Abortion Laws, Pro Life or Pro Chice?

If a zygote is human because it has human DNA and the cells are alive - then what about eggs and sperm, and in fact, any cells from the human body, which are all alive and all have human DNA?

 

I'm personally pro-choice. I just don't believe the government should be in the business of regulating morality. I don't agree with abortion but I have a problem with the government stepping into this issue.

 

Rebecca - good point. If that were so, by JediFlyer's criteria, whacking off would be murder. And I doubt many males would therefore concede sperm = foetus for the purposes of this discussion.

However, if they do, the male population of the world is ******.

E_S

 

Yeah the men wouldn't be too happy with that.

And the women would be guilty too. They'd be responsible for a murder every month they didn't get pregnant!!

 

Do you think that's a flaw in their arguement then, or are we all just evil murderers?

E_S

 

This thread is getting a bit large, and I'm thinking it's a good time to open a new version of this, since the debate looks to be starting over.

Any objections?

 

I have no objections to a new thread.

 

I would like to see this topic euthanised permanantly.

 

If you open a new one I won't feel bad that I haven't read the previous 75 pages and be reluctant to join in. I'm all for it.

 

I would like to see this topic euthanised permanantly.

LOL. Sadly I doubt that will ever happen. Even if a new one isn't started immediatley, one will pop up again eventually.

 

Rebecca and Ender_Sai, are you trying to tell me that you cannot tell the difference between a blade of grass and an embryo because both are just a ball of cells.

GIVE ME A BREAK!

I would hope that even you two would use some kind of logic in your argument. But instead, all you do is compare two very unlike things, stating that their one similarity makes them the same.

Anyway, a sperm and an unfertilized egg are different from an embryo or a blade of grass for a couple of reasons:

1) They are of the same genetic code as you. They are pieces of you. You can survive without them. The same is not true of an embryo. It is not a piece of you. It has a different genetic code. If the embryo dies. The person the embryo is dies also.

2) Sperm cannot grow into a full-fledged human. Embryos do.

3)Grass is a plant, embryos are animals. Embryos are a specific kind of animal: a human, albiet really small.

And would you please knock it off with the accusations that my arguments are based on emotion. If anything it is quite the opposite. I explain my position by first stating my beliefs and then backing it up with logic. I do not rest my arguments on emotion. I daresay, if I rested my arguments on emotion, my position would be yours. After all, an embryo LOOKS like a ball of cells, or a blade of grass. An embryo is a PARASITE. The mother is held HOSTAGE. Men should not interfere in the affairs of WOMEN. You can't IMPOSE RELIGION on us. CRUSADERS. Examples go on and on.

Believing an embryo is human requires intelligence and an understanding of what it means to be human

Believing an embryo is not human requires only your eyes and a dose of superiority.

 

Rebecca and Ender_Sai, are you trying to tell me that you cannot tell the difference between a blade of grass and an embryo because both are just a ball of cells.

You're right. There is a difference. A couple of days after conception, I'd guess a blade of grass still has a much more complex cellular structure.

I would hope that even you two would use some kind of logic in your argument. But instead, all you do is compare two very unlike things, stating that their one similarity makes them the same.

Well, the comparison between a blade of grass and a bundle of cells is much more logical than calling said bundle of cells a 'human.' I mean, if you put your finger inside your mouth and scrape it along the inside of your cheek, the amount of cells you have on your finger exceeds the amount of cells in a newly-conceived embryo. How you can call a tiny clump of pitiful cells a 'life' worth more rights than the mother baffles me.

1) They are of the same genetic code as you. They are pieces of you. You can survive without them. The same is not true of an embryo. It is not a piece of you. It has a different genetic code. If the embryo dies. The person the embryo is dies also.

Well, it's highly debatable whether an embryo is a "person." It's like calling a brick a building. An embryo is pieces of two people, and we can survive with out them. What's the big deal?

2) Sperm cannot grow into a full-fledged human. Embryos do.

Barring miscarriage (more common than one would imagine - we just don't notice most of the time, as it can occur very early). And there's a philosophical and physical difference between "potential" and "being." One man and one woman together have the "potential" to spawn a million (barring any problems from incest). That doesn't make their deaths, necessarily, the death of a million.

3)Grass is a plant, embryos are animals. Embryos are a specific kind of animal: a human, albiet really small.

So, you think that a snail's foetus is just as important as a baby's foetus? Both are "animals," and both have the potential to be fully-fledged "animals." You can't state that embryo's are any kind of human as a truism. That is an opinion.

