Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 80

Thread: Abortion

  1. #1
    ninja scientist Ehlwyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,335
    Thanks
    1,580
    Thanked 1,277 Times in 721 Posts

    Default Abortion

    Abortion is a Boiler Room topic. As we can see the S9 thread is already getting heated because of personal views on the matter.

    Please use the S9 thread for only post discussing abortion only in context of how it affects Buffy. Personal thoughts or experiences can be given when explaining how you think Buffy might react or feel or another character would about Buffy's choice.

    There have been tasteless jokes, insults to people's personal experiences, and blanket generalizations about morality of abortion. Do not do these things in here as well. You must also read and accept the Boiler Room rules before posting in here.


    I have copied non Buffy related posts from that thread into starting this thread.

    Lydia made the punch!

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Ehlwyen For This Useful Post:

    MikeB (13-12-14)

  3. #2
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    7,219
    Thanks
    8,707
    Thanked 10,594 Times in 4,347 Posts

    Default

    I am disturbed by the idea of drawing a line to decide when life has validity and/or merit. Who gets to measure that? Do we ignore that a fetus can start to recognise voices, dream etc just because it is still in the womb? The existence of a fetus is the existence of a developing person. I don't judge people that have abortions for their own reasons. I probably would if raped or if the developing baby had severe handicaps, but I don't see why we have to pretend that it isn't ending a life when it simply black and white is.

    EDIT: Posted before I saw Ehlwyen's post, apols.

  4. #3
    Slayer TimeTravellingBunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,675
    Thanks
    5,061
    Thanked 4,317 Times in 2,013 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    I am disturbed by the idea of drawing a line to decide when life has validity and/or merit. Who gets to measure that? Do we ignore that a fetus can start to recognise voices, dream etc just because it is still in the womb?
    Could you elaborate on that? It's really not clear to me how a fetus could tell someone if they dream or recognize voices, and I'm pretty sure that there is no human in existence or ever was who remembered things that happened while they were a fetus in the womb.
    You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

  5. #4
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    7,219
    Thanks
    8,707
    Thanked 10,594 Times in 4,347 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
    Could you elaborate on that? It's really not clear to me how a fetus could tell someone if they dream or recognize voices, and I'm pretty sure that there is no human in existence or ever was who remembered things that happened while they were a fetus in the womb.
    Well obviously they can't. I don't know how they measure but they obviously do for research, heart rates possibly? I don't know how much of it is considered proven or is still being debated, and have no personal medical knowledge, but I think the point of recognising a mother's voice is pretty accepted:

    While fetuses hear much the way we hear a next-door stereo (lots of bass, not a lot of high frequencies), they are able to hear voices filtered through tissues, bones, and fluid. By week 24, they recognize - and are calmed by - the voice of their mothers. They, of course, can't distinguish words from one another; rather, the rhythm and melody of voices they hear serve as their foundation for language. Dr. Michael Roizen

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0513080440.htm

    Google will come up with loads of stuff.

  6. #5
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,542
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 3,639 Times in 1,711 Posts

    Default

    Per rule, I'm replying to a non-"Buffy" post here.

    Quote Originally Posted by shipperx View Post
    I don't want to get into people's deeply held convictions. Everyone has them and they are up to the individual.

    However, I will say that citing Rasmussen is akin to citing Fox News. Rassmussen has a decided slant in its methodology and uses its work to push a certain view in the media. Almost ubiquitously. Research the individuals who run it. Better, dig into the data stats of the demographics of their polls. Up until the week before an election when they suddenly get accurate, they are consistently right-skewing outliers. By design. Look at the internals about the demographics of the sampling. They deliberately skew towards weighting their demographic samples more Republican, more conservative, more Southern, and older. It's their methodology. All pollsters who keep up with that sort of thing know it, it's in their public internals citing demographic sampling. It's a feature not a bug.

    Additionally, we might note with all the 'polling data', every time 'life begins at conception' has been put on a ballot for a public vote (such as in Mississippi recently) , it has gone down in flames.

    Women want their rights. Go figure.
    Well, as nice as it is to see such well-worn gems like "when in doubt, it's Fox News' fault", you really haven't offered a specific fact to impugn this polling, and it's far from the only poll of this sort. More Americans of both genders when polled consistently deem abortion a moral wrong in most circumstances, and it's usually a more strongly held position among women than men. It is what it is.

