Abortion

[MD]

Ask any of the people picketing in front of the abortion clinic if they're opposed to allowing women to choose abortion, and they'll say yes. If you ask a pro-choice person if they're in favour of murder, what do you think they'll say?

If a fetus is viable and conscious and is being killed in my view that's murder. A lot of pro choice people who defend it vehemently are pro murder. I've even read some radical feminists talk about how a woman has the right to kill her infant well after it's born.

A baby is dependent on people, but not necessarily the mother specifically.

Actually this can be argued. There are certain hormones that are released when the infant is with the mother which facilitate brain growth and development. The breast milk which a mother has provides antibodies which provides passive immunity. Humans in general are very dependant on their parents during their early years, especially psychologically.

What about the "killing" of someone long after birth? If a leukemia patient will certainly die without a bone marrow donation and the only available donor doesn't want to give up his bone marrow, his right to bodily security trumps the leukemia patient's right to life... despite the fact that the guy with leukemia is unquestionably sentient, sapient, and expressing a will to live.

And even if the donor agrees, he can change his mind. Even after they've collected the first sample of bone marrow, if he decides that he doesn't want to give up any more, he has the absolute right to end the process.

Heck... even if the donor dies, if he doesn't want the bone marrow to be harvested after death, the bodily security of his cadaver still trumps the leukemia patient's right to life

Why would you want to deny pregnant women a right that we even grant to corpses?

This makes no sense, there's a difference between witholding donor tissue and the active execution of a sentient being. In an induced abortion the fetus is actively terminated and suctioned out. The ones that die due to chromosomal abnormalities or other reasons are terminated by the body itself but that's part of a natural process. On this point your analogy fails.

Also in your analogy the two people aren't even dependant on each other aside from the donor cells. Now say the leukemia person was dependant on the healthy person for food and medications, and that person withheld these amenities because it infringed on their own right to 'choose' whether they wanted to continue supporting the person or not and the leukemia person died. Would you say that it is well within the right of the healthy person to withold those things? Or would you say it's murder? Where do we draw the line on dependance?

No, it's not... it's not murder any more than refusing to donate a kidney is murder.

Your attempt at reducing a viable sentient fetus to the level of an oragn is hilarious and pathetic.

And what studies have you been reading? The ones I've seen have indicated that neural activity is suppressed until the switchover from prenatal to neo-natal circulation. Higher-order brain function and even the breathing reflex are "switched off" until that first breath, regardless of gestational age.

Edit: ... though this is a side issue, since the level of sentience of a fetus is about as relevant to abortion as the level of sentience of a blood recipient is to the freedom not to donate blood.

The level of sentience has EVERYTHING to do with a secular pro life argument. It tantamounts to the idea that a living being w/ conscious properties is being actively terminated in the name of 'choice'. If you do a simple search you will find that thalamocortical junctions appear in the 24th week, and these very junctions are responsible for pain. Here I'll make it simple:

When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?: Scientific American

But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.

Your analogy again on the 'freedoms' to donate blood fail due to the fact that it's not the freedom to deny care but the active termiantion of a being.

 

[McBell]

If a fetus is viable and conscious and is being killed in my view that's murder. A lot of pro choice people who defend it vehemently are pro murder. I've even read some radical feminists talk about how a woman has the right to kill her infant well after it's born.

it is extremely difficult to take you seriously when you continuously misuse the word murder as though you have no idea what it means.

Actually this can be argued. There are certain hormones that are released when the infant is with the mother which facilitate brain growth and development. The breast milk which a mother has provides antibodies which provides passive immunity. Humans in general are very dependant on their parents during their early years, especially psychologically.

You assume it has to be the mother.
It has been shown that most any lactating human female will suffice for breast feeding.

Your attempt at reducing a viable sentient fetus to the level of an oragn is hilarious and pathetic.

No more so than your attempt to make it into a full fledged adult.

