News Is Abortion Justifiable Across Various Circumstances?

[Laser Eyes]

Secondly, the point where a fetus is considered a human being has been legally based on medical science, generally when the fetus has reached a certain level of development. It wasn't just an arbitrary decision to decide that the transition would be at 6 months.

To pick a point somewhere between conception and birth and say at this very moment the fetus becomes a human but one second before it was not sounds very arbitrary.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
To pick a point somewhere between conception and birth and say at this very moment the fetus becomes a human but one second before it was not sounds very arbitrary.

Well, it seems more arbitrary to me to call a lump of cells smaller than a grape a human being...

 

[schwarzchildradius]

the fetus IS human at conception, but that doesn't mean that we can't choose to end its life for a greater good! I just think that if you have a legally enforced death penalty you can't make abortion illegal, in principle.

 

[dschou]

quote (from the far back reaches of antiquity):
------------------------------------------------------------------
And conveniently enough, you're not a woman.
------------------------------------------------------------------

this is irrelevant. morality knows no gender.

 

[dschou]

Quote:

"Well, it seems more arbitrary to me to call a lump of cells smaller than a grape a human being..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

no it doesn't.

rather, it is much less arbitrary when there is no transition from non-human to human.

think about it: anything that is a human was conceived as a human and will die as a human without any "phase transitions", which is not very arbitrary. what is arbitrary though, is this insertion of semantics arguments at periods of time that are convenient to the destruction of human life.

for instance "before 6 months have passed we'll change the name of the thing we are talking about so that we can get rid of it without throwing up".

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by dschou
quote (from the far back reaches of antiquity):
------------------------------------------------------------------
And conveniently enough, you're not a woman.
------------------------------------------------------------------

this is irrelevant. morality knows no gender.

Where is the morality in bringing an unwanted child into the world? It's like a toss-up between quick or slow death.

This is a heated debate and while I may have objective feelings on it (indeed, I do) I must say (subjectively) that it bothers me tremendously to see predominantly men arguing about it. I don't like the idea of anyone legislating their morality but for some reason on this particular topic, the idea that men feel this is any of their business perplexes me.

Is it murder? Is it not? Chicken or egg? Are they humans with rights or just leeches on the mother? Does something that cannot function without a host "count"? Is it more unfair to end somethings life when no one wanted it in the first place? Is it really _any_ of your business what I do with my body? If so, why?

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by Galatea
Where is the morality in bringing an unwanted child into the world? It's like a toss-up between quick or slow death.

following this reasoning we should chop up all the cancer patients as well.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by dschou
quote (from the far back reaches of antiquity):
------------------------------------------------------------------
And conveniently enough, you're not a woman.
------------------------------------------------------------------

this is irrelevant. morality knows no gender.

Morality doesn't exist...ethics works, and it is more ethical to eliminate an unfeeling, unknowing fetus than it is to bring an unwanted child into the world. 'Morality' is usually based on some religious idea, which is likewise based on wanting to dominate others.

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by Zero
Morality doesn't exist...ethics works, and it is more ethical to eliminate an unfeeling, unknowing fetus than it is to bring an unwanted child into the world. 'Morality' is usually based on some religious idea, which is likewise based on wanting to dominate others.

i can't say that this is an imaginative solution to the problem. your modus operandus: when faced with a moral dilemna, simply state that morals do not exist and continue the killing.

likewise, as i plummet to my death, i can simply follow suit with wile-coyote and deny that gravity exists. this will inevitably solve all acceleration problems. and when i try to grasp the horror of the holocaust, i need only deny the jews their humanity and the problem is solved. what a neat and tidy affair.

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by dschou
following this reasoning we should chop up all the cancer patients as well.

Umm, not exactly. Cancer patients can choose to receive treatment or not just as mothers should be able to choose if they'd like to continue with a pregnancy or not.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm curious; what is the practical difference between ethics and morals?

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by Galatea
Umm, not exactly. Cancer patients can choose to receive treatment or not just as mothers should be able to choose if they'd like to continue with a pregnancy or not.

again, your honor, relevance? i quote once more:

"Where is the morality in bringing an unwanted child into the world? It's like a toss-up between quick or slow death."

the issue is the cancer patient's life and quick/slow death juxtaposed against the child's life and quick/slow death, not the mother's. so what you should really be questioning, is whether the child can decide to "end treatment", i.e. abort spontaneously.

 

[FZ+]

Unlike the cancer patient, the foetus can't talk. It's a toss up as to whether the foetus can be considered human, as we judge that it has not gained the distinctive human quality - a human mind.

Secondly, we have another similarity here - the cancer patient is reliant on their life support system, as is the fetus on the mother. The point is of dependence - since the fetus is dependent on the mother for life, the mother has the choice of providing the service. Or say, switching off the life support system.

