When is abortion wrong?

[Tacet_Blue]

I consider that after six months for it to be alive and anyways they've had all those months to think about it and should have their desicion made.

IA

Fair point, if you are going to have an abortion, the earlier the better. Moral issues aside, the risks to the mother in terms of blood loss and other complications escalate as the foetus gets larger.
Late abortions are not only morally objectionable, they are very dangerous.

As you say six months is long enough to have thought about it....but....

What if a severe genetic or medical condition is only detected at 6 months? There are always exceptions.

BTW My daughter is called Kitana you are probably named after a sword, she was named after a famous fighting character...something she will kill me for when she realises

Edit:

Secondly, what's your definition of "alive"?

Personally I wouldn't say a foetus was alive until it was born and had taken it's first breath.
(I'm using that word, Swift says child, but a child can walk...what about using the word baby instead)

Have you ever seen the amount of effort and technology employed by a neo-natal unit when they try to sustain a premature baby.
Even when it is stable they don't say that it is alive...they call it viable

 

[Swift]

BTW My daughter is called Kitana you are probably named after a sword, she was named after a famous fighting character...something she will kill me for when she realises

Please tell me it's not after the character for Mortal Kombat.

Also, about the defect that can only be detected at 6 months. That goes back to the quality of life argument.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Please tell me it's not after the character for Mortal Kombat.

I'm afraid so... but it is Princess Kitana, and she is a Princess Everyone thinks its a cute name and they call her Kitty at school (which is sweet)...I'm keeping quiet about where it came from
Anyways...

Also, about the defect that can only be detected at 6 months. That goes back to the quality of life argument.

Yep..and its a tough choice.
Have you seen that documentary about the boy whose skin fell off. He was an amazing kid..very pragmatic, but he wished he had never been born. He endured a lifetime of pain before he died at a young age.

It's a very tough call, and I genuinely hope no one here has to go through it.

Edit: My daughter lives with her mother, I have a new partner now, yes Swift I'm an amoral heathen spreading my demon seed around outside wedlock

 

[Swift]

I'm afraid so... but it is Princess Kitana, and she is a Princess Everyone thinks its a cute name and they call her Kitty at school (which is sweet)...I'm keeping quiet about where it came from
Anyways...

Wow, and I thought I was a gamer. You own me in that category. You're CHILD is named after a character in Mortal Kombat. Man, I just can't hang with that!

Yep..and its a tough choice.
Have you seen that documentary about the boy whose skin fell off. He was an amazing kid..very pragmatic, but he wished he had never been born. He endured a lifetime of pain before he died at a young age.

It's a very tough call, and I genuinely hope no one here has to go through it.

Edit: My daughter lives with her mother, I have a new partner now, yes Swift I'm an amoral heathen spreading my demon seed around outside wedlock

Well, that is a tough decision. Exceptionally tough.

BTW, I now understand your viewpoint of this entire situation much better.

 

[Famine]

When we get the first GTP-offspring called "B-Spec Bob" is when we have to start worrying.

 

[katana87]

IA

 

[katana87]

People can deliver without ever being aware they're pregnant...

Secondly, what's your definition of "alive"?

What ever yours is

 

[Pako]

When we get the first GTP-offspring called "B-Spec Bob" is when we have to start worrying.

So can this be answered in a "yes" or "no" fashion? Is abortion wrong because it kills unborn humans? This can be argued (see prior posts) that human fetus' aren’t human. Some say that it is morally wrong, and shameful to kill our own unborn children. Are we not less human because we can destroy our own unborn off-spring? I see animal like behavior in those decisions, not human(e). Actually I take that back, aren't we the only mammals that kill their own unborn?

I don't think it's good to try and desensitize the issue by calling them fetus'. They ARE without a doubt, unborn children. I agree, it makes the thought of destroying an unborn child easier by calling it something sterile like "fetus", but lets not loose sight that we are talking about unborn children here. I'm trying to understand how anyone can say that it's ok to destroy an unborn child. It seems to clear to me that we need to allow these unborn children to live to the best of our ability and within our means to do so. I can see how someone might call it mercy, "they're better off not being born because.....", but it's not our right to make that decision for that unborn child. We don't have crystal balls that tell us what's going to happen to that child, we can only speculate as to it's outcome. For extreme cases of the mother dying or else....there are always alternatives to destroying the unborn child. Other reasons such as unplanned pregnancies and other "I wasn't ready......, don't want this child" should be ignored as people need to be responsible and accountable for their actions. Then we have sex crimes. It's not the unborn child’s fault, we make it yet another victim of the crime when we destroy it. So I just don't get it, sorry. I'm reading and reading and IF I think of the unborn child as just a parasite, then yes...I don't see a problem with abortion. Unfortunately I can't just look at a unborn child as a parasite, but rather a human waiting to be born.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

BTW, I now understand your viewpoint of this entire situation much better.

