Abortion

[savagewind]

I am pro-choice - however I despise the term and consider it a stain on humanity that abortion is even a consideration.

I am pro-choice because of the crime statistics. 18 years post Roe vs. Wade and the United States crime stats display a shamefully obvious downturn. Fewer unwanted children, lower crime rates. Shameful really. Apparently people are dumb to an alarming extent.

And the reason I despise the term "pro-choice" is because it is only a "choice" for privileged beings of this modern society. If a woman were to find herself pregnant, alone on a deserted island, I'd like to see her make her "choice" then. Pretend we're post-apocalypse - no clinics, no doctors - a woman is pregnant - let's see her make her "choice". The term is foolish, presumptuous - semantically broken.

I think that one reason abortion rights took is that a woman without help DID have a choice. She might take poison, she might stick a clothes hanger up there, she might kill herself.........

 

[Cephus]

Are people dumb?

I mean really when I was a non Christian Science clearly showed me abortion was murder

You clearly have no clue what the term means.

 

[savagewind]

You clearly have no clue what the term means.

Does everyone else understand what the sentence actually means? I have no clue.

 

[savagewind]

I mean really when I was a non Christian Science clearly showed me abortion was murder

What does this mean?

 

[savagewind]

Never mind. I see it now. It is missing a comma. I am sure. dot dot dot

It's not about the Christian Scientists.

 

[dianaiad]

What unique features does a foetus have that entitles it to moral consideration?

It has none, in my opinion, that aren't shared with cows or chickens, unless you include potential to become a human being.
Potential seems pretty abstract, to me. It might even include, say, a human ovum.
I'm also struck by our blithe moral inconsistency in applying moral consideration to extant humans (see Lyndon's post, above).

Potential, in this case, is pretty much everything. It might be different if that foetus had the potential to become anything BUT a human adult, but it doesn't.

There are only two choices here: this foetus becomes a specific, unique human adult....or it dies along the way. That's it.

A human ovum has the potential to become any one of, literally, billions of human adults, male or female, and even that potential isn't applicable unless it combines with a sperm cell.

I am pretty firmly against abortion, and for me, too, 'science' is the reason, not my religion. Shoot, if I went only with my religious beliefs, I could be more accepting of the idea. Not a great deal more accepting, true, but still....

No. At the moment of conception, when a sperm cell and ovum combine to one (or more, for identicals) unique human individuals. From THAT instant, the 'potential' you so discard narrows down to just two possibilities; death or eventual human adulthood. That's it.

Now I know of no modern human societies that think it is permissible to dash an infant's head against a rock because it only has the 'potential' to become a human adult....what's the difference between a foetus and that newborn, except the stage of its development?


Now me, I think that the rules of self defense apply here, too...the mother has the right to save her life at the expense of the foetus...especially since the choice is generally 'lose one or lose both.' I can even...though I hate this and wouldn't do it personally...see why a woman would want to abort a pregnancy that was the result of rape or incest (and incest IS rape), because THAT pregnancy was absolutely uninvited.

Abortion 'just because' is wrong. It is ending a human life...and in most cases, it's ending a human life whose beginning was the result of gross negligence on the part of the parents. There is very little excuse for an unplanned pregnancy nowadays, is there?

I mean, really.......there isn't.

Abortion isn't murder because murder is a legal term. It SHOULD be murder...and I note that in some cases, the law counts the death of a fetus at the hands of another AS murder; the murder of a pregnant woman is quite often counted as two, yes?

Ah, I'm shouting against the wind, here.

 

[omega2xx]

Technically paying your taxes is contract killing because your taxes fund the militarys Killing Machine

A much better idea is to not fight our enemies and learn a new language.

 

[SomeRandom]

Are people dumb?

I mean really when I was a non Christian Science clearly showed me abortion was murder

Really? Do pray tell which specific branch of science told you this? Considering science doesn't concern itself with morality, like at all. Are you sure you didn't accidentally confuse a scientist for a preacher?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

and I note that in some cases, the law counts the death of a fetus at the hands of another AS murder; the murder of a pregnant woman is quite often counted as two, yes?.

The only time a double homicide involving a fetus can occur is if the fetus is past viability (~21wks depending on the state.) In which case it's already illegal to have an abortion for non medical emergency reasons.