    And while you may enjoy trying to boil the whole topic down to bumper-sticker simplicitly with "women want their rights. Go figure", you're sort of missing the point. Polling will also show that, yes, they want their rights (and men want them to have them); although typically it's a closer call on the rights question than the moral question.

    So "women want their rights", but those same women, at least in the United States, also by percentage have a definite opinion of the differences between how that right is exercised. For instance, there is, culturally speaking, at least in the United States, a moral distinction made between someone who terminates an ectopic pregnancy or because they don't want to raise a special needs child, and someone who does it for no other than reason than that the condom broke and "hell, no" to motherhood. Even NBC's "ER", no bastion of conservative thought, managed to convey offense and outrage at the example of a woman who obtained serial abortions for the purpose of gender selection (I can still remember Juliana Marguilies' Carol yelling at her in disbelief and contempt as she strode smugly out of the hospital after learning that she was again pregnant with a girl instead of the boy she wanted).

    Banner by LRae12

  7. #6
    Library Researcher Destiny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    203
    Thanks
    287
    Thanked 527 Times in 116 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    Well obviously they can't. I don't know how they measure but they obviously do for research, heart rates possibly?
    Well this is a very difficult question even in the medical community, so to say. We have to realise that there is not only the medical point of view, but a lot of religionistic and philosophic angles to this as well.
    Strictly medically speaking we have the lines drawn by the law, that is 12 weeks for a "voluntary" abortion - 12 weeks because this is the point when the organogenesis, the forming of the internal organs begins. After that, another line is 24 weeks. Between the period of 12.-24. week of pregnancy legally a woman can have an abortion that is medically advised, in case the fetus has genetic abnormalities or the course of the pregnancy is threatening to kill the mother (mostly in the cases when the placenta penetrates the surrounding tissues to the point where during its expulsion after labour there would be such a massive bleeding that the mother could die from a blood loss). 24 week line is stated by the law because currently embryos at least 24 weeks old are considered to be able to be saved. Of course, very often these, at this point babies, are so damaged by the extensive care that the quality of life is... debatable at best, but the law applies that they have the right to live, if they are born and survive the first 24 hrs.
    So this is the current law. Of course that "status of embryo", how current ethics calls this problem, is much more complex than that, even though these are just hypothetical questions, seeing as legally the subject matter is already solved.
    Currently there are 2 main opinions amongst the people involved, that being "ontological personalism" and "fuctional empirism". Ontological personalism believes, based on religious views mostly, that the human fetus is a a full person from the moment of conception. The sperm penetrates the wall of the ova, and from that moment on, fetus is a valid human being, who should be admitted the civil rights that belong to all the people, first of them the right for life and genetic integrity.
    Functional empirism on the other hand has a different approach. People who follow this opinion donīt agree on the lines strictly, but the basic idea is, that "a person" has certain attributes that characterise it. Generally these characteristics are the ability to feel complex emotions, the ability to communicate, form complex thoughts, the ability to begin and maintain relationships - not only with ourselves, but with each other as well. Based on this definition, a human fetus does not qualify as a human being, therefore we canīt expect it to have human rights. A seed is not a tree, it only has the potential to become one, if the conditions are right. The line here isnīt strictly set - some people believe, that since humans are characterised by the ability to feel, fetus should be considered human from the 15th day, since this is the day when the neural fold, a future central nervous system, begins to form. From this day the fetus slowly gains ability to feel. Other people consider the line to be at 21 days, seeing as this is the day when the primitive heart starts to beat. For others it is so called "quickening", the first movement that mother can feel, because according to old religions quickening is the moment when the fetus receives human soul. These lines also differ from country to country, for example in China a fetus becomes human with its first breath (therefore it is not illegal to kill the fetus even after it is born, as long as it doesnīt manage to breathe before they do it). Extreme opinions on this are, that since the truly human attributes are gained by babies at around 24months of age, this is when they are considered humans, but of course that would mean that killing an infant under 2 years would not be held as a crime.