Wow...there must be something in the water

I'm not promoting abortion at all, it's not a decision anyone should take lightly.

I mentioned somewhere else, maybe way back in this very thread, that I have been involved in two abortions when I was much younger.
We used precautions, the pill, but it failed...twice!

In a way I'm glad that she took that path, as both our lives would have been ruined, we had no income, and we would have brought a child into the world with few options. I'll admit those reasons are slightly selfish, that's why I believe that a woman should have the choice whatever the reason, otherwise she will try it herself or seek a backstreet doctor, those African stats speak for themselves

That should really make you see where I'm coming from

Part of me will always wonder...but to deal with it, you don't think of it as a child. For the record they were both terminated around the second month.

Now I have a good career and when I met someone else, we both wanted a child, shame it didn't work out with the mother, but I have a beautiful daughter now and I can afford to buy her nice things

Heres a pic if you want to see

BTW I do actually enjoy arguing with you, at least you are consistent
When Arwin had a go at you, (he's a good guy, you must have wound him up to make him angry like that) I expected you to retaliate, glad you didn't, you gained a notch in my opinion of you

Edit Pako, I didn't see your post about desensitising...oh well you're certainly not going to like this one. Although maybe you can see why I try and desensitise...(uk spelling rules ) even if you fundamentally disagree with our choice at the time

 

[Famine]

I don't think it's good to try and desensitize the issue by calling them fetus'. They ARE without a doubt, unborn children.

It's not so much "desensitised" as "emotionally detached".

A foetus is an unborn child?

Is a dead person an "unliving human"?

Am I an un-Aston Martined slave?


A foetus has a potential to become a child, one day, if it's lucky. That doesn't mean is IS a child and should be treated as such. It means it ISN'T yet and shouldn't yet.

 

[Pako]

It's not so much "desensitised" as "emotionally detached".

A foetus is an unborn child?

Is a dead person an "unliving human"?

Am I an un-Aston Martined slave?


A foetus has a potential to become a child, one day, if it's lucky. That doesn't mean is IS a child and should be treated as such. It means it ISN'T yet and shouldn't yet.

"Emotionally detached" is also another good term for what happens if you look at an unborn child as simply a parasite.

A human fetus is very much a unborn child. What else might it be? Haven't read any scientific journals that state it to be any thing else.

A dead person is a dead human which I guess you could call "unliving" although most people just call them dead and I don't think that "unliving" is an actual word, but I know what you mean.

un-Aston Martined slave? Well you do type in indigo. Hard to say.

Edit: Tacet_Blue,
Didn't see your edit there. Beautiful daughter you have there. I'm sure you are very proud! As far as your prior decisions, those were yours to make. I was also in a similar situation almost 14 years ago. I now have a 13 year old son because of that situation. I didn't go to a technical school to study electronic engineering as I had planned, but I've managed to do alright for myself and I have a loving son whom I am very proud of and wouldn't trade for anything. Your assuming that you wouldn't have had a financially stable future with those children, I'm living proof that this is not always the case. Was it easy? By NO means was it easy. Was it worth it? Oh yeah, it was very worth it! But that's just me.

 

[Famine]

"Emotionally detached" is also another good term for what happens if you look at an unborn child as simply a parasite.

Yes and no.

Desensitised means you know, but you don't care. Emotionally detached means you are aware of the facile truth, but also can remain objective enough to view it in more absolute terms.

A human fetus is very much a unborn child. What else might it be? Haven't read any scientific journals that state it to be any thing else.

If 100% of foetuses progressed to being children then yes, a foetus is an unborn child. But they don't - so they aren't.


A foetus - up until the point it develops its own discreet responses to external stimuli (and that's TRUE responses, from a nervous system) - is just a bundle of developing cells which may, or may not, progress to term and which may, or may not, become a new human being. Until that point it is merely an organism which feeds of the host organism, to the host's physical detriment and the organism's physical benefit. This is the very definition of "parasite".

