Life does not begin at fertilization...

[STAT EKG]

---

Members don't see this ad.

That's my point! Yeah it's gonna suck, but it sucks for every mother--willing or not. Granted it'll be possibly worse for one who doesn't necessarily want the child. But if she is able to, then denying this ability just because she doesn't feel like it is just... a bit ridiculous. Especially since it's not like she got pregnant out of the blue (except for the extreme cases). Abortion has gone from a useful practice when necessary, to just a simple way out.

Something that hasn't really been mentioned yet is ... what form of birth control is 100% effective (or even better than 99.99% for that matter)? What if a woman/man ARE using protection and the woman STILL gets pregnant?

There have been a bunch of comparisons to possibly preventable illnesses (i.e. eating cupcakes/diabetes, smoking/lung cancer, etc.), but the thing is... lots of women get pregnant even when using "protection."

Considering the risks to health and various other burdens incurred via pregnancy, is it just as selfish for someone who got pregnant while using protection to want an abortion as someone who wasn't using protection?

 

[LupaCupcake]

Let us ban abortion and rack up more foster kids or abused children

How about we tell women what to do with their body because they don't deserve the right to make that decision

We can force religious views down someone's throat that they are killing an innocent soul even if they are atheist because we all know how fun it is to force religious and personal beliefs upon people

You were raped? That is not the fault of the child, you are forced to have that baby and we know you will never bear resentment towards him/her or you can always put him up for adoption like all the rest and they will bounce from one foster home to another possibly.

bla bla bla bla

This choice is not one for anyone to make, but the woman. I don't care if a group of people honestly believe that consenting to abortion sends them straight to hell and will cause demons to rape the women who had the abortion. No one has the right to force that on anyone else.

I don't have warm and fuzzies about abortion, I have a huge heart for children and I agree that some people use abortion as birth control instead of being careful. Maybe women who have received more than one abortion must seek counseling with someone that explains birth control options, who knows. Either way, it is ignorant to try and ban something like this. (at least in my opinion)

I got pregnant on birth control. It does happen. (the pill sucks lol, nuva ring all the way) She is about to be 5 years old now and my husband and I don't regret that for a second. She is our world, but some people can't handle it. Some people simply should not try and raise a child lol...some people are just reckless and in the heat of the moment neglect protection. Oh well, some people are like that.

 

[phltz]

As for what would be a good punishment? Well, it would not just be the woman. The man is at fault too. A lot of people forget that.

The man has absolutely no legal say in terminating a pregnancy. In what possible world can you hold him legally responsible for an action that he has no say in?

 

[phltz]

sigh, guessing again you didn't read my previous posts. I should stop replying here, or every time I do I should quote myself. I've said that I understand (I don't like it, but understand), abortion being used when it will be unhealthy for the woman.

You do realize that any pregnancy presents a non-zero risk to the mother's health, right? And that the risks of an early term abortion are substantially less than the risks associated with carrying the pregnancy to term? I don't think that the distinction you're trying to draw really exists.

And then I don't think financial support should be grouped with health. Saying you stopped something because it could kill you (or something else health related) is very different than saying you stopped something because it could make you poor. One's a bit more materialistic--yes, unfair, difficult, so on and so forth but at the end of the day still materialistic.

A big part of your argument seems to be that abortion is selfish, lazy, materialistic, etc, etc. I don't see the relevance to a discussion of policy or legality. Is your position that women should be legally obligated to be noble and selfless, and legally punished if they are materialistic? What next? Will we throw a healthy teenager in jail because he doesn't offer his seat to an old lady on the bus? Poor tippers get fined by the IRS? People who don't meet their quota of volunteer hours or donations to charity have their wages docked? Police keep a file on the times you didn't finish your dinner, even while there are starving children in Africa?

...I was going to continue with my previous paragraph until I read "sake of some cells". That's our difference. Not abortion or women's choice, but the importance these "some cells" have. Compared to the vastness of the universe, we are all just a bunch of cells too. So how do we quantify value of these cells? THAT is the question.

Nice epiphany. This thread is full of people who've been talking about this exact question. The question is, how much consideration as an independent person do we owe these cells. Some groups of human cells (you, for example) deserve full consideration, with full rights, etc. Some groups of cells (a skin biopsy, say) deserve zero consideration. In this thread, some people have suggested that consideration is due when the fetus has blood, when it can survive on its own, when it meets a certain threshold of awareness, or brain activity. Some people have discussed that life isn't binary, and there probably isn't an abrupt switch between "just a clump of cells" and "full person".

Now that you've identified THIS is the question, why don't you try contributing to it?

 

[Geekchick921]

Seriously. Using an IUD or Plan B = murder? Throwing out unused embryos after successful IVF = murder? Miscarriage = involuntary manslaughter?

Infuriating... 😡😡😡😡😡

Terrifying was more the word I was thinking. That is friggin' scary.

