Abortion!!!!!!!!!

[Sims2789]

Conception is an arbitrary boundary between life and not life.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

@ Fifty

If I understood your OP correctly, you are looking for reasons to be pro- or anti-abortion but you don't find any of the arguments in the ongoing US debate convincing.

Perhaps you should look at the issue from a pragmatical point of view;

Sometimes it might be better to stop the development of a fetus, than letting a child be born into bad circumstances like poverty or even a childhood without the love and care of its parents.

Personally I do not consider pro-life points of view valid unless someone practices that to a 100%, meaning you can't advocate war, execution of criminals or even the killing of animals and be pro-life at the same time IMO.

 

[capslock]

Ok, so that's a further distinction, but I dont see how having unique vs. nonunique DNA is particularly relevant (from a moral standpoint, which is of course what we are concerned with).

The point is, its a new life. The life of a human starts at conception, ends at death.

Legal claims aside (I'm concerned with morality rather than legality), I do indeed think that it is obviously immoral to let someone starve to death when you are fully capable of giving them some food.

If you had a responsibility to help everyone that needed it, you would be a slave to humanity. You and yours are all you have to worry about, from a moral standpoint, IMO. Any thing else you can do is nice, but not necessary.

 

[Atlas14]

So the moral status of abortion would change if we ate the babies?

Presumably yes. If we ate babies, then the chief difference is the method in which the baby is killed. I don't see eating babies becoming acceptable any time soon though.

 

[El_Machinae]

Unique DNA means nothing.

If I separated a skin cell, dedifferentiated it into an embryo, and then nurtured it to become a person ... it would deserve the same protections I do. This cell wouldn't cease 'being alive' the entire time; yet there is no onus to keep a skin cell alive

I believe in preserving sentience and knowledge, if it's already there. This is merely an application of the Golden Rule. As well, it's a good idea. If we endeavour to protect sentience, then if we're ever in a situation where people are tempted to kill us, society will have precedent to save us. This is not the same as forcing things into sentience, if we can.

Basically, smashing a block of marble is not the same as smashing the statue of David. And just because a block of marble is a potential statue, there's no moral onus to make it into one. Make bookends, or something.

 

[warpus]

Presumably yes. If we ate babies, then the chief difference is the method in which the baby is killed. I don't see eating babies becoming acceptable any time soon though.

I am waiting in anticipation with a large jar of tartar sauce.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Hey guys this came up in another thread but sting it again in here.
On CHRSTAIN STANCE on ABORTION

My mistake: Before the baby can move by itself. Not before drawing first breath, (drawing first breath I was certain was in post revolutionary US. But that looks like it was in relation to another law and not abortion) Ops

Abortion laws and their enforcement have fluctuated through various eras. Many early laws and church doctrine focused on "quickening," when a fetus began to move on its own, as a way to differentiate when an abortion became impermissible

The history of abortion law dates back to ancient times and has impacted men and women in a variety of ways in different times and places. Historically, it is unclear how often the ethics of abortion (induced abortion) was discussed, but under Christian influence the West generally frowned on abortion. In English common law and early American common law abortion was legal if performed before "quickening." By the late 19th century many nations had passed laws that banned abortion. In the later half of the 20th century some nations began to legalize abortion. This controversial subject has sparked heated debate and in some cases even violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Oh found it

In Christian theology, ensoulment refers to the creation of a soul within, or the placing of a soul into, a human being—a concept most often discussed in reference to abortion.

Some theologians have believed that souls are newly created within a developing baby, while some believe that souls were created before time and are added to babies while the body develops

Some commentators use the verse from Exodus 21 to support abortion; they state that the phrase any harm applies to only the mother. Others who oppose abortion hold it to apply to both mother and child. These verses do not describe ensoulment or a similar act occurring in utero. Rather, they describe a special act of anointing or setting apart, which does not take place for regular people not specially identified and set apart by God. This leaves open the possibility that ensoulment may already have taken place prior to the special anointing described in these verses. In Psalm 139 of the Bible, the psalmist describes God as purposefully forming him as an embryo in his mother's womb:

"You wove me in the womb of my mother, I will thank You, for with fearful things I am wonderful; Your works are marvelous, and my soul knows it very well. My bones were not hidden from You when I was made in secret; when I was woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my embryo; and in Your book all [my members] were written; the days they were formed, and none was among them."

This verse is often cited as supporting the concept of the embryo being fully human once conceived. Also raised is the Bible's usage of the phrase breath of life. Some who support the right to abortion hold that this means that life begins with the first breath. They point to the use of this phrase with reference to Adam: "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7). Clearly, Adam had no living existence until that first breath. However, there is no Biblical indication whether this same process applies to newborns created in utero, to which the mother supplies oxygenated blood through the umbilical cord. In addition, scientifically, there is no functional difference between a baby which has just drawn its first breath and the same baby, a few seconds prior, when it was still a fetus. The early Christian church held that ensoulement occurs at the moment of conception. For instance, the early Church father, Tertullian (160–220 CE), wrote: "Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (Apology 27).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment

 

[CartesianFart]

Anyways, convince me of your views! It's your big chance to change someone's opinion on the interenets!!!

