Abortion debate thread

Tea 1000 · 20-11-2012 12:42PM

Obliq wrote: »

Well, that's the trouble. You are actually talking about animals - we are animals. I am not Christian, but please - if you want to just talk amongst yourselves and have general consensus, that's obviously your right on this thread - just let me know, via thanking this post, and I'll stop contributing. I'd say it'll take at least 10 thanks, or one mod to stop me though.

However, if you are up for debate, then I am happy to continue showing you that not everyone in Ireland has the same take on human life as you do.

To be fair though, you're derailing a little in this particular thread. Not everyone in Ireland makes a distinction between humans and animals like you point out, but I'm willing to bet that the majority do. I'm going to assume that you don't eat a human steak for example, but I could ask is it because the law won't allow you to or because of another reason? Or do you consider hitting a dog with your car just as tragic as hitting a child?

Obliq · 20-11-2012 01:04PM

Tea 1000 wrote: »

To be fair though, you're derailing a little in this particular thread. Not everyone in Ireland makes a distinction between humans and animals like you point out, but I'm willing to bet that the majority do. I'm going to assume that you don't eat a human steak for example, but I could ask is it because the law won't allow you to or because of another reason? Or do you consider hitting a dog with your car just as tragic as hitting a child?

Interesting questions, thanks. I'm not sure I've been derailing this thread though - hope not anyway - I'm trying to speak about morality and ethics having come from us, not the word of a god that I don't believe in, essentially.

You see, I do love life. I love my life, your life and all human life/animal life. I love all the wonderful, complex aspects of this world and universe in as much as, while I can't understand everything, nor do I want to be able to. I am content to live life in wonder.

“The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are.”
― Marcus Aurelius

This quote pretty much explains why I don't eat human, and would be a million times more troubled to kill a child than a dog (I have, unfortunately run over a dog before, and that's still in my heart - it had a huge effect on me).

I've explained before that being human means to me that I KNOW humans. I empathise to the core of myself with human emotions, their thoughts/words/deeds. I also identify with animals in that I, as human, recognise their needs and the quality of their lives. In "loving thy neighbour" (I see much of the moral teachings of the bible to have sprung from human understanding of how to live harmoniously within a culture/family/social group), I place a massive value on compassion and trying to reach compromise in how best to value everyone's lives.

In the case of abortion, I consider myself pro-choice out of compassion for people in the hardships that people face sometimes. I have much more compassion for a person whose life is in serious trouble, than for the potential life of an unborn baby. My compassion (and emotional attachment) for that unborn baby rises, the further through pregnancy it gets and I would have a huge problem in agreeing that the death of a near-term baby is morally correct (although I can reason that there are instances where the potential quality of life of a baby is outweighed by the "kindness" of killing it without pain).

Hope that answers your questions

Tea 1000 · 20-11-2012 01:37PM

Obliq wrote: »

Interesting questions, thanks. I'm not sure I've been derailing this thread though - hope not anyway - I'm trying to speak about morality and ethics having come from us, not the word of a god that I don't believe in, essentially.

I understand that.

Obliq wrote: »

You see, I do love life. I love my life, your life and all human life/animal life. I love all the wonderful, complex aspects of this world and universe in as much as, while I can't understand everything, nor do I want to be able to. I am content to live life in wonder.

I can also understand this.

Obliq wrote: »

“The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are.”
― Marcus Aurelius

This quote pretty much explains why I don't eat human, and would be a million times more troubled to kill a child than a dog (I have, unfortunately run over a dog before, and that's still in my heart - it had a huge effect on me).

I've explained before that being human means to me that I KNOW humans. I empathise to the core of myself with human emotions, their thoughts/words/deeds. I also identify with animals in that I, as human, recognise their needs and the quality of their lives. In "loving thy neighbour" (I see much of the moral teachings of the bible to have sprung from human understanding of how to live harmoniously within a culture/family/social group), I place a massive value on compassion and trying to reach compromise in how best to value everyone's lives.

But this is slightly (but crucially) different to your earlier comment referring to how one defenseless animal is no different to another.
According to this paragraph, you do see human life as something distinct to animal life. You partially explain that it's because you can fully empathise with human emotions (for obvious reasons!!

