Abortion: Official discussion v.4

So is that the justification for abortion then, that it can't sustain life on it's own? This is what drives me crazy, all throughout these threads there has been an insane amount of pro-choicers not sticking to their justifications of abortion. One day it's that the baby can't sustain life on it's own, that gets refuted and then it becomes because the mom doesn't want it, that gets refuted and then it becomes that it's not a real life, then it goes back to their very first justification they made. STICK TO YOUR ARGUMENT.

I'm not saying that you're not doing that Darth-Shredder, I don't know, I just had to get that out there. But to address your statement, what would you say about a 5 year old child that gets into a car accident and becomes brain dead, but has a 99% chance of a FULL RECOVERY within the next 9 months. But that family does not want her and doesn't want to deal with the next 9 months of responsibility nor the subsequent responsibility following, and decides that since it's theirs they have the legal right to kill their child. Would you be fine with them doing that?

If you could see that child lying in a hospital bed, if you knew her name, I would hope every sane person would have a problem with it being killed. Well that's how I look at abortion. The only difference is that the baby is an idea, you can't see it, you can't see it's face, it doesn't have a name, you know of it and think of it only as a "fetus" and I think that's such bullcrap. Because once that baby is a born what was once a "fetus" and worthy of death over having to bare the responsibility of parenting or giving it up for adoption becomes something much much more, it becomes something tangible, all of a sudden people know it exists, it has a face, it has a name, it looks so human, it looks so cute (sometimes), and what was once merely an idea becomes real and not one of us would be fine with somebody taking it's life for convenience.

It reminds me of a year or so ago when some crazy lady cut open a pregnant mother and stole the baby, at the time when it's health was unknown every newspaper across the country called it a "fetus". Then when the baby was found in good health all of a sudden became a "baby". THAT pisses me off, because it's so obvious to me that this is not a case of women's rights or any other argument cloaked in righteousness, this is a case of a lack of compassion merely because when it's in the womb it's so easy to desensitize ourselves to it's existence.

 

First off, Cyprusg, you raise some very good points. I think you're one of the smarter, more reasonable pro-lifers.

So is that the justification for abortion then, that it can't sustain life on it's own? This is what drives me crazy, all throughout these threads there has been an insane amount of pro-choicers not sticking to their justifications of abortion. One day it's that the baby can't sustain life on it's own, that gets refuted and then it becomes because the mom doesn't want it, that gets refuted and then it becomes that it's not a real life, then it goes back to their very first justification they made. STICK TO YOUR ARGUMENT.

I agree. I think you should think things through and get all the facts, that way when somebody refutes your justification, you just don't move on to the next. Also, I have many justifications for being pro-choice, not just one. All of the things you mentioned are good reasons. A fetus doesn't have a will, and doesn't have a "soul." And I think the mother should have the choice not to bring it out into this world if she knows she can't take care of it, and this will help both the mother and the fetus, and this is ok since the fetus isn't "aware" of anything.

I'm not saying that you're not doing that Darth-Shredder, I don't know, I just had to get that out there. But to address your statement, what would you say about a 5 year old child that gets into a car accident and becomes brain dead, but has a 99% chance of a FULL RECOVERY within the next 9 months. But that family does not want her and doesn't want to deal with the next 9 months of responsibility nor the subsequent responsibility following, and decides that since it's theirs they have the legal right to kill their child. Would you be fine with them doing that?

Here's another justification of mine: at some point you have to draw the line. I look at what stage the life is in. Though a fetus and a brain dead-child might have the same brain capacity, they aren't at the same stage in life. I draw the line where the baby comes out of the womb and into the real world, similar to whether it can sustain its own life or not. I think when the baby is still in the earlier stages in the womb, it doesn't have any real intelligence, and it's not really human yet. But during the third trimester, I'm against abortions unless for a few reasons: the mother's life is at stake, rape, or if they find out the child will have birth defects. But even then it gets shaky and I think I might just change that to if the mother's life is at stake, it's not black and white.

