Abortion

[Dre89]

If you're going to take the 'it's all just opinions' stance then I might as well murder whoever I like, because it's all just opinion.

 

[Jam Stunna]

That's a baffling leap of logic.

The question isn't whether or not taking a life is wrong. The question is when life begins. Intelligent people of good faith can disagree on the latter.

 

[Dre89]

Yes people can disagree, there are sensible arguments on either side, I never said they couldn't.

But saying everything is just opinions, and that we can't deduce which argument is superior implies I can murder without bring judged.

 

[Jam Stunna]

And I never said that "everything is just opinions," I said that this particular debate is just opinions. Maybe one day there will be a way to determine objectively when life begins, but until then, what raises your or my belief above opinion?

 

[Kirbyoshi]

"It is the penetration of the ovum [egg] by a spermatozoan [sperm] and the resulting mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union, that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." --Dr. Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology (Emphasis mine)

This is what the man who wrote the book (literally) on uterine development says about when life begins. I think we can take him at his word >.>

 

[thegreatkazoo]

"It is the penetration of the ovum [egg] by a spermatozoan [sperm] and the resulting mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union, that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." --Dr. Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology (Emphasis mine)

This is what the man who wrote the book (literally) on uterine development says about when life begins. I think we can take him at his word >.>

This is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.

Avoid them like the plaque.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Actually Kazoo, AtA only refers to simple namedropping, not quoting something the expert has published.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Actually Kazoo, AtA only refers to simple namedropping, not quoting something the expert has published.

So you're not trying to answer the question "Where does life begin," which atm has no definite answer, by using a quote from an expert?

Too good mah d00d.

NB Even Succumbio agrees with me on this one.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Erm, did you read the quote? I totally was answering the question with the quote.

 

[1048576]

Ugh handwaving. So what evidence does the expert use to support his claims? His own opinion, right? That makes it no better than if you said it.

The whole point of expertise is that you know more facts to back up your case, but here we all know all the relevant facts. It's just a question of what is life? What is personhood? At what point does a being deserve the dignity and autonomy to live?

 

[Dre89]

It's just a question of what is life? What is personhood? At what point does a being deserve the dignity and autonomy to live?

Better yet, what gives humans the right to arbitrarily decide when a fetus becomes worthy of rights, and what makes this arbitrary decision distinct from all other opinions.

 

[1048576]

For the first part, I'd gather its the same as how we get to decide when watermelons get rights. We have power over them.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Better yet, what gives humans the right to arbitrarily decide when a fetus becomes worthy of rights, and what makes this arbitrary decision distinct from all other opinions.

Well, the fetus itself cannot give itself rights, nor can it try to advocate for its own rights. So, something else must do it for the fetus. In this case, it's whether they like it or not (not that they have the capability to do so or the awareness of whats going on).

It's like a parent with a kid who wants to buy a car. The kid may want the car as much as he wants, but he can't buy it himself. The parent has to.

Because the fetus cannot decide for itself, something else has to. If anything, that would have to be the one who actually has the fetus (the pregnant mother). Give her the choice, since the fetus cannot do so itself.

Then again, why would the mother have the right to make this choice, anyways? In my opinion, if anything, the government certainly does not. Whether or not they are pro-life, it's not up to them. It's not their fetus. It's not their property. It's not theirs to control. The one giving the fetus life should have the natural right to decide whether or not the fetus gets to keep its life.

It doesn't matter when you declare the fetus a living human or not, the fetus still can't fend for itself. It's different for a toddler or a baby. The thing can still fend for itself, albeit barely. But if its mother was taken away, it can still life. Take away the mother, and you have either the abortion itself or a dead fetus, as well.

Thus, I conclude that, as long as the fetus is still inside the mother, the fetus is still part of the mother until birth, thus not making it its own individual or having life until afterwards. This would then give the right to abort or not to the mother at any time during the process.

 

[Dre89]

For the first part, I'd gather its the same as how we get to decide when watermelons get rights. We have power over them.

We also have power over born babies. Can I decide that has no right to life as well?

Rapture, if I surgically implant a born baby into a woman's body, does she have a right to kill it?

 

[1048576]

Physically, yes. Morally, no (unless its anecephalic or something.) I was being facetious anyway. I was hoping you would say something like "Watermelon is not a fetus" and then I would say "ask a pregnant woman." I was thinking this issue was unsolvable, but I really like rapture's explanation, so I'll hear what he says about your second question.

Is the born baby autonomous? Like, if the woman was removed, would it live? Or is it basically a parasite, like a fetus? The former, she can extract, but not kill it; the latter, she can do what she wants.

 

[Dre89]

It's a born baby, let's say 3 months out of the womb.

The point is there's no difference between a fetus and a baby that's 3 months out of the womb. Neither have achieved personhood, so if you're going to define cut off lines, either personhood is not necessary for rights, which would protect the fetus, or personhood is necessary, meaning born babies would have no protection either.

 

[1048576]

Survive on its own = you can't kill it.

