Siri is against abortion... are you?

[NickNaylor]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

legally the unborn cells, fetus, the fetus, whatever, has no rights, it is not a US citizen. Legally speaking and all.😀

Your misplaced confidence is amusing. You do realize that the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that unborn individuals do acquire rights when they become capable of surviving outside the womb, right?

 

[Sephiroth]

Your misplaced confidence is amusing. You do realize that the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that unborn individuals do acquire rights when they become capable of surviving outside the womb, right?

I'm amazed you can understand what he's saying, let alone infer a tone from it. It's weird because I've seen him post in a few other places and the writing quality is much better t here. I wonder if he intentioanlly writes in a nearly-incomprehensible manner for this thread specifically. Though it has improved a bit toward the latter part of this thread. Curious.

 

[tantacles]

Haha, cop out. 😛

There are indeed plenty of ways to mitigate that risk, and in fact there's one that drops that risk to zero. There's even Plan B if a woman chooses not to use conventional methods. Abortion as an elective procedure seems unnecessary in most cases.

By the way, while I'm against abortion personally I'm not for criminalizing or banning it at any level.

Well, it's notable that clinical outcomes for women who have abortions are far worse than the outcomes of those who have the child, meaning that the mother, if she does not want the child, puts herself out of risk by terminating a pregnancy. I think the risk of death after a pregnancy is of a similar magnitude to risk of spontaneous death from anesthesia, so it's not incredibly high, but that fact always rankled me.

 

[Sephiroth]

There are indeed plenty of ways to mitigate that risk, and in fact there's one that drops that risk to zero. There's even Plan B if a woman chooses not to use conventional methods. Abortion as an elective procedure seems unnecessary in most cases.

But I still don't see why everyone should have to either take only the 100% preventitive measure or have to live with the consequences should things not go as planned if there is a way to avoid the problem. Almost everything in life has risks - driving in particular is one that is risky and we engage in often, but if someone is injured in a car accident we try to help them recover from those injuries as best we can, not tell them to live with it because they took on the risk. There must be some key difference, and that's what I've been fishing for the whole time.

 

[theseeker4]

But I still don't see why everyone should have to either take only the 100% preventitive measure or have to live with the consequences should things not go as planned if there is a way to avoid the problem. Almost everything in life has risks - driving in particular is one that is risky and we engage in often, but if someone is injured in a car accident we try to help them recover from those injuries as best we can, not tell them to live with it because they took on the risk. There must be some key difference, and that's what I've been fishing for the whole time.

I don't know that you are being genuine. You surely can see the difference between terminating a pregnancy and being treated for injuries during a car crash. The key difference, obviously, is that people who oppose abortion believe the "way to avoid the problem" during pregnancy results in killing an individual human with a right to life that trumps the mother's right to terminate a pregnancy, while those who support the right to abortion reject the premise that the fetus is an individual with a right to life, or at least contend that the fetus's right to life does not trump the mother's right to an abortion. The two views are incompatible; there is virtually no common ground between the two camps, which is why abortion is so contentious and why debates about the topic almost never change anyone's mind.

 

[tantacles]

I don't know that you are being genuine. You surely can see the difference between terminating a pregnancy and being treated for injuries during a car crash. The key difference, obviously, is that people who oppose abortion believe the "way to avoid the problem" during pregnancy results in killing an individual human with a right to life that trumps the mother's right to terminate a pregnancy, while those who support the right to abortion reject the premise that the fetus is an individual with a right to life, or at least contend that the fetus's right to life does not trump the mother's right to an abortion. The two views are incompatible; there is virtually no common ground between the two camps, which is why abortion is so contentious and why debates about the topic almost never change anyone's mind.

Yup. Logic rarely comes into play with regard to abortion. Typically, one either identifies the fetus as life worth saving or life not worth saving and works from there.

 

[Sephiroth]

I don't know that you are being genuine. You surely can see the difference between terminating a pregnancy and being treated for injuries during a car crash. The key difference, obviously, is that people who oppose abortion believe the "way to avoid the problem" during pregnancy results in killing an individual human with a right to life that trumps the mother's right to terminate a pregnancy, while those who support the right to abortion reject the premise that the fetus is an individual with a right to life, or at least contend that the fetus's right to life does not trump the mother's right to an abortion. The two views are incompatible; there is virtually no common ground between the two camps, which is why abortion is so contentious and why debates about the topic almost never change anyone's mind.

That's the point, and exactly what I meant when I said I was fishing for something. He hadn't explicitly said that, but it's really the only reason I could think of for someone to hold such a position.

 

[watchntv]

Your misplaced confidence is amusing. You do realize that the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that unborn individuals do acquire rights when they become capable of surviving outside the womb, right?

did not know that legal fact.. ..but that goes along with thoughts on the matter, as the baby is not a parasite any longer, but has to be removed from the host.

good to know

 

[NickNaylor]

But I still don't see why everyone should have to either take only the 100% preventitive measure or have to live with the consequences should things not go as planned if there is a way to avoid the problem. Almost everything in life has risks - driving in particular is one that is risky and we engage in often, but if someone is injured in a car accident we try to help them recover from those injuries as best we can, not tell them to live with it because they took on the risk. There must be some key difference, and that's what I've been fishing for the whole time.