If you could see that child lying in a hospital bed, if you knew her name, I would hope every sane person would have a problem with it being killed. Well that's how I look at abortion. The only difference is that the baby is an idea, you can't see it, you can't see it's face, it doesn't have a name, you know of it and think of it only as a "fetus" and I think that's such bullcrap. Because once that baby is a born what was once a "fetus" and worthy of death over having to bare the responsibility of parenting or giving it up for adoption becomes something much much more, it becomes something tangible, all of a sudden people know it exists, it has a face, it has a name, it looks so human, it looks so cute (sometimes), and what was once merely an idea becomes real and not one of us would be fine with somebody taking it's life for convenience.

But also, it's a good place to draw the line: whether it's still in the womb or not. Though it may seem superficial, a baby surviving on its mother and a baby out in the open are two different things. But I as I said earlier, I'm against third trimester abortions.

It reminds me of a year or so ago when some crazy lady cut open a pregnant mother and stole the baby, at the time when it's health was unknown every newspaper across the country called it a "fetus". Then when the baby was found in good health all of a sudden became a "baby". THAT pisses me off, because it's so obvious to me that this

 

But neither is somebody that's braindead...or asleep... In fact I think the argument can be made that a new born baby is purely reactionary and isn't "aware" at all.

As far as choice goes, I think the choice is to not get pregnant. We have been blessed by technology, we (errr...not as in you and I...) can screw our brains out without getting pregnant if we don't want to. That's another thing that drives me crazy, to me it just seems like this should be a non-issue. If you don't want to get pregnant, wear a condom or take birth control. If you don't like the less than 1% chance of getting pregnant that condoms or birth control methods give you, get your tubes tied or something.

To me (obviously) stage of life does not matter since there is no real awareness difference between a baby in the 1st trimester and the 3rd, either way they have no clue what's going on. I can elaborate on that later, but I've got to go to bed right now.

 

To me (obviously) stage of life does not matter since there is no real awareness difference between a baby in the 1st trimester and the 3rd, either way they have no clue what's going on. I can elaborate on that later, but I've got to go to bed right now.

Well, you have to draw a line somewhere, and I draw it where the child is still in the womb and before it goes out into the open world. At that point, not only is it not aware, but it's not even able to live outside of somebody else's body.

 

have you got a source on the technological ability to develop from a single cell to full term out of the womb? I was under the impression that we could begin a pregnancy in the lab and then implant or begin a pregnancy in the womb and then extract, but could not do the whole thing without a mother. If there are technological possibilities I'm not aware of, I'd be most interested to find out about them.

I apologize for not having the time to look it up, but it was in Popular Science that they explained that a mouse was grown to full term in an artifical womb and they also had a human embryo develop for the few weeks that the law allows. It hasn't been published in a scientific journal because the researcher doesn't want all the bad press that would shut down her research. The point is that it is now concievably possible for everything to be done outside the womb, although at this point there are so many things we don't know, the mice died soon after, but there is no reason that it couldn't be refined and at least create a "self aware" child.

If being self aware is the critieria, then any "tissue" that is in the third trimester is most likely self aware and should be protected.

If being self aware is the qualifier to be protected, then surely you must also be against the specism against the higher forms of life that are around us. A monkey and your dog could surely be classified as "self-aware" so if that is your basis on establishing life then forget about eating steaks.

One of the most basic ideas in medicine is to do no harm. If the only reason to destroy a fetus is for the benefit of the mother, I think that is irresponible. The question is if the fetus is a life, and if it is, it something separate from the mother and therefore not something for her to do with as she pleases. If at any point she could have it removed from her and it would develop into a self-aware being, I think that raises serious questions about the assuptions many have made about abortion.

 

TO be fair, we can kill even a perceptive adult without him being aware of it at any stage of hte process (and certainly not after its death...)

 

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human through malice aforethought.

Abortion isn't unlawful in this country.

Therefore, abortion isnot murder in this country.

 

You don't think that fetus wants to live? That fetus has already engaged in life because it's ALIVE! Why is it actively drawing in molecules and nutrients and growing if it doesn't have a will to live? If living and prospering wasn't its will or its purpose it wouldn't do any of these things. It would do nothing and shrivel up and die.

The fetus may not be able to cry like an infant, but so what? That doesn't negate the fact that it is a living human organism, and the will of every organism that is working properly is to live.

