Abortion

[A Vestigial Mote]

Choice is more involved in the act of abortion than death. As the fetus is not alive anymore than a single cell is alive.

A single cell IS alive. They all are. But that's beside the point. Would you concede that a fetus is very much more than a singular cell from its mother's body? If not, then why not? What is the single cell becoming vs. what the fetus is becoming? Which, to your mind, is more important? Neither? You see a child and a disembodied stomach both about to be hit by cars... which do you save? The singular/multi-cellular scenario is only a scaled back version of that same hypothetical. Which is of greater importance?

 

[Curious George]

I see. So....because everybody eventually dies, it's ok for us to kill folks?

No, because we don't recognize a zygote or embryo as living it is OK to terminate their existence. Just as it would be okay to terminate a virtual machine before that machine attained consciousness. What we value is consciousness. While we do place value on life, we do not value life equally. Zygote and embryos are not treated as life by pro-life proponents and they are not advocated to be treated as such excepting in the aspect of controlling a women's rights to terminate that life. There is a huge disconnect here. If you look you can see that the disconnect shows this is over control. I believe you should have no more control in this aspect of a person's life than you should over nature. Others believe only nature should have this control.

 

[Curious George]

A single cell IS alive. They all are. But that's beside the point. Would you concede that a fetus is very much more than a singular cell from its mother's body? If not, then why not? What is the single cell becoming vs. what the fetus is becoming? Which, to your mind, is more important? Neither? You see a child and a disembodied stomach both about to be hit by cars... which do you save? The singular/multi-cellular scenario is only a scaled back version of that same hypothetical. Which is of greater importance?

I save the child. If I see a stomach and an embryo I choose the stomach.

Better to let bodily waste be hit by a car than someone's remains be mutilated further.

But you illustrate my point. The difference between a child and a cell that may one day become a child are very different things. We treat them differently because they ARE different to us.

 

[dianaiad]

No, because we don't recognize a zygote or embryo as living it is OK to terminate their existence. Just as it would be okay to terminate a virtual machine before that machine attained consciousness. What we value is consciousness. While we do place value on life, we do not value life equally. Zygote and embryos are not treated as life by pro-life proponents and they are not advocated to be treated as such excepting in the aspect of controlling a women's rights to terminate that life. There is a huge disconnect here. If you look you can see that the disconnect shows this is over control. I believe you should have no more control in this aspect of a person's life than you should over nature. Others believe only nature should have this control.

They AREN'T? Since when are 'zygotes and embryos not treated as life' by 'pro-life proponents?

Are you one of those who use the slippery slope argument that allowing a zygote/embryo the right to attempt to live until birth means that it must be given all the rights of an adult human being?

I advocate that they be given one 'right.' The right NOT to have their survival made impossible simply because their existence is inconvenient.

I am not advocating that we give 'em driver's licenses or college scholarships or even citizenship in whatever nation mom happens to be in at the moment.

Just...to not be killed for the crime of existing when mom finds this existence an annoyance.

It is the pro-abortion folks who deny these zygotes/embryos/foeti life.

As for me, I am absolutely pro-choice. I believe that any woman has the right to decide whether to try for pregnancy. That choice, however, ends as soon as it affects another human life; the time to choose is BEFORE she participates in the actions designed to cause pregnancy, and the possible pregnancy should be more important to her than momentary pleasure, because it really IS a human life that is being affected.

That should be considered, and the level of contraception should be chosen accordingly.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I save the child. If I see a stomach and an embryo I choose the stomach.

Better to let bodily waste be hit by a car than someone's remains be mutilated further.

But you illustrate my point. The difference between a child and a cell that may one day become a child are very different things. We treat them differently because they ARE different to us.

So, why is it, do you think, that many expectant mothers do things like stop drinking alcohol, lay off of shellfish, avoid smoking, etc.? Could it be that there is some anticipated value associated with the fetus? I mean... it's obviously a stretch considering all of the buttoned up logic and reasoning you have presented so far. Maybe it's just their morning sickness that makes those things unappealing. Certainly couldn't be because those un-living cells multiplying and commandeering their wombs are important to them. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

 

[sayak83]

....and the only way to stop it from HAVING that mind is to kill it first.

