Abortion

[Mister Emu]

So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

100% of live births result in death. Ergo, it is acceptable to kill whomever we please.

'Tis a silly and specious argument.

 

[McBell]

100% of live births result in death. Ergo, it is acceptable to kill whomever we please.

'Tis a silly and specious argument.

I must have missed something because i cannot fathom what live births have to do with abortion...???

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

That comment is so stupid

Reference?

that Tyson should be ashamed.

I.e. you don't like his opinion, therefore shame upon him//

t I don't recall it being taught in Christianity that God micromanages every aspect of your life and your body.

Really? Not a leaf falls that he is not in control of? God is in control of every tiny, little thing. There is nothing he does not directly control. No That is the xtian doctrine I recall? Just how much is god in control based on your recollection?

t Miscarriages are tragic occurrences that are as random as other biological mishaps.

Reference

tBut abortion is a willed action to take a life.

If you care to redefine the term, I have no problem with the. Just wish you'd make it clear that 'abortion' to you has a very specific meaning 'willful taking of life' than it does to readers of webster's or american unabridged.

tThat's the difference - will, intention and action.

Reference? Or is this just your own redefinition?

t

I'd also like to know where he got his statistics from. They seem ridiculously inflated.

How can it seem 'ridiculously inflated? If you don't know where he got the statistics? Shouldn't you ask for the source, wait for the response, then compare the source with the statistics to determine if they are inflated? Perhaps "RIDICULOUS" is ....a ridiculous characterization?

 

[Mister Emu]

I must have missed something because i cannot fathom what live births have to do with abortion...???

The same thing miscarriage has to do with elective abortion. Nothing.

Nor did my post imply that they had a connection. The connection was in the absurdity of the argument that natural miscarriages in whatever proportion validates elective abortion. It is a stupid argument. One easily shown as such by considering that 100% of lives will naturally end in death and yet all but the depraved would say it is immoral to murder them after they are born.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Arbitrary and stupid.

Stupid, maybe. Arbitrary, you are incorrect. The scripture clearly states that god breathed life into the vessels (which are nothing more than dirt until they have the breath of god).

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Sperm cells are just cells like any other cell. They're not unique living beings.

What do you mean by 'beings?'

Frankly I'd have to say that sperm cells are the most unique beings in the universe. For every adult human there are literally a trillion sperm cells, and these cells are each and everyone of them individual, different, and unique. The fact that you either don't recognize them as beings, or don't recognize them as living, merely shows that you do not understand processes of life. Your view that sperm is "just cells" or "not unique living beings" is a completely arbitrary judgment call.

 

[Aupmanyav]

When I clap my hands I KILL thousands of living (life) cells. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you need to discern between LIFE (bacteria) and whatever you see as entitled life?

I agree with you. However, a fertilized egg is a human and that makes a difference in my opinion. You and others may differ. Of course, we can kill humans too, if that is in line with 'dharma' without any hate, anger or remorse. (BhagawadGita).

The law states there has to be breath. Fetal tissue does not breathe.

I have not read the link about 'Hindu laws' till now (that will be the next thing), but the fetus and the fetal tissues breath (through their mother's blood). Sure, the procedure is a bit different.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The potential for Life begins at conception, but life begins at conception.
And hey depending on how you use the word potential, couldn't the potential for both life and Life begin when two people have extended romantic eye contact?

Where does the bible, or any other religious script, talk about potential for life? Or even conception?

Scientifically speaking, life began only once. The potential for life dates back 3 billion years. There has been no known new life in at least 3 billon years. A fetus is not a potential for life, it is life. But so is a sperm or an unfertilized egg. So is a rhizome of Johnson Grass.

Hopfully you can consider this and refine you thoughts. There is no new life. There is no potential for life. A new born is nothing more than a continuation of the life that has been evolving for millions of years.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I've already stated my opinion on viability. But even attaining viability in utero simply is no guarantee of surviving delivery. The ony life not in question is that of the pregnant female.

