Abortion...

[Oiler]

I can't comment on your example without more information, but if you think that only living beings with consciousnesses can physically react to things I assume you think plants are conscious?

Here is an example:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/scottt...d-video-of-a-baby-being-brutally-aborted/amp/

Are you really comparing plants to human fetuses? Anyway, when an animal can react in pain or fear, it is conscious. Which plants can react in pain?

 

[franquito]

I don't think that's necessarily mutually exclusive. Sure, it's based in opinion where the line is drawn, but that doesn't mean that it's not an opinion based on logical facts.

If it was nothing but a logical equation there wouldn't be any relevant debate on the issue. But that's not possible in a matter like this and wishing for a utopian solution won't go anywhere.

Of course that's a problem with the discussion though, as some religious people will see their own opinion as the only possible truth.

I think it is possible.

Those who say that human life is valuable throughout the entirety of its existence have at least as much justification for their decision as those who would state a certain week of development, etc.

And starting from that point, its much easier to defend their choice, as the beginning of life is so much different from what immediately precedes it, than any single stage in life is different from the stage before.

There is a great danger when people believe that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and they can't be convinced otherwise.

But I think that in most instances, there is only one possible truth. The point of discussion is to find it. In that sense, we are all on the same team.

 

[m52nickerson]

Ok, so you shouldn't kill it once it is able to breathe on its own and take food in by its mouth.
Why do you draw the line here?

What if it can breathe on its own, but for a neurological or anatomical reason cannot yet take food in by mouth? Should we be allowed to kill it?

I'm not talking about individual situation were you may have birth defects, or other medical conditions to consider. Each would have it's own set of circumstances. However, even in you example I would say an abortion would be allowed before that fetus was developed enough to breath on its own., before it is viable. Now, after being born, no you would not be allowed to kill that child. You would then possible get into a situation were letting the infant expire would be a more humane choice then taking extraordinarily means to maintain life.

 

[franquito]

I'm not talking about individual situation were you may have birth defects, or other medical conditions to consider. Each would have it's own set of circumstances. However, even in you example I would say an abortion would be allowed before that fetus was developed enough to breath on its own., before it is viable. Now, after being born, no you would not be allowed to kill that child. You would then possible get into a situation were letting the infant expire would be a more humane choice then taking extraordinarily means to maintain life.

Ok, so you're saying that there could be a list of conditions in which abortion is acceptable, but that list would be lengthy and complicated to deal with all possible defects.

However, after a birth has occurred, killing is not acceptable.

To the first point, I think that we have to be very specific about why we would choose to kill a human. It is a important decision, and so its important to examine the situations in which we think its acceptable, and then to ask, why, in those cases, is it acceptable.

And if we again draw a line, and say that killing after birth is never acceptable, then again, I have to ask why?
What change occurs during birth that suddenly makes killing wrong?

And we could break it down further. At what stage during birth does killing become wrong? Is it when the head has passed through the vagina, or the whole body, or not until after the cord has been clamped and cut?

And again, to each question- why?

 

[Squarechoke]

Here is an example:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/scottt...d-video-of-a-baby-being-brutally-aborted/amp/

Are you really comparing plants to human fetuses? Anyway, when an animal can react in pain or fear, it is conscious. Which plants can react in pain?

A bunch of videos that don't exist when you click on them. It doesn't matter though.

There's nothing that indicates that a fetus acts out of fear, and pain is just a sensory intake and plants certainly have such, where the most obvious are the ones that perform actions when they are touched. There's actually research on that plants can memorize and learn, but this is going in on a tangent.

 

[Squarechoke]

I think it is possible.

Those who say that human life is valuable throughout the entirety of its existence have at least as much justification for their decision as those who would state a certain week of development, etc.

And starting from that point, its much easier to defend their choice, as the beginning of life is so much different from what immediately precedes it, than any single stage in life is different from the stage before.

There is a great danger when people believe that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and they can't be convinced otherwise.

But I think that in most instances, there is only one possible truth. The point of discussion is to find it. In that sense, we are all on the same team.

Based on your last sentence I see that we're pretty far apart. I don't believe that there's one possible truth, at least not one that can be put in even remotely simple terms. So many things depend on the point of view.

As for human life being valuable, it's not about it lacking value but comparing it to other things of value. It's just like the ethical tests about things like if it's right to actively kill someone that would otherwise live in order to save many other people.

 

[Squarechoke]

"Men are women, women are men, and babies are fetuses" - Liberals 2017

It's funny that you just cry more about liberals instead of trying to educate yourself. It was expected though.

 

[Oiler]

A bunch of videos that don't exist when you click on them. It doesn't matter though.

There's nothing that indicates that a fetus acts out of fear, and pain is just a sensory intake and plants certainly have such, where the most obvious are the ones that perform actions when they are touched. There's actually research on that plants can memorize and learn, but this is going in on a tangent.

A bunch of videos that don't exist when you click on them. It doesn't matter though.