I am constantly bemused at those who use this argument. It's so obviously circular, and very similar to that old black joke about the kid on trial for killing his parents throwing himself on the mercy of the court because--he's an orphan.

There is nothing circular about it. Could you show the circularity?
Your example does not fly. The child was not an orphan when he killed. Here the fetus has no mind when it is killed. There is no obligation on anyone to create persons, only to refrain from killing already existing persons.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not. Does the act of abortion involve more choice, or more death? Which do you think? Which is the more important aspect of it? Neither? Then why argue for the term "pro-choice" when it is obviously just a "nice way" of putting it?

I am also "pro-choice". Likely for different reasons than most. But my stance on the matter, and my support for the legality of abortion will never change my understanding of what it is at its most fundamental level.

Of course it doesn't matter if I agree with you or not, but this happens to be a discussion forum and indicating whether or not you agree with a poster's position is pretty much par for the course, so I'm not sure why you bothered to mention it.

Yes, an abortion involves the death of a fetus. No one is trying to define abortion as pro-choice. Nor is anyone suggesting that getting an abortion is a 'pro-choice'. Pro-choice is the stance I take on the matter. I am NOT pro-abortion. I don't know anyone who is. I AM pro-choice, that is I believe a pregnant women should have the CHOICE when it comes to the matter of having an abortion. You say you also believe a woman should have a choice, for whatever reasons. That certainly doesn't mean that you are pro-abortion, does it? It doesn't mean that you're pro-death either. It simply means that you support the right of a women to make this decision for themselves, which is quite honestly saying that you are pro-choice. By doing so you are not attempting to conceal what an actual abortion is, you're simply advocating for a woman's right to choose.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So, why is it, do you think, that many expectant mothers do things like stop drinking alcohol, lay off of shellfish, avoid smoking, etc.? Could it be that there is some anticipated value associated with the fetus? I mean... it's obviously a stretch considering all of the buttoned up logic and reasoning you have presented so far. Maybe it's just their morning sickness that makes those things unappealing. Certainly couldn't be because those un-living cells multiplying and commandeering their wombs are important to them. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

Why yes, MANY expectant mothers do place value on the fetus developing inside of them because they have hope that given the right conditions that collection of developing cells might someday BECOME a fully realized independent human being. But just because a mother might take steps to ensure the most favorable conditions for such an outcome doesn't mean that they equate the POTENTIAL that this collection of developing cells has with an ACTUAL fully realized independent human being. That wouldn't make any sense at all. That would be like claiming that an acorn with all of the potential given enough time and the proper conditions to BECOME an oak tree already IS an oak tree. That's just plain silly.

 

[Nietzsche]

Oh, never mind. The legal rights of a zygote are what the folks around it say they are. I think that a zygote should have one right; the right not to be killed simply because Mom doesn't want to be pregnant right at the moment. The right to TRY to live through the nine most dangerous months of its existence.

Just that: the right not to be killed because someone finds its life inconvenient.

Question. How do you feel about the rights of a corpse to its organs?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why yes, MANY expectant mothers do place value on the fetus developing inside of them because they have hope that given the right conditions that collection of developing cells might someday BECOME a fully realized independent human being. But just because a mother might take steps to ensure the most favorable conditions for such an outcome doesn't mean that they equate the POTENTIAL that this collection of developing cells has with an ACTUAL fully realized independent human being. That wouldn't make any sense at all. That would be like claiming that an acorn with all of the potential given enough time and the proper conditions to BECOME an oak tree already IS an oak tree. That's just plain silly.

What about grieving over said "non-person"? Is this something you would deny the relevance of? We all know this happens... but according to you, is this not misplaced sadness/grief?

