NationStates Jolt Archive

Not entirely - just that it might benefit the individuals involved.
Which of course implies that if the individuals do not wish to be pregnant...One question do humans actively seek partners?

If yes that is driven by a biological want to breed and raising children has been shown to actually be a relatively, if not unsual, stablizing force in the world.

To note I am tired and will not cite evidence to the morrow.

You're again referring to the nature of feotuses vs parasites, not to the differences in their behaviour...


Note we are talking about behaviour - not nature. Biology is not really relevant


Since their behavior is part of their nature (is their nature), I'm failing to see any meaningful difference.

One question do humans actively seek partners?

If yes that is driven by a biological want to breed and raising children has been shown to actually be a relatively, if not unsual, stablizing force in the world.


Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the question.

The simple existance of human activity does not necessarily prove that the behavior is motivated by some sort of causal determinism. This is why I was careful in one of my own posts to differentiate between the deterministic sense of "supposed to" and the intrinsic sense of "supposed to." Just because my intrinsic nature allows me to reproduce doesn't mean that when I choose to I was compelled by some "biological want." I could, after all, choose not to.

Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the question.

The simple existance of human activity does not necessarily prove that the behavior is motivated by some sort of causal determinism. This is why I was careful in one of my own posts to differentiate between the deterministic sense of "supposed to" and the intrinsic sense of "supposed to." Just because my intrinsic nature allows me to reproduce doesn't mean that when I choose to I was compelled by some "biological want." I could, after all, choose not to.I though you got carried off by Shelob in the other thread?;)

Yet, to note I just like to argue things until the other people give up.:D

Technically, all women are, regularly.
If you honestly believe a fertilised egg is a human being, and consider that nearly 50% of fertilised eggs are spontaneously aborted within the first couple of weeks of pregnancy, every single woman out there who ever had sex is a potential killer...

There's a difference between the body aborting a fertilised egg, which is outside everyone's control, and a woman consenting to having the fertilised egg aborted for whatever reason. A woman's body rejecting the egg is different to someone playing God?
And if you don't think the fertilised egg is a human being, then when do you think it becomes one? Because I'm not quite sure I understand the logic...if its X weeks old then its not human, but if its X weeks old and one day, then it is...just doesn't make a lot of sense.
And other people have been saying that the fetus should be aborted humanly...but if you don't classify it as human, then why should it matter?

Its an astounding argument and one I think will never be cleared up one way or the other.

The way I see it is thus:

I think it odd that those 'pro', fight so hard to proclaim an embryo as non life, or at least non-human life.

While those 'anti' loudly proclaim that it is life and human life as well.

An embryo is certainly alive, it has cell walls for protection, it holds dna, and it metabolises. It is also a human embryo, so it must also be human life.

Now I can hear a big debate approaching about sentience. So lets just say, you'll not get me arguing that it is sentient.

So it comes down to emotions in the end. Those who feel uncomfortable in ending human life, proclaim to all the evils of abortion.

Now for the odd bit I talked about at the top there.

I would like to say that those who are comfortable in taking human life would no doubt be amongst the 'pro' camp, but I wonder just how comfortable they are if a high percentage of this debate is discussing just why a human embryo is not human life?

Soooo it is an emotive debate either way.

There's a difference between the body aborting a fertilised egg, which is outside everyone's control, and a woman consenting to having the fertilised egg aborted for whatever reason. A woman's body rejecting the egg is different to someone playing God?
And if you don't think the fertilised egg is a human being, then when do you think it becomes one? Because I'm not quite sure I understand the logic...if its X weeks old then its not human, but if its X weeks old and one day, then it is...just doesn't make a lot of sense.
And other people have been saying that the fetus should be aborted humanly...but if you don't classify it as human, then why should it matter?

The same way we accept when a person is dead : Brain activity.
Or would you claim someone on life support is still alive once there is no more brain activity?

This is not up to you but to the law enforcement officials: If you were caught vandalizing your body you can be punished for it or protected from it (eg. suicide watch) against your will.
I do not like being made to repeat myself by people who refuse to read. I already said that I oppose such laws and support repealing or rewriting them every time, and also support long legal battles with repeated challenges to make that happen. A bad law is bad and it must be changed, and that is all there is to it. In the meantime, regardless of what the law says -- and personally I hold the rule of law as the greatest political good -- I am under no ethical or moral obligation to obey an unjust law.

They do become living beings before they're born.
Irrelevant. At no point, before or after birth, do they become my slavemasters.

Except that it's not.

A parasite rarely carries on the hosts genetic heritage.
You are presented with a statement about what a fetus DOES and you try to invalidate that by pointing out how a fetus is made? This only goes to show either the fatal flaws or the fatal dishonesty in your position. You cannot find relevant counters to valid points based on observation. Regardless of what a fetus is or how it is made or what it consists of, it still BEHAVES like a parasite, so the analogy is apt.

OK. The behavior of a fetus and the behavior of a parasite, while similar in some respect, are nonetheless characterized by many and important characteristics that make any comparison between them highly problematic.
Chief among those differences being your desire to think of them as fundamentally different, perhaps? Yes, I can see how that would be an insurmountable obstacle. What I cannot see is how it is a relevant one.

One can't really compare the behavior to two entities without comparing the two entities themselves, anyway. Behavior is merely an attribute of said two entities.
Nonsense. If that were true, there would be no such thing as metaphor or poetry -- or explanation, for that matter.

Well, aren't you a political correct one.:p

Yet, in regards it can be argued that children are also parasites too, but why humans and other humans tolerate pregnancy and childs are that it biological benefits our species.
Relationships between certain parasites and hosts of different species are also beneficial, but I do not see enforced slavery as a pattern of behavior in nature which benefits species. Also tolerating pregnancy in the species is not the same as carrying every single pregnancy to term.

Were I am expert in biology, thus commanding a complete knowledge of all the vocabulary and other lingo, I expect that I could name far more than 20. :D
So you say. Or if you had the internet available to you, you could go look something up. Too bad you don't have that resource, eh?

One question do humans actively seek partners?

If yes that is driven by a biological want to breed and raising children has been shown to actually be a relatively, if not unsual, stablizing force in the world.

To note I am tired and will not cite evidence to the morrow.
So are you suggesting that women who do not become pregnant are...what? Betraying the species? Betraying their men? Destabilizing....what, exactly?

And what if the drive for companionship has nothing to do with producing offspring? What if the two are merely complementary drives?

I am tired of people using these IF arguments to support notions that threaten my real-world human and civil liberties. All they indicate is people who do not know what they are talking about, presuming to urge me to submit to them. As if that would ever happen.

Its an astounding argument and one I think will never be cleared up one way or the other.

The way I see it is thus:

I think it odd that those 'pro', fight so hard to proclaim an embryo as non life, or at least non-human life.

While those 'anti' loudly proclaim that it is life and human life as well.

An embryo is certainly alive, it has cell walls for protection, it holds dna, and it metabolises. It is also a human embryo, so it must also be human life.

Now I can hear a big debate approaching about sentience. So lets just say, you'll not get me arguing that it is sentient.

So it comes down to emotions in the end. Those who feel uncomfortable in ending human life, proclaim to all the evils of abortion.

Now for the odd bit I talked about at the top there.

I would like to say that those who are comfortable in taking human life would no doubt be amongst the 'pro' camp, but I wonder just how comfortable they are if a high percentage of this debate is discussing just why a human embryo is not human life?

Soooo it is an emotive debate either way.
Non-life or non-humanity of the embryo is only one prong of the pro-choice argument, and it is a negative argument, rather than a positive one. It is an argument meant to counter and negate certain claims by the anti-choice side of the debate.

Personally, I do not make that argument. I prefer to stick to the positive argument that, no matter what an embryo/fetus might be, nothing gives it the right to take over my body against my will. My ownership of myself, of my own body, is the essence of the pro-choice argument, in my view. Because I am the master of me and my body, I have the only legitimate authority to determine who else gets access to me and my body. Therefore, the choice to carry a pregnancy or not must remain in the hands of the pregnant woman, no matter what her choice might end up being. Anything else is unjust because it makes a person be the property of someone else. Even if that arrangement is temporary, if it is involuntary, then it is unjust and unacceptable.

As for what a fetus is, I do not care. The only argument I make about that is that, in the eyes of the law and according to the commonly accepted definitions of the law, a fetus is not a "legal person" and cannot be accorded the legal rights of a legal person. I use that only to counter anti-choicers who make certain specific and false claims about what the law says. I consider it irrelevant to the real heart of the matter.

Non-life or non-humanity of the embryo is only one prong of the pro-choice argument, and it is a negative argument, rather than a positive one. It is an argument meant to counter and negate certain claims by the anti-choice side of the debate.

Personally, I do not make that argument. I prefer to stick to the positive argument that, no matter what an embryo/fetus might be, nothing gives it the right to take over my body against my will. My ownership of myself, of my own body, is the essence of the pro-choice argument, in my view. Because I am the master of me and my body, I have the only legitimate authority to determine who else gets access to me and my body. Therefore, the choice to carry a pregnancy or not must remain in the hands of the pregnant woman, no matter what her choice might end up being. Anything else is unjust because it makes a person be the property of someone else. Even if that arrangement is temporary, if it is involuntary, then it is unjust and unacceptable.

As for what a fetus is, I do not care. The only argument I make about that is that, in the eyes of the law and according to the commonly accepted definitions of the law, a fetus is not a "legal person" and cannot be accorded the legal rights of a legal person. I use that only to counter anti-choicers who make certain specific and false claims about what the law says. I consider it irrelevant to the real heart of the matter.


I agree with you, your body your choice. It is something of a battle of consciounce for me though. I can see that the taking of a human life is the end result and emotionally that gets to me. On the other hand, logicaly and scientifically I understand that this is not sentient life at this stage.

So I'm pro-choice although, as I say the whole debate is an emotive one.

1/3+1/3+1/3=.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999

1/3+1/3+1/3=1

So since when does math make sense.:p

Actually there's a mathematical proof out there somewhere showing that .9999999...=1. Abstract algebra is, and always will be, a huge pain in the ass.

Yeah, I know this has been done alot, but I would like to see people reasoning as to why they are against abortion and why that reasoning is good enough to be forced upon everyone.

Or to rephrase why do you think abortion should be illegal?

I am in favor of abortion because fetuses are delicious.

Non-life or non-humanity of the embryo is only one prong of the pro-choice argument, and it is a negative argument, rather than a positive one. It is an argument meant to counter and negate certain claims by the anti-choice side of the debate.

Personally, I do not make that argument. I prefer to stick to the positive argument that, no matter what an embryo/fetus might be, nothing gives it the right to take over my body against my will. My ownership of myself, of my own body, is the essence of the pro-choice argument, in my view. Because I am the master of me and my body, I have the only legitimate authority to determine who else gets access to me and my body. Therefore, the choice to carry a pregnancy or not must remain in the hands of the pregnant woman, no matter what her choice might end up being. Anything else is unjust because it makes a person be the property of someone else. Even if that arrangement is temporary, if it is involuntary, then it is unjust and unacceptable.

As for what a fetus is, I do not care. The only argument I make about that is that, in the eyes of the law and according to the commonly accepted definitions of the law, a fetus is not a "legal person" and cannot be accorded the legal rights of a legal person. I use that only to counter anti-choicers who make certain specific and false claims about what the law says. I consider it irrelevant to the real heart of the matter.

Considering the personhood of the foetus may be irrelevant to the legal status of abortion, but I think it raises some ugly implications if you ignore it. I'll state for the record that I consider the 'ownership-of-body' tack to be sound reasoning and that I'm pro-choice but largely because I'm not particularly concerned about the rights of something with essentially no functioning brain.

However, let's just hypothesise that a foetus is a person just the same as a baby. A woman would and should have the right to terminate the pregnancy nonetheless, as she has the right to control her own body. But she would be killing a person for either her own convenience, or if not that, putting her own health or whatever above the life of another, which still remains most important. Apart from in cases where her life is threatened, although sacrificing someone else's life to save one's own is still very dubious. Regardless of its legality, this would be morally monstrous, and I would be in complete agreement with anyone who would loudly protest. As people who actually take the step of killing innocent human beings, women who get abortions would be placed on or below the level of, say, Nazis, and I would say quite rightly. They would still be allowed to do this, as Nazis should be allowed to hold their absurd views, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be shunned by society.