Do you honestly think a newborn infant has a conscious will to live? Do you honestly think that infant understands such a concept? Of course it doesn't. That infant operates on instinct. There is nothing even remotely close to conscious thought in that newborn infant's mind. Its body tells it to cry when it's hungry, when its tired, when it is dirty, when the body senses pain, etc. NONE of these things are done consciously. That newborn infant cannot feed itself. It cannot survive without someone taking care of it. It only operates on instinct.

Once again--then why not just give the baby up for adoption? Why do you have to kill it if you don't want it? There is another completely reasonable option besides killing the child, so why not support that route?

You said before, "Not only that, but though in theory, your logic would work (she could just give it up for adoption) it doesn't always work that way. Especially if the mother's poor, adoption isn't always an option, plus the mother naturally wants to keep the baby as alot of times the mother sometimes gives it up for adoption and then wants it back. Adoption may seem like the perfect solution but it doesn't work like you think it would."

Wait--I thought you said the reason the mother would get the abortion was because she was certain she didn't want it? If these women were certain, how could they possibly change their mind that they didn't want it and try to get it back from the adopting parents? I thought it was a certainty they didn't want it?

...Or is killing the living, human fetus just a failsafe way for the mother to avoid the problem of changing her mind once she sees the fetus in a more recognizable, a more familiar way--as a human form?

Also--in what way does being poor make it difficult to give a baby up for adoption? You don't need money to give the baby up for adoption. All you have to do is contact the adoption agency(or any other number of agencies) and let them know you have a baby to give them. That's it! How hard is that????

If it is a certainty that this woman would have such a negative effect on a child she might have, why don't we just sterilize her? Clearly she, and the rest of society, would be better off it she were to never have children.

Or--if the mother is poor and uneducated, living in the ghetto, a child raised in such bad conditions w

 

Midgets, I share your sentiments in many ways, but the key distinction is that I don't believe this is something the government has a right to legislate.

A woman should have control over her reproductive organs, if she does not wish to be pregnant, she should not have to remain so and the government should not be making these decision for her.

 

So then why should the child be denied to live just because of the possibility that it might have a bad life, or that the mother says she is certain she doesn't want it?

Even if the mother says she is 100% certain she doesn't want that child there is no way--NO WAY--to guarentee she will always feel that way. It is still just a possibility either way. But the death of that fetus is definite. It is final.

So shouldn't the possibility of her not wanting the child be a meaningless factor?

No, my friend. You want to hear me say something you agree with, or see as a definition of a human life.

Look--I have answered your question. Twice. That you cannot accept my answer is not my fault, nor my problem. But just to be absolutely clear--just so there is no mistaken what my views are--I will state my opinion once more for you:

A human life is any living, human organism.

That is my complete and total definition of a human life. From beginning to end without any possible contradictions.

That is my answer. Accept it or not, it will remain the same.

Okay. If you say you do not believe abortion is right I will take your word. You just seem to think it is in your arguments. That must just be the way I am seeing it, then. But it sure seems that way to me.


Killing any human life is different from killing anything else because it is a human organism being killed. It is a human life being taken. And, as you know, I define a human life as any living, human organism.

Every living cell in your body is not a human organism because only the cells collectively make up the human organism. There is a distinct difference between the two.

Single-cell organisms consist of just one cell, but not all individual human cells are an entire human organisms.

A zygote is (at the time) a single cell, but it is also an organism because it makes up the entire human organism(at that time). One single cell in your fully-grown, fully-developed body is not the entire human organism. ALL of your cells at that stage of development are a part of the overall human organism.

There is a difference there.

 

Sorry for the double-post.

Why should her "right" to have control over her reproductive organs allow her to kill a living, human life?

If she wanted to take other preventative steps to keep from getting pregnant (i.e.--"birth control"(the pill or the like), having her tubes tied, having her ovaries and uterus removed) I would have no problem with her choice and wouldn't even think of trying to stop her.

It is when she takes the life of another that I have an issue and think the government should become involved. It is there that I feel the subject goes beyond just her reproductive organs. Another person is directly involved and loses his/her life because of her decision. The government is already involved in such matters, so why not on this one?