Viability is another word used by those who don't always understand its common usage, or care to define what they mean when using it. P.S. I'm not objecting your usage.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I'm making a distinction between life and Life. Do you know what I mean? A bacteria cell is alive, but not in the same way that a human teenager is. That's why I say life begins at conception, and Life doesn't.

Em. I kind of did know what you meant by saying you were making a distinction between life and LIFE. But then you said bacteria is alive, but not in the same what as a human teenaer is.

As a biologist I must ask you, with all respect, to please tell me what you mean by this? I'm quite familiar with dozens, if not scores, of definitions of "life." But I'm not familiar with a single solitary definition (after taking entire graduate level courses on the meaning (definition) of life) of life that could possibly distinguish between the two; bacteria and teenager.

I do not know what you mean, but am struggling to understand?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

All laws are made from our opinions of what's right and wrong. It makes no sense to exclude abortion from law based on this reasoning.

Hold on now...laws are sans right and wrong...They are based on observation, hypothesis formation, experimentations, and analysis. Right and Wrong are for those who favor their own ego and opinion over what is observably and objetively congruent with reality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

BBC - Religions - Hinduism: Abortion

You need to notice that the article gives no references. The article only gives the writers views. IMHO, BBC should have done better.

"If a foetus is aborted, the soul within it suffers a major karmic setback.": Again, this is writers opinion and not very profound. Being killed is none of the fetus' fault. It will not suffer any setback and will be born again. But those who kill it will certainly have a karmic setback. They had no right to kill it. If the God of Fate (Brahma, Vidhata) wants it to be killed before being born, he would do so. To decide that is his prerogative.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

That's highly debatable and entirely dependent on when an abortion is performed, and even then it's still debatable.

Really?

So you debate the questionability of the life of the pregnant individual?
Or you debate the questionability of the life of the embryo?

You are correct. Objectively speaking..the female's life is unquestionable. She is alive. And the life of the embryo is not open for debate. It is a matter of statistics. there is no opinion, debate, etc. It is no more difficult than taking a ruler and measuring the distance from one edge of the paper to the opposite. It is not opinion, guess work, or any other crap-ladden term you can come up with. It is a measurable entity. Between 50% and 70% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion. This is before the advent of pill or even condum. I used to work at the Tulane Medical School Museum and I can personally testify to thousands and thousand of spontaneoulsy aborted fetuses that were removed, collected, and preserved. Most of these..well..never mind.

Fact is...it's not a matter of debate to anyone that has facts.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Exactly. Well, according to science, that is.

The debate begins if the presumption of the gestating fetus is considered alive, which life carries more consideration and attention? The pregnant female? Or the fetus?

Wrong. There is no definition of life which a fetus does not meet. Nor an unfertilized egg. Or one in a billion sperm cells.

t

I've often said that it's very easy to champion the rights of a fetus when the person gestating it isn't considered to have complete ownership over the entirety of her own body in the first place.

What makes me SMDH is when pregnancy is described as an "inconvenience." It's a major health concern for the woman, and anything BUT an inconvenience.

So, moralizing it and offering causes and conditions for the pregnancy to happen in the first place....which typically comes up as the woman's sexual history or choices or circumstances including rape....become the ammunition against the pregnant female and to consider the argument as determining that she is WRONG if the pregnancy is unwanted, and therefore she must make it RIGHT to carry a pregnancy to term regardless of the major health concers that occur to her and her body for the assumed 9 month pregnancy. Because she is WRONG, then she must be PUNISHED somehow if her pregnancy...a health condition....was unplanned or unwanted.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

As a personal choice for me, no. But I firmly believe the choice is that of the woman's. I might disagree but I have no say in the matter.

Now see; I would disagree with this. I do believe the woman has the right to control her body. But this is not an ideological all else is irrelevant view? A woman that has had 100 abortions should be shut down! A woman that becomes aware of her pregnancy should make the decision as judiciously as possible.

Ther is no room for irresponsible individuals to what ever they want when ever they want...when there is no need for it. If you are pregnant and decide you want an abortion, then take care of it. If you are pregnant and wait until you are 8 monthes and 3 weeks pregnant, because you just can't handle the pressure, then too bad. Those that see this as an ideological reason are wrong.

