Abortion revisited

Great Debates
61

Oooh Pencil Pusher what sarcasm you use!
Here I go.

First, I said we should endure any hardship to SECURE life, not prevent death. Death cannot be prevented, it is an inevitability we must all face. What I am saying is that abortion ends a childs life before he/she or, “it” can even experience it. If you die in a car accident tomorrow, that’s sad, but at least you were able to experience life. I am not an advocate for protecting everyone and everything from dying, what I am saying is that these aborted babies sould have a chance to experience life like the rest of us AND face the same luck that the rest of us have. Yes, children die young, that is the luck dealt to them and it is sad, but abortion takes away even the chance that a person can live.

Also, you have a tendency to exagerrate (in your attempt to be humorous) what I said. You call it PUNISHMENT for a woman to have to deliver a child, though it is the price they pay, I see it as a BLESSING!

What you are saying is that these women (whom you refer to as “sluts”) bear no responsibilty for their actions, and if they do get pregnant, they can kill the child just to get out of facing that responsibility. The moment you consent to sex is the moment you run the chance that you will cause a pregnancy. Oh but instead, your saying that we should be allowed to run and hide from our problems, yeah that is always the best way to do things.

I’m sorry, if you cannot accept the fact that we must face responsibility for our actions, (men as well as women) then there are many issues in which we disagree. If a woman can, “do what she wants” with her body, why don’t we legalize drugs, euthanasia and allow everyone to smoke from birth? It’s what we want to do with our bodies, right?

Pencil Pusher, I don’t find your analogies to make any ense whatsoever. Oh well, I guess we can all go and kill anybody we like if they get in our way, which is really what abortion is.

GDG

62

Oooh Pencil Pusher what sarcasm you use!
Here I go.

First, I said we should endure any hardship to SECURE life, not prevent death. Death cannot be prevented, it is an inevitability we must all face. What I am saying is that abortion ends a childs life before he/she or, “it” can even experience it. If you die in a car accident tomorrow, that’s sad, but at least you were able to experience life. I am not an advocate for protecting everyone and everything from dying, what I am saying is that these aborted babies sould have a chance to experience life like the rest of us AND face the same luck that the rest of us have. Yes, children die young, that is the luck dealt to them and it is sad, but abortion takes away even the chance that a person can live.

Also, you have a tendency to exagerrate (in your attempt to be humorous) what I said. You call it PUNISHMENT for a woman to have to deliver a child, though it is the price they pay, I see it as a BLESSING!

What you are saying is that these women (whom you refer to as “sluts”) bear no responsibilty for their actions, and if they do get pregnant, they can kill the child just to get out of facing that responsibility. The moment you consent to sex is the moment you run the chance that you will cause a pregnancy. Oh but instead, you’re saying that we should be allowed to run and hide from our problems, yeah that is always the best way to do things.

I’m sorry, if you cannot accept the fact that we must face responsibility for our actions, (men as well as women) then there are many issues in which we disagree. If a woman can, “do what she wants” with her body, why don’t we legalize drugs, euthanasia and allow everyone to smoke from birth? It’s what we want to do with our bodies, right?

Pencil Pusher, I don’t find your analogies to make any sense whatsoever. Oh well, I guess we can all go and kill anybody we like if they get in our way, which is really what abortion is.

GDG

63

Uh-oh overload.
If I skip responding to you, please let me know.

First, p@cific@812, not a bad anology. I recommend building a fence in your yard, get a guard dog and a security system to prevent the burglar from getting in. You get the idea.

Second, Menocchio, I don’t know how to determine who is a rape victim, but it is possible to test the child’s DNA and see if it matches the boyfriend or husband. This is only a pssing thought and definitely not foolproof. Making abortion illegal would be hard, but it’s worth the energy to me. I too also find the same things disgusting as you do too,

Third, Mandos, ah Mandos, Mandos, Mandos, since when is sentience what sets a human apart? Is not a mentally hadicapped person still human? Cannot a chimp (hypothetically) be smarter than a human? Is a child less human than its father? if I am smarter than you, am I more human? Of course not, it is our genetic code that makes us human, not our ability to reason or comprehend what goes on around us. WHY do we have more logic than chimps? Our genetic code, pure and simple.

Also Mandos, my logic does no include sperm and egg cells. they do not represent human life. No sperm cell by itself will ever develop into a human. Same is true with an egg. So you made no point in mentioning it because back to my, “46 chromosome rule” eggs and sperm cells only 23 chromosomes each, half of what is needed.

GDG

64

Sticking to the scientific side of things, which is supposedly what the OP wanted (of course I recognize that the argument really is emotional in nature):

True enough, as far as survival of the species goes, but the evidence is that specific individuals are not, in general, important to the survival of the species.

The point at which life begins is, er, the point at which life begins, and this is a matter of opinion. As we have seen, there is considerable disagreement as to this where this occurs, and the OP’s opinion is, to the best of my knowledge, not the point most often agreed upon by the scientific community.