 

[Dre89]

So if you leave a baby on it's own in the woods it's going to survive is it?

What about the disabled, or those on a coma?

 

[vVv Rapture]

We also have power over born babies. Can I decide that has no right to life as well?

Rapture, if I surgically implant a born baby into a woman's body, does she have a right to kill it?

Personally, no. It's not her's. The baby has not already been born already, but it's not her child. Plus, I'm assuming the woman who went under the surgery did it intentionally, so there would be no reason for her to accept it, then want to kill it. Then again, if there was an exception, like if she took the baby and for some reason it became parasitic (why it would, I don't know), then she'd have to.

 

[1048576]

So if you leave a baby on it's own in the woods it's going to survive is it?

What about the disabled, or those on a coma?

This reminded me of the South Park episode where Kenny has to fight satan

"No no, you see, you're playing God by keeping the tube in"

 

[Dre89]

This reminded me of the South Park episode where Kenny has to fight satan

"No no, you see, you're playing God by keeping the tube in"

So what's your answer?

If being able to survive on your own is what is required to have the right to life, do born babies, the disabled, and those in a coma have a right to life?

If so, why are they all exceptions?

 

[1048576]

All those things except the coma dude can survive without outside interference. I don't think 90% of the population can survive the woods. The coma dude shouldn't have the right to life. It's the caretakers' decision.

 

[Dre89]

All those things except the coma dude can survive without outside interference. I don't think 90% of the population can survive the woods. The coma dude shouldn't have the right to life. It's the caretakers' decision.

So then 90% of the population doesn't have a right to life?

How on Earth does a three month old baby sustain its existence independently?

Also, of all the arbitrary decisions as to what has a right to life, why is independent sustainability the one that's the true determining factor?

Even if a fetus exclusively cannot sustain itself independently, so what? Why is that the deciding factor?

 

[1048576]

No, I'm saying the ability to survive in the woods should be irrelevant. I'm taking about the ability of a being to survive on its own without outside interference.

A 3-month-old still has all it's organ systems working. It can pass food through its body and can eat, breathe, etc... A comatose person cannot do that unless hooked up to a machine.

As rapture explained in the post that sparked my involvement, independence is the deciding factor because now the fetus is not owned by its mother. Basically, its not being a parasite.

 

[Dre89]

But a baby still needs soneone to look after it, so what's the difference?

And again, of all factors, why is independence the deciding factor?

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Personally, I say abortion is only acceptable if *****. The mother is going to be screwed up enough after that experience, now, as a child, try growing up knowing what your father did. Defidently some mental issues will jolt through your mind, leading to depression. Rather have 1 screwed up woman then a screwed up mother and screwed up child.

 

[Dre89]

So what if the baby is born, can she still kill it if she was *****?

Why is an innocent human allowed to be killed if the person who created it was *****? The baby had nothing to do with that. So if your mother has consensual sex, you have a right to live, if not, you have no right to life.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

So what if the baby is born, can she still kill it if she was *****?

Why is an innocent human allowed to be killed if the person who created it was *****? The baby had nothing to do with that. So if your mother has consensual sex, you have a right to live, if not, you have no right to life.

I see what your saying, and it's not wether or not it has the RIGHT to live, everyone has the right to live. But you know mentally, the child will be screwed up knowing what happened, maybe not as worse as some others, but still depressed.

Maybe when the fetus doesn't completley look like an alien, it should live, like, there should be a certain time period where, if consent is given, it can be aborted.

I don't see why we see a human baby as something that shouldn't be killed, when there are thousands of baby animals we kill often. Is it because it's a human? Now, if I was a mother, I wouldn't want to abort a child, but I think that we still deserve the RIGHT to do what we please.

People kill other people every day, family kills family, neighbor kills neighbor.

 

[Sieguest]

Just a few things to bring up.

I see what your saying, and it's not wether or not it has the RIGHT to live, everyone has the right to live. But you know mentally, the child will be screwed up knowing what happened, maybe not as worse as some others, but still depressed.

How does everyone have the right to live? What guarantees anyone or anything another second in existence?

I don't see why we see a human baby as something that shouldn't be killed, when there are thousands of baby animals we kill often. Is it because it's a human? Now, if I was a mother, I wouldn't want to abort a child, but I think that we still deserve the RIGHT to do what we please.

What guarantees this right exactly?

Also, you've contradicted yourself. You said earlier that everyone has the right to live, yet you say people deserve the right to do what they please. If we hold both of these to be true then you've given someone the right to violate others' rights.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Just a few things to bring up.

How does everyone have the right to live? What guarantees anyone or anything another second in existence?

Were all humans, theres no statement that says we don't have the right to live. What is keeping us from doing so?

What guarantees this right exactly?

Also, you've contradicted yourself. You said earlier that everyone has the right to live, yet you say people deserve the right to do what they please. If we hold both of these to be true then you've given someone the right to violate others' rights.

