I think I may be changing to an anti abortion (pro life) stance

[Robert163]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Of course not. You’re confusing the victim’s ability to articulate reasons with the reasons themselves.

There are, under most ethical systems, perfectly rational reasons for not murdering toddlers. These reasons derive from first principles in a logical fashion. The toddlers’ inability to articulate them has nothing to do with anything.

This objection of yours comes to nothing. The question isn’t whether a fetus, for god’s sake, can explain the logic behind keeping the fetus alive. The question is whether there’s any logical reason that anyone can show me for threatening the mother/doctor with prison if the fetus is aborted.

Well, I have already conceded that I was wrong about the pro life position I took but I can see how you might think I was still trying to argue for that. I know people don’t like tangents but I am really talking about the value/lack of value of subjective morality. I actually really like the way you express yourself and explain things. I’ve asked you things before that were kind of a tangent to the discussion at hand and sometimes you didn’t exactly see the point I was making or why I was asking the question. I’m not trying to criticize you really I am just saying I value your opinion so that’s why I ask you these things.

Which brings us to a second point:

If you’re not talking about outlawing abortion, what exactly do you mean when you talk about being pro-life? Do you mean that you won’t have sex with women who might have abortions? Do you mean you’d try to persuade your sister not to have one? Do you mean that you personally don’t like the idea of abortions, no sirree bob? Because ALL OF THAT IS FINE.

Well, I would probably fine someone, the Doctor, not the patient. Maybe revoke their medical licence after repeat offenses. Again, I have reversed my initial position but I would of never reacted as strongly as you imply when I had held that position. I was just talking about a concept. In my defense I did say in the OP:

*Again, this is only a concept, I am not sure how you legislate that.

These are my comments/opinions. My comments/opinions are not meant to blame or judge anyone. I am open minded to other opinions and after discussion may change my position.*
I know a lot of times on this board I am not very open minded, that is part of why I tired to express here that in this case I was looking to talk about a concept…

[nate]

@Merneith

1. Sanctity of Life is a religious belief; that is why it has unempirical components. It is not the place of the government to impose religious beliefs. Your personal religious ideas, unsupported by empirical science or medical fact, are not the proper basis for laws in the US.

2. The frontal lobe only really takes off in development at about the twenty-fifth week. It doesn’t finish development until the child is about 25 years old. There is no “child” before the frontal lobe develops, just like there is no “person” when brain function ceases. We take people off life support all the time once they are declared brain dead, even if their heart is still beating.

3. All of the above is irrelevant. Your personal beliefs about religion, personhood, responibility are purely your own, unempirical, personal beliefs. Women are not obligated to run their lives according to your - again, unempirical - personal beliefs. In particular, women are not obligated to let other persons take up long term residence inside their very bodies.

Hell, you wouldn’t let a homeless man help himself to nine months residence in your spare bed room, even in the middle of winter, but you think women are required to let a third party bore its way into their blood stream and then overwhelm the women’s immune system with foreign hormones so that the women’s body won’t fight back. And then you want to tell us that the women doesn’t have any rights that matter in this scenario. It is to laugh.

I just wish society would accept that a fertilized egg, if left growing unabated, would eventually sometime either before being born or after being born would fit everyone’s definition of a human being. And any human being deserves at least an understanding that it is not alright to kill them. If any of us were aborted, obviously we wouldn’t have grown into the people we are today. Regardless of when this abortion occurs, whether it was from at 4 weeks after conception or 1 week prior to birth, the result is the same, we would not be here. Someone else decided to end our lives and we had no power to do anything about it and it was legal. It doesn’t really matter to me if the fertilized egg is conscious/aware or not, it eventually would be if you didn’t intervene to end it or some other complication ended it. We are killing people because they would be inconvenient to our lifestyle and that just doesn’t seem right to me.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Shagnasty

I never bought into the mother’s choice argument either because I believe it an ad-hoc justification for a practical problem that depends on so many twists of rationalization that it is philosophically untenable.

Huh. The issue always seemed very straightforward to me. It’s only complicated if one chooses to make it so.

I can’t see an ethical or philosophical justification that allows for a parent to end the life of a fetus (at least in later development) that also doesn’t allow the same parent to end the life of a newborn or dependent young child.

