When is abortion wrong?

[Danoff]

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.

I disagree. The constitutional right to abortion is the right to have control over one's own body, not to simply stop being pregnant. Since the fetus is part of the mother during pregnancy, the fetus is under her control regardless of what would happen if it were removed from her.

Once the fetus is separated from the mother it is no longer completely in her control and is protected by rights and given citizenship.

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

Not everyone believes it is "killing" and their need does not entitle them to someone else's pregnancy.

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.

Almost correct. I would change "if you engage in activities that are going to produce a new life" to "if you produce a new life".

 

[///M-Spec]

Out of curiosity, has anyone reading this thread had a change of mind due do the arguments presented by both sides? Have you been swayed from one stance to the other?

Lurkers, please speak up.


M

 

[Swift]

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...



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.

I'm not saying that the haves should give to the have nots. That's being Robin Hood and not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that life is extremely precious and shouldn't be taken for granted.

If I had my way, people that smoke, drink, do drugs or put other KNOWN poisons in their body should pay remarkably high insurance rates or not be able to get insurance at all. For the sheer fact that they are making it harder for the entire health system by their "choices".

Almost correct. I would change "if you engage in activities that are going to produce a new life" to "if you produce a new life".

And I am assuming that you're talking about the time at which a baby is a baby right?

 

[Arwin]

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.

But they don't understand that these have thoughts and feelings and desires like themselves. Their world view is still almost completely ego-centric.

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

I know but no matter how often you say it, that doesn't make it more true. You do not seem to understand the consequences of that stance nor that the reasons you judge it on are groundless, no matter how foolish your arguments look when we shed some decent light on them, whether from a theological, social or scientific perspective, and so I'm ready to give up on you.

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.

Then let them simply pay someone to do so.

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.

How does having sex with someone not your spouse increase the chances that you get pregnant? (I wonder what you'd make of the fact that having extramarital sex increases the chance you get pregnant, or, for that matter, even thinking about another woman while having sex with your own ... )

When you have sex, take precautions, and still get pregnant, you can have an abortion, and you can do so without any moral or legal concerns other than those you choose to entertain yourselfs easily up to the 16th week of pregnancy, period. If your parents failed to educate you about safe sex, and you succumb to powerful pheromones and hormones, you have the right to choose for an abortion, period. Heck, even if you succumbed to the strong urges that hormones put into you and that results in a pregnancy that is not beneficial to you, you can have that abortion, period. (somehow, I find the use of the word period appropriate in this paragraph)

Your "new life" is only marginally more precious than fertile cells stored in a womans ovary of which one is dumped each month, and almost as easily created. A person is an investment and an independent individual capable of suffering, and represents a great investment in terms of carrying a pregnancy to term, labor, medical support, care, and so on.

The transition from your "new life" to a person is a gradual one in terms of subjective appreciation from the parents and society, but in terms of something that deserves the protection of the state overruling the souvereignty a woman has over her own body, life certainly does not begin at conception.

 

[TheCracker]

If I had my way, people that smoke, drink, do drugs or put other KNOWN poisons in their body should pay remarkably high insurance rates or not be able to get insurance at all. For the sheer fact that they are making it harder for the entire health system by their "choices".

So you and the other half-dozen or so people on the planet who do none of these terrible activities would be happy to prop-up the entire insurance industry with your premiums?

Driving cars, riding in planes, using electricity all produces poisons that others have to endure - do you suppose these should be banned?

 

[Danoff]

And I am assuming that you're talking about the time at which a baby is a baby right?

I define life as beginning at birth.

If I had my way, people that smoke, drink, do drugs or put other KNOWN poisons in their body should pay remarkably high insurance rates or not be able to get insurance at all. For the sheer fact that they are making it harder for the entire health system by their "choices".

They pay for their insurance and their insurance companies wouldn't carry them if they weren't certain in would make them a profit.

 

[Pako]

Out of curiosity, has anyone reading this thread had a change of mind due do the arguments presented by both sides? Have you been swayed from one stance to the other?

Lurkers, please speak up.


