Originally posted by Lestov16
Thank you for clarifying. But there have been other cases of unborn of earlier stages being counted as murders. IDK if I've ever heard of a case of murdered pregnant women that was not counted as a double murder.
Honestly, can't recall reading about a case like that, but yes, that would be odd to say the least, the counting as murder for a fetus that is still within the legal termination period.
Originally posted by Robtard
Honestly, can't recall reading about a case like that, but yes, that would be odd to say the least, the counting as murder for a fetus that is still within the legal termination period.
It's not that odd when you consider that lots of states would like to have laws against abortion but that pesky Supreme Court stops them from it.
I'm saying it's odd under current abortion laws. As Lestov pointed out, if the mother can terminate said fetus, how can it then be considered murder if someone else does it. While I feel it's still a crime to terminate someone's pregnancy against their will, not sure how it magically turns to murder.
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm saying it's odd under current abortion laws. As Lestov pointed out, if the mother can terminate said fetus, how can it then be considered murder if someone else does it. While I feel it's still a crime to terminate someone's pregnancy against their will, not sure how it magically turns to murder.
Well, like I said, it's a quirk of how Abortion is legal in the US, i.e. that it is based on the Supreme Courts decision to the right to privacy.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Cancer cells do not (by their natural progression) develop into a full grown human being nor a severed arm nor a transplant organ. Apples and oranges.An unborn child is a person, regardless of how you try and dehumanize it.
If something doesn't have a functional brain (as is the case with almost all abortions), it's not a person, regardless of how you try and humanize it.
Note how you're trying to overlap and combine two different things here: What it is and it's potential.
What it is, is just like those things. A human-cell-mass with life but none of the aspects that make one a complete person.
What it has the potential to have, is something else, and is not what it 'is'. Whether or not something has the potential to be a person doesn't make it a person- indeed, 'potential to be a grown human being' is a phrase that in itself acknowledges that it is not yet that.
It's apples and apples, even if you have orange paint.
And I'll address more on potential later in the thread.
They are a person as they have everything they need to be a person. And their very nature IS to grow into this full person. They do not need additional DNA nor do they no longer need outside stimuli to grow into a full person. All they need is time and nutrients to fully realize that. Just as a baby just needs time and nutrients to become an adult. Essentially nothing different between the two.
They need hormones at particular stages, they require a constant supply of nutrients, and notably, supplying these things has a health impact.
Bad logic. If you're talking about "complications" like weakened pelvic floor, weight gain, temporary elevated blood pressure or stretch marks sure it's nearly 100% (not really the value of a life, but w/e). But life threatening complications are very rare in any first world country (where, ironically, abortion are more common) but yeah there is a chance of it But you're talking as if abortions don't have medical complications of their own.
Death is 'Rare' but still noticeable, still significant enough to be included in the calculation.
Pregnancy has months of recovery time as well as months of reduced mobility and other health effects prior to that, regular vomiting isn't rare, etc.. This is all health-affecting. There's no situation when someone else is required to engage in health-threatening procedures for someone else.
You understand that abortions have risks, too, right?
Depends on when, and generally significantly smaller. Early on, there's almost no risk, far less than pregnancy.
Later on, the risks are higher, but that in turn is almost always done when the pregnancy itself has been judged to be a risky one.
And for every claim that abortion is safer than childbirth, there is a counter claim that it is not the case.
Accuracy, not quantity, of claims is what matters.
Overall, one can simply claim that both procedures have their risks but only one has a 100% mortality rate for the child.
Not having sex also has 100% chance of not resulting in a child.
That's the problem with the potential argument: It doesn't begin at any specific part.
Is potential alone enough to call something a human? At the active cost of someone's health to do so?
Egg cells have a potential very similar to early-term embryos percentage wise. They have potential. Is there crime in not using them.
Is there any time else we consider it murder to prevent a potential X? The answer's no.
What is life but for its potential for growth?
Well, a person is still a being who can think and interact with the world. Even a human who cannot in a physical sense have any significant growth, is still a person. That's well beyond the potential for growth.
That is your opinion, scientific definitions would disagree with you.
Not really.
Hm, one way of putting it is, you run into the "Pluto Problem."
Pluto was called a planet for a long time.
But when it came to making a definite definition, there was no way to draw the lines to include Pluto without also including many things we didn't want to include as planets, or alternatively no way to draw a line that
The lines that you've draw, admit it or not, include lots of things you don't want to include as 'human.' And you need to include multiple criteria (both 'human living cells' and 'potential'😉 to get that, and even using two overlapping criteria, you're having to pick arbitrary spots in them.
