Abortion

[BilliardsBall]

Are people dumb?

I mean really when I was a non Christian Science clearly showed me abortion was murder

It's not a dumb/smart argument. It's an argument with two sides agreeing:

Pro-life: Life begins at conception.

Pro-choice: Life begins somewhere beyond the point where abortion should be safe and legal.

And that's where your science points come in, very well. We used to have abortions at 26 weeks. Now we can save a baby at 21 weeks. Did science make life change from 27 to 21 weeks? NO.

 

[Curious George]

Does that make that life any less ended?

The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima who were vaporized....does that mean that they were not human, and were not alive beforehand?

The folks who were swept out to sea in various tsunamis, or in floods, or avalanches, or in any one of the myriad ways that human bodies just vanish away from our ability to bury them....were they, then, 'not alive,' or 'not human?"

Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

Excepting the fact that if thone remains were retrievable, people would have done so. People that cared anyway. It is not that the zygote is not buried that is a problem, it is that the mother chose not to bury it when she would have chosen to bury a child.

 

[dianaiad]

Continuous consent IS required in medical ethics, which is what we're talking about. Not legal or business ethics (although neither one would accept sex as a contractual agreement. Having sex doesn't mean you've agreed to complete a pregnancy. Any more than having sex means you've agreed to not treat a STD that may come as a result of it.)

Pregnancy is a donor-donee situation and operates like all other donor-donee situations. If you had a direct blood transfusion going, which you consented to, you can still withdraw consent mid procedure.
At no point is the donee entitled to use of the donors body without their continuous expressed consent, and that's the same for the embryo/fetus.

Or, to put it another way, if a criminal stabs an innocent person in the kidney, that does not mean the criminal must give up a kidney as punishment. The victim of the stabbing does not therefore supercede the criminal's body autonomy. That's how seriously we take body autonomy laws.

The problem here is that the procedures that the law takes so seriously are fairly recent; donor-donee situations are, quite frankly, considerably less than a century old.

Procreation, however, is a wee bit older than that, and unlike the situations you have given, does not involve donating one's own body parts to another, entirely separate (who existed before the situation arose, that is) being. In the case of a pregnancy, the 'donor' deliberately invited/created the being who ABSOLUTELY CANNOT EXIST without her, at least in the short run.

This isn't a case of refusing to donate a kidney.

It's about creating a completely innocent and helpless life and then ending it simply because one changes one's mind about the convenience of the situation, without any care that aborting it means ending the human life one was responsible for beginning.

If this is considered acceptable, then what's the difference between that and, say, exposing a girl child to the elements on a mountain because one 'really wanted' a boy?

I see none.

Or rather, like the story of the man who offered a woman a million dollars to have sex with him. She agreed, and then he offered her $20. She, aghast, said 'what, do you think I'm a whore?" He said 'we have already established that, madam. Now we are negotiating the price."

To ME, anyway, someone who aborts a pregnancy simply because she finds it inconvenient to be pregnant is no less morally bankrupt than the woman who puts her newborn on a hill to die....for the same reason.

 

[dianaiad]

Excepting the fact that if thone remains were retrievable, people would have done so. People that cared anyway. It is not that the zygote is not buried that is a problem, it is that the mother chose not to bury it when she would have chosen to bury a child.

......and this, according to you, makes abortion OK, the fetus/zygote/whatever 'not human enough,' or 'not alive enough?"

My argument here is that attitudes and society and the law are WRONG. You can't come back and argue that abortion is just fine because attitudes and society and the law permit it. Makes no sense.

My daughter mourned every pregnancy she lost. She mourned the one born at 24 weeks that nobody tried to save. She has given up on having naturally born children, and what with one thing and another (a disabled husband, for one thing) she is not being allowed to adopt.

Mourning has very little to do with what happens to the corpse, George, and EVERYTHING to do with the attitude of the mourner.

I'll give you this, though; I don't think I've ever heard your particular argument before.

