TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) @Dean: The issue, from their perspective, is that it's not just her body because you're killing the fetus, which is its own entity with its own body, and while generally you have a "right to bodily integrity" as it's called in American law the woman's right to control her body does not trump the fetus' right to not be killed. Few people would disagree that if it were only the mother's body in question she could do what she wanted. I don't agree with the stance that it's a person from the moment of conception, but if you do then the approach makes sense. If you look at it from that starting point then yes you have the same right/duty to prevent abortions that you do to prevent murders. Edited February 2, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Removed commas to make sentence flow better 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 No one bitches at having a tumour or other parasite removed. What makes a fetus special? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I also have told my wife that if I'm gone then just pull the plug on me and give my organs to people who need them. I don't need my body after I'm dead so other people can have it. That's fine by me. I don't have strong feelings on morning after pills and stuff like that. If I were really pressed I'd say that you should probably avoid that stuff but again, it's back to when life begins and that's souch a hard thing to argue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 No one bitches at having a tumour or other parasite removed. What makes a fetus special? Are you being difficult or is this a serious question? A fetus is special because the belief is that it's a person/human from the moment of conception. Those other things are not. Humans have rights that tumors and parasites do not, therefore when making any decisions about a fetus you have to take into account its rights, which you do not have to do with a tumor/parasite. These aren't my views, so someone who actually holds them feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing them. I don't mean to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 If you believe life begins at conception, then you are free to base your actions on that - don't have an abortion yourself, and if someone wants your opinion, give it. Laws, however should be based on the best available evidence and that is that a foetus is not a concious child and as such should not be given rights that supersede those of the mother. It's fine to think that life begins at conception, it's not fine to impose those views on others because they are your opinions not facts and why should your opinions hold more weight than someone else's? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Well, again, it's not that you can't aruge those things, it's just that I don't really want to on the internet. Some people are arguing where life begins, others are arguing consciousness, it's a very complicated subject with no true answers. I think it's futile to try to find the exact moment when something transistions from being alive to being "self aware" or conscious. You can however point to an exact moment where two cells connect and form a new oganism which begins to grow and take on a life of it's own and that would be conception. If there is a simple moment to point to where there is a dramatic change and bonding of cells and life it would be conception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Yante posted while I was writing, all of this is @TFG: First: I accidentally downvoted TFG's comment. Didn't mean to. Sorry. On topic: But that's assuming consciousness is the determining factor. When discussing whether something is a being with rights all questions are philosophical, there are no "right" or "wrong" answers in any absolute sense. I happen to base my philosophical stance on the belief that it's wrong to kill conscious beings, whereas other people might base it on the belief that it's wrong to kill a human, defining human as an entity with completed genetic code (i.e. a fertilized egg... also I made up that definition so if there are holes don't ascribe them to the viewpoint, which isn't mine). Neither one of those bases is any more "right" or "wrong" than the other in any kind of objective sense, it's just two groups of people trying to argue for their viewpoint. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Then you get to deining conscious beings and it all gets so darn tenuous. Are you a vegetarian? Does it have to be a human who is conscious? I kind of got pushed back from arguing where life began all the way to conception becuase to say "that fetus wasn't human a minute ago but now it is human" is such a hard thing to do. Edited February 2, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 No one bitches at having a tumour or other parasite removed. What makes a fetus special? Are you being difficult or is this a serious question? A fetus is special because the belief is that it's a person/human from the moment of conception. Those other things are not. Humans have rights that tumors and parasites do not, therefore when making any decisions about a fetus you have to take into account its rights, which you do not have to do with a tumor/parasite. These aren't my views, so someone who actually holds them feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing them. I don't mean to. But that's exactly it. It is a belief that life begins at conception. That these dividing cells of which have no ability to sustain themselves without a host body are "alive". They're no more alive than cancer cells doing the same thing. Factually and scientifically as you've mentioned the first sign of electrical signals within the body, the essence of thought and sensation, an awareness of the outside world, is 5 months in. And it's these facts and research that should be what laws are based and built around. Not someone's gut feeling, or some writings in a an ancient book. Feel free to live your own personal life upon your own philosophies and what not, but don't go imposing them on others. If someone isn't ready for a child, they know. If the potential child is going to be born with major disabilities and defects, modern science lets us know. We have the ability to make informed choices. Let people do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 If the potential child is going to be born with major disabilities and defects, modern science lets us know. We have the ability to make informed choices. Let people do that. Oh, now we're going to get into quality of life? We can end someone's life if it's not going to be a quality life? What defines a good life vs. a bad one? Where do you draw the line between a life that is worth living and one that isn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Since the question has no true answers, I think people should be allowed to decide for themselves on whether to abort the baby or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Dean, all that science is only relevant if the philosophical basis for saying it's wrong to kill someone is consciousness. Either way it ultimately boils down to philosophy and neither philosophy is any more objectively correct than the other. Science can tell us that the earliest it could be conscious is 5 months, or that the moment it's a completed genome is conception, it's only philosophy that gives either of those facts any relevance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Since the question has no true answers, I think people should be allowed to decide for themselves on whether to abort the baby or not. This question is the one that gets argued in more places than just abortion. It's the question of one person deciding when another person should live or die. It's not a question of what a person wants to do with their own life but a question of what a person wants to do with another persons life. I can think of a hundred situations in which I would not want one person deciding on whether another person should live or die. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 But that's only an accurate description once we have a definition of when "life" begins (I know we will never get an agreement on that). There's a difference between killing someone who exists and preventing them from ever existing in the first place. If an early term fetus isn't a "person" yet then an abortion is no different from a condom, either way you're preventing that person from ever existing in the first place. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Right, so before you can decide if people have a right to choose for themselves then you have to argue over when life begins and so it all ends with no hard answers and you have two sides who argue eternally. It's certainly not as simple as just following science or letting people do what they want though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Yes it is. It's only not simple because some people wish to dictate their philosophy upon what people do with their own bodies. If you want you can adopt the aborted fetus and raise it, feed it, play it some music, watch it coo. Except since it's just a lump of cells it can't do any of that. It's no more alive than a cervical tumour. By the way if/when I reach the stage of being totally brain dead and unresponsive to any stimuli feel free to consider me a 6 foot tall organ storage unit. The flesh may be willing but the theoretical soul has quite clearly left the building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 If you lived in a society that considered it okay to kill anyone who was sterile (but was otherwise identical to your current society) would you just sit down and shut up about it and allow other people to make their choice or would you argue that it's wrong? Science can tell us whether someone is sterile or not, so you arguing with that would just be you trying to impose your views on everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 If you want you can adopt the aborted fetus and raise it, feed it, play it some music, watch it coo. Except since it's just a lump of cells it can't do any of that. It's no more alive than a cervical tumour. I see that as the meat of the problem with the whole "it's a person from conception" argument. Ask anyone here if they think a lump of cells without a heart, without a brain, without arms and legs, and without any sort of cognitive activity is a person, and they'd obviously say no. Yes, of course a fetus is going to develop into a person, but just because it's going to doesn't mean that you're engaging in killing a person. Every time you eat a chicken egg you're not killing a chicken. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 If you lived in a society that considered it okay to kill anyone who was sterile (but was otherwise identical to your current society) would you just sit down and shut up about it and allow other people to make their choice or would you argue that it's wrong? Science can tell us whether someone is sterile or not, so you arguing with that would just be you trying to impose your views on everyone else. Was that directed at me? The person with the pretty consistent track record of stating "let folks do to themselves what they want, but don't do unto others what they don't want. i.e smoking, murder, killing people cos they're sterile". Or are you suggesting that because someone is sterile and therefore unable to reproduce that it'd make them my earlier mentioned "six foot tall organ storage unit" because of course reproducing is the only reason people live. (Is it worth mentioning that the inability to have kids is part of the opposition of gay marriage, yet no one minds sterile people being married.) I'm not saying "If science proves something then kill em". The argument boils down to: "I do not want a child/this child. The means are there to abort this fetus, I wish to do so". Versus "We want you to have that child, we will not raise the child for you, we will also complain about the state handouts used to support that child, but you better have the child". Can't have your cake and eat it. Work on adoption reform if you feel there is an issue. That way the child can at least have a somewhat guaranteed chance of being raised in a home that is mentally and financially able to love and care for it. Only 1/5th of states allow same sex adoption. That'd vastly increase the available pool of families for kids to be adopted into if it was expanded to all states. Campaign to have the excessive cost and bureaucracy reduced. But don't take away a womans, or anyones, right to do with their body what they please. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 The argument boils down to: "I do not want a child/this child. The means are there to abort this fetus, I wish to do so". Versus "We want you to have that child, we will not raise the child for you, we will also complain about the state handouts used to support that child, but you better have the child". Can't have your cake and eat it. That's not exactly true because we have baby moses laws here in Texas anyway. http://www.babymosesdallas.org/ Have the baby and give it up if you don't want it. Also, with the exception of rape, people aren't making women get pregnant, they're becoming pregnant by choice. Women already have a choice to not have a baby without abortion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) The argument boils down to: "I do not want a child/this child. The means are there to abort this fetus, I wish to do so". Versus "We want you to have that child, we will not raise the child for you, we will also complain about the state handouts used to support that child, but you better have the child". Can't have your cake and eat it. That's not exactly true because we have baby moses laws here in Texas anyway. http://www.babymosesdallas.org/ Have the baby and give it up if you don't want it. Also, with the exception of rape, people aren't making women get pregnant, they're becoming pregnant by choice. Women already have a choice to not have a baby without abortion. Just because something is a possible consequence does not therefore mean a person is choosing that consequence. If I take a medicine for my blood pressure that has a rare side effect of death, that's not suicide. If a person has sex with a condom and gets pregnant, as can happen, that doesn't mean that they are choosing to be pregnant. And the Baby Moses laws seem like a hell of a thing to rely on given our current state of adoption and foster homes. Maybe once those are fixed, that could work, but right now you're signing these kids up for a life of misery. Edited February 2, 2012 by SixTwoSixFour 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 @Yant: You can't be serious. Heard of a broken condom? That happened to the sister of a friend of mine recently. Abortions tend to happen in accidental pregnancies, not planned ones. Johnny's comment is trite because it makes the assumption that I should not care about another person's actions. If I think another person is doing something wrong, for example: murder, then I have a responsibility to try to stop that person. My comment is based on that all the "moral" reasoning I've seen against abortion is scientifically crap. Life starts way before conception and consciousness as we know it starts after you're allowed to abort. You may be able to make an argument for when life becomes human life, but saying that it is debatable when a fetus becomes alive is completely ridiculous. I do not like the idea of abortion either. It feels instinctively as a thing we should avoid, to me. However, trying to force someone who isn't ready to take on this truly lifechanging responsibility using arguments that are scientifically wrong is, to me, indefensible. You're meddling in other people's lives, possibly destroying all plans for the future someone has. That's a life too, the life of the parent. A life that already has achieved consciousness as we know it. I'd go as far as calling such meddling evil. Not to mention that we're as a species already dealing with the problem of there being too many of us. So unless you have a reason for not wanting to let other people abort, which is more grounded in reality than religion, what I said before still applies. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 "US Politics Started by Duke of Pwn, Nov 06, 2011" Look what you did. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 The argument boils down to: "I do not want a child/this child. The means are there to abort this fetus, I wish to do so". Versus "We want you to have that child, we will not raise the child for you, we will also complain about the state handouts used to support that child, but you better have the child". Can't have your cake and eat it. That's not exactly true because we have baby moses laws here in Texas anyway. http://www.babymosesdallas.org/ Have the baby and give it up if you don't want it. Also, with the exception of rape, people aren't making women get pregnant, they're becoming pregnant by choice. Women already have a choice to not have a baby without abortion. And the baby moses stuff is funded by magical fairies, or is it state hand outs? Bet you raising a baby on the state costs shit ton more than an abortion on the state. People don't always make a choice on being pregnant. Some people are young and stupid, drunk and stupid, both. Condoms break. Shit happens. Is at the very least a morning after pill available? Actually what is currently available as far as sexual health and contraceptives go in US? "US Politics Started by Duke of Pwn, Nov 06, 2011" Look what you did. I told him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 If you lived in a society that considered it okay to kill anyone who was sterile (but was otherwise identical to your current society) would you just sit down and shut up about it and allow other people to make their choice or would you argue that it's wrong? Science can tell us whether someone is sterile or not, so you arguing with that would just be you trying to impose your views on everyone else. Was that directed at me? The person with the pretty consistent track record of stating "let folks do to themselves what they want, but don't do unto others what they don't want. i.e smoking, murder, killing people cos they're sterile". Or are you suggesting that because someone is sterile and therefore unable to reproduce that it'd make them my earlier mentioned "six foot tall organ storage unit" because of course reproducing is the only reason people live. (Is it worth mentioning that the inability to have kids is part of the opposition of gay marriage, yet no one minds sterile people being married.) I'm not saying "If science proves something then kill em". I'm suggesting that you would still think killing someone cause they're sterile is wrong, and would say that this is something your society should not allow, because you place value on the fact that it's a conscious being regardless of sterility, and so you should not kill that being without its consent. Similarly, pro-life people place value that something is human (defined by whatever criteria they define it by, I'm currently going with "completed genome"), and say that you should therefore not kill it. They disagree with your assertion that it's only the mother's body in question, it's also the child's. And while you make a different value judgment than them about what should be protected neither value judgment can be said to be objectively right or wrong. The point I was making is that sure science can tell us when something happens, but it's philosophy that tells us why we should care about that thing. Your philosophy is that consciousness is what's important (or actually that's mine, but you seemed to agree with me...), theirs is that the fact that it's a separate genetic human entity is what's important, but it's all just philosophy, it's not objectively verifiable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.