This isn't a dichotomous situation - I'm really not trying to paint it as such. If a couple is correctly using contraceptives (i.e., birth control and/or the pill), then the risk of pregnancy is very, very small. Using your example, driving safely and wearing your seat belt greatly minimizes the risk of severe injury/death from a car accident. That risk is obviously still there even with those protections, but my argument is that one should be prepared to accept responsibility for those actions (i.e., accepting the reality of having a child) in spite of the small risk.

Obviously there's more difficulty in grappling with situations where birth control was used correctly and a pregnancy still occurred, but I highly doubt those situations happen as often as the defenders of abortion seem to assert. Another situation that is often brought up in the defense of abortion is pregnancies due to rape; again, I wonder what the frequency of this event is in reality.

Really, though, the larger issue with me in the context of the abortion debate is protecting the physician's autonomy and right to choose whether or not to provide an abortion and whether or not to refer a patient to an abortion provider. I have no problem with those that support abortion rights - I myself support them, i.e., I don't support criminalizing or banning abortion. That said, I also demand the right as a physician to refuse to provide an abortion and/or a referral (in non-emergent cases) because of my views on the issue, something that is seemingly unfathomable to many pre-med students and, sadly, medical students.

 

[watchntv]

I'm amazed you can understand what he's saying, let alone infer a tone from it. It's weird because I've seen him post in a few other places and the writing quality is much better t here. I wonder if he intentioanlly writes in a nearly-incomprehensible manner for this thread specifically. Though it has improved a bit toward the latter part of this thread. Curious.

i wonder also

 

[Starlightembers]

Unfortunately there is no perfect analogy, but I think this does a good job of illustrating the fact that there is implicit risk to the activity (sex) that you accept by simply doing the activity.

Not quite.

First of all, while there are risks to having sex, nobody has signed a legal contract stating they accept the risks and agree to not abort if that risk materializes. On the other hand, most do sign papers when they skydive stating they accept the risks and agree not to hold The Skydiving Place liable in the case something happens. In addition, if the man dies, from a legal standpoint, it is nobody's fault; in this case, assuming there was nothing else that malfunctioned, it would be ruled an accident.

Second of all, death is irreversible.

This case also has no aspect that involves resources.

By the way, while I'm against abortion personally I'm not for criminalizing or banning it at any level.

The legal side is the only side I have been arguing.

Well, it's notable that clinical outcomes for women who have abortions are far worse than the outcomes of those who have the child, meaning that the mother, if she does not want the child, puts herself out of risk by terminating a pregnancy. I think the risk of death after a pregnancy is of a similar magnitude to risk of spontaneous death from anesthesia, so it's not incredibly high, but that fact always rankled me.

Can you cite this?

I have always read the opposite -- that more people suffer complications and death as a result of pregnancy than do abortion.

 

[Sephiroth]

i wonder also

Lol, Muphry's Law strikes. But I wasn't referring to minute gramatical, spelling or typographical errors. The overall structure of your statements had been poor, making your posts very difficult to make sense of.

 

[NickNaylor]

Not quite.

First of all, while there are risks to having sex, nobody has signed a legal contract stating they accept the risks and agree to not abort if that risk materializes. On the other hand, most do sign papers when they skydive stating they accept the risks and agree not to hold The Skydiving Place liable in the case something happens. In addition, if the man dies, from a legal standpoint, it is nobody's fault; in this case, assuming there was nothing else that malfunctioned, it would be ruled an accident.

Second of all, death is irreversible.

This case also has no aspect that involves resources.

Indeed it is! Oh how quickly we rush to provide abortions that, quite interestingly, result in the death of another living organism.

 

[Sephiroth]

Indeed it is! Oh how quickly we rush to provide abortions that, quite interestingly, result in the death of another living organism.

just an organism? or...?

c'mon...

 

[watchntv]

Really, though, the larger issue with me in the context of the abortion debate is protecting the physician's autonomy and right to choose whether or not to provide an abortion and whether or not to refer a patient to an abortion provider. I have no problem with those that support abortion rights - I myself support them, i.e., I don't support criminalizing or banning abortion. That said, I also demand the right as a physician to refuse to provide an abortion and/or a referral (in non-emergent cases) because of my views on the issue, something that is seemingly unfathomable to many pre-med students and, sadly, medical students.

so do you think a pharmacist has a right to refuse to fill plan B prescriptions?

 

[tantacles]

Indeed it is! Oh how quickly we rush to provide abortions that, quite interestingly, result in the death of another living organism.

