When is abortion wrong?

[Pako]

A foetus can N-E-V-E-R become a human without a womb. So the distinction is somewhat blurry. Sperm needs egg. Egg needs sperm. Embryo needs womb. If you don't believe me, catch some menstruation from a woman who's had the morning after pill (which has no effect on the fertilised egg, but breaks down the endometrium it requires to embed in) and try to grow the perfectly healthy fertilised egg into a human. There's a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can.

Up until ~16 weeks a foetus has no brain. It cannot possibly be conscious as it has nowhere to store the consciousness and it cannot feel pain as there is no pain centre of the brain (because there is no brain).

So on those grounds is a pre-16 week abortion fine, in your opinion?

You were talking about sperm and egg murder, not womb murder.

Pain center's, I agree. Lack of consciousness, not enough scientific fact to support when we are actually 'aware' of ourselves on some level. I care not to guess, so no, pre-16 week abortion is NOT fine in my opinion. I find it better to be humane than to make scientific assumptions in this case. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Danoff]

Why is murder wrong? It is wrong because we are taking away a right to live without consent.

The question is whether the baby should be conisdered alive and given rights (like the right to life). Nobody is arguing that preventing a life from starting in the first place is murder, so the question is when the baby/fetus/embryo should have rights.

Because of the fact that the fetus shares its mother's body, if you wish to consider giving the fetus rights, you're immediately in conflict with the rights of the mother. As soon as the fetus is outside the mother and separated physically (born), the rights of a fetus are no longer in conflict with the rights of the mother - that's a natural place to extend rights to the fetus... when it can be conisdered an independant citizen.

To make anything else a law you have to have a reason. You have to have rationale for thinking that a fetus or an embryo is a living human being rather than a human-in-development, a not-quite-human. If that rationale is religious in nature it cannot be used as the basis of a law (see U.S. Constitution). So you have to come up with some other objective (perhaps scientific), or at least logical reason why the fetus should be extended the rights of an citizen even though those rights are in conflict with the rights of a well established fully developed human. I have yet to see that reasoning or any compelling argument to alter the extension of rights to occur any earlier than it does right now - birth.

 

[Pako]

The only time that the right of life is in conflict with the mother is during few pregnancies where there is a reasonable threat of fatal injury to the mother. Other than that, the conflict that you speak of (unless I misunderstood) should not be compared because the right of Life should outweigh the right of Choice in this matter.

 

[ledhed]

You were talking about sperm and egg murder, not womb murder.

Pain center's, I agree. Lack of consciousness, not enough scientific fact to support when we are actually 'aware' of ourselves on some level. I care not to guess, so no, pre-16 week abortion is NOT fine in my opinion. I find it better to be humane than to make scientific assumptions in this case. Wouldn't you agree?

No because in doing so you are taking away a womens rights over her own body.

 

[Swift]

No because in doing so you are taking away a womens rights over her own body.

But she willingly had sex, right?

 

[Pako]

ledhed,

Read the last sentence of post 363.

 

[ledhed]

the right of Life should outweigh the right of Choice in this matter.

So that means you have determined that life begins when ? The post I was replying to was an argument over whether the existance of a BRAIN determined the begining of life ( if I read it right ) . You claimed it was better to err on the side of being " humane " I replied that it was not if in order to do so you had to trample over a womens rights over her own body. in effeect keep your humanity to yourself.

Now you are claiming that life begins when ? At conception ? If that is so then a women who takes birth control pills is guilty of murder since a birth control pill gets the body to flush that conception out of its system .


Around and around we go ...What is the LEGAL determination of when life begins ? If you are basing your opposition to abortion on religion how do intend to enforce it on those that do not aggree with your religion ? Do you intend to also force your religion on the unbelievers ? not everyone believes that a 16 week old fetus is a person . Why is it wrong to abort it by someone with those beliefs ?

Can you go to court and prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a soul ? Can you prove in court that a 16 week old fetus is a person ?

