Abortion, the real Truth!! BEWARE

mycroft

Gurgle wrote:

Which is why I went googling for info on first trimester foetuses (foeti?) to see if they could move their limbs.

It was definitely the most convincing post on this thread that this may have really happened. I was putting the first post and the one about nurses keeping babies down to over-zealus pro-lifers (ie ones who resort to making stuff up).

Its not really relevant to the abortion discussion. If a foetus is born alive, then to kill it or let it die is unarguably murder, as its not a foetus anymore, its a baby.

Movement does not equal consciousness or self awareness.

Gurgle

mycroft wrote:

Movement does not equal consciousness or self awareness.

No, it doesn't.
Well done.

So?

mycroft

Gurgle wrote:

No, it doesn't.
Well done.

So?

Its not really relevant to the abortion discussion. If a foetus is born alive, then to kill it or let it die is unarguably murder, as its not a foetus anymore, its a baby.

Whats your definition of alive? being able to survive outside the womb for any length of time.

You've gone on this thread mis representing the position on euthanasia, and now this.

I mean born alive what does that even mean?

Gurgle

mycroft wrote:

You've gone on this thread mis representing the position on euthanasia, and now this.

I couldn't be arsed going back over 13 pages to see what I said about euthanasia or whose position I misrepresented. If want you an explanation, provide a quote.

mycroft wrote:

I mean born alive what does that even mean?

It means that having been born, the baby is alive.

'Alive' is a clinical definition for the state which occurs between 'non-existant'(from the begining of time to conception) and 'dead' (from death to the end of time).

'Born' is the mammalian process of extraction from the mothers uterus.

You're hung over, aren't you?

mycroft

Gurgle wrote:

I couldn't be arsed going back over 13 pages to see what I said about euthanasia or whose position I misrepresented. If want you an explanation, provide a quote.

Happily;

gurgle wrote:

How can anyone justify allowing abortion but not euthanasia ?Children should be allowed have their parents put down when they're old and infirm - they're a burden that they shouldn't be forced to carry. Its not their fault they have long-lived parents.

It means that having been born, the baby is alive.

an abortion is not a birth, a foetus that can't survive outside the womb isn't murder.

Everything is alive, a group of cells that appear after conception is alive.

'Alive' is a clinical definition for the state which occurs between 'non-existant'(from the begining of time to conception) and 'dead' (from death to the end of time).

'Born' is the mammalian process of extraction from the mothers uterus.

But I don't get your point, why is the whether the foetus is "alive" or "born" have an impact on your decision, or point of view?

You're hung over, aren't you?

Nope just incoherant points of view confuse me.

BuffyBot

It was definitely the most convincing post on this thread that this may have really happened

Convincing, yes. True - well we only have the posters word to go on. And as you know, the views and "experiences" (real or fabricated) of a random person on the internet are highly subjective.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

an abortion is not a birth, a foetus that can't survive outside the womb isn't murder.

Everything is alive, a group of cells that appear after conception is alive.

The question with abortion is less to do with whether the foetus is alive and more to do with whether it is human and thus deserving of human rights. Of course, this assumes that all humans deserve the same rights, if not my argument is moot.


From what I can see, many, if not a majority, of people will recognise a foetus five minutes prior to birth as human while many, if not a majority, of people will not consider a foetus five minutes after conception as human. As such the question becomes one of defining what is human. The ability to survive outside of the womb seems a limited meter as it would imply that prematurely born babies that require an incubator are not human or, for that matter, babies in general are not terribly well equipped to survive without care. Self-awareness is another poor meter as babies are generally not really self aware until long after birth. And similar parallels may be made of most criteria that are popularly used. Ultimately whatever the argument, it seems to boil down to an arbitrary line in the sand - a best guess if you will.

I would however note (from past threads) that the foetus is not human argument seems to be more popular with pro-choice men rather than women. Women have often taken the line that the humanity of the foetus is irrelevant as they would consider their rights to supersede its. And while this is a utilitarian argument, but I’d have to concede it is both valid and much more consistent than the foetus is not human argument.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

The question with abortion is less to do with whether the foetus is alive and more to do with whether it is human and thus deserving of human rights. Of course, this assumes that all humans deserve the same rights, if not my argument is moot.

Thats the point I was trying to make Gurgle see.

From what I can see, many, if not a majority, of people will recognise a foetus five minutes prior to birth as human while many, if not a majority, of people will not consider a foetus five minutes after conception as human. As such the question becomes one of defining what is human. The ability to survive outside of the womb seems a limited meter as it would imply that prematurely born babies that require an incubator are not human or, for that matter, babies in general are not terribly well equipped to survive without care. Self-awareness is another poor meter as babies are generally not really self aware until long after birth. And similar parallels may be made of most criteria that are popularly used. Ultimately whatever the argument, it seems to boil down to an arbitrary line in the sand - a best guess if you will.