Fortunately, I consider this a moot point as like I said something without brain activity is not a person by any stretch of the imagination. Just saying, that if one proposes that women should be allowed to kill whatever is growing inside them, even if this is true, it does no good if they become social pariahs. I consider putting forward the idea that foetuses are not people necessary because regardless of whether abortion is legal or not I do not wish to have to consider about a third of women to have killed people, and about 90% of those to have killed people for their own personal convenience.

Considering the personhood of the foetus may be irrelevant to the legal status of abortion, but I think it raises some ugly implications if you ignore it. I'll state for the record that I consider the 'ownership-of-body' tack to be sound reasoning and that I'm pro-choice but largely because I'm not particularly concerned about the rights of something with essentially no functioning brain.

However, let's just hypothesise that a foetus is a person just the same as a baby. A woman would and should have the right to terminate the pregnancy nonetheless, as she has the right to control her own body. But she would be killing a person for either her own convenience, or if not that, putting her own health or whatever above the life of another, which still remains most important. Apart from in cases where her life is threatened, although sacrificing someone else's life to save one's own is still very dubious. Regardless of its legality, this would be morally monstrous, and I would be in complete agreement with anyone who would loudly protest. As people who actually take the step of killing innocent human beings, women who get abortions would be placed on or below the level of, say, Nazis, and I would say quite rightly. They would still be allowed to do this, as Nazis should be allowed to hold their absurd views, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be shunned by society.

Fortunately, I consider this a moot point as like I said something without brain activity is not a person by any stretch of the imagination. Just saying, that if one proposes that women should be allowed to kill whatever is growing inside them, even if this is true, it does no good if they become social pariahs. I consider putting forward the idea that foetuses are not people necessary because regardless of whether abortion is legal or not I do not wish to have to consider about a third of women to have killed people, and about 90% of those to have killed people for their own personal convenience.
Because I believe that the "ownership of body" argument is the most solid foundation for the pro-choice position, I also chose not to ignore side arguments that might undermine what I see as a rational arugment with appeals to emotion or sentiment. Among those was "personhood of the fetus" claims.

I say that the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant. In order to carry that argument, I formulated my ownership of self argument with the assumption that the fetus is a person. So, to all those arguments that go, "What if the fetus is a person?", I respond, "OK, let's say that it is a person and go from there."

So, yes, if we accept the (unfounded) premise that the fetus is a person, then abortion involves the killing of a person.

But so do lots of difficult decisions people have to make in life. Abortion is not rendered more horrible than end-of-life decisions, or decisions against criminals, or medical triage decisions, or military decisions, or political decisions, or environmental management decisions, or food and drug regulatory decisions, or a 100 other acts or ommissions that lead, directly or indirectly, to the deaths of people, just because the person in question is not born yet.

The anti-choice argument is that killing anything that might be a person is always wrong. But I say that killing is not always wrong. It is always bad, but sometimes, it is the right thing to do. That doesn't make it good, it just makes it necessary at times. And so, to do the right thing, sometimes one must do something that one would wish fervently one did not have to do. Is that a cold or brutal view? To some it may seem so, but it follows the patterns of nature, and if nature seems cold and brutal then I have nothing comforting to say about that. The way I handled it was to think about it long and hard, realize the inescapable inevitability of death, and learn to work with that, rather than against it, and try not to be bothered on a personal emotional level by it. The fact is, we all must die, some sooner rather than later, and sometimes, the vagaries of fate put some of us in the unhappy position of having to be the instrument of someone else's death.

Then the question remains, when can we know that such a decision is just? And I looked at this way: Who is most affected by the decision and who has the greatest capacity to make the necessary decisions?

Again, for the sake of argument, let us allow the premise that an embryo/fetus is a person. In the case of pregnancy decisions, then, two parties are directly affected -- the embryo/fetus and the woman.

Now, which of them has the capacity to make decisions about the pregnancy? Obviously, it is the woman, not the embryo/fetus. The woman is a person, by all definitions, both legal and philsophical. She exists, has understanding, is able to conceive thoughts and communicate her thoughts to others, and is able to act upon her thoughts.

Also, the continuation of the pregnancy is absolutely dependent upon her. I mean this at the most fundamental level -- if she dies, so does the embryo/fetus. It lives only as long as she continues to draw breath and take nourishment. Her responsibility for the pregnancy, therefore, is absolute. The embryo/fetus, unable to act, unable to communicate desires or direction, unable to do anything, even breathe, on its own, can do nothing to prolong the pregnancy. Nothing at all. Neither can medical science -- it can do nothing to share, split or take over the process of gestation with or from the woman's body. It is all on the woman.

And I put it to you that if 100% responsibility is not accompanied by 100% authority over that for which a person is responsible, then the result is oppression. Give me total responsibility for the outcome of a thing (a responsibility so total that every breath I take is bound up in it), but then take away my ability to direct its progress and make important decisions about it, and all you have done is made me a slave.

As long as the progress of pregnancy is totally dependent upon the woman, then the woman must control pregnancy, and act as representative and proxy for the embryo/fetus, making all decisions including decisions of life and death, as needed. And as long as that responsibility is so total and so all-consuming of the woman's life, she must also retain the absolute right to refuse to undertake it.

Consensual relationships require at least two parties to express said consent. The only person capable of expressing consent in this situation, however, is the mother. As such, it seems to me that this argument must lead to one of two possible conclusions:


The inability of the fetus to express consent demonstrates that the fetus is not a person
[Institution] must intervene to protect persons who cannot directly assert consent on their own


In other words, we're right back to square one.

Those arguing along the lines of the second possibility above will also likely argue that once consent is granted by the mother, it cannot be retracted. Contractual relationships built on consent are meaningless if they can be dissolved unilaterally and arbitrarily.

Actually, any contract which involves the use of a person's body can be unilaterally and arbitrarily revoked. I can sign a contract with a person promising them that I will give them bone marrow. If I decide, even at the very last moment, not to do it, that is my perogative.

This is because a contract amounting to slavery is not an enforceable contract. An individual cannot sign away a fundamental right like the right to one's own body. A contract in which I agreed to follow a certain religion or to allow a cruel and unusual punishment for a given act would be equally unenforceable.

