This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Abortion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gamerunknown
Well, there is one
credible
reason for wanting abortion to be an option but thinking that is immoral to have one or perform one.
Of course, the correlation doesn't entail that banning abortion will make more people want to get one: I'm guessing that in countries where it is legal there is more sexual education and easier access to contraceptives (and they probably operate under tax and spend models, so mothers are less likely to be worried about the costs of raising a child).
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Adams- Just a question- do you feel that any part of that choice about carrying the child was made when a woman has the choice to have sex? I'm not talking about rape/life of mother, which are statistically a very, very small part of the total number of abortions but are the scenarios that are used as the base objection very often to the pro-life argument. I am asking if, when a person has sex, and knows that they could get pregnant, haven't they already had a chance to make a decision regarding whether or not they want to risk carrying a child for 9 months? I mean, at that point there is no debate- they can make the decision without harming another living thing, and never have to worry about healthcare, or medical bills. I'm not even talking about abstinence- in the info I linked earlier, over 90% of women admitted that they hadn't used any birth control at all, or hadn't really been using it consistently, when they got pregnant. And that's based on women who admitted that they didn't do it- when my sister got pregnant she swore up and down to the whole family and every doctor she had that the condom broke, even though she told me later they had stopped using them entirely for weeks before- that they ran out and just never bought more. I imagine at least some of the people saying that they were using it correctly were lying.
Don't you think that most people people have opportunities to make decisions about whether or not to get pregnant way before abortion even becomes an issue? If they have that option, and they choose to forgo it, why is it harsh to say that we expect them to take responsibility now that the life of an unborn child is being decided, since they refused to be responsible enough to put on a condom or take the pill every day?
Edit: Also, I can understand the disconnect between you and MyTie that seems to be causing so much strife. You are arguing that we don't have a right to tell a woman what to do
to herself
. He's arguing that she's not doing it to herself, she's doing it to another person. That's why his examples seem to be so different than how you perceive the situation. You're arguing that they don't have the right to make decisions about her body- we're saying she doesn't have the right to make decisions about someone else's body by killing them.
Post by
Adamsm
Don't you think that most people people have opportunities to make decisions about whether or not to get pregnant way before abortion even becomes an issue? If they have that option, and they choose to forgo it, why is it harsh to say that we expect them to take responsibility now that the life of an unborn child is being decided, since they refused to be responsible enough to put on a condom or take the pill every day?/shrug Depends on how it happened: One night stands and the like do happen, and people are idiots. In a lot of those cases, the mother may not be able to find the father, and in their minds, spending the 200 bucks is something they can afford, where the idea of 9 months of medical bills isn't, and then of course, the money for raising a kid for the next 18 years. If it happened due to cheating, I don't really have anything to say there. If it happened from a pair of adults fooling around, then both of them should discuss where to go from there.
But in all of those, it's still up to those people and not random strangers outside of the relationship.
Edit: Also, I can understand the disconnect between you and MyTie that seems to be causing so much strife. You are arguing that we don't have a right to tell a woman what to do to herself. He's arguing that she's not doing it to herself, she's doing it to another person. That's why his examples seem to be so different than how you perceive the situation. You're arguing that they don't have the right to make decisions about her body- we're saying she doesn't have the right to make decisions about someone else's body by killing them.Just saw the edit: Yeah, that's more or less how I feel; it may seem callous and unsympathetic, but that's how I am in regards to this.
Post by
OverZealous
@Adams- Just a question- do you feel that any part of that choice about carrying the child was made when a woman has the choice to have sex? I'm not talking about rape/life of mother, which are statistically a very, very small part of the total number of abortions but are the scenarios that are used as the base objection very often to the pro-life argument. I am asking if, when a person has sex, and knows that they could get pregnant, haven't they already had a chance to make a decision regarding whether or not they want to risk carrying a child for 9 months?
Very good point. If I may add my opinion, I'm sure there are many cases with women having sex when drunk and not wholly in control of their actions and getting pregnant, in which case you might argue that they weren't completely responsible for what happened (utter and complete bull#$%^, if you ask me, though), but other than that; if you have sex, you need to make sure the man is either wearing a condom or that you (you obviously meaning a woman in this case) are using birth control. If you consciously have unprotected sex, then you have no argument, the baby was consciously concieved, and it could have been "prevented".
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Adams Right- but one night stand don't fall out of the sky and into your lap, so to speak- it's still a decision you made. Do you think that there's any responsibility to keep it from happening before it comes to killing a fetus?
