Personal thoughts on abortion and parenthood

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

After reading some comments on the forums here I thought I would give my two cents on these issues. Feel free to do the same.

Abortion, to me, has become a grey area. While I agree that a person's body is theirs to do with what they please, I also believe that they can not do the same with another's. So there has to be a cut off point. And the abortion must not cause undo suffering to the fetus. Which is a bit of a quagmire, because if it can feel pain then it already is a "being". And I am sorry but if it has reached a point where it is a "being" then you have no right to kill, unless it is putting a life at risk.

And this ties into my next train of thought. "Her body, her choice." should be extended to, "Her body, her choice, her responsibility." If a person has sex, gets peggers, keeps it, then that is all on her. She can not demand money from the man who had sex with her (even if it a rapist, sorry two wrongs do not make a right. maybe create a support system where proven cases get aid, another topic for another time), if that relationship was no one where both parties expressed a desire to have children. You make a choice, you pay for it.

Some of my thoughts, what are yours?

You should be able to do what you like with your body, be it shooting it full of heroin or evicting an unwanted squatter.

There are enough humans beings on the earth
I dont like the thought of killing another human being any more than the next person but if it hasnt developed sentience yet then is it really so cruel?

Theres a lot i dont understand about this (along with everything else) but i think fundamentally it should all be underpinned by the right to choose

The responibility lies in knowing that you have stopped a potential human being. This isnt a good or bad thing, it is what it is. That human could have been the next hitler or the next jesus

Contraceptives can fail and rape happens far too often to just push all this aside and say everyone should be forced to care for unwanted kids especially when a lot of people dont have the resources or inclination. Better to not be born than to be born unwanted in my opinion

You are going to need a 6-inch thick solid adamantium flame-shield for this thread, just letting you know in advance.

Before the foetus is properly sentient, it should definitely be the woman's right to do as she wishes, keep it or get rid of it. This should be somewhat extended in the case of rape, as that is just fucked up no what and I would rather some suffering on a partially sentient being than destruction of the life of a fully sapient.

But because of things like rape and imperfect contraceptives, abortion can never be totally illegal, it will always lead to more harm than good.

The only society worth defending is the one that protects the weakest and the defenseless.

Unborn humans are incapable of using democratic procedures and structures through which to defend their inalienable rights with - primarily their right to life. Their only hope is a government that will defend them and won't allow the stronger (the mother) to impose their interests over them at the expense of the most basic fundamental rights. They need a state that will take clear steps for the purpose of their protection.

To me, abortion is just insane and is the clearest demonstration of a society obsessed with self-entitlement, privilege, convenience and circumventing any sort of personal responsibility.

al4674:
The only society worth defending is the one that protects the weakest and the defenseless.

Unborn humans are incapable of using democratic procedures and structures through which to defend their inalienable rights with - primarily their right to life. Their only hope is a government that will defend them and won't allow the stronger (the mother) to impose their interests over them at the expense of the most basic fundamental rights. They need a state that will take clear steps for the purpose of their protection.

To me, abortion is just insane and is the clearest demonstration of a society obsessed with self-entitlement, privilege, convenience and circumventing any sort of personal responsibility.

Thing is though, i view a fetus as a potential human being, in the same way that sperm and eggs are potential human beings and the same way that the desire to screw is a potential human being. Sure its further down the line but still the same concept.

adamsaccount:
Thing is though, i view a fetus as a potential human being, in the same way that sperm and eggs are potential human beings and the same way that the desire to screw is a potential human being. Sure its further down the line but still the same concept.

The only way you can view a fetus as a potential human being is if you disregard the general scientific consensus on the matter. In no way can you say that a fetus is not a biological human being, as in a living distinct member of the Homo Sapien race. This is something that is undeniable and taking an opposite view is in my book no different from creationists disregarding evolution for the sake of their ideology.

Whereas, a fetus is a potential PERSON in the sense that while not yet having self-awareness and the capacity for moral thought, it will develop them in the future. I do, however, think that personhood cannot be a criteria for human rights.

So you think rapists should be exempt from paying child support because women who are raped and become pregnant made a choice?

RIP R&P :(

al4674:

adamsaccount:
Thing is though, i view a fetus as a potential human being, in the same way that sperm and eggs are potential human beings and the same way that the desire to screw is a potential human being. Sure its further down the line but still the same concept.

