Abortion - been bothering me

[Durandal]

I support abortion up until the fetal stage. The fetus closely resembles a human being, while the embryo does not. You cannot say that a clump of cells is a sentient life and thus deserving of human rights.

You don't cooks eggs in the morning and say, "Come on down kids! We're having chicken for breakfast!" do you?

I do not support partial-birth abortions, because they ascribe human rights to the location of the cranium, which is patently absurd. I'm not sure when the embryo becomes a fetus (isn't it about half-way through?), but that's my cut-off line for legalizing abortion.

Personally, I believe that life begins at conception; I oppose abortion except in the extreme cases of stuff like rape, or if the mother's life is in danger. Other than that, either let them carry the child or put it up for adoption.

Carrying and then giving up for adoption is far from an acceptable solution. If she wants to carry the thing for nine months, she'll have to pay medical bills for regular check-ups all culminating in a grand-finale of enormous delivery-room fees. This is not an ideal solution compared to a relatively cheap termination of the pregnancy early on.

There is no evidence to suggest that a clump of cells at conception has any self awareness whatsoever. If you really believe that that is the case, then you must also be against killing cows for food, since they are undoubtedly more self-aware than 4 cells in a womb.

[Spoonist]

Approach 1:
Fact:
As long as there are going to be unlucky and/or poor and/or stupid people there are going to be unwanted pregnancies.
Fact:
As long as there are going to be unwanted pregnancies there are going to be abortions.

It doesn't matter if you make it illegal or not. Abortions will still happen.

All the way from the beatings of pregnant women (by family or father), to iron wire, to drugs (both legal and illegal), etc.
Just look at catholic Ireland.

Approach 2:
If you equate abortion with murder then you have just equated miscariage with involuntary manslaughter.

Approach 3:
If you base this on religious views, then it's simple:
The parents will go to hell anyway, the children will go to heaven.
If you force those un-godly parents to raise that child then the child will with a 99% probability become un-godly as well.
With abortion one of them will be saved if you pray for them.
Without they will both go to hell.
Your choice.

Approach 4:
If you are pro any of these:
Capital punishment
Justified war
Armed law enforcers using lethal force
Using lethal force in self defence
etc...
then we have already established that it isn't the killing of another human being that you are opposed to.
So stop using it as an argument.

Approach 5:
Assuming that you only allow abortion in extreme cases, then who gets to decide what those extreme cases are? Would you like them to go to court to prove them right?
You have four choises:
1. You have no exceptions
2. You have exceptions that are validated by the doctor.
3. You have exceptions that are validated by a governement org.
4. You allow abortions.
Case 1.
You would force a woman raped by her father to raise the child? That may be a system that you would feel proud to live in, I would feel disgusted.
Case 2.
Certain doctors would be lenient some would be harsh. All I'd have to do is find the right doctor making the system invalid. This means that the law would be stupid and counterproductive.
Case 3.
If you where a scarred and scared dateraped pregnant woman, would you really go to the police and the following court to get your abortion?
In court they will tell you to give them the boy's name, then you will face him in court where his lawyers will claim that you wanted him to do it.
I could give you hundreds of scenarios like the one above, if your system doesn't help the victims, then that is faulty system
Case 4.
The only case that makes sense.
This way the system will not ask why you want the abortion and will therefore not put you through even more trauma.
Because abortion is a traume, even if you come to the decision yourself.

Approach 6.

Right now it's common procedure in mental hospitals and handicap institutes to abort children from people who can't possible raise them.

If you don't allow abortion here, could you please propose what should happen instead?

- - - -

Laws should be there to help people, and to benefit society.
When a law doesn't, then it's not a good law.

Your moral opinions have nothing to do with the matter.

- - - -
Oh and by refuting one of the points above but not the others then you have conceded abyway so please don't.

[Darth Wong]

I have seen a number of people say words to the effect of:

I believe life starts at the moment of conception

Unfortunately, personal subjective belief is no basis for a moral judgement on OTHER people, who are not required to observe YOUR personal subjective beliefs.