    For myself, I feel that it is important to realise, that this is a topic that is so affected by personal and religious views and in the midst of all that people tend to disregard the facts. I am personally quite offended by all the anti-abortion posters where there are the tiny bloody fetuses held in someoneīs arms and the movies, where they show how during an abortion "the baby is trying to escape the doctor, it silently screams as the doctor is killing it". You have the right to have your opinion on it, and feel as strongly as you want, but to me this is a very offensive way to treat knowledge. The baby is not trying to escape, the baby does not scream - even when it is a medically necessary abortion (and most of the propaganda posters are taken from these abortions), the fetus does not have any mental capacity to realise what is going on, to escape, to be scared. Human brain doesnīt evolve to this kind of stage until legally the abortion cannot be administered. I believe that for a mother who wants her child, having to give up on it because medically the child would not survive, or it would but with no quality of life at all, this is already a painful topic. There is no need for posters with bloody fetuses on them, because a voluntary abortion is administered at stage when the fetus is about 40mm and it doesnīt have any ability to feel pain, so for women who decide that they canīt go through pregnancy, this is a terribly misleading image.
    Think all you want, but I believe that a woman should have the right to choose, just as every human being has the right to choose on anything else, and no one can force a woman to go through pregnancy that she doesnīt want to or simply canīt afford to.
    In the end, we all are who we are, no matter how much we may appear to have changed.


  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Destiny For This Useful Post:

    Bre (09-02-12),Jessica M.C. (23-07-12),Jim (09-02-12),Mara (10-02-12),Sky (12-02-12),sueworld (09-02-12)

  9. #7
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,542
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 3,639 Times in 1,711 Posts

    Default

    My primary argument for what you'd call "ontological personalism" is pretty straight secular metaphysics. I took a philosophy course that talked about moral analysis, how one would judge if an act was moral in and of itself -- one example was to ask yourself "if I do this, and the instant later the world ended and it had no consequences whatsoever, would it still be 'wrong'". That's an exercise that got me to thinking about incrementalism and instantaneous changes.

    In this context, I got to thinking -- becoming a person is a pretty big deal, right? Surely there must be some objectively measurable event at which this occurs, some bright line. So I started combing through the process of reproduction. I thought... well, what about birth? Everyone is born some way or another. But then I thought... what's so special about birth? The child is not intrinsically any different before entering the birth canal or after or during. Is it the umbilical cord, that bodily dependence? I don't think it could be, since, well, I don't consider similar bodily dependence shared by Siamese twins, or, for that matter a blood transfusion, to negate personhood.

    So I turn to "viability", and I think it's a strong candidate -- an instant before a developing child is viable to survive outside the womb and the instant after covers a major metaphysical milestone. But then I see the problem that it's completely unobservable until tested, at least right around that threshold of time; you would never find out until after the fact.

    So I look at conception and, there we are -- an instant before, there is nothing; an instant after, there is something. And that something has unique properties that make it distinctly human in nature, because it can never become anything other than human. And unlike viability, it's self-evident -- either conception has occurred or it hasn't.

    So based on no belief other than that the start of personhood has to start with some objective fact which is common to all people, conception wins, IMO.

    Banner by LRae12

  10. #8
    Library Researcher Destiny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    203
    Thanks
    287
    Thanked 527 Times in 116 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post

    So I look at conception and, there we are -- an instant before, there is nothing; an instant after, there is something. And that something has unique properties that make it distinctly human in nature, because it can never become anything other than human. And unlike viability, it's self-evident -- either conception has occurred or it hasn't.

    So based on no belief other than that the start of personhood has to start with some objective fact which is common to all people, conception wins, IMO.
    Well this is a pretty straightforward logic if you think about it, and technically there is nothing wrong about it either. The difficulty here is that if you take conception as the beginning of personhood and therefore right from the moment of conception the fetus has its human rights and its right to live should be protected, the same logic could be applied to other tissues as well. The paradigm "an instant before, there is nothing; an instant after, there is something" actually applies to a lot of cells in the human body. The sperm is nothing but a cell, the ova is one cell, at the moment of conception (well technicall hours after, but that is not important at the moment) there are 2 cells, which hours later become 4 cells, which become 8 etc. etc. On the same note, this process occurs with blood cells as well, it occurs with epithelial cells - basically the only cell in our body that does not have the ability to create something is neuron, other than that all the other cells do have this ability and creating something is the way we are made, after all. Yet no one questions the right to (not) live when it comes to all these other cells. Of course, that this is taking the point to extremes, but it was a point I read in one of the medical journals and I think that it is rather interesting point of view.
    In the end, we all are who we are, no matter how much we may appear to have changed.


