This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Abortion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gamerunknown
I know you don't like Christopher Hitchens, but you may like
Peter Hitchens
. Personally I'm not enamoured with him, but (if I linked the right debate) there's a chilling part where the guy says he's dissected foetuses and that they distinctly weren't human.
Post by
MyTie
But the fetus only responds to the stimuli after a certain amount of time, when the brain is developed enough to do so; it won't just respond from the very beginning.
Edit: So yes, it's not clear cut.
The fetus does not intelligently respond to stimuli, but it does respond. Single celled organisms respond to stimuli. The sperm and the egg themselves respond to stimuli. You tell a sperm a joke and its not going to laugh. The response is not intelligent, but there is response.
I'm sorry, are you arguing that the fertilized egg is inanimate?
Post by
MyTie
I know you don't like Christopher Hitchens, but you may like
Peter Hitchens
. Personally I'm not enamoured with him, but (if I linked the right debate) there's a chilling part where the guy says he's dissected foetuses and that they distinctly weren't human.
They certainly don't look human, do they, LOL. So let me ask you, if they aren't human, what species of life do they belong to? Pig? Tree? Atheist? (i jest ROFLMAO LOL OLO!1!)
Post by
Orranis
There's a definite difference both biologically and morally between life and sentient life. You are defining life by the same way you'd define Plant Life, and I don't think you're crusading against vegetarians here. A human corpse is considered to no longer be alive, though it has it's own DNA, and at some point in its life responds to stimuli and is able to reproduce. Yet it is no longer 'alive.' Someone could argue a similar thing about an unborn child at certain stages.
It is a dead human body, as it no longer responds to stimuli, nor has homeostasis. A dead human body does not posses the same qualities of life as an unborn baby. Poor analogy.
Though it once did respond to stimuli, while a zygote say requires the controlled system of the mothers uterus in order to retain it's homeostasis. I don't think you'd argue a dead human body is inhuman either.
Similarly, is a cancerous growth that has a different DNA structure to the human it's on considered a different being? Or life for that matter? After all, it reproduces, has cell growth, can obviously metabolize, and is homeostatic at least to a point. A cancerous tumor does not have homeostasis, nor does it respond to stimuli. You could say that it reproduces, and the cells themselves may exhibit life, but the tumor does not. The tumor is not a life form. Way to compare a baby to a tumor, though. Well done.
Okay, so should we have a program to protect cancerous cells? The only point I'm trying to make here is that just because something constitutes as 'life' biologically doesn't mean we care about it.
And you've obviously never met my sister.
I'm personally undecided on my stance on abortion, but I think you're being a bit arrogant in trying to claim that there are easy, hard and fast definitions for all these things that we can therefore come to a conclusion with.
But we have hard and fast definitions that we scientifically apply to various creatures and fit those creatures into definitive categories. We have qualities of life that are widely accepted by the scientific community, of which a human embryo fits. I cannot imagine anyone arguing that a human embryo is not human, nor could I imagine anyone arguing that a human embryo is inanimate. However, people will argue that the embryo, while alive, while human, and while unique, is not an unique living human being. It isn't as if I'm arrogantly forcing my definitions onto you. These are citable and credible definitions, as observed, measured, and recorded.
I would argue that there's a difference between being human, unique, and life (though there's a difference between 'alive' and 'life'), and a unique living human being due to the connotations of the latter term. For example, sentience. Which I think is a pretty big deal in this conversation
Post by
MyTie
Though it once did respond to stimuli, while a zygote say requires the controlled system of the mothers uterus in order to retain it's homeostasis. I don't think you'd argue a dead human body is inhuman either. First of all, a zygote responds to the needs of furthering its life by actively pursuing metabolism. Although it cannot succeed in homeostasis on its own, it does attempt it, by developing cells for higher functions, including furthering more metabolism. As for the dead body thing, I've never said that a dead body wasn't a human body, it is just not a
living
human body, therefore, has no need for laws protecting its life. The cells do not, in any fashion, respond to stimuli. The other organisms in the body, such as bacteria do, but those are their own entities.Okay, so should we have a program to protect cancerous cells? The only point I'm trying to make here is that just because something constitutes as 'life' biologically doesn't mean we care about it.
And you've obviously never met my sister. I'm not saying that just because it is a living being it needs to have laws protecting it. I'm saying that since it is a living human being, it needs to have laws protecting it. I mean, you are a living human being, so the same reason that laws protect you they should protect all humans. If not, give logic against.I would argue that there's a difference between being human, unique, and life (though there's a difference between 'alive' and 'life'), and a unique living human being due to the connotations of the latter term. For example, sentience. Which I think is a pretty big deal in this conversationI don't have any idea what you just said. You do understand that "alive" is the adjective used to describe that which possesses "life". Are you trying to use semantics to argue that that which is alive possesses no life? As for 'sentience', an embryo may not have the ability to reason, but you are going to have to go further than just using that as a justifier for abortion. You going to have to explain to me why not being a reasoning human disqualifies that human to their right to life.