It doesn't matter whether you personally believe that life begins at conception; there is no scientific basis for that claim. Both the egg and the sperm were ALREADY alive BEFORE conception. A scientifically accurate phrase would be "DNA codification is set at the moment of conception" ... not as compelling, is it? It has the minor advantage of being true, but that seems of little import in emotionally charged debates such as this one.

No, the real question is whether the first-trimester embryo has rights, and a brain-dead clump of cells does NOT have rights because it has no thoughts. Ergo, it is not "alive" in the sense that it is brain-dead. To treat its potential future status as a PRESENT value is the same mentality that causes the Catholic Church to fight contraception.

[Enforcer Talen]

I'm prolife, myself. I think after conception one should regard it as a growing human, if not aware yet. of course, I dont take it to the excess of the catholic church, no contraceptives at all. guys toss out sperm by the millions, and they arent going to grow into a human by themselves. similar to girls - they spend an egg every few weeks, and it wont grow on it's own into a child. course, when they meet, they are at the beginning of the process, so I prefer not to interrupt it. if you want to have sex without the after effects, use protection, dammit.

perhaps it's due to my religious views, but those have been distancing from the church of late, so I wouldnt claim that. I merely find it disturbing the violence done to preborns. as for capital punishment, I'm for it, as well as most the other things that have been mentioned. I'm not into the sacredity of life - just the protection of innocents, if possible.

[jegs2]

The Abortion issue has been bothering me lately. I want to know what everyone thinks. Here's what I think:

I support contraceptives and "day after" abortion. I support and like RU-486 and all that stuff. But I tend to draw the line at the point when the fetus starts developing. I don't care if it's still not a human yet, I don't care if it's irrational, it's just something I can't support. That said, that doesn't mean I don't support abortion (actually I still consider it contraceptive rather than abortion) as said above, and I certainly support contraceptives.

I too support the use of contraceptives, and while I oppose abortion, the use of the "day-after" pills remains a question for me. It will always come down to a woman's choice every time. It pains me when they make the choice for abortion, since my wife and I are incapable of having children. We plan to adopt an infant, and there are many like us out there.

[RayCav of ASVS]

snip

Really, YOU need to eat a big fucking plate of STFU. I largely agree with you, and after reading that inflammatory post, I still want to so fucking perform retro-active abortion on you.[/i]

[RayCav of ASVS]

And another thing, in terms of the whole "not human" and "rights" thing.

Just my personal view; I can understand abortion when it is a burden, but not when it's an "inconvinience" (personally defined when a couple can easily afford in time, money, etc). To me, it just seems selfish.

And about "no human = no rights" I just find that personally disturbing. People seem to be all about the letter of the law, but aren't these things supposed to be flexible? I think that even when it gets to a certain stage without being able to think, it does get some rights. I'm a believer in "potential life", it's just something I feel. Then again, you don't see me shoving that belief down people's throats.

That said, I'm still not sure on embryo abortion, but right now I'm leaning against. I don't mind abortion on earlier stages though.

[HemlockGrey]

Can't you see the hypocrisy of that view? If you sincerily believe that life begins at conception (well, of course it does, it's certainly alive, in the same sense as sperm or an ovulus is),meaning human life, then why does that innocent being have to pay for being a result of a rape?

Point. Conceeded.

There is no evidence to suggest that a clump of cells at conception has any self awareness whatsoever. If you really believe that that is the case, then you must also be against killing cows for food, since they are undoubtedly more self-aware than 4 cells in a womb.

The cells will eventually become a fully aware sentient being. The cows will not.

Approach 4:
If you are pro any of these:
Capital punishment
Justified war
Armed law enforcers using lethal force
Using lethal force in self defence
etc...
then we have already established that it isn't the killing of another human being that you are opposed to.
So stop using it as an argument.