Now I know of no modern human societies that think it is permissible to dash an infant's head against a rock because it only has the 'potential' to become a human adult....what's the difference between a foetus and that newborn, except the stage of its development?

As relating to the abortion discussion, an infant is not relying on the individual body of the mother, for which she has absolute authority over use and must give continuous consent for. In body autonomy discussion of law and ethics, no matter how much rights you could ethically give a fetus, you couldn't give it a superseding entitlement to use of the mother's body against her will.

That's my view. Forbidding abortion violates the mother's rights to her own body, but abortion does not violate the fetus' rights because the fetus does not have a right to the mother's body.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Just pointing out the false equivalency.

1/3 of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. Many times, the woman never even knows she was pregnant. The result is a heavier than normal menstrual flow. But when a person does know or realize that they were pregnant there is not the same feeling or mourning in the early stages of pregnancy. They flush. Haven't known too many people to pull out the clump and purchase a plot of land and a coffin. Miscarriage later on in the pregnancy is definitely accompanied with more of feeling of loss and mourning. Still don't know too many women who want to have a funeral. Then there is abortion. Have you had a friend that has had one? If you found out a friend had an abortion would you remain friends? I can say unquestionably, if a friend of mine murdered their living child, we would not remain friends. But with abortion, it is different. Why? Because people really do differentiate between killing a baby and killing fetus. Granted, as time progresses and the fetus becomes closer to a baby this line gets blurred. But the line is there nonetheless.

Still the false equivalency persists. And often times it seems that the people who want to prevent abortion also want to prevent aide from reaching living children. Our foster system needs work, our welfare system needs work, and the largest growing population of homeless people are families with children. People want to say they care because it fits with their ideal moral self. But what do their actions actually show?

The truth is people do not see the stopping of life of a fetus as the same as the stopping of life of a middle aged man. We do not view it so emotionally. We do not view it so legally. Unfortunately, because we can form line of reasoning that seems to equate the two cognitively some people like to entertain this. But the truth is that there is disconnect between the ideal that is suggested and reality. If the two were equal we would respond equally. We don't. If the ideal behind the equivalency were truly the ideal the person held we would see them act accordingly. We don't.

Actually, my mother had an abortion and didn't tell me until, I think, what ten years ago or so. My friend would have been aborted if her family believed as you and many others that an unhealthy fetus wouldn't make it to term. She has cognitive heart defects, caused her to have an infant stroke, seizures which than gosh she doesnt have anymore, and left her legally blind among another many of life's gifts. Yet, we met in high school, known each other for about thirteen years and (edit) and she was pronounced to live only to two years old. They called her a miracle blue baby.

I would be friends with someone who murdered, raped, or abused people. The action isn't an issue. I had my far share of actions and regardless of our consequences they are human just as I am. The only issue I have is safety nothing moral. If that be the case, I'd have no unconditional love and just abort every baby and kill every serial killer on death roll. My heart isn't built like that.

But regardless of how it is viewed, the fact a fetus is still a growing unborn child (like the seed/water/soil) stopping the growth of that child intentionally is considered murder. (Kill with intent). How our laws see it and so forth is besides the point of killing a child that is already start growing a heart etc.

I read another post on this thread and it made me think of this little scenario.

A eight year old daughter is playing with her seeds, with already planted soil, and jug of water at her side. Her mother tells her to just put the seed in the soil, water it every morning, and make sure it has enough sunlight.

The next day after the daughter did what she was told, a stranger (maybe a the neighbor's child) comes and throws the pot of soil on the ground, mud everywhere, but no flower.

The girl cries and the mother runs up the stairs and hears her daughter wail "he killed my Daisy!"

and the mother says, "Now now. It wasn't a Daisy yet. Just soil, water, and seed. Don't worry, I'll get you another one." (We can't replace life just because we want to get rid of one, regardless of the stage of life that fetus that child is in).

 

[sayak83]

Actually, my mother had an abortion and didn't tell me until, I think, what ten years ago or so. My friend would have been aborted if her family believed as you and many others that an unhealthy fetus wouldn't make it to term. She has cognitive heart defects, caused her to have an infant stroke, seizures which than gosh she doesnt have anymore, and left her legally blind among another many of life's gifts. Yet, we met in high school, known each other for about thirteen years and (edit) and she was pronounced to live only to two years old. They called her a miracle blue baby.