The only way you can view a fetus as a potential human being is if you disregard the general scientific consensus on the matter. In no way can you say that a fetus is not a biological human being, as in a living distinct member of the Homo Sapien race. This is something that is undeniable and taking an opposite view is in my book no different from creationists disregarding evolution for the sake of their ideology.

Whereas, a fetus is a potential PERSON in the sense that while not yet having self-awareness and the capacity for moral thought, it will develop them in the future. I do, however, think that personhood cannot be a criteria for human rights.

I did use the wrong words there. Replace "potential human being" with your definition of potential person and then thats more or less my view.

chaosord:
She can not demand money from the man who had sex with her (even if it a rapist, sorry two wrongs do not make a right. maybe create a support system where proven cases get aid, another topic for another time), if that relationship was no one where both parties expressed a desire to have children. You make a choice, you pay for it.

I strongly take issue with your sentiment here. The consequences of that mindset is simply that, because of the luck of the biological draw, men can fuck anything that moves, and not have to deal with a huge consequence of doing so.

Add into that the fact that you appear to be opposed to abortion, and you are saying that if women want to have sex, they have to deal with the child as "payment", whereas if men want to have sex, they shouldn't have to "pay for it".

That's pretty messed up. Callous at best, downright sexist at worst. Care to clarify at all?

CAMDAWG:

chaosord:
She can not demand money from the man who had sex with her (even if it a rapist, sorry two wrongs do not make a right. maybe create a support system where proven cases get aid, another topic for another time), if that relationship was no one where both parties expressed a desire to have children. You make a choice, you pay for it.

I strongly take issue with your sentiment here. The consequences of that mindset is simply that, because of the luck of the biological draw, men can fuck anything that moves, and not have to deal with a huge consequence of doing so.

Add into that the fact that you appear to be opposed to abortion, and you are saying that if women want to have sex, they have to deal with the child as "payment", whereas if men want to have sex, they shouldn't have to "pay for it".

I'm just going to jump in from here.

If we allow abortions, then there need be no huge consequence for fucking anything that moves, be the fucker male or female. As it is, most would find it repugnant to allow the male to force the completion of a pregnancy or to force an abortion; whether or not there is any consequence (pregnancy --> child) of sex is entirely up to the woman. As such, the woman is able to make the choice that is best for her. However, because the male has no choice in whether the child is brought to term or not, and the woman's power in the situation (and the man's lack of power) precludes his having a moral responsibility for any life that he did not work to bring about, he should not be held accountable for the decision to have the child as the decision is not his.

Let us say for this argument that sex by itself does not constitute an effort to bring a child to term. This should be an uncontroversial premise as often sex is not performed with this end in mind (and often performed in a way which attempts to preclude such an end).

The trickier task is to determine when human rights should be extended to a fetus/baby. Unlike has been stated earlier, I think it is obvious that it must take something more than simple biological similarities to confer such weighty rights upon an organism. If this were the case, then a sample of human tissue grown on a petri dish would have the same rights status as an elderly man kept alive with a respirator.

Similarly, birth status has problems as a criteria. There is very little functional difference between a newborn child and the unborn fetus that it was just hours before. I recall hearing of studies that show that newborns take weeks to develop a sense of self.

I think the solution must come from cognitive abilities, but such things are notoriously hard to test, especially in the unborn and newly born. Note that when I mention cognitive abilities, I do not mean intelligence, except perhaps that a certain threshold is passed. Of greater import would be features such as self awareness and sentience.

But then, the utilitarian in the back of my mind says that people who cannot take care of a child should not be allowed to have a child. Then my inner J. S. Mill slaps it in the face and reminds me why that would be terrible on many levels.

al4674:
To me, abortion is just insane and is the clearest demonstration of a society obsessed with self-entitlement, privilege, convenience and circumventing any sort of personal responsibility.

So I suppose telling a 13 year old pregnant rape victim "No you self-entitled slut, abortion is banned and you will have that child!" is just oh so great a demonstration of empathy....

