This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
Well legal in some countries states; not world wide.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
But it also used to be legal to kill a woman, or a black person. Society doesn't have the be the be all and end all of my morality.
What I am trying to convey is that we all believe (or at least I assume we all do), that we have a right/obligation to protect people from other people, even if it's "none of our business," by virtue of the fact that human life has intrinsic value. For those of us who believe that it IS a human (or at least are not sure sure that it isn't that we're willing to condone at-will killing of it), we're just extending the existing moral norm to everyone we consider a human being. It's not going to have any impact for you to say "it's her choice," any more than it would be if it was her choice to drown her kids in a bathtub or stop feeding them and let them starve, because we believe that when one person is hurting another, they don't have the right to make that choice because it affects another person.
I find it far less arrogant to not be erring on the side of caution in case the child is "human enough" to count, than to be so sure that it's not that you're willing to kill it.
The only argument that can go anywhere is whether or not a fetus counts as human. All the others, on both sides, won't make a difference because people treat humans differently than skin cells, and so very little is going to make sense across the divide to people who just don't see them as the other side does.
Post by
Rystrave
With the morning after pill being effective 3 days after unprotected sex, there should be no need for abortion (though, the later you use it the less effective it is.) You cannot get the pill under the age of 17*, but if you're having sex and you're afraid of getting pregnant you better tell mom or dad or your guardian and suffer their wrath than live with a baby you can't care for.
On the rape side, if I got raped, I would want to tell someone right away and get things taken care of. I know situations are different and people will handle it differently, but like I said earlier: if you're over the age of 17, get yourself the morning after pill and contact the authorities. If you're under 17, contact someone right away (parents, guardians, police, whatever) and get the law and morning after pill on your side.
On the incest side, if sex occurs voluntarily between two siblings or between a child and the parents (/shudders) then no, abortion should not be legal. You are voluntarily putting yourself in that situation, and you should handle the outcome of it. Then again, there's always the morning after pill for those people, too.
So all in all: get the morning after pill, regardless of the situation. If it's not available to you and you were raped, please put the child up for adoption if you can. Although the baby daddy is a rapist, the baby deserves a better life to be loved and cared for. It's really up to the woman to decide whether she wants to become a mother or not.
For incest, deal with your ways. Incest is disgusting and I can't even fathom anyone in their right mind who would do something like that.
*please note that different states may have different laws stating which age they can administer the morning after pill
Post by
Ksero
But it also used to be legal to kill a woman, or a black person. Society doesn't have the be the be all and end all of my morality.
What I am trying to convey is that we all believe (or at least I assume we all do), that we have a right/obligation to protect people from other people, even if it's "none of our business," by virtue of the fact that human life has intrinsic value. For those of us who believe that it IS a human (or at least are not sure sure that it isn't that we're willing to condone at-will killing of it), we're just extending the existing moral norm to everyone we consider a human being. It's not going to have any impact for you to say "it's her choice," any more than it would be if it was her choice to drown her kids in a bathtub or stop feeding them and let them starve, because we believe that when one person is hurting another, they don't have the right to make that choice because it affects another person.
I find it far less arrogant to not be erring on the side of caution in case the child is "human enough" to count, than to be so sure that it's not that you're willing to kill it.
The only argument that can go anywhere is whether or not a fetus counts as human. All the others, on both sides, won't make a difference because people treat humans differently than skin cells, and so very little is going to make sense across the divide to people who just don't see them as the other side does.
From the supreme court of Canada
"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."
I agree that it comes down to whether or not the fetus counts as human, explain to my
why
it does, i have already stated why it doesn't.
Post by
Squishalot
From the supreme court of Canada
That's a question of legality again. If you substitute 'a pregnancy' with 'a baby', does it change?
I agree that it comes down to whether or not the fetus counts as human, explain to my why it does, i have already stated why it doesn't.
I've already given you an example of where your criteria for human life is not met in the case of a senile old man living on life support. He doesn't need to be vegetative, he just needs to be unable to make his own decisions (potentially due to mental illness?).
I would also warrant that if you believe IV drips and heat lamps don't justify 'humanity' due to the need for external support, then 0-6 month babies survive off their mothers' milk and hence aren't 'human' yet.
You've stated why you think a fetus doesn't count as human, but I don't think you've drawn the line appropriately enough.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Ksero
From the supreme court of Canada
That's a question of legality again. If you substitute 'a pregnancy' with 'a baby', does it change?
Baby implies the child has been born, so yeah i would not condone killing a baby. if you meant fetus, that would not change it.
I agree that it comes down to whether or not the fetus counts as human, explain to my why it does, i have already stated why it doesn't.
I've already given you an example of where your criteria for human life is not met in the case of a senile old man living on life support. He doesn't need to be vegetative, he just needs to be unable to make his own decisions (potentially due to mental illness?).