M

I would be curious as well, anyone?

 

[Swift]

I know but no matter how often you say it, that doesn't make it more true. You do not seem to understand the consequences of that stance nor that the reasons you judge it on are groundless, no matter how foolish your arguments look when we shed some decent light on them, whether from a theological, social or scientific perspective, and so I'm ready to give up on you.

Uh, let's see. Scenario 1: When you have sex there is the possibility of having a child. If you don't want a child, get an abortion after becoming pregnant. Scenario 2: When you don't have sex, there's zero chance of having a child so there is no need for abortion, in almost all cases.

So how does that need any other stance or perspective to be correct?

How does having sex with someone not your spouse increase the chances that you get pregnant? (I wonder what you'd make of the fact that having extramarital sex increases the chance you get pregnant, or, for that matter, even thinking about another woman while having sex with your own ... )

When you have sex, take precautions, and still get pregnant, you can have an abortion, and you can do so without any moral or legal concerns other than those you choose to entertain yourselfs easily up to the 16th week of pregnancy, period. If your parents failed to educate you about safe sex, and you succumb to powerful pheromones and hormones, you have the right to choose for an abortion, period. Heck, even if you succumbed to the strong urges that hormones put into you and that results in a pregnancy that is not beneficial to you, you can have that abortion, period. (somehow, I find the use of the word period appropriate in this paragraph)

The transition from your "new life" to a person is a gradual one in terms of subjective appreciation from the parents and society, but in terms of something that deserves the protection of the state overruling the souvereignty a woman has over her own body, life certainly does not begin at conception.

First, I didn't just say pregnancy did I? I said STD's as well. Please read the entire post. And I never said it increased the chance of you getting pregnant. I said that people shouldn't be surprised when it happens.

Also, your definition of life, like mine, is subjective not objective. I think it's amazing that a baby isn't a baby at 15.9 weeks but is a baby at 16 weeks and shouldn't be aborted, according to what you just said.

So you and the other half-dozen or so people on the planet who do none of these terrible activities would be happy to prop-up the entire insurance industry with your premiums?

Driving cars, riding in planes, using electricity all produces poisons that others have to endure - do you suppose these should be banned?

If you go by that standard, you shouldn't even attempt to live because everything you do puts you at danger. What I'm talking about are things that deliberately raise the risk of health disease. Tobacco, Drinking and drugs being the primary examples. The things that are 100% self imposed by the choice of the user.

 

[Danoff]

Scenario 1: When you have sex there is the possibility of having a child. If you don't want a child, get an abortion after becoming pregnant. Scenario 2: When you don't have sex, there's zero chance of having a child so there is no need for abortion, in almost all cases.

Morally there is no difference between these scenarios.

 

[Swift]

Morally there is no difference between these scenarios.

Your "morality" is obviously radically different then mine.

 

[Famine]

Your "morality" is obviously radically different then mine.

Not really. You're both against killing children. What differs is your definition of what is a child.

 

[Danoff]

Not really. You're both against killing children. What differs is your definition of what is a child.

👍

I don't think this argument can be summed up any better than that. Too much attention is paid to alternate arguments here when the bottom line is the above... when is it a child, and what reason do you have to think that?

 

[Swift]

👍

I don't think this argument can be summed up any better than that. Too much attention is paid to alternate arguments here when the bottom line is the above... when is it a child, and what reason do you have to think that?

I agree, but that brings us back to the whole 16 week thing.

 

[Danoff]

I agree, but that brings us back to the whole 16 week thing.

What's the 16 week thing? Do you think abortion is ok before 16 weeks? That's not consistent with what you've been saying so I have to guess no.

 

[Pako]

I know I said I was out, but thought I would share some additional perspective.

Self Awareness is the key here. Famine's example of a monkey, although entertaining, only proves that a monkey doesn't have motor skills without a brain. You CAN be aware without any outward appearances of being aware. Lack of reaction does not mean lack of awareness. Humans are very complex and this issue of when a human becomes 'aware' or when a human gets it's soul is something that has baffled and riddled scientists and theologians for some time.