Also, do you understand why it's hard for people who think of these as children can't just accept the "it should be decided between the parents" in cases of abortion any more than they could in cases where toddlers are choked to death, or teenagers are scalded with boiling water to teach them to not curse? I'm not asking if you agree it's the same, but can you understand that to people who really see this as the killing of a child, that the "it's none of your business" argument wouldn't mean much?
EDIT: ALSO didn't see your edit, but you can understand why, as I said a few posts ago, why this kind of debate can only go so far. Everyone here agrees murdering children is wrong. Everyone here thinks women shouldn't have the government making decisions about how they treat their own bodies medically. The argument is over whether it's their own body or someone elses that they're making decisions about during an abortion. And since that's more about belief than facts, there's nowhere to go from here.
@OZ- that's my point. The vast, vast majority of people who get abortions didn't take the proper preventative measures. And 50% of abortions are being performed on people who have had an abortion in the past (per my previous article), which means that they had no problems doing it, and no problems following the same behavior patterns that will lead to it again. I'm not saying that there is never, in any circumstances, a good reason to terminate a pregnancy. I'm saying that people have used the like 7% of cases where the person was being responsible or was a victim, and used it to justify the 93% of cases where people are killing the fetuses because they were too lazy to use anything preventative.
Even for people who feel that it needs to be available for worst case scenarios should look at those numbers, IMO, and think about what that means in terms of how human life is valued.
Post by
Adamsm
Right- but one night stand don't fall out of the sky and into your lap, so to speak- it's still a decision you made. Do you think that there's any responsibility to keep it from happening before it comes to killing a fetus?Of course there should, and there should be the same responsibility when it comes to safe sex anyways(no, I'm not implying pregnancy is as bad as an STD).
Also, do you understand why it's hard for people who think of these as children can't just accept the "it should be decided between the parents" in cases of abortion any more than they could in cases where toddlers are choked to death, or teenagers are scalded with boiling water to teach them to not curse? I'm not asking if you agree it's the same, but can you understand that to people who really see this as the killing of a child, that the "it's none of your business" argument wouldn't mean much?
I can, still boggles my mind that people think it so, but I also don't like laws being passed that does take away a freedom of choice for a person, so as said back when the necro came up, I don't see Obama saying it's a good thing was a bad thing.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I understand- I just find it equally mind-boggling that people DON'T think of these as babies.
Post by
gamerunknown
they weren't completely responsible for what happened
Actually, legally, inebriation is a bar to other contracts due to the principle being *informed* consent.
and then of course, the money for raising a kid for the next 18 years.
They do have the option of adoption. I think financial issues shouldn't come into this: the federal government should cover the costs of pregnancy.
I'd like to muddy the waters a little in both directions. First, one of the main proponents of abortion also supported "racial purification" and eugenics:
Marie Stopes
. It's odd that it's become a liberal issue now, probably through the influence of feminists such as Simone De Beauvoir (and there is a certain unenlightened view that women should have no say in when and where they have children and should stay at home looking after them).
In the other direction, there are alternatives to late term abortions. The morning after pill being one (I think 10-90% of zygotes fail to implant naturally), the other being slightly earlier term abortions. After all, there should be two fairly important events before the 8th week which indicate that one is pregnant if one wasn't sure. Before the 8th week the foetus doesn't even have a central nervous system, indicating that it is about as capable of feeling pain as a turnip.
This article
also covers a lot of information about the various contiguous stages in a foetus' development and the historical reasoning.
Post by
MyTie
Before the 8th week the foetus doesn't even have a central nervous system, indicating that it is about as capable of feeling pain as a turnip.
A lot of murderers kill their victims instantly, like with gunshots. There is no pain there. Does that make it ok?
Post by
OverZealous
Before the 8th week the foetus doesn't even have a central nervous system, indicating that it is about as capable of feeling pain as a turnip.
A lot of murderers kill their victims instantly, like with gunshots. There is no pain there. Does that make it ok?
Do their victims usually have central nervous systems? Yeah, mostly - or it isn't considered murder, seeing as
all
humans have nervous systems. The lack of a nervous system and the inability to feel pain =/= being shot and dying immediately.
Post by
gamerunknown
A lot of murderers kill their victims instantly, like with gunshots. There is no pain there. Does that make it ok?
Well, we're arguing the capacity to feel future pleasure aspect from the bestiality thread. Does a foetus incapable of feeling pain deserve to have its existence unhindered with so that it is capable of feeling future pleasure? Perhaps. But other things we do reduce the numbers of foetuses that feel pleasure (contraception, not having IVF or multiple partners). I take issue with the methods that cause pain, but not with all actions that reduce future capacity to feel pleasure in an organism that doesn't have a central nervous system.