  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Destiny For This Useful Post:

    Bre (09-02-12),vampmogs (10-02-12)

  12. #9
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    The countries which grant women their right to terminate a pregnancy in their own body have timeframes for a reason.

    They have to do with where you see something with the potential to become a human being or an actual independent human being. A fetus in the early stages (or quite far along already) is not able to live independently of the mother's body. She is sustaining it with life. Her life. It's a fundamental right that we can all decide what we do with our life, our bodies and parts of it. The mother carrying the child of term is literally the gift of life and no one can be forced to give a gift.

    People trying to appropiate women's bodies by taking that choice away from them with laws (that naturally never work, because a woman not ready will and does find a way, just more horrible ones) and turn them into rightless broodmares is imho a leftover of slavery.

    This is the first issue in the comic where I think Buffy is remotely back to it's tv days of targeting important women's issues. Allthough I have little hope that they will on the long haul.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nixennacht For This Useful Post:

    Bre (09-02-12),TimeTravellingBunny (09-02-12)

  14. #10
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    7,219
    Thanks
    8,707
    Thanked 10,594 Times in 4,347 Posts

    Default

    The problem is Destiny that some of those definitions of being human would rule out living mentally handicapped people - the ability to feel complex emotions, the ability to communicate, form complex thoughts, the ability to begin and maintain relationships.

    All of the medical markers you provide (ability to feel pain etc) are interesting but there is a degree of subjective opinion then as to which ones become valid as potential deal breakers morally in ref to abortion. This is why I go with what King says - the start of personhood has to start with some objective fact which is common to all people, conception wins.

    Look, abortion is not illegal and I do think there are times when it can be for the best (severe handicaps which would negate quality of life) and plenty of occasions when it is understandable (underage, rape) but these all become subjective. I have no problems with that but it doesn't change the fact that a potential life is stopped during its development, it is aborted. Whether or not aborted = terminated = killed is just an emotive response around semantics or words. The life was there, it isn't anymore.

  15. #11
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    7,219
    Thanks
    8,707
    Thanked 10,594 Times in 4,347 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny View Post
    Well this is a pretty straightforward logic if you think about it, and technically there is nothing wrong about it either. The difficulty here is that if you take conception as the beginning of personhood and therefore right from the moment of conception the fetus has its human rights and its right to live should be protected, the same logic could be applied to other tissues as well. The paradigm "an instant before, there is nothing; an instant after, there is something" actually applies to a lot of cells in the human body. The sperm is nothing but a cell, the ova is one cell, at the moment of conception (well technicall hours after, but that is not important at the moment) there are 2 cells, which hours later become 4 cells, which become 8 etc. etc. On the same note, this process occurs with blood cells as well, it occurs with epithelial cells - basically the only cell in our body that does not have the ability to create something is neuron, other than that all the other cells do have this ability and creating something is the way we are made, after all. Yet no one questions the right to (not) live when it comes to all these other cells. Of course, that this is taking the point to extremes, but it was a point I read in one of the medical journals and I think that it is rather interesting point of view.
    The difference is that left alone general cells wouldn't become a person. A fetus which remains viable and is left alone will become a person.

  16. #12
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    The difference is that left alone general cells wouldn't become a person. A fetus which remains viable and is left alone will become a person.
    No, it will not. That is exactly my point. A fetus left alone will not become a person. If it was like that, there would be no controversy. Out and into the uterine replicator it would go. But it's not. Only a fetus sustained by the body of the mother will become a person. And if she wants to sustain, wants to give this gift is the mother's decision.
    Last edited by Nixennacht; 09-02-12 at 04:57 PM.

  17. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Nixennacht For This Useful Post:

    Bre (09-02-12),sueworld (09-02-12),TimeTravellingBunny (09-02-12),Veverka (10-02-12),Zugma (20-08-15)

  18. #13
    Library Researcher Destiny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    203
    Thanks
    287
    Thanked 527 Times in 116 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    The problem is Destiny that some of those definitions of being human would rule out living mentally handicapped people - the ability to feel complex emotions, the ability to communicate, form complex thoughts, the ability to begin and maintain relationships.