I think I may have taken this the wrong way. I might be meshing Morals and Rights together. When i'm more awake, i'll give an example.

 

[abhishekh]

Personally, I feel everyone has the right to choose. I don't think abortions should happen after a certain point, it's like 6 weeks or something if I remember, unless there's special circumstances. Like there's a very high chance the mother and baby will die or the baby is the anti-christ or something.

Is there a difference between a zygote and sperm/egg cells? Both have the potential to not do anything or to create a human. Why not take it one step further?

Oh, and what does everyone think of the "Legalized abortion leads to lowered crime"?

I got it from Freakonomics. I read it a couple years ago, and I don't know exactly how reliable that book is, worth mentioning for the sake of it anyway.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Oh, and what does everyone think of the "Legalized abortion leads to lowered crime"?

I got it from Freakonomics. I read it a couple years ago, and I don't know exactly how reliable that book is, worth mentioning for the sake of it anyway.

I read about that before, apparently they did something like compare crime rates 20 years after Roe v. Wade. Even if the data suggests that there was less crime, I think it's an incredibly specious argument to attribute that to legalized abortion.

 

[handsockpuppet]

So what if the baby is born, can she still kill it if she was *****?

Why is an innocent human allowed to be killed if the person who created it was *****? The baby had nothing to do with that. So if your mother has consensual sex, you have a right to live, if not, you have no right to life.

The point isn't to prevent them form living for the sole reason that the woman was *****. In that situation if she did not want the baby, perhaps she should give it to an orphanage. But the question is should a woman who's already been through so much undergo another 9 months to have a "gift from God" she never asked for? Simply because she could not get rid of this embryonic parasite? I think at this rate we should illegalize the "monthly womanly act", since man, those egg cells would have become a human if they were impregnated. And many people are against birth control and masturbation, so I think you're a little inconsistent if you don't agree with them. I mean, just look at the former's name, birth control is to prevent birth! How's it different than early abortion? I think abortion should be the woman's choice if it's under 6 weeks or so, nobody has the right to tell you what you can and can't do to your own body (yes I'm a libertarian).

 

[Dre89]

I am against birth control.

If you stay around, you'll learn pretty soon I disagree with moral norms of our currnet society lol.

 

[Teran]

Abortion?

Lol life isn't sacred at all, especially human life. It's funny how much pro life individuals love a foetus, but despise human beings.

"Look here black lady, do not have an abortion!" *As soon as baby is born* "God**** n*****r leeching off the welfare!"

Anyway, I say while in the womb, a child has no actual life experiences or knowledge, so really it has no concept of what the hell is going on if you kill it anyway. So what if it smiles and moves about, so did Adolf Hitler. It's not a big deal, just get rid of it if you want to. Honestly what's the point of bringing an unwanted child into the world? That's more cruel than actually killing it.

Trust me half the time I wish I was aborted so I didn't have to deal with the bull**** nonsense that humanity is capable of. Of course since I was actually born there's stuff I don't want to leave so yeah. :3

 

[Dre89]

A person who has fallen asleep also 'wont know what the hell is going on' if someone puts a bullet through their head.

 

[Teran]

That's why people like the idea of dying in their sleep.

Also, that person has actually come into the world and lived. You haven't really lived when you're only surrounded by amniotic fluid and roped by an umbilical cord. You're nothing more than a vegetative parasite.

 

[handsockpuppet]

That's why people like the idea of dying in their sleep.

Also, that person has actually come into the world and lived. You haven't really lived when you're only surrounded by amniotic fluid and roped by an umbilical cord. You're nothing more than a vegetative parasite.

Which is being generous, since abortions happen before it's even a fetus, it's only an embryo. You know, the yolk of an egg. There's roughly the same number of chickens as there are humans. Millions of chicken eggs never hatch, usually because that just happens to be the spot that the gets the least amount of the chicken's warmth as it lays on its dozen. So there's a reason why some vegetarians still eat eggs. I don't think we should prevent farmers from harvesting eggs because some vegans think it's wrong. Okay, a lot of points juggled around here, but that's simply because every aspect of pro-life is ridiculous. The only one I can't completely debunk is "Jesus is rumored to have said something which I interpret to apply here", but that's hardly a reason to tell a woman what she can and can't do to her body.

 

[Dre89]

So basically, it's ok to kill a human in its first stages, up until a point that you arbitraliy decide upon, requiring no reason for deciding upon this point.

 

[Teran]

Honestly I don't see any moral conflict (since I don't believe in morals) with killing a human at any stage (although there are usually consequences and I really don't want to get into that).

The abortion point that most societies use is not arbritrary, it's the point at which a more complex foetus forms, at which point some believe it's a self aware being. I mean in China with the one child policy, it's widely reported that when a woman is giving birth to a second child, they'll just give the baby a lethal injection while it's being delivered. The whole abortion point is rather arbritrary, although I think people would have a bigger problem with deciding that they no longer want a 7 year old child and just shooting it in the head. Abortion makes the whole human culling process easier.