Metanet Forums

However, I dont think it should be illegal. At least no more illegal than murdering a kitten.

Morally justifiable murder? Fetuses to have as much rights as animals (read:none)? Discuss.

A pregnant woman must actively support a fetus in order to keep it alive. There's nothing wrong with withdrawing support, especially if something is planted in your body against your will. The fact that it can grow into a person is irrelevant.

There are issues surrounding abortion that are foggy to society - There was a bill here in Colorado this last election that not only would have made all abortions illegal, but all forms of contraception as well (Birth control, condoms, probably even jacking it on the floor). It would have defined a "Person" as anything above a fertilized egg; and anything preventing that egg from being fertilized would have been criminally prosecutable. In which case, every person in colorado would have been immediately prosecutable.

There are quite clear legal precedents that state the consensus. And every time they continue to overturn it - year after year - The consensus says, "Nope. You're still wrong. Please quit trying, kthx." It shouldn't be a legal issue any more than gay marriage should be a legal issue, so I agree that it shouldn't be illegal. In kind, what about animal abortions? Can I coathanger me some kitty-cat faetus? 'Cause if so, I've got a busy weekend ahead.

i know this is gonna sound harsh, but its not like the child knows what its missing.

it deserves to live, but its not like we can ask its opinion, so i think it should be up to the mother.

The Declaration of Independence of the United States wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (that is, people) are created equal, that they are endowed...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (notes in bold)

The part of the brain associated with thought, consciousness, emotion etc. is the cerebral cortex which forms the largest part of the developed brain, enveloping the lower structures (Figure B) in two cerebral hemispheres, the first signs of which are visible at 5-6 weeks. (Citation)

The only circumstances I can think of at the moment (correct me if I'm wrong) in which abortion is appropriate are rape, in which case adoption is also an option.

Believe me. I know a girl who was considering abortion after an...illegitimate child, and she thought not aborting was the best thing she ever did.

I think it shouldn't be up to the government to say what a woman can or can't do to herself in that case.
Cause if abortion is to be illegal, wouldn't guys masturbating also be illegal, since it's killing potential lives?

That was a point I found interesting in a class discussion a while back.

incluye wrote:Believe me. I know a girl who was considering abortion after an...illegitimate child, and she thought not aborting was the best thing she ever did.

Just because a single women was glad she didn't go through with an abortion is not proper argument against. there will always be hundreds of thousands of women a year who for them abortion will be exatly the right thing to do. So no, I won't 'believe you'.

I'm pro choice. The only person who can decide if it is the best thing is the mother, not a government or a church.

incluye,

The Declaration of Independence says "men." Not "people." How do you reach that interpretation? And furthermore, even if they meant to say "people," you have yet to prove that fetuses are people. And, even if they are people, you must provide a good reason for why a woman who wishes to withdraw support for a person may not do so.

As for your neurobiology quote, I'm not very convinced. The beginnings of a cerebral cortex do not constitute a conscious person. A cow also has a cerebral cortex, yet our society (me included) has no problem slaughtering them by the thousands.

Also, anecdotal evidence cannot support statistical claims. Your story doesn't do anything to further an anti-abortion argument.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:As for your neurobiology quote, I'm not very convinced. The beginnings of a cerebral cortex do not constitute a conscious person. A cow also has a cerebral cortex, yet our society (me included) has no problem slaughtering them by the thousands.

In this context it's about the potential for conscious life being denied. A Human fetus will most likely grow into a conscious being (certain retardations aside), whereas a cow never will.

I'm Pro-Choice for women withdrawing their support for what is essentially a parasite in their body.

I find it highly amusing that so many anti-choice protesters get themselves so up in arms about saving a fetus, but wouldn't really give a crap about that baby's life after it were born. I do realize there are organizations and bodies that try to find families or give support in certain situations, I'm aiming this more at the masses - those who get behind these things with their votes and weight - who really don't care past satisfying their religious doctrines or superficial morals.

I think it's fine up to about 12 weeks. After that it starts to get a bit sketchy, since the CNS is quite developed and the child is rapidly approaching the point where it can survive outside the mother (with the help of modern medicine, of course). I'd only support abortion after the first trimester in cases where the woman's life would be in danger otherwise.

