Abortion

[zzz_pt]

@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.

Two cells united inside a woman's body. A foetus independent from a womb can not develop into a human being either.

After conception, those cells are useless without a third person's body.

 

[Imari]

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.

That was my point.

Any arbitrary definition of "this collection of cells are a human being, these ones are not" is going to be subject to reductio ad absurdum. It's based on a causal chain, and so where do you say that the causal chain begins?

It's not a useful way to think about when a collection of cells should be given rights, because it's by definition a big handwave.

While a sperm or egg cell in isolation does possess unique genetic information, that information is useless until the two cells unite.

As a mental exercise, what if that information wasn't useless? Say, if cloning was easily available. Any genetic information from a cell can be turned into an embryo that will develop into a full human being.

It's not possible now, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it becomes possible in the next fifty years or so. Does it make it any different if any single cell is potentially the starting point for a new life?

 

[Danoff]

Of course the biological argument about how many cells constitute life or when the development starts is only pertinent if the reason we have rights is because we're human. That's not the reason we have rights, and rights are not limited to humans. Imagine we make contact with the species in Avatar and start enslaving them... problem? That means that a discussion of which cells start to constitute humanhood is entirely moot.

The reason we have rights, and dog doesn't, is because we think, we think in a ways that surpass all animals on this planet, and for which only a few can even claim common traits. It's because we think, in a special way, that we have rights. And it's not until we think, in that special way, that we obtain them. When we demonstrate that we can't think, we lose them.

[/thread]

 

[DK]

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

Teaching abstinence-only education is pretty much like trying to teach someone to drive while limiting them to 10mph.

I wouldn't abort Jesus, that would be for Mary to decide.

 

[KSaiyu]

The talks of rights and the beginning of person-hood are good in theory, but I believe there's a reason no-one here would be comfortable watching a third trimester surgical abortion in person, let alone over the internet. Humanity has evolved over the years, and I can't accept that we are at the stage where we will celebrate the promise of new life in one situation yet play dumb in others as a matter of convenience.

I wonder what the consensus is on elective reduction of multi-foetal pregnancies, e.g. finding out you're expecting twins and aborting one while carrying the other to term.

 

[sammy neuman]

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

Because a pig cannot now, and never will be able to type an answer to your question on a laptop and post it as a reply. What do I have to change?

 

[Danoff]

Because a pig cannot now, and never will be able to type an answer to your question on a laptop and post it as a reply. What do I have to change?

Neither can a fetus. What a pig may or may not be able to do in the future is irrelevant. I asked about rights right now. You have made your own argument against the rights of the unborn.

The talks of rights and the beginning of person-hood are good in theory, but I believe there's a reason no-one here would be comfortable watching a third trimester surgical abortion in person, let alone over the internet. Humanity has evolved over the years, and I can't accept that we are at the stage where we will celebrate the promise of new life in one situation yet play dumb in others as a matter of convenience.

There are lots of things I wouldn't be comfortable watching: Lasik surgery, cows being slaughtered, a suicide, a gun suicide being cleaned... what's your point again?


...let's not pretend abortion is about convenience. Abortion is about rights.

I wonder what the consensus is on elective reduction of multi-foetal pregnancies, e.g. finding out you're expecting twins and aborting one while carrying the other to term.

My wife and I had to be prepared for this when we transferred 5 growing embryos into her uterus. The potential was for a few to split and get 7, 8, 9... we were ready to reduce.

We got 0 btw.

 

[vasiliflame]

The talks of rights and the beginning of person-hood are good in theory, but I believe there's a reason no-one here would be comfortable watching a third trimester surgical abortion in person, let alone over the internet. Humanity has evolved over the years, and I can't accept that we are at the stage where we will celebrate the promise of new life in one situation yet play dumb in others as a matter of convenience.

I wonder what the consensus is on elective reduction of multi-foetal pregnancies, e.g. finding out you're expecting twins and aborting one while carrying the other to term.

I think its absolutely disgusting as a twin myself and my mother miscarried because of my fathers punching my mother my brother died but I survived I always wonder what he would be like and what we would have done together.. Was I the evil one and was he the good on there's just so many questions that if you knowing had one aborted and the other found out that would be horrible

 

[Danoff]

I think its absolutely disgusting as a twin myself and my mother miscarried because of my fathers punching my mother my brother died but I survived I always wonder what he would be like and what we would have done together.. Was I the evil one and was he the good on there's just so many questions that if you knowing had one aborted and the other found out that would be horrible

Talk to the mother who tried to carry 4 children to term and they all die of disorders by age 6 (yes that happens), instead of carrying 2 healthy twins to term and them having full lives. Don't pretend that there is only one answer.