 

[Pako]

The scientific community cannot, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove when a fetus becomes 'aware'. I mentioned nothing of the existence of a soul or religious morals to keep this discussion neutral. To use your words, I would trample over the rights of a woman for nine months so that a baby can have it's rights for a lifetime. Nine months, or a lifetime, you do the math.

Again, read the last sentence of post 363, I don't think it's sinking in just yet.

Anyways, believe what you will, I value life differently than you and look at life long solutions, whereas you look at short term inconveniences.

 

[Swift]

The scientific community cannot, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove when a fetus becomes 'aware'. I mentioned nothing of the existence of a soul or religious morals to keep this discussion neutral. To use your words, I would trample over the rights of a woman for nine months so that a baby can have it's rights for a lifetime. Nine months, or a lifetime, you do the math.

Again, read the last sentence of post 363, I don't think it's sinking in just yet.

Anyways, believe what you will, I value life differently than you and look at life long solutions, whereas you look at short term inconveniences.

Now my question to myself is why didn't I say that earlier.

 

[ledhed]

The scientific community cannot, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove when a fetus becomes 'aware'. I mentioned nothing of the existence of a soul or religious morals to keep this discussion neutral. To use your words, I would trample over the rights of a woman for nine months so that a baby can have it's rights for a lifetime. Nine months, or a lifetime, you do the math.

Again, read the last sentence of post 363, I don't think it's sinking in just yet.

Anyways, believe what you will, I value life differently than you and look at life long solutions, whereas you look at short term inconveniences.

By that logic wearing a rubber during sex is depriving a baby its rights potentialy .

Again you feel that forcing someone to have a child against their will is an " inconvienance " I feel its much.. much more than that . I also do not think life begins until a baby is able to live outside the womb..approx 6 months into term .
Others believe that life begins at birth . The problem is how do you determine in a fair way ..beyond a reasonable doubt ..when a person with rights is created ?
Once you do that I am sure most all of this argument will be moot.


You are very wrong to say I or anyone else dosnt have the same "value " of life or on life . We most likely value it the same . We definately do not have the same view as to when " life " begins and is accorded the rights we all enjoy.

 

[Danoff]

The only time that the right of life is in conflict with the mother is during few pregnancies where there is a reasonable threat of fatal injury to the mother. Other than that, the conflict that you speak of (unless I misunderstood) should not be compared because the right of Life should outweigh the right of Choice in this matter.

That's a moral game I'm not willing to play. To remove a person's right over their body for any reason other than criminal activity is morally reprehensible.

Let's consider a hypothetical. Let's pretend for a moment that we are talking about comparing a woman's right to her body with another person's right to life. On the one hand you have an 85 year old man and on the other hand you have a 5 year old girl. You have a choice, the 85 year old man can die, or the 5 year old girl can be disfigured for life. Which will you choose? It's the same scenario as abortion, only the ages have been changed. If the ages matter to you, ask yourself what ages would make it ok?

Unlike you I don't find that an easy choice. Either one is morally wrong and I refuse to choose between them. What you don't realize is that you don't have to choose between them either.

Anyways, believe what you will, I value life differently than you and look at life long solutions, whereas you look at short term inconveniences.

This is not productive. To call the barbaric notion of forcing a woman to bring an unwanted child into the world, especially if it was conceived against her will, is not an "inconvenience"... its a moral crime. To say that you look at "life long solutions" whereas your opponents do not is completely absurd. You do value life differently than I do. You value the potential for life above life itself. You value potential life at seemingly any moral cost.

Pako, let me ask you something. How would you like to see things work? The mother is forced to give birth to the child? What if a pill were invented that aborted the fetus? The mother is not allowed to take it? Is the mother not to eat or drink anything that might harm the future child? Are the mother's diet and daily activities the subject of government regulation? Is the mother to be criminally investigated if she miscarries?

At exactly what point are you comfortable with forcing the mother to continue supporting the fetus's development? 2 months? 4 months? 1 day? On what grounds do you base that number if not religious? How do you define human life?

These are questions that you have to answer that I do not.

I also do not think life begins until a baby is able to live outside the womb..approx 6 months into term .