 

[Hurkyl]

But does your argument hold up to any slight modification of the analogy? What if, say, the cancer patient is in a coma? Or if 'e is merely unconscious, or even just asleep?

Or what if it's not someone at the end of their life? Is it ethical to disconnect from life-support an unconscious child(who will recover fully from whatever happened) who lives in poverty with parents who don't love him and want him dead?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I'm curious; what is the practical difference between ethics and morals?

Morals are for people too lazy to have ethics?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
But does your argument hold up to any slight modification of the analogy? What if, say, the cancer patient is in a coma? Or if 'e is merely unconscious, or even just asleep?

Or what if it's not someone at the end of their life? Is it ethical to disconnect from life-support an unconscious child(who will recover fully from whatever happened) who lives in poverty with parents who don't love him and want him dead?

Well, if you keep comparing a fetus to a person, we won't ever egree, now will we?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by dschou
i can't say that this is an imaginative solution to the problem. your modus operandus: when faced with a moral dilemna, simply state that morals do not exist and continue the killing.

likewise, as i plummet to my death, i can simply follow suit with wile-coyote and deny that gravity exists. this will inevitably solve all acceleration problems. and when i try to grasp the horror of the holocaust, i need only deny the jews their humanity and the problem is solved. what a neat and tidy affair.

LOL, you are funny in your way, I suppose. I never claimed that it wasn't an ethical dilemma, now did I? Ethics are better than morality, as I see it...a topic better suited for the Philosophy board, I'm sure.
Anyways, the point is, this is not a black and white issue, in my opinion, and a 6 week old isn't a person IMO, therefore has no right to anything whatsoever.

 

[Hurkyl]

Morals are for people too lazy to have ethics?

I'm confused then; if the only difference between morals and ethics is the person who has them, what can be the meaning of your previous post on morality?

Well, if you keep comparing a fetus to a person, we won't ever egree, now will we?

Might I point out that I was responding to a post that is comparing a fetus to a person?

And, of course, that the question of when is a fetus a person is one of the core issues in the pro-choice / pro-life debate, so it's somewhat intellectually dishonest to ridicule the idea.

And for funsies, you certainly seemed to accept that we can compare a fetus to a person in the latter weeks of the pregnancy; are you a hypocrit?

 

[FZ+]

But does your argument hold up to any slight modification of the analogy? What if, say, the cancer patient is in a coma? Or if 'e is merely unconscious, or even just asleep?

Or what if it's not someone at the end of their life? Is it ethical to disconnect from life-support an unconscious child(who will recover fully from whatever happened) who lives in poverty with parents who don't love him and want him dead?

Yep, I expected that. Notice the exact words I used - "Never gained".

That the mind is dependent on experiences - that it is these that form the person, and thus create our individualism. As the fetus has no memories and hence no unique mind, and is not important to someone else, it's existence has no unique significance and so it's termination is not really a loss in terms of humanity.

If we do not consider that, then how do you rule out the absurd situation of not killing bacteria, because they are "unconscious children" that will wake up in a few billion years of evolution? It may be arbitary (as humans are IMHO not absolutely "special" in any sense), but the social measure of murder is based on human life, and human attachment.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl


And for funsies, you certainly seemed to accept that we can compare a fetus to a person in the latter weeks of the pregnancy; are you a hypocrit?

Nope, not a hypocrit at all...how does that make me a hypocrit?

 

[Zero]

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/jan_feb97/morris.html

Here's an interesting argument...

 

[schwarzchildradius]

'Is the fetus is a person' is not an accurate question, as 'person' has a number of meanings, not all exclusively human. There's no way around the fact that an abortion is an intentional destruction of a unique human genome. But that's not murder, any more than casualties in a war or the death of condemned criminals.

 

[NavidRules]

A fetus is a potential human. It is safe to assume that the fetus will become a human/person, therefore killing the fetus destroys the potential human, therefore killing a human. I disagree with abortion, unless rape is involved. The only thing is, if abortion was illegal except for rape cases, all women who want abortion will say they were raped. So based in a good society, abortion is wrong, because you disallow the fetus to live.

Think of it like this, what if the fetus you killed would have grown up to find a cure for cancer/aids/any other major disease. The fact is that you don't know who the fetus will grow up to be. You will be killing off potential people, and even if the possibility of the fetus growing to do something great is slim, there is still the possibility and since we killing them doesn't give them even a chance, it would be wrong to go for abortion. I agree with ADOPTION, if the problem is raising the child, adoption is always a better way to go, because you are giving the fetus-soon-to-be-human-being a chance for survival.

For the same reason I don't agree with euthinasia because you simply don't know what the future can hold, and wherever there's potential, a chance should be given.

