The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[katie_tully]

Actually, this potato gem looks a bit like a blastocyst

Nom nom nom.

 

[ogmzergrush]

It is disgusting that you don't consider these little guys as entities with their own rights.
http://www.sarahwray.com/USERIMAGES/blastocyst.jpg

It's a boy!

 

[katie_tully]

It's a boy!

With acne I noticed...!

 

[BradCube]

I imagine it would be a lot more painful than being sucked out of a uterus. To be sucked out the fetus needs to be 12 weeks or less. Prove to me a 12 week old fetus can feel pain.

Thought I would quickly weigh in with some opinions we were discussing way back in this thread. (At least over a year ago).

Firstly the pain argument doesn't have much ground for 2 reasons. If the only reason for not killing a living organism is that it feels pain, then:

1. We should not be killing animals
2. Injecting anesthetic before death is a perfectly justifiable way to kill anyone for whatever reason.

The other prevalent argument that we looked at was whether the fetus was human or not. We gathered that about 4 days after conception, the result could be regarded as living and it could be regarded as human life.

This presented us with a new question. If it is regarded as life, what differentiates this organism from the humans we deal with everyday. Some opinions raised included concisenesses, human form, human functions and ability to survive. Most of these reasons turned out to be misleading also since many naturally born babies don't exhibit these characteristics:

- We know that babies have no concisenesses when first born.
- We know that not all babies are born in what we regard to be normal human form (ie may have a 6th toe).
- Not all babies are born with all human functions (they are disabled).
- Babies are not able to survive on their own even after being born (they need to be feed, cared for etc)

Since we do not find it morally permissible to kill babies for the above reasons, there is no reason to think that these characteristic give us moral permissibility to kill the life when in the womb.

I would ask then what other reasons do we pose that justify us ending this life in the womb that are not also applicable to fully grown humans?

 

[katie_tully]

Thought I would quickly weigh in with some opinions we were discussing way back in this thread. (At least over a year ago).

Firstly the pain argument doesn't have much ground for 2 reasons. If the only reason for not killing a living organism is that it feels pain, then:

1. We should not be killing animals
2. Injecting anesthetic before death is a perfectly justifiable way to kill anyone for whatever reason.

The other prevalent argument that we looked at was whether the fetus was human or not. We gathered that about 4 days after conception, the result could be regarded as living and it could be regarded as human life.

This presented us with a new question. If it is regarded as life, what differentiates this organism from the humans we deal with everyday. Some opinions raised included concisenesses, human form, human functions and ability to survive. Most of these reasons turned out to be misleading also since many naturally born babies don't exhibit these characteristics:

- We know that babies have no concisenesses when first born.
- We know that not all babies are born in what we regard to be normal human form (ie may have a 6th toe).
- Not all babies are born with all human functions (they are disabled).
- Babies are not able to survive on their own even after being born (they need to be feed, cared for etc)

Since we do not find it morally permissible to kill babies for the above reasons, there is no reason to think that these characteristic give us moral permissibility to kill the life when in the womb.

I would ask then what other reasons do we pose that justify us ending this life in the womb that are not also applicable to fully grown humans?

This debate comes down to what we consider a human life. There is no disputing that a fetus inside a human is human. What else would it be? It's certainly not a cat.
I don't believe that <12 week old 'fetus' consitutes as a life. And even if one does consider it a life, I don't believe that a 12 week old fetus has more rights than that of the mother.
Certainly after 12 weeks this area becomes shady, and once you approach > 18 weeks we're dealing with fetus's which have, in the past through premature birth survived.

I think that it's an irresponsible argument to compare a living baby (who may or may not be disabled) with an aborted fetus which may or may not have had a disability. When you start using terms such as baby and child it makes it harder for people to view this topic subjectively.

I'm glad you've brought it up though. I'm doing an essay on ethics in genetic testing. One of the issues I have come across is whether testing for genetic disorders such as Down Syndrome or cystic fibrosis is insinuating that those currently living with the disease are lesser beings or have a diminished quality of life.