), but I don't think that fully explains why.

Obliq wrote: »

In the case of abortion, I consider myself pro-choice out of compassion for people in the hardships that people face sometimes. I have much more compassion for a person whose life is in serious trouble, than for the potential life of an unborn baby. My compassion (and emotional attachment) for that unborn baby rises, the further through pregnancy it gets and I would have a huge problem in agreeing that the death of a near-term baby is morally correct (although I can reason that there are instances where the potential quality of life of a baby is outweighed by the "kindness" of killing it without pain).

Hope that answers your questions

Based on your general viewpoint, I can also accept that as your personal stance.

The reason I think this conversation is slightly derailing the thread in general is that the thread was generated following the recent case, and the majority of it is discussing the to's and fro's of current legislation/medical practice/perception of legislation and liability versus proposed changes, so I don't think we should delve too deep into this angle, because it's been done before in many threads and tends to go on for thousands of pages and get lost!
So I really just wanted some clarity on your posts from around 11 o'clock.

georgieporgy · 20-11-2012 01:41PM

While we're discussing man made morality let's have a look at how it has worked out in the recent past
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Hitler_support_abortion

Note the need to corrupt the doctor's medical ethics

doctoremma · 20-11-2012 02:02PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

While we're discussing man made morality let's have a look at how it has worked out in the recent past
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Hitler_support_abortion

Note the need to corrupt the doctor's medical ethics

And Stalin banned abortion. An atheist to boot.

What's your point?

Zombrex · 20-11-2012 03:03PM

Tea 1000 wrote: »

To be fair though, you're derailing a little in this particular thread. Not everyone in Ireland makes a distinction between humans and animals like you point out, but I'm willing to bet that the majority do. I'm going to assume that you don't eat a human steak for example, but I could ask is it because the law won't allow you to or because of another reason? Or do you consider hitting a dog with your car just as tragic as hitting a child?

That simply raises the question of what is the distinguishing feature of humans that separates us in terms of value from other animals.

I think someone would have a hard time arguing it is because of our DNA, thus an argument that human zygotes are valuable because they have human DNA seems silly.

Zombrex · 20-11-2012 03:09PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

While we're discussing man made morality let's have a look at how it has worked out in the recent past

You know what, you are right, lets discuss God made morality ... :rolleyes:

Hosea 13
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.

Choosing to have an abortion - Bad.

Ripping open a pregnant woman with a sword, killing her and her unborn child - Good

Lingua Franca · 20-11-2012 03:49PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

I did not edit Mayo Clinic's statement.

If you didn't edit it, which you did, but if you didn't, could please you link us to the bit you c&p'ed from?

Tea 1000 · 20-11-2012 03:53PM

Zombrex wrote: »

That simply raises the question of what is the distinguishing feature of humans that separates us in terms of value from other animals.

Exactly. Some will say there is none, others won't agree. This isn't the thread for that.
You could go into all sorts of hypothetical and scientific descriptions for various scenarios, and get nowhere. I mean what would someone who just lost their 3 year old say if you just produced another 3 year old who was orphaned to them and say "cheer up, I found you another one... sure they're all human and all of equal value aren't they? And scientifically you can hardly tell them apart by looking at their DNA!!".

Obliq · 20-11-2012 05:17PM

Tea 1000 wrote: »

But this is slightly (but crucially) different to your earlier comment referring to how one defenseless animal is no different to another.
According to this paragraph, you do see human life as something distinct to animal life. You partially explain that it's because you can fully empathise with human emotions (for obvious reasons!! ), but I don't think that fully explains why.

Thank you for your understanding so far! Yes, this is a good point. What I have actually said, just for clarity, is "I am, and have been, showing a parallel between the deaths of one tiny defenceless animal and another". That is not to say we are not different to animals - we, as humans (being the most powerfully minded on the planet) have given ourselves the right to kill for food/territory, etc. The biggest difference is our power over other animals (including other, more defenceless humans) and why we wield that power for selfish reasons.

