Abortion

[Shienvien]

But the thing is, it's still bad to make the baby suffer for existing.

Before the 22-24th week, a fetus wouldn't be able to register pain. It would be months before it has enough consciousness to process that feeling of pain, and by then it has long been born. Hence, until the third trimester of pregnancy, you have something that doesn't have the capacity to feel pain, and even after that the fetus has only reflex-reactions to it. It is simply not advanced enough to suffer.

 

A fetus is human all right - it has the DNA. It, however, is not an individual, since it cannot exist or act separately, and it is not a person, simply because it lacks the complex structures that allow one to be a person. And I personally believe that the rights of a person should always trump the rights of a non-person, and that potential doesn't equal actuality. Only a person can be murdered, a non-person cannot be, hence abortion is not murder.

 

Leaving possible future scenarios aside: it cannot suffer, and it isn't a person.

 

 

There are too many persons in this world who are constantly suffering already. Too many suffering people for society to be able to do much about them without collapsing altogether. By forcing women to go through pregnancy, you are creating more people who suffer - broken women (2/5ths of women who commit suicide do so while pregnant; the mental health of many who opt to live will be permanently damaged), broken children (a third of the children given up for adoption in the US don't even live to see their eighteenth birthday - most common cause of death is suicide; foster homes have very high abuse rates). The statistics are heavily against you when it comes to "it might lead a good life".

Abortion doesn't end a person - it prevents one from developing into existence. I do not think it is right to set a fetus ahead of the people who already walk on earth. If you want to do something good, help those who are already feeling, thinking individuals lead better lives instead of advocating creating more broken people.

[sparkle10184]

Nobody forces somebody to have a child or to not have a child, but we do disagree with killing a child in order to not have it. It's a choice, true... but that isn't the issue. It really is about ethics.

 

Actually, some people do. There are people in the world who stand outside hospitals and try to force women not to get an abortion. I'm not saying you do this, I'm saying it happens.

[Rosedamai]

Actually, some people do. There are people in the world who stand outside hospitals and try to force women not to get an abortion. I'm not saying you do this, I'm saying it happens.

Also, there are apparently "fake" abortion clinics that shame women who go in them.

 

here and here

[Gsea]

Before the 22-24th week, a fetus wouldn't be able to register pain. It would be months before it has enough consciousness to process that feeling of pain, and by then it has long been born. Hence, until the third trimester of pregnancy, you have something that doesn't have the capacity to feel pain, and even after that the fetus has only reflex-reactions to it. It is simply not advanced enough to suffer.

Thank you, now I know what to say in response to a friend of mine who believes that abortion is wrong at some point because "the baby moves away from the needle" at week 20-something.

 

Side note: This is also my friend who doesn't believe in evolution because, as she says,"if evolution were real, wouldn't we still be evolving?"

._.

 

Actually, some people do. There are people in the world who stand outside hospitals and try to force women not to get an abortion. I'm not saying you do this, I'm saying it happens.

 

Yep, I watched a video of a woman recalling her attempts to get a morning-after pill, and a police officer had to escort her into the clinic because there were so many protestors trying to stop her from going inside.

Edited July 4, 2013 by glamoursea2

[Emeelia]

Also, there are apparently "fake" abortion clinics that shame women who go in them.

 

here and here

This... this here is disgusting. Their intentions are sound... but their methods are deceptive, and contrary to Machiavelli, "the ends" do NOT "justify the means".

 

 

Side note: This is also my friend who doesn't believe in evolution because, as she says,"if evolution were real, wouldn't we still be evolving?"

._.

That is an uninformed and poor argument against evolution. But there are tons of uninformed people, both for and against various things, and there ARE good arguments against evolution. I suggest for your friend to look up the evidence against evolution for at least half an hour and then decide whether it's false or true based on what she researches. (I say 'against' because I like to test theories by whether they stand up to examination).

 

Actually, some people do. There are people in the world who stand outside hospitals and try to force women not to get an abortion. I'm not saying you do this, I'm saying it happens.

Yeah... I'm not surprised, but it still makes me want to facepalm and take out a soap box that I don't own.