Actually, any contract which involves the use of a person's body can be unilaterally and arbitrarily revoked. I can sign a contract with a person promising them that I will give them bone marrow. If I decide, even at the very last moment, not to do it, that is my perogative.

This is because a contract amounting to slavery is not an enforceable contract. An individual cannot sign away a fundamental right like the right to one's own body. A contract in which I agreed to follow a certain religion or to allow a cruel and unusual punishment for a given act would be equally unenforceable.
Another point to consider is we can't make legally binding contracts to commit crimes.

Slavery is illegal, so any contract that contains terms that amount to slavery is invalid and unenforceable. A person may willingly submit to being a slave, but if they sign a contract to that effect, they have wasted ink, because that contract would not be honored by any court of law.

I'm not pro-abortion, I'm anti-pregnancy.

... and those with serious genetic defects were banned from reproduction, the world population would stabilise and prevent overcrowding...

Just because they have a few genetic defects doesn't mean the rest of their DNA would not be useful... Better to not to practice eugenics.

An embryo is certainly alive, it has cell walls for protection, it holds dna, and it metabolises.

(a) Animal cells do not have cell walls.

(b) The things you list are not the biological requirements to be considered a life. There are multiple lists, but they all typically include response to stimuli - something that an embryo does not do in any concerted way. This leaves the question of whether or not an embryo (or very early fetus) meets the requirements up for debate.

There really is no question of whether or not the fetus is alive - as a separate organism - after the nervous system develops to the point where it allows concerted response to stimuli. Most studies place that point between 10-12 weeks of development.

However, based on how we define human personhood and "alive" in other medical senses (ie. brain death), it may not be seen as a human person or as medically alive until it develops sufficient brain activity.


Of course, none of this changes the fact that, even if it is a human person from the moment the sperm enters the egg, it still does not have the right to use another human person's body against her will. The personhood argument might me useful in determining which methods of ending a pregnancy would be permitted under law (ie. the state might mandate that induced birth or C-section are the only allowable ways to end a pregnancy once a fetus is viable), but it is not an argument against the right to end that pregnancy.

Except for that whole part where the woman's body is being used against her will (conveniently left out of the pro-ban argument, of course).

Well, to be fair, it was kinda her fault (excluding rapes) along with the father's.

This was the same argument I used for pro-choice, and anti-welfare: you should not have to support a being that you do not want to. Which means you should not have to pay for food for someone, even if they are starving.

(a) Animal cells do not have cell walls.

(b) The things you list are not the biological requirements to be considered a life. There are multiple lists, but they all typically include response to stimuli - something that an embryo does not do in any concerted way. This leaves the question of whether or not an embryo (or very early fetus) meets the requirements up for debate.

There really is no question of whether or not the fetus is alive - as a separate organism - after the nervous system develops to the point where it allows concerted response to stimuli. Most studies place that point between 10-12 weeks of development.

However, based on how we define human personhood and "alive" in other medical senses (ie. brain death), it may not be seen as a human person or as medically alive until it develops sufficient brain activity.


Of course, none of this changes the fact that, even if it is a human person from the moment the sperm enters the egg, it still does not have the right to use another human person's body against her will. The personhood argument might me useful in determining which methods of ending a pregnancy would be permitted under law (ie. the state might mandate that induced birth or C-section are the only allowable ways to end a pregnancy once a fetus is viable), but it is not an argument against the right to end that pregnancy.

Huh animal cells do not have cell walls? What of skin?

Granted I was using one definition on what constitute life, note that I mean this to differ from being a sentient life form.

In this definition, any thing that has an outer protection, holds code to replicate or re-produce, and metabolises can be said to be alive. Would you disagree with this?

Well, to be fair, it was kinda her fault (excluding rapes) along with the father's.

So?

This was the same argument I used for pro-choice, and anti-welfare: you should not have to support a being that you do not want to. Which means you should not have to pay for food for someone, even if they are starving.

There is a difference between bodily support and monetary support, but I think that's a debate for another thread.


Huh animal cells do not have cell walls? What of skin?

What of skin? Living skin cells are just like any other animal cell. They have a cell membrane and nothing more.

Plant cells, on the other hand, have both a cell membrane and a cell wall.

Granted I was using one definition on what constitute life, note that I mean this to differ from being a sentient life form.

Actually, it differs from any accepted definition for an organism (life form). It may describe the basic minimum to be a living cell, but that minimum does not make something a life form - sentient or not. Otherwise, every cell in your body would constitute its own life form...

In this definition, any thing that has an outer protection, holds code to replicate or re-produce, and metabolises can be said to be alive. Would you disagree with this?

See above. It might be called "alive", but would not be considered an organism based solely on those criteria. Under those criteria, the best you would be able to get was that each individual cell within an embryo is alive much like you can claim that most of the individual cells within your body are alive.

Actually, it differs from any accepted definition for an organism (life form). It may describe the basic minimum to be a living cell, but that minimum does not make something a life form - sentient or not. Otherwise, every cell in your body would constitute its own life form...

Yep yep, but I did state life, not living organism. Yes I agree every cell in your body is alive.

Life must ultimately start at the cell level, I mean isn't all that lives just a combination of living cells?

So?

I am just saying she indirectly choose to support it by:

A: Choosing to have sex when she did not want a baby, and

B: Failing to employ a method of birth control when doing so.

What did she expect? I think abortion should probably stay legal, but I also believe people should be responsible.


There is a difference between bodily support and monetary support, but I think that's a debate for another thread.


Indeed. Should a woman have to support her son? Should a woman have to support some else's kid she does not know 400 kilometers away? Should I have to support this woman?

Yep yep, but I did state life, not living organism. Yes I agree every cell in your body is alive.

Life must ultimately start at the cell level, I mean isn't all that lives just a combination of living cells?

Not really. There are combinations of living cells that are not actually lives in and of themselves. A colony of bacteria, for instance, is considered alive only in that the individual cells are living. A multicellular organism, on the other hand, is considered to be alive based on what having living cells allows it to do as an entity - on its overall function. Having living cells is necessary, but not sufficient.


I am just saying she indirectly choose to support it by:

A: Choosing to have sex when she did not want a baby, and

B: Failing to employ a method of birth control when doing so.