    All of the medical markers you provide (ability to feel pain etc) are interesting but there is a degree of subjective opinion then as to which ones become valid as potential deal breakers morally in ref to abortion. This is why I go with what King says - the start of personhood has to start with some objective fact which is common to all people, conception wins.

    Look, abortion is not illegal and I do think there are times when it can be for the best (severe handicaps which would negate quality of life) and plenty of occasions when it is understandable (underage, rape) but these all become subjective. I have no problems with that but it doesn't change the fact that a potential life is stopped during its development, it is aborted. Whether or not aborted = terminated = killed is just an emotive response around semantics or words. The life was there, it isn't anymore.
    Of course, I didnīt mean to give you an impression that I want to negate your opinion or reasoning, for reasons that you just gave yourself - there is a degree of subjective opinion, and all matters that come burdened with that do not have simple answers.
    To your thought "The difference is that left alone general cells wouldn't become a person. A fetus which remains viable and is left alone will become a person. " - no one can argue with that, but the semantics here unfortunately play a huge role. Conception is a point, where a life form is created. I think that this is undebatable. If you want to say, that conception is where the human life begins, that would be perfectly right as well. On the other hand, Im not sure if we can say that conception is where personhood begins. Because that implies that the 2 cell formation is a human being, and even though I donīt identify myself with the extremes you pointed out (ruling out mentally handicapped people - I put in those opinions purely to show different points of view), calling a cell formation "a person" is not justifiable.
    Of course that given the right conditions, those cells do become a human, unlike erythrocytes or leukocytes or other -cytes, but we donīt call those "person". So there is a completely new life form with a potential, but it is not a person, just as blood cells are not tiny babies.
    Now if the conditions are right and these cells do evolve, and evolve, and then evolve some more and form tissues, then there is an obvious and undebatable reason to give them more appreaciation than any other cells deserve. The functional empirism here, at least to me, holds a very valid point, which is that the human growth is a gradual process, therefore the acquiring of human rights and attributes should be gradual as well. The act of drawing the line here is a whole other issue, and a whole lot more complicated one, but it seems empirically logical, that a 32-cell blastocyste holds a greater value than 2-cell formation, a fetus with bases of organs formed should hold a greater value than a 3mm formation which does not have anything except for muscle tissue.
    In the end, we all are who we are, no matter how much we may appear to have changed.


  19. #14
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,542
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 3,639 Times in 1,711 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    The countries which grant women their right to terminate a pregnancy in their own body have timeframes for a reason.
    Yes, to bracket the various matrices of "desire to terminate pregnancy" calculated vs. "existential discomfort over value of developing human life". The mere fact that there is such a thing is a timeframe exists in law is a tacit admission that whatever's going on in there is generally understood to have ever-increasing independent worth.

    They have to do with where you see something with the potential to become a human being or an actual independent human being. A fetus in the early stages (or quite far along already) is not able to live independently of the mother's body. She is sustaining it with life. Her life. It's a fundamental right that we can all decide what we do with our life, our bodies and parts of it. The mother carrying the child of term is literally the gift of life and no one can be forced to give a gift.
    It's an odd thing that you mention it, because the law has no trouble imposing positive duties on parents with regard to the measures they must take to ensure the safety of their children, ex utero, legal obligations on "what they do with their lives".

    People trying to appropiate women's bodies by taking that choice away from them with laws (that naturally never work, because a woman not ready will and does find a way, just more horrible ones) and turn them into rightless broodmares is imho a leftover of slavery.

    This is the first issue in the comic where I think Buffy is remotely back to it's tv days of targeting important women's issues. Allthough I have little hope that they will on the long haul.
    Yes, it's very much about "Buffy" being topical, it's just being done in a way that is demonstrably inconsistent with her own attitude on life, living, her role in the world, etc. But, all in the name of targeting an important issue.

