Abortion!!!!!!!!!

[Irish Caesar]

People usually dont abstinate by choice though.. At least most teenage boys dont...

Plenty do.

 

[Xanikk999]

Plenty do.

Only because they cant get laid anyway.

Seriously what kind of teenage boy would turn down sex if he had the chance?

 

[Ansar]

Seriously what kind of teenage boy would turn down sex if he had the chance?

I would.

My kind of ultimate enjoyment is making out on a table like the people on movies . But no intercourse.

 

[El_Machinae]

How reduced would you want your brain function to be (through reduction in capacity: i.e. permanent information loss) before you would be okay with people killing you (for convenience)?

I figure abortion is okay if the fetus is less developed than that point, that level of sufficiency where you would not want to be killed.

This, of course, assumes that you think of 'yourself' as a collection of neural patterns (static and fluid) in your brain that has a nifty biological machine attached.

 

[Trajan12]

I would.

My kind of ultimate enjoyment is making out on a table like the people on movies . But no intercourse.

Maybe someone is scared.

 

[Ansar]

Maybe someone is scared.

Of what?

As a freshman, I dont want to get a girl impregnated.

 

[The Tollan]

A fetus is a human at an early stage of development. It seems peculiar to me for one to try to claim that a fetus is not a person or human (unless one argues that being a human is not sufficient to possessing personhood which I reject).

All living things have various life stages. Most plants emerge from seeds, some animals break from eggs, etc. It is the case that humans reproduce in a way in which they begin their life inside of another human. An embyro (and a fetus) can be classified as a member of a species. A human embryo/fetus is a member of the human species, Homo sapiens sapiens. I do not consider pre-conception components needed for human reproduction to be members of the human species. Nor do I consider certain levels of brain development a requirement to be classified as a human.

I think that members of the human species should receive certain protections. Although I normally advocate humans being allowed to do what the want with their bodies there are some exceptions. If human reproduction involved laying eggs then making abortion illegal (or preventing the contents of the egg from developing) would probably be less controversial. This is not the case in present reality so one must chose do the rights of the human embryo (a human at an early stage of development) sufficiently matter to outweight one's control over one's body. I will answer this as yes. Many people do not like this point of view however I would weigh the life of a human above complete physical autonomy of another human. If there is no way to avoid the loss of one without the other then it is the phyical autonomy and not the life that should be sacrificed. This is not a desire to enchain any group of people rather if one considers abortion impermissible then one must take into account how humans reproduce and the fact that there is no technology (as of yet) to get around the problem of life versus autonomy easily.

If it were possible to remove a fetus or an embyro and place the fetus or embyro into some type of conditions that would allow for continued development then I would argue that this method could likely be used to resolve the abortion issue. Requiring one by law to give up the embryo or fetus should be acceptable to most people. Once the emybro or fetus is removed then the things would return as before (though institutions would be needed to distribute the resulting babies.

If, without an abortion, both the mother and developing baby would die then the abortion may be allowed. If the choice is one lives and the other dies or both die then the first must be selected.

Edited to improve wording

 

[GinandTonic]

A zygot without any diferentuated tissue is not a person. It has no thoughts, feelings or functions of any kind. It has the potential to become a person but that is it.

Without a brain or any nervous tissue it simply isnt a person unless you believe in an imaterial sould and dualist universe. The OP precludes these from persuading him.

 

[Xanikk999]

A zygot without any diferentuated tissue is not a person. It has no thoughts, feelings or functions of any kind. It has the potential to become a person but that is it.

Without a brain or any nervous tissue it simply isnt a person unless you believe in an imaterial sould and dualist universe. The OP precludes these from persuading him.

Wait! But isnt it genetically a human??

 

[Trajan12]

Of what?

As a freshman, I dont want to get a girl impregnated.

Just kidding You still have a while to go.

 

[CaptainF]

Only because they cant get laid anyway.

Seriously what kind of teenage boy would turn down sex if he had the chance?

'twould depend who the sex was with.

I personally would prefer an alpha female over a skeezy fat chick any day.

 

[Xanikk999]

'twould depend who the sex was with.