If all we discussing is where life begins, it could be anywhere in the first few months of pregnancy, and precisely where depends entirely on what set of conditions are used to define the existence of “life”. Personally, I have to consider the existence of a set of chromosones too narrow a definition. Even if we admit the emotional component of the argument, I personally find it difficult to agonize over the fate of a specific set of chromosones.

A fundamental assumption is that humans are sentient beings, and my attitude towards abortion changes radically if I think the fetus is sentient (i.e. aware of its own identity and surroundings) at the time of the abortion. As I am unconvinced that the fetus is sentient in the early weeks of pregnancy, I am unresponsive to the argument from emotion that abortion during this time constitutes “murder”.

Opinion, not fact, as already stated. There is no scientific basic for assuming that all pregnancies must be carried to term, and nature itself seems to disagree with the quoted argument (what about miscarriages?) Furthermore, the quoted statement basically says that sex is a proscribed act (proscribed by who?) and the raising of a child is somehow a punishment for carrying out this act. I do not consider the assumption that childbearing is punishment to be conducive to the successful raising of a child.

As others have stated, this particular issue has been argued thousands of times on this board. I’ve only gone on at length because I didn’t care for the way the OP launched this thread under false pretenses, and I will not participate further.

65

sen·tient
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
Date: 1632
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : AWARE
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
Any ape, cat, or dog is sentient.

66

Of course those are my opinions, did I not say that already? I am not going to substantiate my opinions with facts, I have already done so. And this, “scientifc community” could you tell me which scientists you are referring to?

My opinion is that the zygote at the moment of conception is a human. that’s it. I carry on with arguments other people originate, (e.g. the rights of the pregnant woman) because they wish me to.

I have already made this argument. Read the last few posts on page one to follow my logic.

GDG

67

Walloon, perhaps I used the wrong word. Conscious would better describe what I am trying to express. Thank you for the correction.
"Third, Mandos, ah Mandos, Mandos, Mandos, since when is sentience what sets a human apart? Is not a mentally hadicapped person still human? Cannot a chimp (hypothetically) be smarter than a human? Is a child less human than its father? if I am smarter than you, am I more human? Of course not, it is our genetic code that makes us human, not our ability to reason or comprehend what goes on around us. WHY do we have more logic than chimps? Our genetic code, pure and simple.

Also Mandos, my logic does no include sperm and egg cells. they do not represent human life. No sperm cell by itself will ever develop into a human. Same is true with an egg. So you made no point in mentioning it because back to my, “46 chromosome rule” eggs and sperm cells only 23 chromosomes each, half of what is needed."-godogsgo13
Is a mentally handicapped person still human? It would depend on whether or not you consider humans fundamentally different than animals. If you do, than no, someone mentally handicapped to the point that they are no different in terms of conscious thought than an animal is not still worthy of “human” classification.
Second, it would seem that you are suggesting that mere genetic code divides us from other animals. What of the case where the genetic code results in a person mentally handicapped to the point that they are just as conscious as animals. What makes that person fundamentally different than animals?
Third, you stated that a sperm or egg can never develop into a human. By themselves, no, but together they instantly become human, by your definition. You have stated that there is no “development process” towards humanity and that the moment the sperm and egg join it is a human being. You have stated that 46 chromosones automatically makes a human. Why wouldn’t 23 chromosones make half a human?
I eagerly await your response.

68

Hmmm. Well Mandos, I will not go into a long monologue about why it is biologically impossible for a human to have 23 chromosomes, but let’s just say for simplicity’s sake, some chromosomes are needed from both the sperm cell and the egg to form a human. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a human to develop with only 23 chromosomes.Traits from both the father and the mother are needed to create a human. (Some genes are used from the father’s chromosomes and some from the mother’s, so both are needed, not mentioning other things only found in one cell or the other (i.e. mitochondria).)

And logically, if a sperm cell cannot ever develop into a human, it cannot be cosidered human. If a sperm and egg cell join, it is no longer just a sperm or egg cell, it is a zygote, a human. However from a biological standpoint you cannot say 23 chromosomes compose half a human or even half of a cell that would create a human, the science does not support that logic. A sperm cell is not, “half a human” it is a sperm cell. Only a cell with the ability to form a complete human (i.e. the zygote) can be considered human, nothing else.

If you do not understand the science behind this, please do some research and find out what i mean. I also suggest if you do not know why genetics determine a species, that you research that carefully too.

GDG

69

[opening can of worms]
I find it ironic that so many people who are against abortion, because of the sacredness of life, are also against gun control and for the death penalty.
[/opening can of worms]

70

—What I did was INSULT you, not lie about you. The term, “pathetic” is generally defined as something that invokes pity, and since I pity you, you are pathetic, thus it is true. Verstehen?—
No, you lied: you proceeded on a diatribe in which yuo pretended to state the thoughts and positions of others. Surprise! Your journey into their minds dug up all sorts of nasty things… that unfortnately they never expressed. That’s slander, o a T.