Do you remember taking your first breath of air? Do you remember what the first thing was that you saw? You have a fully functioning brain at birth, yet you can’t remember those things? There are different levels of awareness that we do not understand or comprehend.

Your 16-week fetus is very much alive. Movement is very common, and sucking noises can be detected.

Here’s what a 16-week fetus looks like:

 

[Swift]

What's the 16 week thing? Do you think abortion is ok before 16 weeks? That's not consistent with what you've been saying so I have to guess no.

No, I was refering to what famine said here:

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).

 

[Danoff]

Here’s what a 16-week fetus looks like:

That's a great picture Pako. Nice lighting in that and good coloring. Not that it changes anything in my mind but I'm wondering if the picture is real. If it isn't real there certainly is no point in drawing attention to the ear for example.

You CAN be aware without any outward appearances of being aware. Lack of reaction does not mean lack of awareness.

All of that is true, but it doesn't mean you can be aware without a brain. Can you be aware when you're nothing but 4 cells? How about 8? 16?

Your 16-week fetus is very much alive. Movement is very common, and sucking noises can be detected.

Movement does not imply awareness, a soul, or a conciousness. Neither do sucking noises - by the way what is doing the sucking and what is being sucked?

Do you remember taking your first breath of air? Do you remember what the first thing was that you saw? You have a fully functioning brain at birth, yet you can’t remember those things?

...which would imply that you do not have a fully developed brain at birth.

Self Awareness is the key here.

Awareness of self doesn't occur until well after the baby is born... so I hope not. Besides, I think you have to show that self awareness, or just awareness is the key - not just assert it.

 

[Arwin]

Uh, let's see. Scenario 1: When you have sex there is the possibility of having a child. If you don't want a child, get an abortion after becoming pregnant. Scenario 2: When you don't have sex, there's zero chance of having a child so there is no need for abortion, in almost all cases.

So how does that need any other stance or perspective to be correct?

Let's see. Scenario one. If you have safe sex there is very little chance of having a child. Still, it might happen. In those rare cases, there is nothing wrong with having an abortion, because it is little different from said precautions, albeit a little more inconvenient (unless you're still timely enough to take the abortion pill). In my personal experience, we got pregnant for the right reasons, but at the wrong time. As it happens, it did save us from consulting the fertility clinic or finding out later that we might not be able to have children. But as it stands, abortion just isn't wrong. Even if we wanted to play a game of risky sex in which we risk a pregnancy, and we get off on that, we should be able to, though I'm sure that after experiencing one real abortion that's a habit easily foregone, because it is not a pleasant experience and not something people undergo lightly.

There's nothing wrong with having sex. There is little healthier than having (safe - i.e. with your partner, or with protection) sex. If you happen to be a person with hardly any hormones in you and no desire to have sex, or are perfectly happy to have sex with yourself (are you allowed to do that?) don't force your way of life onto us.

First, I didn't just say pregnancy did I? I said STD's as well. Please read the entire post. And I never said it increased the chance of you getting pregnant. I said that people shouldn't be surprised when it happens.

I did read the entire post. I just responded to the bits that I thought was worth responding to. You might as well argue that you shouldn't have children because you'd run an increased risk of catching the flu and other diseases because children bring them home from school.

Also, your definition of life, like mine, is subjective not objective. I think it's amazing that a baby isn't a baby at 15.9 weeks but is a baby at 16 weeks and shouldn't be aborted, according to what you just said.

On the contrary, I took the 16 weeks as a starting point from which a process visibly begins that eventually results in a full blown Person. It is the absolute earliest point from which a discussion about whether we are dealing with a Person is even remotely possible. Before 16 weeks, that discussion is scientifically moot, non-valid, non-sensical, it is an ex-discussion. That is not to say that I believe we are already dealing with a Person at 16 weeks, just that before this point there isn't a even a discussion possible.