In order for me to eat meat (for example), I have had to question myself thoroughly. How can I justify taking a life, when it is clearly not for need, but only for my desire to eat meat? To me, it is one of those cognitive dissonance situations that we either live with unquestioningly or we examine, and determine our reasons - I'm not perfect, but it is better to know that I am being selfish, than to ignore that fact. I live as closely to the ideal of "do unto others as you would have done to you" as possible (as do most people!), while STILL allowing myself to kill other animals (whether by hand, or by default).

It's by this regard (selfish regard, being a selfish human) that I can say it is also acceptable to kill an unborn, unknowing child (as early as possible) where the best outcome for a woman's life with an unwanted pregnancy, is an abortion. That's a cognitive dissonance that I can live with, as equally as my killing animals for food.

The reason I think this conversation is slightly derailing the thread in general is that the thread was generated following the recent case, and the majority of it is discussing the to's and fro's of current legislation/medical practice/perception of legislation and liability versus proposed changes, so I don't think we should delve too deep into this angle, because it's been done before in many threads and tends to go on for thousands of pages and get lost!
So I really just wanted some clarity on your posts from around 11 o'clock.

Hoping I have clarified my posts from earlier, above.

Actually the thread was started on 07/10 for this reason: "This thread is to share our Pro-life experiences and to stand up for Ireland being rail roaded into legislation we don't need."

The recent case has brought legislation into the limelight again, yes - and I am happy that everyone is discussing it. My take on it (as with many other people) is that the basis for this legislation springs from the 8th amendment. It is not derailing the thread to be discussing the reasons that came about, how many feel it displays a hugely unfair bias in the constitution in favour of Catholicism, and how it is the original cause of the lack of discussion since 1983 on the subject of abortion in Ireland, and how one particular moral stance is imposed on Ireland.

georgieporgy · 20-11-2012 05:26PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

If you didn't edit it, which you did, but if you didn't, could please you link us to the bit you c&p'ed from?

I did actually provide the link in post 347. In the interests of brevity I copied and pasted only a few lines.

Here,now,is a complete paragraph;

First Trimester

The first trimester measures growth from week one to the end of week 12. And, your last menstrual period is counted as part of the pregnancy. So, conception usually occurs around week three and implantation during week four. MayoClinic.com states that the "embryonic period" starts around week five when your baby's spinal cord, brain, heart and other organs form. Your baby continues to grow rapidly during this trimester---developing facial features, arm buds and eye lenses. A couple of other important highlights of this trimester include the beginning of fetal movement in the eighth week---although you will not be able to feel baby move for several weeks yet---and the development of your baby's genitalia in the 11th week.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/267425-baby-development-in-the-womb-week-by-week/#ixzz2CmSLDrXc

Tim Robbins · 20-11-2012 05:56PM

Very good article in IT today regarding history of Church's stance when life begins.

RITE & REASON: The moment of ensoulment has been the subject of debate throughout history

From the vehement assertions of some on the “pro-life” side of the abortion debate, it could be assumed their views have always been Catholic teaching. It is not so.

In fact some of the church’s greatest teachers and saints believed no homicide was involved if abortion took place before the foetus was infused with a soul, known as “ensoulment”. This was believed to occur at “quickening”, when the mother detected the child move for the first time in her womb. In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV determined it at 166 days of pregnancy, almost 24 weeks.

The Catholic Church’s current position on abortion was established only 143 years ago, in 1869. Then Pope Pius IX outlawed abortion from the moment of conception.

This is said to have been influenced by science’s discovery of the ovum in 1827 and the human fertilisation process in the 1830s, neither of which gave any indication as to when ensoulment took place.

Among those who had a different view on the matter to that currently held by the church are some of its most eminent thinkers. These include at least three of the 33 “super saints” – Jerome, Augustine and Aquinas – all of them “Doctors of the Church”.

St Jerome (died 420) wrote, in his Epistle, “the seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs”.

St Augustine (died 430) wrote in On Exodus that early abortion should not be regarded “as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being fully formed”.

St Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) held “the vegetative soul, which comes first, when the embryo lives the life of a plant, is corrupted, and is succeeded by a more perfect soul, which is both nutritive and sensitive, and then the embryo lives an animal life; and when this is corrupted, it is succeeded by the rational soul introduced from without (ie by God)”.