The difference is you don't go from being human, to being not human, you cant lose that, even if you are senile you still have a moral compass, just because the decisions that old man will make don't make sense to us, he still has the ability to make a decision, and has some kind of moral compass, even if it is flawed.
I would also warrant that if you believe IV drips and heat lamps don't justify 'humanity' due to the need for external support, then 0-6 month babies survive off their mothers' milk and hence aren't 'human' yet.
Yes, even though it's not milk they are surviving off of, that is the premise, without the mother or heat lamps and IV feeding they will die. They don't have any moral compass, they cannot empathize, they don't even have a basic concept of either of those things, and those are the only things that set us apart from animals.
You've stated why you think a fetus doesn't count as human, but I don't think you've drawn the line appropriately enough.
Hopefully I've made it more clear now.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Is it life at conception? (I think so) Is it human life (No, I don't believe it is until it is capable of brain activity, and even then there is no proof that the activity is not a pre-condition incapable of conciousness.)
So from conception (per your personal belief) it's life, but not a human life? Seems like a contradiction to me. What is it then? Alien life form? Some other animal? Life is life is life. And since the paternal parentage is human, I'd say that life is human life.
Post by
FatalHeaven
I would also warrant that if you believe IV drips and heat lamps don't justify 'humanity' due to the need for external support, then 0-6 month babies survive off their mothers' milk and hence aren't 'human' yet.
Yes, even though it's not milk they are surviving off of, that is the premise, without the mother or heat lamps and IV feeding they will die. They don't have any moral compass, they cannot empathize, they don't even have a basic concept of either of those things, and those are the only things that set us apart from animals.
A breast feeding baby isn't 'human' yet? I'm lost for words here.
Post by
Adamsm
No, Ksero is saying that a fetus, to her, doesn't fall under that point since beyond the 23rd week, we aren't sure when the fetus starts becoming truly human. Ksero is also trying to make the point that a fetus removed from it's mother before that point wouldn't be able to survive even if you did put it on life support.
Post by
Ksero
No, Ksero is saying that a fetus, to her, doesn't fall under that point since beyond the 23rd week, we aren't sure when the fetus starts becoming truly human. Ksero is also trying to make the point that a fetus removed from it's mother before that point wouldn't be able to survive even if you did put it on life support.
Thank you, im glad someone understood.
Post by
Squishalot
No, Ksero is saying that a fetus, to her, doesn't fall under that point since beyond the 23rd week, we aren't sure when the fetus starts becoming truly human. Ksero is also trying to make the point that a fetus removed from it's mother before that point wouldn't be able to survive even if you did put it on life support.
Thank you, im glad someone understood.
That doesn't fly for me, especially since we were talking about 7 month (from conception) premature babies (which you said were OK to abort). I explicitly said '0-6 month baby' (i.e. from birth, so total 9-15 months from conception, sorry if this wasn't clear, but I think it was understood) isn't human yet. Ksero replied with:
Yes, even though it's not milk they are surviving off of, that is the premise, without the mother or heat lamps and IV feeding they will die. They don't have any moral compass, they cannot empathize, they don't even have a basic concept of either of those things, and those are the only things that set us apart from animals.
My question is, why does it make a difference whether a baby is 1 hour post-birth or a fetus is 1 hour pre-birth? They are both equally moral, sentient, capable of survival, etc.. So what makes aborting one and terminating the other a different case?
(Note - just because I haven't actually stated my views on the topic - I generally believe that it's up to the mother, begging certain medical definitions of 'humanity' in relation to timeframes, but I wouldn't want my partner to have an abortion.)(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Adamsm
That I don't know Squish: I myself just stick with what the abortion clinics themselves say when they won't do the procedure which has to be done by the 23rd week: If it's after, any legitimate abortion doc will not do the surgery.
Post by
Squishalot
That I don't know Squish: I myself just stick with what the abortion clinics themselves say when they won't do the procedure which has to be done by the 23rd week: If it's after, any legitimate abortion doc will not do the surgery.
That's a legal thing. I'm looking at:
until the fetus can live by it's self I consider it part of the mother, and therefore it is her decision whether or not to terminate the pregnancy.
To address your point, I should have said live without medical assistance, Without a heat-lamp and IV feeding that 3rd trimester fetus dies pretty quick.
We've been talking about a 3rd trimester fetus in relation to pushing the boundaries of 'abortion should be legal under any circumstances'.
Post by
Ksero
No, Ksero is saying that a fetus, to her, doesn't fall under that point since beyond the 23rd week, we aren't sure when the fetus starts becoming truly human. Ksero is also trying to make the point that a fetus removed from it's mother before that point wouldn't be able to survive even if you did put it on life support.
Thank you, im glad someone understood.
That doesn't fly for me, especially since we were talking about 7 month (from conception) premature babies (which you said were OK to abort). I explicitly said '0-6 month baby' (i.e. from birth, so total 9-15 months from conception, sorry if this wasn't clear, but I think it was understood) isn't human yet.