 

Abortion doesn't end a person - it prevents one from developing into existence. I do not think it is right to set a fetus ahead of the people who already walk on earth. If you want to do something good, help those who are already feeling, thinking individuals lead better lives instead of advocating creating more broken people.

Actually, I happen to be going into the line of work that you think is better. But I still disagree, and I think that those fighting against abortion are doing good. It doesn't mean that I agree with people acting uncivilly; I mean the honest ones, just as I'm sure that whenever you guys are talking about pro-abortionists, you're probably not talking about people who shame your cause.

 

And I personally believe that the rights of a person should always trump the rights of a non-person, and that potential doesn't equal actuality.

http://www.ted.com/conversations/14237/is_...s_a_person.html Indeed, the argument of whether or not a fetus is a person is the pivotal factor.

About potentiality, here is just a riddle that people have exchanged; it's fairly common, perhaps you've heard of it. Two people are drowning: a young child and his/her father. You may only save one; the other drowns. Which do you save? The one who has his/her whole life ahead? Or the father, who is a benefit to society in the here and now, who may even be your good friend? Many choose the child for its potentiality.

I see the potentiality of the fetus no differently, except that riddles are not real life. Realistically, we don't have equal chance of saving either if something goes wrong; the woman generally has a better chance at survival than the fetus after being saved. And after the life is saved... it should continue being rescued. I have never had to make a choice like that myself; I can honestly say that I don't know which I would do. But even with what I don't know, what I do know, is that even with a whole lot wrong with the world, two wrongs do not make a right, as my God has taught me.

 

Preventing it's life from beginning is not making it suffer for existing--it is preventing it from ever knowing what it is to suffer or even exist.

And here is where my beliefs differ from yours; you think this is a good thing, but I am absolutely certain that it isn't, as I've indirectly addressed in a previous post.

 

And to those who'll answer "I'm not forcing anyone to do anything"..... Oh but you are. Just look at the anti-abortion laws being shoved around in the US right now, and yes, anti-abortion activists *are* forcing their own beliefs on others.

True, we are enforcing our beliefs, but because we believe that abortion is murder; there are so many trying to stop it because we believe that murder is evil, hence why there are traditional laws about theft and murder and crimes such as that.

 

You push those woman to bring that baby into this world, so you must be willing to pay for all those hospital bills and medications and *childcare* and things that the woman CANNOT AFFORD, right? ...... Right? Because that's what you want.

Actually... I am.

 

So why are we going to elevate ITS life, that people don't know what it's like, even what gender it is at times, over a woman who has lived her life, has people that love her, and is still growing in her walk of life? So what if both can/will die in the process?

The same reason that I love total strangers, that I love those doing despicable things, that I love the baby in the carriage who has only begun to see the world and has not yet made a life of its own, is why I elevate its life. I don't elevate overtop the woman, but to be the same, because both are persons, and all people are equally important and loved in the eyes of God. That is why you and I disagree.

[KageSora]

About potentiality, here is just a riddle that people have exchanged; it's fairly common, perhaps you've heard of it. Two people are drowning: a young child and his/her father. You may only save one; the other drowns. Which do you save? The one who has his/her whole life ahead? Or the father, who is a benefit to society in the here and now, who may even be your good friend? Many choose the child for its potentiality.

The difference is, though, in that situation the child already exists on it's own.

 

A more accurate comparison would be if I could save the father or a container holding the cells that could become a child. I'd pick the father every time.

[WereJace]

I don't believe the fetus and the person carrying it can be equal-the counterpoint to the drowning man and the drowning child is this: a cooler full of implantable embryos and an infant, trapped in a burning building. Which do you save? What makes that the correct choice? Most would save the infant, rather than the embryos, because the infant is clearly and definitively alive. Spiritually the two may be similar-i don't know, gods and mysticism aren't a real thing to me-but practically speaking, a line has to be drawn. We're never going to stop debating where thy line should be drawn either. The hypotheticals are ultimately meaningless in the face of the unfortunate reality of the situation.