Not applicable. I do oppose capital punishment, since it's so difficult to ascertain definete guilt, but soldiers know what they signed up to do/were drafted for. I believe law enforcers should have the authority to use lethal force if lethal force is used against them. That's not murder, that's self-protection.

It's the killing of what is or what will be innocent human beings that I oppose.

No, the real question is whether the first-trimester embryo has rights, and a brain-dead clump of cells does NOT have rights because it has no thoughts. Ergo, it is not "alive" in the sense that it is brain-dead.

Perhaps I should rephrase that. I realize that the clump of cells is brain dead, but it will eventually become a human being, fully sentient, fully aware, like you or me. It may indeed be irrational to believe this, but this is one of the cases where I don't really give a shit.

To treat its potential future status as a PRESENT value is the same mentality that causes the Catholic Church to fight contraception.

Disagree. I do not hold that view, because, as Talen said, there is a good chance that the sperm will *not* impregnate an egg, while there is a 98% chance that a concieved embryo will become a human.

[NecronLord]

No, the real question is whether the first-trimester embryo has rights, and a brain-dead clump of cells does NOT have rights because it has no thoughts. Ergo, it is not "alive" in the sense that it is brain-dead.

If a child behaves in an irresponsible way, can you kill it as it's brain is not fully matured?

If you take an example of someone who achives 'enlightnment' as everyone else does not think on the same level as said enlightened person does this give enlightened person the right to walk around killing people he finds inconvinent "a queue, they are in my way I shall mow them down with an assault rifle!"

By stating that if it cannot think to a level you consider acceptable then you are condoning the actions of the evil super being Jehovah. who supposedly is all powerful, created humanity, and has incomprehensible thoughts. Therefore he is justified in all his activities in the bible, is not evil, now let us pray.

this is a ludicrous line of argument which has no morality at all beyond the level of power without responsibility.

Right now it's common procedure in mental hospitals and handicap institutes to abort children from people who can't possible raise them.

If you don't allow abortion here, could you please propose what should happen instead?

It takes two to tango. where is the father? if the father is also incarcerated then the logical option would be to put the child up for adoption.

Approach 4:
If you are pro any of these:
Capital punishment
Justified war
Armed law enforcers using lethal force
Using lethal force in self defence
etc...
then we have already established that it isn't the killing of another human being that you are opposed to.
So stop using it as an argument.

Killing a human who is a major threat to society is justified by the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few
Justified war falls under the same category
Armed law enforcement officers doing what exactly, shooting people for no reason?
The purpouse of life is to ensure the continuation of yourself and seconderily your species. self defence is the first, and so overides the second. More to the point this analogue is flawed, unless the child is a clear danger to the life of the mother, it does not apply.

How can you murder something which is officially brain dead?

that is non-consentual euthanasia, which is undeniably wrong. The remote possibility in other examples of regeneration or artificial repair should preculude it. The high chance of regeneration in a fetus also precludes it.

[Durandal]

And another thing, in terms of the whole "not human" and "rights" thing.

They're called human rights for a reason ... because they apply to humans.

Just my personal view; I can understand abortion when it is a burden, but not when it's an "inconvinience" (personally defined when a couple can easily afford in time, money, etc). To me, it just seems selfish.

Children are always a burden. Even with enough resources, they still eat up a lot of time. I'm not trying to be cold about it, but from a strictly analytical standpoint, you're dead wrong.

And about "no human = no rights" I just find that personally disturbing. People seem to be all about the letter of the law, but aren't these things supposed to be flexible?

Is there a reason for the "law" to change other than your personal discomfort? Sentient beings have rights, non-sentient beings do not. That's why we kill cows for meat.

I think that even when it gets to a certain stage without being able to think, it does get some rights. I'm a believer in "potential life", it's just something I feel. Then again, you don't see me shoving that belief down people's throats.

Why does it get rights? What "certain stage" are you referring to? Why does "potential life" equal life? Lots of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and the potential isn't realized. There is nothing aside from rabid pro-lifer demands that necessitates that all pregnancies successfully carry through their term, even in nature.

[Enforcer Talen]

oooo, I just had a wonderful idea! if we eat cows for meat (nonsentient) and we kill fetuses for convenience (nonsentient) we could easily eat fetuses. they aren't sentiern after all, and in the same category as chicken eggs.

you could pop em like shrimp.

[Colonel Olrik]

oooo, I just had a wonderful idea! if we eat cows for meat (nonsentient) and we kill fetuses for convenience (nonsentient) we could easily eat fetuses. they aren't sentiern after all, and in the same category as chicken eggs.

you could pop em like shrimp.

That's pretty disgusting.. But tell me, what's the difference between that and eating dead people (without killing them first, of course)? We morally object it, but it was a general consensus a while ago that, if needed, most people would do it.

[Durandal]

If a child behaves in an irresponsible way, can you kill it as it's brain is not fully matured?

Strawman. He wasn't talking about maturity, he was talking about brain activity, which the misbehaving child certainly has.

If you take an example of someone who achives 'enlightnment' as everyone else does not think on the same level as said enlightened person does this give enlightened person the right to walk around killing people he finds inconvinent "a queue, they are in my way I shall mow them down with an assault rifle!"

Same strawman.

By stating that if it cannot think to a level you consider acceptable then you are condoning the actions of the evil super being Jehovah. who supposedly is all powerful, created humanity, and has incomprehensible thoughts. Therefore he is justified in all his activities in the bible, is not evil, now let us pray.

Strawman. The absence of thinking isn't equivalent to a degree of thinking.

this is a ludicrous line of argument which has no morality at all beyond the level of power without responsibility.

You're right; it's a good thing that no one is arguing that.

It takes two to tango. where is the father? if the father is also incarcerated then the logical option would be to put the child up for adoption.

And force the mother to pay astronomical medical bills for the delivery. What an enticing option.

The purpouse of life is to ensure the continuation of yourself and seconderily your species.

Slothful assertion without evidence. How does a biological drive equate to purpose?

self defence is the first, and so overides the second. More to the point this analogue is flawed, unless the child is a clear danger to the life of the mother, it does not apply.

False premise.

that is non-consentual euthanasia, which is undeniably wrong. The remote possibility in other examples of regeneration or artificial repair should preculude it. The high chance of regeneration in a fetus also precludes it.

Inconsistent reasoning. Why does the far less remote possibility of a miscarriage not vindicate a first-trimester abortion for you, then?

[Enforcer Talen]

of course it's disgusting. then again, it's all in your point of you. we are so angsty about slaughtering hundreds of thousands of buffalo cuz it was wasteful, what about the thousands of fetus tossed out every yr? it has nutrition, it's an egg.

also, why object to cannabilism? I'm rather sure I'd do it if nothing else was availble.

[Durandal]

oooo, I just had a wonderful idea! if we eat cows for meat (nonsentient) and we kill fetuses for convenience (nonsentient) we could easily eat fetuses. they aren't sentiern after all, and in the same category as chicken eggs.

you could pop em like shrimp.

If you'd really like to, fine ... I guess...

[Darth Wong]

No, the real question is whether the first-trimester embryo has rights, and a brain-dead clump of cells does NOT have rights because it has no thoughts. Ergo, it is not "alive" in the sense that it is brain-dead.

If a child behaves in an irresponsible way, can you kill it as it's brain is not fully matured?

Strawman. An immature child is not brain-dead, unlike an embryo.

If you take an example of someone who achives 'enlightnment' as everyone else does not think on the same level as said enlightened person does this give enlightened person the right to walk around killing people he finds inconvinent "a queue, they are in my way I shall mow them down with an assault rifle!"

Pointless repetition of said strawman.

By stating that if it cannot think to a level you consider acceptable then you are condoning the actions of the evil super being Jehovah. who supposedly is all powerful, created humanity, and has incomprehensible thoughts. Therefore he is justified in all his activities in the bible, is not evil, now let us pray.