Just so you know, teens account for a very low percentage of abortions. Most women who get an abortion are already mothers, and many are in relationships or married. Many times it's not a choice of convenience but of necessity (as in, I can't support another kid).

There are always abuses of the system (in medicine, govt services, etc) and that is sad and wrong. However, people take those examples to make blanket statements and don't realize the complexity and hard choices that many people have to make. Ultimately, that's why it should still be a choice. I agree that there is a high number of abortions, and we should do something to reduce the number of abortions. However, that should not involve taking away a woman's right to choose.

Piggy backing and extending...

Recognizing that laws against abortion do not stop the rate of abortion, the problem really is the high number of unwanted pregnancies. Comprehensive sexual education (not just abstinence only), BC provided through insurance companies are steps in that direction.

I'm with both of you, completely.

I think the bill is a totally frivolous waste of resources due to a lack of consideration on the part of the writers. I dont know what the exact laws are now, nor does it particularly matter to me currently as I am in no danger of needing one. I have ethical qualms with abortion after the fetus could survive on its own for the sole purpose of birth control (excluding cases of sexual abuse/rape/incest/health threats for the mother/serious extenuating circumstances... ), but I have far more ethical concerns about a law forcing women to bare children of rapists or ectopic pregnancies. Just my $.02.

I believe the cutoff for abortion in many states is 20-24 weeks for this reason. Viability is typically considered 24 weeks with our current technology (though babies born earlier have survived).

Let us ban abortion and rack up more foster kids or abused children

How about we tell women what to do with their body because they don't deserve the right to make that decision

We can force religious views down someone's throat that they are killing an innocent soul even if they are atheist because we all know how fun it is to force religious and personal beliefs upon people

You were raped? That is not the fault of the child, you are forced to have that baby and we know you will never bear resentment towards him/her or you can always put him up for adoption like all the rest and they will bounce from one foster home to another possibly.

bla bla bla bla

This choice is not one for anyone to make, but the woman. I don't care if a group of people honestly believe that consenting to abortion sends them straight to hell and will cause demons to rape the women who had the abortion. No one has the right to force that on anyone else.

I don't have warm and fuzzies about abortion, I have a huge heart for children and I agree that some people use abortion as birth control instead of being careful. Maybe women who have received more than one abortion must seek counseling with someone that explains birth control options, who knows. Either way, it is ignorant to try and ban something like this. (at least in my opinion)

I got pregnant on birth control. It does happen. (the pill sucks lol, nuva ring all the way) She is about to be 5 years old now and my husband and I don't regret that for a second. She is our world, but some people can't handle it. Some people simply should not try and raise a child lol...some people are just reckless and in the heat of the moment neglect protection. Oh well, some people are like that.

👍👍 Truth be told, I became much more firmly in the pro-choice camp after becoming a parent myself. No one should raise a child they won't love and/or can't provide for (financially, emotionally, etc.).

We don't know the point at which a fetus acquires personhood/sentience/whatever, and we may never be able to. All we have are beliefs, and a law of this kind is essentially just trying to force those beliefs on others that don't share them.

You can't give a fetus full rights without taking rights away from the mother who's sharing her body with it. The fact that that bill went as far as it did is downright scary to me, because of the implications that could come with it. Could a woman be investigated for having multiple miscarriages? Could a pregnant woman be arrested for smoking, having a drink, not buckling her seat belt, drinking coffee or eating deli meat on the grounds of something like reckless endangerment? Hell, if each venti mocha or hoagie was a separate offense, I'd never see the light of day again.

 

[kduck]

sigh, guessing again you didn't read my previous posts. I should stop replying here, or every time I do I should quote myself. I've said that I understand (I don't like it, but understand), abortion being used when it will be unhealthy for the woman.
And then I don't think financial support should be grouped with health. Saying you stopped something because it could kill you (or something else health related) is very different than saying you stopped something because it could make you poor. One's a bit more materialistic--yes, unfair, difficult, so on and so forth but at the end of the day still materialistic.
...I was going to continue with my previous paragraph until I read "sake of some cells". That's our difference. Not abortion or women's choice, but the importance these "some cells" have. Compared to the vastness of the universe, we are all just a bunch of cells too. So how do we quantify value of these cells? THAT is the question.

I have read ALL your previous posts. Regardless, in our society we place limits on the risks we ask individuals to take on for the sake of others. In any other situation, you would not force person A to potentially undergo major surgery (C-section), be reduced to poverty, or possibly die (pre-eclampsia, the rare complication during delivery, etc) for the sake of person B, and EVEN if a fetus is a "person" that does not change.

Sure, some people will choose to make the sacrifice, and that is very noble. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-abortion. But my point is, in our society we don't believe in forcing individuals to do these things (many legal precedents), and if we start doing so we are risking undermining key human rights.