 

As i said before, people will seek out abortions, regardless of their legality, for a variety of reasons. They should be treated with dignity and compassion, and their well being should not be threatened because of their choice. As a society, we should be working together to help educate and support those who may become pregnant so they can make the best possible voice for themselves and their family. Pregnancy and childbirth should not be viewed as 'punishments' or 'consequences' as though sexually active people are naughty children who need a good scolding. Reduce unwanted pregnancies through education and birth control availability, raise the minimum wage and welfare benefits to single parents and stop passing harmful legislation intended to punish pregnant people indiscriminately and abortion rates will drop.

[Shienvien]

Two people are drowning: a young child and his/her father. You may only save one; the other drowns. Which do you save? The one who has his/her whole life ahead? Or the father, who is a benefit to society in the here and now, who may even be your good friend? Many choose the child for its potentiality.

This example you give deals with two individuals who both are already persons, hence for me it is completely different scenario. For me, the determining factor for abortion is whether one is a person, and not what one would or would not accomplish in life. Person, and nothing else, is the key word here.

(If we are dealing with choice between two persons, I use different aspects to determine my standing.)

 

Here is another one up for pondering:

You are in a burning building. In the room to your right, there is a toddler in a crib. In the room to your left, there is a petri dish with three fertilized zygotes which were meant to be implanted in a woman the next day (fact). You do not have enough time to save both, but you can dart into either room, grab one, and still manage to run out before the building collapses. Do you save the petri dish (three potential persons) or the toddler (one person)?

(Edit: Apparently, three people ended up posting a very similar task at the same time...)

 

- - -

 

FYI, in case of pregnancy, the fetus is not entirely free of influence of the mother's hormones. If the mother spends the whole pregnancy being stressed, miserable, eating unhealthily and wishing that the thing in her body would be gone, then it often does cause slighter or more severe development issues for the fetus. Because of this alone, the children that were born entirely unwanted have worse chances of succeeding in live - and the experiences after birth are likely to add to it.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Shienvien

[WereJace]

This example you give deals with two individuals who both are already persons, hence for me it is completely different scenario. For me, the determining factor for abortion is whether one is a person, and not what one would or would not accomplish in life. Person, and nothing else, is the key word here.

(If we are dealing with choice between two persons, I use different aspects to determine my standing.)

 

Here is another one up for pondering:

You are in a burning building. In the room to your right, there is a toddler in a crib. In the room to your left, there is a petri dish with three fertilized zygotes which were meant to be implanted in a woman the next day (fact). You do not have enough time to save both, but you can dart into either room, grab one, and still manage to run out before the building collapses. Do you save the petri dish (three potential persons) or the toddler (one person)?

(Edit: Apparently, three people ended up posting a very similar task at the same time...)

 

- - -

 

FYI, in case of pregnancy, the fetus is not entirely free of influence of the mother's hormones. If the mother spends the whole pregnancy being stressed, miserable, eating unhealthily and wishing that the thing in her body would be gone, then it often does cause slighter or more severe development issues for the fetus. Because of this alone, the children that were born entirely unwanted have worse chances of succeeding in live - and the experiences after birth are likely to add to it.

Great minds think alike? Or something like that?

[sparkle10184]

About potentiality, here is just a riddle that people have exchanged; it's fairly common, perhaps you've heard of it. Two people are drowning: a young child and his/her father. You may only save one; the other drowns. Which do you save? The one who has his/her whole life ahead? Or the father, who is a benefit to society in the here and now, who may even be your good friend? Many choose the child for its potentiality.

But that child has already begun their life. They already have memories, relationships, knowledge, and many other things. A clump of cells does not know life. There is a huge difference between a clump of cells with no life or knowledge, and a living, breathing child with memories and a thought process.

[Emeelia]

The difference is, though, in that situation the child already exists on it's own.

 

A more accurate comparison would be if I could save the father or a container holding the cells that could become a child.  I'd pick the father every time.

There is a problem with both comparisons; in mine, the child is older, which brings the question of 'is the fetus a person?' into the picture, and in yours, the child is barely past being a zygote, in which even the human body might naturally perform a miscarriage without the woman even knowing anything except a stronger period, so there is hardly any emotional attachment for most people in this case, at least, not enough to override concern for the father.

