Abortion

[Rosedamai]

To add to that mental deficiency argument, if I leave the said person in the wheelchair and come back 10 seconds later he/she will still be breathing. If I cut the fetus from my womb and come back 10 seconds later it will be dead. Should have made my definition clearer- self-sufficiency is important too.

[hazeh]

Mkay, so, I don't know a whole lot about pregnancy development. Anyways, today on campus I saw some guy walking around with a giant sign of a cut up unborn baby. This child was obviously not completely developed, but I saw little hands and fingers and other regions that were distinguishable into their respective limbs. The caption was "Abortion at 10 weeks".

Now that seems a bit exaggerated to me. My mom lost a baby of seven weeks a while back, and as far as I knew, there wasn't too much limb-defining going on yet. Could anyone clarify the developmental stages for me in a way I could understand? x)

[philpot123]

To add to that mental deficiency argument, if I leave the said person in the wheelchair and come back 10 seconds later he/she will still be breathing. If I cut the fetus from my womb and come back 10 seconds later it will be dead. Should have made my definition clearer- self-sufficiency is important too.

So a person, though brain-active on life support is less of a person? Or, a person hooked up to dialysis...? We've been through this on the thread before, that's not a good enough argument to deprive someone of personhood ^.^

[Rosedamai]

So a person, though brain-active on life support is less of a person? Or, a person hooked up to dialysis...? We've been through this on the thread before, that's not a good enough argument to deprive someone of personhood ^.^

A life support is a machine. A machine is something that we've made in order to make our lives easier and thus is different from a person biologically supported by another.

[Princess Artemis]

Mkay, so, I don't know a whole lot about pregnancy development. Anyways, today on campus I saw some guy walking around with a giant sign of a cut up unborn baby. This child was obviously not completely developed, but I saw little hands and fingers and other regions that were distinguishable into their respective limbs. The caption was "Abortion at 10 weeks".

Now that seems a bit exaggerated to me. My mom lost a baby of seven weeks a while back, and as far as I knew, there wasn't too much limb-defining going on yet. Could anyone clarify the developmental stages for me in a way I could understand? x)

This is something you can look up on the Internet easily enough and find non-biased sources, but yeah, at ten weeks a fetus has fingers and toes. At seven weeks an embryo doesn't.

[philpot123]

A life support is a machine. A machine is something that we've made in order to make our lives easier and thus is different from a person biologically supported by another.

It's a machine that supports a person's life without which said person could not survive.

 

 

A pregnant woman acts as a host for the baby, without which the child would die.

 

 

 

Same difference. Not enough to say it's not a person.

[skinst]

Difference is, the machine doesn't have a will of its own.

[philpot123]

Difference is, the machine doesn't have a will of its own.

Despite this, the simple fact is that saying "it is dependent on the mother, therefore not a person" does not work. Argue that the mother has a choice to abort however you want, not that the simple fact that the baby is being supported makes it not a person.

[ShinyTomato]

curious, so what would happen upon birth?

There couldn't be a birth. It would simply feed on the woman for years. The record is ten. That one still had a heartbeat long after it ceased to be able to be human. It had a heartbeat until after it was removed.

 

For my mother, carrying me to term meant that the mass that would have been my sister couldn't be removed and she died 8 years later.

[skinst]

Despite this, the simple fact is that saying "it is dependent on the mother, therefore not a person" does not work. Argue that the mother has a choice to abort however you want, not that the simple fact that the baby is being supported makes it not a person.

I explained this to you before the thread was wiped, but person as dictated by the dictionary is something subject to interpretation. Just because you see a fetus as a person doesn't mean that someone else will hold the same view.

 

You can't say that the arguement doesn't work when the entire subject of personification is entirely up to personal preference.

[Rosedamai]

Despite this, the simple fact is that saying "it is dependent on the mother, therefore not a person" does not work. Argue that the mother has a choice to abort however you want, not that the simple fact that the baby is being supported makes it not a person.