Post by
MyTie
A lot of murderers kill their victims instantly, like with gunshots. There is no pain there. Does that make it ok?
Well, we're arguing the capacity to feel future pleasure aspect from the bestiality thread. Does a foetus incapable of feeling pain deserve to have its existence unhindered with so that it is capable of feeling future pleasure? Perhaps. But other things we do reduce the numbers of foetuses that feel pleasure (contraception, not having IVF or multiple partners). I take issue with the methods that cause pain, but not with all actions that reduce future capacity to feel pleasure in an organism that doesn't have a central nervous system.
I suppose I just don't get the lack of pain argument for abortionBefore the 8th week the foetus doesn't even have a central nervous system, indicating that it is about as capable of feeling pain as a turnip.
A lot of murderers kill their victims instantly, like with gunshots. There is no pain there. Does that make it ok?
Do their victims usually have central nervous systems? Yeah, mostly - or it isn't considered murder, seeing as
all
humans have nervous systems. The lack of a nervous system and the inability to feel pain =/= being shot and dying immediately.
So a central nervous system is a requirement to be considered a human? I think that humans that have not yet developed central nervous systems are humans that are in early stages of development, not entities that are not human, but will develop into humans.
Post by
OverZealous
So a central nervous system is a requirement to be considered a human? I think that humans that have not yet developed central nervous systems are humans that are in early stages of development, not entities that are not human, but will develop into humans.
You tried to put an equal sign between a fetus having not yet reached the 8th week and a murderer shooting a living, fully developed human. I just want to point out that there are differences. Big differences. And yes, while possessing a central nervous system may not be required to be a human, all humans possess central nervous systems. Interpret it however you like, but if you don't have a nervous system (aside from being dead), you probably aren't a human. A rock, maybe.
It is true that fetuses are entities that will develop into humans; but seeing as they don't have nervous systems before the 8th week, they cannot feel pain, they cannot posses memories, or do anything that fully developed humans can do.
But, in all honesty, that is where our definitions differ. I do (and possibly other people) not consider fetuses to be living human beings immediately when they are concieved. You do. Arguing anything that involves unborn children (before, as stated above, week ~23), becomes pretty difficult.
Post by
MyTie
snip
I guess, where we differ is that I believe an undeveloped human is an undeveloped human, and you believe that an undeveloped human isn't human. So, question: Since the lump of undeveloped flesh is alive, and since it is unique in its DNA (not part of mom's body), what species of life does the flesh belong to? I mean, I can tell you that it is a lump of human flesh, and demonstrate why, scientifically. I know a number of things about early fetuses as observable and measurable facts:
1) It is alive
2) It is a unique life, not part of another entity
3) The flesh that is there doesn't belong to any species besides human.
I mean, this is not something that is in question. So when you say "that isn't a living human", I'm just wanting you to back that up with a little fact, or, in the very least, logic. I know you can't see it, and it can't feel pain, or wash the dishes, or play the violin, but you are saying that it isn't even human, which it most definitely and demonstratably is. Just, please, walk me through the logic here.
If the lump of flesh is a unique human being that is alive (by definition), and there is a preplanned ending of that life (the definition of murder), how can you, or anybody for that matter, advocate for the choice to do that, based on the fact that the fetus can't feel it?
Post by
gamerunknown
do not consider fetuses to be human immediately when they are concieved.
That's an interesting notion, I've heard something similar from a Nietzschean feminist. When do you consider someone a human? When they're of voting age?
Edit:
Oh, to use Sam Harris' argument, more pain is visited upon the world when we swat a fly than when a foetus is aborted before their central nervous system develops. More human cells die when someone scratches their nose than when a zygote fails to implant. The cells belonging to a zygote are of a unique, independent human, but where do we go from there?
Post by
OverZealous
snip
I guess, where we differ is that I believe an undeveloped human is an undeveloped human, and you believe that an undeveloped human isn't human. So, question: Since the lump of undeveloped flesh is alive, and since it is unique in its DNA (not part of mom's body), what species of life does the flesh belong to? I mean, I can tell you that it is a lump of human flesh, and demonstrate why, scientifically. I know a number of things about early fetuses as observable and measurable facts:
1) It is alive
2) It is a unique life, not part of another entity
3) The flesh that is there doesn't belong to any species besides human.
I mean, this is not something that is in question. So when you say "that isn't a living human", I'm just wanting you to back that up with a little fact, or, in the very least, logic. I know you can't see it, and it can't feel pain, or wash the dishes, or play the violin, but you are saying that it isn't even human, which it most definitely and demonstratably is. Just, please, walk me through the logic here.