Hmm might not if the person was really desperate.

Or if it was the first time...

 

[GinandTonic]

Wait! But isnt it genetically a human??

Yup, it contains a unique sequence. DNA isnt "a human". After I die the hair in my plug hole wont get to vote.

My brain, aparently satisfying the necessary criteria re sanity and criminality, is allowed to vote.

 

[Shadylookin]

every time you get an abortion you could be aborting the next Hitler or Stalin, and nobody likes Hitler or Stalin. you can't argue against that

 

[Xanikk999]

So basically early in the cell division after the egg has been fertilized we are all the same animal with little differences wether its a pig, goat, human, or shellfish?

 

[Trajan12]

every time you get an abortion you could be aborting the next Hitler or Stalin, and nobody likes Hitler or Stalin. you can't argue against that

What if your aborting the next Mahandas Ghandi?

 

[The Tollan]

A zygot without any diferentuated tissue is not a person. It has no thoughts, feelings or functions of any kind. It has the potential to become a person but that is it.

Without a brain or any nervous tissue it simply isnt a person unless you believe in an imaterial sould and dualist universe. The OP precludes these from persuading him.

I attempted to avoid any metaphysical or dualist references though I may have come close to them. Why is thought or an ability to feel necessary to be human? It is not possible for a living being to immediately start with the capacity for thought. What repurcussions would this have on classifying a plant which undergoes considerable change as a result of its development? Would it have to emerge from a seed to gain its classification as a member of a species (if one defines its species in a way it cannot do so before it begins to gain certain characteristics)? If one argues that all members of the human species should have certain legal rights (unless there is a reason for an exception) then one must define what entities are members of the human species. I seek to make the case that this is not an area in which an exception from certain legal rights (which I consider should be applied to the period of pre-birth stage of human development) is justified although unforunately physical autonomy is affected. From my point of view this is not entering into religion or metaphysics although different people may have different definitions.

All species must develop from a particular point. As they develop the gain new characteristics. The living beings known as humans must have a point at which they are classified as a member of the human species. It is possible to argue that they have not achieved personhood however I find this to be more metaphysical than simply going by species classification (not that I reject metaphysical arguments).

 

[Ansar]

Just kidding You still have a while to go.

As long as I dont end up like the girl on The Real World: Denver.

She said she would practice abstinence through high school.
She had sex in her second week of college.

 

[GinandTonic]

I attempted to avoid any metaphysical or dualist references though I may have come close to them. Why is thought or an ability to feel necessary to be human? It is not possible for a living being to immediately start with the capacity for thought. What repurcussions would this have on classifying a plant which undergoes considerable change as a result of its development? Would it have to emerge from a seed to gain its classification as a member of a species (if one defines its species in a way it cannot do so before it begins to gain certain characteristics)?

Clasifications are arbitary by their nature. Cognative functioning like most things is a spectrum. We impose a clasification system for the sake of things like laws, to have lines where x being ok becomes not ok. Same as the age of consent etc etc.

There was a guy who devised a logical system of clasifing species, but no-one would use it since almost all life was bacteria etc. All "evolved" life being the far corner of one branch of the evoloutionary tree might be more acurate but people didnt like it or find it particually useful.

All species must develop from a particular point. As they develop the gain new characteristics. The living beings known as humans must have a point at which they are classified as a member of the human species. It is possible to argue that they have not achieved personhood however I find this to be more metaphysical than simply going by species classification (not that I reject metaphysical arguments).

But since my hair contains my DNA but isnt a person there must be more to it than that. Logically you must admit there is something in the potential that a zygote has which hair does not that differentuates the two.

 

[puglover]

Perhaps a fetus is not alive yet, but nevertheless I would air on the side of avoiding potential murder and vote for a ban on all abortion.

Regardless, I do believe a fetus is human life, and it is sacred, not to be harmed any more than a fully-grown human being. I am strongly pro-life, as I believe life is to be protected no matter how old it is.

What if your aborting the next Mahandas Ghandi?

Nicely said. The "you're killing the next dictator" and the "you're killing the next great hero" cancel themselves out, and are completely void.