Yet Another Abortion Debate Thread

[GhostWriter16]

You can't really call pure biology into this. As El Mac has pointed out so many times in all these threads, there is no clear delineation between life and not life. Both parents are human life, the sperm and the egg are both human life, the fertilized egg is human life, the fetus is human life, and an infant is human life.

If you want to declare that "life begins", you have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere. Fertilization is an emotionally compelling choice, but not a biologically meaningful one.

I disagree. The sperm and egg alone are simply the DNA of the man and woman who once possessed those things. Thus they are not distinct life of their own. Just as importantly, they will never, ever, under any circumstances, become a distinct human being alone. Even if you throw cloning in, which requires artificial conditions and thus is not applicable, its still really, biologically, not distinct from the parent.

The sperm and egg together, on the other hand, are biologically a person. The DNA is all there for the new, fully grown human being. It will grow into a newborn baby if left alone in the mother's womb.

And if sentience is the factor, why do the unconscious have rights?

I just see no good reason to draw the line anywhere other than conception. But if you do, you can only draw it out to two months because all of the organs are present by then.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I really want to bring this again into the discussion. Human being is essentialy spirit/soul not the physical body so to make the corect decision on the matter is much more complex. According to my knowledge the soul usualy enters the body when it is fairly developed sometimes at the actual birth. But if it doesnt enter at least few hours after the birth then naturaly the child will not live.

 

[History_Buff]

I disagree. The sperm and egg alone are simply the DNA of the man and woman who once possessed those things.

That's not really true, but the real answer is very complicated.

Thus they are not distinct life of their own. Just as importantly, they will never, ever, under any circumstances, become a distinct human being alone.

They will form a human, if the sperm fertilizes the egg, and the egg is allowed to grow inside a uterus.

The sperm and egg together, on the other hand, are biologically a person. The DNA is all there for the new, fully grown human being.

If we put an egg and sperm in a petri-dish, and allow the egg to be fertilized, it is murder to not implant that fertilized egg in a suitable womb?

 

[GhostWriter16]

If we put an egg and sperm in a petri-dish, and allow the egg to be fertilized, it is murder to not implant that fertilized egg in a suitable womb?

I would say so yes.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I would say so yes.

Boy I dont know if I should cry or laugh so guess I just go sleep....

 

[GhostWriter16]

Look, I don't know what's worse, getting insulted every time I state my opinion, or the fact that I so frequently make lengthy posts and only get one line in reply.

 

[Zack]

Look, I don't know what's worse, getting insulted every time I state my opinion, or the fact that I so frequently make lengthy posts and only get one line in reply.

Stop trying to slander the opposing viewpoint by using terms incorrectly.

 

[El_Machinae]

The sperm and egg together, on the other hand, are biologically a person.

Then why are some co-joined-twin surgeries more morally nail-biting than others?

(more details on the specific question is in a previous post of mine)

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Look, I don't know what's worse, getting insulted every time I state my opinion, or the fact that I so frequently make lengthy posts and only get one line in reply.

Nobody is trying to insult you. What intrigues me is how some of you with ease pass judgments in matter you are obviously quite ignorant while you make case for capital punishment. I am really in awe...

 

[GhostWriter16]

Then why are some co-joined-twin surgeries more morally nail-biting than others?

(more details on the specific question is in a previous post of mine)

Sorry, I was going to reply to this by asking what you meant, but your link cleared that up and my computer goofed (And I was too lazy to re-reply at that moment.)

I think in the second case, there's absolutely no possibility of the second "Twin" actually gaining any kind of personhood. There just isn't, its not a distinct person.

The embryo, on the other hand, is.

And as for the question of an embryo that later becomes a twin, its only one person until it splits.

That being said, the "Brain" forms four weeks after conception. If you guys would actually admit its wrong after that the only thing we'd really have left to discuss is the morning after pill, I think.

 

[El_Machinae]

in both those cases, the embryo had already split into two. Those are both twins. It is not "twins" with quotation marks, it's the living product of two embryos (split from one).

