Another Abortion Debate

[lewisnotmiller]

I more meant "dreams" as in aspirations and goals

Ahhh...gotya. Sorry. That's what I get for hurried postings between meetings.
*tips hat*

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is copied from another thread.



Spilling off in a different direction:




My answer is simple, common sense. The apple is a part of the tree.

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

An unborn child is functionally parasitic on the mother. It cannot survive independent of the mother, though modern technology has changed the timing of how that works out for premature births. We can now save a fetus that is very young. I think the record is a premature birth around 21 weeks. Or course, we don't have enough data on the long term health impact on a person born so early and premature births require special care. In any case, while a part of the woman's body, the fetus is as dependent on the mother for life as much as her other organs would be. If she dies, the fetus, unless delivered artificially, will die too.

What the mother takes into her body will impact the fetus and this supports the idea that the fetus is part of the woman's body.

 

[sun rise]

In this conflict of moralities, I take a pragmatic stance.

• People should have all the tools they need to prevent pregnancy.
• The "morning after", step B, pill should be easily available.
• Women should have all the support tools they need so that economic factors don't drive the choice to abortion.
• Adoption of the baby should be easy to arrange.

After that, to me the fetus becomes a person when it can survive outside the womb. 5 months (since there's a small chance at 5) should be plenty of time for a woman to have the right to terminate the pregnancy for any reason.

One the threshold of viability is crossed, abortion should be severely restricted.

This does not of course satisfy either extreme, but this is my stance.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Have you ever noticed that all peoples in favor of abortion have already been born!?
It is natural to protect the innocent... It is natural to protect the offspring!
Abortion goes against LOGIC and Nature!

Lets see... "I have a problem there is a baby coming; I know what I will do to solve MY problem; I will kill the baby that should solve MY problem!"

To be clear...I'm not 'in favour' of abortion. Neither myself nor my wife have ever had one or considered one.

I'm in favour of women maintaining legal rights over their own bodies.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In this conflict of moralities, I take a pragmatic stance.

• People should have all the tools they need to prevent pregnancy.
• The "morning after", step B, pill should be easily available.
• Women should have all the support tools they need so that economic factors don't drive the choice to abortion.
• Adoption of the baby should be easy to arrange.

After that, to me the fetus becomes a person when it can survive outside the womb. 5 months (since there's a small chance at 5) should be plenty of time for a woman to have the right to terminate the pregnancy for any reason.

One the threshold of viability is crossed, abortion should be severely restricted.

This does not of course satisfy either extreme, but this is my stance.

I'm somewhere here with you. Both sides can throw fruit at both of us, I suspect.
I would note, my threshold of viability would be later than yours, in case that matters.

 

[Justanatheist]

Have you ever noticed that all peoples in favor of abortion have already been born!?

Hardly surprising when you consider that people are those that have been born.

If abortion is against nature why are there so many miscarriages?

 

[Meow Mix]

This is copied from another thread.



Spilling off in a different direction:




My answer is simple, common sense. The apple is a part of the tree.

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

This is a difficult question. For all intents and purposes, we have cells that are considered human cells that roam autonomously through the body like leukocytes: are they "part of" the body? In some senses, I guess. But we also have colonies of non-human cells, but which are nevertheless indispensable for our survival, and even get passed from mother to child.

Mitochondria themselves are probably the result of secondary endosymbiosis.

I'm not sure I can answer this.

What I can do is submit that the issue isn't whether a fetus or fertilized embryo is human or not: a corpse is human after all. Rights and moral connotations aren't tied to whether or not something is human, they're tied to whether or not something is a someone (whether the thing in question is a person). In my opinion the most useful question to answer regarding abortion, other than bodily autonomy for the mother, is whether an unborn fetus has the properties of personhood and therefore moral considerations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To be clear...I'm not 'in favour' of abortion. Neither myself nor my wife have ever had one or considered one.

I'm in favour of women maintaining legal rights over their own bodies.

That is my position too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In this conflict of moralities, I take a pragmatic stance.

• People should have all the tools they need to prevent pregnancy.
• The "morning after", step B, pill should be easily available.
• Women should have all the support tools they need so that economic factors don't drive the choice to abortion.
• Adoption of the baby should be easy to arrange.

After that, to me the fetus becomes a person when it can survive outside the womb. 5 months (since there's a small chance at 5) should be plenty of time for a woman to have the right to terminate the pregnancy for any reason.

One the threshold of viability is crossed, abortion should be severely restricted.

This does not of course satisfy either extreme, but this is my stance.

It seems a practical approach to the issue. I am not pro-abortion, but I do not like the idea of taking away a woman's right to choose about her own body.

Usually, if the solution disturbs either extreme in an area of contention, the solution is probably pretty good.

 

[viole]

This is copied from another thread.



Spilling off in a different direction:




My answer is simple, common sense. The apple is a part of the tree.

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

I think the issue needs a further generalisation, because abortion is generally verboten everywhere one day before expected birth (i.e. while technically still part of the mother).

And also because there are cases where termination takes place outside the womb. For instance, in case of IVF (In Vitro Fertilisation) and when the embryo is positively screened for genetic defects.

The question is what morality acts on: carriers of Human DNA, independently of their phenotypical state, or on beings having such phenotypical characteristics like a nervous system, enabling pain and awareness? Is disposing a human fertilised egg really murder, and therefore much worse than killing a family of cats, or dogs?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Spirit of Light]

This is copied from another thread.