What did she expect? I think abortion should probably stay legal, but I also believe people should be responsible.

What makes you think she failed to employ birth control. Last numbers I saw, some 60% of women getting abortions were using some form of contraceptive when they became pregnant.

I agree that people should be responsible. I also see a place (whether I agree or not) for the argument that abortion can sometimes be the most responsible choice once an unplanned pregnancy has occurred.

I am just saying she indirectly choose to support it by:

A: Choosing to have sex when she did not want a baby, and

B: Failing to employ a method of birth control when doing so.

What did she expect? I think abortion should probably stay legal, but I also believe people should be responsible.
<snip>
Why do all arguments in favor of restricting a woman's right to choose based on some notion of "responsibility" rely on such narrow presumptions?

You presume that a pregnant woman chose not to use birth control. You do not presume that her birth control method may have failed. Why do you make that presumption, considering that failure of birth control (whether caused by defect in the contraceptive, or by defect in the user's education about how to use it, or by just the accepted margin of failure for the product) is routinely listed as a common reason for elective abortion, as well as the for the development of the morning-after pill?

Is it because, if women make an effort to use birth control, it would make it impossible for you to paint abortion broadlly as the choice of irresponsible people?

Not really. There are combinations of living cells that are not actually lives in and of themselves. A colony of bacteria, for instance, is considered alive only in that the individual cells are living. A multicellular organism, on the other hand, is considered to be alive based on what having living cells allows it to do as an entity - on its overall function. Having living cells is necessary, but not sufficient.

Heh but you just said '...is considered to be alive based on what having living cells ...'

So an embryo can be said to contain living cells. If a cell is living, then it is alive yes? If an embryo contains living cells, then it can be said to contain life yes?

Is it because, if women make an effort to use birth control, it would make it impossible for you to paint abortion broadlly as the choice of irresponsible people?

If the birth-control failed, then no, she would not be irresponsible.

And yes, it would not annoy me if she got an abortion as much as if someone who failed to use contraceptives did.

just consider this - if abortion is as humane and "natural" as these doctors and nurses say, why do they never show the videos? Even the unbiased videos are, at the least, very disturbing.

Some scenarios for you -
1. A woman is raped. She is pregnant by her rapist and wants an abortion.
Answer: Why punish the child for the actions of its father? It has just as much right to life as does the mother. To kill the baby, who has done naothing, is to compound the malicious intent of the initial crime.

2. A woman is drunk at a party and, unknowingly and unintnetionally, is intimate with a man. She becomes pregnant. She wants an abortion because it will, "Really mess up her life." So crushing a kid's skull and vacuming his remains out of a woman's womb is not "messing up" a life? To kill someone for one's own selfish demands is to neglect that person's life.

3. A teenage girl becomes pregnant after willingly having relations with her boyfriend. She wants to have the baby, but her boyfriend says, "Do you really want the responsibility?" Primarily, if someone has relations with another, tehy are also naturally old enough to bear the ensuing responsibilities. In addition to this, if they are unable to care for the child, or simply inwilling, there are dozens of adoption agencies who will take these children after birth.

if it really right to take a life merely to preserve the ease of another? Why not just kill the land lady so you don't have to pay rent?

Heh but you just said '...is considered to be alive based on what having living cells ...'

That is not contradictory. As I already pointed out, there are collections of living cells that do not have the functionality required to call the collection a life. It can be, in that case a collection of many different lives. It also may be simply a developing tissue/organ/etc.

So an embryo can be said to contain living cells. If a cell is living, then it is alive yes? If an embryo contains living cells, then it can be said to contain life yes?

To contain life, yes. To be life, not necessarily.

As an example that might clarify - the cell culture plates I have in the next room contain living cells. The cells on those plates do not, however, constitute a life.

just consider this - if abortion is as humane and "natural" as these doctors and nurses say, why do they never show the videos? Even the unbiased videos are, at the least, very disturbing.

Consider this - if heart transplants are as humane and "natural" as these doctors and nurses say, why do they never show the videos? Even the unbiased videos are, at the least, very disturbing. I mean, they cut a big gaping hole in someone's chest and chop out their freaking HEART, and then - you're not going to believe this - take the heart out of a CORPSE and put it in their chest! Ew! It must be evil, 'cause it's totally gross, am I right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe all of those organisms are able of receiving sustenance without attaching themselves to the organ systems of another animal. A fetus on the other hand...

EDIT: Since we're talking biology, a definition of parasite is in hand. Here's two:

Wikitionary:"parasite (plural parasites)

1. (biology) A (generally undesirable) living organism that exists by stealing the resources needed by another (generally desirable) living organism. See flea, tick, mite."

Answers.com: "n.

1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

These definitions both sound fairly close to a fetus IMO.
a parasite:

par·a·site

–noun

an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
parasite

An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment.

Plus, it is not of foreign origin to begin with. A sperm may just be, but then it doesn't really meet the other criteria now does it.

An unborn child =/= a parasite. It's a misnomer, and a bad one at that. End of story!

Consider this - if heart transplants are as humane and "natural" as these doctors and nurses say, why do they never show the videos? Even the unbiased videos are, at the least, very disturbing. I mean, they cut a big gaping hole in someone's chest and chop out their freaking HEART, and then - you're not going to believe this - take the heart out of a CORPSE and put it in their chest! Ew! It must be evil, 'cause it's totally gross, am I right?

Or a liver transplant. First they stick needles in the person all over the place and stick a big tube up inside their urethra! Then they cut a big hole in a person's abdomen, cut off blood flow to an entire organ (the liver), and remove the liver (which takes up a huge amount of room). They burn a large portion of the surface area of the person's abdominal cavity, leaving it blackened. The smell is awful. Then they take a liver that came out of a dead person and has been sitting on ice and they shove it into the hole they cut out. They then have to rig the arteries and veins so that they actually fit together, using a needle and thread! When they restart blood flow, they do some more burning and then finally sew the person back up.

*has actually seen this process*

a parasite:

Plus, it is not of foreign origin to begin with. A sperm may just be, but then it doesn't really meet the other criteria now does it.

An unborn child =/= a parasite. It's a misnomer, and a bad one at that. End of story!

Let's play "find the definition that suits my opinion."