Interestingly enough, the argument, for me, that actually justifies abortion, is that we kill cows, who are markedly more sentient than a blastocyst, daily for meat, something that most people, including me, have no problem with. Until there is scientific evidence of a soul or something else that separates a fetus without possibility of survival outside of the mother's womb from other organisms, I will always be pro-choice.

 

[NickNaylor]

just an organism? or...?

c'mon...

I chose my words carefully because the whole debate on whether a fetus is a person or not is contentious and entirely opinion-based. At some point between conception and passing through the vaginal canal a fetus becomes an individual person, but there's no objective way to determine when exactly that happens. In few cases is one opinion better than another.

so do you think a pharmacist has a right to refuse to fill plan B prescriptions?

No. The job of the pharmacist is to ensure that prescriptions are correctly dispensed and that harmful drug interactions are avoided. I have an idea of where you're going with this, but I'll wait and see.

 

[NickNaylor]

Interestingly enough, the argument, for me, that actually justifies abortion, is that we kill cows, who are markedly more sentient than a blastocyst, daily for meat, something that most people, including me, have no problem with. Until there is scientific evidence of a soul or something else that separates a fetus without possibility of survival outside of the mother's womb from other organisms, I will always be pro-choice.

I would agree with your argument if we're talking about a blastocyst, but your argument becomes a little more controversial if we're dealing with a 15+ week fetus.

 

[Starlightembers]

Indeed it is! Oh how quickly we rush to provide abortions that, quite interestingly, result in the death of another living organism.

Really?

You were comparing the act of skydiving and dying to the act of having intercourse and getting pregnant. That statement was simply explaining, as part of a more complete post, why your analogy was bad.

 

[Sephiroth]

I chose my words carefully because the whole debate on whether a fetus is a person or not is contentious and entirely opinion-based. At some point between conception and passing through the vaginal canal a fetus becomes an individual person, but there's no objective way to determine when exactly that happens. In few cases is one opinion better than another.

I realize that it is contentious, but unlike starlight, I believe it is important to the topic. Though since you don't support any legal ban on abortion, the pratical aspects are insignificant. But I wouldn't say that no opinion is better than any other. Certain ones can be based more off what evidence we do have available and reasoning, while others more on visceral reactions and appeals to tradition or the like. Similarly, at some point between leaving the womb and 30 years later does an individual have the rational faculties to make decisions for oneself and be responsible for oneself. It's not that there is some sudden magic change that happens when the clock strikes 12 on someone's 18th birthday, it's that with the information available, the necessary brain development to be considered an adult happens around this time, and we must pick a point we can apply broadly. Similarly with fetal development, if we could determine what constitutes a person and around when such development occurs, a point at the lower threshold of such development would be a good marker for when we consider the beginning of personhood to be. Just because some are unwilling to discuss the issue, provide any backing for their position or have any willingness to change their mind doesn't mean it's a fruitless discussion.

No. The job of the pharmacist is to ensure that prescriptions are correctly dispensed and that harmful drug interactions are avoided. I have an idea of where you're going with this, but I'll wait and see.

I didn't think to mention this, but I'm glad to know that you share my view on the situation. I remember when it first appeared on the news, I likened it to the "Amish bus driver" idea. I think I may know where watchntv is going with that, but I'm not sure.

 

[Sephiroth]

I would agree with your argument if we're talking about a blastocyst, but your argument becomes a little more controversial if we're dealing with a 15+ week fetus.

So does that mean you personally don't have any problem with abortions done very early in the pregnancy?

 

[Qrxn]

Interestingly enough, the argument, for me, that actually justifies abortion, is that we kill cows, who are markedly more sentient than a blastocyst, daily for meat, something that most people, including me, have no problem with. Until there is scientific evidence of a soul or something else that separates a fetus without possibility of survival outside of the mother's womb from other organisms, I will always be pro-choice.

This. We kill daily and without remorse; I don't understand why human life is held in higher esteem especially considering the manner in which many animals are slaughtered. Is only human existence worthy of preservation due to higher cognition and a perceived "soul"?

 

[NickNaylor]

So does that mean you personally don't have any problem with abortions done very early in the pregnancy?

No, however when exactly it becomes "ok" versus "not ok" is a question that I myself haven't worked out yet. I think the Supreme Court's use of viability is a good benchmark, but I'm not sure if that's the best one.

 

[NickNaylor]

This. We kill daily and without remorse; I don't understand why human life is held in higher esteem especially considering the manner in which many animals are slaughtered. Is only human existence worthy of preservation due to higher cognition and a perceived "soul"?

Are you going to argue the contrary? That the life of a bacterium is equivalent to the life of a worm is equivalent to the life of a cow is equivalent to the life of a human?

 

[watchntv]

I chose my words carefully because the whole debate on whether a fetus is a person or not is contentious and entirely opinion-based. At some point between conception and passing through the vaginal canal a fetus becomes an individual person, but there's no objective way to determine when exactly that happens. In few cases is one opinion better than another.