The level of sentience has EVERYTHING to do with a secular pro life argument. It tantamounts to the idea that a living being w/ conscious properties is being actively terminated in the name of 'choice'. If you do a simple search you will find that thalamocortical junctions appear in the 24th week, and these very junctions are responsible for pain. Here I'll make it simple:

When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?: Scientific American

But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.

Your analogy again on the 'freedoms' to donate blood fail due to the fact that it's not the freedom to deny care but the active termiantion of a being.

24 weeks is a far cry from your 4 weeks.

How did you come up with 4 weeks if you are arguing sentience?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a fetus is viable and conscious and is being killed in my view that's murder. A lot of pro choice people who defend it vehemently are pro murder. I've even read some radical feminists talk about how a woman has the right to kill her infant well after it's born.

"Murder" means "illegal killing". If we're talking about legal abortion, then it fails the "illegal" part even before we consider the "killing" part. It would be better if you said that you think abortion should be considered murder.

Actually this can be argued. There are certain hormones that are released when the infant is with the mother which facilitate brain growth and development. The breast milk which a mother has provides antibodies which provides passive immunity. Humans in general are very dependant on their parents during their early years, especially psychologically.

I have no doubt that mothers are good for babies in all sorts of ways. This is different from the question of whether they're necessary for babies.

This makes no sense, there's a difference between witholding donor tissue and the active execution of a sentient being. In an induced abortion the fetus is actively terminated and suctioned out. The ones that die due to chromosomal abnormalities or other reasons are terminated by the body itself but that's part of a natural process. On this point your analogy fails.

How does it fail? Do you disagree with the idea that a person who needs an organ donation is a sentient being?

Also in your analogy the two people aren't even dependant on each other aside from the donor cells.

If only one matching donor can be found, then whether the recipient lives or dies hinges entirely on the donor's decision. If that's not dependency, I don't know what is.

Now say the leukemia person was dependant on the healthy person for food and medications, and that person withheld these amenities because it infringed on their own right to 'choose' whether they wanted to continue supporting the person or not and the leukemia person died. Would you say that it is well within the right of the healthy person to withold those things? Or would you say it's murder? Where do we draw the line on dependance?

Irrelevant, since you've removed the issue of bodily security, which I'm arguing is the key issue here.

Your attempt at reducing a viable sentient fetus to the level of an oragn is hilarious and pathetic.

If you're going to insult my argument, actually read it first. I didn't reduce a fetus "to the level of an organ"; I gave it the same status as an organ recipient for argument's sake.

The level of sentience has EVERYTHING to do with a secular pro life argument.

It has nothing to do with my argument. If you want to argue against some other person who feels differently, then go find them. If you want to debate with me, then you'll have to deal with the points in my argument.

It tantamounts to the idea that a living being w/ conscious properties is being actively terminated in the name of 'choice'.

It's not tantamount to it; that's the whole point: in every circumstance, one person's right to bodily security trumps another person's right to life.

If you do a simple search you will find that thalamocortical junctions appear in the 24th week, and these very junctions are responsible for pain. Here I'll make it simple:

When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?: Scientific American

But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.

The capacity for consciousness is not the same thing as consciousness itself. Case in point: while I have the capacity for consciousness all the time, I spend about 8 hours a day unconscious.

Your analogy again on the 'freedoms' to donate blood fail due to the fact that it's not the freedom to deny care but the active termiantion of a being.

How does the "active" part change anything? Can you give an example of any other case where a person has a right if they exercise it passively but don't have it if they exercise it actively?

 

[Mycroft]

I believe Abortion should be permitted. But only after every other alternative has been exhausted or if giving birth poses a mortal threat. There are so many infertile and foster parents out there who would be overjoyed to have a baby that I believe it to be slightly irresponsible to dispense with human life without extraordinary circumstances dictating it. It's not that I want to remove a woman's right to an abortion, it's that I want to empower a human being's right to live.