Ledhed, why do you define that as the moment life begins? That amount of time changes as our medical technology advances. Is a 4 month old fetus not a life today but one will be 10 years from now? How does that make any objective sense?

 

[Pako]

By that logic wearing a rubber during sex is depriving a baby its rights potentialy .

Again you feel that forcing someone to have a child against their will is an " inconvienance " I feel its much.. much more than that . I also do not think life begins until a baby is able to live outside the womb..approx 6 months into term .
Others believe that life begins at birth . The problem is how do you determine in a fair way ..beyond a reasonable doubt ..when a person with rights is created ?
Once you do that I am sure most all of this argument will be moot.


You are very wrong to say I or anyone else dosnt have the same "value " of life or on life . We most likely value it the same . We definately do not have the same view as to when " life " begins and is accorded the rights we all enjoy.

I am not talking about sex here. A woman gets pregnant, guess what's next? Anyone, anyone?

*drum roll*

A BABY!

My unqualified opinion is that human life begins when she becomes pregnant, not when it can wipe it's own butt.

And we clearly do not share the same value on life. Our difference of opinions makes that rather clear and undeniable.

 

[ledhed]

Ledhed, why do you define that as the moment life begins? That amount of time changes as our medical technology advances. Is a 4 month old fetus not a life today but one will be 10 years from now? How does that make any objective sense?

I guess I am going by what I feel based on all the evidence I have seen . A premature baby is aware of its surroundings in the womb and its life is sustainable outside the womb . To decide to terminate it IMO outside of a direct threat to the mothers life is wrong. I would not try to force this view on anyone else because that itself would also be wrong. It should be left to each individuals beliefs how to approach contraception and abortion. Unless of course we can be given clear evidence of when a person becomes a person that is legal beyond a reasonable doubt . No one will convince me that a 3 week old group of cells is worthy of that determination ..its potential life to me no more . And if a person decides to have an abortion at that point they are not killing a baby , they are just preventing one from being born ..no more so than wearing a rubber or taking a pill. They are denying a potential life from being formed . Thats what parents ... IMO good parents ..are supposed to do . Choose when to bring new life into the world .
( unless of course you are a follower of the Pope and other religions that say otherwise ) .

And we clearly do not share the same value on life. Our difference of opinions makes that rather clear and undeniable

So by your logic someone who believes that by masturbating he is killing babys values life more ? Or someone who believes a married couple who doesnt practice birth controll because of whatever religion and have babies even though they cant afford or support them in any way somehow values life more than I do ?

 

[Pako]

danoff,

You are calling carrying a child to term barbaric and a moral crime? How would you define the tearing and ripping apart of a human fetus? I know you can see the hypocrisy here. Like you, I would rather not have to make that choice in the case of sex crimes. I see the child as a innocent bystander in this case, but would hope to never be close to that situation. The rationalization would be to see that fetus as part of the attacker, as evil, or non-existent to help in the coping of the situation.

 

[Danoff]

The rationalization would be to see that fetus as part of the attacker, as evil, or non-existent to help in the coping of the situation.

How about simply against the will of the person upon whom pregnancy has been inflicted.

You are calling caring a child to term barbaric and a moral crime? How would you define the tearing and ripping apart of a human fetus?

I am not calling the act of bringing a child to term barbaric or a moral crime. I am calling the act of forcing another human being to bring a child to term against her will barbaric and morally wrong. The thought of it makes me sick.

I would define the tearing and ripping apart of a human fetus as disgusting. Much like playing in one's feces is disgusting or puke is disgusting, or the mutilation of one's own penis is disgusting. Never-the-less, a fetus is physically part of the mother and under her control just as much as a man's genitalia or eyeballs or arms are part of him.

 

[Pako]

*snip*

So by your logic someone who believes that by masturbating he is killing babys values life more ? Or someone who believes a married couple who doesnt practice birth controll because of whatever religion and have babies even though they cant afford or support them in any way somehow values life more than I do ?

I can't believe I'm entertaining these questions.

If she's pregnant, and unless that fetus dies, she is having a baby. A baby is not going to get born from sperm getting flushed down the toilet.

Not sure about your second question, maybe.....maybe not. Relevance?

