Be a Supporter!

Abortion: Most Complicated Issue?

  • 2,134 Views
  • 59 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
EKublai
EKublai
  • Member since: Dec. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Animator
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-05-31 03:50:42 Reply

At 5/29/12 10:23 PM, MOSFET wrote:
At 5/29/12 09:44 PM, EKublai wrote: See, I can't accept that at all. A cluster of cells develops into a very real human. The pain argument is a utilitarian one, but even then, an absolute morality can suggest that since life is developing, it is wrong entirely.
So you are against IVF(invitro fertilization) as well?
The basic procedure is as follows.
1.) egg cells removed from the woman
2.) multiple eggs are fertilized by the father's sperm
3.) the woman decided how many of the eggs are to be implanted back into her. 1-3 typically
4.) The rest of the fertilized eggs are thrown out.

Again, the problem I am facing is one of reconciling that my political views (pro-choice) do not match my moral views (pro-life). If I get political I can reason the hell out invitro fertilization. Actually, even morally I can sort of accept IVF because to me the development of a baby is really about the "shared life" of the mother and embryo. The mother is allowed to reject anything that is not human (unfertilized egg) and allowed to accept human (fertilized egg). But because the egg has already been rejected from the body once, there is nothing in my morality that says the mother must allow all that which was fertilized outside of her body to be placed back inside.


Some women probably wouldn't have been able to get pregnant naturally, so this option is the only one available to some couples. I can understand how you feel about dehumanizing a potential human, but a potential human is still not a human being.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-05-31 10:53:45 Reply

At 5/30/12 11:11 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:
At 5/30/12 10:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The crux here isn't the scientific definition. It's where the line lies.
That seems a tad specious. Isn't 'definition' basically the art of drawing lines between things? So it's almost as if you're saying "the crux here isn't [the boundary]... it's [the boundary]." But no, I actually do understand what you meant:

That's a very djack (intentionally shallow) reading there. Scientific definitions and legal/social lines are not the same at all. A better wording would be: the issue here is not science. Both sides will have science to support them and they both will be right. The issue here is what parameters each side uses. In other words, what is the exact question each side is asking? Which question should be the one that applies to the law?

And yet scientific knowledge informs socio-cultural knowledge, doesn't it? They're pretty difficult to separate actually.

No they're not. When was the last time science asked a social question and got a broad social answer? Never. Science deals in minutia and the outcome of an experiment can be changed dramatically by altering some of this minutia.

Social issues, on the other hand, are very macro. They handle large swaths of people, regions, topics, and so on covering numerous differences and cleavages among them. To say that the micro and the macro are completely tied is just ludicrous. Science does inform many socio-cultural issues, but they can easily be separated.

Osuras
Osuras
  • Member since: May. 29, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Programmer
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-05-31 14:44:15 Reply

At 5/31/12 12:02 AM, MOSFET wrote:
At 5/30/12 10:22 PM, Osuras wrote:
The moment the DNA molecule is incepted, is the moment it begins to function towards its purpose, the creation and homeostasis of a human in this case.
To paraphrase, "life begins at conception". But look! Your first supporting point! "the moment it begins to function towards its purpose". I kind of disagree with this. I mean it's just as equally applicable to viruses, or computer programs.

Precisely, it is equitable to a program. The difference between viral RNA/DNA and Human DNA, for example, is that viral DNA only has the codings to produce more of itself. While human DNA has the coding to create a human. I've made this relatively simple for you to understand.

MOSFET
MOSFET
  • Member since: Apr. 15, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Programmer
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-05-31 16:07:54 Reply

At 5/31/12 02:44 PM, Osuras wrote:
At 5/31/12 12:02 AM, MOSFET wrote:
At 5/30/12 10:22 PM, Osuras wrote:
The moment the DNA molecule is incepted, is the moment it begins to function towards its purpose, the creation and homeostasis of a human in this case.
To paraphrase, "life begins at conception". But look! Your first supporting point! "the moment it begins to function towards its purpose". I kind of disagree with this. I mean it's just as equally applicable to viruses, or computer programs.
Precisely, it is equitable to a program. The difference between viral RNA/DNA and Human DNA, for example, is that viral DNA only has the codings to produce more of itself. While human DNA has the coding to create a human. I've made this relatively simple for you to understand.