The way you just go judging people on matters you haven't even got the faintest clue about is downright offensive, and shows exactly why the anti-abortion mob can't be taken seriously; all they really want is to impose their religious values. They don't care about anyone except themselves, and lack even the most basic empathy.

chaosord:
If a person has sex, gets peggers, keeps it, then that is all on her. She can not demand money from the man who had sex with her

So the man who didn't insist on wearing a condom bears no responsibility in the child created? That seems a bit silly to me.

(even if it a rapist, sorry two wrongs do not make a right.

And this is outright insane. Sorry, but if someone is raped, the very least that the courts can do is take that guys money to support a child with it if the mother chooses to keep it. Making a rapist take responsibility for a life they created by violating a woman isn't a wrong.

I think abortion should ultimately be up to the woman bearing the embryo/fetus and optimally performed when it's still an embryo.

Whether or not a woman gets an abortion should be up to her, simple as that. Yes, there are various reasons against having an abortion, but fortunately women are capable of thinking about those issues for themselves, they don't require a panel of rich old men to make an absolute decision on behalf of all of them.

chaosord:
Some of my thoughts, what are yours?

My thoughts are that it's an incredibly complex issue that is going to get reduced to shouting points and bumper sticker slogans because that's what always happens in this discussion, but what the hell, let's get into it.

First and foremost, I find the "my body, my choice" argument unsatisfying at best. A fetus has a DNA strand distinct from that of its mother: It is demonstrably a separate being, not a part of the mother's body. Likewise, the whole "it's not even sentient" argument seems like deliberate justification to me, because so are a lot of brain-dead people, yet it's still illegal for a caregiver to relieve himself of the burden of that non-sentient existence by killing the person.

However, that is not to say abortion is never justified. I support it wholeheartedly in cases of medical necessity; killing anyone to save your own life is nothing but self-defense, and it's always morally justified. Likewise, I support it in cases of rape, because as far as I'm concerned, that pregnancy is nothing but a forty-week continuation of the original act and thus falls under similar self-defense clauses: Would anyone here truly condemn a woman who killed her rapist in the middle of attacking her? If you wouldn't, then I don't see the problem with aborting the rapist's fetus.

On the whole, I actually support the right to abortion. Even though I think there are a lot of situations in which it isn't morally justifiable--possibly more that aren't than that are--it's the contingencies for rape that convince me we need unfettered access to it as a medical procedure. If we criminalize abortion but leave exemptions in place for rape, then we put upon the victim a burden to prove that she had non-consensual sex to a jury before she would be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, and given how slowly our justice system moves (I live in a small town and it still took five years to convict a murderer), not to mention the logical difficulties of proving rape (it's a subjective standard), I think most victims would not have the time or the opportunity. That, to me, is a far greater social injustice than abortion itself is, because it subjects the victim to the shame of having to bear her attacker's child with the condemnation of society telling her she was lying about having been attacked.

Perhaps it is callous of me to be willing to terminate a baby, who was not a participant in the rape, for the crimes of its father. In fact, it probably is callous, because I just don't care. I will not pretend I am someone who can meaningfully care about someone I've never interacted with. I can interact with the mother because she has been born, so I have more empathy for her than I do for some hypothetical person that for all I know will get strangled on its umbilical cord five months before its birth anyway.

And, largely unrelated to my main point but tangentially related to the topic of how much I can pretend to empathize with people, let me just say in the most sarcastic tone possible, "Yes, let's not inflict any financial obligation on a rapist to provide for his child, because Christ knows we wouldn't want to be unfair to a rapist!" Yeah, right. Fuck that guy. There are very few punishments I consider too severe for him.

I think your idea basically ignores the man's responsibility in the creation of that child and places huge burdens on the woman alone. If a woman decides to go through pregnancy and raising it herself, the very least the man should do is help financially provide for that child. He did help create the situation, whether he likes it or not, and is already contributing the least. Unless he can prove there was some sort of premeditated effort to "trap" him, which is something people greatly overestimate the occurrence of, then he should be required to support the child.

Brandon237:
You are going to need a 6-inch thick solid adamantium flame-shield for this thread, just letting you know in advance.

image

I hope I'm not too late?