@incluye: What if a woman feels that giving birth would inhibit pursuit of happiness, and that a law preventing her from having an abortion is curtailing her liberty? What if carrying the pregnancy to term would also threaten her life due to medical complications? Is the woman not also entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Also, assuming for the moment that the child becomes conscious at 6 weeks... do you agree that it's okay to have abortions earlier than that, since you seem to be using it as the condition for the embryo becoming a person?

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:The Declaration of Independence says "men." Not "people." How do you reach that interpretation?

I'm getting a copy-paste definition from Dictionary.com that says, "man: a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex."

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:As for your neurobiology quote, I'm not very convinced. The beginnings of a cerebral cortex do not constitute a conscious person. A cow also has a cerebral cortex, yet our society (me included) has no problem slaughtering them by the thousands.

See atob.

Atilla wrote:What if carrying the pregnancy to term would also threaten her life due to medical complications?

Hmm...maybe I haven't thought this out enough.

In this context it's about the potential for conscious life being denied. A Human fetus will most likely grow into a conscious being (certain retardations aside), whereas a cow never will.

Pfft.

If this is about potential, then every skin cell that falls off a human body is a murder! Those cells can be theoretically cloned, no? Also, contraception would be out the door if this were the case.




Maybe I'm being overly nitpicky with my "men != people" argument, but I seem to recall a lack of women's rights around the time of the American Revolution.

In this context it's about the potential for conscious life being denied. A Human fetus will most likely grow into a conscious being (certain retardations aside), whereas a cow never will.

That's not at all what this is, was, or ever will be about.

Kablizzy wrote:

In this context it's about the potential for conscious life being denied. A Human fetus will most likely grow into a conscious being (certain retardations aside), whereas a cow never will.

That's not at all what this is, was, or ever will be about.

I didn't say it's what I believe, but it certainly is for some people. And within the context of the Human/Cow example, it will hold true for them.

This is all about subjective judgement, after all, you can't deny that the quoted part could be one of the reasons people argue the anti case here.

If I'm sleeping around without a condom, I'm likely to have a child too. When I wear a condom, I prevent the likely child I would have.

Condoms are for murderers.

I'm good at picking up dates and getting them into the sack, so if I restrain myself from going clubbing then I am prventing a potential child.

Non-socialites are murderers.

Eating vegetables instead of meat lowers your sperm count, clearly killing potential children.

Vegetarians are murderers.

I'm pro life based on the idea that once the seed has been planted, it's already growing, and has the potential to become a human being after its born. Ending its life during this time, despite not being fully developed, is something I take a personal stance on because, barring non-consensual sex, of which there is another option for, engaging in sexual intercourse means the people involved are accepting all potential ramifications of it regardless of any precautions taken. If a woman is raped, then... well, read on.

Adoption, in my eyes, is a risky route to take as an alternative to abortion if a baby was forced on the woman, but it seems to be the more beneficiary one. You give the baby a right to living in this world rather than ending that chance early if the baby is actually unwanted or would not receive adequate care in the hands of the birth mother based on poor finances or other extenuating circumstances. A person (or couple) who wishes to adopt a child and are incapable of carrying one would be given such an opportunity, the birth mother who can't take care of the baby would be relieving herself of the possible negative consequences of bringing a child into the world in an inadequate setting, and the child in question is given the chance at living his or her life. The best thing to do in this situation would ostensibly ensure the capability and responsibility of the adopting person (or couple).

As for the birth in question: if it poses the risk to the mother that would kill her if the baby was to be delivered... well, that is really sticky for me to answer. It would be up to her at that point because now both of their lives are in jeopardy. If the sex was consensual, then if she really was willing to sacrifice her life for the baby's, that is an option, but that's a large emotional toll on her friends and family in addition to bieng an absurdly difficult decision to make. If rape was the reason for this pregnancy, then... wow. I don't really see any alternative than abortion unless by the grace of God she can actually survive.

atob wrote:

Kablizzy wrote:

In this context it's about the potential for conscious life being denied. A Human fetus will most likely grow into a conscious being (certain retardations aside), whereas a cow never will.

That's not at all what this is, was, or ever will be about.

I didn't say it's what I believe, but it certainly is for some people. And within the context of the Human/Cow example, it will hold true for them.

This is all about subjective judgement, after all, you can't deny that the quoted part could be one of the reasons people argue the anti case here.