Ok.

Just reach into your pocket and grab out a quarter and then flip it into the air call for pro-abortion heads and anti-abortion tails and let it land on your palm of your hand.There...you got your Cartesian-centricfart answer.

 

[Smidlee]

Abortion is a good way for a race of people to ripe themselves off the face of the planet. So even "natural selection" would eventually wipe out abortionist; thus a heavy price for such practices.

 

[Sidhe]

Is abortion murder?

No if it's legally condoned it isn't murder by definition, end of story.

 

[Smidlee]

No if it's legally condoned it isn't murder by definition, end of story.

And it's the politicians who determines what's legal. Now that's a horror story. (The mob isn't any better.)

 

[Gogf]

Conception is an arbitrary boundary between life and not life.

You believe that sperm and unfertilized egg cells are not alive?

 

[FriendlyFire]

You believe that sperm and unfertilized egg cells are not alive?

Or do they have SOULs ???
(maybe little souls?)

 

[El_Machinae]

Abortion is a good way for a race of people to ripe themselves off the face of the planet. So even "natural selection" would eventually wipe out abortionist; thus a heavy price for such practices.

The moties learned their lesson after a few billion years. They bred out (over time) their ability to abort.

 

[Godwynn]

EDIT: I noticed something in it that is just wrong.

I had to do it.

 

[Fifty]

The point is, its a new life. The life of a human starts at conception, ends at death.

I dont see how it being a new life is particularly significant? I dont even know if it IS a new life, could someone with more medical/scientfic knowledge elaborate? Is "new DNA" your only criterion for defining life? El Mac did a good job explaining how that isn't a very good criterion above (post #85 IIRC)

If you had a responsibility to help everyone that needed it, you would be a slave to humanity. You and yours are all you have to worry about, from a moral standpoint, IMO. Any thing else you can do is nice, but not necessary.

Most people would disagree. If a random child is standing in a street about to get ran over by a car, and I can easily say "hey watch out" and save that kids life, most people would say that I have a definite moral obligation to say "hey watch out". If you don't agree, then that's fine, but that's where your ability to influence my decision would end, because I think that we do have certain general obligations to fellow humans.

 

[mangxema]

Fifty, for a purely practical stance on abortion, I'd recommend reading part of Freakonomics called "Where have all the criminals gone?". Basically, they analyze a bunch of possible reasons for crime dropping in the 90's and conclude that the biggest factor by far is the legalization of abortion. The reason is that the generation of juvenile delinquents with time on their hands was being replaced by the first "abortion generation" (my quote). This was a markedly smaller generation, since most abortions occur because the parents/single woman doesn't feel like they/she can adequate take care of the child. So instead of possibly spending their teenage years causing trouble, they were never born.

The final conclusion is that, from an economic perspective, the cost of aborted life outweighs the lives saved from homicide. This is with the assumption that 1 fetus = 1/100th of a human life.

Of course, if you are of the opinion that life doesn't start until birth, this isn't going to help much, but it is an interesting read.

 

[capslock]

I dont see how it being a new life is particularly significant? I dont even know if it IS a new life, could someone with more medical/scientfic knowledge elaborate? Is "new DNA" your only criterion for defining life? El Mac did a good job explaining how that isn't a very good criterion above (post #85 IIRC)

It just seems obvious to me, from what I've learned in science class and common sense, that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life. Not part of a human life, as a skin cell is, but a new human being at the earliest stages of existance. How else could you define it? Like another poster said, there is no magical metamorphosis where a zygote becomes a human. It is a human from the get go.

This is significant because it means the life has certain rights, you know, human rights, specifically the right to life.

 

[VoodooAce]

I wrote a very convincing argument against abortion a while back. Enjoy
Even if a fetus is not a person, abortion is still wrong

I clicked on the link and read the post I saw there. Where is the convincing argument u advertise?

There was something there about people being able to stick a hanger in my arm everytime they feel guilty about having sex.

First off, your analogy is screwed.

No, people should not be able to give me the hanger....unless I want it. Nobody is forcing abortion on anybody that doesn't want it.

If its MY arm and I want to jab a hanger in there....isn't that MY right?

If that misguided post is indicative of your use of logic.....well, good luck with that.

Fifty, I would just say that, on your journey to search for an answer, try to stick to legitimate sources of information. There is a lot of bad info out there on the subject. Hell, Congress is straight out lying through their teeth to the SC on the matter.

 

[Elrohir]

An embryo/fetus is a living being. If it happens to be growing in a female human's womb, then it also happens to be human.

It is a human being.

Normaly, we don't have the right to terminate another human life unless it is threatening our own life.

We aren't expected, however, to go out of our way to care for random, uninvited strangers. I don't mean unwanted or unplanned pregnancies resulting from consensual sex, but those resulting from rape. A rape victim has no responsibility to care for a child conceived during the rape.

So rape justifies the murder of an innocent third party?