I dont choose words/wording carefully as you do, I know my views and I know what I have done in situations( they are different things in a lot of people's lives)
I figured a baby becomes an individual when it doesnt need the host, that is proven thru birth, but that is not the time when the parasite becomes a baby,.

No. The job of the pharmacist is to ensure that prescriptions are correctly dispensed and that harmful drug interactions are avoided. I have an idea of where you're going with this, but I'll wait and see.

I agree with what you have just said. You can play devils advocate all you want though.

 

[watchntv]

This. We kill daily and without remorse; I don't understand why human life is held in higher esteem especially considering the manner in which many animals are slaughtered. Is only human existence worthy of preservation due to higher cognition and a perceived "soul"?

pretty much, except for pets, we try to find them homes, etc, as they are our "friends"/tools we use.
but in the end, we do kill them

Golden Rule applies, you think a insect or cow is going to give a muck about you?

 

[watchntv]

Are you going to argue the contrary? That the life of a bacterium is equivalent to the life of a worm is equivalent to the life of a cow is equivalent to the life of a human?

I know some people don't even believe human life=human life
worm=human life?

 

[Qrxn]

Are you going to argue the contrary? That the life of a bacterium is equivalent to the life of a worm is equivalent to the life of a cow is equivalent to the life of a human?

No, not at all. That really isn't the point. Personally I do not believe that one form of life is more precious than another and by all technical standards you could argue that everything is a diversified component of the same base material. I fear that is a little deeper than what I'm trying to convey. I'm more interested in the perceived moral implications of abortion. It strikes me as odd that someone can be pro-life of one species but not pro-life of another. Along the same vein, we seek to control animal populations with mating techniques and seasonal hunting, but the human population continues to expand boundlessly. Except for China's one child policy, we seem to have no regard for our rate of expansion while impressing on our population that keeping a child is a moral obligation.

I think humans are tyrannical in their belief that the only life worth saving, that the only souls that matter, are their own.

EDIT: But I wanted to add that I am very impressed with how many people on this thread are pro-life and assert that belief professionally and intelligently.

 

[theseeker4]

No, not at all. That really isn't the point. Personally I do not believe that one form of life is more precious than another and by all technical standards you could argue that everything is a diversified component of the same base material. I fear that is a little deeper than what I'm trying to convey. I'm more interested in the perceived moral implications of abortion. It strikes me as odd that someone can be pro-life of one species but not pro-life of another. Along the same vein, we seek to control animal populations with mating techniques and seasonal hunting, but the human population continues to expand boundlessly. Except for China's one child policy, we seem to have no regard for our rate of expansion while impressing on our population that keeping a child is a moral obligation.

I think humans are tyrannical in their belief that the only life worth saving, that the only souls that matter, are their own.

EDIT: But I wanted to add that I am very impressed with how many people on this thread are pro-life and assert that belief professionally and intelligently.

Wait, are you actually saying there is no difference between the killing of a cow or a chicken and the killing of a human? Ignore the abortion debate for a moment, as the argument there is about a woman's right vs. whether a fetus has a right to life. For an adult human, you don't see any difference between condoning the killing of an adult human (assuming not a murderer, not directly threatening you, etc.) and killing an adult pig?

 

[Qrxn]

Wait, are you actually saying there is no difference between the killing of a cow or a chicken and the killing of a human? Ignore the abortion debate for a moment, as the argument there is about a woman's right vs. whether a fetus has a right to life. For an adult human, you don't see any difference between condoning the killing of an adult human (assuming not a murderer, not directly threatening you, etc.) and killing an adult pig?

No. That is a serious over simplification of only a portion of my point. I summed it up pretty concisely in saying, "I think humans are tyrannical in their belief that the only life worth saving, that the only souls that matter, are their own."

 

[theseeker4]

No. That is a serious over simplification of only a portion of my point. I summed it up pretty concisely in saying, "I think humans are tyrannical in their belief that the only life worth saving, that the only souls that matter, are their own."

Your post there supports my interpretation. Either there is a difference between human life and the lives of other species, or there is not. Both cannot be true. Your post seems to be saying you disagree with the majority of people who believe there is something special about human life, and therefore it has more value than life of other species. If there is no difference in the value, then there is no difference between killing a human and killing an animal. If that isn't your argument, what argument are you making, exactly? (again, off the abortion topic for a moment, so no one jump in with a "what about the mother's rights?!" or similar comment please.)

 

[Qrxn]

Your post there supports my interpretation. Either there is a difference between human life and the lives of other species, or there is not. Both cannot be true. Your post seems to be saying you disagree with the majority of people who believe there is something special about human life, and therefore it has more value than life of other species. If there is no difference in the value, then there is no difference between killing a human and killing an animal. If that isn't your argument, what argument are you making, exactly? (again, off the abortion topic for a moment, so no one jump in with a "what about the mother's rights?!" or similar comment please.)