 

As i said before, people will seek out abortions, regardless of their legality, for a variety of reasons. They should be treated with dignity and compassion, and their well being should not be threatened because of their choice. As a society, we should be working together to help educate and support those who may become pregnant so they can make the best possible voice for themselves and their family. Pregnancy and childbirth should not be viewed as 'punishments' or 'consequences' as though sexually active people are naughty children who need a good scolding. Reduce unwanted pregnancies through education and birth control availability, raise the minimum wage and welfare benefits to single parents and stop passing harmful legislation intended to punish pregnant people indiscriminately and abortion rates will drop.

I agree with this.

 

This example you give deals with two individuals who both are already persons, hence for me it is completely different scenario.

Yup.

 

a clump of cells with no life or knowledge,

I disagree with this. The fetus as soon as 20 weeks is alive, and it does retain knowledge.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Emeelia

[WereJace]

There is a problem with both comparisons; in mine, the child is older, which brings the question of 'is the fetus a person?' into the picture, and in yours, the child is barely past being a zygote, in which even the human body might naturally perform a miscarriage without the woman even knowing anything except a stronger period, so there is hardly any emotional attachment for most people in this case, at least, not enough to override concern for the father.

If a fetus is equal to a person, however, emotional attachment doesn't matter. Letting the embryos die is letting multiple people die, versus letting one person die.

[VictorianVivian]

I would like to see some academic, peer-reviewed sources that confirm that the fetus retains knowledge at this age. Even then, my views would not change. I simply want to see the sources.

[Dr. Paine]

I would like to see some academic, peer-reviewed sources that confirm that the fetus retains knowledge at this age. Even then, my views would not change. I simply want to see the sources.

Yeah, I'm going to have to ask for this too. I have never, never seen anything suggesting this. The closest I've seen are people who claim to have memories from when they're a few days old, but that's still after they've been out of the womb for /days/.

[Emeelia]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/...=8083181&page=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17068673

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....recall-in-utero

Fetuses retain memory at 30 weeks of age; this was what I was referring to.

http://www.babycenter.com/404_is-it-true-t...-at_10323727.bc

And also that they recognize voices from the womb.

 

If a fetus is equal to a person, however, emotional attachment doesn't matter. Letting the embryos die is letting multiple people die, versus letting one person die.

I don't even know if an embryo is a person, which is why I mentioned natural miscarriage. I only mentioned the emotional attachment to explain most people's decision, as explained in context. But I am certain that a fetus is a person.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Emeelia

[Shienvien]

I disagree with this. The fetus as soon as 20 weeks is alive, and it does retain knowledge.

Alive: Yes.

Feels pain: Not yet, not before 22-24th week. Other sensory systems are likewise too underdeveloped to function properly.

Does retain knowledge: No. The brain is not developed enough to store information within itself atop of there being nothing that could acquire the said information (see lacking sensory system above). Proper retainment of knowledge starts after birth and only reaches levels beyond instinctual recognition-recording months after birth.

 

Also, reflex =/= consciousness.

 

 

(Edit: the stage of development between 20 and 30 weeks is obviously different. Over two months, after all. The vast majority of abortions are early ones. So long before even 20th week.)

Edited July 4, 2013 by Shienvien

[Snowytoshi]

I don't elevate overtop the woman, but to be the same, because both are persons, and all people are equally important and loved in the eyes of God. That is why you and I disagree.

 

But you are saying that a fetus is more then a woman. You do so by saying that even if an unwanted pregnacy could cause a woman (or girl) to fall behind in school, become depressed, etc. she should accept that fate because there is a clump of cells that you think should be born.

 

Do you consider that every month for fourty or so years eggs die? Eggs that could become people, they just haven't reached that stage yet. We don't weep for the murdered eggs whenever we have our periods, fetuses are the same, just slightly more evolved, but still not people.

 

Or think of it like this:

 

If allowing somebody to stay in your house for almost a year would cause depression, pain, and could destroy your future would you let them stay in your house? Would you let them eat your food even if you couldn't afford food for yourself?