OT: Since I believe that Consequences are, when Ethics are considered, are what matters, I got a simple answer for this problem. Even if we consider the fetus as alive, and abortion as murder, I have no problem with murdering this fetus. Why? Because murder isn't wrong per definition, it's wrong because it leads to certain consequences (that we can within reason predict), and the consequences of this murder are very few. Someone that has the theoretical possibility of life. It sounds bad, but we can't go around and care about everyone in this fashion. People are starving all over the world, death by diseases,even in our own countries, and yet we deny them the same possibility of a life, when we could help them.
I simply reject the idea that we should have any special obligations towards a person (fetus) in any grander fashion that we should have towards other, already born members of our species. If the argument is that abortion is murder, then I don't see how it is any worse than all the others we neglect.

al4674:
The only society worth defending is the one that protects the weakest and the defenseless.

Unborn humans are incapable of using democratic procedures and structures through which to defend their inalienable rights with - primarily their right to life. Their only hope is a government that will defend them and won't allow the stronger (the mother) to impose their interests over them at the expense of the most basic fundamental rights. They need a state that will take clear steps for the purpose of their protection.

To me, abortion is just insane and is the clearest demonstration of a society obsessed with self-entitlement, privilege, convenience and circumventing any sort of personal responsibility.

Presumes A; rights are inalienable, B; that a non-sentient, non-aware clump of cells can have "interests" over which the mother's can be held, C; that the rights of a non-sentient, non-aware clump of cells(assuming said rights even exist) override those of a fully-sentient, fully-aware human being with agency, D; that every pregnancy results from the irresponsibility of the mother.

That's a hefty bag of assumptions to base such a strident, medievalist, woman-bashing argument on.

Blablahb:
So I suppose telling a 13 year old pregnant rape victim "No you self-entitled slut, abortion is banned and you will have that child!" is just oh so great a demonstration of empathy....

The way you just go judging people on matters you haven't even got the faintest clue about is downright offensive, and shows exactly why the anti-abortion mob can't be taken seriously; all they really want is to impose their religious values. They don't care about anyone except themselves, and lack even the most basic empathy.

Yes, keep making your emotional arguments like the pro-choice crowd always does. For every ''raped 13 yeard old'' there's a ''I want an abortion because otherwise I won't fit into this dress'' or ''time for an abortion because I wanted a boy, not a girl.''

Hard cases are neligible and do not justify selective abortion. Even if I grant you that abortion is acceptable in the cases of rape, incest and other medical reasons - what about the other 95% of the abortions that have nothing to do with the above mentioned?

The fact is that the grand majority of abortions are purely selective and have nothing to do with medical issues.

Magichead:
Presumes A; rights are inalienable, B; that a non-sentient, non-aware clump of cells can have "interests" over which the mother's can be held, C; that the rights of a non-sentient, non-aware clump of cells(assuming said rights even exist) override those of a fully-sentient, fully-aware human being with agency, D; that every pregnancy results from the irresponsibility of the mother.

That's a hefty bag of assumptions to base such a strident, medievalist, woman-bashing argument on.

A - What's the problem with taking away the mother's rights then? If rights are not inalienable, then removing body autonomy rights from the mother is fair game (assuming she even formally has that right) just like removing the right to life of the fetus.

B - Assumes that the mother has a right to her interests at the expense of your euphemistic clump of cells.

C - Yes. Please explain how limited body autonomy for 9 months outweighs the right to life? It's a ridiculous precedent that cheapens the rule of law.

D - Well yes, more or less all abortions are conducted because of unwanted pregnancy. Hard cases are statistically irrelevant.

al4674:

adamsaccount:
Thing is though, i view a fetus as a potential human being, in the same way that sperm and eggs are potential human beings and the same way that the desire to screw is a potential human being. Sure its further down the line but still the same concept.

The only way you can view a fetus as a potential human being is if you disregard the general scientific consensus on the matter. In no way can you say that a fetus is not a biological human being, as in a living distinct member of the Homo Sapien race. This is something that is undeniable and taking an opposite view is in my book no different from creationists disregarding evolution for the sake of their ideology.

I'm sorry, but do you have a source for that? I'm not wishing to dispute your post, but I really wasn't aware there was a scientific consensus on the fact, so I'd like to read up on that. Since you brought it up I assumed you can point me directly to the relevant info instead of me having to go with google prospecting.