Spilling off in a different direction:




My answer is simple, common sense. The apple is a part of the tree.

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

I believe the child is a part of the mother until it is born, and my personal understanding is that it would be a form of killing to remove the fetus, but since I am a man, it would be wrong of me to critique a womans choice of abortion or not is right for her.

 

[Valjean]

Have you ever noticed that all peoples in favor of abortion have already been born!?

Is this supposed to mean something?

It is natural to protect the innocent... It is natural to protect the offspring!

LOL -- We eat "the innocent" all the time, and drop bombs on human offspring, then celebrate our victory. Nature is cruel!

Abortion goes against LOGIC and Nature!

OK.... Explain that. And do you understand what logic is?

Lets see... "I have a problem there is a baby coming; I know what I will do to solve MY problem; I will kill the baby that should solve MY problem!"

Your point? And isn't it illegal to abort a baby except for medical reasons?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you ever noticed that all peoples in favor of abortion have already been born!?
It is natural to protect the innocent... It is natural to protect the offspring!
Abortion goes against LOGIC and Nature!

Lets see... "I have a problem there is a baby coming; I know what I will do to solve MY problem; I will kill the baby that should solve MY problem!"

I have noticed that people that agree or disagree with anything have already been born.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

The argument that this is about a woman's right to her body seems insufficient, not because it is untrue but because it doesn't deal with the questions people have. Obviously at first it is part of the mother, and then at some point it isn't. I care, but how much? For me this question is so far from my experience. Rights are a derived concept, abstract and cold.

Do you know the problem of Zeno's Paradox? This was stumping Mathematicians and philosophers for millennia; until people began to graph the problem in a cartesian coordinate system. Then we could see it from the side. There were people for and against for all of that time. Some said the turtle should reach the end. Some said it should never reach it and from this determined time was stop frame technology. They needed an extra dimension to resolve the issue with finality. They needed a better conversation, and the cartesian coordinates provided that conversation. No one, today, argues about Zeno's paradox.

The unborn and the mothers, neither have rights. Its a ridiculous word to apply in the situation as evidenced by the long and endless argument. When the scale changes, so change the properties of matter. When you speak of nature, the word 'Rights' goes away. Its something else, some other conversation which must be had.

Mothers have authority over the unborn. That is truth to me. It is not and never has been a question about rights.

 

[Brian2]

This is copied from another thread.

Spilling off in a different direction:

My answer is simple, common sense. The apple is a part of the tree.

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

Apple trees don't get rid of the apples until they are ready to fall.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For me, the personhood of the foetus or whether or not the foetus can be considered "part" of the mother is irrelevant to whether or not abortion is justified. Even if I were to grant full personhood and autonomy to the foetus, and acknowledge it as a distinct and seperate entity to the mother, that would still not entitle them to use of the body and organs of the mother, even for the purposes of sustaining their own life. No individual is owed the use of organs belonging to any other individual person, and it is morally wrong to force an individual to use their organs to sustain another against their will - even if the only alternative is the death of the other.

 

[Ponder This]

This is copied from another thread.



Spilling off in a different direction:




My answer is simple, common sense. The apple is a part of the tree.

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

I think that, obviously, the unborn child is part of the mother. It is also, obviously, part of the father as well.
And children certainly aren't legally autonomous, being dependent on their parents (or guardians) until they reach adulthood, even though they may be capable of taking independent ("autonomous") action even while still in the womb.
However, I don't understand the sense in which you are using the word "integral" to describe various parts of a woman's body. Do you mean "necessary to make whole or complete", "included as part of the whole rather than supplied separately", or "having or containing all parts that are necessary to be complete"?

For example, if I were to say you are an integral part of the team, it would imply that the team cannot function without you; you are necessary to complete the whole team. Legally we would use "integral part" to denote the part that is necessary for some function to be performed. For example, a location, or piece of land that is part of a larger area, can be the integral part (of land) for some group to meet and carry out some activity.

 

[Windwalker]

Yet a seedling is a plant. A tree is an adult seedling....

And is it a sin to remove a seedling before it grows into a tree and breaks the foundation of your house?

 

[Dogknox20]

To be clear...I'm not 'in favour' of abortion. Neither myself nor my wife have ever had one or considered one.

I'm in favour of women maintaining legal rights over their own bodies.

Good to meet you...
WHY.. Why do you say it's the mothers body.... God made her in such a way as to deliver children; it's not a contrary thing to have a baby!? Can't be to protect the mother health.. NEVER has a baby killed the mother! Aborted does NOT save the mother’s life.
IF... "If my daughter was raped the baby should be aborted!" HOW...

lewisnotmiller how often does a rape lead to conception!? What... 1% of the time?! No excuse or need to have abortion as a means of birth control! Even then it's not the babies fault!
They pass out condoms "FREE" what happed to them... You are paying for the Abortions by your tax dollars.... Billions of dollars spent killing the innocent! Some woman have had up to ten abortions on your dime!

 

[Valjean]

Apple trees don't get rid of the apples until they are ready to fall.

What?! You've never trod on immature little green apples under an apple tree?

If this be an analogy to abortion, spontaneous abortion is more frequent than some people think. Miscarriage - Wikipedia