What do you think?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by NavidRules
A fetus is a potential human. It is safe to assume that the fetus will become a human/person, therefore killing the fetus destroys the potential human, therefore killing a human. I disagree with abortion, unless rape is involved. The only thing is, if abortion was illegal except for rape cases, all women who want abortion will say they were raped. So based in a good society, abortion is wrong, because you disallow the fetus to live.

Think of it like this, what if the fetus you killed would have grown up to find a cure for cancer/aids/any other major disease. The fact is that you don't know who the fetus will grow up to be. You will be killing off potential people, and even if the possibility of the fetus growing to do something great is slim, there is still the possibility and since we killing them doesn't give them even a chance, it would be wrong to go for abortion. I agree with ADOPTION, if the problem is raising the child, adoption is always a better way to go, because you are giving the fetus-soon-to-be-human-being a chance for survival.

For the same reason I don't agree with euthinasia because you simply don't know what the future can hold, and wherever there's potential, a chance should be given.

What do you think?

I think the biology of it refutes you..plus, while a fetus may be a potential person, the mother is a REAL person, and therefore should have the final say over her body...unless you think a woman is nothing more than an incubator.

 

[FZ+]

A fetus is a potential human.

So is a rock, with a few billion years of gestation time. So is a sperm and an egg. Or an animal. The "life starts at conception" idea is drawing a very arbitary line...

So based in a good society, abortion is wrong, because you disallow the fetus to live.

What is society but what people want? On such a basis, I can define the salvation of every bacteria as "good", and make everybody evil.

Think of it like this, what if the fetus you killed would have grown up to find a cure for cancer/aids/any other major disease.

What if the fetus becomes a new Hitler? This argument is worthless.

The fact of the matter is that you are choosing your probabilities to reinforce your view - you refuse to look at the flip side of the coin.

 

[NavidRules]

Zero:
No i don't think a women is an incubator.
Well with the idealogy that anybody can do whatever to their body, because its their body, why are some drugs illegal? People do it to their own bodies, shouldn't they too be able to do whatever to their own body?...How does biology refute me? A fetus WILL grow to be a human if it is given the chance. I do not doubt that the mother is a REAL person, what I'm saying is they choose to have sex, one result of having sex is creating another being (unless biology refutes that too) the mother chose to have sex, but chooses to avoid the consequence? People shouldn't have sex without knowing the possible consequences. If the mother can not raise the child, there's adoption.

FZ +:
"So is a rock, with a few billion years of gestation time. So is a sperm and an egg. Or an animal. "
When i saw a fetus is a potential human, it is and that's a fact. What you're saying is an exaggeration of what I said. The existence of a rock, will not result in a human. The existence of a fetus, will result in a human. It all goes back to the action: SEX. The act of having sex may result in a fertilized egg, and thus a fetus. When a fetus exists, it will become a human...and sadly a rock will not.

"What is society but what people want? On such a basis, I can define the salvation of every bacteria as "good", and make everybody evil."
I agree, but what i was saying is, when we kill a fetus, we are killing a human. And the reason why we must consider a fetus a human is because when u do draw a line of when life starts it will be different to different cultures. Ancient Rome thought a born baby was inhuman until it was a few weeks old, so they wouldn't think twice before killing the baby if it wasn't a few weeks old. The opinion of what a human is changes, but when u say that life starts with a fetus, you can't go wrong, because one it is dependant on the same necessities as us. Two, a fetus will become a human if given these necessities that again we too rely on. And lastly a fetus looks like a human, it can be distinguished as a human, its cells are becoming more specialized and is becoming a human.
"What if the fetus becomes a new Hitler? "
You're right what if this person becomes a new Hitler? My point was that you simply don't know. You don't know who this fetus will become, and shouldn't deny the fetus a future. Which ever way you look at it, you can't say you know who the person will become, and shouldn't kill it, because who knows WHAT IF the person were to find a cure for a disease. What if the person grows up to have children...you are denying the right to exist. The problem is too many people have sex without thinking of the consequence, and abortion is just an easy way out for these people.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by NavidRules
Zero:
No i don't think a women is an incubator.
Well with the idealogy that anybody can do whatever to their body, because its their body, why are some drugs illegal? People do it to their own bodies, shouldn't they too be able to do whatever to their own body?...How does biology refute me? A fetus WILL grow to be a human if it is given the chance. I do not doubt that the mother is a REAL person, what I'm saying is they choose to have sex, one result of having sex is creating another being (unless biology refutes that too) the mother chose to have sex, but chooses to avoid the consequence? People shouldn't have sex without knowing the possible consequences. If the mother can not raise the child, there's adoption.