EDIT:


A question for those that would use the concept of "will" in this debate:


What "will" to live does a human in a comma have? If I kill someone in a comma with no brain functions, is it murder?

Or better yet:

I come across someone that is in a comma with no brain function from a failed suicide attempt. They left a letter stating their intentions. Clearly they did not wish to live. It was their "will" to die.

Now--let's say I didn't like this person. If I went to the hospital and killed them while they were in the comma from their failed suicide attempt would it be murder?

If yes, why?

If no, why not?

 

But if it knew it was going to die, it wouldn't want to. You could tell a fetus a month in advance it was going to die, but it doesn't have a will. It doesn't care. It can't care.

 

I could tell an infant I was going to kill it a month in advance and it wouldn't care. It wouldn't understand what I was telling it at all! I could even show it illustrations to try to get my point across, and it still wouldn't understand what I was telling it! I could express my intentions through example by killing another infant that looked exactly like it right in front of it and the infant still wouldn't have the slightest clue as to what I was going to do to it in a month.

The infant wouldn't care.

It can't care because it doesn't have the proper brain functions!

Does that still make it right?

Darth-Shredder--does that still make it right?

Also--see me question concerning "will."

I would really appreciate an answer from you, and all others in this thread.

 

Midgetsforbreakfast

This was in my post later, but it is so important to the debate that I want to say it first.

They are individual cells. That we were all once, and will in the future all be, a single sperm and egg cell is irrelevant to this discussion because I am not advocating that killing a sperm cell, or an egg, by themselves is wrong or a crime or the ending of a life. I am advocating that once that life has started--once the egg and sperm have joined--it would be wrong to end it.

IMO you are confusing living with a life. The sperm and egg cells are alive, but are they are lives? They are not human lives by either of our definitions, but to clam that they are not alive... that to me shows confusion between living (which the separate sperm and egg clearly are) a a life (which you and I clearly are). And at the root of all my beliefs on this subject is that there is a difference between the two, a difference that is well justified IMO. That difference has implications with my overall definition of human life and I wonder why it does not with yours.

Now to a state of semi-order...
So then why should the child be denied to live just because of the possibility that it might have a bad life, or that the mother says she is certain she doesn't want it?

I said that an argument based on EITHER stance (next Ghandi or next Hitler) does not work. That means that it does not work for the pro-life or the pro-choice side. Simply put, the argument does not work either way; was I not clear?

A human life is any living, human organism.

Finally. Something that is worded as a definition. Something that is not primarily an explanation as to why a fertilized egg is a human life. That was all I wanted; just a simple clear cut definition that was not meant to push a pro-life mindset or specifically tailored to this debate; just a basic definition, and it took this long to get it. (I think you might want to say something like 'the entire living human organism' though, but it is up to you). I can work with this.

Also your definition of death that you used later on contradicts your definition of human live given here.

Okay. If you say you do not believe abortion is right I will take your word.

I have not said that either.

It is possible (it can be argued, but there are people who do believe these possibilities) to believe that a fertilized egg is a human life, yet still be pro-choice. Likewise, you may conclude that a fetus is not a human life yet still be pro-life. The morality of abortion can be septate from the question of the humanity of the fetus, and that is the question I am focusing on right now.

Killing any human life is different from killing anything else because it is a human organism being killed.

That is very circular. Killing a carrot is different from killing anything else because it is a carrot organism being killed.... so what?

I do believe that there are differences, but I am asking you, to you, what are those differences and why are they important?

Every living cell in your body is not a human organism because only the cells collectively make up the human organism. There is a distinct difference between the two.

Can you go into more detail about that? Explain what that difference is and why it matters aside from just circular logic of 'a single cell is one cell' and arbitrarily stating 'a bunch of cells together just are the human life.'

Awareness, mind, personhood matter little and wouldn't even exist without life.

And what does life matter without those other things?

Take the heart in the lab example. Without a mind, without a person in there, how are we really any more than that heart? Yeah, we have more cells and stuff, but what substance is there that makes a human life more important than that single organ?

Besides, someone who has lost a limb is not an entire human organism. Are they less human because of it? Obviously not but IMO your definition leads to that conclusion.