 

[mishaS]

Let us ban abortion and rack up more foster kids or abused children

How about we tell women what to do with their body because they don't deserve the right to make that decision

We can force religious views down someone's throat that they are killing an innocent soul even if they are atheist because we all know how fun it is to force religious and personal beliefs upon people

You were raped? That is not the fault of the child, you are forced to have that baby and we know you will never bear resentment towards him/her or you can always put him up for adoption like all the rest and they will bounce from one foster home to another possibly.

bla bla bla bla

This choice is not one for anyone to make, but the woman. I don't care if a group of people honestly believe that consenting to abortion sends them straight to hell and will cause demons to rape the women who had the abortion. No one has the right to force that on anyone else.

I don't have warm and fuzzies about abortion, I have a huge heart for children and I agree that some people use abortion as birth control instead of being careful. Maybe women who have received more than one abortion must seek counseling with someone that explains birth control options, who knows. Either way, it is ignorant to try and ban something like this. (at least in my opinion)

I got pregnant on birth control. It does happen. (the pill sucks lol, nuva ring all the way) She is about to be 5 years old now and my husband and I don't regret that for a second. She is our world, but some people can't handle it. Some people simply should not try and raise a child lol...some people are just reckless and in the heat of the moment neglect protection. Oh well, some people are like that.

I'm sorry, but this whole post wreaks of an emotional response over the unfairness of an unwanted pregnancy. Your viewpoint does not extend any further than the mother - and by extension yourself, and while your first sentence makes an attempt to show that you actually take the child into consideration, it is pretty clear that this is only a veil you put in place to hide (from yourself?) your selfish reasons for being pro choice. If a gun was put to the head of even the most abused unwanted child, offering them instant escape for the terrible life you assume they have, how many do you think would choose death? Do not misunderstand what I'm saying as a lack of empathy for pregnant women, because their burdens do hold a great deal of weight, however I don't think you could reasonably argue that these burdens carry the gravity of death, or rather the lifting of these burdens are better than a life. The lives of foster children in America are far more blessed than most lives abroad, and the notion you're implying, of you deciding unilaterally that the entirety of their life is worth less than the nine months of inconvenience you'll suffer while pregnant, is appallingly selfish.

To be frank, the attitude you and others are displaying is the product of the spoiled culture of the west, where we shrug our shoulders and buy products from companies which take advantage of the poverty over others because it is marginally cheaper. If we do not have to see suffering/harm directly, it bothers us very little, especially if we directly feel the personal benefits that distant suffering gives us; out of sight, out of mind. I don't think any of us can truly appreciate the gravity of the life lost in an abortion, but we sure can fully feel the convenience that comes with not having the burden of carrying/rearing a child. Take an instance to think over your entire life, every memory, every great experience, every terrible experience, everyone you know, everyone you've effected, what it felt like to have your first kiss, to fall in love, the pain of losing that love, to look into the eyes of your child, to accomplish your goals, and everything else. Appreciate your life for a second, for what it is, it's whole, and then remember that this is what you are saying you should have the right to take away; this is not some small damn thing.

 

[MajinVegeta]

 

[FrkyBgStok]

I'm sorry, but this whole post wreaks of an emotional response over the unfairness of an unwanted pregnancy. Your viewpoint does not extend any further than the mother - and by extension yourself, and while your first sentence makes an attempt to show that you actually take the child into consideration, it is pretty clear that this is only a veil you put in place to hide (from yourself?) your selfish reasons for being pro choice. If a gun was put to the head of even the most abused unwanted child, offering them instant escape for the terrible life you assume they have, how many do you think would choose death? Do not misunderstand what I'm saying as a lack of empathy for pregnant women, because their burdens do hold a great deal of weight, however I don't think you could reasonably argue that these burdens carry the gravity of death, or rather the lifting of these burdens are better than a life. The lives of foster children in America are far more blessed than most lives abroad, and the notion you're implying, of you deciding unilaterally that the entirety of their life is worth less than the nine months of inconvenience you'll suffer while pregnant, is appallingly selfish.

To be frank, the attitude you and others are displaying is the product of the spoiled culture of the west, where we shrug our shoulders and buy products from companies which take advantage of the poverty over others because it is marginally cheaper. If we do not have to see suffering/harm directly, it bothers us very little, especially if we directly feel the personal benefits that distant suffering gives us; out of sight, out of mind. I don't think any of us can truly appreciate the gravity of the life lost in an abortion, but we sure can fully feel the convenience that comes with not having the burden of carrying/rearing a child. Take an instance to think over your entire life, every memory, every great experience, every terrible experience, everyone you know, everyone you've effected, what it felt like to have your first kiss, to fall in love, the pain of losing that love, to look into the eyes of your child, to accomplish your goals, and everything else. Appreciate your life for a second, for what it is, it's whole, and then remember that this is what you are saying you should have the right to take away; this is not some small damn thing.

Hahaha. You attack lupa for having an emotional response and you post this? That is ironic. And as someone previously stated, you are using a blanket statement and saying that every person who gets an abortion is immature and unwilling to pay the consequences. That is ridiculous. I will say that a couple of the prolife people on this thread had decent arguments, but this is undoubtedly not one of them.