I thought you meant 0-6 months after conception. I don't condone killing babies after birth.
Yes, even though it's not milk they are surviving off of, that is the premise, without the mother or heat lamps and IV feeding they will die. They don't have any moral compass, they cannot empathize, they don't even have a basic concept of either of those things, and those are the only things that set us apart from animals.
My question is, why does it make a difference whether a baby is 1 hour post-birth or a fetus is 1 hour pre-birth? They are both equally moral, sentient, capable of survival, etc.. So what makes aborting one and terminating the other a different case?
(Note - just because I haven't actually stated my views on the topic - I generally believe that it's up to the mother, begging certain medical definitions of 'humanity' in relation to timeframes, but I wouldn't want my partner to have an abortion.)
As soon as the baby leaves the womb it starts gaining awareness of what is going on around it, if it hears another baby crying, it will cry, if hears laughter it will laugh, assuming it's own feelings are at a neutral state at the time, this is empathy.
After the 23 weeks a doctor will not perform an abortion, this is plenty of time to get the abortion done, I really doubt someone gets into their 24th week of pregnancy and suddenly wants an abortion, it would have been done as soon as possible after becoming pregnant, it's something someone seriously considers before doing, not an impulse decision.
EDIT: the part about "Abortion should be legal under any circumstance" was about how the woman was impregnated, not when the pregnancy can be terminated, i already said this.
Post by
Squishalot
I thought you meant 0-6 months after conception. I don't condone killing babies after birth.
We were talking about breast feeding? You said earlier that:
To address your point, I should have said live without medical assistance, Without a heat-lamp and IV feeding that 3rd trimester fetus dies pretty quick.
As soon as the baby leaves the womb it starts gaining awareness of what is going on around it, if it hears another baby crying, it will cry, if hears laughter it will laugh, assuming it's own feelings are at a neutral state at the time, this is empathy.
At this point, if it needs a heat-lamp and IV feeding, it's not a fetus, it's a baby, by most legal definitions and by my understanding of your definition. Again - what is the difference between a 7 month old newly born premmie and a 7 month old fetus? Deduct one day from the ages, and ask yourself the same question? The baby doesn't start gaining awareness of what's going on around it suddenly because it's born - it has equal amounts of awareness either way. There just isn't as much to be aware of pre-birth.
After the 23 weeks a doctor will not perform an abortion, this is plenty of time to get the abortion done, I really doubt someone gets into their 24th week of pregnancy and suddenly wants an abortion, it would have been done as soon as possible after becoming pregnant, it's something someone seriously considers before doing, not an impulse decision.
I appreciate that your 'under any circumstance' was related to about how, not when, but my criticism is your argument that a fetus is legal abortion fodder at any point in time, as evidenced by your point about it not being able to live by itself, and therefore at the whim of the mother. That is not a valid reason for abortion, for the reasons I'm outlining above.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Ksero
what you thought I meant isn't what I meant, I apologize for the wording of some of my posts, I have a learning disability that makes it hard for me to get my point across, even though it all makes sense in my head.
My whole premise was that as long as the fetus is part of the mother it is her option what to do with it, if she goes past the 23 weeks carrying the baby then she has made the choice not to get an abortion, it's that simple.
I don't know the exact time period when the fetus gains the ability to empathize, but most of the complex brain development happens in the 3rd trimester so i am going to assume that is sometime between then and birth.
when i said:
As soon as the baby leaves the womb it starts gaining awareness of what is going on around it, if it hears another baby crying, it will cry, if hears laughter it will laugh, assuming it's own feelings are at a neutral state at the time, this is empathy.
i was talking about a baby that was been carried full term. If it has not been carried full term i do not know whether it can empathize or not.
You were talking about breast feeding, hence why i said "it's not milk they are living off of", i was confused by your wording and still assumed you were talking about the fetus in the womb.
Post by
Squishalot
No need to apologise, but thanks for clarifying.
I believe the following are inconsistent:
My whole premise was that as long as the fetus is part of the mother it is her option what to do with it
if she goes past the 23 weeks carrying the baby then she has made the choice not to get an abortion, it's that simple.
After 23 weeks (or whatever the number should be), the fetus is still part of the mother. Is it still her option what to do with it, or does it become murder if she aborts?
Post by
Adamsm
Apparently the second, since most doctors refuse to do abortions after that.
Post by
Squishalot
Apparently the second, since most doctors refuse to do abortions after that.
It's not a question of 'what do most doctors do', it's 'what should be legal'? In practice vs morally right are two completely separate things. I can argue that 'most doctors' in Texas and Virginia refuse to do abortions after day 1, but that's not relevant in determining what is 'right', and neither is what you're saying. This is the same issue of coming back to what the law says and accepting 'that's what's right, because the laws say so'.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.