Remember, there is a difference between potential and being. Just because the feotus can BECOME a full human being, doesn't mean they ARE a human being.

And would you please knock it off with the accusations that my arguments are based on emotion

Come on, calling a clump of cells a "human" doesn't exactly reek of objectivity, does it? Your argument is based on morals, which are an emotional thing (unless you happen to believe in the underlying, intrinsic morals of all human beings, in which case you're clueless).

If anything it is quite the opposite. I explain my position by first stating my beliefs and then backing it up with logic.

Ok, I hate to break it to you, bucko, but it isn't logic to say that a bunch of cells are a human being. That is a belief, an opinion. You are backing up belief and opinion with belief and opinion.

After all, an embryo LOOKS like a ball of cells, or a blade of grass. An embryo is a PARASITE. The mother is held HOSTAGE. Men should not interfere in the affairs of WOMEN. You can't IMPOSE RELIGION on us. CRUSADERS. Examples go on and on.

Um, that exaggeration is not based on emotion. In all fact, an embryo DOES look like any clump of cells. This is not emotion. A child is a parasite; it isn't the kindest of words, but it describes accurately the mother/embryo relationship. This is not emotion. The mother is not exactly held hostage, but I haven't heard that said, yet. I don't think we said that men should not interfere in the affairs of women - I think it has been stated that women generally know women's affairs better. That isn't emotion, that's common sense. I haven't heard the word crusaders yet mentioned.

Believing an embryo is human requires intelligence and an understanding of what it means to be human

Ok. To me, this is what makes a hum

 

It is a woman's right not to be forced into dangerous backstreet abortions.

How, exactly, would she be forced to?

 

How, exactly, would she be forced to?

If abortions aren't legally allowed, where the hell else is she supposed to go?

You can't seriously suggest that women would see that backstreet abortions were dangerous and suddenly change their mind about having their children? I mean, some of these women are absolutely desperate. You should see some of the estimates of the numbers of women who had backstreet abortions prior to Roe v. Wade.

Force, to me, equals coercion. Perhaps she isn't physically forced into that kind of situation, but mentally and emotionally a huge number are. The remainder are mentally and emotionally forced into having a child that they don't want.

- Scarlet.

 

Force, to me, equals coercion.

That's all I wanted to know.

 

Perhaps she isn't physically forced into that kind of situation, but mentally and emotionally a huge number are. The remainder are mentally and emotionally forced into having a child that they don't want.

I don't think it right to "force" her to do anything.
As you may have guessed, I generally don't agree with abortion, but I also don't agree with taking away the woman's right to choose.

 

Keeping hundreds of women from dying (and their babies too, if you believe that) from horrendous and unsterelised backstreet operations is not reason enough?

Reason enough for legalized murder? No. That's why the debate should be whether the fetus is a human life and whether abortion is murder, instead of about whether women will do anyway or whether the child will be too hideously deformed or anything else that's been thrown into the argument.


I meant deciding for someone else that they shouldn't live because of their pain.

That isn't the question. The baby's pain isn't in question. It can't even feel pain.

I think you misunderstood my argument. I was saying that just because a child might have a painful life (born with a disease or deformity), that isn't reason enough to justify terminating it.


Because a lot of the pro-lifers beliefs (and the Republican's, who would be enacting anti-abortion laws), stem from Christianity. That's forcing your sense of Christian morality on the rest of us.

And if pro-lifers' beliefs on murder, theft, and rape also stem from Christianity, would outlawing those actions also be forcing a sense of Christian morality on everyone else?


The most extreme of them are. That's undeniable. The ones that blow up surgeries and harm doctors that are just doing their job - the majority of them are religious zealots.

Yes, there are religious extremists who do the unthinkable to express their beliefs. The ones who kill others are essentially hypocrites; after all, if you bomb an abortion clinic, aren't you killing the fetuses as well?

That doesn't mean you can paint the whole pro-life movement the same way.


And this is how we are approaching the abortion. From the view of the right of the human (mother), about whose right to life we have consensus, rather than the view of the right to life of a questionable human (the baby), about whose right to live we have no consensus.

But just because there is no consensus on a fetus' life right now doesn't mean we can't continue to question it. There are too many people who seem to violently object to the idea that we would even ask the question. We can't simply leave the issue alone, because as you all know, the staus quo isn't always ultimately right.


Just let people make their own minds up about the morality of abortion.

Can we let people make up their own minds on the morality of other things? How about theft? Or rape? Maybe some people won't consider it morally wrong; how can you defend pushing your morality on them?


