Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion - yay or nay?
POSTED BY: FLF
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 13:13
VIEWED: 24147
PAGE 3 of 26
Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
So for people who believe an unborn child is alive, the whole 'my body my choice' argument is irrelevant because it requires a basic assumption that they reject and that can't be proven.
Actually... That's not always true.
I am pro-choice but I realize that the embryo, fetus, whatever, is a living human organism.
There is no cut-point marked "beginning of life" for me. The question I ask is at what point can this human being survive without the pregnant woman surrounding it.
Which leads me to wondering just how far along scientists are in the Artificial Womb Research. Does it exist? Does it get funding? That'd seem to me like something that the pro-life community should invest in, if they really want to save all those would-be-aborted fetuses.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, I should really be asleep, but here's something to ponder on top of the "If you think it's wrong, don't have one" thing, 'K?
If you can't trust me to make the best choice for me and my own life, how on Earth can you trust me with a baby?
And while it is used as 'birth control' sometimes, that's a whole other problem and a whole other debate involving actually educating people and allowing them access to simple things like the pill and condoms. Sometimes an abortion is all they know about. Don't get down on them for being ignorant, because that's not their fault. It should be the absolute last option, last-ditch birth control if everything else fails and you really can't have a baby, for whatever reason. Is it always that way? No. But it should be. And that option should be available.
[]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You didn't ask a question, you made a statement, so it would be actually better for you to answer my question, especially since the answer moves us closer to answering yours that was posed after mine.
Originally posted by Eric:
Well it's easy to take extreme examples. Answer the question. When's the cutoff for not alive/alive? First trimester? Second? Birth? Cutting of the cord? Drawing of first breath? What's the basis for the answer? It's unknowable because it's subject to personal belief.
Oh, and in keeping with the spirit of the season, guess what region of the US has the most abortions...yep, the blood-red Republican Bible Belt South!
Abortions went down under Clinton. They're up under Bush.
How is a Zygot, one stage in the development of the embryo, any different to a tissue culture. They're both a collection of Cells, and frankly I don't consider a collection of cells with Human DNA 'Human', if you do make your case. So for a definate cut off point we have the first 8 Weeks where the embryo is little more than a collection of Cells. Maybe we can now move forward a little further to see if that is the cut off point or if we can go further.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Where we draw moral lines in society about what is wrong and what is right for other people to do, is a very touchy issue. These are lines we must draw. To say that the counry can impose no American concept of decency on its citizens would be to ignore all kinds of potential cases,
such as the one about the man who was just sentenced to prison for genitally mutilating his little girl. In that case he said he didn't do it, but there are cultures with belief's that support doing so. How can we have true religious freedom in this country if we don't allow parents to raise their own children with their religious practices?
How do we make a distinction? Some people call circumcision genital mutilation, but in our society we accept it.
..................
This is my guideline. America is a secular nation made up of religious people. America cannot rule on things based upon religious morality because such morality varies within our culture. Americans should not merely be vying for a simple majority in order to outlaw those things that half the population finds despicable.
But as a secular nation, science can and should be a benchmark for our tough decisions.
Scientifically, there is no benefit at all to female genital mutilation, and the harms are staggering. Scientifically, there is some nerve damage done when we circumcise males, but there are some advantages against possible infections as well, and it has become normalcy in our society. It is probably minor, but there may be a psychological benefit to circumcision for the sake of that normalcy.
And now we come to it.
Morally, the nation is divided on abortion. Scientifically though, a human fetus is less developed, and in that way, less human than the livestock we eat. Yes, conceptually, morally, this image is unpleasant, callous, cold...
because what we are reacting to is not actual human life but the idea of human life, the potential human life that we are presiding over. And that can hardly be a fair litmus test. Certainly, there are religions that are just as furious over birth control because they disrupt the potential human life, but when it comes to potential life, where would we draw the line?
Should girls get pregnant after their first period, because to let an egg pass on its own would be the loss of potential life? Should boys be required to wear some sort of condom to bed so that when they have a wet dream they don't waste the potential?
I will say this. It is potential life that makes it hard for anybody to have an abortion. It shouldn't be an easy decision, and it never is. Abortions should be reduced in this nation,
but illegalizing abortion does not have the full support of the people and it does not have the backing of science.