Never had a problem with this, either.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@nate

I just wish society would accept that a fertilized egg, if left growing unabated, would eventually sometime either before being born or after being born would fit everyone’s definition of a human being.

Of course it will. So what?

And any human being deserves at least an understanding that it is not alright to kill them.

That’s not actually true, though.

[Hiker]

@nate

I just wish society would accept that a fertilized egg, if left growing unabated, would eventually sometime either before being born or after being born would fit everyone’s definition of a human being. And any human being deserves at least an understanding that it is not alright to kill them. If any of us were aborted, obviously we wouldn’t have grown into the people we are today. Regardless of when this abortion occurs, whether it was from at 4 weeks after conception or 1 week prior to birth, the result is the same, we would not be here. Someone else decided to end our lives and we had no power to do anything about it and it was legal. It doesn’t really matter to me if the fertilized egg is conscious/aware or not, it eventually would be if you didn’t intervene to end it or some other complication ended it. We are killing people because they would be inconvenient to our lifestyle and that just doesn’t seem right to me.

I believe that you are making the mistake of confusing the potential for human life with human life itself. It is true: If the fertilized egg that eventually became you had not been allowed to settle in your mother’s womb, you would not be around today. It is also true that if the sperm that carried an y-chromosome to that egg had instead ended up in a condom, you would not be around either. In both cases the potential for human life was there, but human life was never created.

The assertion that all abortions are “killing people” does not hold water - unless you want to also assert that condoms are killing people.

[Hiker]

@Hector_St_Clare

The morning after pill doesn’t “end a pregnancy” (or more specifically, it doesn’t inhibit implantation, as far as we can tell). It inhibits fertilization. I last looked into the studies a few years ago, so it’s possible that new studies have come out since then disputing that, but I doubt it.

I’m as much in the “personhood begins at conception / ban abortion except in cases of health threats to the mother” camp as the next person, but there’s no evidence that the morning after pill harms already conceived persons. (If it did, I think I’d still favour it based on arguments about double effect and the like, but since it doesn’t, it’s moot).

I was not aware that this is such a hot topic. My statement was based on something I found on Wikipedia. They pointed to this article as their source. What they are saying is that Ulipristal Acetate, which is one of the active components of the morning after pill has the potential to act as a contragestive. I do not know how frequent an occurrence that is or whether this is widely accepted as true in the scientific community.

[clairobscur]

@Terr

Please explain - why is it not ok to kill the baby otherwise, but if the baby is conceived during rape, kill away? Is the baby somehow guilty of something?

It seems contradictory viewed from the point of view of the fetus, but it isn’t from the point of view of the mother. You could argue that following a rape, the mother doesn’t have any responsibility towards the fetus. Only the rapist has, and since he can’t carry the fetus…

For instance, to take the kidney transplant example, if someone poisons me, he’s responsible for the destruction of my kidneys and he’s made to give me one of his. But you’re not responsible for it, so, you can’t be forced to give me one of yours. That would make sense.
So, no, allowing abortion only in case of rape is a defensible position IMO.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@nate

I just wish society would accept that a fertilized egg, if left growing unabated, would eventually sometime either before being born or after being born would fit everyone’s definition of a human being. And any human being deserves at least an understanding that it is not alright to kill them. If any of us were aborted, obviously we wouldn’t have grown into the people we are today. Regardless of when this abortion occurs, whether it was from at 4 weeks after conception or 1 week prior to birth, the result is the same, we would not be here. Someone else decided to end our lives and we had no power to do anything about it and it was legal. It doesn’t really matter to me if the fertilized egg is conscious/aware or not, it eventually would be if you didn’t intervene to end it or some other complication ended it. We are killing people because they would be inconvenient to our lifestyle and that just doesn’t seem right to me.

A fertilized egg - or, for that matter, an adult human being - if left growing unabated, will eventually die. With an even greater certitude; a fertilized egg has a chance to abort naturally. All life, however, with a 100% chance, will die. It is guaranteed.

If it is reasonable to treat a fertilized egg as the adult human being it may eventually become, is it not even more reasonable to treat all life, no matter their circumstance, as though they were dead as the corpse they will certainly leave? It is an even more inevitable fate.

