Abortion

[BilliardsBall]

So you're saying it's ethical to enslave people so long as they don't have the same level of firepower?
Slaves are all post birth people stripped of personal autonomy just like a post birth woman who is stripped of her personal autonomy when forced to either gestate or abort. I don't know how much clearer I can say this. Your slavery analogy fits a lot better on forcing women to give up their autonomy than it does a fetus/zygote being terminated before it even knows what it is yet.

Doctors do have the power of life and death in their hands. They always had. You don't go to a priest to save your mortal life you go to a doctor. They deal with life or death situations every day. One slip up can literally cost someone's life. That's why they are extensively trained and expected to have high IQs.
Viability is based more on stats than it is pipe dreams. How much is the survival rate of 15 week old premies may I ask? 10% 5% lower? Higher?
I'm pro choice. This means even if I personally disagree with elective abortion I do not say that no one else should have that option. Nor do I apply a specific time frame to the choice. Though late term abortions are usually mostly medically necessary.
And watching my father die an agonising death whilst he was extremely embarrassed by it has made me pro elective euthanasia, provided informed consent is there and is strictly followed. Just in case you're going where I think you're going with this.

I'm sorry you lost your father and in that way.

So you're saying it's ethical to enslave people so long as they don't have the same level of firepower?

So you're saying it's ethical to kill babies so long as they don't have the same level of firepower? That realization was my point and I'm glad you've come to that realization.

 

[Cephus]

Please do not hijack this abortion thread. I understand the suspension of conservation of matter and energy that occurred when this universe began, based on my understanding of currently accepted theories of cosmology. But since you say you understand the "physics" of a miracle, please tell me what a miracle is.

Thanks.

It wasn't suspended, it didn't exist at the time. The physical laws of the universe were generated in the Big Bang, they didn't exist prior. And nowhere in what you quoted did I ever say I understand the physics of a miracle, you'd have to be able to present a miracle for objective evaluation first and you haven't done so. I'm not the one claiming these things exist. You are.

 

[SomeRandom]

Amazing response. And I'm so sorry you went through all that with your fathers passing.

Thank you

 

[SomeRandom]

You sound like a Revoltistanian.
If you didn't have such dashing good looks, I'd swear you were one of us!

Aww shucks

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm sorry you lost your father and in that way.

Thanks.


So you're saying it's ethical to kill babies so long as they don't have the same level of firepower? That realization was my point and I'm glad you've come to that realization.

No one "kills" a fetus because it has no firepower. No one strips it of it's personal autonomy, because I don't consider that to be in effect before birth. I never once said anything about fetuses (fetusi?) having no firepower I said they don't even know what they are yet. Are they even sentient?
A slave is. A slave is owned as property and stripped of it's personal autonomy.
I mean damn, you seem awful desperate to fit your analogy onto pre birth zygotes and fetuses. But we're talking personal autonomy here, not whether or not they can fight back!!!
And why are you so fixated on slavery? It makes you seem like a slavery apologist. I don't think you are. I mean, right?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No one "kills" a fetus because it has no firepower. No one strips it of it's personal autonomy, because I don't consider that to be in effect before birth.

When it comes to a pregnant woman, there are those who would equate her "taking responsibility" with "stripping her of her personal autonomy." And ONLY pregnant women.

Same people would protect the mere existence of a fetus over a woman's choice for her body. Call the fetus' right the actual autonomy, and the woman little more than a punished incubator. Why else would pregnancy by them be reduced to an "inconvenience"?

I never once said anything about fetuses (fetusi?) having no firepower I said they don't even know what they are yet. Are they even sentient?
A slave is. A slave is owned as property and stripped of it's personal autonomy.
I mean damn, you seem awful desperate to fit your analogy onto pre birth zygotes and fetuses. But we're talking personal autonomy here, not whether or not they can fight back!!!
And why are you so fixated on slavery? It makes you seem like a slavery apologist. I don't think you are. I mean, right?

I think the slavery argument is the feeble attempt to regard the fetus as the latest in a long list of who has been dehumanized and killed and used for somebody else's gain. To this end, women got enough rights within reason, but as long as they know their place in reproducing humans, they are not to stand up for their rights to determine what goes in and what goes out of their own bodies. Once pregnant, **** them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It wasn't suspended, it didn't exist at the time. The physical laws of the universe were generated in the Big Bang, they didn't exist prior. And nowhere in what you quoted did I ever say I understand the physics of a miracle, you'd have to be able to present a miracle for objective evaluation first and you haven't done so. I'm not the one claiming these things exist. You are.