 

[vasiliflame]

They had 6 years more than a baby who never seen the light of day... You can't talk disorders to me my boy has cerebral palsy and no matter how hard life is for us and him we are so happy even if he can not talk or walk feed himself cloth himself or feed himself... As parents we have a duty to care and look after our child from the whom to the day we die

 

[Danoff]

They had 6 years more than a baby who never seen the light of day

6 awful years of pain, and ruined lives of the parents. No. A healthy family of 4 living full happy lives is a better outcome than a depressed family of 6, four of whom die in agony after short lives of failing to develop normally.

Edit:

Not even to mention the risk to the mother.

 

[vasiliflame]

How shallow is that answer

 

[Danoff]

How shallow is that answer

Yes, it's very shallow of parents to want their children to live and thrive rather than die in pain in their arms. Totally shallow. Excuse me while I go take a duck-faced selfie.

 

[vasiliflame]

Yes, it's very shallow of parents to want their children to live and thrive rather than die in pain in their arms. Totally shallow. Excuse me while I go take a duck-faced selfie.

Your excused

 

[Omnis]

Teaching abstinence-only education is pretty much like trying to teach someone to drive while limiting them to 10mph.

I wouldn't abort Jesus, that would be for Mary to decide.

My friend, that was tongue-in-cheek.

But, regardless, it really isn't that hard to keep it in your pants. Take it from me, someone who is under constant assault with

thrown at me from every direction.

 

[KSaiyu]

Talk to the mother who tried to carry 4 children to term and they all die of disorders by age 6 (yes that happens), instead of carrying 2 healthy twins to term and them having full lives. Don't pretend that there is only one answer.

Elective, as in "we were only planning for one so we only want one".

 

[vasiliflame]

Elective, as in "we were only planning for one so we only want one".

Exactly he didn't read the question , the point flew right above his head...I at least understood the question..

What the story behind your avatar bro, I get weird vibes from it I keep thinking one of those milk carton pictures of missing people..

 

[zzz_pt]

Elective, as in "we were only planning for one so we only want one".

Why not? There's no difference. There's only 1 person in the process: the woman. If she planned her life to have 1 child, why wouldn't she have the right to have only what she wanted? She couldn't control her body to bring to existence 2 foetuses instead of 1.

 

[vasiliflame]

Why not? There's no difference. There's only 1 person in the process: the woman. If she planned her life to have 1 child, why wouldn't she have the right to have only what she wanted? She couldn't control her body to bring to existence 2 foetuses instead of 1.

You have sex unprotected you have a chance to have multiple baby's, I think its unfair to terminate one and keep the other , your effectively playing Russian roulette or ini mini minei moe. Life isn't about control its about rolling with the punches its a roller coaster ups and downs rough times and smooth times... I am not against abortion but I am not pro abortion either , in this hypothetical question I would suggest she terminates both because this hypothetical person in my eyes isn't ready to be a parent. Someone who is ready to start this journey of being a parent would probably be shocked to find out they are to have multiple children,but they would get there head around it and make the most of it.. There are of course other situations that could call for a pregnancy to have this done if one baby was really underdeveloped and wouldn't stand a chance outside in our hostile would. But to choose between two healthy children who would live or die i couldn't do it..

 

[zzz_pt]

You have sex unprotected you have a chance to have multiple baby's, I think its unfair to terminate one and keep the other , your effectively playing Russian roulette or ini mini minei moe. Life isn't about control its about rolling with the punches its a roller coaster ups and downs rough times and smooth times... I am not against abortion but I am not pro abortion either , in this hypothetical question I would suggest she terminates both because this hypothetical person in my eyes isn't ready to be a parent. Someone who is ready to start this journey of being a parent would probably be shocked to find out they are to have multiple children,but they would get there head around it and make the most of it..

People can plan to have a child and get twins. You can't control that. That's nothing to do with unprotected sex.

Life IS about control. You do what you want, that's why we have freedom. And life is about rights as well. Sure there are times that life is hard but if we could avoid it we would don't you agreed? I don't live in a roller coaster.

You would suggest her to abort both based on your oppinion. She could be a better mother because (and not despite) of her decision to abort 1 foetus though.

There are of course other situations that could call for a pregnancy to have this done if one baby was really underdeveloped and wouldn't stand a chance outside in our hostile would. But to choose between two healthy children who would live or die i couldn't do it..

This is where we disagreed. There are not babies or children yet. We're not talking of killing a 2yo kid. We're talking about aborting a foetus that, biologically, is less than a grown pig or cow.