Theres a philip k dick story where the age of abortion is raised to 12 because children under 12 don't have a soul. The ability to understand abstract reasoning, specifical, algebra.

The decision when the foetus is too far developed to abort is too complex, and should not be based on some body reflex.

I would however note (from past threads) that the foetus is not human argument seems to be more popular with pro-choice men rather than women. Women have often taken the line that the humanity of the foetus is irrelevant as they would consider their rights to supersede its. And while this is a utilitarian argument, but I’d have to concede it is both valid and much more consistent than the foetus is not human argument.

I'd agree. I think psycholgical it's easier for a man to work with the assumption that the foetus is not human, it's more emotional disgestable. A woman who must undergo the procedure, and feels the life bloom, more aware about what they are about to undergo.

Shabadu

It's a short story called 'the pre-persons' by Philip K Dick.

neuro-praxis

The old question:

If a pregnant woman is on death row, and it is discovered that she is pregnant, should she be allowed to have the baby before being executed?

mycroft

neuro-praxis wrote:

The old question:

If a pregnant woman is on death row, and it is discovered that she is pregnant, should she be allowed to have the baby before being executed?

I'm almost tempted to engage in some serious work to ensure this scenario happens. Just to see if George W Bush's head would explode.

neuro-praxis

All we'd see is a puff of hot air.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

The decision when the foetus is too far developed to abort is too complex, and should not be based on some body reflex.

The only absolute definition for a person I can think of is probably whether they are genetically independent Homo Sapiens. A foetus satisfies this criteria in that it is genetically both Homo Sapien and genetically distinct from either parent. If we possessed the technology to create artificial wombs, then a foetus would theoretically from fertilisation theoretically develop to maturity. A severed arm or leg could avoid necrosis if it was fed fresh blood and oxygen, even growing nails and wrinkles, but it would never ‘mature’ and it would not be genetically distinct from the poor beggar who lost the arm in the first place.

On the other hand all other criteria are essentially subjective, no matter how scientific they claim to be.

For example Australian Aborigines were not considered people and were even stuffed and mounted in museums. The reasoning made perfect sense at the time, because scientifically they were defined as animals, yet this view has not changed because science has improved it’s methods, but because of philosophical and political changes.

Science is not immune to politics after all, so attempting to prove a moral or political point using it should be treated with extreme suspicion.

I'd agree. I think psycholgical it's easier for a man to work with the assumption that the foetus is not human, it's more emotional disgestable. A woman who must undergo the procedure, and feels the life bloom, more aware about what they are about to undergo.

Given that there is good reason to believe that the scientific arguments that define humanity are debatable then the “it’s not human” argument does not really hold water.

However, a utilitarian approach does - if we accept that the value of an adult is greater than a foetus then their relative rights would reflect this and the status of the latter as a person becomes a secondary consideration.

Chucky

joseph brand wrote:

Maybe it is because I am due to be a father this summer, that I am utterly and overly disgusted that this happens in the world today. Who the hell stands by and watches such butchery take place before their very eyes.
The mother here was no mother at all but an animal. :mad:

Shame on them all. I feel sick right now. :mad:

OK the report did sound bad and her reason for the abortion (if true) is pathetic. I myself see nothing wrong with abortion at any stage when the foetus is in utero. However, since the divide between those for and against abortion (for me) appears to be fairly even I think that the law should be flexible:

Abortions allowed for women involved in rape-cases.
NO abortions allowed for 'accidents'.

If I could though I would relax the law even further so that in the case of an 'accident' the female's current life is thoroughly examined by committee - There is no point bringing a kid into the world who will not be loved.

Zulu

Chucky wrote:

However, since the divide between those for and against abortion (for me) appears to be fairly even I think that the law should be flexible:

Abortions allowed for women involved in rape-cases.
NO abortions allowed for 'accidents'.

...and then "one-night stand" accidents turn into damaging rape trials. It's all or nothing.

pork99

*Page* wrote:

i am and i've also havent had enough money to feed clothe and house my child.. try live it them try and speak the way you are!!

i'm sick and tired of people going on that its easy to be a single parent. that theres the wellfare!! f*** the wellfare it's bolox.

try it mind a child for one month on that money pay bills buy food and clothes then say its easy!

It seems to me that what's being missed is the responsibility of the male in this. The emphasis is on how unwanted pregnancy affects women's lives which is only to be expected. I can sympathise with the argument that no woman should be expect to bear a child she cannot support. However where is the father in this? Why isn't he being held accountable for his actions?