I'm making no distinction. One simply does not have the right to conscript another to further their own life. It's very simple.

What? If a gang of bikers is pulling out chains and clubs, and then one of them pulls out a gun, then I am 100% justified in the use of deadly force to..."further my own life"

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I agree with you. However, a fertilized egg is a human and that makes a difference in my opinion. You and others may differ. Of course, we can kill humans too, if that is in line with 'dharma' without any hate, anger or remorse. (BhagawadGita).I have not read the link about 'Hindu laws' till now (that will be the next thing), but the fetus and the fetal tissues breath (through their mother's blood). Sure, the procedure is a bit different.

So it's about the definition of Human, rather than Life? You say a fertilized egg is a human. Why is this the difference between human and non-human? You believe that a females unfertilized ova..is alive..but not a human?

When I crack an egg in the morning, I have no dough it is a chicken. It may not be fertilized. But it is alive, and it is a chicken! Why is an unfertilized human egg NOT human?

Can you define human? I propose that all life that diverged from the common ancestor of humans and other apes some 1.2 million years ago, are human.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I agree with you. However, a fertilized egg is a human and that makes a difference in my opinion. You and others may differ. Of course, we can kill humans too, if that is in line with 'dharma' without any hate, anger or remorse. (BhagawadGita).I have not read the link about 'Hindu laws' till now (that will be the next thing), but the fetus and the fetal tissues breath (through their mother's blood). Sure, the procedure is a bit different.

As anti-religious as I am....

I think the paradigm is that life is this thing that flows to the end, all streams flow to the sea, every child leads to a line that "potentially" is unending.

But the truth, the fact, the observational reality, is that 99.99% of all lines end! Period. In terms of species...extinct? In terms of populations...genocide! In terms of families...no more living heirs...In terms of individuals...more than 95% of conceived individuals FAIL to replace themselves in the population.

If we are talking about humans or elephants, is there is difference in the natural processes that take place? If you speak of 'willful' than we can talk about the willful abortion of elephants, lions, wildebeests, buffalo, ...bison, mountain lion, grizzly bear....etc. I

 

[Aupmanyav]

When I crack an egg in the morning, I have no dough it is a chicken. It may not be fertilized. But it is alive, and it is a chicken! Why is an unfertilized human egg NOT human?

No, it is not chicken, it is an unfertilized ovum. It would have been a chicken if it was fertilized. Incubated, it will not turn into a chicken.

I propose that all life that diverged from the common ancestor of humans and other apes some 1.2 million years ago, are human.

They may be human, depending on how you chose to define human, but they are surely our dear cousins. We even have a God from amongst them and many brave warriors.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As anti-religious as I am .. But the truth, the fact, the observational reality, is that 99.99% of all lines end! Period. In terms of species .. extinct? In terms of populations .. genocide! In terms of families .. no more living heirs .. In terms of individuals .. more than 95% of conceived individuals FAIL to replace themselves in the population.

If you speak of 'willful' than we can talk about the willful abortion of elephants, lions, wildebeests, buffalo, .. bison, mountain lion, grizzly bear .. etc.

I too am a strong atheist, but I am not anti-religious. Religions have their uses for many individuals. Yes, it is most probable that humans too will be extinct at one time, the complex forms do not survive long. Let us be happy till we last. My line has survived for more than 3,000 years (there was an Aupamanyava, a Vedic commentator, around 1,000 BC). There are many others who claim this line.

Rama, Lakshman, Sugriva, Angad, Hanuman, in a conference; Jambavan, the bear-king too.

Why should we try to decimate other animals? We do not live in forests now. Let them be happy there unless our interests collide. But why should we increase our demands so much that our interests collide? Can't we do with less? I am sad at the demise of sparrows in my city (Delhi).

 

[Marisa]

"bodily autonomy" --- that sounds pretty one sided to me. Maybe we can appease the evolution crowd and just refer to it as "natural selection."

(I respect your right to hold your own opinions and ideas of right and wrong. Very few switch sides on this subject.)

Only to one whose never going to be asked (or forced) to give it up.