But this is all by-the-by. If you view foetuses as little children, you can NEVER bring yourself to "kill" one, nonsensical though the term is. If you view foetuses for what they actually are then you can.

One of the talents we have is to anthropomorphise (bestow human characteristics on things which are not human) - we do it with pets, we do it with computers, we do it with bugs and snakes. You're doing it with a foetus...


As an aside, do you think children are undeveloped adults?

On the basis of an affirmative answer, if foetuses are unborn children and should be afforded the same treatments and rights as actual children, why are children not afforded the same treatments and rights as adults?

 

[Swift]

On the basis of an affirmative answer, if foetuses are unborn children and should be afforded the same treatments and rights as actual children, why are children not afforded the same treatments and rights as adults?

I would have to say that rights and treatments are two different things. For instance. A child has the right to a trial, but generally doesn't get sentenced as an adult, but as a child.

So a child has similar rights to adults, but not the same responsibilities.

 

[Pako]

Are not children young adults, or as you put it, un-developed adults? I would think they are. The natural course of a child, although not always a 100%, is to become an adult. The natural course of a fetus, although not a 100%, is to become a child. Where exactly are you headed with this, other than helping support what I am saying?

 

[Famine]

Are not children young adults, or as you put it, un-developed adults? I would think they are. The natural course of a child, although not always a 100%, is to become an adult. The natural course of a fetus, although not a 100%, is to become a child. Where exactly are you headed with this, other than helping support what I am saying?

If foetuses are unborn children and should be afforded the same treatments and rights as actual children, why are children not afforded the same treatments and rights as adults?

If you believe that abortions shouldn't be carried out because a foetus is an unborn child, then you must agree that a child should determine whether or not it wants a medical procedure or not, rather than have its parents/guardians decide it, since a child is an undeveloped adult.

In both cases "x will become y, so x must be treated as y is".

If you don't agree then you position is inconsistent - you are bestowing "y-like" qualities onto "x" in one case, but not the other.

 

[Pako]

If you believe that abortions shouldn't be carried out because a foetus is an unborn child, then you must agree that a child should determine whether or not it wants a medical procedure or not, rather than have its parents/guardians decide it, since a child is an undeveloped adult.

In both cases "x will become y, so x must be treated as y is".

If you don't agree then you position is inconsistent - you are bestowing "y-like" qualities onto "x" in one case, but not the other.

Just because 'x' is not 'y', that doesn't change the issue. Calling a unborn child a 'x' is part of this emotional detachment that I am talking about. Sure, if I call unborn children "x's", then sure...do what ever you like. After all they're just "x's" right? That's just it though, they are much more than just "x's", they are unborn children.

Unborn children, undeveloped adults, adults, they're all human to me. This is where x, y, and z = human.

Hummm...not quite sure how a medical procedure and who decides if it should be done or not on a child is relevant to destroying unborn children, sorry I can't confirm or deny your conclusion.

 

[Swift]

Heres a pic if you want to see

BTW I do actually enjoy arguing with you, at least you are consistent
When Arwin had a go at you, (he's a good guy, you must have wound him up to make him angry like that) I expected you to retaliate, glad you didn't, you gained a notch in my opinion of you

Thanks!

That's a cute girl. Reminds me of my niece a bit.

As far as aborting a child because of financial situations. You're quite right, it's very selfish.

 

[Danoff]

As far as aborting a child because of financial situations. You're quite right, it's very selfish.

It's only selfish if you think that abortion is taking life.

Just because 'x' is not 'y', that doesn't change the issue. Calling a unborn child a 'x' is part of this emotional detachment that I am talking about.

He's not calling an unborn child specifically an x. He's also calling children x's (read his post). He's pointing out that the two situations are parallel and that logically you should come to the same conclusion. I'm surprised that you would think that the abstraction of his argument is "emotional detachment".

Also, I would not call using the term fetus "emotional detachment". I would call it "scientifically accurate". Calling it an "unborn child" is emotional Attachment.

I could call it a "non-aborted clump of cells" and that would be as accurate as calling it an "unborn child". Both are potential fates for the fetus, but it makes no sense to refer to it by it's potential fate.

 

[Pako]

It's only selfish if you think that abortion is taking life.



He's not calling an unborn child specifically an x. He's also calling children x's (read his post). He's pointing out that the two situations are parallel and that logically you should come to the same conclusion. I'm surprised that you would think that the abstraction of his argument is "emotional detachment".