Um, what? I asked you to define a miracle for me so I can help you understand my thoughts on miracles. I'm having trouble following your paragraph. What do you think a miracle is? I find a lot of people are confused about them--even Christians, who often confuse providential acts for miraculous ones.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No one "kills" a fetus because it has no firepower. No one strips it of it's personal autonomy, because I don't consider that to be in effect before birth. I never once said anything about fetuses (fetusi?) having no firepower I said they don't even know what they are yet. Are they even sentient?
A slave is. A slave is owned as property and stripped of it's personal autonomy.
I mean damn, you seem awful desperate to fit your analogy onto pre birth zygotes and fetuses. But we're talking personal autonomy here, not whether or not they can fight back!!!
And why are you so fixated on slavery? It makes you seem like a slavery apologist. I don't think you are. I mean, right?

Let me ask you this if I may. You are considering an abortion and a doctor says that if you abort your fetus at this late date, it is at an age and state where if labor is induced/C-section, the baby has a 60/40 chance to survive. Where do you draw the line in terms of percentages?

 

[Cephus]

Um, what? I asked you to define a miracle for me so I can help you understand my thoughts on miracles. I'm having trouble following your paragraph. What do you think a miracle is? I find a lot of people are confused about them--even Christians, who often confuse providential acts for miraculous ones.

And I said, how can I define a miracle if I don't think they exist at all? I'm not the one claiming miracles exist, YOU ARE! So you define them!

 

[SomeRandom]

Let me ask you this if I may. You are considering an abortion and a doctor says that if you abort your fetus at this late date, it is at an age and state where if labor is induced/C-section, the baby has a 60/40 chance to survive. Where do you draw the line in terms of percentages?

If I may point out, before answering, your question seems quite manipulative. It's worded in a way that's designed to elicit an emotional response, by deliberately leaving the details of the fetus vague and presenting a relatively high survival chance outside of the womb. Are you aware that you seem to be drifting towards an appeal to emotion?

What stage are we talking? First, second or third trimester? What condition is the fetus in, exactly? Is it healthy? Has it got a medical condition? What condition am I in? Is this pregnancy causing medical or mental health problems? Christ maybe I've just been diagnosed with Cancer (it actually does run in my family so this is quite a reasonable concern for me at least.) What if I'm a 12 year old? What if the fetus has a hole in it's heart? What if I have preeclampsia?
Any one of those factors would most likely play a large role in my personal decision.

Now, me, personally, I would ask the Doctor (for I am not bleeding arrogant enough to do this on my own) what his professional advice was and weigh both options before coming to my own decision.
Choice word there, decision. That's generally what happens when one is deciding to do something medical. They consult with their doctor, they weigh up the advice and the pros and cons in the scenario. They might discuss it with their significant other and then come to a decision based on that information. Some people might choose to abort, others might choose to have a C Section. Being that I am Pro Choice I am in favor of keeping both options open and legal to all people in such a scenario, despite what I personally may think of said scenario.

It's all well and good to try to present two options without bothering to concern one's self with other potential factors. But I don't live in a black and white world. It is full of grey.

Again I ask, since you seem concerned with premature babies, what exactly is the survival rate of the 15 week old fetus you brought up in a previous comment?

 

[BilliardsBall]

And I said, how can I define a miracle if I don't think they exist at all? I'm not the one claiming miracles exist, YOU ARE! So you define them!

You will forgive me, but I find your reticence to define terms aligns with your fear of debating using such terms. A five-year-old child could define miracles. I shall if you continue to refuse to do so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If I may point out, before answering, your question seems quite manipulative. It's worded in a way that's designed to elicit an emotional response, by deliberately leaving the details of the fetus vague and presenting a relatively high survival chance outside of the womb. Are you aware that you seem to be drifting towards an appeal to emotion?

What stage are we talking? First, second or third trimester? What condition is the fetus in, exactly? Is it healthy? Has it got a medical condition? What condition am I in? Is this pregnancy causing medical or mental health problems? Christ maybe I've just been diagnosed with Cancer (it actually does run in my family so this is quite a reasonable concern for me at least.) What if I'm a 12 year old? What if the fetus has a hole in it's heart? What if I have preeclampsia?
Any one of those factors would most likely play a large role in my personal decision.

Now, me, personally, I would ask the Doctor (for I am not bleeding arrogant enough to do this on my own) what his professional advice was and weigh both options before coming to my own decision.
Choice word there, decision. That's generally what happens when one is deciding to do something medical. They consult with their doctor, they weigh up the advice and the pros and cons in the scenario. They might discuss it with their significant other and then come to a decision based on that information. Some people might choose to abort, others might choose to have a C Section. Being that I am Pro Choice I am in favor of keeping both options open and legal to all people in such a scenario, despite what I personally may think of said scenario.

It's all well and good to try to present two options without bothering to concern one's self with other potential factors. But I don't live in a black and white world. It is full of grey.

Again I ask, since you seem concerned with premature babies, what exactly is the survival rate of the 15 week old fetus you brought up in a previous comment?

Yes, I get that you live in a subjective moral world of more greys than black and white. I find this common among non-Christians and pro-choice people alike. Just my anecdotal experience, though, and I may be wrong.

I hear what you are saying about a debate appeal to emotion, however, I have no fear of using emotion when making a life decision, like "We're excited to be pregnant and already love our baby though he or she is yet to be born." I further think I would be highly concerned for any person who decides to terminate any pregnancy without giving vent or consideration to emotion. Jurisprudence and mercy recognize the difference between a crime of passion and a cold-blooded (non-emotive) killing.

The survival rate of a 15-week fetus allowed to gestate to the 16th week and beyond is excellent, especially in our modern era. The survival rate of an aborted 15-week fetus is zero.

 

[Cephus]

You will forgive me, but I find your reticence to define terms aligns with your fear of debating using such terms. A five-year-old child could define miracles. I shall if you continue to refuse to do so.

But without a common frame of reference, at best, I can only give a dictionary definition, which I shall if you want. According to the dictionary, a miracle is "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." I don't know why you couldn't do the same thing.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, I get that you live in a subjective moral world of more greys than black and white. I find this common among non-Christians and pro-choice people alike. Just my anecdotal experience, though, and I may be wrong.

I find that as well. It could have something to do with the dichotomy presented the Bibles?
In Hindu scriptures, for example, there's actually no one who is ever fully good or fully evil. There's even "anti- gods" (demons.......kind of) who are very noble and honorable. Many even get boons (gifts bestowed by God) through sincere acts of devotion. There are even those who fight on God's side who are seen as traitors or in a very unkind light.
In the Christian scriptures the dichotomy between good and evil is much more clear cut. You have those tempted into sinful ways by the Devil/Satan and you have those fighting on the side of righteousness of God. (Arguments about seemingly immoral acts done by the "good guys" notwithstanding.) This means that morality as taught in Christianity is a tad more black and white by default. Of course there's all sorts of interpretations that can render more grey areas in this. But that's just my observation.

I hear what you are saying about a debate appeal to emotion, however, I have no fear of using emotion when making a life decision, like "We're excited to be pregnant and already love our baby though he or she is yet to be born." I further think I would be highly concerned for any person who decides to terminate any pregnancy without giving vent or consideration to emotion. Jurisprudence and mercy recognize the difference between a crime of passion and a cold-blooded (non-emotive) killing.

I'm not saying anyone actually making the decision to abort or not abort should be completely emotionless. Emotion does play a large role in practically every decision we make. But we're not deciding whether or not to abort our own pregnancies here. We're in a debate about the issue of abortion. And a debate is where logic is thought to be of most use, emotion tends to cloud one's logical judgement. It is therefore usually seen as a fallacy to use an appeal to emotion.

The survival rate of a 15-week fetus allowed to gestate to the 16th week and beyond is excellent, especially in our modern era. The survival rate of an aborted 15-week fetus is zero.

Interesting you say that, because research has shown that at the 22 week mark (NOT 15) the survival rate of a premie that young is actually between 2% and 15%. That's not exactly "beyond excellent." Are you saying the survival rates of premature babies has improved? It has thanks to modern medicine. Will that rate improve with more sophisticated pre and post natal care down the track? More than likely. But it's not the rosy picture your painting here. Unless you're saying that the survival rate of a 15 week old fetus improves by having it gestate to the 16th week and again improves when one allows it to gestate to the 17th week and so on and so forth?
I'd be careful, we're wandering into intellectually dishonest territory here. You pointed out that it was possible for a premature birth done at 15 weeks, that by default means you've refused it to gestate longer than 15 weeks. I'm starting to get confused here.

http://preemiehelp.com/about-preemi.../preemie-outcomes/outcomes-by-gestational-age

http://www.babycenter.com/0_whats-the-outlook-for-premature-babies-born-before-28-31-33_10300031.bc

 

[BilliardsBall]

But without a common frame of reference, at best, I can only give a dictionary definition, which I shall if you want. According to the dictionary, a miracle is "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." I don't know why you couldn't do the same thing.

It is important to define terms. I think all miracles are explicable by scientific laws. I think all Bible miracles are meant to help people--feed the hungry, rescue the drowning, save our souls. I think there is an important difference between providence and miracles. When the tornado misses your home, that might be divine providence, but not a miracle.

I do know that I know some people, religious or not. Each and every one who considers children providential, miraculous or both is pro life.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I find that as well. It could have something to do with the dichotomy presented the Bibles?
In Hindu scriptures, for example, there's actually no one who is ever fully good or fully evil. There's even "anti- gods" (demons.......kind of) who are very noble and honorable. Many even get boons (gifts bestowed by God) through sincere acts of devotion. There are even those who fight on God's side who are seen as traitors or in a very unkind light.
In the Christian scriptures the dichotomy between good and evil is much more clear cut. You have those tempted into sinful ways by the Devil/Satan and you have those fighting on the side of righteousness of God. (Arguments about seemingly immoral acts done by the "good guys" notwithstanding.) This means that morality as taught in Christianity is a tad more black and white by default. Of course there's all sorts of interpretations that can render more grey areas in this. But that's just my observation.