You are taking a multi-faceted discussion and reducing it to a black or white self-determined concept by saying "it is either this/or this." There is a lot more to my position than those two completely opposite points. I stand by my original statement that, "I'm more interested in the perceived moral implications of abortion." Concerning murder between two sentient beings, we separate the pre-meditated killing of animals from the pre-meditated killing of humans to suit our own purposes. As I said before, it strikes me as odd that we justify one killing as necessary but not the other. This same idea can be applied, in my mind, to taking a stance on abortion. Opponents of choice will say she has a moral obligation to keep the baby because life is sacred, yet choose to waive that kind of moral argument when killing animals. In my opinion, you should apply a moral standpoint to each facet of your life if it is truly that important. If you are to say, "killing is wrong" then don't kill or consume products from killed beings. As for my "argument", I've only stated observations which contribute to my point rather than expressly state it.

/Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[marioncobretti]

I chose my words carefully because the whole debate on whether a fetus is a person or not is contentious and entirely opinion-based. At some point between conception and passing through the vaginal canal a fetus becomes an individual person, but there's no objective way to determine when exactly that happens. In few cases is one opinion better than another.



No. The job of the pharmacist is to ensure that prescriptions are correctly dispensed and that harmful drug interactions are avoided. I have an idea of where you're going with this, but I'll wait and see.

Nick, someday I hope to have 8k posts. Thanks for all the help you freely give here on SDN. I have a couple things in regards to your post.

The fetus becomes an individual person once it has its chromosome complement. From that point on it will become a human. Not a cow or a worm or another sperm and egg but a Homo Sapien. It has the full program to become a human with characteristic aspects already determined, the central dogma of biology.

From that time, each human's capacities require time (years) to find its place and to be in a position to act. To create some adjustable event horizon is impossible.

Does anyone hold to Zeno's paradoxes? Not since modern calculus provided the solution.

 

[tantacles]

I would agree with your argument if we're talking about a blastocyst, but your argument becomes a little more controversial if we're dealing with a 15+ week fetus.

I chose my words very carefully as well. It definitely becomes more cloudy once the fetus reaches a potential survival state, which is why I was talking about a fetus with no chance of survival (p < 0.001 should be sufficient, no?) outside of the uterus.

 

[tantacles]

The fetus becomes an individual person once it has its chromosome complement. From that point on it will become a human. Not a cow or a worm or another sperm and egg but a Homo Sapien. It has the full program to become a human with characteristic aspects already determined, the central dogma of biology.

Right, meaning that a fetus is a POTENTIAL human, Not a fully realized one, and thus is not protected in the same way.

 

[watchntv]

No, not at all. That really isn't the point. Personally I do not believe that one form of life is more precious than another and by all technical standards you could argue that everything is a diversified component of the same base material. I fear that is a little deeper than what I'm trying to convey. I'm more interested in the perceived moral implications of abortion. It strikes me as odd that someone can be pro-life of one species but not pro-life of another. Along the same vein, we seek to control animal populations with mating techniques and seasonal hunting, but the human population continues to expand boundlessly. Except for China's one child policy, we seem to have no regard for our rate of expansion while impressing on our population that keeping a child is a moral obligation.

I think humans are tyrannical in their belief that the only life worth saving, that the only souls that matter, are their own.

EDIT: But I wanted to add that I am very impressed with how many people on this thread are pro-life and assert that belief professionally and intelligently.

I missed that, I see people telling me how they feel ad nausem, but as for stories of doing anything related to being pro life I missed, so beliefs yes actions to support those beliefs nay
an anaglogy to show this action vs thoughts is an abusive husband might love his wife, but his actions call that into question
that adage, "It's the thought that matters", is wrong

 

[scarshapedstar]

Concerning murder between two sentient beings, we separate the pre-meditated killing of animals from the pre-meditated killing of humans to suit our own purposes.

That's not the only artificial distinction. Among those who say that abortion should be outlawed like murder (or as murder, depending on the particular semantics involved), very few say it should be punished like premeditated murder. Even though that's exactly what they say it is.

From a practical standpoint, this strikes me as a Kafkaesque ban-that's-not-a-ban. When I ask what the punishment should be for a woman who has an abortion, they get this uncomprehending look like I just asked them what their favorite flavor of elevator is.

Why?

 

[tantacles]

I missed that, I see people telling me how they feel ad nausem, but as for stories of doing anything related to being pro life I missed, so beliefs yes actions to support those beliefs nay
an anaglogy to show this action vs thoughts is an abusive husband might love his wife, but his actions call that into question
that adage, "It's the thought that matters", is wrong

Ok, first, what?

And for the record, I haven't done anything to support pro-choice matters, so it clearly goes both ways.

 

[Qrxn]

That's not the only artificial distinction. Among those who say that abortion should be outlawed like murder (or as murder, depending on the particular semantics involved), very few say it should be punished like premeditated murder. Even though that's exactly what they say it is.

From a practical standpoint, this strikes me as a Kafkaesque ban-that's-not-a-ban. When I ask what the punishment should be for a woman who has an abortion, they get this uncomprehending look like I just asked them what their favorite flavor of elevator is.