I would be friends with someone who murdered, raped, or abused people. The action isn't an issue. I had my far share of actions and regardless of our consequences they are human just as I am. The only issue I have is safety nothing moral. If that be the case, I'd have no unconditional love and just abort every baby and kill every serial killer on death roll. My heart isn't built like that.

But regardless of how it is viewed, the fact a fetus is still a growing unborn child (like the seed/water/soil) stopping the growth of that child intentionally is considered murder. (Kill with intent). How our laws see it and so forth is besides the point of killing a child that is already start growing a heart etc.

I read another post on this thread and it made me think of this little scenario.

A eight year old daughter is playing with her seeds, with already planted soil, and jug of water at her side. Her mother tells her to just put the seed in the soil, water it every morning, and make sure it has enough sunlight.

The next day after the daughter did what she was told, a stranger (maybe a the neighbor's child) comes and throws the pot of soil on the ground, mud everywhere, but no flower.

The girl cries and the mother runs up the stairs and hears her daughter wail "he killed my Daisy!"

and the mother says, "Now now. It wasn't a Daisy yet. Just soil, water, and seed. Don't worry, I'll get you another one." (We can't replace life just because we want to get rid of one, regardless of the stage of life that fetus that child is in).

Actually I would say what the mother said. That is the logical thing to say. There is no plant yet. Just a seed that has not germinated. i think we have different views on this. More importantly I will think nothing about uprooting plants in the gardens I own if I feel like it. I am also confused about your plant examples. What's wrong with killing and eating plants? They are devoid of consciousness or even rudimentary minds. We are animals. We feed on other lifeforms, even if they are plants.
Preserving forests and ecosystems is important both for the environment and for our own survival. But individual plants do not have any moral claims over us.

 

[Curious George]

My friend would have been aborted if her family believed as you and many others that an unhealthy fetus wouldn't make it to term. She has cognitive heart defects, caused her to have an infant stroke, seizures which than gosh she doesnt have anymore, and left her legally blind among another many of life's gifts. Yet, we met in high school, known each other for about thirteen years and (edit) and she was pronounced to live only to two years old. They called her a miracle blue baby.

If they thought abortion was okay, they would have aborted her? That seems kind of harsh. But if this is how they believed then they would not think like me.

Actually, my mother had an abortion and didn't tell me until, I think, what ten years ago or so.

I would be friends with someone who murdered, raped, or abused people. The action isn't an issue. I had my fair share of actions and regardless of our consequences they are human just as I am. The only issue I have is safety nothing moral. If that be the case, I'd have no unconditional love and just abort every baby and kill every serial killer on death roll. My heart isn't built like that.

You say this. I am not so sure I believe it. But if it is true their are plenty of child killers and rapists who need a friend, and would not pose an issue of safety to you.


I try to look for the best in people and appreciate their good qualities but there are lines. Though pretty non judgemental I would judge my mom much differently had she had an abortion than if she had drowned my brother in a bathtub.

But regardless of how it is viewed, the fact a fetus is still a growing unborn child (like the seed/water/soil) stopping the growth of that child intentionally is considered murder. (Kill with intent). How our laws see it and so forth is besides the point of killing a child that is already start growing a heart etc.

I read another post on this thread and it made me think of this little scenario.

A eight year old daughter is playing with her seeds, with already planted soil, and jug of water at her side. Her mother tells her to just put the seed in the soil, water it every morning, and make sure it has enough sunlight.

The next day after the daughter did what she was told, a stranger (maybe a the neighbor's child) comes and throws the pot of soil on the ground, mud everywhere, but no flower.

The girl cries and the mother runs up the stairs and hears her daughter wail "he killed my Daisy!"

and the mother says, "Now now. It wasn't a Daisy yet. Just soil, water, and seed. Don't worry, I'll get you another one." (We can't replace life just because we want to get rid of one, regardless of the stage of life that fetus that child is in).

You have a flawed scenario here. The destruction of her seed is something we recognize as immoral. But this is not because of the value of the seed as life. If we were instead to have the little girl build a sand castle, we would have just as much of an immoral ring. If the girl had a stuffed animal and the person ripped it to shreds and the mother said now now, it wasn't actually living. We would see the same problem. All you have done is show that the destruction of something special (regardless of life) is something we tend to see as immoral.