FZ +:
"So is a rock, with a few billion years of gestation time. So is a sperm and an egg. Or an animal. "
When i saw a fetus is a potential human, it is and that's a fact. What you're saying is an exaggeration of what I said. The existence of a rock, will not result in a human. The existence of a fetus, will result in a human. It all goes back to the action: SEX. The act of having sex may result in a fertilized egg, and thus a fetus. When a fetus exists, it will become a human...and sadly a rock will not.

"What is society but what people want? On such a basis, I can define the salvation of every bacteria as "good", and make everybody evil."
I agree, but what i was saying is, when we kill a fetus, we are killing a human. And the reason why we must consider a fetus a human is because when u do draw a line of when life starts it will be different to different cultures. Ancient Rome thought a born baby was inhuman until it was a few weeks old, so they wouldn't think twice before killing the baby if it wasn't a few weeks old. The opinion of what a human is changes, but when u say that life starts with a fetus, you can't go wrong, because one it is dependant on the same necessities as us. Two, a fetus will become a human if given these necessities that again we too rely on. And lastly a fetus looks like a human, it can be distinguished as a human, its cells are becoming more specialized and is becoming a human.
"What if the fetus becomes a new Hitler? "
You're right what if this person becomes a new Hitler? My point was that you simply don't know. You don't know who this fetus will become, and shouldn't deny the fetus a future. Which ever way you look at it, you can't say you know who the person will become, and shouldn't kill it, because who knows WHAT IF the person were to find a cure for a disease. What if the person grows up to have children...you are denying the right to exist. The problem is too many people have sex without thinking of the consequence, and abortion is just an easy way out for these people.

Here it comes...if people dare to have sex for pleasure and get pregnant, their punishment is a baby...this is what it always boils down to: wanting to control people's sex lives, or punish them for it. All the talk about a fetus is smokescreen. This is why the majority of anti-abortion activists are also anti-birth control, anti-AIDS prevention, anti-sex ed. They couldn't care less about babies...they want to wage a war on those of us with a healthy sexuality which doesn't match their repression.

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Abortion is murder. After a brief period a child does indeed begin to form. Why can't people be responsible and not **** without condoms or birth control? For that matter, why can't they just abstain until they get married!

Anyways, have you ever heard of so called 'late term' abortion? Its where the baby has already reached full term (ie if you took it out it would be fully mature) but is still inside the woman when they suck the babies brains out. Yes, they do this.

What's the difference of killing a baby outside the uterus and killing one inside a uterus?

My opinion, everyone should take responsibility. If everyone did that, this society would be better.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh
Abortion is murder. After a brief period a child does indeed begin to form. Why can't people be responsible and not **** without condoms or birth control? For that matter, why can't they just abstain until they get married!

Anyways, have you ever heard of so called 'late term' abortion? Its where the baby has already reached full term (ie if you took it out it would be fully mature) but is still inside the woman when they suck the babies brains out. Yes, they do this.

What's the difference of killing a baby outside the uterus and killing one inside a uterus?

My opinion, everyone should take responsibility. If everyone did that, this society would be better.

That's your opinion...and you are welcome to it. Medically speaking, though, it doesn't carry much weight...

And, of course, you are another who wants to force your 'morality' on others...

 

[FZ+]

The existence of a rock, will not result in a human.

Yes it will. Give it time.

The existence of a fetus, will result in a human.

No it won't. It requires months of nutrients taken from the mother's body, continual warm temperatures, feeding of oxygen through the placenta... etc etc. A fetus can only become a human in very special circumstances, which the mother provides. It requires an active participation, just as the act of fertilisation is an active participation and so on. The act of sex is not special at all from this criteria.

because one it is dependant on the same necessities as us

No it is not. We do not need a placenta. We do not need anyone to breathe for us. In this respect, a dog is more like us than a fetus.

Two, a fetus will become a human if given these necessities that again we too rely on.

Like a big mac?

And lastly a fetus looks like a human, it can be distinguished as a human

A corpse looks like a human, and can be distinguished as a human. But it does not act like a human - and neither does a fetus. A fetus acts like a fetus.

Which ever way you look at it, you can't say you know who the person will become, and shouldn't kill it, because who knows WHAT IF the person were to find a cure for a disease.

But you can't argue like this from the basis we just don't know. Because we don't know, we cannot ignore the possibility of the human result becoming harmful. Because we don't know, we can only look at the fetus as a neutral entity, whose future is not set. It makes no sense to talk about what the fetus may do - since it may not do so. We do not know the future, and we cannot block out the possibility of darkness. This sense makes no use.

PsYcHo_FiSh:

If everyone did that, this society would be better.

No it does not, as history has repeatedly shown. An attitude of "we know better", of hiding and driving underground, of patronising and scaremongering, can only lead to oppression and terror.