Why?

👍 Exactly. There is a hypocrisy that exists which I've never quite understood. Thanks for summing that up so well.

 

[watchntv]

Right, meaning that a fetus is a POTENTIAL human, Not a fully realized one, and thus is not protected in the same way.

 

[marioncobretti]

Right, meaning that a fetus is a POTENTIAL human, Not a fully realized one, and thus is not protected in the same way.

Please look at the post I was responding to and my post in its entirety.

 

[tantacles]

Please look at the post I was responding to and my post in its entirety.

I did. We disagree. Hence my previous comment.

Oh, and good luck getting 8,000 posts. You're right. I omitted that part in my analysis.

 

[marioncobretti]

I did. We disagree. Hence my previous comment.

Oh, and good luck getting 8,000 posts. You're right. I omitted that part in my analysis.

By saying "From that point on it will become a human" was to follow the assertion that there is a defined point where non-human becomes human and then will still proceed to be human, the zygote has an end as defined by the chromosome complement. This was followed by the point about a human taking years to develop, saying 1 month post-conception is not human and 9 months is human is like saying 8 months is not and 10 months is and so on. The point of being human and non-human is not arbitrary.

 

[bdrensch]

Ok. The abortion argument has completely fallen apart for me again. I'm now completely pro-life except in the instance of rape (risk not assumed, but forced upon) or harm to mother (self-defense).

I am not actually convinced that you could be convicted of murder if you refused to allow that person to ride any further (as long as your intent was not to kill them), or any crime unless you signed into a contract to give that person a ride (versus, verbally stating, "hey, hop on"). It sounds similar to hitchhiking. Though the person with the car may agree to drive you to X, they are not obligated to if they change their minds and decide to drop you at Y; this would still be true if, by dropping you at Y, you were miles away from the nearest town and/or died shortly after. This is also similar to my example about the cousin: if you kick him out, he may be homeless (and may die); however, you are not obligated to. Overall, this sounds like a grayish legal area, in that one could, in theory argue, criminal negligence or perhaps even involuntary manslaughter; but it is not so clear that any of these examples are automatically crimes* and any argument made that they are would be on unsure legal ground.

Once again, however, you may feel that dropping a person at Y or refusing to ride them through the desert or kicking out your cousin is ethically unjustifiable.

Also, as stated, from a legal standpoint, you have signed no contract that states that, if you have sexual intercourse willingly, you agree to not abort any pregnancy that would result from that sex. You may feel, ethically, she has a responsibility; but that argument does not hold legal ground.

Furthermore, to ask you a question: Street A is known for being crime ridden. LS walks down street A despite knowing there is a risk. LS is raped. Is this her fault? (The correct answer is no, by the way).
or,
When you drive a car, there is a risk of someone rear-ending you; in fact, though I am not sure, I would guess there is a higher chance of you being rear ended than a woman getting pregnant on many birth control methods. Then, you get rear-ended. Should the law say: Well, you knew there was a risk, so it's your fault?

*Situations I could see it being considered criminal negligence:
(a) a contract was signed;
(b) you are of a profession or role in which it is expected, in that situation, as part of your duty, to ride that person through the desert;
(c) the person is acutely ill and at imminent risk of dying.

You almost had me... but your logic starts to fall apart at this point.

They are certainly not a gray area in law. You could in fact be tried with murder (or something similar, not sure the legal definition) in nearly every civilization on earth. I'm not sure the term (I know there is one) but its a well understood principle that follows in accordance with every civilization with common law. When admitting someone to your property you have the legal obligation to see that they treated humanely. Removing your cousin from your house is not an equal analogy, as it does not ensure their death. You cannot proceed to "remove" someone from your "resources" that you have voluntarily allowed access to, if it imminently leads to their death.

Otherwise you can come up with one million ways to kill someone and never suffer legal consequences. For instance:
- you could invite someone into your home and because ask them to grab something from the closet, then proceed to lock it indefinitely. From your logic, because it's your house and they voluntarily entered into your closet, you have done nothing wrong other then use your own private property and have not directly violated any of their rights.
- you could invite someone into your house and hold your own knife and proceed to walk in a straight line, because it is your property and your right to move forward on your property you have no obligation to make them move.
-You could offer someone who cannot swim a boat ride, and then force them to leave your boat in the middle of the water, as you do not want to allocate your resources any further.
- etc.......

Are we suppose to sign a contract everytime we meet a person agreeing not to perform any action that would certainly lead to my death for the other party?

I support abortion in instances of rape, as risk was not voluntarily assumed and harm to mother, as it could be argued as a form of self-defense.

Regardless one must always assume risk and liability for their voluntary actions and this of course should include pregnancy with voluntary intercourse. Just as when one drives a car, they assume the risk if they should rear-end someone (your analogy is backwards) and must be responsible for the obligations that that risk would entail.