 

[Curious George]

......and this, according to you, makes abortion OK, the fetus/zygote/whatever 'not human enough,' or 'not alive enough?"

My argument here is that attitudes and society and the law are WRONG. You can't come back and argue that abortion is just fine because attitudes and society and the law permit it. Makes no sense.

My daughter mourned every pregnancy she lost. She mourned the one born at 24 weeks that nobody tried to save. She has given up on having naturally born children, and what with one thing and another (a disabled husband, for one thing) she is not being allowed to adopt.

Mourning has very little to do with what happens to the corpse, George, and EVERYTHING to do with the attitude of the mourner.

I'll give you this, though; I don't think I've ever heard your particular argument before.

It is not that it makes it okay or not okay. It is only that there is an internal inconsistency in the argument that says life at conception is equal to life at nine months is equal to life after birth is equal to life at age 5. And it is not that society says x y or z about the topic. It is the fact that a person who is trying to equate all stages of growth and development as equal, usually does not consider them equal. There is a line, it may not be defined and bright, but a line exists nonetheless. And if we are being honest here, and can acknowledge that a difference in treatment exists and is rationalized, I want to know on what basis that rationalization can be made that distinguishes treatment of abortion.

 

[dianaiad]

It is not that it makes it okay or not okay. It is only that there is an internal inconsistency in the argument that says life at conception is equal to life at nine months is equal to life after birth is equal to life at age 5. And it is not that society says x y or z about the topic. It is the fact that a person who is trying to equate all stages of growth and development as equal, usually does not consider them equal. There is a line, it may not be defined and bright, but a line exists nonetheless. And if we are being honest here, and can acknowledge that a difference in treatment exists and is rationalized, I want to know on what basis that rationalization can be made that distinguishes treatment of abortion.

Humans at different stages of development are accorded different 'rights' or treatments. That doesn't mean that they are UNequal in the thing that counts in the abortion argument, like...the right to try to stay alive.

...and that is the only right I advocate for the unborn; just that; the right to try to survive until birth, without being swatted out of existence just because.

Do all 'born' humans have the same rights assigned to them? Nope...newborns cannot vote or choose to marry or apply for loans. Different policies are enacted according to age and development all through our lives, actually.

I have a 'golden age' pass that allows me into all the National Parks for free. I get 'old fart' discounts pretty much everywhere...and the older I get, the less likely it is that I will be given the sort of all out medical treatment given to, say...a twenty year old with the same problem.

I was nearly refused a knee replacement because I was 'too young," and I may well be refused a life saving bone marrow transplant because by the time I need another one, I'll be 'too old."

Society treats people differently because of age and development stages, and that's usually fine (well, I'm not real happy about the bone marrow transplant thing), but the only right I think that the unborn should be given is the right to TRY to survive without that survival being made utterly impossible.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The problem here is that the procedures that the law takes so seriously are fairly recent; donor-donee situations are, quite frankly, considerably less than a century old. That certainly doesn't mean they're not relevent.

Procreation, however, is a wee bit older than that

Why would that matter? Most medical ethics are less than a century old.

does not involve donating one's own body parts to another, entirely separate (who existed before the situation arose, that is) being. In the case of a pregnancy, the 'donor' deliberately invited/created the being who ABSOLUTELY CANNOT EXIST without her, at least in the short run.

Blood, nutrients, womb, all are being donated. Donation isn't reduced to organs, you know. Tissue, plasma, marrow, platelets, stem cells, etc. Nor does it matter how much in dire need the donee is nor if someone is the only available option for them (e.g. only one compatible donor is available and they signed a donor release. They can still say no.)

It's about creating a completely innocent and helpless life and then ending it simply because one changes one's mind about the convenience of the situation, without any care that aborting it means ending the human life one was responsible for beginning.

This is strawmanning the dilemma most people who undergo abortion have. But it's also not relevant. It doesn't matter what their reason is for having sex, becoming pregnant, or ending the pregnancy. At the end of the day, however we judge them, it's their body and their decision on how it will be used.