 

That is what pregnancy is when it is unwanted.

 

 

[Emeelia]

If allowing somebody to stay in your house for almost a year would cause depression, pain, and could destroy your future would you let them stay in your house? Would you let them eat your food even if you couldn't afford food for yourself?

If the alternate was murdering them or letting them die, I would.

 

But you are saying that a fetus is more then a woman. You do so by saying that even if an unwanted pregnacy could cause a woman (or girl) to fall behind in school, become depressed, etc. she should accept that fate because there is a clump of cells that you think should be born.

No; I say that because there is a life I don't want murdered.

 

The vast majority of abortions are early ones. So long before even 20th week.

Then at the moment, I am not arguing for this. I am not knowledgeable enough to argue for anything before fetal pain.

 

Feels pain: Not yet, not before 22-24th week. Other sensory systems are likewise too underdeveloped to function properly.

I disagree. http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/

Edited July 4, 2013 by Emeelia

[ebony ink]

So this is what I - genuinely - don't understand.

 

In my eyes abortion kills potential - a foetus has the potential to be grown human being (who might turn out to be the next Mother Teresa or the next Hitler). A foetus isn't yet a person. As such logic leads us to all form of birth control also kill potential of a human being, being born.

 

What's the difference between the two? How is one murder and the other acceptable?

 

I understand people some people view a foetus as a person - what are you basing that on?

 

Disclaimer: I'm believe with absolute certainty that it should be the choice of a person carrying the foetus. (Their partner may also have an input). I'm also agnostic - so any theological argument will probably be wasted - but I am genuinely curious.

[Shienvien]

I disagree. http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/

Firsthand, I do not trust this site, but let's put this aside for the time being and just address some of the points there. (Biased selection of information, emotional approach, also - that image on the side is definitely a lot older than 20 weeks.)

 

The existence of receptors does not automatically prove that pain is being felt. A receptor is something that just transmits a signal upon being disturbed in a certain way. Without there being something to analyze the signal, the signal goes unregistered.

As I said, the brain is not sufficiently developed at that time for it to be able to consciously analyze the signal and turn the signal into something that is "felt". Before the brain catches up, the pain receptors are just like computer monitors which have been plugged into electricity outlets, but haven't been connected to a computer.

Reaction or reflex =/= being aware. Even one-cell organisms will effectively react to irritation, but they aren't self-aware or conscious and they don't know they are being irritated. Same thing with fetuses.

[Emeelia]

So this is what I - genuinely - don't understand.

 

In my eyes abortion kills potential - a foetus has the potential to be grown human being (who might turn out to be the next Mother Teresa or the next Hitler). A foetus isn't yet a person. As such logic leads us to all form of birth control also kill potential of a human being, being born.

 

What's the difference between the two? How is one murder and the other acceptable?

 

I understand people some people view a foetus as a person - what are you basing that on?

 

Disclaimer: I'm believe with absolute certainty that it should be the choice of a person carrying the foetus. (Their partner may also have an input). I'm also agnostic - so any theological argument will probably be wasted - but I am genuinely curious.

Because the fetus isn't just the potential to grow up to be human. It really is human. This article, although not necessarily "scientific", has sound facts and reasoning. http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life000.html

 

also - that image on the side is definitely a lot older than 20 weeks

I wouldn't be so sure... I just did a quick google image search, and it's similar enough to convince me. All they did was close up on its face. But it's just a picture.

 

As I said, the brain is not sufficiently developed at that time for it to be able to consciously analyze the signal and turn the signal into something that is "felt". Before the brain catches up, the pain receptors are just like computer monitors which have been plugged into electricity outlets, but haven't been connected to a computer.

Reaction or reflex =/= being aware. Even one-cell organisms will effectively react to irritation, but they aren't self-aware or conscious and they don't know they are being irritated. Same thing with fetuses.