If the lump of flesh is a unique human being that is alive (by definition), and there is a preplanned ending of that life (the definition of murder), how can you, or anybody for that matter, advocate for the choice to do that, based on the fact that the fetus can't feel it?
I wanted to say that I may have worded my last post badly
The keyword is "living". I do not consider the fetus (since we were discussing nervous systems) to be a living human being by week, for example, 6. By week 6, I consider it something that
will be
a living human being, not something that
currently is
a living human being. I should have made it clear above, that when I wrote "but if you don't have a nervous system (aside from being dead), you probably aren't a human", I naturally do not think that the fetus goes from being not human to human the second it has a nervous system. Poor wording on my part.
English isn't my primary language, and while I have a firm grasp of the language in general, there are a few thoughts I can't translate properly to english without them sounding incredibly stupid, illogical, baseless or generally just horrible.
do not consider fetuses to be human immediately when they are concieved.
That's an interesting notion, I've heard something similar from a Nietzschean feminist. When do you consider someone a human? When they're of voting age?
I consider fetuses
human
, but I don't consider them living human beings from the moment they are concieved. That is what I am trying to say - I'm tired, I feel I'm expressing myself poorly, and I feel that you might be misunderstanding me even though you might not be.
Post by
MyTie
I consider fetuses
human
, but I don't consider them living human beings from the moment they are concieved. That is what I am trying to say - I'm tired, I feel I'm expressing myself poorly, and I feel that you might be misunderstanding me even though you might not be.
Alive
Metabolism - check
Homeostasis - check
cell growth - check
Responds to stimuli - check
Ability to reproduce - check (no living thing needs ability to reproduce at every stage to be considered life)
Human
DNA can place the flesh in this species
Being
The DNA proves that the life form is unique.
Your opinion is that it is not a living human being. Your opinion is factually incorrect.
Post by
Orranis
There's a definite difference both biologically and morally between life and sentient life. You are defining life by the same way you'd define Plant Life, and I don't think you're crusading against vegetarians here. A human corpse is considered to no longer be alive, though it has it's own DNA, and at some point in its life responds to stimuli and is able to reproduce. Yet it is no longer 'alive.' Someone could argue a similar thing about an unborn child at certain stages.
Similarly, is a cancerous growth that has a different DNA structure to the human it's on considered a different being? Or life for that matter? After all, it reproduces, has cell growth, can obviously metabolize, and is homeostatic at least to a point.
I'm personally undecided on my stance on abortion, but I think you're being a bit arrogant in trying to claim that there are easy, hard and fast definitions for all these things that we can therefore come to a conclusion with.
Post by
MyTie
There's a definite difference both biologically and morally between life and sentient life. You are defining life by the same way you'd define Plant Life, and I don't think you're crusading against vegetarians here. A human corpse is considered to no longer be alive, though it has it's own DNA, and at some point in its life responds to stimuli and is able to reproduce. Yet it is no longer 'alive.' Someone could argue a similar thing about an unborn child at certain stages. It is a dead human body, as it no longer responds to stimuli, nor has homeostasis. A dead human body does not posses the same qualities of life as an unborn baby. Poor analogy.Similarly, is a cancerous growth that has a different DNA structure to the human it's on considered a different being? Or life for that matter? After all, it reproduces, has cell growth, can obviously metabolize, and is homeostatic at least to a point. A cancerous tumor does not have homeostasis, nor does it respond to stimuli. You could say that it reproduces, and the cells themselves may exhibit life, but the tumor does not. The tumor is not a life form. Way to compare a baby to a tumor, though. Well done.I'm personally undecided on my stance on abortion, but I think you're being a bit arrogant in trying to claim that there are easy, hard and fast definitions for all these things that we can therefore come to a conclusion with.
But we have hard and fast definitions that we scientifically apply to various creatures and fit those creatures into definitive categories. We have qualities of life that are widely accepted by the scientific community, of which a human embryo fits. I cannot imagine anyone arguing that a human embryo is not human, nor could I imagine anyone arguing that a human embryo is inanimate. However, people will argue that the embryo, while alive, while human, and while unique, is not an unique living human being. It isn't as if I'm arrogantly forcing my definitions onto you. These are citable and credible definitions, as observed, measured, and recorded.
Post by
Adamsm
But the fetus only responds to the stimuli after a certain amount of time, when the brain is developed enough to do so; it won't just respond from the very beginning.
Edit: So yes, it's not clear cut.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.