begins at fertilisation ... and the article you cite is talking about when 'personhood' begins (not when life begins) ... 'personhood' is a 'weasel word' being used by the abortion lobby to try and justify the unjustifiable killing of unborn children.

Overheal

J C wrote: »

It is a physical and scientific fact that new life begins at fertilisation ... and the article you cite is talking about when 'personhood' begins (not when life begins) ... 'personhood' is a 'weasel word' being used by the abortion lobby to try and justify the unjustifiable killing of unborn children.

You're making extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

So would you prefer if you were never born??
Anyway, for the rest of us, who definitely prefer to have been born, your point is totally moot.

I'm very clear that she should not have had such a right ... as I enjoy being alive and I'm not so selfish or hypocritical as to deny the same right to any of my siblings either.

How's it hypocritical to be pro-choice when I've said in principal my mother should have had the choice to abort?

The very same logic applies to bringing pregnancies to term and then placing the child for adoption, if the mother cannot or will not care for it.

No it doesn't as a pregnancy can't be transplanted to another womb.

Only in terms of age ... but not in terms of potential.
Age is not a reason to justify killing anybody.

there is no "anybody" in the early parts of the pregnancy. There are certain basics required for a person to exist.

Forcing a parent to not mistreat their child is quite legitimate.
... and the undoubted inconvenience of following through with a pregnancy, is a tiny sacrifice in comparison with alternative ... which is the sacrifice of the life of the baby.

You do realise that women can die as a result of pregnancy/childbirth? Somewhat patronising to refer to it as an "inconvenience".

There is a moral responsibility on anybody creating new Human Beings to care for them in the same way as all other Human Beings.
One possible solution would be to only create two/three babies in assisted human reproduction and implant them all. Of course, this wouldn't allow genetic screening (with all of the moral issues that comes with that particular form of eugenics).

The problem here is that you're essentially saying that sex is purely for reproduction. Many people don't hold that view and take a lot of precaution to avoid becoming pregnant.

But some still become pregnant even though they didn't want to. Why should they then be required to carry a foetus for nine months because of your particular view of sex?

Legality is something a fallen humanity sometimes uses to allow immorality.

Indeed, we only recently had a deceased womans body hooked up to a machine in an attempt to continue the pregnancy
. How is it moral to do that and not allow the family bury her?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Used correctly by sober adults most forms of artificial contraception is practically 100% effective.
... and if one in a million becomes pregnant due to contraceptive failure then kiling the resulant baby isn't morally correct.
If you engage in sex, you have to accept the possible consequences ... which include pregnancy, for the woman involved.

and having to have an abortion isn't a consequence?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It is a physical and scientific fact that new life begins at fertilisation ... and the article you cite is talking about when 'personhood' begins (not when life begins) ... 'personhood' is a 'weasel word' being used by the abortion lobby to try and justify the unjustifiable killing of unborn children.

So you reject the concept of personhood?

J C

frag420 wrote: »

@ JC/Fenetre/Cattolico (when ever you come out of hiding)..a question for you all...

If my neighbour decides tomorrow morning that she wants and abortion......how will this affect you? Will it prevent you from working? Will it prevent you from caring for your family? Will it really affect you in any way? Now I have asked this before and did not get an answer so perhaps one of you would be decent enough as to answer this question!!

If my neighbour said that he was going to kill somebody I didn't know, would this affect me?
It probably wouldn't affect me personally, even if he went ahead and did it.
Would I have a moral responsibility to report my neighbour to the authorities none the less ... of course I would.
... and the ultimate reason is very simple ... if I allow injustice by others against others ... it may very well result in the same injustice being visited upon me (or somebody I deeply care about) ultimately ... and the principle of do unto others what you would have others do unto you applies to all forms of killing.

frag420 wrote: »

Also if I gave you her name and told you she was leaving on a specific flight from a specific airport at a specific time to have an abortion........would you reach out to her to maybe stop her or give her an alternative to abortion?

She is free to fly wherever she wishes ... and I have no right to hassle her in any way.
Of course, if she freely sought my advice and support to not go through with an abortion, I would freely give her both.

J C

eviltwin wrote: »

There are a lot of people out there who shouldn't have kids, who are not fit to take care of an animal let alone a child. I take your earlier point regarding contraception, preventing pregnancy should be the priority, but there are people out there who won't spend money on the basic necessities of life so expecting them to use contraception is a bit much.

... and ironically, the people who can least cope with children are the ones who have the most children ... and don't have abortions.
The eugenics movement of the 1930s had somewhat similar views to your posting ... they thought that the people who were having the most children were 'wrong' people to do so ... and they also bemoaned the fact that the self-termed 'top of society' weren't having enough children.
Their solution was to make contraception and abortion as widely available as possible to what they considered to be the 'lower classes' in society ... and to encourage the 'upper classes' to spread their genetics far and wide through Artificial Insemination and larger families.
Suffices to say it had no moral basis.

Kiwi in IE

J C wrote: »

... and /or perhaps both women and men should behave more responsibly when it comes to sex, in the first place !!!

It always amazes me that everybody is (rightly) discouraged from drinking (even one drink) and driving ... yet in the same pubs condoms are freely available ... to presumably encourage 'legless drunks' (of both sexes) to engage in 'spur of the moment' sexual encounters ... with vastly increased risks of pregnancy from such encounters (even with condoms).
It's the moral equivalent of hanging the keys to a fleet of cars in the toilets of every pub !!!

Pro 'life' logic at its best! People should behave responsibly when it comes to sex. Safe sex should not be promoted in public places.

aaakev

Some "Pro lifers" imo are the most vile human beings the way they treat people who have made the very tough decision to have an abortion. Its not an easy choise to make but for that person at that particular time in their lives its the best decision for them and is no one elses business.

If you think its morally wrong to have one thats perfectly fine, dont have one but dont try make a woman who already feels terrible feel worse. Its probably among the hardest decision they will make in their lives and it will affect most greatly for a long time but that does not take away from the fact that its their best choice at the time

Imo it should be available as it is in the uk for anyone who needs it