[nate]

@Hiker

I believe that you are making the mistake of confusing the potential for human life with human life itself. It is true: If the fertilized egg that eventually became you had not been allowed to settle in your mother’s womb, you would not be around today. It is also true that if the sperm that carried an y-chromosome to that egg had instead ended up in a condom, you would not be around either. In both cases the potential for human life was there, but human life was never created.

The assertion that all abortions are “killing people” does not hold water - unless you want to also assert that condoms are killing people.

There is a big difference between sperm and eggs and a fertilized egg. All non-fertilizing sperm will perish as well as an unfertilized egg. But a fertilized egg, barring an abortion (from a medical procedure or miscarriage), would eventually become human. It’s genetically encoded to do so. A sperm or egg is not.

[nate]

@Revenant_Threshold

A fertilized egg - or, for that matter, an adult human being - if left growing unabated, will eventually die. With an even greater certitude; a fertilized egg has a chance to abort naturally. All life, however, with a 100% chance, will die. It is guaranteed.

If it is reasonable to treat a fertilized egg as the adult human being it may eventually become, is it not even more reasonable to treat all life, no matter their circumstance, as though they were dead as the corpse they will certainly leave? It is an even more inevitable fate.

Yes the eventuality is death, but as a society we tend to frown upon killing children. As far as I know, no one has ever accepted the defense, “well, he’d eventually die anyway” after killing someone.

[DigitalC]

@Robert163

3- I do not consider an unborn baby to be 100% fully human but I do think it is more than just a “clump of cells”. I think this is a category that is very hard to make any sort of moral classification. Both sides have good points to support their opinion. At the end of it however I am pro life.

I honestly don’t see how this matters, i will even concede to the pro life side that they are a baby. Now please convince me that anybody should be FORCED to save someone else’s life to their own detriment. If you are against abortion are you for mandatory blood and organ donations? should people with healthy kidneys be forced to give them to people who need them? should we march people to hospitals to give blood no matter their wishes every time there is an accident? Just give me one justification for a woman or anybody else to be forced against their will to sacrifice their body to save another life. Not why it is a good idea for her to chose to but why it is a good idea to force this on anyone.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@nate

Yes the eventuality is death, but as a society we tend to frown upon killing children. As far as I know, no one has ever accepted the defense, “well, he’d eventually die anyway” after killing someone.

So why should we accept “well, he’d eventually be an adult human” as a reason against abortion?

[nate]

@Revenant_Threshold

So why should we accept “well, he’d eventually be an adult human” as a reason against abortion?

I’m sorry I don’t get what you’re trying to say.

But for the fact that the mother intervenes and has an abortion, barring a miscarriage, that clump of cells will become a human by anyone’s definition. It’s my opinion that human rights should be extended to this clump of cells that will become human.

I value my life and I assume others value theirs, and I’m sure that clump of cells would eventually value its life. I don’t think the mother should have any right to end that process unless her own life is at stake.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Robert163

Well, I have already conceded that I was wrong about the pro life position I took but I can see how you might think I was still trying to argue for that. I know people don’t like tangents but I am really talking about the value/lack of value of subjective morality.

If you don’t want to give money to Woody Allen because he’s a creep, that’s awesome, even though there’s a subjective piece in there. Don’t want to have sex with someone who eats veal? Don’t want to live in a town with segregated schools? Don’t want to go to a hospital that performs abortions? That’s all fine, even though you might not be able to articulate strong logical reasons for these actions. Subjective morality in these cases is not a problem.

But if you want to use the police to shut down theaters that show Woody Allen movies, or to shut down restaurants serving veal, or to remove local control over townships with segregated schools, or to remove the medical licenses of doctors that perform abortions, then you’re cutting into other people’s freedom to make their own choices based on their own subjective morality. And if you want to do that, subjectivity and emotion isn’t enough: you better bring some hardcore logic with you.

Well, I would probably fine someone, the Doctor, not the patient. Maybe revoke their medical licence after repeat offenses.

You’re talking about ruining a doctor’s life, you realize that? Folks who perform abortions have spent upwards of a decade learning their medical craft; they’ve dedicated their lives to it. Removing their medical license because of your subjective, emotional, illogical objections to abortion is still completely unwarranted. Consider that many of these doctors genuinely believe they’re performing a significant positive service, by helping women maintain control over their reproductive lives. And for illogical reasons you want to ruin their lives? Not okay.

*Again, this is only a concept, I am not sure how you legislate that.

Simple: don’t. As long as all you’re saying is that personally you don’t want to have an abortion, but you’re not going to push laws to impinge on other people’s freedom, you’re in the clear. It’s once you push your illogical emotional intuition onto other people that things get terrible.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@nate

I’m sorry I don’t get what you’re trying to say.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that barring natural or artificial abortion, a fertilised egg will become an adult human. Because it is something that will, given time and chance, become an adult human, we should treat it with the rights that we extend to adult humans - namely not destroying it.

I pointed out that everything that lives will, with even greater certainty, one day die. Given time and without any regard to chance, all life will die. Therefore, by your standards, we should treat anything that lives as though it is dead, because that is what it will eventually become.

Put it this way. A fertilised egg may eventually become an adult human. A fertilised egg will, certainly, eventually become dead. Why are we treating it as one thing it might become, but not one thing it certainly will become?

I value my life and I assume others value theirs, and I’m sure that clump of cells would eventually value its life. I don’t think the mother should have any right to end that process unless her own life is at stake.

And when that clump of cells is dead, it certainly won’t value its life. So why don’t we treat it in that regard?

Do you extend this pre-assumption of rights to all rights at all stages of life, and if not, why not? For example; we generally hold that children cannot consent to sexual activity. One day - given time - that child will become an adult, capable of consenting. By your logic, shouldn’t you grant that ability to consent to children on the basis of what they will eventually become? Would you be in favour of allowing children to vote? To drink, or to drive cars? These are all rights that their future selves will be able to enjoy.

A medical student will - given time and hard work - eventually become a doctor. A legal student, likewise, a lawyer. Would you be content to allow a first-year medical student to treat you, or a first-year legal student to represent you in court?

[truthseeker3]

@Revenant_Threshold

Your argument, as I understand it, is that barring natural or artificial abortion, a fertilised egg will become an adult human. Because it is something that will, given time and chance, become an adult human, we should treat it with the rights that we extend to adult humans - namely not destroying it.

I pointed out that everything that lives will, with even greater certainty, one day die. Given time and without any regard to chance, all life will die. Therefore, by your standards, we should treat anything that lives as though it is dead, because that is what it will eventually become.

Put it this way. A fertilised egg may eventually become an adult human. A fertilised egg will, certainly, eventually become dead. Why are we treating it as one thing it might become, but not one thing it certainly will become? And when that clump of cells is dead, it certainly won’t value its life. So why don’t we treat it in that regard?

An embryo is - not just in the future WILL BE, but RIGHT NOW IS - a living thing and a living thing with its own unique human DNA. That makes it at least quasi-human, and I think that makes it worthy of some consideration right now.

[Terr]

@DigitalC

If you are against abortion are you for mandatory blood and organ donations? should people with healthy kidneys be forced to give them to people who need them? should we march people to hospitals to give blood no matter their wishes every time there is an accident?

The difference is that in all those examples you gave, you have to take action in order to save/prolong someone else’s life. If you don’t take the action, the life will either not thrive or end.

In case of abortion, you have to take action to end the life. If you don’t take the action, the life will continue and thrive.

Big difference.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Terr

The difference is that in all those examples you gave, you have to take action in order to save/prolong someone else’s life. If you don’t take the action, the life will either not thrive or end.

In case of abortion, you have to take action to end the life. If you don’t take the action, the life will continue and thrive.

Big difference.

Not really. In both cases, you’re making choices that determine life or death.

[Terr]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Not really. In both cases, you’re making choices that determine life or death.

In US law, there is a huge difference between your inaction leading to someone’s death (there is basically no requirement that you do anything, in most cases) and your action leading to someone’s death (see murder/homicide laws).

[DigitalC]

@Terr

The difference is that in all those examples you gave, you have to take action in order to save/prolong someone else’s life. If you don’t take the action, the life will either not thrive or end.

In case of abortion, you have to take action to end the life. If you don’t take the action, the life will continue and thrive.

Big difference.

I absolutely do not see how it makes any difference at all. You are forcing people to use their body to save someone else’s life, it is undefensible at every level.