I'm with you here. Especially since having sex does not equate to indicating that you want a child. It's an act independent of desire to be a parent.

No it does not indicate that you want a child, but it does carry that liability, one must be responsible for that liability if they assumed it voluntarily. You may not want to lose money when you gamble, but you assume that risk when you play.

I support abortions up until the 13th trimester.

How does this fetus suddenly gain the right to life after the 13th trimester? It's still the same bundle of genetic information that it was from the beginning.

Stop me if you've heard this one before, but if you're in a burning fertility clinic and on one side of the room there's a petri dish with 10 fertilized eggs in it and on the other side of the room there's a helpless infant, and you can only grab one of them... which do you save and why?

The infant. 🙂

girl gets impregnated via rape, she doesnt want to keep the clump of cells that will eventually become an independent humun within her body?
that doesn't make sense to you?😀

No, I'm not a female so I couldn't possibly understand. While I would love every woman to consider giving the child a chance, the risk was not assumed voluntarily, so in this instance the woman should have a choice.

Say sperm reaches the egg and a zygote is formed, thats not a person by any law we have now. Law states you have to be born to be a citizen. any child born in the USA is US citizen. It doesnt say any clump of cells is a citizen. so the clump of cells(even a few cells) is a parasite feeding off the host body. The host, a citizen of the USA, who has all the rights and privileges of being an American, has a right to do what they want with their body. Why do I have the right to tell Sarah what she can do to her body?
that's about it.


/end thread😴

Well this is a failed run of logic which relies on the current ruling of Roe v Wade. If that ruling were overturned requiring that a woman who voluntarily participated in intercourse should be responsible for the liability of the child, up until term, then we would in fact have a right to tell her what to do with her body just as we can tell a person they can't use their body to harm someone else's body.

Well, the whole point is that I DON'T accept that risk. I mean, moot point because I'm a gay male. But we have ways of not only mostly preventing that risk through contraception but of fixing the issue (if it is, in fact an issue for a particular person) after the fact. I say use it.

You can't just NOT accept risk. Everything in life is risk and everyone must be responsible for their actions. You can take preventive measures, but if it fails to remove the risk 100% then that's your own problem. Just like in a game of poker, you don't have to play, but if you do you must assume risk, even if you don't want to. Of course if it is forced upon you in the instance of rape, then it's a different story, as risk has not been voluntarily assumed.

But I still don't see why everyone should have to either take only the 100% preventitive measure or have to live with the consequences should things not go as planned if there is a way to avoid the problem. Almost everything in life has risks - driving in particular is one that is risky and we engage in often, but if someone is injured in a car accident we try to help them recover from those injuries as best we can, not tell them to live with it because they took on the risk. There must be some key difference, and that's what I've been fishing for the whole time.

But if you drive and crash into someone else you still assume risk and are responsible for such damages. There's nothing wrong with taking risks or having intercourse, but if one is free from liabilities, there is no responsibility and this has societal consequences. You should be free to decide your sexual agenda in life, whether taking preventive measures, taking no preventive measures, or not engaging, but whatever choice you choose you must be responsible for your actions whether its giving birth, or worse, never making love to a woman 😎.

Not quite.

First of all, while there are risks to having sex, nobody has signed a legal contract stating they accept the risks and agree to not abort if that risk materializes. On the other hand, most do sign papers when they skydive stating they accept the risks and agree not to hold The Skydiving Place liable in the case something happens. In addition, if the man dies, from a legal standpoint, it is nobody's fault; in this case, assuming there was nothing else that malfunctioned, it would be ruled an accident.

Contracts cannot violate the right to life, they are just property agreements. This only works if a fetus is assumed to be property rather than life. If that risk materializes you would have the legal obligation to protect that life until other options are available.

so do you think a pharmacist has a right to refuse to fill plan B prescriptions?

Yes and no. It should depend on contractual agreements between the pharmacist and the pharmacy with which they're employed. If there is a contractual agreement that the pharmacist must provide to their customers any pharmaceuticals they are legally entitled to, then yes, of course. The pharmacist should not have to do anything legally, just like your boss can't really force you to do anything, its your own choice what you do, unless it is contractually agreed otherwise. A responsible pharmacy that wishes to keep its customers would only hire pharmacists who comply.

Interestingly enough, the argument, for me, that actually justifies abortion, is that we kill cows, who are markedly more sentient than a blastocyst, daily for meat, something that most people, including me, have no problem with. Until there is scientific evidence of a soul or something else that separates a fetus without possibility of survival outside of the mother's womb from other organisms, I will always be pro-choice.

What? If you follow your logic, murder of a living human being is essentially justified. This is by far the most bizarre justification that I've ever heard! There may not be scientific evidence of a soul, but there are scientific measurements that can quantify what is to be human vs a cow or any other organism.
😕😕😕

This. We kill daily and without remorse; I don't understand why human life is held in higher esteem especially considering the manner in which many animals are slaughtered. Is only human existence worthy of preservation due to higher cognition and a perceived "soul"?