 

[Swift]

Danoff, can ask you something. Two people have sex. The woman gets pregnant. The guy wants to keep the child but the girl wants an abortion. What do you do?

 

[Pako]

How about simply against the will of the person upon whom pregnancy has been inflicted.



I am not calling the act of bringing a child to term barbaric or a moral crime. I am calling the act of forcing another human being to bring a child to term against her will barbaric and morally wrong. The thought of it makes me sick.

I would define the tearing and ripping apart of a human fetus as disgusting. Much like playing in one's feces is disgusting or puke is disgusting, or the mutilation of one's own penis is disgusting. Never-the-less, a fetus is physically part of the mother and under her control just as much as a man's genitalia or eyeballs or arms are part of him.

So you're definately Pro Choice as it comes to sex crimes and other extreem cases. What about non-extreem cases?

 

[Danoff]

So you're definately Pro Choice as it comes to sex crimes and other extreem cases. What about non-extreem cases?

My quote was not limited to sex crimes (extreme or otherwise).

Danoff, can ask you something. Two people have sex. The woman gets pregnant. The guy wants to keep the child but the girl wants an abortion. What do you do?

Until the fetus is separated from the mother it is part of and influences her body heavily and is thus under her control. The father does not get any control over the situation until the fetus is physically detatched from the mother (no longer physically affecting her).

 

[Pako]

I think I'm out.... Round and round. Do the math, 9 months vs. a lifetime. Re-read post 363.

Peace

 

[ledhed]

I'm trying to find as many case studys in criminal law that address when life begins . This is interesting ;


The moral answer is a bit different, because it must respond to disparities that the law need not take fully into account. "Viability" represents an important milestone in fetal development for purposes of abortion law, because the viable fetus can be said to have an existence "independent" of that of its mother. Simply removing the viable fetus from its mother's womb no longer automatically entails the death of the fetus, in the way that it would have earlier in pregnancy. Therefore, the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy no longer physically necessitates a death.

Because the right to choose abortion is a right on the part of the woman to physical integrity and not a per se right to kill an unwanted fetus, the moment that physical integrity becomes compatible with fetal life, the right to maintain one no longer includes the right to terminate the other. (For similar reasons, a genetic mother has no right to terminate a surrogate mother's pregnancy, no matter how much the former wants to avoid becoming a genetic parent.) The constitutional right to abortion is simply a right to stop being pregnant, no more and no less.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20040128.html

 

[Swift]

Until the fetus is separated from the mother it is part of and influences her body heavily and is thus under her control. The father does not get any control over the situation until the fetus is physically detatched from the mother (no longer physically affecting her).

Wow, unreal. You'd just give up your child? truly unbelievable. :

 

[Arwin]

Wow, unreal. You'd just give up your child? truly unbelievable. :

It's not a matter of giving up your child, Swift. I have neither right nor desire to force anyone through 9 months of being pregnant (do you even know what that means?) and to become a mother against her will. She has a choice, and when she decides she's not up to it, that is her choice and her right.

By goodness, Swift. When you're pregnant, your body becomes the slave of a parasite for 9 months, undergoes tremendous physical changes some which never reverse, increased health-risks (look them up), you become temporarily severely limited in your mobility, have to worry about your back, can't work for at the very, very least and if all goes well, 6 weeks, suffer post-natal depression, and have to live with there being a child out there that you didn't want but of whom you will be the biological mother nonetheless. All these things are great, bonding sacrifices when you make them willingly. But if not made willingly, they are traumatising and torturous.

You'd have to be an incredible bastard not to respect any of that. Some of you guys are really being guys about this, aren't you? Self-rightiousness without either respect to women or even a half-decent understanding of what life is apparently gives you enough right to judge others.

Yes, Pako, I mean you too. The concept of aware, well, self-awareness doesn't arise before children start actively remembering their own memories 'as their own'. Only by the age of 6 do children start to develop such a sense of self-awareness that they can understand that other children and other people are separate beings with thoughts and desires of their own, are separate individuals. The concept of self is a pretty complicated one, and doesn't evolve in the complex machine that is the human being overnight. It takes a long time of being in the company of others and a lot of higher-brain functions.