If you have defined life as organisms/cells/etc that functions toward a purpose, then viruses and programs fit into that category as well. Your argument switches from something that functioned toward a purpose to the fact that these particular cells just grow up to be a human.

the creation and homeostasis of a human in this case.

You didn't prove it or used logic, you just decreed that these cells are special because they are human. What you did here is called a Logical Fallacy, a Suppressed Correlative to be specific. You also make a fallacy of composition in a general way. Just because some of your statements are factual, doesn't make logically fit together with the points you are trying to make.

So no, you haven't made this simple to understand, because you aren't logically connecting your statements.

bismuthfeldspar
bismuthfeldspar
  • Member since: Mar. 2, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-05-31 18:15:51 Reply

You guys are 'tards.

It doesn't have the potential to turn into a human being if you stop if from turning into one.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-05-31 19:15:56 Reply

At 5/31/12 06:15 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: You guys are 'tards.

It doesn't have the potential to turn into a human being if you stop if from turning into one.

Again with the overly simplistic answers as if this were no more complex than distinguishing an apple from an airplane.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-05-31 20:12:18 Reply

At 5/31/12 04:07 PM, MOSFET wrote:
So no, you haven't made this simple to understand, because you aren't logically connecting your statements.

No, you're just a fucking idiot who refuses to understand that the point he's making is that the fetus/blastocyst is "human" due to its function.

Allow me to make this simple enough for your dumb ass to understand (though considering how you have lower level of intelligence of even Peter Griffin... this might be a bit of a chore)

A human is a mammal.
A dog is a mammal.

Are humans and dogs mammals? Yes.

Is a dog a human? No.

The point he's making is, if one cell creates something different from another, or holds information that would create something different... then they are not the same thing.

Now have a miserable day... you fucking moron.

Aigis
Aigis
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Artist
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-05-31 22:57:41 Reply

At 5/30/12 01:31 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote:
At 5/30/12 07:27 AM, Aigis wrote: Yeah, but if the only thing separating a foetus from being sapient is four weeks, how can you justify the distinction?
I didn't say it was sapient at 24 weeks, just that it isn't worth the risk at that point.

You said it was a shade away from being as sapient as a newborn baby, which is more or less the same thing.

That seems like the least interesting thing to respond to in my post.


Aigis - Putting the 'ai' back in 'Aigis'.

BBS Signature
EKublai
EKublai
  • Member since: Dec. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Animator
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-05-31 23:13:48 Reply

At 5/31/12 06:15 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: You guys are 'tards.

It doesn't have the potential to turn into a human being if you stop if from turning into one.

Unless you define a human being as only needing the two sets of DNA and the potential for growth.


BBS Signature
MOSFET
MOSFET
  • Member since: Apr. 15, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Programmer
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-01 00:17:22 Reply

At 5/31/12 08:12 PM, Memorize wrote:
No, you're just a fucking idiot who refuses to understand that the point he's making is that the fetus/blastocyst is "human" due to its function.

Don't worry, I got that he meant that life begins at conception, because it grows into a human. But, I have a problem with how he is arriving to that conclusion.

Consider this, have you ever called a seed, from a plant, a plant? No, you don't. You call it a seed. Yet, the function of these seeds is grow into plants. Likewise, a fetus/blastocyst is not a "human" due to it's function. It should be human based on what is a human. If you want to define human such that it includes fetuses and blastocysts that grow into humans, then by all means, go ahead. But changing the definition proves nothing, since you just defined it to be true.


Allow me to make this simple enough for your dumb ass to understand (though considering how you have lower level of intelligence of even Peter Griffin... this might be a bit of a chore)

A human is a mammal.
A dog is a mammal.

Are humans and dogs mammals? Yes.

Is a dog a human? No.

The point he's making is, if one cell creates something different from another, or holds information that would create something different... then they are not the same thing.