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    No, it will not. That is exactly my point. A fetus left alone will not become a person. If it was like that, there would be no controversy. Out and into the uterine replicator it would go. But it's not. Only a fetus sustained by the body of the mother will become a person. And if she wants to sustain, wants to give this gift is the mother's decision.
    Uh, yes it will, obviously. All else being equal and proceeding within spec, that handful of cells will be a human being and can't become anything else. It's not going to suddenly turn into a Weimeraner. It's not going to be a pony or an XBox. I think it's incredibly disingenuous to act as though the stages of human development work as though there are four or five distinct metaphysical constructs, that the zygote "ends" and the fetus "begins" and then the fetus "ends" and then the baby "begins", and none has any meaningful connection to the others.
    Last edited by KingofCretins; 09-02-12 at 05:02 PM.

    Banner by LRae12

  20. #15
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    7,219
    Thanks
    8,707
    Thanked 10,594 Times in 4,347 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    No, it will not. That is exactly my point. A fetus left alone will not become a person. If it was like that, there would be no controversy. Out and into the uterine replicator it would go. But it's not. Only a fetus sustained by the body of the mother will become a person. And if she wants to sustain, wants to give this gift is the mother's decision.
    Ambivalence towards a pregnancy doesn't end it. The attitude and feelings of the mother don't end it. The decision to terminate a pregnancy and the act of having an abortion does, if this didn't happen and the fetus remains viable then a baby will grow and develop in the womb. If the fetus doesn't remain viable an abortion would be irrelevant anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny View Post
    To your thought "The difference is that left alone general cells wouldn't become a person. A fetus which remains viable and is left alone will become a person. " - no one can argue with that, but the semantics here unfortunately play a huge role. Conception is a point, where a life form is created. I think that this is undebatable. If you want to say, that conception is where the human life begins, that would be perfectly right as well. On the other hand, Im not sure if we can say that conception is where personhood begins.
    OK, we can say conception is the point that life is created, abortion the point when life is ended.

    Because that implies that the 2 cell formation is a human being, and even though I donīt identify myself with the extremes you pointed out (ruling out mentally handicapped people - I put in those opinions purely to show different points of view), calling a cell formation "a person" is not justifiable.
    Of course that given the right conditions, those cells do become a human, unlike erythrocytes or leukocytes or other -cytes, but we donīt call those "person". So there is a completely new life form with a potential, but it is not a person, just as blood cells are not tiny babies.
    Now if the conditions are right and these cells do evolve, and evolve, and then evolve some more and form tissues, then there is an obvious and undebatable reason to give them more appreaciation than any other cells deserve. The functional empirism here, at least to me, holds a very valid point, which is that the human growth is a gradual process, therefore the acquiring of human rights and attributes should be gradual as well. The act of drawing the line here is a whole other issue, and a whole lot more complicated one, but it seems empirically logical, that a 32-cell blastocyste holds a greater value than 2-cell formation, a fetus with bases of organs formed should hold a greater value than a 3mm formation which does not have anything except for muscle tissue.
    This is the problem. The line drawing doesn't negate the fact that in good physical conditions, all being equal, that cell formation will become a person. Whether you personally consider it one at 3wks, 6wks, 12wks etc etc doesn't alter the fact that a process of life development has started and will result in a person. My interest in this argument isn't as a pro-life or a pro-choice person, I really do see both sides. Where I get frustrated is with people who are pro-abortion not accepting it as killing a life because it needs to be a bubble wrapped action. I appreciate it is a very emotive scenario and I see the need and desire to disassociate the action from death. Why can't people just accept that it isn't illegal, but it is ending a life which has started. It is a spade and I don't condemn people for making their life choices but it isn't going to suddenly not be a spade.

  21. #16
    Library Researcher Destiny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    203
    Thanks
    287
    Thanked 527 Times in 116 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    This is the problem. The line drawing doesn't negate the fact that in good physical conditions, all being equal, that cell formation will become a person. Whether you personally consider it one at 3wks, 6wks, 12wks etc etc doesn't alter the fact that a process of life development has started and will result in a person. My interest in this argument isn't as a pro-life or a pro-choice person, I really do see both sides. Where I get frustrated is with people who are pro-abortion not accepting it as killing a life because it needs to be a bubble wrapped action. I appreciate it is a very emotive scenario and I see the need and desire to disassociate the action from death. Why can't people just accept that it isn't illegal, but it is ending a life which has started. It is a spade and I don't condemn people for making their life choices but it isn't going to suddenly not be a spade.
    The thing is, that calling it "killing a life" just seems like such a misplaced expression. Because youīre absolutely right that it is a life form, but at this point it is a life form like any other. It is not a human being in the sense we view them, you canīt really apply the personhood to the (at the point of abortion maximum 12w old) fetus. At least not in the sense of what a human being is. It is a life form, but so are seedlings, so are eggs and all the other life forms that donīt hold any rights. Calling abortion killing is not right, because you are not killing another person, you are terminating a life form just like people do on an everyday basis. On the same note we could just go ahead and authomatically call every person who owns a gun a killer, because they have the potential to use it. A human fetus has a potential to become a person, but itself it is not one, therefore can we really call it a "killing"?
    In the end, we all are who we are, no matter how much we may appear to have changed.