Vegosiux:
I'm sorry, but do you have a source for that? I'm not wishing to dispute your post, but I really wasn't aware there was a scientific consensus on the fact, so I'd like to read up on that. Since you brought it up I assumed you can point me directly to the relevant info instead of me having to go with google prospecting.

My source is your every day textbook on embryology and biology etc.

The New Encylopedia Britannica is a respected, peer reviewed source of information recognized by contemporary academia, and it states:

A human individual arises through the union of two cells, an egg from the mother and a sperm from the father - The New Encyclopedia Britannica, London 1998; 19th Volume, art. ''Genetics and Heredity'' page 726.

A new idividual is created when the elements of potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum/egg - The New Encylopedia Britannica, London 1996; 26'th volume, article ''Reproduction and reproductive systems'', chapter ''Human reproduction from conception to birth''; page 664.

These are in TNEB.
-------------------------------------------------------

I can give other source too:

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, page 3

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, page 3.

"Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." - Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1998. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia.

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." - O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.

And many more.

The argument that the fetus isn't a human simply hold no water anymore.

The pro-choice will have to resort to philosophical arguments from personhood or the need to argue that the violation of the rights of the unborn is somehow justifiable.

Oh boy, this can of worms again...

Personally, I think it's the woman's choice. Up to a point. Once the heart starts beating...well...then it's not right to do unless it's an emergency.

But if you catch the pregnancy early, I see no problem with ending it. At that point it's not a baby yet, it's a few self replicating cells. It's not "alive" yet.

And forgive me if I attach more importance to the smaller number of people who are raped and desperately need an abortion before their lives are shattered even FURTHER by being violated once again (by being forced to give birth to a child they did not want and is the product of a terrible violation of themselves, and whom will always remind them of that incident, forever tainting their relationship to each other) than I do to the greater number of unborn children aborted because their parents are dumbass douchebags who would likely abuse those future kids anyway if their current attitudes towards their future children are that uncaring.

And now, if you excuse me, I'm getting out of here before the storm hits.

al4674:

Vegosiux:
I'm sorry, but do you have a source for that? I'm not wishing to dispute your post, but I really wasn't aware there was a scientific consensus on the fact, so I'd like to read up on that. Since you brought it up I assumed you can point me directly to the relevant info instead of me having to go with google prospecting.

My source is your every day textbook on embryology and biology etc.

The New Encylopedia Britannica is a respected, peer reviewed source of information recognized by contemporary academia, and it states:

A human individual arises through the union of two cells, an egg from the mother and a sperm from the father - The New Encyclopedia Britannica, London 1998; 19th Volume, art. ''Genetics and Heredity'' page 726.

A new idividual is created when the elements of potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum/egg - The New Encylopedia Britannica, London 1996; 26'th volume, article ''Reprodcution and reproductive systems'', chapter ''Human reproduction from conception to birth''; page 664.

These are in TNEB.
-------------------------------------------------------

I can give other source too:

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, page 3

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, page 3.

"Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." - Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1998. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia.

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." - O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.

And many more.

The argument that the fetus isn't a human simply hold no water anymore.

The pro-choice will have to resort to philosophical arguments from personhood or the need to argue that the violation of the rights of the unborn is somehow justifiable.

None of your sources really say what you claim they are saying. They are pointing out that the zygote is the first step towards creating a unique human being and that the zygote is created during the fertilization of a woman's egg by a man's sperm. The distinction between "human organism" and "human being" (like O'Rahilly et al. uses) is quite important in terms of biology and medicine. One is a human on the technicality of consisting of human DNA, the other is a fully developed human.

Either way, it is kind of a moot point since the "pro-choice" supporters usually don't deny the fact that the zygote might one day be a human being or even that a 10-weeks in growth fetus is in a fairly advanced stage towards being a human being. We usually assert that up until about 22 weeks after inception the fetus can not survive on its' own and would not survive being separated from the mother while technically not showing any signs of life up until week 11 (heart beat, brain activity etc.). Before that the fetus or proto-fetus can not be designated as a human being because it simply lacks all the things that makes us human beings, apart from DNA, and as such you are not terminating life as much as the possibility of life.