 

[adi2d]

I believe Abortion should be permitted. But only after every other alternative has been exhausted or if giving birth poses a mortal threat. There are so many infertile and foster parents out there who would be overjoyed to have a baby that I believe it to be slightly irresponsible to dispense with human life without extraordinary circumstances dictating it. It's not that I want to remove a woman's right to an abortion, it's that I want to empower a human being's right to live.

All you need to do is invent an artificial womb. When the woman wants an abortion she could sign away parental rights. This way its a win-wib. Until then the woman has a right to not be forced to carry
Biblically the baby becomes a living soul with its first breath

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All you need to do is invent an artificial womb. When the woman wants an abortion she could sign away parental rights. This way its a win-wib. Until then the woman has a right to not be forced to carry
Biblically the baby becomes a living soul with its first breath

By one Biblical measure. By another Biblical measure, babies didn't count as people for the census of Israel unless they were at least a month old.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

All you need to do is invent an artificial womb. When the woman wants an abortion she could sign away parental rights. This way its a win-wib. Until then the woman has a right to not be forced to carry
Biblically the baby becomes a living soul with its first breath

Until you look at the cost involved... given people can barely agree to the most basic of health care measures as it is.

 

[adi2d]

Until you look at the cost involved... given people can barely agree to the most basic of health care measures as it is.

Never said it would be easy. I'm not talking about intensive care type measures. Most abortions are in the first trimester. Just move that small bundle from the womb.

What price is too high. Its for the children. If we could save one life....can't think of any more chhesy one liners

 

[Thana]

I believe that it is hard for one to form an opinion on a matter that they have yet to experience, Or can never have the ability to experience. How else does one have an informed opinion without personal experience?

Regardless, The issue shouldn't be Abortion. It should be about preventative measures, I've had Abstinence preached at me with absolutely no effect, And was barely taught enough about condoms and didn't hear a word about the contraceptive pill.

Safe sex should be a class taught more than once, (For that was my experience) And condoms should be readily available to youths, Aswell as the pill not requiring a parent or have an age limit, And available over the counter as should the Morning after pill.

If these were implimented, I believe abortion would be less of an issue.

 

[obsidian]

Subjects like abortion are usually based on personal, political, or spiritual grounding...mostly never far removed from one another. Since there is no universal or singular stance, it should be an optional circumstance not a thing based on a belief system that everyone is entitled to difference on.

 

[BSM1]

I believe Abortion should be permitted. But only after every other alternative has been exhausted or if giving birth poses a mortal threat. There are so many infertile and foster parents out there who would be overjoyed to have a baby that I believe it to be slightly irresponsible to dispense with human life without extraordinary circumstances dictating it. It's not that I want to remove a woman's right to an abortion, it's that I want to empower a human being's right to live.

So are you saying you are for redistribution of birth? Should a woman be coerced into having an unwanted baby to alleviate the suffering of others? BTW orphanages are still full of children of all ages begging for a home. Maybe we should deplete this stock first.

 

[Mycroft]

So are you saying you are for redistribution of birth? Should a woman be coerced into having an unwanted baby to alleviate the suffering of others? BTW orphanages are still full of children of all ages begging for a home. Maybe we should deplete this stock first.

I'm just saying abortion should not be the first order of business.

 

[Knight of Albion]

I believe that the soul attaches itself at the moment of conception, so abortion is not something I'd be happy to go along with.
But that being said I think the present status quo of individual choice is the most sensible option. After all, what would be the alternative? A return to the dark days of desperate young women seeking perilous back street abortions or resorting to 'gin and knitting needles'...

 

[BSM1]

I'm just saying abortion should not be the first order of business.

This is exactly why abortion should be a woman's choice-period. There is no good answer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just to go back to something:

The level of sentience has EVERYTHING to do with a secular pro life argument. It tantamounts to the idea that a living being w/ conscious properties is being actively terminated in the name of 'choice'. If you do a simple search you will find that thalamocortical junctions appear in the 24th week, and these very junctions are responsible for pain. Here I'll make it simple:

When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?: Scientific American

But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.