In order to make abortion bad, people are having to draw lines and use definitions not used elsewhere for determining whether someone is a person. And even then, a lot of these lines and calls results in things that you don't want in, to get in, unless you add more to the definition.
You're not finding a logical definition, you're picking a spot and trying to reverse engineer a definition around it, and the result is a very arbitrary definition that has little resemblance to what anyone would give when asked "what is a living human?".
Of course, you cling to philosophical constructs that can provide no definitive proof either way. Answer this question, tho: What if you're wrong? What if children ARE sentient at the stage where abortion is allowed (up to 10 weeks)?
What if people can work without a developed brain?
Well then, I look forward to figuring out how to exist as a disembodied thought entity.
Of course, that raises the additional issue, if they can be sentient at that point, why would an abortion even stop it? That'd clearly mean that the existence of parts of the brain that appear to do X and Y are not responsible for X and Y.
An interesting question to be sure, but more in a science fiction sense.
Do you have definitive proof that they do not? What makes you so sure?
Because brains works, and the parts of brains that do work do not meaningfully exist at that point.
This kinda goes back into the 'you've picked a part where you want to defend, and are drawing definitions around it.'
And again, if it's not necessary, then what evidence do I have that any part of the brain is necessary?
Following on this track, my definitions are, in base, about Brains being important. An intact functional brain makes a person to me.
If you are right here, then that pretty much throws out brains being nearly as important as I think. There's no evidence of this, and plenty of evidence of brains being important, so I'm certainly not going to act as if it's true on a Pascal's Wager type of thing.
Planned parenthood advocates for the deregulation of abortion. That's like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. Sooo no. Or asking the NRA to be in charge of gun control measures.
Planned Parenthood is the number one most successful organization in reducing the amount of abortion in the US. They heavily teach the options and consequences, provide birth control, and are involved with adoption as well. Like the name says, they're about planned parenthood. Abortion is just one part of that.
So no, it's not like the NRA at all.
It's like asking the farmer to guard the henhouse, really.
Originally posted by Robtard
Since you asked for a link. Not sure if this is the exact article I was referring to as I believe I read it longer than three years ago, but the premise/science behind it seems to be close.http://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com/2012/12/04/what-can-science-add-to-the-abortion-debate/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1
Counter argument/source. Old article I know. But if this article was disproven, would like to see it.
Some respected members of the medical community have actually observed signs that the 24 month period may not be the start of "sentience" (by definition, the ability to feel). Basic sensations such pain/fear may come as early as 18 months.
If such was the case, would you now argue that 18-24 month abortions (that are not due to medical reasons) may well be morally reprehensible as these fetuses may well be sentient within the definition of the word?
I'm assuming you mean "weeks" and not "months", but as covered in my article, it states:
"In fact, we know that the brain structures necessary for conscious experience of pain do not develop until 29-30 weeks, while the conscious processing of sounds is only made possible after the 26th week. Even when the fetal brain possesses all its adult structures, scientists are cautious to assume it posesses what we refer to as ‘consciousness’. This is mainly because the low oxygen levels and a constant barrage of sleep-inducing chemicals from the placenta ensure that, until birth, the foetus remains heavily sedated."
Weeks I meant, sorry just woke up. 😛
Yes, the level of consciousness/sentience is not fully developed, but it exists. Or at least signs of it does. I thought the argument was "totally nonexistent sentience gives a living human no rights", NOT "levels of sentience determines the level of rights a living human is given"?
And to answer your question (that I have failed to address til now, sorry did not mean to be rude, was just really sleepy last night): a zygote is not sentient, no, at least not at the level we are sentient. Then again, I do not consider current level of sentience as the determining factor of what is "human" or "a person".
Edit. When I say "rights", I meant "rights to life".
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure my article said anything to the contrary. It pointed out that before the 29-30 weeks period, the brain is incapable of processing pain and any movements that mimic a pain-like response are simply nerves reacting.
Was talking about the article I posted in rebuttal to yours.
Originally posted by Q99
If something doesn't have a functional brain (as is the case with almost all abortions), it's not a person, regardless of how you try and humanize it.-SNIP-
You understand -your- definition of "person" is completely arbitrary? Humanity is not defined simply by a fully developed/functional brain otherwise animals could be classified as persons as well. And sentience (by definition) does not begin when the brain is fully developed within the fetus. Recent studies are now surfacing that a child may already be experiencing pain/fear (or at least exhibiting a medically classifiable fear response) as early as 18 weeks. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1).