You have every right to believe that an unborn fetus <20 weeks is a life, but you have no right to force that belief on others. That is what pro choice is about. As I state before, pro choice =/= pro abortion.

 

[Sephiroth]

I'm sorry, but this whole post wreaks of an emotional response over the unfairness of an unwanted pregnancy. Your viewpoint does not extend any further than the mother - and by extension yourself, and while your first sentence makes an attempt to show that you actually take the child into consideration, it is pretty clear that this is only a veil you put in place to hide (from yourself?) your selfish reasons for being pro choice. If a gun was put to the head of even the most abused unwanted child, offering them instant escape for the terrible life you assume they have, how many do you think would choose death?

And this whole post reeks of begging the question [note: begging the question means assuming your conclusion as true when this conclusion is what is in question - it does not mean that there is a question needing to be asked]. By equating abortion with shooting someone in the head, your saying that a fetus is exactly the same as a fully developed human - which is exactly what is being argued. My guess is if you put a gun to a fetus and told it what kind of life it would have and offered it an escape, I doubt it would offer any kind of response at all. I'm sure almsot anyone would say they'd rather be born than not, but that offers no insight to the nature of the acts that lead to their existence. Many of us know people who were born to teenage mothers - does that mean that teenagers having unprotected sex should be encouraged? Speaking about it purely consequentially is nonsensical and ignores what is actually being discussed. And the whole bit about people in other countries having it worse and being exploited, while noteworthy, I don't see as being relevant.

 

[mishaS]

Hahaha. You attack lupa for having an emotional response and you post this? That is ironic. And as someone previously stated, you are using a blanket statement and saying that every person who gets an abortion is immature and unwilling to pay the consequences. That is ridiculous. I will say that a couple of the prolife people on this thread had decent arguments, but this is undoubtedly not one of them.

You have every right to believe that an unborn fetus <20 weeks is a life, but you have no right to force that belief on others. That is what pro choice is about. As I state before, pro choice =/= pro abortion.

When did I say they were immature? What do you mean "pay the consequences?" When did I "force" my belief on anyone? Did you actually read my posts in this thread, or skim and hit the quote button?

 

[FrkyBgStok]

And this whole post wreaks of begging the question [note: begging the question means assuming your conclusion as true when this conclusion is what is in question - it does not mean that there is a question needing to be asked]. By equating abortion with shooting someone in the head, your saying that a fetus is exactly the same as a fully developed human - which is exactly what is being argued. My guess is if you put a gun to a fetus and told it what kind of life it would have and offered it an escape, I doubt it would offer any kind of response at all. I'm sure almsot anyone would say they'd rather be born than not, but that offers no insight to the nature of the acts that lead to their existence. Many of us know people who were born to teenage mothers - does that mean that teenagers having unprotected sex should be encouraged? Speaking about it purely consequentially is nonsensical and ignores what is actually being discussed. And the whole bit about people in other countries having it worse and being exploited, while noteworthy, I don't see as being relevant.

Bummer. I wish I would have said this.

 

[mishaS]

And this whole post wreaks of begging the question [note: begging the question means assuming your conclusion as true when this conclusion is what is in question - it does not mean that there is a question needing to be asked]. By equating abortion with shooting someone in the head, your saying that a fetus is exactly the same as a fully developed human - which is exactly what is being argued. My guess is if you put a gun to a fetus and told it what kind of life it would have and offered it an escape, I doubt it would offer any kind of response at all. I'm sure almsot anyone would say they'd rather be born than not, but that offers no insight to the nature of the acts that lead to their existence. Many of us know people who were born to teenage mothers - does that mean that teenagers having unprotected sex should be encouraged? Speaking about it purely consequentially is nonsensical and ignores what is actually being discussed. And the whole bit about people in other countries having it worse and being exploited, while noteworthy, I don't see as being relevant.

I addressed the first question, what it is to be human/a person, in a previous post (hyperlink won't work http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=11791481&postcount=93), and I think the conclusion I'm assuming can be based on the fact that a living person, when aware of the concept of life/death will almost undoubtedly choose life given the choice. A fetus will not be able to answer your question, but neither will an unconscious person; if they are in your care, is it your right to suddenly decide this for them, especially considering if you knew, given time, they most likely would be able to decide for themselves (as a fetus would)? As for the teenage pregnancies, I'm going to assume you're jumping to conclusions and not throwing out a starwman, because I never said the creation of more life is better, but rather that destroying a created life is terribly wrong. In any case, I feel the ethics of abortion are extremely relevant.

 

[45408]

Let us ban abortion and rack up more foster kids or abused children

How about we tell women what to do with their body because they don't deserve the right to make that decision

We can force religious views down someone's throat that they are killing an innocent soul even if they are atheist because we all know how fun it is to force religious and personal beliefs upon people

You were raped? That is not the fault of the child, you are forced to have that baby and we know you will never bear resentment towards him/her or you can always put him up for adoption like all the rest and they will bounce from one foster home to another possibly.

bla bla bla bla

This choice is not one for anyone to make, but the woman. I don't care if a group of people honestly believe that consenting to abortion sends them straight to hell and will cause demons to rape the women who had the abortion. No one has the right to force that on anyone else.