This whole topic reminds me of something a teacher of mine once said during class. A girl was ranting (I'm not saying that because I disagree with her, I'm saying that because she was yelling and banging on her desk) about how an abortion is a woman's choice, and men who are against abortion are hypocrites, and whatnot... and the teacher responded with "If it's a woman's right, and a man has no legal say in whether or not she should go through with the procedure, why then should he have to pay child support? Because, if she wasn't capable of paying for the rearing of the child then she could have had an abortion; After all, it's the woman's right to choose."

This whole topic reminds me of something a teacher of mine once said during class. A girl was ranting (I'm not saying that because I disagree with her, I'm saying that because she was yelling and banging on her desk) about how an abortion is a woman's choice, and men who are against abortion are hypocrites, and whatnot... and the teacher responded with "If it's a woman's right, and a man has no legal say in whether or not she should go through with the procedure, why then should he have to pay child support? Because, if she wasn't capable of paying for the rearing of the child then she could have had an abortion; After all, it's the woman's right to choose."

From a legal standpoint, the answer here is easy. Both parents have the exact same obligations to the child. The father cannot determine whether or not a woman has an abortion because he has no control over her body, but his obligations to a born child are no different from hers.

That sounds bloody and gross, too! Let's ban it!

Indeed!

(How did you come to watch a liver transplant, out of curiosity? It sounds quite interesting...er...I mean...disgusting and evil. Yeah.)

My thesis adviser is an anesthesiologist on a liver transplant team. She encourages all of us to come see a transplant while we work for her. And it was absolutely fascinating....er....disgusting and evil.

Or a liver transplant. First they stick needles in the person all over the place and stick a big tube up inside their urethra! Then they cut a big hole in a person's abdomen, cut off blood flow to an entire organ (the liver), and remove the liver (which takes up a huge amount of room). They burn a large portion of the surface area of the person's abdominal cavity, leaving it blackened. The smell is awful. Then they take a liver that came out of a dead person and has been sitting on ice and they shove it into the hole they cut out. They then have to rig the arteries and veins so that they actually fit together, using a needle and thread! When they restart blood flow, they do some more burning and then finally sew the person back up.

*has actually seen this process*

That sounds bloody and gross, too! Let's ban it!


(How did you come to watch a liver transplant, out of curiosity? It sounds quite interesting...er...I mean...disgusting and evil. Yeah.)

If the birth-control failed, then no, she would not be irresponsible.
Then your earlier statements about irresponsibility were trivial enough that we can ignore them, because they refer to such a minority of women who seek elective abortions? Good.

And yes, it would not annoy me if she got an abortion as much as if someone who failed to use contraceptives did.
It would not annoy you as much. Well, that's a good thing, in a way, I suppose. I'll think about how good it is at the same time that I try to figure out why anyone in the world should care about you being annoyed by the life decisions other people make.

I realize that you said (rather grudgingly) that you supposed abortion ought to be legal, but really, could you be more pompous about it without popping a tendon? You suppose it ought to be legal, even though the reasons some people might need abortion are annoying to you in some vague and irrelevant way. Sorry, but I guess you're not the only one who gets annoyed.

<snip a bunch of trite and inflammatory talking point examples>

if it really right to take a life merely to preserve the ease of another? Why not just kill the land lady so you don't have to pay rent?

I have seen this brutally mistaken and/or dishonest characterization debunked hundreds and hundreds of times, and I am sick of seeing it get trotted out as if the people trotting it were born yesterday and know nothing of the issue so far.

Understand this, please: Women do not get abortions for convenience, or to "preserve [their] ease."

They get abortions because at the time, being pregnant/giving birth is the wrong thing for them to be doing. It may be wrong for economic reasons, or for health reasons, or for psychological reasons, or for social reasons, but there are many, many reasons why carrying a pregnancy would be bad choice -- even an irresponsible choice.

Very few women are like me -- someone who has chosen never to give birth. The vast majority of women do want to have children. They dream of being pregnant, giving birth, raising their baby. When they have to abort a pregnancy, it is a painful decision full of regret that lasts for a long, long time. Even if they are confident that it was the right thing to do, they regret having had to do it because a baby is something they want in life.

And make no mistake -- abortion is not something women do if they don't think they have to. At the time they make the decision, and under those given circumstances, it is something they have to do. A lot of people, including women, talk cavalierly about abortion, but I know of no one who has had to face that decision who has treated it as if it were nothing but a matter of convenience.

Personally, I am sick of this insulting portrayal of women as unfeeling, selfish beasts. It is not only an insult, it is a lie.

I can see an argument for the excessive effort part, but unless there's some special medical condition involved, the risk to the mother's life is negligible.

But in any case, yes, the effort is the issue here. That's why my anti-abortion opinion is not set in stone. Nine months of pregnancy and a painful birth experience are a lot to ask.

Right. I don't think there can be any kind of argument for banning abortion during the very early stages when the embryo has a large chance of being naturally rejected anyway.

No, because the only thing at stake for the woman is nine months of effort and a few days of pain, whereas the thing at stake for the fetus (if it is indeed a person) is death. Dying is considerably worse than being pregnant.

You need to seriously re-assess your position.

1. You grant that abortion should be allowed in the very early stages of the pregnancy. Well, that is (as I said) when about 90% of abortions occur. So, you are OK with almost all abortions from the get-go.

2. Of the remaining abortions, most are due to rape, incest, and/or medical necessity (primarily the later). Again you seem to grant that abortions should be allowed when there is a threat to the life or health of the mother, so that means you should support the remaining abortions.

3. Every pregnancy poses a more than negligible risk to the life and health of the mother, but this is especially true in those cases when abortion is necessary beyond the early stages of pregnancy.

So, all in all, welcome to being pro-choice. ;)



Next to nothing? That's a rather extreme claim. Which studies are you talking about, exactly?

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html) and here (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html) are articles about one such study, and here (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract) is a link to the study itself.

The fact that abortion is just as common -- but far, far more dangerous -- where abortion is outlawed is an independent reason why abortion should be legal. (Note: legal abortion is among the safest of surgical procedures, but illegal abortions kill about 70,000 women every year!)

Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives, not by attempts to enslave and endanger women.

Then your earlier statements about irresponsibility were trivial enough that we can ignore them, because they refer to such a minority of women who seek elective abortions? Good.