There's nothing that indicates that a fetus acts out of fear, and pain is just a sensory intake and plants certainly have such, where the most obvious are the ones that perform actions when they are touched. There's actually research on that plants can memorize and learn, but this is going in on a tangent.

Ugh, if you think a fetus is comparable to venus fly trap, we will never get anywhere.

 

[franquito]

Based on your last sentence I see that we're pretty far apart. I don't believe that there's one possible truth, at least not one that can be put in even remotely simple terms. So many things depend on the point of view.

As for human life being valuable, it's not about it lacking value but comparing it to other things of value. It's just like the ethical tests about things like if it's right to actively kill someone that would otherwise live in order to save many other people.

We're not so far apart, man. I think we're having a right good talk so far.
(I'm assuming you're a man since this is Sherdog)

And I certainly don't want to go down the road of discussing if everything has one truth. I just mean that when we have conversations about the morality of a subject, we have the underlying assumption that there is a right and a wrong answer.
It is almost always very complicated. It may be impossible for our minds to determine which is which. But it is worth the effort. Some of us see certain things clearer than others, and some of us have knowledge or experiences which can enlighten others.

If we're not trying to help each other to find what is right, what are we doing?

 

[Squarechoke]

Ugh, if you think a fetus is comparable to venus fly trap, we will never get anywhere.

The same goes for if you have trouble grasping points made with parallel statements.

 

[Squarechoke]

We're not so far apart, man. I think we're having a right good talk so far.
(I'm assuming you're a man since this is Sherdog)

And I certainly don't want to go down the road of discussing if everything has one truth. I just mean that when we have conversations about the morality of a subject, we have the underlying assumption that there is a right and a wrong answer.
It is almost always very complicated. It may be impossible for our minds to determine which is which. But it is worth the effort. Some of us see certain things clearer than others, and some of us have knowledge or experiences which can enlighten others.

If we're not trying to help each other to find what is right, what are we doing?

I agree, we're having a good talk. Something surprisingly rare in the WR.

I agree that it's always worth discussing. Even though I don't think that there's an objective right answer here we need to discuss and reevaluate things to progress philosophically.

 

[franquito]

Based on your last sentence I see that we're pretty far apart. I don't believe that there's one possible truth, at least not one that can be put in even remotely simple terms. So many things depend on the point of view.

As for human life being valuable, it's not about it lacking value but comparing it to other things of value. It's just like the ethical tests about things like if it's right to actively kill someone that would otherwise live in order to save many other people.

So then, to your point about the value of human life-
I can understand why some would defend abortion in the cases where a mother's life is at risk. Like in ethical tests you mentioned, it is measuring human life vs human life.

But in other cases, I can't think of anything that could be valued more than human life. What else could warrant killing a human?

I think that a lot of the divide between pro-life and pro-choice comes from a perceived (sometimes, unfortunately, actual) disregard of the concerns of mothers.
Any mother who would consider abortion is likely to be in a very difficult, painful, maybe dangerous situation. They deserve our love, respect, and help. But there are many modes of help.

 

[Oiler]

The same goes for if you have trouble grasping points made with parallel statements.

I grasp you perfectly....we will never agree on this stuff. You presume to know what a baby feels or does not, when its a full human, when its not. I say we can never know.

Anyhow, Im still pro choice in the first trimester, for other reasons though, and with a sober view on what we are doing.

 

[Squarechoke]

So then, to your point about the value of human life-
I can understand why some would defend abortion in the cases where a mother's life is at risk. Like in ethical tests you mentioned, it is measuring human life vs human life.

But in other cases, I can't think of anything that could be valued more than human life. What else could warrant killing a human?

I think that a lot of the divide between pro-life and pro-choice comes from a perceived (sometimes, unfortunately, actual) disregard of the concerns of mothers.
Any mother who would consider abortion is likely to be in a very difficult, painful, maybe dangerous situation. They deserve our love, respect, and help. But there are many modes of help.

There's many ways to look at it, and one can be to value an existing human being's right to it's own body over the rights of one that's early in development. It's also not just about letting something live, it's forcing someone to take care of it since it can't survive on it's own.

You also can't just say "killing a human" and expect everyone to think it's the same thing killing an embryo and killing a fully formed human. Such thinking can also lead to questioning why human life is more "sacred" than other forms, etc, so even in that state you've made an arbitrary choice of what's of value.

 

[Squarechoke]

I grasp you perfectly....we will never agree on this stuff. You presume to know what a baby feels or does not, when its a full human, when its not. I say we can never know.

Anyhow, Im still pro choice in the first trimester, for other reasons though, and with a sober view on what we are doing.

If you grasp me perfectly you also know that I didn't make an argument for consciousness being a limit for abortion, I merely said that I don't believe it's consciousness that causes some reactions from a fetus. Even newborn babies don't really have proper consciousness in what we think of as humans. There's been research done that says that glimmers of consciousness and memory in babies show as early as 5 months, but that's 5 months on the other side of birth than what we're talking about.

 

[Oiler]

^i mean overall....

Anyway, fine, i engaged in some normal strawmanship, but it wasnt THAT much of a strech tbh.

 

[franquito]

There's many ways to look at it, and one can be to value an existing human being's right to it's own body over the rights of one that's early in development. It's also not just about letting something live, it's forcing someone to take care of it since it can't survive on it's own.

You also can't just say "killing a human" and expect everyone to think it's the same thing killing an embryo and killing a fully formed human. Such thinking can also lead to questioning why human life is more "sacred" than other forms, etc, so even in that state you've made an arbitrary choice of what's of value.

But what, specifically, do we mean when we say the mother has a right to her own body? If we are going to value this over a life, we should really identify what it means.

She gains weight, she undergoes hormonal changes, she deals with nausea and episodes of sickness. Her nutritional needs increase slightly, and her energy decreases. She will go through a period where she will be unable to work. I'm sure there are some others which I haven't mentioned.

I don't think the avoidance of these changes should be valued over a human life.

By forcing someone to take care of it, I assume you refer to the mother's responsibility to avoid harmful substances, such as alcohol, which will harm the fetus. I think again, we can say that the value of enjoying a drink (or whatever) does not trump the value of a human life.

Killing an embryo is not the same as killing a fully formed human (though is any of us ever fully formed?), but in both cases it is the killing of a human. I think the word choice is accurate, and not misleading.

 

[Thurisaz]

The word smiting continues....

Yes, people would say you are alive, as are your individuals cells. The point is arguing about being alive really does not matter in this debate. What matters is if, and when the fetus becomes it own organism.

It is its own organism from the conception on, having its own particular DNA that does not happen to be the mother's.

You are wrong that a fetus, before it is viable, is not part of the mother. Having different DNA does not matter.

Of course it matters and your opinion on it is completely irrelevant. Your argument is proven wrong also by pointing out that it is impossible to kill body parts, but entirely possible to kill the baby.

The fact is that before it is viable the fetus can't survive without the mother.

And sick people can't survive without various other means of care. So what?

It is not it's own entity, it is not it's own person...it is not a human being. Human life, if that is what you want to define it as, yes. A functioning human being no.

So you agree that a baby is a human life from the moment of conception on. Great, we're progressing. You still subscribe to some magical definition of "a functional human being" which is handily not defined at all and has zero relevance to the subject discussed.

 

[Squarechoke]

But what, specifically, do we mean when we say the mother has a right to her own body? If we are going to value this over a life, we should really identify what it means.

She gains weight, she undergoes hormonal changes, she deals with nausea and episodes of sickness. Her nutritional needs increase slightly, and her energy decreases. She will go through a period where she will be unable to work. I'm sure there are some others which I haven't mentioned.

I don't think the avoidance of these changes should be valued over a human life.

By forcing someone to take care of it, I assume you refer to the mother's responsibility to avoid harmful substances, such as alcohol, which will harm the fetus. I think again, we can say that the value of enjoying a drink (or whatever) does not trump the value of a human life.

Killing an embryo is not the same as killing a fully formed human (though is any of us ever fully formed?), but in both cases it is the killing of a human. I think the word choice is accurate, and not misleading.

It's fine if you think that, but I don't in the sense of such an undeveloped form. Black and white reasoning very rarely is what leads to progression. As long as it hasn't developed to the point where it can't survive on it's own I only consider it part of the mother's body for that purpose. There's even people that think that wasting sperm and eggs is a crime, since they are the building blocks of humans.

As for effects, you forgot some of the largest ones, like the actual birthing of the child. Regarding responsibilities she'll also be forced to take care of the child or give it away for adoption, both which will cause problems.

In the end it's quite simple. Most people think that there's a time where the embryo/fetus is undeveloped enough not to be valued above the needs of the mother and her rights, so that's why all developed nations (won't comment on the rest as I don't know the split) have legal abortion. As with everything it's fine to disagree, but I'd immediately disregard the opinion of anyone that think his or her opinion is objective truth (and just to be clear, you're obviously not one of those people).

 

[m52nickerson]

Ok, so you're saying that there could be a list of conditions in which abortion is acceptable, but that list would be lengthy and complicated to deal with all possible defects.

However, after a birth has occurred, killing is not acceptable.

To the first point, I think that we have to be very specific about why we would choose to kill a human. It is a important decision, and so its important to examine the situations in which we think its acceptable, and then to ask, why, in those cases, is it acceptable.

And if we again draw a line, and say that killing after birth is never acceptable, then again, I have to ask why?
What change occurs during birth that suddenly makes killing wrong?

And we could break it down further. At what stage during birth does killing become wrong? Is it when the head has passed through the vagina, or the whole body, or not until after the cord has been clamped and cut?

And again, to each question- why?

It is simply not that complicated. A fetus before it is viable is not afforded the same rights and protections as an infant. Therefore the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus. Why? It is simply because the an non-viable fetus can't survive without being in the mother's womb and here rights to her body are greater then the fetus' rights.