This view of Aquinas was confirmed as Catholic dogma by the Council of Vienne in 1312, and has never been officially repudiated by Rome. Indeed, in 1974, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith acknowledged that the issue of ensoulment was still an open question.

It is not an impression given by many on the “pro-life” side of this debate. What both sides can agree on is that human life begins at conception. Where there is disagreement is on whether that collection of chemical elements constitutes a person. It has been estimated that up to 55 per cent of fertilised ovums miscarry soon after conception. If it is held that the fertilised ovum is a person why were/are none of these “people” afforded any funeral rites?

But to look at the issue from another perspective, in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life) Pope John Paul II wrote that “no one can renounce the right to self-defence” and that “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty . . .”

He continued “unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason”.

He is referring there to someone who, because insane, is morally innocent.

A foetus is morally innocent and yet can be a direct threat to the life of its mother. Has she “not only a right but a grave duty” to protect herself?

Patsy McGarry is Religious Affairs Correspondent

georgieporgy · 20-11-2012 05:59PM

doctoremma wrote: »

And Stalin banned abortion. An atheist to boot.

What's your point?

Ah, you're a student of soviet history too!

Can you tell us why he banned abortion in 1936? ( seeing as the workers paradise had legalised it in 1917). Is it because they were so successful
aborting their young that the State was running low on workers?
Just imagine. A workers' paradise without workers. That should be illegal surely.

Zombrex · 20-11-2012 06:19PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

Ah, you're a student of soviet history too!

Can you tell us why he banned abortion in 1936? ( seeing as the workers paradise had legalised it in 1917). Is it because they were so successful
aborting their young that the State was running low on workers?
Just imagine. A workers' paradise without workers. That should be illegal surely.

Bit like a Catholic church with no Catholics, got o keep those numbers up

georgieporgy · 20-11-2012 06:35PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Bit like a Catholic church with no Catholics, got o keep those numbers up

I appreciate the joke. But for other readers who may not be as clued up as yourself it should be stated that numbers per se don't actually matter to the catholic church. That said, the numbers do seem to keep on growing......

http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=30147&lan=eng

Morbert · 20-11-2012 06:45PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

Hitler

This thread is over, thanks to an OG by georgieporgy.

doctoremma · 20-11-2012 06:50PM

Georgie - the Mayo website has been misquoted. Do you not look at your primary sources? I appreciate that in any other discussion, it's a minor point. However, in the context of this debate, I think it's important to be clear that the organs you mention, at weeks 4/5 PC, do not 'form', they 'begin to form'. Otherwise, someone reading your posts might think an embryo makes its brain in week 5 and falsely conclude that it is more developed than it actually is.

Tim Robbins · 20-11-2012 09:46PM

I posted the history of policy on when life begins from the catholic church.
Could someone please inform what it has been for any of the reformed churches or did they just copy the cats?

JimiTime · 20-11-2012 10:06PM

My apologies for not noticing that the lady in question had an abortion at 6 weeks. I would certainly not indulge in propaganda, and I would agree with what DrEmma has said in relation to the developmental state of the foetus at 6 weeks. The fact that the lady in the article referred to the unborn children on the posters of pro life groups and then used her abortion as an allusion to these posters being inaccurate made me think she was comparing like with like, but it does stipulate clearly that it was at 6 weeks, so my bad.

I would still stand by my view in relation to a growing child though. My son and daughter were once 6 weeks old in utero. Both unique human lives at a very early stage of development. Whatever twists and sophistries we contemplate, they were at 6 weeks, the same children that I kiss goodnight to now. My daughter cannot walk yet, and there was a time when she could not think, or pretty much do anything. She was more than simply a 'clump of cells' though. Her sex etc had already been determined, and the programme for making this unique (Thats important here. When you abort, you've lost a child that will never again be created. You can have others, but none will be the one you killed. If we had aborted our daughter, it would have been HER. The unique person that we hold and love daily.) human was in full swing.

Zombrex · 20-11-2012 10:30PM

JimiTime wrote: »

My apologies for not noticing that the lady in question had an abortion at 6 weeks. I would certainly not indulge in propaganda, and I would agree with what DrEmma has said in relation to the developmental state of the foetus at 6 weeks. The fact that the lady in the article referred to the unborn children on the posters of pro life groups and then used her abortion as an allusion to these posters being inaccurate made me think she was comparing like with like, but it does stipulate clearly that it was at 6 weeks, so my bad.