Also, I would not call using the term fetus "emotional detachment". I would call it "scientifically accurate". Calling it an "unborn child" is emotional Attachment.

I could call it a "non-aborted clump of cells" and that would be as accurate as calling it an "unborn child". Both are potential fates for the fetus, but it makes no sense to refer to it by it's potential fate.

I know exactly what he's talking about, but what he is saying has nothing to do with what I am saying. An unborn child IS a child that has not been born yet. To say that all fetus' have to have a 100% successful birth to be called a unborn child is as absurd as saying that you can't call a child an undeveloped adult unless ALL children become adults.

Where X=unborn child, Y=child, and Z=adult, I am not saying that Z is Y is Z, but I am saying that X, Y, and Z are all of human origin.

If you want to call a fetus a "non-aborted clump of cells", that would be your choice and you would be completely correct, although people would look at you funny. Being called an unborn child is not a potential fate, it IS it's current state of being as it relates to the various stages of the fetus. Being born would be it's potential. You speak of emotional attachment? I would hope there is emotional attachment, we're not heartless savages you know.

 

[Swift]

It's only selfish if you think that abortion is taking life.

Actually, in Tacet Blue's situation it was very selfish(by his own words). In almost all situations an abortion is a selfish act. They don't want to have the financial, emotional or physical pressure of a child so they abort it. Very simple concept.

As far as emotional attachment. Is it just me, or are children conceived during an extremely emotional time?

 

[Danoff]

Actually, in Tacet Blue's situation it was very selfish(by his own words). In almost all situations an abortion is a selfish act. They don't want to have the financial, emotional or physical pressure of a child so they abort it. Very simple concept.

It isn't selfish if you don't think that there is anyone else to consider. In order for it to be selfish, you have to think that at a fetus is a child and that it must be considered.

I know exactly what he's talking about, but what he is saying has nothing to do with what I am saying.

The second part of this proves the first part wrong.

If you want to call a fetus a "non-aborted clump of cells", that would be your choice and you would be completely correct, although people would look at you funny.

They would look at me funny because I would be going out of my way to put a spin on the name. It is a fetus. Calling it an unborn child is like calling you an undead adult - but worse because a fetus will not necessarily be born, whereas you and I will certainly die.

 

[Pako]

danoff,

The second part of what proves the first part of what wrong? X cannot be Y as Y cannot be Z, but all three can be of the same origin. This we cannot argue. Famine was trying to prove that I was saying that because X is a unborn Y, that I was saying that X IS Y, however this is not the case. I never said that X IS Y, but that X is a unborn Y.

So you're saying that human fetus' are not unborn children? Please, I'd love to hear how they are not unborn children. I am assuming that you are taking Famine's stance that unless 100% of them are born we can't call them unborn children? Seriously? There's no spin calling a human fetus a unborn child. There are many things we can call it, an unborn child is one of those descriptions.

Calling me an undead adult? Not quite the same thing. Run a google on "undead adult". I think, at least in America, "Undead" means something else. Ok, I'm having a little fun here, but as you can see, the more common description of an Undead can be found in most of your Zombie movies.

Now do a google on "Unborn Child" and tell me what you see? I see over 750,000 entries referencing human fetus'. Sounds like a pretty accepted definition to me.

 

[Swift]

It isn't selfish if you don't think that there is anyone else to consider. In order for it to be selfish, you have to think that at a fetus is a child and that it must be considered.

No, it's selfish if you do it in light of "If I have this baby, I won't be able to get...." That's selfish. Thinking of yourself and what you'll miss out on if you have this child. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Danoff]

The second part of what proves the first part of what wrong? X cannot be Y as Y cannot be Z, but all three can be of the same origin. This we cannot argue.

I'm not arguing that.

Famine was trying to prove that I was saying that because X is a unborn Y, that I was saying that X IS Y, however this is not the case. I never said that X IS Y, but that X is a unborn Y.

You've mischaracterized Famine's argument. As I said earlier, you didn't understand it. Famine said that because X may eventually become Y and because Y may eventually become Z. If you afford X the rights of Y as a result of what might happen in the future, you must afford Y the rights of Z as a result of what might happen in the future.

So you're saying that human fetus' are not unborn children?

Human fetuses are not unborn children any more than an egg and sperm are unborn children before they are combined.

I am assuming that you are taking Famine's stance that unless 100% of them are born we can't call them unborn children?