Bullshit. We are not drawing an arbitrary line in the sand; ZERO BRAIN ACTIVITY is not an arbitrary line; it is the pure definition of brain-death. Also: fallacious attempt to impugn opponent with guilt by association.

this is a ludicrous line of argument which has no morality at all beyond the level of power without responsibility.

Oh really! You think it "ludicrous" to think that a being with no brain activity cannot think or feel, and is not "alive" in the sense of having rights?

How can you murder something which is officially brain dead?

that is non-consentual euthanasia, which is undeniably wrong.

You would keep brain-dead vegetable-state people alive indefinitely, then?

The remote possibility in other examples of regeneration or artificial repair should preculude it. The high chance of regeneration in a fetus also precludes it.

Fallaciously equating future potentials to actualities. If I have sex with my wife on the day she's ovulating, there is a VERY high chance that she will get pregnant. In our case, we hit the target on the first month of trying each time. So if I have sex with her and wear a condom, I probably just nullified a future baby. Does that bother me? No. Are you saying that it would bother YOU? You can't equate future potentials to actualities; in the first trimester, you do NOT have a thinking, feeling baby; you have a clump of cells. Your personal subjective beliefs notwithstanding, those are the facts.

[Enforcer Talen]

oooo, I just had a wonderful idea! if we eat cows for meat (nonsentient) and we kill fetuses for convenience (nonsentient) we could easily eat fetuses. they aren't sentiern after all, and in the same category as chicken eggs.

you could pop em like shrimp.

If you'd really like to, fine ... I guess...

heh, why not. lobsters look pretty disgusting too, but that doesnt stop the munching.

[Enforcer Talen]

Fallaciously equating future potentials to actualities. If I have sex with my wife on the day she's ovulating, there is a VERY high chance that she will get pregnant. In our case, we hit the target on the first month of trying each time. So if I have sex with her and wear a condom, I probably just nullified a future baby. Does that bother me? No. Are you saying that it would bother YOU? You can't equate future potentials to actualities; in the first trimester, you do NOT have a thinking, feeling baby; you have a clump of cells. Your personal subjective beliefs notwithstanding, those are the facts.

course, sperm on it's own isn;t going to do much. a fertilized egg will.

[Durandal]

heh, why not. lobsters look pretty disgusting too, but that doesnt stop the munching.

How is any of this relevant?

course, sperm on it's own isn;t going to do much. a fertilized egg will.

Irrelevant. You've defined preventing human life to be wrong. Preventing the sperm from reaching the egg is preventing conception, and thus preventing the egg from reaching its full potential with the sperm.

[Darth Wong]

Fallaciously equating future potentials to actualities. If I have sex with my wife on the day she's ovulating, there is a VERY high chance that she will get pregnant. In our case, we hit the target on the first month of trying each time. So if I have sex with her and wear a condom, I probably just nullified a future baby. Does that bother me? No. Are you saying that it would bother YOU? You can't equate future potentials to actualities; in the first trimester, you do NOT have a thinking, feeling baby; you have a clump of cells. Your personal subjective beliefs notwithstanding, those are the facts.

course, sperm on it's own isn;t going to do much. a fertilized egg will.

Irrelevant distinction. Explain why that changes the fact that a future potential cannot be equated to a present actuality. If you want to defeat an analogy, you must show why it is INAPPLICABLE. Showing that it isn't IDENTICAL is not enough.

We have an act which nullifies the entire existence of a future baby. You seem to agree that it is not immoral. If you believe that a future potential should be treated as if it is a present actuality, then why not? Remember: an embryo on its own won't do much either; it needs the continued support of the mother's body for the next nine months.

[Enforcer Talen]

heh, why not. lobsters look pretty disgusting too, but that doesnt stop the munching.

How is any of this relevant?

well, it seems to me avoiding eating a fetus is just a knee jerk reaction, like looking at a lobster, and saying it's gross.

course, sperm on it's own isn;t going to do much. a fertilized egg will.