*groan*

It would not annoy you as much. Well, that's a good thing, in a way, I suppose. I'll think about how good it is at the same time that I try to figure out why anyone in the world should care about you being annoyed by the life decisions other people make.


By Gilfig, Sirrah! This is NS! You expect someone will post something that you actually care about? However little you care about my feelings, I care half-as-much about this whole damn debate.

I realize that you said (rather grudgingly) that you supposed abortion ought to be legal, but really, could you be more pompous about it without popping a tendon?

I enjoy being pompous. I am an American after-all! Besides that, I am a verbose fencer.

You suppose it ought to be legal, even though the reasons some people might need abortion are annoying to you in some vague and irrelevant way. Sorry, but I guess you're not the only one who gets annoyed.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b7cc35b3127cceb1b2ebfe19f400000026100IYsmrNo2csf

a parasite:




Plus, it is not of foreign origin to begin with. A sperm may just be, but then it doesn't really meet the other criteria now does it.

An unborn child =/= a parasite. It's a misnomer, and a bad one at that. End of story!

Again, someone seems to have misunderstood the phrase 'fairly close'.

Fairly close =/= is. It's a fallacious argument, and a bad one at that.
End of story!

EDIT: Plus, sourcing your definitions would be a good idea.

<snip>
http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b7cc35b3127cceb1b2ebfe19f400000026100IYsmrNo2csf

OK, now I forgive you. :D

So, you would support a ban on abortion even if the mother's life is at stake? In other words, you not only think a fetus should be granted the right to use a woman's body against her will, it should have the right to kill her, too? But she should not have the right to kill it? So, following that line of reasoning, you see women as nothing but slaves to fetuses who own not only our bodies but our lives, too?

Tell me, who else would you grant the right to use and kill women?

Do you see what a hole you dig yourself into when you say things like you are "absolutely against abortion of any and all forms"? And do you honestly expect to persuade others to agree with you?



I am not impressed by your melodrama considering that in the preceding paragraph you reduced me (as a woman) to the level of cattle or, perhaps, a disposable tool. Your dramatic displays of respect for life ring hollow to me.

Muravyets,I have dug myself into no hole,I meant exactly what I stated.Until I am sufficiently convinced otherwise my opinion stands.And I do expect to persuade others to agree with me by revealing to them the evils of abortion!If women are so damn egocentric then they shouldn't have children at all!
(P.S,It may be hard to convience me but I'm still human,I am conviencable if I'm given good enough reason.)

Yeah, I know this has been done alot, but I would like to see people reasoning as to why they are against abortion and why that reasoning is good enough to be forced upon everyone.

Or to rephrase why do you think abortion should be illegal?

I don't know enough about biology to say when a fetus ends and a child begins. I am therefore uneasy about when abortion ends and infanticide begins.
Should I try to learn this? Of course I should, and that may change my opinion. But I suspect it will still be a gray area. And because I don't vote for banning abortion, and don't support candidates who do, I feel that my ignorance is not hurting anyone, at least for the time being.

Then you're a hypocrite.

I agree.:D

Many people say if abortion becomes illegal, more baby's will wind up in a garbage can. Well most people won't want to step out of the law and kill there baby's, or even get a illegal abortion, so many less humans will be killed.

If you want to stop baby's from being killed after birth, make all mothers and baby's submit DNA when a baby is born. Then have them come to a hospital or some other facility every year. The DNA would show whether or not the baby the mother comes back with is actulally theres, and not some barrowed baby. When killing baby's after there born becomes that difficult to get away with, most people won't try it.

So i don't buy into some pro-choice peoples arguement about more born baby's being killed, becuase the goverment can take action to pretty much prevent that.

...wtf did you just say? Seriously, I don't understand what you're proposing at all. How would you "make" people submit DNA?

Technically speaking, your country has a higher right for your body.

There can be legislation against suicide, abortion, organ selling, prostitution, "kinky" sex and/or homosexuality which all can restrict your right to your body.


What country do you live in? Because where I'm from, they've struck down the repulsive laws banning homosexuality.

just consider this - if abortion is as humane and "natural" as these doctors and nurses say, why do they never show the videos? Even the unbiased videos are, at the least, very disturbing.

Some scenarios for you -
1. A woman is raped. She is pregnant by her rapist and wants an abortion.
Answer: Why punish the child for the actions of its father? It has just as much right to life as does the mother. To kill the baby, who has done naothing, is to compound the malicious intent of the initial crime.

2. A woman is drunk at a party and, unknowingly and unintnetionally, is intimate with a man. She becomes pregnant. She wants an abortion because it will, "Really mess up her life." So crushing a kid's skull and vacuming his remains out of a woman's womb is not "messing up" a life? To kill someone for one's own selfish demands is to neglect that person's life.

3. A teenage girl becomes pregnant after willingly having relations with her boyfriend. She wants to have the baby, but her boyfriend says, "Do you really want the responsibility?" Primarily, if someone has relations with another, tehy are also naturally old enough to bear the ensuing responsibilities. In addition to this, if they are unable to care for the child, or simply inwilling, there are dozens of adoption agencies who will take these children after birth.

if it really right to take a life merely to preserve the ease of another? Why not just kill the land lady so you don't have to pay rent?

Ever seen video of open-heart surgery? Pretty grisly. By god, they should be outlawed!

1. It does not have just as much right to life as the mother. The woman is already alive. The future child is not. Why compound a horrible, traumatic experience by forcing an innocent woman to go through nine months of physical discomfort ending in a horrible, traumatic birth?

2. This is the kind of language anti-choicers like to employ, and it's almost never correct. At three months, the time at or before which most abortions occur, the fetus is about 3-3.5 inches long and bones are still forming and and soft-set. The skull isn't even finished developing when the child is born, let alone when the entire fetus is 3 inches long. But abortion opponents like to paint a picture of a fully-formed infant having the top of its head lopped off.

3. They're 'naturally old enough to bear the ensuing responsibilities', are they? And you draw this assumption from...what, exactly? Sometimes they aren't old enough to bear the CHILD. Children of 8 and 9 years have gotten pregnant, sometimes before their first period. What 9 year old is old enough to bear the 'ensuing responsibilities'?

Is it time for me to break out my "no, nobody actually believes a fetus is a human being" thread?