I was reminded of a study I found out about some time ago that speaks to this issue:

The extent to which the fetus may be able to experience sensations, including pain, in utero has apparently been greatly overestimated. The misconception that the prematurely born human infant is a good surrogate for the human fetus of the same post-conception age has led to the notion that awareness, pain experience and the potential to suffer, which are observable in premature human infants born at 30 weeks or earlier, should therefore occur in equivalent human fetuses. However, extensive studies of lambs in utero have demonstrated that the physiological environment of the fetal brain, and its responsiveness to stimuli, are markedly different from those of the newborn lamb, whether born prematurely or not. The fetus apparently remains in continuous states of sleep-like unconsciousness, which are maintained by a range of neuroinhibitory physiological mechanisms that are unique to fetal life. Moreover, the fetus is not apparently arousable to states of 'awareness' by potentially noxious humoral, auditory or surgical stimuli.

http://altweb.jhsph.edu/bin/g/y/paper79.pdf

 

[Mycroft]

This is exactly why abortion should be a woman's choice-period. There is no good answer.

Well there is a good answer: education.

The questions that should be asked are: what are the most common factors that lead to abortion in pregnant women?

Then: What are the preventative solutions to this?

Once the answers have been determined they should be taught to children in schools, at home, etc.

I don't perceive the question to be: Should women have the right to an abortion?

I perceive the question to be: How do we arrange it so women don't need an abortion?

 

[Pegg]

Well there is a good answer: education.

The questions that should be asked are: what are the most common factors that lead to abortion in pregnant women?

Then: What are the preventative solutions to this?

Once the answers have been determined they should be taught to children in schools, at home, etc.

I don't perceive the question to be: Should women have the right to an abortion?

I perceive the question to be: How do we arrange it so women don't need an abortion?

how refreshing to see someone willing to look at the cause of the problem and not a bandaid solution!

:bow:

 

[Mycroft]

how refreshing to see someone willing to look at the cause of the problem and not a bandaid solution!

:bow:

To be honest, this would be my approach to all problems.

Instead of 'How do we reduce crime?' asking 'How do we arrange conditions so that crime is no longer needed?'

Instead of 'How do we get peace on earth?' asking 'How do we arrange conditions so that war is no longer called for?' (don't forget, there has never been peace as a system yet).

And so on and so forth. My philosophy is that asking the right question is half the work of solving a problem.

 

[adi2d]

Well there is a good answer: education.

The questions that should be asked are: what are the most common factors that lead to abortion in pregnant women?

Then: What are the preventative solutions to this?

Once the answers have been determined they should be taught to children in schools, at home, etc.

I don't perceive the question to be: Should women have the right to an abortion?

I perceive the question to be: How do we arrange it so women don't need an abortion?

Ok. One answer would be mandatory norplat at menarche. That would greatly reduce the need for abortions it would have the added bonus of being able to 'arrange' all women


Sometimes the answer is worse than the question

 

[BSM1]

Well there is a good answer: education.

The questions that should be asked are: what are the most common factors that lead to abortion in pregnant women?

Then: What are the preventative solutions to this?

Once the answers have been determined they should be taught to children in schools, at home, etc.

I don't perceive the question to be: Should women have the right to an abortion?

I perceive the question to be: How do we arrange it so women don't need an abortion?

Actually I agree with you. But until young women (and men) stop doing stupid things I want a clean, freely accessible, and at least paramedical facility that they can go to without question. I say this after knowing of a young woman who bleed to death after a botched back-room abortion in my neighborhood when I was a teenager many years ago. Now I have a beautiful grand daughter. God forbid she does something stupid, gets pregnant, and wants not to have they child. If this ever becomes the case I want her to be able to go to a doctor with knowledge and equipment then some chain-smoking old hag with coat hanger and garden hose. And please don't play 'it's a baby' card on me because I will always love my grand daughter more than any unborn fetus.