"None of the aspects that make one a complete person"? You chose "fully developed and functional brain" as the primary criterion for determining that something is a person. Bear in mind there is a difference between fully developed and functional. There are instance where one that is exists but not the other (where a person has an underdeveloped brain but it is functional or one that has a fully developed brain that is not completely functional). Are ppl with diminished brain capacity via birth defect/brain damage no longer classified as humans as they lack one (or has a much more diminished level) of the criteria you use to call a living human a "person"? Do you think the law would see them as having less rights? And is killing them any less a murder? Are persons in a coma (having a much more diminished brain function) that has a high chance of pulling thru now have less rights as persons? If you start applying this kind of quantifiable logic, you will need to be consistent about it.
"Growth" is potential. Life, by it's nature constantly changes and grows. An organism is just as much what it will be as it is what it current is. You may want to arbitrarily use apples-to-oranges comparisons like cancer cells or severed organs/limbs. But those don't exactly turn into full infant after a set amount of uninterrupted time. Cancer cells will stay cancer cells, severed limbs will stay severed limbs, sperm/egg will stay sperm/egg given no fertilization. A fetus becomes a human being. And we do not (morally) assign rights to life based on one's level of development as this would mean babies would have less rights to life than full grown adults, again, if you start applying certain logic, you need to be consistent about where you apply it.
Just because something isn't a "grown human being" does not make it any less a human being. Just that it is within an earlier stage of development. Infants and newborns are not exactly "fully grown human beings", can you claim that their right to life is less than a full adult?
Hell, the definition to life/personhood/humanity isn't even agreed upon by the scientific community, but you seem to feel that you have all the answers. I'm not saying I do, I might well be wrong. But I would rather err on the side of protecting life.
Fair enough. Yes, abortions are markedly safer for the mother than legal abortions. 8.8 per 100k compared to 0.6 per 100k (Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271). About 14x safer. But risky pregnancies are mostly easily diagnosed these days and I DID mention that a mother whose life is actually at risk has a 100% the right to end the pregnancy. My arguments is against the whole "autonomy" argument, not the whole "medically necessary" argument as I have repeatedly (exhaustively at that) that medical reasons are 100% valid for abortions. But then here we are with UNECESSARY abortions that STILL carry inherent medical risks unto themselves.
A person needs to be able to interact with the world now? So you're saying that pre-birth, a baby is not a person?
The Pluto analogy actually supports MY argument more than it supports yours. They used the literal -scientific- criteria on what determines what a full planet is. The same way that I can use the literal scientifically quantifiable criteria to define what human life is by quantifiable scientific criteria of "human" and "organism". The term "person" that you keep trying to throw around is your interpretation (pro-choice) of what is required to be a person and is not a the scientific definition of "person". It is a debatable philosophical construct, something that not everyone has agreed upon (to my knowledge, there is no peer reviewed study on what defines a "person"😉.
"What if ppl worked without a developed brain"? You seem to equating the ability to "reason" and the ability to be "autonomous" with "sentience". Via literal definition (as by your Pluto example you seem to love literal definitions), that would be incorrect. By definition, "sentience" is the ability to feel, perceive OR experience (source:https://www.google.com/search?q=sentience+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) . And the most basic type of sentience (fear/pain) may already be felt as early as 18 weeks (Source: See article posted above).
Then again, all these criteria that you seem to want to throw around to define what is a "person" are exactly what I've called it: A convenient criteria arbitrarily created to make a tragic act palatable. Kinda like how many saw black slaves as not really ppl nor were jews in Nazi Germany. You can say that this is completely different due to <insert arbitrary criteria here> but in the end, they are all just philosophical constructs aimed to dehumanize. This has been done before and not by the best of ppl.
See the study above. Evidence is already existing that a child may already be experiencing the basic indicators of what may be seen as "sentience" (by definition) like pain/fear. Apparently they don't a a completely developed nervous system/brain to exhibit a fear/pain response. There is no conclusive way to prove it either way, but even the medical community is beginning to have its doubts on whether an fetus younger than 18 weeks cannot feel fear/pain (see article I posted above).
And the NRA does more about teaching ppl about gun safety (or so they say) than any other organization out there, so I'm sure they would be the best suited for defining the best path to gun rights?
Bottom line I don't even want abortion to be banned. Simply that parents should be made aware of the true impact of abortion and that the direction should be to discourage it thru education but to legally allow it (much like alcohol and smoking).