Actually, somewhere between a quarter and a third of all pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion due to genetic abnormalities. As far as your thoughts on death or bodily injury, well, I've seen it, and it's much higher than you think.

I'm not altogether surprised by the stats on "spontaneous" abortion, if you mean those that miscarry early on (usually before the woman would realize she's pregnant). As for the others, I'd still be interested in seeing the actual numbers. If that's the only thing you have to justify giving women the choice to abort, the statistics have to present an impending danger - and I don't think the numbers will back that up.


It would be like a 302 form in psychiatry: involuntary committment and treatment, but in this cause involuntary medical care "for the fetus".

Right ... and when a person is committed, any person off the street can violate them in any way they want? I don't think so... The 4th Amendment protects you from government intervention; a host of other laws protect you from private citizens.

 

I'm not entering into this debate other than to throw in a point to ponder. I'm not reading 75 pages of posts so let me know if this has been discussed.

Australia is very liberal with it's abortion laws. If you want an abortion, you can go to Dr get his/her consent which is always forthcoming and go to a clinic for the procedure. Simple, no-one asks too many questions, no-one much cares. I have had an experience at this so I do know.

Now, a while back a bloke in a car got a bad case of road rage for some reason, and forced another car off the road. The car then hit a tree and was totalled. Inside that car was a man and his wife who was pregnant at the time. The impact of the crash killed the unborn baby. The guy who caused the accident was caught and subsequently charged with all manner of offences. However he got off scot free of anything to do with killing the unborn baby.

Due to the liberalness we have adopted to abortion in this country, it is possible for someone to go and assault a pregnant woman, kill her unborn child and not be charged with murder.

I think that is a big conundrum, do we make it illegal to kill an unborn baby? If we do won't abortions become illegal? Hasn't a 6 month old fetus got a right to life? Don't any unborn babies have a right to life or are they lumps of cells that don't constitute a human being. Difficult one and I think the politicians have dropped the issue like a hot potato.

 

The person the embryo is dies also.

The embryo is not a person. You are referring here I presume to intangible qualities such as disposition, memories, experiences and the such which define who we are as much as our genetics. It's not just the presence of human DNA-it's the amalgamation of experiences that mold the framework of our genes into a unique individual.

Sperm cannot grow into a full-fledged human. Embryos do.

With the proper coaxing, any diploid cell in your body can grow into another human being. Sperm and egg lack this ability because they are haploid; however, any cell can be cloned into a copy of you, it's just a matter of figuring out how. This is not an argument for outlawing abortion that one can really make.

Believing an embryo is human requires intelligence and an understanding of what it means to be human

Your opinion. Someone who believes otherwise lacks neither intelligence nor understanding. The only thing they do lack is agreement with your feelings on the subject.

Believing an embryo is not human requires only your eyes and a dose of superiority.

Also your opinion. If by "only your eyes" you mean belief in things that one cannot see, such as a soul, well, that is not an argument I really want to get into. One can just as easily argue that believing a woman is nothing more than a covering for her baby-making uterus also denotes lack of intelligence and a dose of superiority.

Peace,

V-03

 

Last call for any objections to a new thread. Don't mean to interrupt the debate, but I figure it's got to happen sometime .

 

I OBJECT!!!! I mean, I spent a lot of time debating in this thread, I want to see the record from time to time.

Besides, the arguments never change, just the people. Why make a new thread?

NOW: "Legalized murder" is an oxymoron, Womberty. By definition there can be no legal murder. If it's legal, it's not murder.

And the embryo thing is a belief. TSB, you hit the head on the nail. Just because something has the potential for life does not mean it IS life.

I really just don't get what people get so bent out of shape about. I mean, it can't feel anything, it's just a bunch of cells. It can't think and it isn't sentient. A baby is a full organizm capable of eating and pooping and everything.

What's the big fuss over some microscopic cells? It's just because for some reason, you lifers BELIEVE it's a human being. It's fine if you do, that's your right to believe it and even protest against it. Just as long as the Supreme Court understands that it's a woman's right to control her own body, it's all cool in the gang with me.

You have inalienable rights so far as they don't interfere with the rights of another. The fetus is INSIDE the mother's body. The mother has the right to cut it off.

I mean, think about breastfeeding for a second. Everyone knows that breastmilk is best for the baby. But does the baby have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to suck the milk out of the mother? No. I know it's stupid, but it kind of points to the larger issue.

 

Reason enough for legalized murder? No.

Legally, an embryo is not a life. Therefore, it is no more murder than you taking a ruler and scraping skin cells off your arm. Even if rights were extended to the child... What would happen if the woman miscarried? Presumably, something is wrong with her body that did not facilitate the child coming to term? She is, therefore, I presume, guilty of manslaughter? That's what your logic would dictate.

That's why the debate should be whether the fetus is a human life and whether abortion is murder, instead of about whether women will do anyway or whether the child will be too hideously deformed or anything else that's been thrown into the argument.

Ah, but the woman and her possible backstreet abortion has a major affect on the argument. If you could guarantee me that women WOULDN'T have backstreet abortions, I might see your point-of-view some more. However, you are willingly endangering a woman's physical, emotional and financial security over a few cells, no more philosophically important than what happens when you spit on the ground.

And if pro-lifers' beliefs on murder, theft, and rape also stem from Christianity, would outlawing those actions also be forcing a sense of Christian morality on everyone else?

Um, no. Murder, theft and rape are things which people in almost all societies see as wrong. In fact, I don't know any society where those things are tolerated. This makes it the closest thing to a universal ethic as possible. It stems from no religion. However, the belief that a clump of cells is a life is a leap of imagination and precognitive vision, often influenced by religion. Few people, outside of the super-religious, would see anything so simple as a bundle of cells as worth more rights than the fully-fledged human which bears them.

Yes, there are religious extremists who do the unthinkable to express their beliefs. The ones who kill others are essentially hypocrites; after all, if you bomb an abortion clinic, aren't you killing the fetuses as well?

And the actual humans that work, and go to have their embryo's aborted, there.

But just because there is no consensus on a fetus' life right now doesn't mean we can't continue to question it.

I agree. But until there is consensus, or something approaching it, you can't and shouldn't legislate against it.

There are too many people who seem to violently object to the idea that we would even ask the question. We can't simply leave the issue alone, because as you all know, the staus quo isn't always ultimately right.

I object to those questioners getting into Government, and therefore into women's bodies. You can disagree with the status quo all you like, but it will irritate me, and any pro-choicer, when you try and change it.

Can we let people make up their own minds on the morality of other things? How about theft? Or rape? Maybe some people won't consider it morally wrong; how can you defend pushing your morality on them?

Theft, rape and murder are generically wrong. There is common consensus on this. The perceived "wrongness" of abortion has not been validated by common consensus.

However he got off scot free of anything to do with killing the unborn baby.

He probably also killed the tree. Under the law, the tree and the baby are roughly equally protected.

Due to the liberalness we have adopted to abortion in this country, it is possible for someone to go and assault a pregnant woman, kill her unborn child and not be charged with murder.

That's because the unborn child, legally, isn't a human.

- Scarlet.

 

He probably also killed the tree. Under the law, the tree and the baby are roughly equally protected.

I think it is slightly different in Australia. After a certain amount of time the fetus is considered human under law *if* it is killed by an outside action and not because it was aborted to save the mother's life. So if that baby was over eight months (making it third trimester when most elective abortions are frowned on by doctors) the man may be charged with manslaughter. Even if he isn't the baby needs to be given a name, proper burial and death certificate.

I'm fairly sure that is the case in Australia. I may be wrong.

AND before anyone jumps on my back and goes

*Look! Look! It is a human!* I would like to point out that this is only after the point of viability and almost at the time when the baby is born. The same does not apply, and never should, to first or second trimester fetuses (feti???)

Kithera

 

I think you're right.

I recall, when I lived in Australia, a case where some karate champion-guy kicked his wife in the stomach when she was pregnant, causing the death of both. I believe he was charged with both, too.

My memory is extremely fuzzy on that, though.

- Scarlet.

 

I know KW wants to start a new thread on this (and I agree) - but I found this and couldn't wait.

An interesting study taken from American Bar Foundation: Criminal Justice page

***

The Long-term Social Impact of Roe v. Wade


Steven Levitt and his collaborator, economist John Donohue, are undertaking a project which represents the first steps toward understanding the long-term social impact of legalized abortion. In a previous phase of this work, they analyzed the link between abortion legalization and crime, finding that cohorts born after the legalization of abortion commit many fewer crimes when they reach adolescence. Indeed, Levitt and Donohue suggest that crime rates in the U. S. may be 15 to 20 percent lower today than would otherwise be expected as a consequence of legalized abortion and the resulting reduction in unwanted births. This new project will further explore the accuracy of these correlations and extend earlier research to include other social outcomes including teen pregnancy and teen suicide. In addition, international data, including a particularly rich dataset from the United Kingdom, will be used to conduct a cross-country comparison.

*

It is just the start and the full report isn't there, but it is certainly an interesting concept.

Kithera