Men's biology allows us to cast the ol' seed far and wide. We have plentiful small gametes meaning that we can have a lot of offspring with minimal investment of time and effort. Women get one chance a month and female fertility declines sharply after the age of 35.

Men also have a biological heritage of being more aggressive but that doesn't mean that we can tolerate murder, rape, assault etc. Likewise our natural biological reproductive behaviour has to be regulated. DNA testing is available nowadays which can establish paternity beyond doubt. There is absolutely no reason nowadays why the father shouldn't be compelled by law to face the financial responsiblities that go with fathering a child.

nesf

Lemming wrote:

To quote the late Bill Hicks...

Damn you, I was going to do that....


As for the whole "debate" well...

The right to life of the mother does supercede the right to life of the foetus in this country. It is perfectly legal to abort a foetus where carrying to term would constitute a major threat to life in the mother. This obviously isn't black and white, but there has been cases of doctors being put in very difficult positions where they are forced to risk breaking their oath to preserve human life by allowing a woman to carry to term a child which might kill her. I'm sure they've been some case or something about it at some point. I'm too lazy to google at this point in the morning.

Personally, my feelings are pro-choice for other people, but for myself I would prefer to try and have the child and raise it. However I've never been in that position so I really don't know what I'd choose. I do not however feel that anyone has a right to prevent early term abortions. It gets greyer for me as the pregnancy goes on.

The whole contraception = abortion thing that came up earlier was a bit weak, but the morning after pill is one that does dance on the line a bit. I would know people that consider it a form of abortion. Some consider it no more intrusive than using a condom or the pill. It really is a matter of opinion, although anyone who opposes it's issuing to women in rape cases needs a smack over the head. If I recall correctly the whole catholic thing with contraception was that sex should only be used as a means to procreate, and that using contraception so that it was purely a pleasureable activity was wrong and sinfull since it goes against "God's plan for sex". Personally I think thats idiotic as a standpoint, but meh, people are stupid at times.

The "shock" stories that have been posted are annoying in my opinion. Sensationalism is the root of alot of injustice, hatred and misinformed opinion. Pick any "grey" area, immigrants etc, and you can pull up sensational "human" stories that support either side. Provoking an emotional reaction is not a proper means of getting your point across in my opinion, people aren't always rational when they are emotional and this can be abused by people with an agenda. To the poster who felt that the issue couldn't be dealt with properly until emotion was applied to it, really what are you on mate? :rolleyes:

The arguments on both sides are flawed, but I agree with the sentiment of some of the posters here in that the actual issue that should be debated is the one ignored in this case. Calling abortion murder is wrong and sensationalist. Equally saying that a foetus passes some magic line before being human is wrong. The legality of abortion should only be considered with the law of the situation, ie at what point legally is a foetus considered a member of this society? The law already prioritises adult life over that of a foetus, so one could infer that a foetus isn't considered human by it if one wished. The whole religious aspect of the issue has no place in the statute books. The law should be blind, not pandering to the religious leanings of part of the population.

Is it justified for pro-lifer's to block peoples choice in the matter? I don't think any pro-choice person would try to force a pro-life person to have an abortion, the key point being pro-choice not pro-abortion. Is the pro-life argument any more justified that the wish of the catholic church to outlaw contraception? In both cases one group wants to have a say in major life choices of the other. No I don't think anyone has a right to murder before someone brings it up, but the argument over whether a foetus is human life is not one that is "solved". Saying that a foetus isn't human life is just as valid as saying that it is. We don't have a good means to measure this in someone, so it falls down to a matter of personal opinion and not fact. Thus shouldn't it be left up to the individuals in each case? Isn't that the fairest way to solve it? That way people who feel that foetii are life can protect it and carry to term then put up for adoption or whatever, and people who don't believe that can consider having an abortion.

I think the argument comes down more as to whether it should be a personal choice for the people involved, and not some vague debate on whether abortions are moral or just. Shouldn't that decision on this obviously grey area be left upto the people involved?

I feel very strongly about a person's right to choice in these "grey" areas of life. I don't think I have a right to force an opinion on other people about it. I don't personally feel that I could have a part in an abortion, I really don't. I still respect that it would be more of the woman's choice than mine, but I would still like to feel that I'd have a say in it. I don't however think that my choice is more correct for somebody else in a different situation to me! One of the main reasons that I wouldn't want to have an abortion is that I both love children and could support one. Those aren't good reasons for me to say another person shouldn't have the choice.

Pro-choice doesn't mean someone is pro abortion, it just means that someone doesn't feel that this decision should involve anybody but the parties effected by it.