 

[Curious George]

They AREN'T? Since when are 'zygotes and embryos not treated as life' by 'pro-life proponents?

Are you one of those who use the slippery slope argument that allowing a zygote/embryo the right to attempt to live until birth means that it must be given all the rights of an adult human being?

I advocate that they be given one 'right.' The right NOT to have their survival made impossible simply because their existence is inconvenient.

I am not advocating that we give 'em driver's licenses or college scholarships or even citizenship in whatever nation mom happens to be in at the moment.

Just...to not be killed for the crime of existing when mom finds this existence an annoyance.

It is the pro-abortion folks who deny these zygotes/embryos/foeti life.

As for me, I am absolutely pro-choice. I believe that any woman has the right to decide whether to try for pregnancy. That choice, however, ends as soon as it affects another human life; the time to choose is BEFORE she participates in the actions designed to cause pregnancy, and the possible pregnancy should be more important to her than momentary pleasure, because it really IS a human life that is being affected.

That should be considered, and the level of contraception should be chosen accordingly.

No I'm one of those pro-abortion people who think that if you want to say a zygote is the same as a child, you should treat a "dead" zygote the same as you would a dead child.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I see. So....because everybody eventually dies, it's ok for us to kill folks?

Or how about this one: I saw a story about a couple of volcanologists (a married couple) got too close to their work and were literally burned to death. Does that mean it is now acceptable for us to throw unwanted people into Mt. St. Helens the next time it acts up? Perhaps with a few chants and offerings of pineapples?

.....or....

Oh, never mind. The legal rights of a zygote are what the folks around it say they are. I think that a zygote should have one right; the right not to be killed simply because Mom doesn't want to be pregnant right at the moment. The right to TRY to live through the nine most dangerous months of its existence.

Just that: the right not to be killed because someone finds its life inconvenient.

We give rights to individuals, not to collections of living cells that have the POTENTIAL to BECOME individuals. A sixteen year old has the potential to become an eighteen year old, given enough time and the right conditions, we don't recognize his right to vote until he actually becomes eighteen. In the same way that a zygote that has the potential given enough time and the right conditions to become an individual, it shouldn't be afforded the rights of an individual until that time and those conditions have been met.

 

[Curious George]

So, why is it, do you think, that many expectant mothers do things like stop drinking alcohol, lay off of shellfish, avoid smoking, etc.? Could it be that there is some anticipated value associated with the fetus? I mean... it's obviously a stretch considering all of the buttoned up logic and reasoning you have presented so far. Maybe it's just their morning sickness that makes those things unappealing. Certainly couldn't be because those un-living cells multiplying and commandeering their wombs are important to them. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

I certainly think it is because it is important to them. Special to them. And as it grows, it becomes more so. When it is born, even more so. What you are failing to acknowledge is that we value this differently along the way. And there is most certainly a difference in value of a 4 week zygote and a 4 year old child.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Of course it doesn't matter if I agree with you or not, but this happens to be a discussion forum and indicating whether or not you agree with a poster's position is pretty much par for the course, so I'm not sure why you bothered to mention it.

Haha... wasn't it you who qualified how much you disagreed with me? As if the degree had any bearing. Of course... it did to you, didn't it? "I couldn't agree with you less." is what you said. Which is why I stated that it didn't mater if you agreed with me or not - to also qualify my position.

Yes, an abortion involves the death of a fetus. No one is trying to define abortion as pro-choice. Nor is anyone suggesting that getting an abortion is a 'pro-choice'. Pro-choice is the stance I take on the matter. I am NOT pro-abortion. I don't know anyone who is. I AM pro-choice, that is I believe a pregnant women should have the CHOICE when it comes to the matter of having an abortion. You say you also believe a woman should have a choice, for whatever reasons. That certainly doesn't mean that you are pro-abortion, does it? It doesn't mean that you're pro-death either. It simply means that you support the right of a women to make this decision for themselves, which is quite honestly saying that you are pro-choice. By doing so you are not attempting to conceal what an actual abortion is, you're simply advocating for a woman's right to choose.