I think even then it doesn't make very much sense.

There's no spin calling a human fetus a unborn child.

No?

There are many things we can call it, an unborn child is one of those descriptions.

Right. There are many things to call it. Like we could call it a clump of non-aborted cells. Now why would you want to call it an unborn child and not my suggestion?

Now do a google on "Unborn Child" and tell me what you see? I see over 750,000 entries referencing human fetus'. Sounds like a pretty accepted definition to me.

That's one of the logical fallicies posted on the unofficial rules of the opinions forum. Just because you find people that agree with your argument (or definition), doesn't make it right. Even if everyone else agrees with you, you still have to have a reason to think what you do.

We have a term for humans-in-development. The term is fetus. This is the accepted scientific terminology. It is completely accurate and imparts no emotional response either for or against abortion. It is a neutral term. A non-neutral term in the abortion debate is to compare it to a child. Another non-neutral term would be to compare it to a miscarriage. We could call them antimiscarriages for example. Perhaps we should just stick to the anatomically proper medical term of fetus.

 

[Danoff]

No, it's selfish if you do it in light of "If I have this baby, I won't be able to get...." That's selfish. Thinking of yourself and what you'll miss out on if you have this child. That's what I'm talking about.

Who else is there to consider in that situation? The child? The child doesn't exist. The whole question is whether or not to create a child, and it's responsible to consider the impacts of that creation. It would be selfish and irresponsible to create a child and refuse to care for it because you "won't be able to get..." otherwise.

 

[Swift]

Who else is there to consider in that situation? The child? The child doesn't exist. The whole question is whether or not to create a child, and it's responsible to consider the impacts of that creation. It would be selfish and irresponsible to create a child and refuse to care for it because you "won't be able to get..." otherwise.

And that goes right back to what do you consider a child? So, my statement is quite correct depending on the point of view.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

No, it's selfish if you do it in light of "If I have this baby, I won't be able to get...." That's selfish. Thinking of yourself and what you'll miss out on if you have this child. That's what I'm talking about.

Yes, but not completely selfish. I have had a privileged upbringing and I want the same for my children.
I was also thinking about what kind of life my child would have at the time.
There was more to it than "I won't be able to get", there is also "what can I offer" That's the bit you're missing.

Pako: thanks, yes I am...I'm as proud as any father

 

[Danoff]

And that goes right back to what do you consider a child? So, my statement is quite correct depending on the point of view.

That was my point when I said

It isn't selfish if you don't think that there is anyone else to consider. In order for it to be selfish, you have to think that at a fetus is a child and that it must be considered.

 

[Swift]

That was my point when I said

Great, so we're right back where we started from as far as that aspect goes.

 

[Pako]

I'm not arguing that.



You've mischaracterized Famine's argument. As I said earlier, you didn't understand it. Famine said that because X may eventually become Y and because Y may eventually become Z. If you afford X the rights of Y as a result of what might happen in the future, you must afford Y the rights of Z as a result of what might happen in the future.



Human fetuses are not unborn children any more than an egg and sperm are unborn children before they are combined.



I think even then it doesn't make very much sense.



No?



Right. There are many things to call it. Like we could call it a clump of non-aborted cells. Now why would you want to call it an unborn child and not my suggestion?



That's one of the logical fallicies posted on the unofficial rules of the opinions forum. Just because you find people that agree with your argument (or definition), doesn't make it right. Even if everyone else agrees with you, you still have to have a reason to think what you do.

We have a term for humans-in-development. The term is fetus. This is the accepted scientific terminology. It is completely accurate and imparts no emotional response either for or against abortion. It is a neutral term. A non-neutral term in the abortion debate is to compare it to a child. Another non-neutral term would be to compare it to a miscarriage. We could call them antimiscarriages for example. Perhaps we should just stick to the anatomically proper medical term of fetus.

In all your responses, I am seeing more emotional detachment and THAT is what I was talking about. You want to minimize what a fetus is so that destroying unborn children becomes easier to stomach, which also helps in justifying reasons for those actions. If it's 'just' a fetus, a parasite tissue, then it seems like we're doing everyone a favor, but if you consider the fact that it is also a unborn child, then you begin to give it an identity making the thought of destroying it harder because it is a "child to be". Calling is just a fetus is the spin here, saying they aren't unborn children because a 100% arn't born is the spin, not recognizing them as human because they arn't breathing air is the spin.