So be it.

no, not even the "no abortions, no in vetro firtilization, no planned killing of an embryo EVER" people do not really, TRULY believe that an embryo is a human being. The results, as I said, would make you a monster.

Imagine, you are walking late and night and you come across a fertility clinic ablaze. You being the brave soul you are, rush in. FOrtunatly it is night time and the clinic is entirely empty, save for Bob, the Janitor. Bob is currently passed out near the door, and will likely die soon to the fire and smoke.

You think you can reach Bob, grab him, and make it to the front door, both alive. You are actually virtually positive, and believe that you would have a 80% chance of success at getting out alive the two of you. Unfortunatly that means you also have a 20% chance of dying.

You can also simply turn around and walk out, an activity that will with 100% certainty, spare your life. It will, unfortunatly, with equal 100% certainty, kill Bob the Janitor.

So you can run, and assure your survival, and bob will Perish. Or you can attempt a rescue, and risk the 20% chance that both of you will die.

But lo, what is this? You notice a cooler next to bob, with a sign that reads "one fertilized human embryo inside". Let's say, if you decided, you could grab the cooler and run. You'd make it out with 90% certainty. But if you attempt to rescue the cooler, and bob, all 3 of you will perish.

Now you have a third choice, save yourself with 100% certainty, save bob with 80% certainty, or save the cooler with 90% certainty.

Anyone on this board will give one of two answers, some will opt to attempt to save bob, and the more risk averse will chose their own life.

Nobody, ABSOLUTLY NOBODY will say "I will attempt to save the cooler". Nobody would. Either they'd risk their lives to save another living, breathing human being in Bob the janitor, or they would run, and assure their own life.

However, if you believed, if you TRULY BELIEVED that the fertilized egg sitting in that cooler was a human life, the same as you, and me, and bob, then you would be morally bound to rescue the cooler, and not bob. Anyone who actually, TRULY believed that this embryo was a life, would eitehr save themselves, or, given better odds, would save the cooler over bob. If you actually believed that the cooler contained human life you would chose to save the cooler and not bob, based purely on the odds.

Which is where the flaw comes, nobody would do it. They'd either save themselves, OR attempt a rescue of bob. Some would risk death to save another human being. Nobody, NOBODY would risk death to save a cooler. But for those who believe an embryo is human life, saving Bob and saving the embryo are one and the same, and one should save the cooler, not Bob, because the egg in the cooler is more likely to survive.

Now some would admit "ok, so maybe the embryo isn't FULLY human, but it's 'human like', somewhat 'fractional' human." So fine, let's change the hypothetical a bit. Let's So instead of one embryo in that cooler, instead the sticker read 2. Or 10. Or 10,000. Or a million. Or 10 million (embryo's are small, after all). But now it holds 10 million, so it has to be rather bigger. Now the odds of you getting out alive with that cooler are 80/20. Exactly the same odds as trying to rescue Bob the Janitor.

If that cooler contained 10 million tiny frozen embryos, then, according to the belief, that cooler contains TEN MILLION HUMAN LIVES. How many people here if given the answer would risk a 80/20 split on their own life if it meant saving TEN MILLION PEOPLE. How many people would take the bet on their life if success meant saving as many people as the holocaust killed?

Would anyone refuse, really? Would anyone here not be willing to take a 1 in 5 chance of death if success meant saving 10 MILLION lives? I'd take that bet, and I suspect most would too.

Would anyone risk their lives for that cooler? Would anyone forsake the unconcious bob for that cooler? According to the belief that cooler contains 10 MILLION human lives, ten million. To chose one, or two lives, over 10 million is barbaric, so the implication of that belief is that you MUST save the cooler.

Would anyone do it? Anyone? Would anyone risk the 20% chance of excuciating death and leave a helpless man to die for a cooler of frozen embryos? If you TRULY believed that an embryo is a human life, then that cooler contains TEN MILLION human lives. The result of that belief is that Bob the Janitor dies in that fire, because who among us would chose the life of one stranger, over the life of 10 million strangers? The belief that those embryos constitute 10 million human lives would compell you to leave Bob for death and save the cooler. And nobody, NOBODY would do it. As I said, the moral implications of such a stance would make you a monster.

And since not even the most die hard anti abortion fanatics would sacrifice bob to save one, or 10, or 10,000 or 10 million little tiny frozen embryos, the implication is they are not willing to lose one person to save 10 million. So either your belief turns you into a monster, or you don't REALLY believe it.

Muravyets,I have dug myself into no hole,I meant exactly what I stated.Until I am sufficiently convinced otherwise my opinion stands.And I do expect to persuade others to agree with me by revealing to them the evils of abortion!If women are so damn egocentric then they shouldn't have children at all!
(P.S,It may be hard to convience me but I'm still human,I am conviencable if I'm given good enough reason.)
I asked if you advocate killing women to protect fetuses. You did not answer me. If you remain silent or confirm that you do indeed think women should be forced to carry pregnancies even if medical problems mean the pregnancy will kill them, then you will have a hard time convincing me that you are human.

I asked if you advocate killing women to protect fetuses. You did not answer me.

What, you expected a straight, honest answer from people like him? Shame on you Mur, you should know better.

What, you expected a straight, honest answer from people like him? Shame on you Mur, you should know better.

No, I don't expect a straight, honest answer. I'm just clearing the ground for freeing myself of any social obligation I might feel to pretend as if I respect him or his arguments. :)

No, I don't expect a straight, honest answer. I'm just clearing the ground for freeing myself of any social obligation I might feel to pretend as if I respect him or his arguments. :)

So, care to take a crack at Bob, the Janitor? :p

So, care to take a crack at Bob, the Janitor? :p
Haha, obviously, if you mean that as a euphemism, no I will be taking no "cracks" at Bob. On the other hand, if you're talking about your "what would you do" scenario, then, also obviously, I would be unlikely to enter a burning building, but for now, let's say I happened to be in it when the fire broke out. Then, equally obviously, I either would or would not try to rescue Bob, depending on how much he weighs. No, I'm kidding. Even if I had to spray him with some kind of greasy substance from his cleaning cart to facilitate sliding him across the floor, I would try to rescue Bob.

The cooler full of frozen goo would never even enter my head.