No, we are all dependant on man made objects for whatever reason, ranging from clothes to glasses to wheelchairs. Such mentally and/or handicapped person is dependent on other people to take care of them, thus they are only dependant on other people's goodwill. They are linked to machines that enable them to breathe- I do not have to make their lungs literally move. That is what I meant by self-sufficiency: that a said person be able to survive without direct human intervention i.e. linked to another directly. That is a lot different from just relying on humans. If a person is linked to another directly and dies if that connection is severed, then they are no longer human in my definition. By yours, parasitic twins are human and they should not be removed from their siblings no matter what harm is being brought to their siblings.

Edited December 1, 2011 by ylangylang

[Princess Artemis]

If a person is linked to another directly and dies if that connection is severed, then they are no longer human in my definition.

There are some twins that cannot live without one another but are quite clearly human. They cannot be surgically separated but seem to enjoy baseball games just fine.

 

Not that I'm terribly interested in drawing lines in the sand or arguing about them, mostly because things like this come up and fudge the line in the sand.

[Kestra15]

They are linked to machines that enable them to breathe- I do not have to make their lungs literally move.

Sometimes we pretty much have to.

[Fuzzbucket]

I didn't use it as such, I was merely responding to the "what would have happened if she had aborted?" argument.

 

Well, I suppose that hypothetical is kind of moot in that instance. If you're going to say I cannot use an example of a someone who easily could have been aborted had she followed doctor's orders doing amazing things in the world as an argument against abortion, you can't use rapists as an argument FOR abortion can you? The fact remains that he was born into a wonderful, homeschool, Christian home and has touched millions of lives on TOP of being an amazing athlete

What would have happened ? - the foetus would have died. Just as the foetus I aborted years ago did.

 

What exactly is your point here ? That because something that was thought to be a tumour turned out not to be, abortion should not be allowed ? What about a "foetus" carried to term that turns out to have been a tumour ? That mistake can happen too...

 

Medical error is hardly the issue here. The issue is that IMHO all women should have the right to have abortions if they want them. Anyone who doesn't feel OK about that doesn't have to.

 

What I object to among lifers is that they deny others their right to choice. But no-one forces THEM to abort if they can't bring themselves to do so - that's fine with me.

 

I object to being dubbed "pro abortion." I'm not FOR abortion. I am pro choice. There is a massive difference in that there is, in my position, no kind of coercion for anyone. In that of pro-lifers - there is.

[philpot123]

If a person is linked to another directly and dies if that connection is severed, then they are no longer human in my definition. By yours, parasitic twins are human and they should not be removed from their siblings no matter what harm is being brought to their siblings.

You'll have to explain this more clearly. By what you just said, if the attendants at the VA nursing home decided to stop caring for my grandfather, he would cease to be human? He is directly tied to other humans for life, because he cannot walk or use his hands.

[Rosedamai]

You'll have to explain this more clearly. By what you just said, if the attendants at the VA nursing home decided to stop caring for my grandfather, he would cease to be human? He is directly tied to other humans for life, because he cannot walk or use his hands.

As in like if your grandfather was linked through an organic tube to the attendants and received nutrients through the tube alone. That is what I meant by linked-through a visible link of some lind directly to another human. For example if the attendants left your grandfather alone and came back about ten minutes later he would, I assume, be still alive.

 

I would have to think more about the issue of conjoined twins though.

 

BTW I would not be able to come back for a while as I have upcoming final exams to cram for. Will come back about two weeks later. Happy holidays everyone

[AngelKitty]

The way I see personhood is pretty simple. Once you are born, you are a person. You cannot lose personhood after you are born, and you cannot become any less of a person once you are born. This applies to everyone, disabled, conjoined, comatose, whatever.

 

The fetus starts to become a person the minute it is capable of living outside the womb, completely detached from a born person (a woman), via medical intervention or otherwise, but it isn't completely a person until it's actually living out of the womb. After the point that the fetus could survive outside of the womb, I consider abortion unethical unless it's to save the mother's life, since it's starting to become a person at that point. It should never trump the rights of the mother, though.