Really, if you want to keep this discussion on the level at least don't resort to strawmanning.

al4674:

Yes, keep making your emotional arguments like the pro-choice crowd always does. For every ''raped 13 yeard old'' there's a ''I want an abortion because otherwise I won't fit into this dress'' or ''time for an abortion because I wanted a boy, not a girl.''

Hard cases are neligible and do not justify selective abortion. Even if I grant you that abortion is acceptable in the cases of rape, incest and other medical reasons - what about the other 95% of the abortions that have nothing to do with the above mentioned?

The fact is that the grand majority of abortions are purely selective and have nothing to do with medical issues.

And there's the pro-life fall back of make shit up to make things sound worse.

No there is not a person aborting for vain reasons for every medical need (and rape pregnancy can cause massive psychological harm to both mother and child if the pregnancy is carried through) it's utter bullshit and frankly it's offensive.

The vast majority of people who have abortions do so because a) there are medical issues that would likely kill them (and lethal self defence is legal in some US states[1]) or b) they are in no way capable of giving that child a good life.

Now lets hit the other arguments:

"They could put it up for adoption" - there are currently more than 90,000 children in care in the UK, why do they lose out to a clump of cells when it comes to getting a parent? There are few enough people willing to adopt as it is, this would just lead to more kids in care, which is no way to grow up.

"People should face the consequences of their actions" - Ok If my girlfriend gets pregnant we'll keep it, only if durex and whoever makes contraceptive implants pays for it. That's the protection we use, if it fails it is the companies fault not ours. Good luck getting them to pay for thousands of kids until they are 18.

"people shouldn't have sex if they cant take care of a kid" - if you think this you can go rot. Nobody can tell me what me and my girlfriend do in private. Using that logic what's next? "sorry you can't get a heart transplant because you had a McDonalds"

And just to round it out:

"An embryo is alive too" -

[1] ironically also the ones that are usually strongest in their anti-abortion message, including on medical grounds

This is bullshit of the highest caliber. Particularly about the part with the rapist. So someone should keep the fetus without support? I find the notion of punishing a women to be somewhat repulsive.

EDIT: Anyway at the end of the day it's a moral argument, but I would caution against trying to act morally superior. I'm for abortion mainly because it's the right for the women to decide. She's thinking and breathing at that moment, and she has more value in my opinion than a clump of cells.

Gethsemani:
None of your sources really say what you claim they are saying. They are pointing out that the zygote is the first step towards creating a unique human being and that the zygote is created during the fertilization of a woman's egg by a man's sperm. The distinction between "human organism" and "human being" (like O'Rahilly et al. uses) is quite important in terms of biology and medicine. One is a human on the technicality of consisting of human DNA, the other is a fully developed human.

My claim is that the fetus is a distinct human being and every source that I have listed affirms this position. They in no way say that the zygote is the first step - they outright say that the individual begins their life-cycle as the zygote.

O'Rahilly does mean an individual human being in the context of of the term ''human organism''. He uses the term ''human being'' and human organism'' synonomously, given that the term organism. We developed from the zygote stage to fetal stage to toddler to adult etc. It is a continuous process.

Clearly you can cite reliable sources that outright claims that the fetus cannot be considered a distinct, developing human being.

All the scientific articles I've read and cited here have maintained a clear consensus on the basis that:

1. That the genetic information that defines the individuality of each human is already present immediately after the fusion of the egg and sperm. Nothing will ever be added for this already present genetic information apart from nutrition and oxygen, which is needed for physical growth.

2. From the moment of conception, the zygote cannot be considered a part of the woman's body in any meaningful sense. We are dealing with a completely distinct new human being, who while being bonded to the mother's body still cannot be considered a part of the woman's body due to the fetus not sharing the identical DNA of that of the mother.

3. The organism (zygote) that was given rise through conception will follow its internally determined genetic programming and go through all phases of development attributed to the Homo Sapien species - from a single cell organism to ultimately an elderly man, followed by the inevitable death of the organism.

Gethsemani:
Either way, it is kind of a moot point since the "pro-choice" supporters usually don't deny the fact that the zygote might one day be a human being or even that a 10-weeks in growth fetus is in a fairly advanced stage towards being a human being. We usually assert that up until about 22 weeks after inception the fetus can not survive on its' own and would not survive being separated from the mother while technically not showing any signs of life up until week 11 (heart beat, brain activity etc.). Before that the fetus or proto-fetus can not be designated as a human being because it simply lacks all the things that makes us human beings, apart from DNA, and as such you are not terminating life as much as the possibility of life.