I don't have warm and fuzzies about abortion, I have a huge heart for children and I agree that some people use abortion as birth control instead of being careful. Maybe women who have received more than one abortion must seek counseling with someone that explains birth control options, who knows. Either way, it is ignorant to try and ban something like this. (at least in my opinion)

I got pregnant on birth control. It does happen. (the pill sucks lol, nuva ring all the way) She is about to be 5 years old now and my husband and I don't regret that for a second. She is our world, but some people can't handle it. Some people simply should not try and raise a child lol...some people are just reckless and in the heat of the moment neglect protection. Oh well, some people are like that.

*unless that someone is a fetus about to be aborted

 

[LupaCupcake]

I feel special, I was targeted ! *pew pew pew* 😉

You are absolutely correct that some emotion was behind my response. I am frustrated, irritated and appalled that anyone thinks they have the right to impose something like this on a woman.

You should take a class in women's studies. It might show you another perspective. I don't mean that in a mean or lashing out type of manner, I am serious.

I will not deny that foster kids in the U.S often live better than say foster kids in Iraq, but comparisons like that are irrelevant. Did you know that 1 in every 4 foster children does not have a home? When I say "home" that is a somewhat lenient term as I am not labeling the delightful orphanage as a home. I cannot stomach the idea of someone having an abortion later on in the pregnancy when the baby could survive on it's own. If someone says I want an abortion cause I feel like it and I am in my 3rd trimester I would go 😱😡 alas that is not allowed for the most part and not the real target here.

If you put a gun to an abused child's head as you stated, well you are obviously endangering the life of someone that has feelings, thoughts and all that loveliness. If they are abused then take them out of that horrid situation and help them. That is a goal of my own life, to help children in traumatic situations. If abortion is illegal then the rate of foster kids will grow, more will be without homes and who knows the exact # of how many run away to live on the streets. The amount of child abuse cases will grow not just because more children exist, but because a parent forced into having a child they do not want will possibly bear resentment and blame that child for problems in their life such as piling up bills.

You want emotion....I love children, when I hear about cases of people abusing kids or the ones that have killed children.... I want that person who hurt them to suffer. I want to throw them in a room within the prison full of fathers who can't be with their own children and announce "that person did X to a child" then just leave them. That is raw emotion and a total lack of logical reasoning or legalities. I know that, but that is my emotional take.

I do not feel the same way about women having abortions. They are not horrid in my mind. A woman who has abortions all the time because she neglects any birth control is in my eyes irresponsible, immature and ignorant. Do you really want HER raising a child? She should be given better education about birth control and less about abstinence because COME ON...she is not going to be abstinent.

Feel free to target me again, that is fine. I do not speak on these forums as if I am being interviewed for med school. I often speak from some level of emotion.

To conclude, you said I was selfish. I love my birth control hehe. I am a loyal follower of nuva ring and it has proven very effective for years now. I don't need an abortion, this is not about me and if I were to get pregnant tomorrow I would have the child and probably get excited even though it was not planned. This is not about me and some selfishness.

 

[Sephiroth]

I addressed the first question, what it is to be human/a person, in a previous post, and I think the conclusion of I'm assuming can be based on the fact that a living person, when aware of the concept of life/death will almost undoubtedly choose life. A fetus will not be able to answer your question, but neither will an unconscious person; if they are in your care, is it your right to suddenly decide this forum them, especially considering if you knew, given time, they most likely would be able to decide for themselves (as a fetus would)? As for the teenage pregnancies, I'm going to assume you're jumping to conclusions and not throwing out a starwman, because I never said the creation of more life is better, but rather that destroying a created life is terribly wrong.

I was doing neither. I was using it as an example to show that looking only at the consequences - that being that there is now a person who does not wish to not exist - is not pertinent. Taking an unconscious person as an example, we are starting with a sentient being who is temporarily incapacitated, as opposed to starting with something that is not and has never been a sentient being in the first place. As I was attempting to show with that previous example, the mere fact that a sentient being will eventually arise is not important. This is a poor analogy.

In any case, I feel the ethics of abortion are extremely relevant

Not sure if this is directed at my last sentence, but either way I don't follow what you are getting at with this.

 

[dmf2682]

My lawn was alive long before I fertilized it!!

You're welcome.

 

[mishaS]

I feel special, I was targeted ! *pew pew pew* 😉

Heh, I didn't mean to do that, yours just caught my attention more than others.

You are absolutely correct that some emotion was behind my response. I am frustrated, irritated and appalled that anyone thinks they have the right to impose something like this on a woman.

Just because I am morally against abortion does not mean I am against it legally. I stated this in an earlier post, I am for legal abortion.

You should take a class in women's studies. It might show you another perspective. I don't mean that in a mean or lashing out type of manner, I am serious.