 

Well, I suppose that hypothetical is kind of moot in that instance. If you're going to say I cannot use an example of a someone who easily could have been aborted had she followed doctor's orders doing amazing things in the world as an argument against abortion, you can't use rapists as an argument FOR abortion can you? The fact remains that he was born into a wonderful, homeschool, Christian home and has touched millions of lives on TOP of being an amazing athlete

 

I wasn't saying you couldn't use it, that part was mostly a general argument against the "but the fetus could have cured cancer/fed the needy/educated the poor" argument that pro-lifers tend to make that I built off of your example. A fetus can just as easily become a murderer, a rapist, or any other bad thing as it can become someone good. In fact, it could become that no matter what kind of household it's born into. Sick people can come from decent households.

Edited December 1, 2011 by AngelKitty

[Silverwingwyvren]

Killing anything that is living anything that is made of cells and develops is murder no matter how you try and justify it. If it an accident that the girl or woman got pregnant killing a child that has even had a chance to really live for more than a few weeks is twisted. If a woman got raped killing the fetus will no justify getting back at the rapist if anything it won't make you any better than him. True it very wrong to rape some one but it's worst to kill some one innocent and an unborn child is innocent, the unborn child doesn't deserve death for someone else actions.

 

Another point if a girl had sex on purpose and was warned by her parents about gerund pregnant or having sex behind her parents back and gets pregnant it's her own fault she didn't want to listen to reason so she paying the consequences for it, making a baby pay for what you did is twisted and inhuman. People get mad when a baby that's born is murdered or dies why not for a child that was unborn and killed because the mother was afraid of what her parents would do or that she couldn't afford a child, no life should pay for someone who made a bad decision or didn't think what they were doing through knowing very well they couldn't afford a child or were warned about getting pregnant from having sex behind their parents back.

 

Saying some one could become the next serial killer or good person is something no one can predict because humans don't have that kind of power so they can say who can or will become this or that. Things like that can be prevented your child becoming violent because they look at how others act, it's how they are treated by other people and they get sick of it and get back at the person, it's sad that it ends up like that but if people actually cared enough about each other where they wouldn't treat others like dirt then maybe we'll have les serial killers and rapists or just plain murderer's around.

[AngelKitty]

 

Killing anything that is living anything that is made of cells and develops is murder no matter how you try and justify it.

 

I hope you're a soilovore - that is, you eat only dirt - because otherwise you are eating things that were alive, made of cells, and developed. :B

 

 

Another point if a girl had sex on purpose and was warned by her parents about gerund pregnant or having sex behind her parents back and gets pregnant it's her own fault she didn't want to listen to reason so she paying the consequences for it, making a baby pay for what you did is twisted and inhuman.

 

If the parents (and schools) had given the girl a comprehensive talk on protecting herself and having safe sex instead of shoving ineffective "abstinence only" scare-dogma down her throat, she'd be much less likely to end up pregnant.

 

Personally I find making a teenage girl who made a mistake pay for the rest of her life by forcing her to remain pregnant, and doubly making her kid suffer by being raised by a parent that doesn't want it, to be really sick and twisted.

 

 

Saying some one could become the next serial killer or good person is something no one can predict because humans don't have that kind of power so they can say who can or will become this or that.

 

Nor can someone predict who will be a "good" person, which was what my point was. Using "but this person could turn out to be X" as an argument for or against abortion doesn't work, because you don't know until someone is born and grown what they'll be - and nurture, not just nature, will shape who they turn out to be.

Edited December 1, 2011 by AngelKitty

[Silverwingwyvren]

True scare tactics don't help, but killing the baby just because you don't want it it wrong, its worst then that the baby is an innocent life what did the baby do to deserve to die?

 

Adoption give the kid a chance at life don't kill the kid because you think its the right thing to do, wtf to that.

 

I meant killing because you don't want it or can't afford it, not eating it.

[Dr. Paine]

 

True scare tactics don't help, but killing the baby just because you don't want it it wrong, its worst then that the baby is an innocent life what did the baby do to deserve to die?