 

[vasiliflame]

In essence they are baby's weather they are full term or not, without interfering they would be born as children so in my eyes there is life there , now if we are talking about self awareness of being alive and feeling pain thoughts etc, I don't believe these unborn baby's would know any different.. But as adults we should actually think of all the angles, as there is no going back and regret is a horrible thing. It's ultimately up to the woman I wouldn't condemn the woman publicly but I wouldn't support her either or give her any legitimacy for her action.

And it's all to do with unprotected sex if you use protection and contraception there wouldn't be a hard decision to make

 

[Imari]

And it's all to do with unprotected sex if you use protection and contraception there wouldn't be a hard decision to make

Because the only people who get pregnant are those who choose to.

 

[vasiliflame]

Because the only people who get pregnant are those who choose to.

Only stupid people get pregnant that don't use precautions, if they didn't want children simple us a Condom and pill or injection , but no they go bare back and put them self in that situation never mind sti's .. So go bang ya head against the wall and think of another one.

 

[zzz_pt]

Only stupid people get pregnant that don't use precautions, if they didn't want children simple us a Condom and pill or injection , but no they go bare back and put them self in that situation never mind sti's .. So go bang ya head against the wall and think of another one.

Are you aware that condoms and pills can fail?

 

[vasiliflame]

Are you aware that condoms and pills can fail?

What about injection or implant? I am aware that's why u still use both a condom and pill/injection/implant....there are accidents don't get me wrong, I would like to think sensible people would understand this without putting making themselves have and a horrid situation and hard decision to make. I feel sorry for doctors who have to do this day in day out it has to grind you down, as they wanted keep people alive after all. I don't want to argue if I am honest I like to think everyone in this thread sensible and wouldn't need to go down that route

 

[zzz_pt]

What about injection or implant? I am aware that's why u still use both a condom and pill/injection/implant....there are accidents don't get me wrong, I would like to think sensible people would understand this without putting making themselves have and a horrid situation and hard decision to make. I feel sorry for doctors who have to do this day in day out it has to grind you down, as they wanted keep people alive after all. I don't want to argue if I am honest I like to think everyone in this thread sensible and wouldn't need to go down that route

Are those those options available for everyone?

If you want to be honest, you'll admit that the great majoraty of human population doesn't have means to buy or access to those things.

And all of them carry their own problems. They're not magical solutions. For instance, pills increase DST's. Condoms decrease pleasure and there are people allergic to them. Tubal Ligation is a definitive solution.

This is not a solution to the problem. Abortion is about the rights of women to decide what they should do with their own body.

 

[Danoff]

Elective, as in "we were only planning for one so we only want one".

Elective as in - we want the mother to have a high chance of surviving and the babies to have a high chance of not having crippling and life-threatening disorders.

I always wonder what he would be like and what we would have done together..

Maybe help each other learn braille because you end up born premature and blind.

You have sex unprotected you have a chance to have multiple baby's, I think its unfair to terminate one and keep the other , your effectively playing Russian roulette or ini mini minei moe.

Keep them all and many times you're playing Russian roulette with the mother's life and the lives of all of the unborn. My wife follows a blog of a couple who struggled with infertility. They transferred 4 embryos and all 4 of them took. The only reason the doctor was willing to do that is because the couple claimed they were willing to reduce if they had 3 or more. They changed their minds after discovering that they were pregnant with all 4 - deciding that it must have been god's plan that they have them all.

All 4 were born. I believe they are all dead at this point. There is some question on that since the blog went underground and got spotty. But there were very very serious problems.

Selective reduction enables pregnancy to occur without unnecessarily risking the lives of everyone involved.

 

[vasiliflame]

Are those those options available for everyone?

If you want to be honest, you'll admit that the great majoraty of human population doesn't have means to buy or access to those things.

And all of them carry their own problems. They're not magical solutions. For instance, pills increase DST's. Condoms decrease pleasure and there are people allergic to them. Tubal Ligation is a definitive solution.

This is not a solution to the problem. Abortion is about the rights of women to decide what they should do with their own body.

Well until you mention decreased pleasure , I was with you for a moment I forget in Britain its an amazing privilege to have the NHS service that provides anything you would like free of charge and all the relevant information on the subject. But to potentially have to kill a life form so you can experience a bit more pleasure is selfish when there are precautions readily available

 

[zzz_pt]

Well, I can be wrong, but I thought people liked sex because the pleasure they experience. It's not a small detail.

And kill a life form is not wrong. We kill life forms everyday for various reasons.

 

[KSaiyu]

Elective as in - we want the mother to have a high chance of surviving and the babies to have a high chance of not having crippling and life-threatening disorders.

No, not selective termination of an abnormal foetus. My original question was about elective reduction for maternal reasons, specifically the desire to only have one child.