Y

 

I would say that the zygote may or not be a human life, but as it has the ability to become such, and so while if not considered "human life" it is still potental "human life" and should be considered differently than a sperm and egg or skin cell that do not have the potential for "human life."

I think there is a fundamental difference that can be agreed upon.

The question is that if it is a "human life" and not just the potential to become such, why should some forms of "human life" be valued differently?

The other question is that why is a potential "human life" not valued at all by some?

With the possiblity to take a zygote from cell to "normal human" I think that it can make a strong case that in fact the zygote is more "human life" than simply "human tissue." The difference between other human cells and zygotes is that the human cells are not self sufficient. You might say the zygote is totally dependent upon the mother, but so is any infant, and the time might come where such is not the case.

I do not know exactly when life begins, I believe at some point the immortal soul must enter the body but when that is I do not know. I do know that fetuses in the 3rd trimester can survive by themselves if they are removed and I don't understand what the difference is in conciousness is from the time the baby is just floating in around the womb and 5 minutes (hours? I'm a guy) is crying for it's mother. Just because you put a spike into the babies head just before it takes it's first breath instead of shooting it after it pops out, to me it doesn't make much of a difference.

 

You don't think that fetus wants to live? That fetus has already engaged in life because it's ALIVE! Why is it actively drawing in molecules and nutrients and growing if it doesn't have a will to live? If living and prospering wasn't its will or its purpose it wouldn't do any of these things. It would do nothing and shrivel up and die.

It naturally will grow, but it doesn't have a conscious will. It's naturally growing, not consciously, there's a difference.

Do you honestly think a newborn infant has a conscious will to live? Do you honestly think that infant understands such a concept? Of course it doesn't. That infant operates on instinct. There is nothing even remotely close to conscious thought in that newborn infant's mind. Its body tells it to cry when it's hungry, when its tired, when it is dirty, when the body senses pain, etc. NONE of these things are done consciously. That newborn infant cannot feed itself. It cannot survive without someone taking care of it. It only operates on instinct.

Good points. You are right, an infant doesn't really have a will either, and it operates on instinct as well. However,, that's where you need to draw a line. An baby is in a step that's farther along than a fetus. And I think it's not right to kill life that far along. I'm simply drawing a line. In fact, you've brought me to another point. That's the whole point of an abortion, you're killing it not only before it has a conscious will, but before it's even out the mother's stomach. They'd rather kill it before it's even out in the real world than afterwards. I don't think that's too unreasonable.

Of coarse a baby and a fetus will be very similar to each other in terms of brain capacity and conscious will, but that's just drawing a line.

You said before, "Not only that, but though in theory, your logic would work (she could just give it up for adoption) it doesn't always work that way. Especially if the mother's poor, adoption isn't always an option, plus the mother naturally wants to keep the baby as alot of times the mother sometimes gives it up for adoption and then wants it back. Adoption may seem like the perfect solution but it doesn't work like you think it would."

Wait--I thought you said the reason the mother would get the abortion was because she was certain she didn't want it? If these women were certain, how could they possibly change their mind that they didn't want it and try to get it back from the adopting parents? I thought it was a certainty they didn't want it?

Come on, are you serious? They don't want it beforehand, becuase they know they're not ready and it won't have a good life, but naturally after it's born they instictively want it, just after seeing it's face. That's just nature, not the mother's fault. If nature weren't this way, females wouldn't have any desire to raise their young.

...Or is killing the living, human fetus just a failsafe way for the mother to avoid the problem of changing her mind once she sees the fetus in a more recognizable, a more familiar way--as a human form?

It's a failsafe way of avioding mother nature.

Also--in what way does being poor make it difficult to give a baby up for adoption? You don't need money to give the baby up for adoption. All you have to do is contact the adoption agency(or any other number of agencies) and let them know you have a baby to give them. That's it! How hard is that????

Well, poor people might not have enough money to even buy a telephone. Not only that, but responsibility does go with income to some degree. But also, as I said earlier, mother's naturally want to keep their baby, they get attracted to it and don't want to give it up. And yes, getting an abortion is a failsafe way to avoid mother nature.