And I hate to say it(not really), but in the 8 years prior to the Bush administration being in office, abortion rates went down dramatically. That decline basically leveled off in 2001. If you want to reduce abortions, then those of you who believe it is so wrong should start promoting sex education in schools rather than the failure that is abstinence only...you should promote rather than hinder the protections of birth control...
but this isn't a matter of reducing abortions. This is a matter of penitence for the sin of pleasure. This is penitence for the ignorance that got the person into this mess in the first place - an ignorance you would perpetuate if you had your way. That is hardly moral by any standard.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Well it's easy to take extreme examples. Answer the question. When's the cutoff for not alive/alive? First trimester? Second? Birth? Cutting of the cord? Drawing of first breath? What's the basis for the answer? It's unknowable because it's subject to personal belief.
Exactly, "subject to personal belief". I believe that it's between a woman and her doctor and her conscience.
If you don't want an abortion, or think it's morally wrong, then don't have one.
Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have to say I'm PRO abortion. Yes, I really like it. In fact I'm waiting to get a good price on it so I can get it in bulk. You can never have too much abortion, so it pays to stock up.
Wait a minute ... what are we talking about here? Oh, that's right, a poorly worded question.
I don't think anyone is PRO abortion. They are PRO choice. Abortion is best between the woman, her doctor and her conscience. If she is some non-western religion (like Shinto) she - and her religion - may not regard it as bad. In that case why should she be forced to follow the Christian religion?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
How is a Zygot, one stage in the development of the embryo, any different to a tissue culture.
I don't know.
Quote:
They're both a collection of Cells, and frankly I don't consider a collection of cells with Human DNA 'Human', if you do make your case. So for a definate cut off point we have the first 8 Weeks where the embryo is little more than a collection of Cells. Maybe we can now move forward a little further to see if that is the cut off point or if we can go further.
Well okay, but how about 9 weeks? Or 7? Point is, I think there may not be a cut off. The progression from 'collection of cells' to sentient being may be too gradual to define. Depends on how you define sentience. Is a 30-week fetus self-aware?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FLF:
Any other opinions here? Can anyone suggest how I can convince my friend or shall I just give up?
How about a legal perspective. Row v. Wade is based on outdated science regarding viability. If it is to remain good law, then it must be periodically revised to reflect changes in the science. Thus as science increases viability then the abortion window will shrink and someday Row v. Wade could be the decision that outlaws abortion.
I also like the property argument. Who owns the fetus? Certainly the man has an interest...if not how can he then have post-birth interests that give rise to support obligations. The child has an interest as well. Isn't this really a contractual service agreement between mother and child. Or perhaps a landlord-tenant argument could be made. In most states its a murder to commit a felony that results in the death of an unborn child regardless of viability.
Still, in fifty years it'll be the lifers defending Row v. Wade from the Choicers because it limits choice based upon viability.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Still, in fifty years it'll be the lifers defending Row v. Wade from the Choicers because it limits choice based upon viability.
H
The majority of abortions are performed at a stage where viability outside the mother is utterly and totally out of the question, so I don't see this argument going far.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Eric:
"When's the cutoff for not alive/alive?" That is badly worded. The egg and sperm are alive. The cells that generate them are alive. There is a continuous chain of life all the way back to the beginning. The question is better asked as 'when is it HUMAN?'
Basic biology - when the egg and sperm fuse, they multiply into a cluster of cells. That cluster specializes into the placenta and the embryo. So you can have a fertilized egg that fails to actually form the embryo (which routinely happens). Now, the other thing that can happen is one cluster becomes two individuals - or almost two. Up until about day 14 the cell clump can divide and form two individuals (after about day 14 they become conjoined twins). Or the cell clump can divide and one set just goes away.
Many early pregnancies end up disappearing b/c of early failure to form a viable embryo (roughly 10% of all pregnancies end this way). Many times one of a set of 'twins' will disappear (another 10% of all pregnancies). This has become recently known due to early pregnancy detection and early sonograms done for other reasons.
For those reasons - failure to create any embryo or to differentiate one viable individual - to call a fertilized egg 'human' is a misnomer. Because it can easily go from being human as a fertilized egg, to being non-human as a placental mass. Or it can go from being one human to two humans back to one human, with no ability to distinguish which cells will go forward and which won't.
A fertilized egg is a potential human.
Personally, I think if we draw the line at the end of life at the end of brain activity, the beginning of life should be drawn from the same criteria. The beginning of life happens at the beginning of normal human brain activity. That happens roughly at 4 months. Oddly enough it is around the same time as 'quickening' - when fetal movement becomes palpable from the outside. British common law drew the line at quickening - when the pregnancy becomes a public rather than private event.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME