Should Abortion be Allowed? (1 Viewer)

[Eva]

I wish that you had numbered your points but as I see it



conflicts with



The abortion can be to protect the mother and her existing family.

Brian

Thanks for the suggestion. They are numbered.

Hopefully this will answer your question as well, Access_guy49. Sorry I didn't get to it before.

I think we could agree that there is a hierarchy of responsibilities in regards to protecting life:

1. Self
2. Family
3. Others

The act of putting one's family or others' lives before one's own would be considered heroic. Therefore, the threat to one's family is not considered a sympathetic circumstance, it is a responsibility.

If the newly conceived is a human being, then it is part of her family.

A few sympathetic circumstances:
Take the extreme example, a woman wants an abortion because she just doesn't want a baby. She could otherwise handle one just fine, married, lots of money, emotionally capable, etc...

or

A woman wants an abortion because she doesn't want to leave her career...

or

A woman wants an abortion because her husband doesn't want children....

------------

Self-defense is not self-defense of your interests, which is what every scenario would boil down to other than "there is a great chance you will die if you continue the pregnancy."

Regarding that point, I will have to post a bit later.

 

[Brianwarnock]

The act of putting one's family ... lives before one's own would be considered heroic. Therefore, the threat to one's family is not considered a sympathetic circumstance, it is a responsibility.

I'd do it out of love, and definitely wouldn't consider it heroic.

Self-defense is not self-defense of your interests, which is what every scenario would boil down to other than "there is a great chance you will die if you continue the pregnancy."

So mental and emotional breakdowns don't count? It's just life or death.

My wife is coming home from the hospice today, she is now past the expected end date. I shall do all in my power to make her last days comfortable and happy, even meaningful if possible, as I believe that there is more to being alive than just breathing. And I'll do it out of love not resposibility.

You and I appear to live in different worlds.

Yes abortion is killing a living entity but if some brute had raped my wife I would not only want him dead but his bastard too.

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

I believe that there is more to being alive than just breathing.

Brian hits the nail on the head.

Eva's argument puts quantity above quality. An extra baby is preferable to being able to provide a better life for the already living. It is an odd position to take for someone on a small planet that will reach a population of seven billion humans sometime around the end of this year.

Being able to provide a better life works not only on a family scale but the whole planet. The world will eventually reach an unsustainable population. Truth known, it probably already has. Every extra human jeopardises life for all.

Foregoing a life before it has really begun is far more responsible than completing an unintended pregnancy.

 

[Galaxiom]

I would argue that based on the science we now have that humanity begins at conception

I know you don't agree Eva but this conclusion is based on an arbitrary definition of humanity, not science.

In another post you argue that the difference between a three-month-old and a three-month-and-one-day fetus is negligible and extended it through to birth. That is simply concatenating small steps and pretending there isn't a world of difference between an embryo a few milimetres long and a full term baby.

You arbitrarily define fertilization as the one defining step in the commencement of life because it suits your sense of morality. Others could just as easily point out that the difference between an unfertilized egg (ie a single cell) and a fertilized egg (still a single cell) is a femtogram (probably much less) of chemicals.

Thus, "scientifically" it is obvious the difference between a two week embryo and a three month old fetus is vastly greater than the difference between a fertilized and an unfertilized egg.

Moreover a very large percentage of fertilized eggs do not go onto become babies compared to the number of three month fetuses that reach full term. Many "late periods" and even "ontime periods" involved a fertilized egg that failed to prosper.

This is because the combination of genes is random and many combinations don't work. Some couples cannot produce viable embryos because they are histo-incompatible and their ancestry has taken then on the first step toward speciation.

Should we mourn the death of a "human being" every time the aspiring mother bleeds?

 

[Eva]

I'd do it out of love, and definitely wouldn't consider it heroic.




So mental and emotional breakdowns don't count? It's just life or death.

My wife is coming home from the hospice today, she is now past the expected end date. I shall do all in my power to make her last days comfortable and happy, even meaningful if possible, as I believe that there is more to being alive than just breathing. And I'll do it out of love not resposibility.

You and I appear to live in different worlds.

Yes abortion is killing a living entity but if some brute had raped my wife I would not only want him dead but his bastard too.

Brian

I am truly sorry for you and your wife.

----------------------------------------------------

I don't mean heroic like nobody would do it, but wouldn't you feel a sense of awe and pride for a fellow man that takes the bullet for his wife? Of course it's out of love, and of course the most of us would do it in a heartbeat, but it doesn't diminish the quality of the act. It is a heroic act, and the person who does it is a hero.

And of course we take care of our own because of love, not only responsibility, but love can have a subjective dimension and responsibility does not. Responsibility provides the justification for why we take care of certain people before others, but love provides the motivation.

Mental and emotional breakdowns are not certain, and certainly there is the choice of adoption. Breakdowns are, no disrespect intended, a weightless justification for an abortion when there are options like adoption.

And if your 15 year old son is in such trouble and is so defiant that he is causing you an emotional and mental breakdown and it is quite literally destroying your family because he is so destructive to his siblings, are you justified in killing him out of self-defense?


His bastard, too? That makes my heart sick...

 

[Eva]

Brian hits the nail on the head.

Eva's argument puts quantity above quality. An extra baby is preferable to being able to provide a better life for the already living. It is an odd position to take for someone on a small planet that will reach a population of seven billion humans sometime around the end of this year.

Being able to provide a better life works not only on a family scale but the whole planet. The world will eventually reach an unsustainable population. Truth known, it probably already has. Every extra human jeopardises life for all.

Foregoing a life before it has really begun is far more responsible than completing an unintended pregnancy.

Of course, that is, as I outlined before, if you think the life has not yet begun.

Not at all is my argument about quantity, however, it is certainly not about quality, either.

That argument is about one person deciding for another what they think their life should be like. Saying that it is even at all remotely possible for one to consider ending another's life because of the lack of quality, which is completely subjective, then there is absolutely no rational argument that can prevent us from saying, "why don't we just wipe out all the people in poverty stricken areas where they live in their own feces since their quality of life is not good enough," the measure of which we don't know since it is completely subjective.

Talking about a quality of life is based on feelings of love, I will not argue that, but I will say that while noble, they are misplaced. We love humanity, so in an attempt to reduce pain, we give everyone in Africa or India a sleeping pill. Quietly go to sleep and never wake up again. No more painful life.

 

[Alc]

Morals are constantly evolving as society's expectations and outlooks change.

You need to watch out when saying things like this. I said much the same thing a little while back and opened a wee can of semantic worms

 

[Eva]

I know you don't agree Eva but this conclusion is based on an arbitrary definition of humanity, not science.

In another post you argue that the difference between a three-month-old and a three-month-and-one-day fetus is negligible and extended it through to birth. That is simply concatenating small steps and pretending there isn't a world of difference between an embryo a few milimetres long and a full term baby.

You arbitrarily define fertilization as the one defining step in the commencement of life because it suits your sense of morality. Others could just as easily point out that the difference between an unfertilized egg (ie a single cell) and a fertilized egg (still a single cell) is a femtogram (probably much less) of chemicals.

Thus, "scientifically" it is obvious the difference between a two week embryo and a three month old fetus is vastly greater than the difference between a fertilized and an unfertilized egg.

Moreover a very large percentage of fertilized eggs do not go onto become babies compared to the number of three month fetuses that reach full term. Many "late periods" and even "ontime periods" involved a fertilized egg that failed to prosper.

This is because the combination of genes is random and many combinations don't work. Some couples cannot produce viable embryos because they are histo-incompatible and their ancestry has taken then on the first step toward speciation.

Should we mourn the death of a "human being" every time the aspiring mother bleeds?

My head spins when I hear that there is no scientific evidence that life begins at conception. I am standing on the shoulders of scientific giants when I say that because it has been well established since the 1800's!

It used to be considered that lie began at quickening, when the mother felt her baby move. With the improved technology of the microscope and human genetics our understanding changed. This is mainstream science! Now I'm the one who feels we are living in two different worlds!!!

And those fertilized eggs that don't survive actually die. I don't think that argument actually has any weight.

If she knows what is happening, a woman who miscarries, even early on, will mourn.

 

[Access_guy49]

If she knows what is happening, a woman who miscarries, even early on, will mourn.

Or she may be thrilled, depends on the person doesn't it?

Based on all your arguments in the past few posts, i have a situation which i would really like to know your take on:

Would you suggest that there should be a law that the government passes in which parents would have to, by law, donate organs to their children in order to save their life in the event they are a match and there is a reasonable level of medical certainty that both parties would live? The law wouldn't give the parents a choice in the matter?
I'm not saying most parents wouldn't do this anyways, but... should it be law?
Both parties are living human beings, and one is dependant on the other for survivaly, much like a mother must give her body to sustain the life of the fetus even if it poses a risk to herself.

 

[Galaxiom]

That argument is about one person deciding for another what they think their life should be like. Saying that it is even at all remotely possible for one to consider ending another's life because of the lack of quality, which is completely subjective, then there is absolutely no rational argument that can prevent us from saying, "why don't we just wipe out all the people in poverty stricken areas where they live in their own feces since their quality of life is not good enough," the measure of which we don't know since it is completely subjective.

Talking about a quality of life is based on feelings of love, I will not argue that, but I will say that while noble, they are misplaced. We love humanity, so in an attempt to reduce pain, we give everyone in Africa or India a sleeping pill. Quietly go to sleep and never wake up again. No more painful life.

Rubbish. I am saying that a person has the right to make a choice about sustaining the quality of life of those already born by not bearing another child into a situation where resources are limited.

People in parts of Africa are making that kind of decision every day about their children. They choose which of their children will be given the limited food while allowing another to die.

Are their decisions misplaced? Should they give them all an equal chance and let them all die together? Should the woman go ahead and have another baby knowing that it will jeopardise the lives of the children she alreay is struggling to support?

 

[Galaxiom]

My head spins when I hear that there is no scientific evidence that life begins at conception. I am standing on the shoulders of scientific giants when I say that because it has been well established since the 1800's!

The unfertilized egg is certainly alive. Your decision to define the "beginning of life" at conception is entirely arbitrary and you attempt to afford your position greater weight in the name of science which, contrary to your position, shows that life is a continuum.

 

[Rabbie]

I am standing on the shoulders of scientific giants when I say that because it has been well established since the 1800's!

Does this mean you think you are a pigmy? In that case why should we think you are worth listening to?

 

[Access_guy49]

Does this mean you think you are a pigmy? In that case why should we think you are worth listening to?

Is that to imply that all people of short stature are not worth listening to?
or all indigenous people are not worth listening to???

 

[Rabbie]

Is that to imply that all people of short stature are not worth listening to?
or all indigenous people are not worth listening to???

This was in no way meant that people of short stature are not worth listening to. As a person of short stature I would not go down that road. I was actually referring to the quotation that Eva was using which refers to pigmies standing on the shoulders of giants. I assumed she meant intellectually so I was making a humorous dig at her. Heightism never entered my mind

 

[m_elect]

Foregoing a life before it has really begun is far more responsible than completing an unintended pregnancy.

We're back to the question of absolutes in morality. Who's to say "when a life has really begun"?

If God does not exist, then morality is a personal preference to be hypocritically ignored at one's discretion. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Galaxiom]

If God does not exist, then morality is a personal preference to be hypocritically ignored at one's discretion. You can't have it both ways.

Once again we see the ridiculous implication that without God people simply cannot have a sense of morality.

The reality is that the hypocritical suspension of morality has been a central part of the Abrahamic traditons since their inception. Joshua and his followers hacked countless thousands of people to death during their bloody onslaught in the name of their God.

Thousands of preists have sexually assaulted children despite, or perhaps even with the blessing of their forgiving God. The chuch oligarchy certainly backed the impression that it was a minor indescretion.

 

[m_elect]

Once again we see the ridiculous implication that without God people simply cannot have a sense of morality.

You are missing the point that even Richard Dawkins agrees with, that without a divine lawgiver, there is no good and there is no evil. Morality is an invention of humanity. It is varied and hypocritcally ignored. When humanity ceases to exist, morality goes with it. How do you feel about stealing? You probably get angry when someone steals from you. But honestly, do you give your employer 100% effort? You don't feel too bad about that. Maybe a little bit but not enough to change. Morality is applying hypocritical judgment. It's logically contradictive in applicaiton.

The reality is that the hypocritical suspension of morality has been a central part of the Abrahamic traditons since their inception. Joshua and his followers hacked countless thousands of people to death during their bloody onslaught in the name of their God.

You're telling one half of the story to make a point that given the full information, refutes precisely what you're saying. You forgot to mention that God ordered Joshua and his followers to wipe these people out because of their detestable sins. Sins such as killing infants which is the irony of this thread. You failed to mention that the Israelites themselves were held accountable to the same moral standards and were themselves wiped out by other nations (the Assyrians and the Babylonians) as God's instruments of justice. God applies the same justice to everyone.

Thousands of preists have sexually assaulted children despite, or perhaps even with the blessing of their forgiving God. The chuch oligarchy certainly backed the impression that it was a minor indescretion.

You have no grounds to prove that God approves of sexually assualting anyone. The rest of this is correct and unjustifiable if God exists and he has given us moral standards.

 

[oumahexi]

Before answering your question, I'd like some clarification. What do you mean by sentient being and aware. Do you propose that being sentient and/or aware is a requirement of being human and, since human, then therefore possessing some quality that would compel us to protect its existence, the way we do children and adults?

If you believe that the value of a child growing in his mother's womb is analogous to the value of a flea, we should be having a different discussion. However, if you did believe that, you would then be completely accurate in making the analogy and in judging that abortion is no different than swatting a flea. But do you really want to do that? Since I think you would agree that it is wrong to murder another human being (child, adult), then you would have to then determine the point at which that embryo, fetus, whatever, possesses that value that makes it intrinsically different from that of other animals.. If you think humans do not have any more value than a flea or any other animal, for that matter, then there is no compelling reason I couldn't murder someone for the fun of it.

I propose a sentient being to be any being that is capable of thought and awareness. A flea will move whenit senses you, it is every bit as aware as a feutus. I could not kill a flea, or any other being for that matter, I, therefore, take great precautions to ensure that I am never faced with the need to. Now, where is the difference between taking precautions to ensure you don't catch fleas or you don't get pregnant? If you don't have an unplanned pregnancy you never have to take that life!

 

[Access_guy49]

I propose a sentient being to be any being that is capable of thought and awareness. A flea will move whenit senses you, it is every bit as aware as a feutus. I could not kill a flea, or any other being for that matter, I, therefore, take great precautions to ensure that I am never faced with the need to. Now, where is the difference between taking precautions to ensure you don't catch fleas or you don't get pregnant? If you don't have an unplanned pregnancy you never have to take that life!

Would you then be inclined to wish it were illegal to hire an exterminator in the event you did get fleas in your home?

 

[oumahexi]

Would you then be inclined to wish it were illegal to hire an exterminator in the event you did get fleas in your home?

As far as I am aware, it is illegal in the UK , but you're right, I would have them exterminated if they should appear, much the same as I would probably have an abortion if I fell pregnant after being raped. Not being raped, I'll take precautions, helps prevent any unwanted mishaps after sex.