  22. #17
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,542
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 3,639 Times in 1,711 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny View Post
    The thing is, that calling it "killing a life" just seems like such a misplaced expression. Because youīre absolutely right that it is a life form, but at this point it is a life form like any other. It is not a human being in the sense we view them, you canīt really apply the personhood to the (at the point of abortion maximum 12w old) fetus. At least not in the sense of what a human being is. It is a life form, but so are seedlings, so are eggs and all the other life forms that donīt hold any rights. Calling abortion killing is not right, because you are not killing another person, you are terminating a life form just like people do on an everyday basis. On the same note we could just go ahead and authomatically call every person who owns a gun a killer, because they have the potential to use it. A human fetus has a potential to become a person, but itself it is not one, therefore can we really call it a "killing"?
    I can see where "killing" isn't really the relevant term that can accommodate a universalist approach to the discussion. Which is why I steer toward "nullification". I can't think of other words, too, but that fits best. I find an analogy for the whole idea in science fiction, in time travel. Every piece of time travel fiction that operates on the premise that futures are dynamic and changeable contains this notion -- a villain wants to go back in time to change something, and that will eradicate the world that is known in favor of whatever else would have happened.

    Now, the "present", the thing that they are trying to save, can't be "killed" in the past, because it hasn't been realized. It can be nullified, though, negated. Erased from probability. That's more akin to what an abortion does in the context of the developing child that will no longer exist.

    Banner by LRae12

  23. #18
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Yes, to bracket the various matrices of "desire to terminate pregnancy" calculated vs. "existential discomfort over value of developing human life". The mere fact that there is such a thing is a timeframe exists in law is a tacit admission that whatever's going on in there is generally understood to have ever-increasing independent worth.
    No one even debates that. What people debate is weather the cells at the start of this process have the same status as the finished person..


    It's an odd thing that you mention it, because the law has no trouble imposing positive duties on parents with regard to the measures they must take to ensure the safety of their children, ex utero, legal obligations on "what they do with their lives".
    Yet the law does not force children on people. If they can't take care of them, the law actively takes them away from the parents.


    We do as a society not force people to sustain other life with our own bodies (I mean the actual bodies not work or something like that). People die everyday needing a kidney or other organs, but we do not force people to donate organs they can live without, or even blood, or those of their dead body. It is our free decision to sustain someone else's life. And I think the same thing goes for motherhood. It's no more moral to force a woman to carry to term than cut out a kidney against the will of the donor. Pause and think about the fact for a moment that we leave more sovereignty to people over their dead remains than we leave to women if society forces them to carry to term.


    Uh, yes it will, obviously. All else being equal and proceeding within spec, that handful of cells will be a human being and can't become anything else. It's not going to suddenly turn into a Weimeraner. It's not going to be a pony or an XBox. I think it's incredibly disingenuous to act as though the stages of human development work as though there are four or five distinct metaphysical constructs, that the zygote "ends" and the fetus "begins" and then the fetus "ends" and then the baby "begins", and none has any meaningful connection to the others.
    Still they stages can't be run through without the body of the mother. An egg does not become a person on it's own. It dies, without ever having reached that stage. That's just nature, sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    Ambivalence towards a pregnancy doesn't end it. The attitude and feelings of the mother don't end it. The decision to terminate a pregnancy and the act of having an abortion does, if this didn't happen and the fetus remains viable then a baby will grow and develop in the womb.
    Yes, and? There is a woman living in that body, she decides what happens with it and the foetus cannot survive a separation.To sustain that life or not is a decision, both ways.
    Last edited by Nixennacht; 09-02-12 at 05:59 PM.