The concept of awareness on the other hand is not even all that interesting. Awareness-without-self just means that a being has a sense that can send signals to other parts of its body to which it can react. A bee is aware in that sense, but not self-aware.

 

[Arwin]

I'm trying to find as many case studys in criminal law that address when life begins . This is interesting ;


The moral answer is a bit different, because it must respond to disparities that the law need not take fully into account. "Viability" represents an important milestone in fetal development for purposes of abortion law, because the viable fetus can be said to have an existence "independent" of that of its mother. Simply removing the viable fetus from its mother's womb no longer automatically entails the death of the fetus, in the way that it would have earlier in pregnancy. Therefore, the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy no longer physically necessitates a death.

Because the right to choose abortion is a right on the part of the woman to physical integrity and not a per se right to kill an unwanted fetus, the moment that physical integrity becomes compatible with fetal life, the right to maintain one no longer includes the right to terminate the other. (For similar reasons, a genetic mother has no right to terminate a surrogate mother's pregnancy, no matter how much the former wants to avoid becoming a genetic parent.) The constitutional right to abortion is simply a right to stop being pregnant, no more and no less.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20040128.html

Law on these matters is increasingly complicated by the desire for harsher punishment on murder of or violence against pregnant women that also terminates the pregnancy. Bitter people out for revenge prefer a double-manslaughter case, for obvious reasons. I believe that is totally unnecessary though - what matters is if the parent(s) were intending to keep and invest in it, in other words considered the zygote as their future child, as with the current state of medicine they have decent statistics to support their expectation that the pregnancy would have eventually resulted in the birth of a healthy child.

 

[Famine]

The scientific community cannot, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove when a fetus becomes 'aware'.

Actually, that's not entirely true.

You can easily determine awareness. You can easily determine lack of awareness. Thing is, it differs foetus to foetus. But, in general, you can say that since a foetus HAS NO BRAIN until ~16 weeks it cannot possibly be aware of its surroundings. If you don't believe me, here's a simple experiment.

1. Monkey.
2. Throw banana to monkey.
3. Remove monkey's brain.
4. Throw banana to monkey.

So with no awareness, no consciousness, no possibility to feel pain, no medically-defined life and no legally-defined life, what, precisely, is immoral or barbaric about a pre-16-week abortion? It's right there with a tonsillectomy or haemorrhoid removal (although tonsils and haemorrhoids at least have pain receptors in them).



danoff brings forward a VERY good point. I know - and you know - that smoking and drinking alcohol during pregnancy CAN result in physical harm to the foetus. Would you prosecute mothers who ignore this "advice" with assault - or the equivalent offence - if the child is anything less than physically perfect? Would you perhaps ban them from doing any of these activities during pregnancy?

What about working? Working mothers subject themselves to stress which can affect the foetus adversely. Perhaps women should be banned from working at the moment of conception too?

 

[TheCracker]

I find it better to be humane than to make scientific assumptions in this case. Wouldn't you agree?

What's humane about being born unwanted and unloved, into poverty or with AIDS? - especially when we can avoid it with an abortion.

A lot of the pro-life arguments concentrate on the sanctity of life - what about the quality of life for these unwanted babies?

 

[Swift]

It's not a matter of giving up your child, Swift. I have neither right nor desire to force anyone through 9 months of being pregnant (do you even know what that means?) and to become a mother against her will. She has a choice, and when she decides she's not up to it, that is her choice and her right.

By goodness, Swift. When you're pregnant, your body becomes the slave of a parasite for 9 months, undergoes tremendous physical changes some which never reverse, increased health-risks (look them up), you become temporarily severely limited in your mobility, have to worry about your back, can't work for at the very, very least and if all goes well, 6 weeks, suffer post-natal depression, and have to live with there being a child out there that you didn't want but of whom you will be the biological mother nonetheless. All these things are great, bonding sacrifices when you make them willingly. But if not made willingly, they are traumatising and torturous.