To disagree scientifically, and on this I will insist that I am vastly more knowledgable about the neurobiology, the brain does not form at four weeks. It is in the process of growing, to be sure, but it's not formed. I cannot even think of an analogy, the neurons are in no state to be called 'a brain'.

 

[GhostWriter16]

in both those cases, the embryo had already split into two. Those are both twins. It is not "twins" with quotation marks, it's the living product of two embryos (split from one).

If there is no brain and isn't ever going to be a brain, I'd have to say I see no issue.

An embryo, on the other hand, while not having a brain in the extremely early stages, is in the process of growing one. That's EXTREMELY morally different to me than destroying a biologically existant thing that has no, and will never have, a brain.

 

[El_Machinae]

You can see why I think that it's the brain that matters, then, eh? As to whether killing something that 'will' have a brain is morally important, well, if my pop had killed my sperm, I'd not have a brain right now. If you took a snapshot of that sperm at t minus 30 seconds, you'd say "yep, that sperm will have a brain someday". Killing the sperm would have ended *me* just as surely as a morning after pill or a gunshot right now.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Look, I don't know what's worse, getting insulted every time I state my opinion, or the fact that I so frequently make lengthy posts and only get one line in reply.

Suck it up. Once you start respecting other posters you may start to complain about not getting any respect.

 

[Truronian]

I disagree. The sperm and egg alone are simply the DNA of the man and woman who once possessed those things. Thus they are not distinct life of their own. Just as importantly, they will never, ever, under any circumstances, become a distinct human being alone. Even if you throw cloning in, which requires artificial conditions and thus is not applicable, its still really, biologically, not distinct from the parent.

Nor will an embryo alone...

The sperm and egg together, on the other hand, are biologically a person. The DNA is all there for the new, fully grown human being. It will grow into a newborn baby if left alone in the mother's womb.

No, they're not biologically a person. They are a cell with unique DNA which might grow into a person, or might grow into two persons (identical twins) or might grow into nothing at all (miscarriage).

I just see no good reason to draw the line anywhere other than conception. But if you do, you can only draw it out to two months because all of the organs are present by then.

Well, there are plenty of good reasons draw the line at around the twenty week mark:

- This is when the brain has nearly fully developed
- This is just before some feotus' are viable
- This is when quickening occurs
- This is plenty of time for doctors to perform abortions for medical reasons such as ectopic pregnancy

The first one there is the big deal, as El_Mac says the brain is the important part of a human. It's why we don't treat identical twins like they're the same person and it's why we don't treat chimeras as two distinct people.

Suggesting conception is the start of 'personhood' just doesn't make any sense to me, as a zygote has none of the properties we associate with people. The only thing that it has that an ovum and spermatazoon sitting right next to each other don't is about 30 minutes extra development.

I'm also going to call you on that first sentence:

"I just see no good reason to draw the line anywhere other than conception."

If you're calling for the death penalty for doctors you should really be a little more knowledgeable in the field and have more conviction than 'I just see no good reason...'.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Then why are some co-joined-twin surgeries more morally nail-biting than others?

(more details on the specific question is in a previous post of mine)

Can't we just sticky this link to the top of every abortion thread with a rule that any member must directly address it before being allowed to post?

 

[Farm Boy]

Are we again 6 pages into yet another abortion thread with very little substance other than "it's murder" and "you can't murder a nonperson!" I suppose demographically this mostly makes sense, seeing as abortion to the largely young and male is merely an interesting mental exercise in morality.

The root cause of this entire debate lies in attempting to determine when the core rights of one human must by necessity override core rights of another. If you are pro-choice and busily attempting to rationalize at what dates a developing embryo has no ethical worth you are doing just that, rationalizing to make your position "cleaner." If you are pro-life and stamping your foot on the ground about the whole issue you are ignoring the fact that without some measure of final control over their own reproductive process you are seeking to shackle the value of a woman's personhood under her value as a broodmare. There is much ill to be done in curtailing humanity in both of these manners.