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nixennacht For This Useful Post:

    TimeTravellingBunny (09-02-12),Zugma (20-08-15)

  25. #19
    fandom whore Jenni Lou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    AWESOMEville
    Posts
    5,811
    Thanks
    938
    Thanked 1,146 Times in 340 Posts

    Default

    The world is already overpopulated. Look at a chart and see the ever-increasing rate at which we multiply. It's insane. We cannot sustain these numbers. I'm not saying abortion should be used as a tool to combat overpopulation. Just saying that there's more than enough of us already and I can't be mad because some woman decided she didn't want a baby or didn't want to give one up for adoption. I'm just not mad about that, sorry.

    Also, don't want to get into a debate about anything here. Everyone likes to talk about abortion as life starting at conception or not. It's irrelevant to me. It's one of those things in this world that there will never be agreement on. Never. Seems pointless to argue about it. You just talk yourself in circles. It's why it's been a controversial subject for as long as it has.

    Me? I'm fine with it. There are women who abuse this right. Of course there are. But there are women who do not. I had one. My first time (which lasted about 11 seconds) got me pregnant. I don't feel as though I did something wrong by not going through with the pregnancy.

    I believe it is a personal choice and that people should not shame you for making it. We all have demons. We all make mistakes. Those folks out there with their picket signs I guarantee have their own little secrets they'd rather not get out. And we have bigger problems than the Planned Parenthood around the corner imo.

    follow daydreaming on twitter / livejournal / tumblr / facebook for instant site updates!

  26. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Jenni Lou For This Useful Post:

    Bre (09-02-12),Demetreas (09-02-12),Destiny (09-02-12),Ehlwyen (09-02-12),elusivebreath (23-07-12),Jack Shaftoe (09-02-12),Jessica M.C. (23-07-12),Jim (09-02-12),Lyri (09-02-12),Sky (12-02-12),sueworld (09-02-12),Thomas (10-02-12),TimeTravellingBunny (09-02-12),Zugma (20-08-15)

  27. #20
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,542
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 3,639 Times in 1,711 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    We do as a society not force people to sustain other life with our own bodies (I mean the actual bodies not work or something like that). People die everyday needing a kidney or other organs, but we do not force people to donate organs they can live without, or even blood, or those of their dead body. It is our free decision to sustain someone else's life. And I think the same thing goes for motherhood. It's no more moral to force a woman to carry to term than cut out a kidney against the will of the donor. Pause and think about the fact for a moment that we leave more sovereignty to people over their dead remains than we leave to women if society forces them to carry to term.
    I know you don't agree with the position, but I really wish the people thinking that this is all just blythe disregard for personal sovereignty would at least attempt to process the issue the way those who feel this way do -- imagine every pregnant woman as having a life/death tether to another entirely separate human being walking around behind them. Like the All-State "Mayhem" character, if you like.

    For those who consider the rights of individuals to vest at conception, or at least at some point in utero, the question isn't "is a woman allowed to have control over her own body" at all, it's "is anything short of a danger to her own life enough to justify her killing that dude to relieve her stress, pain, or depression".

    I've always taken great pain to acknowledge that the pro-choice philosophy is one premised on not believing unborn children have those vested individual rights (or, more complicatedly but much less sympathetically, that there are no such thing as individual rights), but I rarely feel like pro-choice make the reciprocal effort when trying to understand where pro-life people are coming from. For us, there's a life there ("... human... now human, and helpless. You cannot abandon") that's fate twists on the caprice of someone else's right to end them for, not just their safety, but their peace of mind.

    EDIT: I thought the Population Bomb myth had pretty much run its course. World population is estimated to peak around 2050 and then fall into decline, and most of the western world will already be in decline. The United States is the only major western state whose native populations (i.e. multi-generational inhabitants) is reproducing at a rate sufficient to replace itself (i.e. 2.1 live births per woman -- enough to replace each parent and a cushion). Most of Western Europe's native populations have come close to or fallen below the historical demographic point of no return of 1.3. Abortion isn't a berm against the mythical population bomb, it's a guarantor of demographic collapse at the moment.
    Last edited by KingofCretins; 09-02-12 at 07:21 PM.

    Banner by LRae12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •