When is abortion wrong?

[Solid Lifters]

While that would be ideal for some...it is easier said than done. After carrying that child for 9 months, there is an attachment to that child. Just letting go would make post-partem depression even worse....

So, let them get depressed. There's treatment for that if they need it. If they get attached to the child, then the woman had doubts about getting an abortion. If she had no doubts, she wouldn't get attached to it at all. If they had doubts, then why not give birth and let the man have it?

 

[Pako]

No it isn't. It needs a womb to do it in.So you're fine with a one-off abortion, but against two or more?


So. Where does everyone stand on the "Morning After Pill"? It's a pair of drugs which can be taken up to 72 hours after sex which prevent implantation, should fertilisation have occurred.

Surely if fertilisation has occurred, you anti-Choice folks would be up in arms about it? Then again if it hasn't, it's just a backup precaution. But how will you KNOW if fertilisation HAS occurred?

[Sarcasm]Yep, the first one's free, but after that you gotta pay.[/Sarcasm]

Not sure how I feel about the morning after pill. If it just keeps the egg from fertilizing, no harm no foul right? If it, however, kills the fertilized egg, they yes....I have a problem with it. If you are ending life against the unknown will of another, then it is murder yes? Of course we have to agree what constitutes life and this appears to be the continuing debate. Are not all organic things living?

 

[Famine]

[Sarcasm]Yep, the first one's free, but after that you gotta pay.[/Sarcasm]

Not sure how I feel about the morning after pill. If it just keeps the egg from fertilizing, no harm no foul right? If it, however, kills the fertilized egg, they yes....I have a problem with it. If you are ending life against the unknown will of another, then it is murder yes? Of course we have to agree what constitutes life and this appears to be the continuing debate. Are not all organic things living?

The Morning After Pill has no effect on the egg whatsoever. It induces menstruation - the lining of the womb breaks down. This gives the egg - if it has been fertilised - nowhere to implant and it passes out of the body as with normal menstruation.

If all organic things are living, then normal menstruation, normal sperm cycle and surgical removal of cancer are all AS wrong as abortion apparently is.


Out of interest, when would anti-Choicers decide that someone has reached the end of their life? At what point would you say "He's dead. Tag him and bag him and chuck him in the ground."?

 

[ledhed]

You can also take a couple of your birth controll pills and induce the same effect as the morning after pil..( Source the Ophra show )

 

[jimihemmy]

So, let them get depressed. There's treatment for that if they need it. If they get attached to the child, then the woman had doubts about getting an abortion. If she had no doubts, she wouldn't get attached to it at all. If they had doubts, then why not give birth and let the man have it?

It is not that easy, some women have commited suicide, killed the child(ren), or even both due to post-partem depression. Solving everything with pills and therapists is why we are so messed up now......

It's just like the guy who is upset about the child he did not have, but even more so. The woman gets a physical and well as a psychological attachment whether they want to or not. That is why there is such a bond between mother a child at birth, the man has to work at having that baby getting attached to him.

 

[Pako]

The Morning After Pill has no effect on the egg whatsoever. It induces menstruation - the lining of the womb breaks down. This gives the egg - if it has been fertilised - nowhere to implant and it passes out of the body as with normal menstruation.

If all organic things are living, then normal menstruation, normal sperm cycle and surgical removal of cancer are all AS wrong as abortion apparently is.


Out of interest, when would anti-Choicers decide that someone has reached the end of their life? At what point would you say "He's dead. Tag him and bag him and chuck him in the ground."?

Interesting...

So for a little science lesson, your saying that all things organic ARE NOT living? Are they dead? What's the deal?

 

[Danoff]

You are human before you are born. The conclusion of birth doesn't make you human. Google even agrees.

The link you posted does not say that you are human before you are born - I'm not sure why you posted it.

No, you are not human before you are born, you are a fetus of the human species. You are not an individual human, whith rights and privelages thereof until you are successfully born - up until that point you are part of your mother.


Which (ledhed), is why the father gets no say in the matter. He does not have a child until the woman successfully gives birth to it.

 

[Pako]

The link you posted does not say that you are human before you are born - I'm not sure why you posted it.

No, you are not human before you are born, you are a fetus of the human species. You are not an individual human, whith rights and privelages thereof until you are successfully born - up until that point you are part of your mother.


Which (ledhed), is why the father gets no say in the matter. He does not have a child until the woman successfully gives birth to it.

Don't see it, eh?

How about this one:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=human

It IS possible to be fetus and human you know. Don't have to be one or the other. Just thought I'd point that out.

So you're saying that it's "lack of rights" that makes the fetus non-human?

Have you ever played with a fetus in a mothers womb before (don't be sick, I mean from the outside of the mother's skin)? Have you ever heard it's heart beating? Have you ever heard it's blood moving through it's heart?

Oh yeah, it's human alright.

 

[Swift]

The link you posted does not say that you are human before you are born - I'm not sure why you posted it.

No, you are not human before you are born, you are a fetus of the human species. You are not an individual human, whith rights and privelages thereof until you are successfully born - up until that point you are part of your mother.


Which (ledhed), is why the father gets no say in the matter. He does not have a child until the woman successfully gives birth to it.

Right, it just took the FATHER for it to happen. A woman CAN'T make a baby on her own(don't bring up artificial insemination) so how is it she's the only on that gets a say?

 

[Solid Lifters]

It is not that easy, some women have commited suicide, killed the child(ren), or even both due to post-partem depression. Solving everything with pills and therapists is why we are so messed up now......

It's just like the guy who is upset about the child he did not have, but even more so. The woman gets a physical and well as a psychological attachment whether they want to or not. That is why there is such a bond between mother a child at birth, the man has to work at having that baby getting attached to him.

That still isn't a legitimate reason why a woman shouldn't give birth. Again, so? A woman could get depressed. Big deal. I know the man, who wants his child, will get depressed if the woman kills it instead and, most likely murderous. I know I would.

 

[Famine]

Interesting...

So for a little science lesson, your saying that all things organic ARE NOT living? Are they dead? What's the deal?

There's a world of difference between "living tissue" and "living being". A sperm, a cancer cell, a pre-13-week foetus are all living tissue. A cockroach, a sea anemone, a linebacker for the Packers are all living beings.

Any anti-Choicers want to answer my little question?

When do you decide that someone has reached the end of their life? At what point would you say "He's dead. Tag him and bag him and chuck him in the ground."?

 

[Pako]

There's a world of difference between "living tissue" and "living being". A sperm, a cancer cell, a pre-13-week foetus are all living tissue. A cockroach, a sea anemone, a linebacker for the Packers are all living beings.

Any anti-Choicers want to answer my little question?

Brain activity anyone? Not sure if that's when we 'become' aware (conscience) or not. What do you think?

 

[Famine]

Well, I know what the medical definitions are. I'm just wondering what anti-Choicers think.

So your pick is that someone is clinically dead when they have no brain activity?

 

[Pako]

Could be, not sure. Brain activity is something we can measure as being there or not. It's generally accepted I would think.

 

[Famine]

Final answer? Anyone else? Swift?


(and you're right - no brain activity is a clinical marker of death, although not the only one and rarely accepted on its own).

 

[Swift]

I like how nobody acknowleged my question.

Anyway, someone is dead when they're dead. No brain activity and NOT able to perform life sastaining activity on there own. Such as breathing.

So now what Famine?

 

[Famine]

danoff answered your question a while ago.


So. You're all happy that if someone is exhibiting no brain activity, is not breathing on their own and - as an additional since that covered Terri Schiavo, no heartbeat - they are dead? They are SO dead that you'd be happy to crate them up and bury them or cremate them.


And yet you persist in thinking that a foetus with NO heart, NO lungs and NO BRAIN can be killed?

 

[Swift]

danoff answered your question a while ago.


So. You're all happy that if someone is exhibiting no brain activity, is not breathing on their own and - as an additional since that covered Terri Schiavo, no heartbeat - they are dead? They are SO dead that you'd be happy to crate them up and bury them or cremate them.


And yet you persist in thinking that a foetus with NO heart, NO lungs and NO BRAIN can be killed?

This question?

Right, it just took the FATHER for it to happen. A woman CAN'T make a baby on her own(don't bring up artificial insemination) so how is it she's the only on that gets a say?

Yep, I sure do Famine. Because that "tissue" or STD as you've called it is a developing human. Period.

But you don't believe in a soul so I can see why you would go to that level of technicality.

EDIT: Also, given time the foetus will develop all those things. No matter how long a dead body lays there, it won't develop anything new. I'd say that's a fairly big difference.

 

[Famine]

So, just to get this straight again - you think that someone with no heartbeat, no breathing and no brain activity is dead but that someone - yes, you described it as such - without a heart, lungs or a brain is, in fact, alive?

Do you not see the contradiction inherent to these two views?

Yes, the foetus will develop these structures, in time. But not if you put it in the same place as the dead body - with no external influences. You aren't comparing like with like in this line of debate.


And yes, danoff got it a couple of pages ago.

 

[Swift]

So, just to get this straight again - you think that someone with no heartbeat, no breathing and no brain activity is dead but that someone - yes, you described it as such - without a heart, lungs or a brain is, in fact, alive?

Do you not see the contradiction inherent to these two views?


And yes, danoff got it a couple of pages ago.

Hello! Do you not see that if you go one step beyond your technical analysis that one is developing and one isn't?

Give me a break, this is stupid. There's no heartbeat so there's not a life in the baby yet. Oh wait, give it about 3 months and it'll be there. Give the dead body three months, it'll just be nastier.

 

[Famine]

There's no heartbeat so there's not a life in the baby yet.

If there is no life in it how can you claim that you can kill it?

 

[Swift]

If there is no life in it how can you claim that you can kill it?

In that quote I was being sarcastic.

I can say you can kill it BECAUSE given a short amount of time it WILL display all your precious characteristics of life.

Of course, there's the whole soul thing. But that doesn't fly with you or any other people that enjoy the thought of killing life before it gets a chance because someone blinded THEMSELVES and made a mistake.

 

[Famine]

So you think that something with no signs of physical life - and they were YOUR precious characteristics, not mine, since I got you to define them for me - at all has a soul?

Do rocks have a soul?

Do clouds have a soul?

Does fire have a soul?

Why do you think an inert clump of developing cells has a soul?

 

[Swift]

Oh yea of little faith.

Jerimah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

See, If I put something like this up. I'm a stupid fundie. But you can evaluate where life begins and neither one of us is the creator.

 

[Danoff]

Jerimah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Oh well, now I'm convinced. It's written in fiction.

Right, it just took the FATHER for it to happen. A woman CAN'T make a baby on her own(don't bring up artificial insemination) so how is it she's the only on that gets a say?

Because its her body, not his. The baby is part of her, not him. He caused a change in her, but the change is in her - and part of her. Famine is right, I answered this several times earlier.

Don't see it, eh?

How about this one:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=human

Still not seeing it.

It IS possible to be fetus and human you know. Don't have to be one or the other. Just thought I'd point that out.

It is a human fetus. It is not a human being. It is a human in-development, a potential human, an unborn future individual. But a fetus is not an individual, it is part of the mother physically... literally.

Brain activity anyone? Not sure if that's when we 'become' aware (conscience) or not. What do you think?

Brain activity does not indicate awareness or consciousness. When I sleep I have an active brain, but I am neither aware nor conscious. People with severe brain damage can have brain activity but be essentially incapable of what you or I would consider thought.

When the fetus gains brain activity and a heart beat, are we to give it a legal identity? Are we to issue it a (perhaps a new name is required) "life certificate"? Is it to be a legally recognized individual?

Bottom line, until birth it is part of the mother - there is one human being, one life. After birth it is two individuals. This is the only way to have laws that make any rational sense.

...but if you believe that the baby magically gets a soul when it's brain starts functioning or its heart starts beating - then I can see why you wouldn't want it to be aborted. Keep in mind that not everyone believes as you do, and we cannot make laws based on the bible.