 

Adoption give the kid a chance at life don't kill the kid because you think its the right thing to do, wtf to that.

 

I meant killing because you don't want it or can't afford it, not eating it.

Except the chances of that child being adopted are about 3-4 out of a hundred (at least, according to the last box 'o statistics), and those chances sharply decline once they pass the newborn stage, are born with mental/physical defects, or aren't white.

 

The adoption system is badly broken, and until it's fixed, is no better an option than forcing a girl who doesn't want a child/is plain unfit to raise one to have the baby and care for it herself.

 

It doesn't deserve to die, but in many cases, abortion is the best option. Better to die before knowing anything than to be born and only know misery from the first moment of life.

 

Also, Angel was just saying that if you believe the 'life' of a fetus should be saved, it's logical to assume you should believe all life is sacred and shouldn't be harmed. What makes a pig's life worth less than that of a fetus? A tree's?

Edited December 1, 2011 by Dr. Paine

[AngelKitty]

 

Adoption give the kid a chance at life don't kill the kid because you think its the right thing to do, wtf to that.

 

Even assuming pregnancy were a painless, harmless process that didn't alter your body drastically, if I got pregnant, I'd rather kill the fetus than put it up for adoption. The adoption system is atrocious right now, a lot of foster homes are abusive, and most kids don't get adopted, as Painless said.

 

 

I meant killing because you don't want it or can't afford it, not eating it.

 

I take it you don't squash bugs then, right? :B

[Silverwingwyvren]

Yeah the adoption system is forked up big time, my aunt and uncle passed three years ago and the agentcy took my two year cousin and put him up for adoption not even looking to his immedate family first. He got adopted by some people from utah and we've been fighting in court to this day trying to get him back.

 

Its sad that race decieds weather you get adopted or not, I mean I'm african american and I see how many african american kids are orphans and grow up in an orphanage and don't get adopted because their black and suposedly black kids have a bad rep which isn't true.

 

The high school I graduated from tried to do that to me, all I was doing was switching schools because we moved to the suburbs and I'm getting the boot, I had A's and B's come on, they were going to send me to a community high school T_T

 

Death is not natuarl, humans just accept it some don't, people weren't meant to die and you can see it when people morn for loved ones.

 

 

[Dr. Paine]

 

Death is not natuarl, humans just accept it some don't, people weren't meant to die and you can see it when people morn for loved ones.

 

... except... everything is meant to die. We (and some other high-functioning animals) mourn because we form emotional attachments. Same with mourning the loss of a pet or something.

 

Death's about as natural as you can get. Cells can't replicate forever, they get screwed up as they do. Eventually, it's like making a photocopy of a flawed photocopy- it's gonna be beyond saving at some point or another.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Dr. Paine

[High Lord November]

I'm just going to jump right in here, and then jump right back out.

 

I was having a debat on abortion quite a while ago, but I just realized something; one of the main reasons we had trouble understanding each other's argument was because we were valuing two fairly different things as the same. Namely, I was valuing the personality more while she valued the physical flesh more.

 

I couldn't care less if there was a lump of randomly growing human flesh on the ground and someone killed it. I think that human personality and actions should be placed much higher on the scale than that (using that logic, I could consider the death of an animal (or an alien) with certain qualities (such as intelligence, emotions, etc.) murder, while I wouldn't consider killing an ant murder. Please note that this doesn't mean that I don't consider the slaughter of less intelligent animals murder - just that it's not quite on the same scale as 'human murder'). I hope I conveyed that correctly (so take the meaning of it, please, and not exactly what I wrote down word for word).

 

Basically, that's why I think abortion is perfectly fine. Looking at potential isn't something I do, because (as someone stated earlier before) it could go either way. The foetus, while still human flesh and blood, is all I consider it - the same as the aforementioned lump of flesh. Until it can survive on its own, grow on its own, learn, have feelings, wants, be exceedingly happy and hopelessly crushed (and whatnot) I don't consider it a true human.

 

OK. Adios, Abortion thread.

Edited December 1, 2011 by High Lord November