I would still stand by my view in relation to a growing child though. My son and daughter were once 6 weeks old in utero. Both unique human lives at a very early stage of development. Whatever twists and sophistries we contemplate, they were at 6 weeks, the same children that I kiss goodnight to now. My daughter cannot walk yet, and there was a time when she could not think, or pretty much do anything. She was more than simply a 'clump of cells' though. Her sex etc had already been determined, and the programme for making this unique (Thats important here. When you abort, you've lost a child that will never again be created. You can have others, but none will be the one you killed. If we had aborted our daughter, it would have been HER. The unique person that we hold and love daily.) human was in full swing.

Your daughter was also once a sperm and egg cell, where all the things you listed, including a unique arrangement of DNA, were present. But few would consider it a great loss if your duaghters sperm cell had failed to reach her egg cell, thus causing this unique pairing to be lost.

The reality is that e everything people list as being important and unique about the zygote on actually exists before fertilisation. The problem seems to be that they don't exist in a single unit of cells, and thus people don't consider it a person. This though is a concet to how we think about people, how we have evolved to view people as single units, rather than any biological reality.

I imagine if we as a species had evolved to function with parts of our bodies in different places, if for example our hands could detach and go off doing thinks while we still considered them part of our body, we would have much less of an issue in visioning a person being made up of two cells separated by distance, such as the sperm and egg.

Tim Robbins · 20-11-2012 11:41PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I would still stand by my view in relation to a growing child though. My son and daughter were once 6 weeks old in utero. Both unique human lives at a very early stage of development. Whatever twists and sophistries we contemplate, they were at 6 weeks, the same children that I kiss goodnight to now. My daughter cannot walk yet, and there was a time when she could not think, or pretty much do anything. She was more than simply a 'clump of cells' though. Her sex etc had already been determined, and the programme for making this unique (Thats important here. When you abort, you've lost a child that will never again be created. You can have others, but none will be the one you killed. If we had aborted our daughter, it would have been HER. The unique person that we hold and love daily.) human was in full swing.

I agree with you. But where we differ is I don't see how I have the right to force my views on other people. I'll tell them my views if they ask and I wish they knew the scientific facts such as all the DNA / chromozones existing as a unique genome in the universe, never to exist again.

Tim Robbins · 20-11-2012 11:43PM

Zombrex wrote: »

The reality is that e everything people list as being important and unique about the zygote on actually exists before fertilisation. The problem seems to be that they don't exist in a single unit of cells, and thus people don't consider it a person.

The DNA fingerprint is there the moment of conception. At that stage there is no more pruning of genes and a unique human genome is created.

It is decided what genes remain in the pool, and what don't. It is decided what mutations made and which did not.

It is a major moment.

georgieporgy · 20-11-2012 11:44PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Georgie - the Mayo website has been misquoted. Do you not look at your primary sources? I appreciate that in any other discussion, it's a minor point. However, in the context of this debate, I think it's important to be clear that the organs you mention, at weeks 4/5 PC, do not 'form', they 'begin to form'. Otherwise, someone reading your posts might think an embryo makes its brain in week 5 and falsely conclude that it is more developed than it actually is.

Not quite accurate . They begin to form at three weeks post conception.

Week 5: The embryonic period begins

Fetal development three weeks after conception
The fifth week of pregnancy, or the third week after conception, marks the beginning of the embryonic period. This is when the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form

Zombrex · 20-11-2012 11:54PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The DNA fingerprint is there the moment of conception. At that stage there is no more pruning of genes and a unique human genome is created.

It is decided what genes remain in the pool, and what don't. It is decided what mutations made and which did not.

It is a major moment.