Well, I can't deny that those are the reasons, I'm just saying that the reasons aren't valid or relevant. Perhaps a bit relevant, but certainly not valid. I mean, of course some people are using those reasons as justification, but people also use God as a justification to kill, which quite certainly doesn't, and won't, ever make that right.

blue_tetris wrote:Vegetarians are murderers.

QFE


One point about abortion though; where should the legal limit be arbitrated? And would it be anything more than that? Is there any reasonable term after which we can no longer morally justify abortion?

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

@Twistkill; talking in terms of potential is allways unfortunate. Potential life is far more abundant that life. Why try and force one sort of potential into realization and discard the others?

Brocerius wrote:@Twistkill; talking in terms of potential is allways unfortunate. Potential life is far more abundant that life. Why try and force one sort of potential into realization and discard the others?

It depends on what tier of potential we're talking about here. Obviously the "killing sperm is killing lives" argument is silly, but when a baby is developing, then that's a different "potential" situation because of the things associated with it.

Twistkill wrote:

Brocerius wrote:@Twistkill; talking in terms of potential is allways unfortunate. Potential life is far more abundant that life. Why try and force one sort of potential into realization and discard the others?

It depends on what tier of potential we're talking about here. Obviously the "killing sperm is killing lives" argument is silly, but when a baby is developing, then that's a different "potential" situation because of the things associated with it.

You haven't made any distinction between the two types of potential. What makes a fetus more of a potential life than sperm or ova?

i dont understand the anti-choice side :(

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:You haven't made any distinction between the two types of potential. What makes a fetus more of a potential life than sperm or ova?

It has begun developing into a human being and is more valuable than the two individually because nothing can occur until they make contact. They are also produced en masse whereas one developing fetus takes months before it will be born and there many more permanent hazards to it when it's in the mother's womb compared to a sperm's short life span and little to no consequences for its termination.

Life: 1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

So, beginning at conception, the zygote is growing and alive. Of course at this point it isn't any more alive than a plant, but the point remains. To begin I am pro-life, and disagree with the termination of a growing fetus before birth. I don't think that this really has a lot to do with women's rights, as we are dealing with a completely different human being, which comes from her and the father. Despite not having rights as a citizen (a person in the US is considered a citizen after birth), but that does not mean it doesn't have rights as a human being. So looking at the definition of life and the definition of a human being (defined as having the characteristics of such and containing the specific DNA and chromosomes as a human - which the fetus does), you cannot say that the fetus is not a human being, or is not alive. About potential life, there already is life, it is already human. Of course there is the potential of conscience life, but that isn't very relevant. You shouldn't abort a life just because it might not become a thinking being.

Around 98% of abortions occur because it is convenient for the woman in question. That I hate. There are several options after birth, such as adoption. Don't talk about the pursuit of happiness in regards to the Declaration, because it's pretty much half the woman's fault for getting pregnant in the first place (the other half falling on the father), and if you argue for choice, it should not be "women's rights" it should be "rights." The child is half hers. Yes, it is growing inside of her body, but what is growing is an entirely different person. Unfortunately most people don't get that sex produces babies. If you argue that the woman was rights granted to her through the government to "choose," that can be used on the other side, too. If the government does not allow discrimination based on sex, gender, location, income, etc., why should it be withheld from a growing fetus? It didn't choose to be conceived, so it should have a fair shot at life. Now we approach the 2% of women who did not consent to sex, and thus do not wish to have the child. Of course it is very rare for someone to get pregnant from rape. For those who do I don't believe that abortion is a good alternative. First off, abortion can be extremely stressful and for many, damaging, after the fact. The child isn't going to go become an ax murder, and as long as it falls into the care of a loving family, will most likely be fine.

For the small percentage of women who face complications due to their pregnancy, it can only go a few ways. If only the child can be saved, or vice-verse, then it can't really be stopped. However, if there is a choice (either to save her or the child), then it should be up to the mother. That is a personal decision to "take a bullet" for someone else or choose to save their own life.

Oh, and I don't care about condoms or masturbation, because you aren't killing a life any more than eating an egg. Until conception has taken place, there isn't really much to worry about. (See my above point on potential life).

What's the difference though? If a couple don't make use of the egg and sperm at a particular point and they don't produce a life it has the same outcome as if they do and abort the fetus. In both instances the potential life is wasted.

It really makes no difference to the world whether the pregnancy goes further or not. Up until a point the fetus is nothing but a parasite attached and entirely dependant on the mothers body, it's not an independent being and shouldn't be treated as such.