This is crap, and I can't stand it being used as an argument. It is unfair that only a women truly has bear the burden of pregnancy, that unfairness does not justify another, the taking away of an entire life without consideration. Gender has nothing to do with the fact that the action is, at heart, immoral and selfish, and it is just another veil to ignore the actual moral question.

I will not deny that foster kids in the U.S often live better than say foster kids in Iraq, but comparisons like that are irrelevant. Did you know that 1 in every 4 foster children does not have a home? When I say "home" that is a somewhat lenient term as I am not labeling the delightful orphanage as a home. I cannot stomach the idea of someone having an abortion later on in the pregnancy when the baby could survive on it's own. If someone says I want an abortion cause I feel like it and I am in my 3rd trimester I would go 😱😡

How does the fact that it can survive on it's own make any real difference into it's right to live? How can one, day, one minute, one second justify the erasing of an entire life? How can you seriously say use the fact that their life isn't up to your apparent standards, that it is not worth living?

Feel free to target me again, that is fine. I do not speak on these forums as if I am being interviewed for med school. I often speak from some level of emotion.

You shouldn't drop your emotions at interviews, and I don't in any way want to imply that you're a bad person, or that women who get abortions are bad people, however the act itself is immoral, and it is almost always done for very selfish reasons. For what it's worth, if I were a women, and I could get pregnant, and I did, right now, in my first year of medical school, there is a very strong chance I would get an abortion In the very least though, I would not tout what I did as ok though. I would know full well the terrible thing I was doing, and that I was a selfish hypocrite to do it.

 

[mishaS]

I was using it as an example to show that looking only at the consequences - that being that there is now a person who does not wish to not exist - is not pertinent.

Are you really saying that consequences have no importance to this discussion?

Taking an unconscious person as an example, we are starting with a sentient being who is temporarily incapacitated, as opposed to starting with something that is not and has never been a sentient being in the first place. As I was attempting to show with that previous example, the mere fact that a sentient being will eventually arise is not important. This is a poor analogy.

Why does previous consciousness bear all of the weight with none being on future consciousness? Where would a child, born in a coma fall into this exactly? You tell me my analogy is poor, but you don't tell me why, so why?

 

[gettheleadout]

Speaking about it purely consequentially is nonsensical and ignores what is actually being discussed.

I was doing neither. I was using it as an example to show that looking only at the consequences - that being that there is now a person who does not wish to not exist - is not pertinent.

Are you really saying that consequences have no importance to this discussion?

 

[Sephiroth]

Are you really saying that consequences have no importance to this discussion?

No, as gettheleadout highlighted. I'm saying there are other matters of greater significance when considering the ethics involved.

Why does previous consciousness bear all of the weight with none being on future consciousness? Where would a child, born in a coma fall into this exactly? You tell me my analogy is poor, but you don't tell me why, so why?

Because the past has actually happened - it has been actualized. The future is just potential scenarios dependent upon what happens now. I'll show you again:
"How can one, day, one minute, one second justify the erasing of an entire life?"
That one second you pulled out just erased an entire life. See how that works? What happens now determines what will be in the future, but you can't treat things in the future as if they already exist. Your analogy is poor because it commits this error. There are billions of conscious beings to be had in the future, and quadrillions more that could have been if things were different (think about it, your parents have sex one minute later, a different sperm reaches the egg and you end up with an entirely different person). Consequences are to be considered with great importance when were are aiming to achieve or avoid certain scenarios, but they are not determinant of the ethics of an action to a majority extent.

 

[mishaS]

Because the past has actually happened - it has been actualized. The future is just potential scenarios dependent upon what happens now. I'll show you again:
"How can one, day, one minute, one second justify the erasing of an entire life?"
That one second you pulled out just erased an entire life. See how that works? What happens now determines what will be in the future, but you can't treat things in the future as if they already exist. Your analogy is poor because it commits this error. There are billions of conscious beings to be had in the future, and quadrillions more that could have been if things were different (think about it, your parents have sex one minute later, a different sperm reaches the egg and you end up with an entirely different person).

There are billions of conscious beings alive at this very moment, their futures not set, not actualized yet, and dependent of what happens now; The very basis of the criminality/immorality of act of murder is the denial of these futures to said human. How is the zygote different. The distinction between individual egg/sperm and zygote is pretty stark in that, by themselves, they cannot develop into a human, and they have the potential to become an infinite number of different humans. The zygote is set. It is (normally) of one sperm, and one egg, which fused at specific time, and could very likely not have come to be a few seconds earlier or later; it is a specific human and it cannot becomes a different human (though it can develop into a many different people).

Consequences are to be considered with great importance when were are aiming to achieve or avoid certain scenarios, but they are not determinant of the ethics of an action to a majority extent.

The ethics drive the reasoning to achieve/avoid. Our natural "ethical system" has personally beneficial acts as being good; higher ethics stemming from empathy, culture, among other things, which attempt to curb this natural drive which puts self first from harming others, is the basis of our legal systems and policies.