You'd have to be an incredible bastard not to respect any of that. Some of you guys are really being guys about this, aren't you? Self-rightiousness without either respect to women or even a half-decent understanding of what life is apparently gives you enough right to judge others.

Yes, Pako, I mean you too. The concept of aware, well, self-awareness doesn't arise before children start actively remembering their own memories 'as their own'. Only by the age of 6 do children start to develop such a sense of self-awareness that they can understand that other children and other people are separate beings with thoughts and desires of their own, are separate individuals. The concept of self is a pretty complicated one, and doesn't evolve in the complex machine that is the human being overnight. It takes a long time of being in the company of others and a lot of higher-brain functions.

First, there's no way you're going to tell me that children don't understand that other people are separate people until the age of 6. I know a 3 year old and a 4 year old that are very conscience of the fact that there are other people besides themselves.

Second, and I've said this before plenty of times, the choice should be made BEFORE sex not after.

You know what really makes me mad about pro-choice concepts? Is that there are married couples all over this country that through no fault of their own either have difficulty or simply can't have children. Then you have the people just killing them off because they'd be a nuisance or the woman doesn't feel like going to term because of the "parasitic" experience.

Life is absolutely precious and if you engage in activities that are going to produce a new life, then you should be prepared to accept them. If you engage in smoking, don't be surprised if you get cancer. If you engage in drinking don't be surprised to have liver disease. If you have sex with someone, especially not your spouse, don't be surprised to get AIDS, another STD or pregnant.

 

[Famine]

You know what really makes me mad about pro-choice concepts? Is that there are married couples all over this country that through no fault of their own either have difficulty or simply can't have children. Then you have the people just killing them off because they'd be a nusance or the woman doesn't feel like going to term because of the "parasitic" experience.

Some people can have kids and don't want them, some can't and do want them. S*** happens. That's life - deal with it.

If we're all God-made, why does God make childless couples? Why do you think we should go against His plan and give them children?

This being the question, what's your stance on IVF - an intrusive medical procedure to give children to those who are physically incapable of it?

If you engage in smoking, don't be surprised if you get cancer. If you engage in drinking don't be surprised to have liver disease. If you have sex with someone, especially not your spouse, don't be surprised to get AIDS, another STD or pregnant.

Case 1: Chemotherapy and surgery - possibly a transplant.
Case 2: A transplant.
Case 3: An abortion.

Now you see I was lambasted earlier for exactly the same examples and yet here you are using them. And again you have no problem with turning to medicine to cure people of the consequences of their actions - as long as it isn't sex.

 

[Swift]

Some people can have kids and don't want them, some can't and do want them. S*** happens. That's life - deal with it.

If we're all God-made, why does God make childless couples? Why do you think we should go against His plan and give them children?

This being the question, what's your stance on IVF - an intrusive medical procedure to give children to those who are physically incapable of it?

You misunderstood what I said. My point was that the people that can't have children wish they could and so many people that can are just killing them

Case 1: Chemotherapy and surgery - possibly a transplant.
Case 2: A transplant.
Case 3: An abortion.

Now you see I was lambasted earlier for exactly the same examples and yet here you are using them. And again you have no problem with turning to medicine to cure people of the consequences of their actions - as long as it isn't sex.

What I'm saying here is that there are DIRECT consequences for actions so don't be surprised about the "penalties" of said actions. I'm not talking about treatment or lack there of. Just the cause/effect relationship

 

[Famine]

You misunderstood what I said. My point was that the people that can't have children wish they could and so many people that can are just killing them

Or not killing them - which is kind of the crux.

I GOT the point - the underlying implication being that the "haves" should deliver their babies and give them up for adoption for the "have-nots". My point was that there are ALWAYS haves and have-nots. Is it always right to force those that "have" to endure physical hardship in order that the "have-nots" can become "haves"? Which takes us circling all the way back to taxes...

What I'm saying here is that there are DIRECT consequences for actions so don't be surprised about the "penalties" of said actions. I'm not talking about treatment or lack there of. Just the cause/effect relationship

And you're willing to allow treatment to those whose decisions have led them to a physical ailment. As long as they're not sex-based decisions.