 

[Famine]

I'm just going to attempt to summarise your position, Swift, as it's giving me a few headaches...

• An organism with no heartbeat, no breathing and no brain activity is dead. Dead things can't be killed.
• Unless it's a foetus, in which case it isn't and can be killed. Apparently
• Fertilised eggs are sacred because they might develop into humans.
• As-yet unfertilised eggs and sperm are not, even though they might develop into humans.
• A disorder contracted by personal choice and bringing severe medical complications is worthy of medical attention.
• Err, except pregnancy. "Because".

How very confusing. And now you're quoting scripture! Where ARE you coming from? Either something is dead or it is alive. By your OWN definition, a pre-13-week foetus is dead and therefore CANNOT be killed, yet you say it can...

A dead body left to its own devices will decay.
A foetus left to its own devices will die. Then decay.
A cancer cell left to its own devices will die.
A sperm left to its own devices will die.

None have any brain activity (although one did once), breathing activity (ditto) or heartbeat (thrice ditto). All but the body are composed of living tissue, yet are not alive. The foetus and the cancer cell, if implanted in a body, will develop into a mass of cells genetically distinct from the host, feeding from the host for its own ends with significant detriment to the host.

Why is one subject to special treatment - treatment which would involve YOU telling SOMEONE ELSE what they can and cannot do with their own bodies - yet the others aren't? Why are you not anti-spermicide? Why are you not anti-cancer-treatment? Why are you not against cremating dead people in case they suddenly come back to life (it worked for Lazarus, and that's in scripture!)? Why are you only in favour of telling women what to do?

 

[a6m5]

I don't know what I missed, but looks like you guys are reading into this thing, little too much. Are you guys comparing cancers and unborn babies? why it's ok to kill cancer, but not fetus? Not an good comparison, IMO. I mean cancer is something that's going to kill you, fetus is going to turn into your kid.

 

[smellysocks12]

I think it's better to abort when a mother isn't ready for it. Sure, you might end something that could have had a life, but if it is born in a family which isn't ready to recieve a baby yet, 2 or more lives will be ruined. Not as in dead, but definitely a bad quality of life.


If a woman really wants to get rid of a baby, then she should be able to get rid of it in a sterile clinic. Abortion being illegal or not allowed would result in woman messing around with coat hangers which aren't exactly clean and will probably lead to infections and possible loss of the ability to get another child in the future.

 

[a6m5]

Abortion being illegal or not allowed would result in woman messing around with coat hangers which aren't exactly clean and will probably lead to infections and possible loss of the ability to get another child in the future.

For real?! That is insane!!

 

[Famine]

I don't know what I missed, but looks like you guys are reading into this thing, little too much. Are you guys comparing cancers and unborn babies? why it's ok to kill cancer, but not fetus? Not an good comparison, IMO. I mean cancer is something that's going to kill you, fetus is going to turn into your kid.

As discussed earlier, a foetus can also kill you, and, unlike cancer (which, when terminal, gives you pain then death) brings a whole host of medical problems along for the ride as a matter of course, which can persist long afterwards. Just look up "episiotomy" if you want to barf - and this stuff is commonplace. There's incontinence (both ends), morning sickness (go through THAT), haemorrhoids and the fun which is lying on your back for 3 days trying to crap a bowling ball while someone tells you to "push" or "breathe" (like you don't already KNOW this stuff), cutting your muff or stomach open to help out - or injecting painkillers into your spine - and, just when you think you've done, you've got to give birth to the sodding placenta as well.

Some women don't want that. I can't blame them. Anti-Choicers don't want to give them that option.



The comparison is sound. Both lung cancer and pregnancy can be contracted through choice (smoking or sex) or not (passive smoking or rape). Neither cancers nor foeti are alive, yet are composed of living cells. Cutting them out of the body and preventing the illnesses they cause does not kill them because they are not alive... To accept that one must be dealt with despite the stupidity of the sufferer, yet deny that the other should be is hypocritical.