 

[Swift]

On the contrary, I took the 16 weeks as a starting point from which a process visibly begins that eventually results in a full blown Person. It is the absolute earliest point from which a discussion about whether we are dealing with a Person is even remotely possible. Before 16 weeks, that discussion is scientifically moot, non-valid, non-sensical, it is an ex-discussion. That is not to say that I believe we are already dealing with a Person at 16 weeks, just that before this point there isn't a even a discussion possible.

So, at 15 weeks and 5 days it's not a viable starting point for a full blown person?

 

[Arwin]

So, at 15 weeks and 5 days it's not a viable starting point for a full blown person?

Before we have this discussion again, could you do me a favor and just read back what I've written so far about the kinds of things we can talk about when we discuss what a person is, and then match that with the development of a foetus, and then point out to me where you have a problem, exactly? That is, if you really care.

 

[Swift]

Before we have this discussion again, could you do me a favor and just read back what I've written so far about the kinds of things we can talk about when we discuss what a person is, and then match that with the development of a foetus, and then point out to me where you have a problem, exactly? That is, if you really care.

My point is that you can't put a universal time for every single foetus. That's my point.

By that standpoint, it would be fine to terminate the child right up until child birth.

 

[ledhed]

Swift you ALREADY have a time table for when abortions are permited . read the abortion laws .

 

[Swift]

Swift you ALREADY have a time table for when abortions are permited . read the abortion laws .

Ledhed, check the title of the thread.

And just because it's law doesn't make it right. Can you say "Jim Crow"?

 

[Arwin]

My point is that you can't put a universal time for every single foetus. That's my point.

By that standpoint, it would be fine to terminate the child right up until child birth.

And I tend to agree with that in theory, because based on scientific evidence so far I believe a person doesn't come about fully until well after birth.

However, I don't mind healthy safety margins at this point. I picked 16 weeks because from that time on, something remotely like a brain has started to function. Although miles a way off still from forming a person, with the tiny beginnings of perceptual memory, it is at least something you could point at as a starting point. And that, together with that 16 weeks should be ample time to make up your mind about having or not having the child, seems as decent point as any.

 

[Swift]

And I tend to agree with that in theory, because based on scientific evidence so far I believe a person doesn't come about fully until well after birth.

However, I don't mind healthy safety margins at this point. I picked 16 weeks because from that time on, something remotely like a brain has started to function. Although miles a way off still from forming a person, with the tiny beginnings of perceptual memory, it is at least something you could point at as a starting point. And that, together with that 16 weeks should be ample time to make up your mind about having or not having the child, seems as decent point as any.

Hmm...

Well, I'm of the mindset that once the process of life has begun, who are we to stop it?

 

[Danoff]

Well, I'm of the mindset that once the process of life has begun, who are we to stop it?

We're the people supporting that process, enabling it through our sacrifice to continue.

 

[Famine]

My point is that you can't put a universal time for every single foetus. That's my point.

You're making more of the 16-week figure than you should.

It's simply not the case that at 15.999 weeks you don't have brain activity and that at 16.000 weeks you do. It's a safety buffer - no foetus in the entire recorded history of human foetuses has ever had brain activity before 17 weeks. 17 weeks and a couple of days, yes, but not before 17 weeks. So the 16 week buffer is put in because it is impossible for a foetus at any point before that to have brain activity and merely improbable in the next week. So yes you CAN put a universal time for every single foetus - and it's not a universal time for when it springs to "life", but a universal time for when it cannot possibly be considered a separate entity.

A human foetus is not viable before it has brain activity and a controlled heartbeat. This doesn't occur until "about" 24 weeks. The legal limit for abortion is, I believe, 23 weeks in the UK. However, there ARE foetuses which are viable in week 22.

 

[Swift]

We're the people supporting that process, enabling it through our sacrifice to continue.

You're also the people that STARTED that process. So, I think that's a fair trade.

 

[Arwin]

Hmm...

Well, I'm of the mindset that once the process of life has begun, who are we to stop it?

An incredibly evolved species investing an aweful lot in its progeny and increasingly efficient in planning and taking care of that investment.

 

[Swift]

An incredibly evolved species investing an aweful lot in its progeny and increasingly efficient in planning and taking care of that investment.

What?