 

[Sephiroth]

There are billions of conscious beings alive at this very moment, their futures not set, not actualized yet, and dependent of what happens now; The very basis of the criminality/immorality of act of murder is the denial of these futures to said human. How is the zygote different. The distinction between individual egg/sperm and zygote is pretty stark in that, by themselves, they cannot develop into a human, and they have the potential to become an infinite number of different humans. The zygote is set. It is (normally) of one sperm, and one egg, which fused at specific time, and could very likely not have come to be a few seconds earlier or later; it is a specific human and it cannot becomes a different human (though it can develop into a many different people).

I could introduce a sperm and an ovum in a petri dish and leave it there and it would not become a human. Am I now obligated to provide it with everything it needs to become a human? If so, why am I not obligated to provide an ovum with the sperm it needs to become a human? Why does this distinction happen so discretely right here? The genome, as large of a role it plays, is not the be-all-end-all of what makes a person.

The ethics drive the reasoning to achieve/avoid. Our natural "ethical system" has personally beneficial acts as being good; higher ethics stemming from empathy, culture, among other things, which attempt to curb this natural drive which puts self first from harming others, is the basis of our legal systems and policies.

No, desirability of an outcome is the reason to achieve/avoid. A world in which everyone has a high standard of living is highly desirable (unless you're a very cruel person), so we should do things that would move us toward that. A world in which nuclear armageddon kills almost everyone is highly undesirable, so we should do things to avoid it. These examples are true for most people, but other less extreme ones may vary, meaning what we should seek to achieve/avoid depends on what outcomes we desire. I'm not sure what you mean by the second statement, but ethics is an attempt at producing a logically consistent set of rules that incorporates generally accepted rules and provide a comprehensive rule set (though this hasn't fully been achieved yet). The legal system is to some extent intended to mirror this, though focusing more on protecting rights and allowing certain actions to be legal because they do not violate fundamental rights of another, even if they may be considered unethical for other reason.

 

[mishaS]

I could introduce a sperm and an ovum in a petri dish and leave it there and it would not become a human. Am I now obligated to provide it with everything it needs to become a human? If so, why am I not obligated to provide an ovum with the sperm it needs to become a human? Why does this distinction happen so discretely right here? The genome, as large of a role it plays, is not the be-all-end-all of what makes a person.

I would say the act of creating a human zygote only with the intention of destroying it would be immoral, yes. If you do not take this standard, how can you reasonably justify different treatment for a more developed fetus, which couldn't survive without medical intervention, or even an infant or young child who could not survive without a caretaker. Independence/dependence on others is a poor definition to set because it neither ends at birth nor is there a distinct demarcation from dependence to independence; if dependence lies with the fetus relying on the mother's womb, what would happen if advances made it possible to develop an zygote in vitro? You do not have obligation to the ovum because it is not an individual person. It is fair for you to disagree with my standard for defining a person, because as I stated in my first post, non of us can offer anything more than opinions - these definitions and their interpretations don't exist anywhere outside networks of synapses. The reason I stand by my definition is because it is the only point in development which is black and white, and therefor is the only single point at which a more objectively specific definition can be ascribed to.

No, desirability of an outcome is the reason to achieve/avoid. A world in which everyone has a high standard of living is highly desirable (unless you're a very cruel person), so we should do things that would move us toward that. A world in which nuclear armageddon kills almost everyone is highly undesirable, so we should do things to avoid it. These examples are true for most people, but other less extreme ones may vary, meaning what we should seek to achieve/avoid depends on what outcomes we desire. I'm not sure what you mean by the second statement, but ethics is an attempt at producing a logically consistent set of rules that incorporates generally accepted rules and provide a comprehensive rule set (though this hasn't fully been achieved yet). The legal system is to some extent intended to mirror this, though focusing more on protecting rights and allowing certain actions to be legal because they do not violate fundamental rights of another, even if they may be considered unethical for other reason.

I should have used morality instead of ethics. In any case, a world which is fair is a desirable outcome people hope for, as is a world in which people act in an ethical manner.

 

[Sephiroth]

I would say the act of creating a human zygote only with the intention of destroying it would be immoral, yes. If you do not take this standard, how can you reasonably justify different treatment for a more developed fetus, which couldn't survive without medical intervention, or even an infant or young child who could not survive without a caretaker. Independence/dependence on others is a poor definition to set because it neither ends at birth nor is there a distinct demarcation from dependence to independence

exactly. that's the point I've been trying to get at. Though you've stated otherwise, even fertilization isn't truly distinct. Like I'd mentioned earlier, could you watch a video of a sperm swimming to an ovum and burrowing into it and say it is a person riiiiiiggghhhtt... NOW! ? Any such moment would be arbitrary, so it really isn't the objective distinction you seem to want to make it.

if dependence lies with the fetus relying on the mother's womb, what would happen if advances made it possible to develop an zygote in vitro? You do not have obligation to the ovum because it is not an individual person.