Irrelevant. You've defined preventing human life to be wrong. Preventing the sperm from reaching the egg is preventing conception, and thus preventing the egg from reaching its full potential with the sperm.

lol, of course not. preventing human life is wrong. a conceived egg is in the process of growing. an egg or sperm, on it's own, will never change. girls throw away an egg once a month, and guys prolly throw away millions of sperm over the course of a week. the little cells there are irrelevant, because they will never develop into a sentient being. even during unprotected sex, millions of sperm arent going to be doing anything. only one or two will, maybe more if your enthusiastic. certainly not hundreds or thousands. one doesnt worry about one sperm that hasnt done anything, and will prolly end in the toilet later in the night.

[Alyeska]

For all those who do not know what the Morning After pill is.

The Morning After pill has only one goal. To prevent conception. That is all it does. It prevents the egg and sperm from combining and therefor conception. Therefor the Morning After pill is not killing any "fetus" and is not killing any developed egg. Rather it is an extension of either a condom or diaphram in which case it is an "invisible" protection that prevents conception between the egg and sperm.

For those who think Abortion is murder, try reading your local laws on the issue. You might disagree with it, but calling people murderer's and ignoring the legality of the situation will NOT convince them you are correct. You don't piss off the people you want to "convert".

[Durandal]

lol, of course not. preventing human life is wrong. a conceived egg is in the process of growing. an egg or sperm, on it's own, will never change. girls throw away an egg once a month, and guys prolly throw away millions of sperm over the course of a week. the little cells there are irrelevant, because they will never develop into a sentient being. even during unprotected sex, millions of sperm arent going to be doing anything. only one or two will, maybe more if your enthusiastic. certainly not hundreds or thousands. one doesnt worry about one sperm that hasnt done anything, and will prolly end in the toilet later in the night.

You still haven't answered the question. Why is there a difference between preventing conception (preventing human life) and aborting the pregnancy in the early stages (preventing human life)? One sperm on its own won't do anything, but a fertilized egg on its own won't either; it needs the mother to survive.

So, again, what's the difference?

[Darth Wong]

lol, of course not. preventing human life is wrong. a conceived egg is in the process of growing. an egg or sperm, on it's own, will never change. girls throw away an egg once a month, and guys prolly throw away millions of sperm over the course of a week. the little cells there are irrelevant, because they will never develop into a sentient being. even during unprotected sex, millions of sperm arent going to be doing anything. only one or two will, maybe more if your enthusiastic. certainly not hundreds or thousands. one doesnt worry about one sperm that hasnt done anything, and will prolly end in the toilet later in the night.

Broken record syndrome.

Two points (AGAIN):

1) A fertilized embryo won't do anything without the support of the mother's body. If she withdraws that support, the embryo dies. It has no thoughts, no feelings, and feels no pain. Big deal. If you removed that embryo from her body, it would die on the tabletop, just like a sperm.

2) The point remains that an action taken will nullify the future life of a human being. It doesn't bother you. Another action taken will nullify the future life of a human being. It DOES bother you. The only difference is that one is a clump of cells while the other is a sperm that might have become your child if you hadn't worn a condom.

I knocked up Rebecca twice. She carried the baby to term twice. I love my two boys, and I would rather not abort a baby. However, there is a difference between what you personally feel comfortable with and what you can reasonably force others to obey. Laws which apply to anyone but yourself can ONLY be based on objective reality, not personal subjective beliefs, prejudices, or gut feelings. Objectively and legally, if there's no brain activity, there's no life as we know it. Accept it.

[ArmorPierce]

My problem with even morning after abortion pill is that it's killing a fetus that would ofterwise be born. No matter when or how I find it cruel and no different that murder.

Huh?? A embryo does not develop into a fetus until it is over a month old and the morning after pill doesn't even kill a embryo because the sperm is never able to reach the egg. It is because of reasons like this of people not being well enough educated on the subject that they are firmly against it even though they don't know how it actually works.