Really, if you want to keep this discussion on the level at least don't resort to strawmanning.

In light of the sources I cited, you simply cannot say that a fetus before 11 weeks isn't a human being.

The 22 weeks assertion is arbitrary as it essentially makes the definition of ''human being'' contingent on the unborn's geographic location. A 10 week old fetus for example is perfectly capable of surviving inside the mother's womb. It is elementary that if you take an organism and put it into an environment that is unsuitable to it's existence - it will die. If you take a naked adult human and put him into an environment that won't sustain him with nutriets and is hostile to his health (like antartica) - he will certainly die. But because he is unable to survive in environment X doesn't mean that he isn't a human. The fetus is well adapted to surive in the given environment his current level of development allows.

Also, the 22 week line only applies to women who have access to modern western medical technology. In the Middle-East and Africa, the 22 week line is not viable and without a certain level of medical technology, the fetus will die. Essentially we now have a paradox - a fetus is a human in the USA, but if transported to Congo - he no longer is a human.

So this 22 week confirmation period simply cannot work because of the absurd conclusions.

Abortion is given a legal context because people choose not to accept a scientific one, also science chooses no to draw a line in the sand on the issue because the public has already demanded they make a judgement call based on morals and would invite so much rage that it wouldn't be worth it.

Now your other problem is trying to get rid of something that would quickly become a epidemic in our country if it wasn't instituted, dead beat dads. Is the child support system on unfair in many states probably BUT option two is for jack asses to leave families at any point for any reason. Is it legal? Yes can it be combated in the court of law? I'm sure it's been tried and it obviously didn't work. The law sees responsibility shared between both parents of a child since a court has to decide whether or not a parent can be prevented from seeing a child.

I say it's the woman's body so it's the woman's choice. I don't see any issues at all, her body her choice.

LetalisK:
I think your idea basically ignores the man's responsibility in the creation of that child and places huge burdens on the woman alone. If a woman decides to go through pregnancy and raising it herself, the very least the man should do is help financially provide for that child. He did help create the situation, whether he likes it or not, and is already contributing the least. Unless he can prove there was some sort of premeditated effort to "trap" him, which is something people greatly overestimate the occurrence of, then he should be required to support the child.

Only if the act of sex was not recreational.

chaosord:

LetalisK:
I think your idea basically ignores the man's responsibility in the creation of that child and places huge burdens on the woman alone. If a woman decides to go through pregnancy and raising it herself, the very least the man should do is help financially provide for that child. He did help create the situation, whether he likes it or not, and is already contributing the least. Unless he can prove there was some sort of premeditated effort to "trap" him, which is something people greatly overestimate the occurrence of, then he should be required to support the child.

Only if the act of sex was not recreational.

Mind elaborating? How is the sex being recreational relevant?

chaosord:

LetalisK:
I think your idea basically ignores the man's responsibility in the creation of that child and places huge burdens on the woman alone. If a woman decides to go through pregnancy and raising it h DSTerself, the very least the man should do is help financially provide for that child. He did help create the situation, whether he likes it or not, and is already contributing the least. Unless he can prove there was some sort of premeditated effort to "trap" him, which is something people greatly overestimate the occurrence of, then he should be required to support the child.

Only if the act of sex was not recreational.

Do people (excluding pornstars and sex workers) not always have sex for recreation? if I have kids one day I'm not going to have sex thinking 'this is serious and I cannot enjoy it'.

If you mean casual and 'not planning to have kids' sex then 99.99% of people use protection. Unless the woman lied about being on the pill or holed a condom (trying to trap him) then neither is to blamed and they share equal responsibility.

Captcha: hard and fast - dirty captcha!

Karma168:

chaosord:

LetalisK:
I think your idea basically ignores the man's responsibility in the creation of that child and places huge burdens on the woman alone. If a woman decides to go through pregnancy and raising it h DSTerself, the very least the man should do is help financially provide for that child. He did help create the situation, whether he likes it or not, and is already contributing the least. Unless he can prove there was some sort of premeditated effort to "trap" him, which is something people greatly overestimate the occurrence of, then he should be required to support the child.

