Abortion

[Danoff]

@Azuremen said: "As for your argument, you seem to make no distinction between a fully independent, conscious human being and a collection of cells that have human DNA but are incapable of making a decision, being self aware, or surviving without the human host. Which is a relatively important distinction to draw in this case, given how much you are tossing "human rights" around as justification."

You are correct, I make no distinction. As the timeline for any individuals' existence extends from conception until death, so also does their "personhood". If any right-to-exist is attached to personhood, that right-to-exist also extends from conception to death. I make no subdivisions based upon stages of development.

From this I draw my justification for tossing around "human rights".

I realize that the above is only my personal point of view, but none of the other views in this post have convinced me that I need to change it.

Thanks for the other comments.

Why do humans have rights and not pigs? Answer that, and you'll have to change everything you wrote above.

By that framework, it would have been okay to bin FoolKiller. What if he would've disagreed?

...better show some self-awareness while disagreeing or it's off to the bin!

 

[zzz_pt]

I understand the point you're making, but that takes us only a short step from the absurd. Should a woman then be obligated to become pregnant every time she ovulates? What about the fact that in the process of fertilizing an egg through the normal process, millions of sperm cells are released; what about all the cells that didn't make it? Worse, that places masturbation (by or on males at any rate) on the same level as abortion/murder.

He's not making that point. He's showing where @sammy neuman 's line of thought would lead in the extreme. At least that's how I see it.

What you wrote is more in line with sammy's perspective than with Imari's.

 

[Omnis]

...better show some self-awareness while disagreeing or it's off to the bin!

But that's so cruel and animalistic. Our humanity should preclude us from reducing down to that.

 

[Danoff]

But that's so cruel and animalistic. Our humanity should preclude us from reducing down to that.

Ok, I thought you were joking. What specifically is your issue?

 

[Omnis]

No, I'm serious. You should know that I'm against abortion.

I can't accept that the unborn can be discarded because, even though they may or may not yet be legal persons, they are still unique in that they will become people. I don't think you can discount this unique quality and literally throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Some people like to eat their boogers, but you can't pick your snatch and eat your embryos. Come on, man!

 

[Danoff]

No, I'm serious. You should know that I'm against abortion.

I can't accept that the unborn can be discarded because, even though they may or may not yet be legal persons, they are still unique in that they will become people.

Not if they're aborted. No seriously, this isn't argument if they don't become people... and lots of unborn don't become people for lots of reasons, including abortion.

 

[Omnis]

Well obviously not if they're aborted. That's the issue.

 

[Danoff]

Well obviously not if they're aborted. That's the issue.

How is that an issue? Nothing bad happened to anyone who was a person. Done. No issue.

 

[zzz_pt]

No, I'm serious. You should know that I'm against abortion.

I can't accept that the unborn can be discarded because, even though they may or may not yet be legal persons, they are still unique in that they will become people. I don't think you can discount this unique quality and literally throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Some people like to eat their boogers, but you can't pick your snatch and eat your embryos. Come on, man!

They are not legal persons and they "are" not like we are. (Not in the sense "I think, therefore I am"). They exist but rocks also exist and both are unaware of that fact.

If we were like turtles, abortion wouldn't be an issue. But we aren't. So we should prioritize things. First there's a full grown human being (woman) who has personality, will, rights, wants, needs, pain, joy, stress, etc. On the other, there's a foetus that can, one day, be a full grown human being, with all those caracteristics.

 

[KSaiyu]

So now we're talking about fitness to survive based on someone else's views (the parents, well, only the mother to be technically accurate)?

 

[synchromesh]

I guess it's like how they used to not give babies painkiller when doing operations. It's not like they're going to remember it.

 

[Danoff]

So now we're talking about fitness to survive based on someone else's views (the parents, well, only the mother to be technically accurate)?

I don't see who is discussing that. I'll say this part again:

Why do humans have rights and not pigs? Answer that, and you'll have to change everything you wrote above.

Pigs are unique, they feel pain, they have brains, they have emotions.... differentiate and you will have answered the abortion question.

 

[Omnis]

How is that an issue? Nothing bad happened to anyone who was a person. Done. No issue.

The life of a human which was to become a person was ended unnaturally. That is the issue.

They are not legal persons and they "are" not like we are. (Not in the sense "I think, therefore I am"). They exist but rocks also exist and both are unaware of that fact.

If we were like turtles, abortion wouldn't be an issue. But we aren't. So we should prioritize things. First there's a full grown human being (woman) who has personality, will, rights, wants, needs, pain, joy, stress, etc. On the other, there's a foetus that can, one day, be a full grown human being, with all those caracteristics.

Rocks are not humans. If you place the same value on a human life as on a rock, there is the problem.

 

[Danoff]

The life of a human which was to become a person was ended unnaturally. That is the issue.

We have no idea whether that life would have become a person, and nothing is unnatural. A life was terminated (life gets terminated all the time, even when you take antibiotics), and that life was not a human person. Where is the moral issue?

 

[Omnis]

We have no idea whether that life would have become a person, and nothing is unnatural. A life was terminated (life gets terminated all the time, even when you take antibiotics), and that life was not a human person. Where is the moral issue?

Give me a break, Danoff. We have the reasonable expectation that a fetus becomes a person. We're not talking about livestock or bacteria here, we're talking about people. The moral issue is a mother deliberately precluding a new, unique human from living as a person.