I had that same point in mind when I tried to (perhaps falsely) accuse him of making the point that if something functions towards its purpose then it is a living thing. I understand that a dog's embryo is different from a bird embryo's which is different from a virus, or a computer program. But they are all things that functions towards its purpose. And some of those things aren't really alive. Which was my point. But yea, I admit, it was a complete straw-man argument.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-01 00:32:46 Reply

At 5/31/12 11:13 PM, EKublai wrote: Unless you define a human being as only needing the two sets of DNA and the potential for growth.

It is a "human life" in the strictest of strict senses, but it's not a person under any metric.

SteveGuzzi
SteveGuzzi
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 16
Writer
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-01 04:46:46 Reply

At 5/31/12 01:03 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Go back to the fallacy that people seem to keep trotting that "the cluster of cells MUST and WILL develop into a human being". This is NOT always the case.

HA.

Why would I go back to a fallacy that I never put forth in the first place? Don't ask me to accept a strawman that you built out of other people's dumb arguments. NOWHERE did I suggest that the cluster of cells "MUST and WILL" develop into a surviving, self-sufficient organism. Huh, talk about one person missing another person's point!

My point is that a just because a Homo Sapien egg is fertlized by homo sapien sperm does not mean we have a guaranteed new homo sapien at that time, or really at anytime until we see the features of a homo sapien develop

Look -- I understand your point, and your point is wrong. Organisms don't leap from one taxonomic class to another based on their stage of development. A Monarch caterpillar looks entirely different than a Monarch butterfly, but they're both classified as Danaus plexippus. Likewise, a fertilized Monarch egg is still Danaus plexippus whether it hatches or not. THAT was MY point.

It's like you're putting forth some ridiculous 'Schrödinger's Cat' type of argument that says "we don't know for sure until we know for sure!"... which ALMOST makes sense, but, actually doesn't. There is an incredible amount of variety within our species already, and yet we're still considered the same one species, CORRECT? So, what ELSE would have to change before we can call the product of two Homo sapiens something other than Homo sapiens? What are we looking for to be different? How would we even recognize it?

Let's also not forget that this fertilized egg, or the cluster of cells do not perform most of the basic functions that it is agreed are required for an organism to be considered alive.

Seriously dude? You're talking about a cluster of dividing-multiplying cells, and you're trying to sell me on the idea that it isn't doing enough to be considered alive? Wow.

So anyway, which requirements of life are you referring to, exactly?

Reproduction? It does that.
Metabolism & growth? It does that.
Homeostasis & response to stimuli? It does that.
Organization & adaptation? It does that.

Refute four of those convincingly and earn yourself a gold star.

did "human" get a new definition while I wasn't looking? Do developmental complications = 'brand new species' or 'not even a species yet'?
Does everybody who seems to disagree with abortion, or want to pick at the "science" argument really need to only argue one way? Do they really have nothing better to use then the old "argue the parts I think help me, ignore the rest and hope the other guy will do the same"? Come on...

LOL. You didn't answer the question! Funny how you tried to sidestep that.

Look -- ALL life that we know of falls under one taxonomic classification or another.

So, if the developing creature is not Homo sapiens, then what is it?

Homo we-don't-know-until-we-actually-let-the-cat, i-mean-person, out-of-the-bag?

I don't know how to be clearer. Wait, maybe I do. Do you think it's fair to call a foundation a house? Because if not, then I'm not sure why you'd call a zygote a human.

A sunflower SEED is not a sunflower PLANT, but they are both Helianthus annuus.
A human ZYGOTE is not a human ADULT, but they are both Homo sapiens.
A foundation is not a house, but the house is developed from the same blueprint the underlying foundation had been.

Now, have I been clear enough for YOU?

I understand not calling a zygote/fetus a 'person' because that term has a whole different set of implications...
Oh rly? What sort of different set of implications? Because I always thought being a 'person' and being 'human' went hand in hand.

I think your problem is that you take terms that are closely-synonymous and assume them to be exactly identical, as if there's no nuance between one phrase and the other.

Homo sapiens is the straight-up scientific classification for modern day people.

'Human' is the generic, non-scientific term.

'Person' is something that implies more, as in personality, as in something we can relate to as far as the experience of BEING human is concerned. Contrast "he's just a regular person" with "why, he's an absolute monster." Do you think phrases like that are in reference to a person's body structure, or rather, to how they act? When a dog owner claims their pet is "just like a person", are they making note of the dog's skeletal structure, ability to see in color, weak sense of smell, relative few number of nipples, or any other physical characteristics? Or are they commenting on the behavior of their dog instead?