—Also, how in the hell is eating meat and being pro-life hypocritical? Although I admit I am hypocritical, I don’t see it there. Animals (and plants) are not humans, and cannot be compared.—

Exactly what I mean about using the term “human” as an sloppy catch-all sheild, instead of dealing with the actual beings involved. Most stages of fetuses, despite what they may someday grow into, are, in various moral capacities (awareness, expectation for future, ability to feel pain) lesser than adult animals. The only reason one could possibly support protecting one at all costs while nochalantly killing the other for enjoyment is if one simply declared “humans” to be valueable, bypassing any actual arguement of why that comes from their actual capacities.

I warned you: going on about what is “human” and what is not is completely arbitrary and pointless in this debate. If you want to make a case for something being wrong here, then you need to do so without the use of an arbitrarily defined label, and make the case directly form the being involved.

—My logic is what leads me to believe abortion is wrong based on what I know and what I have observed, not the “logic” of science.—

Logic alone cannot lead you to believe that something is “wrong.” To do that, you need to make a moral case for, based off some stated set of values.

71

That depends. Are you prepared to forsake any and all pro-choice sources of information? After all, those are blatantly biased as well – arguably moreso in many cases, since abortion is a multimillion dollar industry.

It seems to me that you’re prepared to reject arguments based on the pro-life views of their proponents. In logic, that is known as ad hominem reasoning – evaluating an argument based on its proponent, rather than its inherent merits or failings.

72

the only problem w/ being pro-life is that there are MILLIONS of children growing up this second in foster homes…children from drug addicts, children from starving countries that torture poor people or sell them to the sex industry…

I have always believed that if a child is miscarried, their soul will enter the body of another child and everything will work out.

I hate the fact that we spend millions of tax payers money debating abortion and the death penalty.

I think that the govt should tie the tubes of many of these drug addicts and that after a woman has a couple abortions, tell her that she is getting her tubes tied.

but then I also think that convicted murders (caught in the act) and violent repeat offenders should be hung so that we can spend more money keeping the streets safe and feeding the homeless.

73

Wow, up until this point I have never realized how badly my highschool guidance couselor misled me. If only she had told me about the promising/profitable career of abortion doctor, I too could be getting rich off of this industry. Wait a minute… what?

JThunder, your point about ad hominem reasoning is indeed valid. So basically, what I can derive from this is that there really isn’t any useful data pertaining to emotionally charged debates because none of it is objective. I can’t trust prochoice or prolife sources. OK people, here is the green light to resort to hyperbole, opinion, and empty rhetoric-- wait a minute, we were already doing that. :smiley:

74

Well, if you accept as given that the fertilised ovum is fully human, then of course it’s perfectly logical to attribute it full human rights (although one wonders exactly how much use a little cluster of cells will make of the right to freedom of thought, religion, conscience, opinion and expression, but no matter), but the point is that not everybody agrees with opinion that the fertilised ovum is fully human and there seems no firm basis for insisting on it (I think your other definition; “a cell with the ability to form a complete human” is more defensible as a purely scientific statement of fact, but by applying the same ethical principles that would lead us (I feel) to the conclusion that it was a cell with the ability to acquire full human rights (at some future point).

Similarly, you have defined a line (pregnancies resulting from an act of rape) up to which, even though you feel it is regrettable, abortion should be allowed because (and perhaps I’m putting words in your mouth here, in which case please correct me) the aleviation of the potential suffering(=inconvenience) of the mother is of greater importance than the (questionable, as above) rights of the (potential) child; others simply don’t agree with where you have drawn the line and again, there’s no firm basis (objectively, that is) for insisting that it be drawn where you would like it to be.

75

Godogsgo, is it the fact that the woman didn’t consent to the sex, or the fact that she may be revolted by the child the part that makes you reluctant to be against abortion in the case of rape ?

**

And what if somehow, despite all those precautions, the burgler still gets in ? :slight_smile:

76

Can somebody just clarify for a me - the burglar analogy:
Are we saying that the precautions taken to prevent the entry of the burglar are analogous to methods of contraception(in this particular analogy)?

77

I disagree. The proponents of this data may not be objective, but that does not mean that the arguments themselves are invalid.

That is why I’m disappointed when pro-choicers object to data from pro-life books and web sites. Several times on the SDMB, pro-choicers have said, “I reject that argument! It comes from a pro-life organization!” Obviously, such objections fail to address the argument’s validity, and border on circular reasoning.

78

Citations?

79

Pro-Life, Anti-Death Penalty? By James R. Kelly and Christopher Kudlac

http://www.americapress.org/articles/kellyprolifeantideathpenalty.htm

80

Arg. JThunder, remember the abortion debate with you and beagledave vs. me? (I’m not going to cite it, just to cheese you. Whilenotbeingajerk. Got that, mods?)
beagledave cited lots. I looked at some of them. They were not just biased; two were factually wrong, and the rest used “we are right because we say so” logic.
'Sides, this issue can’t be settled by a biologist showing when human-ness occurrs, because it’s sociological.