 

[Danoff]

Give me a break, Danoff. We have the reasonable expectation that a fetus becomes a person. We're not talking about livestock or bacteria here, we're talking about people.

No, we're talking about potential future outcomes.

The moral issue is a mother deliberately precluding a new, unique human from living as a person.

The only moral issue I recognize is forcing a mother to do something against her will for the benefit of something that does not currently have rights.

 

[Omnis]

I already know that. As I've always said in this thread, the definition of personhood will always determine your position on abortion. But you can't deny that after conception, contingent on all of the biological checks, that new body has the unique and expected future of its own person. Whether you place any value on this is where we obviously disagree.

 

[Danoff]

But you can't deny that after conception, contingent on all of the biological checks, that new body has the unique and expected future of its own person.

No.

Together with my wife we created about 25 or 30 embryos, almost none of which could be said to have "an expected future of their own person". Biological conception does not result in an organism that can be expected to be a person. It results in an organism that will attempt to develop into a person and need a lot of help doing it. In my personal experience, far more of them fail than succeed (my personal experience is not normal).

I understand that you wrote "contingent on all of the biological checks", but that's a big part of the point. An embryo can so easily stop developing for no understood reason. Treating them as though we can expect them to turn into people with rights someday would be absurd even if doing so didn't infringe on the rights of someone we know is a person with rights.

 

[Omnis]

I was aware of your experience. I'd think that would make the idea of abortion more egregious, though.

Why would we ever have babies if we didn't expect them to become people with rights someday? Why have obstetricians?

One has to go through so much to be a person. Why subject them to the will of an irresponsible mother? I'm not advocating that the mother be bound to care for the baby. In fact, I think if there were better systems in place (and there are some available) the issue would not be so clamorous.

 

[zzz_pt]

I was aware of your experience. I'd think that would make the idea of abortion more egregious, though.

Why would we ever have babies if we didn't expect them to become people with rights someday? Why have obstetricians?

One has to go through so much to be a person. Why subject them to the will of an irresponsible mother? I'm not advocating that the mother be bound to care for the baby. In fact, I think if there were better systems in place (and there are some available) the issue would not be so clamorous.

Because sometimes we want them and sometimes we don't.

People make sex for pleasure in the great majoraty of times. No woman gets pregnant and then aborts because she wants to (unless she has mental issues). Birth control and condoms can fail. There are women more fertile than other women who have a higher probability of pregnancy even unwilling.

 

[Omnis]

Abstinence never fails. Unless you're the Virgin Mary. Would you abort Jesus?

 

[zzz_pt]

Abstinence never fails. Unless you're the Virgin Mary. Would you abort Jesus?

Hmm... How many people were killed in the name of Jesus?

 

[Danoff]

Why would we ever have babies if we didn't expect them to become people with rights someday? Why have obstetricians?

Because we hope.

One has to go through so much to be a person. Why subject them to the will of an irresponsible mother? I'm not advocating that the mother be bound to care for the baby.

Except during pregnancy?

 

[sammy neuman]

@Imari said: "Why should "sperm+egg" have right-to-exist, but neither the sperm or the egg should?"

Yes I do realize I have drawn a line. Where that line is drawn is at the heart of this debate. Sperm or egg cells independent of each other cannot produce offspring by the normal mammalian reproductive process. While a sperm or egg cell in isolation does possess unique genetic information, that information is useless until the two cells unite.

Concerning in-vitro fertilization, which does represent an intervention: As there is insertion into the host where (hopefully) further growth by normal processes will occur, my viewpoint does not prohibit abortion in all cases, so neither should it prohibit in-vitro fertilization.

A clarification: I forgot to say that; prior to uniting, "While a sperm or egg cell in isolation does possess unique genetic information, that information is useless until the two cells unite." Therefore, only after conception does a unique life exit.

 

[Danoff]

Therefore, only after conception does a unique life exit.

Why do we keep saying "unique" life? A dog is unique, an ant is unique. It's unimportant.

 

[Omnis]

Except during pregnancy?

Until arrangements can be made for its care, yes.

Why do we keep saying "unique" life? A dog is unique, an ant is unique. It's unimportant.

To distinguish it from being just another of mom's cells. Also, I wanted to make the point that nothing else becomes a person if you're defining personhood at a set stage after birth.

 

[Danoff]

Until arrangements can be made for its care, yes.

Why?

 

[Omnis]

Why?

You know why. People are charged with murder over dead babies.

I would agree with you if it is also your position that it doesn't make sense for it to be abortion pre-birth and murder post-birth.

Here's a neat read: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

 

[Famine]

Worse, that places masturbation (by or on males at any rate) on the same level as abortion/murder.

Welcome to organised religion:

​

I can't accept that the unborn can be discarded because, even though they may or may not yet be legal persons, they are still unique in that they will become people...

... in a best-case scenario, pending absolute cooperation from a third party.

 

[Danoff]

You know why. People are charged with murder over dead babies.

I would agree with you if it is also your position that it doesn't make sense for it to be abortion pre-birth and murder post-birth.

Here's a neat read: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

That is my position. Morally there is no issue until the child's brain develops to a threshold of self awareness. I draw the line at birth (umbilical separation) for convenience and pragmatism, not for moral reasons.