Really? This is too weird.

No, not at all. That really isn't the point. Personally I do not believe that one form of life is more precious than another and by all technical standards you could argue that everything is a diversified component of the same base material. I fear that is a little deeper than what I'm trying to convey. I'm more interested in the perceived moral implications of abortion. It strikes me as odd that someone can be pro-life of one species but not pro-life of another. Along the same vein, we seek to control animal populations with mating techniques and seasonal hunting, but the human population continues to expand boundlessly. Except for China's one child policy, we seem to have no regard for our rate of expansion while impressing on our population that keeping a child is a moral obligation.

I think humans are tyrannical in their belief that the only life worth saving, that the only souls that matter, are their own.

EDIT: But I wanted to add that I am very impressed with how many people on this thread are pro-life and assert that belief professionally and intelligently.

Oh boy. So much wrong with this. I'll kill a million cows if it saves one heroin junkie... Call it selfish, but I call it rational. We're selfish creatures, I love my dog, but the only reason I own one is for my own benefit. I don't care about other animals unless they have benefit to humankind or myself. It has nothing to do with having a soul, but just a sense of humanity. We all know what is human and what is not. Of course part of that humanity is to understand that we must treat animals with respect and be thankful with what they provide us, but the idea that humans=cows or any other animal is just bizarre to me.

Plus over-population is a made up problem, that doesn't hold up to economic law. China's one child policy was mostly a political failure and they are aimed at removing the legislation. Truth is healthy developed free economies tend to have very low growth rates and sometimes even negative growth rates.

 

[mafunk]

Interestingly enough, the argument, for me, that actually justifies abortion, is that we kill cows, who are markedly more sentient than a blastocyst, daily for meat, .

Some of us kill cows... some of us (like me) are vegetarians 🙂

 

[watchntv]

Interestingly enough, the argument, for me, that actually justifies abortion, is that we kill cows, who are markedly more sentient than a blastocyst, daily for meat, something that most people, including me, have no problem with. Until there is scientific evidence of a soul or something else that separates a fetus without possibility of survival outside of the mother's womb from other organisms, I will always be pro-choice.

I'm, sure that's argument is great if you're Hindu, but instead I'd use dogs as the reason why they need to view abortion as a choice. Most humans love dogs more than cows and consider a dog a person.
I've heard a few anti's say abortion is fine if you've been raped. Which brings the question, well if that's fine,, must be fine other times.

 

[StoicJosher]

Oh boy. So much wrong with this. I'll kill a million cows if it saves one heroin junkie... Call it selfish, but I call it rational. We're selfish creatures, I love my dog, but the only reason I own one is for my own benefit. I don't care about other animals unless they have benefit to humankind or myself. It has nothing to do with having a soul, but just a sense of humanity. We all know what is human and what is not. Of course part of that humanity is to understand that we must treat animals with respect and be thankful with what they provide us, but the idea that humans=cows or any other animal is just bizarre to me.

I don't want to get into the whole abortion argument but I am just curious about one thing. Would you kill your dog to save a heroin junkie?

 

[mafunk]

I'm, sure that's argument is great if you're Hindu, but instead I'd use dogs as the reason why they need to view abortion as a choice. Most humans love dogs more than cows and consider a dog a person.
I've heard a few anti's say abortion is fine if you've been raped. Which brings the question, well if that's fine,, must be fine other times.

OK... I don't know if I buy the argument below... but I'll just put it out there for fun......

If a person is being raped, one might say they are justified in defending themselves from the invasion of their body.... to the extent of killing the rapist and killing the life that the rapist has forced upon them.

IF one agrees to the above.... there is a problem.... the life within is also half you. Is it ok to kill your own, totally innocent life force?

Seems like a predicament

 

[watchntv]

thats the same rational thinking I used last night at the bar!
I saw a hottie and went up to her and asked her why she's not allowing her potential baby(read potential, something like 30% of all pregnancies self abort/never go anywhere) and she told me I was crazy, if she had a potential baby on its way, she'd take care of it.
Thats when I asked her to leave with me, we had the potential to have a baby,,.
then this morning she took a plan B pill...and it hurts when I pee, dang it...

OK... I don't know if I buy the argument below... but I'll just put it out there for fun......

If a person is being raped, one might say they are justified in defending themselves from the invasion of their body.... to the extent of killing the rapist and killing the life that the rapist has forced upon them.

IF one agrees to the above.... there is a problem.... the life within is also half you. Is it ok to kill your own, totally innocent life force?

Seems like a predicament

If a person is being raped, one might say they are justified in defending themselves from the invasion of their body.... to the extent of killing the rapist

one might say the sun rises everyday..see I can play this game *awaits next obvious fact*😀

 

[marioncobretti]

I don't want to get into the whole abortion argument but I am just curious about one thing. Would you kill your dog to save a heroin junkie?

No but I'd feed my cat to an ATM