Copied this from the other thread.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
If we follow definitions of either "human" or "life", that notion would be wrong, tho. The only reason why (to some) that "it changes within stages of pregnancy" is because we have been conditioned (by media, mostly IMO) via arbitrarily assigned criteria that somehow fetuses aren't "completely" human. I mean, seriously, how does one even quantify that?We agree here. And morning after pill is ALMOST acceptable to me, if a child is to die, then at least it should be within this period where the child would not suffer at all. And I also agree that it should be an option. A last resort, however, when there is pretty damned good reason for it.
IMO, no one should go into it thinking that the fetus isn't human. If you're going to kill the child inside you, understand this: you are killing a live human child, who has the potential to dream, to love, to live and to accomplish great things given the chance, to hold your hand as you walk in the park, to wake you up in the morning to ask for cuddles and too look into your eyes with absolute love and trust and that your choice robs this child of all this. And if you think whatever reason you have for wanting the abortion is still paramount, then you have the legal choice to get on with it. Abortion IS legal after all. One of the last form of legalized murders out there (along with government sanctioned assassinations, wars and the death penalty).
I don't know if it's my business or not. The same way I don't know if the genocides in whatever country out there is my business or not. But I do know it is wrong and I'll be damned if I offer any sort of support for it.
Can't seem to find the abortion thread, can someone pls pls bump it for me? I suck with the search function.
How is it wrong, exactly?
Funny how you talk about conditioning. I can't speak for America, but here in Ireland, we grew up being told that abortion was an unholy, horrible act and that it should never be performed under any circumstances. Hell, it's still illegal here, but i'm hoping there's a referendum soon.
I notice you using a lot of words like "killing" and "child" in your post. I have no problem with you using those words, but at the same time, I don't consider a two week old embryo a child. I don't consider the morning after pill or first trimester abortion to be "killing" in the way some people would use it.
That's where a lot of the arguments lie, imo. It's in the terminology and what we perceive as a life.
I, personally, don't consider most abortions to be any kind of murder.
======
If a new thread gets made, I can just paste it there instead.
i think the circumstances around weither or not to have an abortion are a key factor here
- will the baby be disabled (serverly i.e. die early, be in constant pain)
- does the mother not want the baby but the father is willing to raise it on his own and is capable of doing so
-will it "ruin" the mothers life: is she a young teen, is she even able to raise a child in her current position.
-will the father be there to raise the child
- is the fetues concieved through the mother being raped? (alot of girls are quite about being raped and negative things can come out of saying you were raped... even thou support can be there for you)
it is these situations that i believe should determine the choice of an abortion
Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
- does the mother not want the baby but the father is willing to raise it on his own and is capable of doing so
About this, what would the option be, if the father wants to raise it and the mother doesn't? Would you say that abortion should not be allowed then and the woman has to be pregnant for 9 months and give birth?
Originally posted by Bardock42
About this, what would the option be, if the father wants to raise it and the mother doesn't? Would you say that abortion should not be allowed then and the woman has to be pregnant for 9 months and give birth?
the option would be a conundrum (dont know if spelt correctly)
what i am trying to say is that this situation would be a good example to question having an abortion
i dont know, havent really been in this situation to start with
i guess my opinion would be this:
if the mother is willing to abort and continue her life journey with her actions (positive or negative, thats not my place to say) then that is up to her
but if the father is willing to raise the child and pay for the mothers care then shouldnt that come into consideration as to weither the mother should go through with the abortion?
ultimately it is up to the mother and her desicion should be respected, i am just trying to bring the father's side of this and if he is able to care for the child then should that influence the mothers desicion in anyway
Originally posted by Nibedicus
To all pro-choice out there, willing to discuss your justification for abortion and debate with you. Here's hoping we can have a calm and decent discussion and am personally hoping I can change some minds regarding how one sees abortion.My question is: how can one not see abortion as the murder of an innocent unborn child?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe a tiny egg isn't a human being. That's to be expected from a insane movement based on the premise that a soul enters a fertilized egg immediately after ejaculation.
Originally posted by Bardock42
About this, what would the option be, if the father wants to raise it and the mother doesn't? Would you say that abortion should not be allowed then and the woman has to be pregnant for 9 months and give birth?
Although this is also a situation where medical advances could help out. I don't think it's feasible yet to do so (though I'm certain it's within the realm of possibility, perhaps even in the near future), but transplanting the fetus from the mother's womb to that of a willing surrogate mother could solve that kind of dispute.