If this is considered acceptable, then what's the difference between that and, say, exposing a girl child to the elements on a mountain because one 'really wanted' a boy?

Because a girl child being on a mountaintop is not an autonomy issue.

Or rather, like the story of the man who offered a woman a million dollars to have sex with him. She agreed, and then he offered her $20. She, aghast, said 'what, do you think I'm a whore?" He said 'we have already established that, madam. Now we are negotiating the price."

Because this has nothing to do with the issue at hand either.

To ME, anyway, someone who aborts a pregnancy simply because she finds it inconvenient to be pregnant is no less morally bankrupt than the woman who puts her newborn on a hill to die....for the same reason.

Once again, this is a strawman. It costs the mother nothing to place an unwanted child into an adoption or turn them over to child protection or even the police, but pregnancy and child can lose women their jobs, their health, their livelihood, their schooling etc. Banning abortion creates more crime, drug addiction, welfare consumption by way of higher amounts of destitute families, and more women dying due to complications of pregnancy and childbirth because doctors err on the side of preventing government sanction. A couple extreme cases in places where abortion was banned killed women whose fetus were already dead causing the mothers with septicemia.
No thanks. I'll take legal, available abortion any day.

I find forced pregnancy to be more morally reprehensible than abortion, and am glad the law exists as it does because its consistent with other laws. Nobody should be able to force a woman to bring a pregnancy to term any more than they should be able to tie down convicts and use them for medical experiments and tissue harvesting. There is no action that can lead to the loss of body autonomy. Having sex included.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

yep, that's unrealistic.

I'm not talking about dates. Your restriction would apply as well to spouses who don't want children. Or do you really think that this is isolated to young kids on the fly? The sole fact of the matter is that your opinions don't get to dictate the lives of others. Even for a couple using simply condoms and pills, the desire to not have a child is there. Permission is not given.

That's not 'drama.' That is PRECISELY THE SAME MORAL SITUATION AND CHOICE.

No, it's not. One is an underdeveloped clump of cells, the other is a developed infant. It is not a child because you've decided that it's a child, or because it might become a child against all biological odds. And this fact is starkly demonstrated further below.

I have news for you; abortion IS celebrated...a certain 'women's march' proves that.

No, that proves that women are willing to take to the streets for their right to have the option in a viable, professional, and safe manner. For their lives to not be dictated by religious groups who don't really care, and politicians who couldn't find the clitoris if given a map.

Yep. They are. Just as [multiple pictures of human beings] Are the same. ALL of them are simply different stages of development of the same individual. That teeny conceptus WILL become that 100 year old man/woman; only one thing will stop it from advancing through all those stages; death.

Oh, well this is quite awkward. Because that was a pig zygote. And a pig embryo. The point of which being that at the stages of development when abortion is legal, you cannot tell that it is a human organism. The only way you can tell is because it's currently developing in a human body. But if you can't tell the difference between a human zygote or fetus from a pig's, then you have very little - if not no - right to insist that it's a "child." It is life, certainly, but in no way does it resemble human life at that stage.

There is no scientific reason to draw any line between conception and birth...or 21 weeks or any other time that says 'now it is a human life, and less than a second ago it was not."

Higher brain function as opposed to involuntary motor function is the basis of the line. As well as further developed organs - eyes (capable to see at 28 weeks), brain, skin, pancreas, lungs, ears, etc - fine motor function, fat being gained, development of genitalia (yeah, before 21 weeks there's not even that), sleep cycle, developed bones, muscle development... I think you get the point. Maybe.

After 21 weeks, there is significant development towards what can be considered a human infant. Everything before that, you can't even distinguish from a chicken.

 

[dianaiad]

Why would that matter? Most medical ethics are less than a century old.


Blood, nutrients, womb, all are being donated. Donation isn't reduced to organs, you know. Tissue, plasma, marrow, platelets, stem cells, etc. Nor does it matter how much in dire need the donee is nor if someone is the only available option for them (e.g. only one compatible donor is available and they signed a donor release. They can still say no.)


This is strawmanning the dilemma most people who undergo abortion have. But it's also not relevant. It doesn't matter what their reason is for having sex, becoming pregnant, or ending the pregnancy. At the end of the day, however we judge them, it's their body and their decision on how it will be used.


Because a girl child being on a mountaintop is not an autonomy issue.

The folks doing it think so. They don't believe that they owe that girl child the food, shelter or upbringing that they would give a boy child..or no child. In fact, this is what people used to do before abortion became a medically 'save' and 'sure thing.'....and for the same reasons.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The folks doing it think so. They don't believe that they owe that girl child the food, shelter or upbringing that they would give a boy child..or no child. In fact, this is what people used to do before abortion became a medically 'save' and 'sure thing.'....and for the same reasons.

Regardless of what some people do, I already mentioned why I think the two situations aren't comparable, and why arguing for abortion is not arguing for infanticide (and not merely because of stages of development, but as an autonomy issue.)

 

[Curious George]

Humans at different stages of development are accorded different 'rights' or treatments. That doesn't mean that they are UNequal in the thing that counts in the abortion argument, like...the right to try to stay alive.
.

Emphasis mine.

I am not discussing when abortion is okay or is not okay. Only when a a zygote is equal to the newborn. It may be that even without equivalency it is immoral to have an abortion. I am only addressing the concept that zygote = embryo=fetus=baby. The equation if we look honestly is wrong.

**edited because former version was too long**

 

[dianaiad]

I'm not talking about dates. Your restriction would apply as well to spouses who don't want children. Or do you really think that this is isolated to young kids on the fly? The sole fact of the matter is that your opinions don't get to dictate the lives of others. Even for a couple using simply condoms and pills, the desire to not have a child is there. Permission is not given.


No, it's not. One is an underdeveloped clump of cells, the other is a developed infant. It is not a child because you've decided that it's a child, or because it might become a child against all biological odds. And this fact is starkly demonstrated further below.


No, that proves that women are willing to take to the streets for their right to have the option in a viable, professional, and safe manner. For their lives to not be dictated by religious groups who don't really care, and politicians who couldn't find the clitoris if given a map.


Oh, well this is quite awkward. Because that was a pig zygote. And a pig embryo.

Which, if examined at the micro level, rather than the macro, would be easily differentiated. It doesn't matter how much a 'bunch of cells' may look on the surface like any other bunch of cells, the fact is, no human embryo is going to grow up to be a pig, and you know it. Your 'awkward' bit of trickery is less than honest.

 

[McBell]

The debate is also about whether or not the woman is allowed to impose the death.

I disagree.
The debate is about whether or not a woman can CHOOSE death.
It is the CHOICE that is being debating, not the death.

 

[McBell]

Actions show thought and belief.

Actions CAN reveal thoughts and belief.
They can also reveal reflex, instinct, emotional trauma, cultural expectations, etc.

 

[McBell]

I see absolutely no difference.

That is the problem.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Your 'awkward' bit of trickery is less than honest.

And so too is calling a zygot or a fetus a "baby."

 

[McBell]

They can only be removed when and where it is safe to do so.

As a landlord I can tell you this is not true.

 

[McBell]

It's not a dumb/smart argument. It's an argument with two sides agreeing:

Pro-life: Life begins at conception.

Pro-choice: Life begins somewhere beyond the point where abortion should be safe and legal.

And that's where your science points come in, very well. We used to have abortions at 26 weeks. Now we can save a baby at 21 weeks. Did science make life change from 27 to 21 weeks? NO.

I disagree with your "definitions".
Life is a continuously ongoing process.

It requires a LIVING sperm to fertilize a LIVING ovum for conception to take place.

 

[McBell]

I see none.

Again, this is the problem.

Until you can stop with the emotional rants....

 

[BilliardsBall]

I disagree with your "definitions".
Life is a continuously ongoing process.

It requires a LIVING sperm to fertilize a LIVING ovum for conception to take place.

So . . . you agree life begins at conception. Good job!