 

[Enteebee]

I would ask then what other reasons do we pose that justify us ending this life in the womb that are not also applicable to fully grown humans?

I actually think you've got the argument the wrong way around kinda... to me it's quite easy to justify killing a fully grown human abortion style and there's an essay that fairly thoroughly proves it.

i.e. if you wake up tied next to someone and they need to be attached to you to live and doing so causing you significant physical/mental strain, you don't have a responsibility to allow them to stay attached to you.

The bit that makes abortion more iffy is that it's NOT a fully grown person living in you, it's a life that you've created and is a burden on you only by your own volition.

 

[katie_tully]

It's just a very basic argument when you try and compare a being which is capable of sustaining life by itself, with that of a parasite which relies on the well being of the vessel to sustain life.

If a 12 week old fetus could sustain life outside of the mother I don't think I'd be having this argument. I don't agree with late term abortion purely because I've seen a 23 week fetus be born prematurely and live. Once it gets to 18 weeks is when I start having issues. That said, it's not usually until then that some genetic disorders can be tested for and I whole heartedly agree with a parents rights to abort a fetus with a clear disability.

 

[Enteebee]

You didn't even get the point of what I was saying, it might be the fault of my language. My point is that it's easy to justify killing a grown human being in a situation such as:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

and the easiest objections to this are mainly those that point out how different pregnancy is to the former scenario.

Now I'll go through some of your more erroneous arguments here...

The baby's life has only just begun, the mother has already enjoyed living for 13 - 50 years, probably an average of about 25.

So we should harvest organs from the living elderly to save the lives of the young?

Naturally, there is no such thing as abortions.

Naturally there are no laws stopping someone from killing their kid either... arguments from what is 'natural' are incredibly dense. I'm not sure if you'd be able to prove people didn't abort their children in the long gone past anyway, perhaps they waited until they were born, but viscious child murder was pretty common amongst early human society.

It is more important for the species for new offspring to survive than for older people that have already reproduced.

So now the goal of human civilisation is dictated by the goal of our genes? This isn't even certain, I mean tbh it's possible overpopulation means it's more important for LESS young people to be born.

So they offspring should if anything, have more of a right to continue living than the mother.

lol

Abortion is really just an abuse of power. The baby is still a life, but it can't assert it's right to life, so as a matter of pragmatism we simply allow it to be killed for the convenience of the mother.

It's a life dependent on the mother, the mother doesn't take away its right to life anymore than the person in the violinist does to the violinist - The real issues come about as I said, because the woman can be said in many circumstances to have 'invited' to risk of having a child.

However, if no such risk exist, then we are simply terminating a life to aleviate someone of an inconvenience.

If you can't prove that person has a justified responsiblity then I don't see the problem with allowing a life to end that would have inconvenienced another? I mean... We could force doctors to work 24/7, why should they get the convenience of holidays? maybe if they worked more less people would die.

As for "it's a life that you've created and is a burden on you only by your own volition." I agree, however there are so many precautions you can take to avoid assuming this responsibility, once you accept it by getting pregnant, surely you have a duty to the life you have created.

There's a burgular analogy that somewhat attempts to deal with this too... Are you liable for your own loss of goods if you live in a crime ridden neighbourhood and don't take the adequate steps to protect yourself? i.e. extra locks etc.

 

[Zrap]

Rofl had a massive debate about this in economics.
This guy believed in non-abortion dramatically.
He thinks even if you have been raped and fall pregnant you should still have
the baby, but then give it away for adoption.

 

[Enteebee]

I would let the violinist die.

In which case you can follow the logic of what I'm saying now, amirite?

 

[bshoc]

I imagine it would be a lot more painful than being sucked out of a uterus. To be sucked out the fetus needs to be 12 weeks or less. Prove to me a 12 week old fetus can feel pain.