Except for the fact that it's not just the receptors. The thalamus and the spinal cord have already been connected at this time, and "From 16 weeks’ gestation pain transmission from a peripheral receptor to the cortex is possible and completely developed from 26 weeks’ gestation." Not only that, but there is tons more evidence, such as testing the fetus's stress level, and there have been experiments that concluded that prenatal pain affected the child negatively in the long-term. When fetuses are given anesthesia before being subjected to something considered painful, the stress is significantly less than without. In adults, it is not messing with the cortex so much as it is disturbing the thalamus that affects pain. Not only that, but structures for pain processing is different than for adults, and...

I am convinced. They cite their sources, they even have a section explaining their history, they are not behind by ten years, and it seems applicable to what is being asked today.

[ebony ink]

Because the fetus isn't just the potential to grow up to be human. It really is human. This article, although not necessarily "scientific", has sound facts and reasoning. http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life000.html

So I've read the article you linked but I'd disagree with the reasoning - which seems to be based on that an embryo is a stage in human development ei: embryo - baby - toddle -child.... - adult. Which, yes, is true and logical. But that doesn't lead to the embryo being a human being?

 

As in my understanding: the difference between the transition from embryo and toddler and toddler and adult are fundamental: both the embryo and the toddler have the potential to be an adult. However the embryo is a clump of human cells and a toddler is a human being (physically). And if an embryo is left in isolation it doesn't develop into a human being (which is what abortion is) while if a toddler* is left in isolation it will grow into an adult.

 

Which is why I view an embryo as a potential for a human being, rather than as a human being. Which is why I find abortion morally okay.

 

Am I misunderstanding the websites/your? reasoning? or is it just a fundamental disagreement?

 

*I don't know what the survival rates of toddlers on an isolated island is but I'm guessing they do survive.

 

(Sorry if my post is just justifying my view point - I realised that the number of pro-choicers on the thread tends to put pro-lifers into a defensive position which isn't that fair so I decided to address my own question to even things out.)

[Shienvien]

The thalamus and the spinal cord have already been connected at this time,

Neither of those participates in thinking-process - neither of those has anything to do with awareness or consciousness. Those do not make up a mind, those do not support sentience, those do not suffice to make up a person.

As I said, the receptors exist, the signal gets sent, but nothing that could properly analyze it is developed enough to do so. Thalamus is more or less just a bridge between the spinal chord and the brain - all it does is just sorting and forwarding the information coming from the spinal chord to the brain. You don't experience feeling with your thalamus.

 

A blade of grass reacts to being cut into two with immediately starting to produce stress-related chemicals just the same, but I doubt you'd claim that a blade of grass is a person. An amoeba will flee from a grain of salt, but I doubt that you will say that an amoeba is a person.

Reaction, reflex =/= awareness.

 

 

I disagree with the reasoning of the article, too.

[sparkle10184]

Even if studies show that the fetus is under stress does not mean it is actually feeling pain or processing this stress. It is like a plant: When you pull a weed out of the ground it is put under "stress". But this does not mean it has a brain that processes thoughts of stress and pain.

 

What about ticks? Or a mosquito? They experience an even higher level of knowledge, and yet most people kill them. I understand they are "pests" and you kill them to rid yourself of pain and misery. But that is what a teenage girl, under high stress, and incapable of safely having a baby is doing when she aborts.

[Zovesta]

Also, reflex =/= consciousness.

Addin' to that, can't a rattlesnake bite someone up to an hour after they die just because of some sort of reflex-y gizmo in them? *shrug*

 

No; I say that because there is a life I don't want murdered.

Eh. With all due respect, I agree with that. If abortion could be a thing that didn't have to exist, if women could choose to be pregnant or not with ease, if women didn't have any sort of pregnancy complication, etc, etc... I wouldn't want abortion. It feels like murder to me. But I'm still all for it because, as I've stated before, there really is no middle ground. Either we can let the child that the mother DIDN'T WANT be born, live under stressful circumstances, be abused, be put up for adoption, commit suicide, or so on, or let it not know this pain in the first place and not cause the mother unneeded an' stress herself. You may argue that this is bad because of your religion or just plain your own personal views, but what about people who commit suicide just because of the pain that they feel? Obviously they feel it's better to be dead than continue living miserably.

 

If we could live in a land of joy and freedom and happiness, we wouldn't have this kinda bull. But we do. And we need to make responsible choices.