I'm not saying anyone actually making the decision to abort or not abort should be completely emotionless. Emotion does play a large role in practically every decision we make. But we're not deciding whether or not to abort our own pregnancies here. We're in a debate about the issue of abortion. And a debate is where logic is thought to be of most use, emotion tends to cloud one's logical judgement. It is therefore usually seen as a fallacy to use an appeal to emotion.



Interesting you say that, because research has shown that at the 22 week mark (NOT 15) the survival rate of a premie that young is actually between 2% and 15%. That's not exactly "beyond excellent." Are you saying the survival rates of premature babies has improved? It has thanks to modern medicine. Will that rate improve with more sophisticated pre and post natal care down the track? More than likely. But it's not the rosy picture your painting here. Unless you're saying that the survival rate of a 15 week old fetus improves by having it gestate to the 16th week and again improves when one allows it to gestate to the 17th week and so on and so forth?
I'd be careful, we're wandering into intellectually dishonest territory here. You pointed out that it was possible for a premature birth done at 15 weeks, that by default means you've refused it to gestate longer than 15 weeks. I'm starting to get confused here.

http://preemiehelp.com/about-preemi.../preemie-outcomes/outcomes-by-gestational-age

http://www.babycenter.com/0_whats-the-outlook-for-premature-babies-born-before-28-31-33_10300031.bc

My intention wasn't to blur lines nor was I being dishonest. My intent was to demonstrate that wherever a line is unclear, there is still a safe and unsafe side. A man who forces a woman to touch him sexually when he says no may not say in his defense, "But I didn't rape her!"

If we're unsure about a fetus, let it live. Does that sound like the safe side of the line to you as it does to me? Do I have the safe side of the line marked incorrectly?

 

[Cephus]

It is important to define terms. I think all miracles are explicable by scientific laws. I think all Bible miracles are meant to help people--feed the hungry, rescue the drowning, save our souls. I think there is an important difference between providence and miracles. When the tornado misses your home, that might be divine providence, but not a miracle.

I do know that I know some people, religious or not. Each and every one who considers children providential, miraculous or both is pro life.

But if they're explicable by scientific laws, they're not miracles! That's the definition of the term! It also doesn't stop people from making the most absurd claims about miracles, that the tornado killed 47 people, but one person survived with only a broken neck. It's a MIRACLE!

It really doesn't matter if someone is pro-choice or pro-life, that decision was made in the early 1970s, like it or not. It is never going to go away, like it or not. If you don't like abortion, by all means, don't have an abortion. That's the limit of your control.

 

[dust1n]

Viability is based more on stats than it is pipe dreams. How much is the survival rate of 15 week old premies may I ask? 10% 5% lower? Higher?

Actually, just reading through late, but just to clarify, there is no such thing as viability before 20 weeks. So, to answer your question, 0%.

"The limit of viability is the gestational age at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother's womb. With the support of neonatal intensive care units, the limit of viability in the developed world has declined since 50 years ago, but has remained unchanged in the last 12 years.[8][9] Currently the limit of viability is considered to be around 24 weeks although the incidence of major disabilities remains high at this point.[10][11] Neo-natologists generally would not provide intensive care at 23 weeks, but would from 26 weeks.[12][13]

[14] As of 2006, the two youngest children to survive premature birth are thought to be James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada, at 21 weeks and 5 days gestational age),[15][16] and Amillia Taylor (born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestational age).[17][17][18] She was born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestation, as an IVF pregnancy.[19] Both children were born just under 22 weeks from fertilization. At birth, Taylor was 9 inches (22.86 cm) long and weighed 10 ounces (283 grams).[17] She suffered digestive and respiratory problems, together with a brain hemorrhage. She was discharged from the Baptist Children's Hospital on 20 February 2007.[17] As of 2013, Taylor was in kindergarten and at the small end of the normal growth curve with some developmental delays.[20]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

 

[dust1n]

Interesting you say that, because research has shown that at the 22 week mark (NOT 15) the survival rate of a premie that young is actually between 2% and 15%. That's not exactly "beyond excellent." Are you saying the survival rates of premature babies has improved? It has thanks to modern medicine.

Oops, nevermind. I do find it curious though that pro-lifers don't expend millions and millions of dollars into scientific research into miscarriages and the female reproductive system in general, if their intentions were to save lives.

 

[SomeRandom]

Oops, nevermind. I do find it curious though that pro-lifers don't expend millions and millions of dollars into scientific research into miscarriages and the female reproductive system in general, if their intentions were to save lives.

Curious indeed, sir!