I don't care which side of this issue people on, not really, because ultimately the call to action for both sides should roughly be the same. Go help, support, and show agape love to women who are in need of assistance. Why do women with unexpected pregnancies abort? It isn't an easy decision for most of them despite how one might be inclined to either call for their execution or blithely assume there are no emotional repercussions for terminating a "nonperson." It's a choice that is made and often followed up with a lifetime of uncertainty, doubt, and pain. They abort because they are unready or unable to parent. Society doesn't help by shaming pregnant women with neither intent nor ability to parent as loose, immoral, or stupid. If we would be willing to redirect our energy spent yammering at each other into restructuring our view of unplanned pregnancy from an inconvenience or curse into a rather remarkable opportunity, such as adoption, we would actually, not just theoretically, avoid some very real sorrow and allow for some very real good. Would this be a magic bullet? No, it wouldn't. But it would be a hell of a lot more effective than anything we seem to actually be doing now.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't care which side of this issue people on, not really, because ultimately the call to action for both sides should roughly be the same. Go help, support, and show agape love to women who are in need of assistance. Why do women with unexpected pregnancies abort? It isn't an easy decision for most of them despite how one might be inclined to either call for their execution or blithely assume there are no emotional repercussions for terminating a "nonperson." It's a choice that is made and often followed up with a lifetime of uncertainty, doubt, and pain. They abort because they are unready or unable to parent. Society doesn't help by shaming pregnant women with neither intent nor ability to parent as loose, immoral, or stupid. If we would be willing to redirect our energy spent yammering at each other into restructuring our view of unplanned pregnancy from an inconvenience or curse into a rather remarkable opportunity, such as adoption, we would actually, not just theoretically, avoid some very real sorrow and allow for some very real good. Would this be a magic bullet? No, it wouldn't. But it would be a hell of a lot more effective than anything we seem to actually be doing now.

Well said Sir Farm.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Would people please mind sticking to the topic of the OP? Not whether abortion-is-murder, but rather social policies that mean more women can keep their children. I know Im not a mod but this is getting me a bit irritated.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Look, I don't know what's worse, getting insulted every time I state my opinion, or the fact that I so frequently make lengthy posts and only get one line in reply.

You will get infinitely more respect when you stop reducing your arguments to hitler references and when your posts contain more relevant arguments than bible spam devoid of any independent thought. You consistently refuse to accept or even acknowledge the merits of any arguments or points of view that conflict with your own. You do this to the point of twisting words, definitions and 'connotations' consistently in a manner intended to stifle real discussion that isn't along the lines you set forth. Because of these reasons, why should anyone engage you in a meaningful way?

I was laying in bed this morning when this question popped into my head. So I decided to start yet another thread about abortion. Go figure.

But for those people who are against abortion, wouldnt it make more sense to look into how to prevent and help unwanted pregnancies that often lead to abortion rather than making laws that ban them, that only means they will more likely do it illegally.

There's a question. Now get into huge flamewars VERY POLITE DEBATES until the thread's closed. I'll stay out.

aimeeandbeatles,
This whole topic can only go so far along the lines you wish it because many on the right find abortion to be abhorent, but also find the kind of government sponsored welfare programs required to help avoid abortions to be nearly equally abhorent.

I admire Farm Boy for his views, unfortunately not many on the right (on this forum at least) share them.

The kinds of assistance that Planned Parenthood and other charitable organizations provide can only go so far to avoiding unwanted pregnancies as long as they are demonized by the right for a minor (in the scope of all the services they provide) service that PP provides. The other, non-abortion performing organizations (which includes many PP offices IIRC) also are refused funding or are constantly under attack by the right because they espouse any kind of birth control at all. Further, the right fundamentally opposes the kinds of welfare programs that support mothers and helps them make the decision to take a baby to term because they see it as 'hand outs' for 'morally questionable' individuals.

Abortions will continue to happen at unacceptable rates (really, I don't think anyone on the left considers an abortion anything but a 'last resort' and unfortunate option) until the right decides to focus on actual programs to help give viable alternatives to it. Abstinence-only education is a great example of a non-viable and completely backward approach to trying to lessen the number of abortions in this country that the right espouses over birth control and welfare programs.