A man or a squirrel eating an acorn is not the same as falling a mighty oak. We do not hold funerals for spontaneous abortions. There is a difference between the emotional impact of miscarrying at 2weeks versus 8 months. And there is certainly a difference in the feeling of loss between losing a pregnancy at 4 weeks and losing a four year old. You can repeat that it is the same but I think that you are being dishonest with not only me but also yourself.

Would you scoop a spontaneous abortion from the toilet and purchase a coffin and burial plot, or would you flush? How would you handle the remains of a five year old?

 

[psychoslice]

I don't personally think that aborting a fetus is murder, a child is not a child until its programmed as a child, its born as a blank slate, then it is conditioned and programmed to what it is, why are we as humans so valuable ?.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

a child is not a child until its programmed as a child, its born as a blank slate, then it is conditioned and programmed to what it is,

What? You cannot take a human infant and "program" it to be a dog.

 

[psychoslice]

What? You cannot take a human infant and "program" it to be a dog.

Yes you can, there has been children brought up by wolfs, and they believe they are a wolf.

 

[sayak83]

Potential, in this case, is pretty much everything. It might be different if that foetus had the potential to become anything BUT a human adult, but it doesn't.

There are only two choices here: this foetus becomes a specific, unique human adult....or it dies along the way. That's it.

A human ovum has the potential to become any one of, literally, billions of human adults, male or female, and even that potential isn't applicable unless it combines with a sperm cell.

I am pretty firmly against abortion, and for me, too, 'science' is the reason, not my religion. Shoot, if I went only with my religious beliefs, I could be more accepting of the idea. Not a great deal more accepting, true, but still....

No. At the moment of conception, when a sperm cell and ovum combine to one (or more, for identicals) unique human individuals. From THAT instant, the 'potential' you so discard narrows down to just two possibilities; death or eventual human adulthood. That's it.

Now I know of no modern human societies that think it is permissible to dash an infant's head against a rock because it only has the 'potential' to become a human adult....what's the difference between a foetus and that newborn, except the stage of its development?


Now me, I think that the rules of self defense apply here, too...the mother has the right to save her life at the expense of the foetus...especially since the choice is generally 'lose one or lose both.' I can even...though I hate this and wouldn't do it personally...see why a woman would want to abort a pregnancy that was the result of rape or incest (and incest IS rape), because THAT pregnancy was absolutely uninvited.

Abortion 'just because' is wrong. It is ending a human life...and in most cases, it's ending a human life whose beginning was the result of gross negligence on the part of the parents. There is very little excuse for an unplanned pregnancy nowadays, is there?

I mean, really.......there isn't.

Abortion isn't murder because murder is a legal term. It SHOULD be murder...and I note that in some cases, the law counts the death of a fetus at the hands of another AS murder; the murder of a pregnant woman is quite often counted as two, yes?

Ah, I'm shouting against the wind, here.

A 21 week old fetus does not yet have the machinery to sustain a mind while a 8-9 month old fetus not only has the associated machinery but also very probably does have a mind (see my previous posts showing experiments of consciousness on infants). Once there is a mind, there is a person, a being that owns its own self and the body it resides in, an inalienable right so to speak. Before 21 weeks, its just an organic living body without a mind, and hence unowned by any mind within. Therefore the ownership of that living body remains in the hands of its creator mind, the mother, whose body is creating that fetus. Hence she, just like any creator, can choose to stop the creative process over material in her body she owns. But as soon as a mind forms (and the earliest is around 22-23 weeks when the basic brain circuits of the cortex that houses our minds begin to form), it own the fetal body and ownership transfers to the fetal mind from the mind of the mother. Then she loses her rights to stop the creative process apart from self-defense.
A non-existing person has no claim to ownership or potential thereof. Only an existing person has potential. That is the jist of it.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yes you can, there has been children brought up by wolfs, and they believe they are a wolf.

We're submitting myth, now?

 

[psychoslice]

We're submitting myth, now?

No its a fact.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The only verifiable cases have been intentional neglect and abuse. Reports of children "raised by wolves" are either myth or hoax. Even still, believing oneself to be a wolf does not make one a wolf.

 

[psychoslice]

The only verifiable cases have been intentional neglect and abuse. Reports of children "raised by wolves" are either myth or hoax. Even still, believing oneself to be a wolf does not make one a wolf.

Ha, you are trying ain't you ?.