If it is a certainty that this woman would have such a negative effect on a child she might have, why don't we just sterilize her? Clearly she, and the rest of society, would be better of

 

Espaldapalabras

I would say that the zygote may or not be a human life, but as it has the ability to become such, and so while if not considered "human life" it is still potental "human life" and should be considered differently than a sperm and egg or skin cell that do not have the potential for "human life."

THANK YOU!!! You do not know how long I have been waiting for someone to say that.

That is very true and why ultimately the question of 'is the whatever a human life' won't end this debate.

Despite wanting someone to bring this up, I am completely unprepared to go further (opps). What sort of protection/rights/promise should be granted to the fetus? Even if it should have rights, should those rights in any way be held higher than the rights of the mother who is unquestionably a human life (or maybe more to the point, which rights should be held higher than other rights...)? And obviously the much harder question; why or why not?

It is a messy gray area that would be fun and maybe useful to go through.

 

I am discouraged that abortion isn't considered killing a human, but if a fetus dies in the commission of a felony it applies as murder under the felony-murder rule.. Doesn't seem to make sense.

 

Ok, then think of it this way. If a doctor seperates conjoined twins and one of them dies as a result, it is not murder. If a crazy freaking axe murderer is robbing the conjoined twins and hacks them in half in the process, then it is murder.

 

I am discouraged that abortion isn't considered killing a human, but if a fetus dies in the commission of a felony it applies as murder under the felony-murder rule.. Doesn't seem to make sense.

That's why groups tried to get that law from being passed. That and it was a foot in the door for the pro-life movement.

 

Yes but if the doctor in question "hacks" and kills the conjoined twin outright, one might construe that as malice aforethought..

 

That's also why we don't call abortion legal murder.

If it is, then equal penalties for capital crimes would have to apply: life in prison for the doctor, execution for the premeditating mother....

Peace,

V-03

 

That's because if somebody kills your baby without your will it's killing life you would have wanted. But with an abortion you were going to kill it anyway.

 

That egg and that sperm cell are alive(I don't recall ever saying otherwise), but I do not consider them to be lives. There is a difference there. Just like any other single cell in a multicellular organism is alive, yet individually they are not lives. They do not make up the entire human organism. You could kill one of them without killing the entire human organism. But if you kill the entire human organism, you are taking a life.

You were clear, but I wanted to raise a very specific point by saying the above--that possible, or probable, outcomes is the determining factor in why women get abortions.

I understand you are not basing any of your logic in this debate on the following issue, but I see it as a fault in the logic of some pro-choice people so I wish to address it. You do not have to reply, but can if you feel so inclined.

People claim that a zygote's value should be determined by what it is, not by what it will be.

Yet some women, and supporters of their views, wish to be able to terminate the human life that is that zygote on the possibility that it could have a poor quality of life. They are basing their views on a possible, and maybe even probable, outcome.

These women are able to take probable future events into account to determine the value of that zygote, yet others(some in the pro-life camp) are not allowed to do the same.

How does that make sense???

Sorry. I meant for that to be in there--as it was in nearly all of my other arguments after that. You could pick up on that, couldn't you?

So--a human life is any entire, living, human organism.

No it doesn't.

Death--1. The cessation of all vital phenomena without capability of resuscitation, either in a

 

How is an infant, or any other human, consciously growing? Can I will my body to grow? ALL growth happens naturally.

That infant has no more of a conscious will to grow, or live, then that zygote does. The infant works on instinct. It doesn't have the mental ability to comprehend anything but instinct stimuli. That is not conscious will.

Personally, I think that is rather unreasonable, but that's just me. So an invisible moral line seperates a fetus' worth from that of an infant's. I understand that, which is why I am in here discussing and debating this issue.

I think this moral line should be moved, or, better yet, removed all together because of my personal beliefs. I do not feel that the mother should have the right to end the life of another human out of convenience. There are several other steps that could be taken to prevent the woman from getting pregnant, and none of them involve the taking of a human life.

And why is that line drawn there? Is it because of the familiar appearance of the infant as opposed to the zygote? Why do people suddenly deem that infant worthy of life even though it has no more conscious will than that zygote? Does appearance really matter so much?

What if the baby comes out of the womb deformed so badly it hardly resembles a human form. Would it be okay to then kill it? (I'm not saying you would advocate such a thing. I'm just wondering.)