Pain is in itself almost irrelevant, its the taking of life.

 

[bshoc]

protoplasm is not an individual. Otherwise you would be arguing for rights for stem cells.

We're all a clump of cells genius, I'm arguing for the rights of all unique human beings, regardless of whether they have existed for 12 weeks or 12 years.

 

[katie_tully]

Pain is in itself almost irrelevant, its the taking of life.

No it's not!
It's not alive. It's not breathing unaided, it's not performing basic bodily functions unaided - it's not alive, therefore there is no life taken.

Jesus.

 

[katie_tully]

We're all a clump of cells genius, I'm arguing for the rights of all unique human beings, regardless of whether they have existed for 12 weeks or 12 years.

A clump of cells that have gone through differentiation so that they perform things like, oh I don't know breathing, heart beating, metabolism, digestion...all that which is required for life. The same stuff clumps of cells dont do.

 

[BradCube]

This debate comes down to what we consider a human life. There is no disputing that a fetus inside a human is human. What else would it be? It's certainly not a cat.
I don't believe that <12 week old 'fetus' consitutes as a life. And even if one does consider it a life, I don't believe that a 12 week old fetus has more rights than that of the mother.

So we have two issues here.
1 What you do regard as a life and why?
2. How much right does another living human being have? (I would claim that it has equal rights with any other human being)

I think that it's an irresponsible argument to compare a living baby (who may or may not be disabled) with an aborted fetus which may or may not have had a disability. When you start using terms such as baby and child it makes it harder for people to view this topic subjectively.

I'll assume you mean objectively here rather than subjectively. What would you prefer a baby or child be referred to then? If simply calling them what they are makes it harder to view the subject objectively then I would suggest the issue lies with you.

Also, not meaning to be rude here, but you seem to be quite hypocritical in this regard. Just a short while ago you were linking images of forming cells in order to reduce any emotional attachment due to lack of developed human form.

I'm glad you've brought it up though. I'm doing an essay on ethics in genetic testing. One of the issues I have come across is whether testing for genetic disorders such as Down Syndrome or cystic fibrosis is insinuating that those currently living with the disease are lesser beings or have a diminished quality of life.

Sound like an interesting essay. What do you hope to show?

 

[ogmzergrush]

Yeah except your argument falls flat because one of those bundles of cells is attached to and living off another human being.

ITS STILL A HUMAN BEING! I KNOW IM RIGHT IN MY HEARTT! I FEEL FOR IT BECAUSE IT CANT DO IT FOR ITSELF!

 

[Enteebee]

So we have two issues here.
1 What you do regard as a life and why?
2. How much right does another living human being have? (I would claim that it has equal rights with any other human being)

Any organism is life imo.
It does have equal rights with other human beings.

A human being doesn't have a right to burden another human being with their life, i.e. If I needed an extremely rare type of blood transfusion to survive and only you have the blood, you wake up and we're attached together in a hospital and basically it'll be 6 months until it's over, you have more than a right imo to unplug yourself and leave me to die.

 

[Enteebee]

We're all a clump of cells genius, I'm arguing for the rights of all unique human beings, regardless of whether they have existed for 12 weeks or 12 years.

But it is right to let another person die sometimes, right?

 

[katie_tully]

The pro-lifers argue that it is the fetus' potential to become a fully functional human being that makes abortion wrong. So are condoms wrong? Just how far do we trace back this chain of causation. Are people effectively committing murder by not having enough sex in the first place?

Yeah.
Nice try.
We use that argument against Catholics actually, so it doesn't work on us.

 

[Enteebee]

The pro-lifers argue that it is the fetus' potential to become a fully functional human being that makes abortion wrong. So are condoms wrong? Just how far do we trace back this chain of causation. Are people effectively committing murder by not having enough sex in the first place?

Meh they'd come up with a wordy way to explain that it's different once the egg has been fetilized and I'd probably agree.