Again, we'll have to disagree. I would state that I am pro-abortion - and so are you. As much as I don't like the idea, or the practice, I have chosen that as my stance and see the merit in it being available - and I am not afraid to make it as plainly stated as it could be. "Pro-death"? - I guess I have to be, as long as the context is abortion. I don't need to be coddled to... and you can keep your euphemisms.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What about grieving over said "non-person"? Is this something you would deny the relevance of? We all know this happens... but according to you, is this not misplaced sadness/grief?

As a parent whose wife suffered a miscarriage after the birth of our first child I can say that grieving is quite relevant. But we didn't grieve over the loss of a 'person', but rather over the loss of the POTENTIAL person that those collection of developing cells represented. To try and equate the loss of a seven week old fetus with the potential to become an individual person to how I would have felt if our first born had died of SIDS a week after her birth is ludicrous. In the first case I grieved the loss of a potential individual person, in the second case I would have been grieving the loss of an ACTUAL individual person. To suggest that the two have equal value does a great disservice to what it means to be an actual individual person.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I certainly think it is because it is important to them. Special to them. And as it grows, it becomes more so. When it is born, even more so. What you are failing to acknowledge is that we value this differently along the way. And there is most certainly a difference in value of a 4 week zygote and a 4 year old child.

I concede this idea of a difference in value. However, you have posited that the fetus has precisely zero value, haven't you? In fact I even think you went so far as to call it "bodily waste" - stating you would save a disembodied stomach over a fetus - because it is better to let "bodily waste" be hit by a car than have someone's remains further mutilated.

Perhaps you were referring to a fetus on its own, outside of a mother's body, and therefore unable to survive - and juxtaposing that against the stomach? If so, then you were moving the goal posts a bit there, weren't you? Misdirecting to make a point? We're not talking about a dead fetus in all this, are we? Have I been wasting my time? We're talking about a living one - capable of becoming a fully functioning human being - in fact, already imbued with a unique, never before and never again, blend of the combined characteristics of the mother and father. All of its cells alive and looking to replicate and create the rest of the body.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

As a parent whose wife suffered a miscarriage after the birth of our first child I can say that grieving is quite relevant. But we didn't grieve over the loss of a 'person', but rather over the loss of the POTENTIAL person that those collection of developing cells represented. To try and equate the loss of a seven week old fetus with the potential to become an individual person to how I would have felt if our first born had died of SIDS a week after her birth is ludicrous. In the first case I grieved the loss of a potential individual person, in the second case I would have been grieving the loss of an ACTUAL individual person. To suggest that the two have equal value does a great disservice to what it means to be an actual individual person.

Did I ever suggest equal value? Ask yourself this. The answer is no. However... any value? Yes. Adamantly and always... yes. But you have argued to the contrary.

 

[dianaiad]

Question. How do you feel about the rights of a corpse to its organs?

Please elucidate:

How does this matter in this discussion?

 

[dianaiad]

There is nothing circular about it. Could you show the circularity?
Your example does not fly. The child was not an orphan when he killed. Here the fetus has no mind when it is killed. There is no obligation on anyone to create persons, only to refrain from killing already existing persons.

This is very true. So....don't get pregnant. Nobody is forcing you to do so. Use contraceptives. However, once that human life is actually created, then you should refrain from killing the already existing human.

 

[dianaiad]

No I'm one of those pro-abortion people who think that if you want to say a zygote is the same as a child, you should treat a "dead" zygote the same as you would a dead child.

That's OK with me, actually. People do generally mourn their dead children, no matter what level of development they are at....from conceptus to fetus to newborn to just-before-legal-adulthood.

My daughter certainly mourned her lost children....all of them; four lost pregnancies and one born-too-soon daughter who lived a whole eight hours.

Perhaps you could expand on exactly what you mean by treating a dead zygote the same as you would a dead child? It IS a dead child. That is, it is a dead human at the zygote level of development.