What if developments are made that could produce a haploid human? The potential for scientific advancements really make the lines even more blury.

It is fair for you to disagree with my standard for defining a person, because as I stated in my first post, non of us can offer anything more than opinions - these definitions and their interpretations don't exist anywhere outside networks of synapses.

well i don't know about all that. Sure, we can't prove anything objectively by any means, but we can still have an intelligent discussion and offer concepts that are more than just opinions. And no need for the guy who is seemingly supportive of the more transcendent view of personhood to suddenly be so nihilistic😛

I should have used morality instead of ethics. In any case, a world which is fair is a desirable outcome people hope for, as is a world in which people act in an ethical manner.

It's part of it, but I don't think that's rigorous enough to treat it as a complete description of what is striven for.

 

[iqe2010]

One of my pet peeves is when politics invades on people privacy. You don't agree with abortion? That's cool, but why force your beliefs on people who are different?

And it must suck only having one abortion clinic in the entire state. Especially for women who have at-risk pregnancies. It's a shame, really.

 

[Camy99]

Something that hasn't really been mentioned yet is ... what form of birth control is 100% effective (or even better than 99.99% for that matter)? What if a woman/man ARE using protection and the woman STILL gets pregnant?

Abstinence? Lol. You asked! But don't worry, I'm not one who walks around forcing abstinence down people's throat. That was just the straightforward answer to your question... XD

A big part of your argument seems to be that abortion is selfish, lazy, materialistic, etc, etc. I don't see the relevance to a discussion of policy or legality. Is your position that women should be legally obligated to be noble and selfless, and legally punished if they are materialistic? What next? Will we throw a healthy teenager in jail because he doesn't offer his seat to an old lady on the bus? Poor tippers get fined by the IRS? People who don't meet their quota of volunteer hours or donations to charity have their wages docked? Police keep a file on the times you didn't finish your dinner, even while there are starving children in Africa?


Nice epiphany. This thread is full of people who've been talking about this exact question. The question is, how much consideration as an independent person do we owe these cells. Some groups of human cells (you, for example) deserve full consideration, with full rights, etc. Some groups of cells (a skin biopsy, say) deserve zero consideration. In this thread, some people have suggested that consideration is due when the fetus has blood, when it can survive on its own, when it meets a certain threshold of awareness, or brain activity. Some people have discussed that life isn't binary, and there probably isn't an abrupt switch between &quot;just a clump of cells&quot; and &quot;full person&quot;.

Now that you've identified THIS is the question, why don't you try contributing to it?

Maybe it doesn't have to be part of a law of sorts, but there is such thing as being too materialistic. Isn't that what the whole Occupy ____ ordeal is about? I haven't taken enough political classes to answer this, but are/can any laws be based on some sense of morality? I feel like a few are. -shrug-

My problem with considering exactly when a fetus is to be considered human, is that it's almost acting dumb. Acting like you're not aware that it's about to be a human. Maybe I'm just having difficulty putting this into word but it's like... closing all colleges before the next generation finishes elementary, and being okay with it because we don't give them consideration as potential collegiates. Since they're definitely not old enough, and some of them won't make it that far anyways, it's not a big deal to completely cancel the option without them knowing.
But all that aside, if we can't agree on when humanity ultimately begins, I'd like to think we can all agree that after a certain time in pregnancy, there is definitely a live, moving baby in there that can feel. It's a bit ignorant to say, "oh it's not out here walking about, so it's still not real".

I have read ALL your previous posts. Regardless, in our society we place limits on the risks we ask individuals to take on for the sake of others. In any other situation, you would not force person A to potentially undergo major surgery (C-section), be reduced to poverty, or possibly die (pre-eclampsia, the rare complication during delivery, etc) for the sake of person B, and EVEN if a fetus is a "person" that does not change.

Sure, some people will choose to make the sacrifice, and that is very noble. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-abortion. But my point is, in our society we don't believe in forcing individuals to do these things (many legal precedents), and if we start doing so we are risking undermining key human rights.

Well then at this point I'd like a list of what 'these' things are. I am dying, I need food, I will steal your food. That's definitely not legal. But it's not scientifically illegal either. It breaches the whole intruding someone else's freedom thing but that's based on a moral standard our society is built on. Which in a sense, is a belief. So how do we go about deciding which belief is right enough to turn it into a law? Some aren't (like certain religious ones) because not following them doesn't hurt anyone, for example. Okay, well I believe abortion hurts [a potential] someone. Which leads us back to the quote I responded to above where we all need to agree or disagree that the fetus is a someone.
Or else everyone could do what they want, with people who are okay with it (torture animals, anyone?) as long as people who don't like it don't have to be part of it.


Finally, just as general note, I don't think I've mentioned, or if I have it wasn't clear: Although I'm against abortion, my ideal law isn't completely condoning abortion, it's just drawing a line to things such as necessity, and the point where you are basically committing murder.