Only if the act of sex was not recreational.

Do people (excluding pornstars and sex workers) not always have sex for recreation? if I have kids one day I'm not going to have sex thinking 'this is serious and I cannot enjoy it'.

If you mean casual and 'not planning to have kids' sex then 99.99% of people use protection. Unless the woman lied about being on the pill or holed a condom (trying to trap him) then neither is to blamed and they share equal responsibility.

Captcha: hard and fast - dirty captcha!

It depends. For instance, a one night stand. They never meet again until years later where the woman is suing for years of child-support. If a woman chooses to be a mother, good for her, but she has no right to choose if a man becomes a father, finical or otherwise. Remember the woman can choose to keep it, abort it, or put it up for adoption.

I have issue with late-term ones because at that point I start thinking they should just have it and put it up for adoption, but otherwise I really don't have that much of a problem with it. It's a very difficult and emotionally draining thing to go through and not something that is done without a lot of contemplation or as a primary form of birth control, as some of the more ignorant nay-sayers seem to imply.

Then again, like everybody that seems to make up the panels that are responsible for making the decisions on legality of abortion, I have a penis and am incapable of bearing children so take my opinion for what it's worth.

al4674:
In light of the sources I cited, you simply cannot say that a fetus before 11 weeks isn't a human being.

Which is kind of funny, because a friend of mine who studied medicine is currently employed on a project where they take photos of small slices of fetus of varying stages of development, and colour in the organs and such to create a 3d image that can be used for reference.

Have you ever seen one of those? No, you haven't, or like me you'd have been amazed at how much more they resemble a dinosaur than they do a human being. Thought it was somewhere around ten weeks which she showed me recently. The thing had a tail.

A tail that was longer than the rest of the thing combined.

al4674:
Yes, keep making your emotional arguments like the pro-choice crowd always does. For every ''raped 13 yeard old'' there's a ''I want an abortion because otherwise I won't fit into this dress'' or ''time for an abortion because I wanted a boy, not a girl.''

There's nothing emotional about that. It's merely underlining how cruel and uncaring your point of view is.

And there are no abortions out of convenience. That is a blatant lie created by the anti-abortion lobby, which has never been backed up by fact in any way.

al4674:
Hard cases are neligible and do not justify selective abortion. Even if I grant you that abortion is acceptable in the cases of rape, incest and other medical reasons - what about the other 95% of the abortions that have nothing to do with the above mentioned?

Yes, what about those? Maybe you should contemplate what the impact on life is if you suddenly have a child? You know, show empathy. Think. Do more than "my opinion, cuz, the pastor told me to think this".

And I'll also slap you around with some facts on abortion reasons, gathered to evaluate abortion as written in Visser, M.R.M. et al. (2006). Evaluatie Wet afbreking Zwangerschap.
Multiple reasons could be given in the answer, so the total of the reasons is more than 100%

Reasons for abortion are:
Dangerous to own health: 11,4 %
Large risk of medical problems with the baby 16,5 %
Too poor to be able to sustain a child: 46,7 %
Unable to house a baby: 26,3 %
Too young to be able to raise a child: 25,1 %
Relationship is very short or already broken: 32,6%
There is no other parent: 10,6%

Over 20% of these 'abortions' were overtime treatment, where pregnancy status is yet unknown, but the period stopped for whatever reason.

The amount of cases that had used no birth control was only 5%, which should be more than covered by the category of health risks.

One major cause of abortion cited is religious taboo. Sex is taboo. So in those religious environments you're not taught about birth control, women aren't entitled to demand it, but men are entitled to demand sex and the abortion rate among these religious minorities is three of four times as high as among other groups. Gosh, it would seem that the religion which seeks to impose an abortion ban and strip women of their human rights, is the cause of abortions in the first place, how ironic.

It would appear that your ideas aren't supported by fact in any way.

chaosord:
She can not demand money from the man who had sex with her (even if it a rapist, sorry two wrongs do not make a right. maybe create a support system where proven cases get aid, another topic for another time

Mmm, yes, and for the same reason all torts from wrongful death and assault to negligence and trespass pay no damages because "two wrongs don't make a right".

Are you for real?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here