The DNA fingerprint exists in the sperm and the egg. The shuffling of genes takes place when the sperm and egg are created, not at the creation of the zygote. All that happens at fertilisation is that the DNA joins together, but no further shuffling takes place.

https://www.23andme.com/gen101/origins/

Chromosomes Get Shuffled When Eggs and Sperm are Made

Though most adult cells contain two sets of chromosomes, sperm and egg cells are different. These special cells have just one chromosome from each pair. Which chromosome they get from each pair is random, making each sperm or egg cell unique. There is also a bit of mixing before the chromosomes are sorted into individual sperm or egg cells. Chromosomes from each pair in a mother or father, respectively, make contact and exchange pieces of DNA, creating hybrid chromosomes.

Tim Robbins · 21-11-2012 12:20AM

Zombrex wrote: »

The DNA fingerprint exists in the sperm and the egg.

The sperm has a bunch of genes, the egg has a bunch of gene - these then join
and some genes from the sperm win and and some from the egg win.

The process happens in fertilisation.

The zygote is the fusion of the eggs genes and sperms genes and hence when the DNA fingerprint of the new human is created.

Zombrex · 21-11-2012 12:32AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The sperm has a bunch of genes, the egg has a bunch of gene - these then join
and some genes from the sperm win and and some from the egg win.

The process happens in fertilisation.

The zygote is the fusion of the eggs genes and sperms genes and hence when the DNA fingerprint of the new human is created.

All the genes from the sperm "win" and all the genes from the egg "win". Each gamete has half the chromosomes, at fertilisation they simply join together.

The process of randomly picking which genes to select takes place during the creation of the gametes.

Or put it another way, the process that decides your daughter will be blonde even though you and your wife have red hair takes place when the sperm and egg are created, not at fertilisation. A zygote has the same DNA as the sperm and egg 2 seconds before fertilisation.

It is nonsensical for some to argue, based on unique DNA, that the sperm and egg pair have no value but the zygote does. They have the same DNA.

doctoremma · 21-11-2012 09:56AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The DNA fingerprint is there the moment of conception. At that stage there is no more pruning of genes and a unique human genome is created.

It is decided what genes remain in the pool, and what don't. It is decided what mutations made and which did not.

It is a major moment.

To speak broadly, the DNA fingerprint you speak of, the pruning of genes, the creation of unique genotype, these things happen before conception with the production of eggs and sperm.

Mutation events can happen at any point in the organism's life cycle (from gamete to dying breath).

Edit: apologies Zombrex, should read thread before answering. It was only one more post as well. How lazy is that?

Tim Robbins · 21-11-2012 10:33AM

Zombrex wrote: »

It is nonsensical for some to argue, based on unique DNA, that the sperm and egg pair have no value but the zygote does. They have the same DNA.

But neither the sperm nor the egg is not a complete genome? They are half.

Correct?

Sorry should know this and too lazy to google.

Zombrex · 21-11-2012 11:12AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But neither the sperm nor the egg is not a complete genome? They are half.

Correct?

Correct. But the sperm and egg together are an entire genome. So why not consider the sperm and egg pair a person if the zygote is considered a person based on unique DNA.

Obvious the answer is that humans have a hard time thinking of a "person" as being made up of two objects unconnected to each other. But that is our issue with how we conceptualize people (interestingly we don't have trouble thinking of a persons mind as something separate to the body), not a biological reality. The sperm and egg pairing have the same DNA as the zygote, so if "has unique DNA" is a criteria for the value of human life then the sperm and egg are logically as valuable as the zygote.

doctoremma · 21-11-2012 11:30AM

Zombrex wrote: »

The sperm and egg pairing have the same DNA as the zygote, so if "has unique DNA" is a criteria for the value of human life then the sperm and egg are logically as valuable as the zygote.

And to bring this back to Jimi's last point, any one child could easily not have been born for reasons other than a procured abortion - conception a month earlier or later, the second-placed sperm making a final burst for glory. These factors would give you a child different to those you currently enjoy. And nobody cries for these lost children, these people that could have been.

We are only able to process the putative loss of what we have, not what we might have had. It's, of course, impossible to imagine life without your son or daughter as the person they are now, but the people they are now are nothing but quirks of biology (or fate, if one prefers). It's almost like a confirmation bias.

*I will add a disclaimer here to say that I don't consider genetics the major factor in determining WHO your children are. So it's possible that the actual egg/sperm combo matters less than the above assumes.

Abortion debate thread

Comments