Post by
Orranis
I would argue that there's a difference between being human, unique, and life (though there's a difference between 'alive' and 'life'), and a unique living human being due to the connotations of the latter term. For example, sentience. Which I think is a pretty big deal in this conversationI don't have any idea what you just said. You do understand that "alive" is the adjective used to describe that which possesses "life". Are you trying to use semantics to argue that that which is alive possesses no life? As for 'sentience', an embryo may not have the ability to reason, but you are going to have to go further than just using that as a justifier for abortion. You going to have to explain to me why not being a reasoning human disqualifies that human to their right to life.
I told you, I'm not for or against abortion. I'm undecided. I'm not trying to justify anything.
Definition and connotation are two different things. As for the sentience thing, I think a lot of what we consider in morality comes from the unwillingness to do others pain, and I think whether the fetus can think and feel would make a significant part of an argument for either side.
Post by
OverZealous
If the lump of flesh is a unique human being that is alive (by definition), and there is a preplanned ending of that life (the definition of murder), how can you, or anybody for that matter, advocate for the choice to do that, based on the fact that the fetus can't feel it?
I do not believe that I said anything about me advocating abortion. If you think I did, please quote me on that.
There's a definite difference both biologically and morally between life and sentient life. You are defining life by the same way you'd define Plant Life, and I don't think you're crusading against vegetarians here.
I would also like to repeat this.
I don't have any idea what you just said. You do understand that "alive" is the adjective used to describe that which possesses "life". Are you trying to use semantics to argue that that which is alive possesses no life? As for 'sentience', an embryo may not have the ability to reason, but you are going to have to go further than just using that as a justifier for abortion. You going to have to explain to me why not being a reasoning human disqualifies that human to their right to life.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that the lack of sentience is justification for abortion, but I would be willing to say, like Orranis, that it no doubt plays a part. Like he says, much of what we consider when discussing morals and the like is the unwillingness to cause pain in others. If the fetus can not feel (which is unlikely before it has a nervous system) and can not think - therefore not know, I don't see it as the same thing as killing a fully developed human. For clarification, I am not advocating free abortion before week 8 simply because the fetus can not know; I don't think it is a good enough reason, but I
am
saying that it most certainly plays a part. Do you understand my reasoning?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think what OZ is saying, is that if the procedure is going to happen at all, then it should happen as early as possible to cause as little pain and distress as possible. Not whether or not it should happen at all, but just noting that if it is going to happen then it should be done early.
Post by
Lombax
This is how I see it: if the kid would cause more harm then good, get an abortion.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
This is how I see it: if the kid would cause more harm then good, get an abortion.
I find it ironic that your grammatical error made your sentence more correct, IMO, than you intended it to be. I imagine that you intended it to read "If the kid causes more harm THAN good, get an abortion," which seems to be the most callous response yet. However, you wrote that the kid "causes more harm, THEN good," which grammatically indicates that while initially it might be harmful, it would later become a good thing. Which is actually my opinion on most cases where people have unintended pregnancies. So...way to go.
Post by
Lombax
This is how I see it: if the kid would cause more harm then good, get an abortion.
I find it ironic that your grammatical error made your sentence more correct, IMO, than you intended it to be. I imagine that you intended it to read "If the kid causes more harm THAN good, get an abortion," which seems to be the most callous response yet. However, you wrote that the kid "causes more harm, THEN good," which grammatically indicates that while initially it might be harmful, it would later become a good thing. Which is actually my opinion on most cases where people have unintended pregnancies. So...way to go.
Lulz, I am to tired to write at all really.
Post by
Azazel
Lulz, I am
to
tired to write at all really.
Agreed.
But anyway, how can you see a kid will cause more harm than good? You obviously aren't a bad person just for sitting in a wheelchair.
Post by
MyTie
I think what OZ is saying, is that if the procedure is going to happen at all, then it should happen as early as possible to cause as little pain and distress as possible. Not whether or not it should happen at all, but just noting that if it is going to happen then it should be done early.I understand, but there is reason for me to hate his argument. To me, abortion is the most heinous act in human history. More heinous than slavery, than wiping out nations, than genocide, than discrimination, than poverty, than the atomic bomb, than anything. We have a society that has made it a legal and protected
right
, to end the life of your child, based on little or no reason. The supporting logic for the action is flimsy at best, or, more likely, non existent. In the United States, during the year 2007, 1.21 million abortions took place. 1.21 million. That is nearly the population of Idaho. This is the modern holocaust, on my front porch. To me, and really, to reality, there is no difference between killing an unborn kid and killing a born kid. Imagine they were lining up children against a wall, and shooting them to death, just because the mom didn't feel like having a kid any longer, and you were arguing that they stop it, and some guy says "but they shoot them in the head so there is no pain". Your heart would sink, that anyone could be that heartless, that oblivious, that inhuman. That argument in itself is not a 100% disapproval of abortion. A 100% disapproval of abortion is the only answer I can accept. It is the only answer that is not heinous. Further, anyone who does not, automatically, 100% disapprove of abortion, scares me. Abortion is such an extremely despicable notion, that a mind who can entertain something that terrible as acceptable, or even not whole-heartedly disapprove, is a mind that I will never,
NEVER
, understand.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I don't fully understand it either MyTie- It seems so hypocritical. When a young child dies, people lament all of the things that the child will never do. Again and again grieving relatives talk about how the baby that just died will never see a Christmas, go to prom, play baseball, go to school, get married, etc. It's a bigger tragedy for most people when a child dies than when an adult dies, because they didn't even get a chance to do anything yet. And it's not like the baby died regretting not having any of this, or felt the loss or pain personally. The younger a child is when he dies, the more he missed out on, and the harder it is- we don't rationalize it that he wasn't developed enough to even want to go to prom yet, so it's not the same as taking it away from someone who can feel more, and expects more. People lament that they never got the chance to know how great it was just to be a person.
But if the child was killed a year earlier, none of those things matter, because they didn't see his or her face yet, and because it saved money and avoided stretch marks.
Post by
Adamsm
But if the child was killed a year earlier, none of those things matter, because they didn't see his or her face yet, and because it saved money and avoided stretch marks.
You've actually hit the nail on the head there: To a large majority(myself included), the fetus isn't a 'person' yet, because you haven't interacted with it or really grown to love it as you do once the baby starts to kick and the like inside of the womb. Sad when it's about something completely selfish as body image but there's the rub of human choice.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
So then, when a person is killed, is the killer punished for what they did to that person, or what they took away from the people who are left? If you can prove that someone had no friends and loved ones to miss him, and no responsibilities left unfulfilled when he died, is it ok to kill him then? A large number of homeless people have no one who depends on them or cares about them- maybe they shouldn't be included in murder laws, if the law is get justice for the grieving and not the murdered?
Post by
MyTie
But if the child was killed a year earlier, none of those things matter, because they didn't see his or her face yet, and because it saved money and avoided stretch marks.
I went on a date with a girl (wasn't much of a date), who told me she would rather get an abortion than have a kid "ruin her body". I don't remember how she got onto the conversation. Usually I just made small talk on the first date. She told me that, and we weren't even to the restaurant yet. She was like "why are you turning around", to which I just politely asked her to remain quiet until I could drop her off at her place.
Post by
Adamsm
In that case, it's part of the justice system as it's against the law to kill someone. As there are no laws about fetuses, not much that can be done in that regard, that isn't an act of vigilantism, which usually ends up with the vigilant in jail for killing/injuring the abortion doc.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Good form, MyTie, good form.
When my sister became pregnant by her boyfriend of six months, my father suggested that she should get rid of the baby. He was worried because she didn't drive, and didn't make much money, and because he thought the father would bail. He was really upset when she told him she was keeping it, because he thought she was ruining her life.
Now, two years later, she's married, the baby is spoiled to death by the whole family and is just the happiest child I've ever met. My father loves this baby sooooo much. And he never would have met him, if my sister had listened to his advice.
@Adam- but we generally make laws about things because we think they're wrong as a society. I'm not asking if it's illegal to kill homeless people now. I'm asking if you, personally, think that the punishment for murder is because the crime is against the person killed, or against the people left behind, or both? If it's against the person killed, then it doesn't matter if no one loved them yet. If it's against the people left behind, then wouldn't it stand to reason that people with no attachments should not be protected by law? I'm just trying to follow the logic of why you say the fetus isn't a person- you said it's because no one knows it and loves it yet, and you said it's because it isn't developed fully yet. I'm just trying to see how you feel those reasons hold up when applied to other instances.
Post by
gamerunknown
I personally think starvation is a bigger problem than abortion. The potential pleasure deprived from people is similar and I think the pain is greater in the majority of instances (even when a foetus is capable of feeling pain, starvation is a gradual process that may take as long as a month).
I can't find any statistics on how many starve to death each year, but apparently there are 43m abortions worldwide and 15m children starving, so perhaps accounting for adult starvation and complications of malnutrition (scurvy, anaemia) the toll is equivalent.
Edit: Also, MyTie, what do you think of Dan Savage's argument that the family planning agency have prevented more abortions than they've been complicit in? They have a 10:1 ratio of providing contraception to providing abortions, so may have saved the lives of thousands of unborn children by preventing them from being conceived in the first place.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.