A zygote/fetus is INDEED a human, is INDEED Homo sapiens, but does it BEHAVE like a person? Does it seek out relationships? Does it express its innermost thoughts and desires to others? Does it empathize with the situations of other beings? Does it fall in love, does it become jealous or spiteful, does it do much of anything that would make you say it has a recognizable personality of any sort? Can you relate to a zygote or fetus? Have you ever said to one, "man, I know exactly what you're going through"?

It's a shit-ton more difficult for a zygote to demonstrate the traits of being "a person" than it is for it to meet the requirements of "being alive" or matching the scientific, taxonomic classification of Homo sapiens.

That's why a large part of the abortion debate is over the timing of when it's okay or not okay to abort. As the organism grows, it approaches closer and closer to something we actually CAN relate to. The worry is over whether it has the thoughts and feelings of a blade of grass (in other words, none that we can reliably discern) or if it is more like us thinking, feeling, experiencing creatures. Grass doesn't reflect on the surround situation and feel good or bad about it. People do. At what point does the developing organism pass one threshold of experience and enter the other is the question that bothers folks.


BBS Signature
SteveGuzzi
SteveGuzzi
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 16
Writer
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-01 05:03:40 Reply

At 5/31/12 10:53 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Scientific definitions and legal/social lines are not the same at all.

Yeah. I understand that. That's why I said, "I actually do understand what you meant", and then responded as such.

A better wording would be: the issue here is not science.

Aaaaand I had already said the same thing. I don't know why you'd bother replying to my initial tweaking since a) you re-phrasing it just goes to show that you had phrased it poorly to begin with, and b) I already made it clear that I understood the actual point you were making, and had responded relevantly.

And yet scientific knowledge informs socio-cultural knowledge, doesn't it? They're pretty difficult to separate actually.
No they're not. When was the last time science asked a social question and got a broad social answer?

You're getting it backwards. I said scientific knowledge informs socio-cultural knowledge, not the other way around. That means, societies incorporate scientific knowledge (or lack thereof) into their questions, informing their cultural worldview. And you're telling me they're easy to separate?

Compare the worldview of people living in a technologically advanced society to the worldview of people who do not. What they collectively know (or don't know) with regard to science has a direct impact on their society and culture. A culture whose scientific knowledge tells them that other forms of life don't think and feel the same way as they do may marginalize the value of those other forms of life. A culture whose lack of scientific knowledge leads them to believe that trees and animals and other forms of life are possessed of a spirit quite similar to their own, would likely do the opposite.

What we know (or don't) about the experience of other kinds of life informs how we ultimately value them, because we value ourselves and value things that remind us of ourselves. That's all I was getting at.


BBS Signature
Migel
Migel
  • Member since: Nov. 11, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Movie Buff
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-01 12:05:59 Reply

Personally I can't contribute that much to the conversation as in my country abortion hasn't been an issue since 1984 and you can even kill yourself if you feel like it by a doctor here.

So I am from a completely different mind set, where the sanctity of life only contributes where it's beneficial and helpful to community members and not where the rules and illusions have come to a point that it's not helping anybody.

Because let's face it, anti-abortion it's a bit immature and hypocritical.
On one hand you try to protect this bunch of cells that is likely not going to grow up fine with a mother that didn't want it in the first place ruining her future succes and dreams, while at same time having no problems eating beings with more braincells, indirectly starving people with the free trade system and blowing up hundreds and hundreds of innocents in order to gain a hand full of bad guys.

Look many of us live in a illusion where we can laugh at guys like kim jung un ( or whatever ) because he is fat while suposedly starving his people. And we stand in the mirror with a fat belly or sport 3 times a week to avoid that, thinking we are better because we close our eyes once our penny's leave the border.

But at least let those illusions be beneficial for your life and your surrounding don't call an issue complicated when it's not.
You got a girl, she doesn't want the child, she doesn't think she is ready, it was mistake in the first place. You gonna cry over unborn child killed in a state where it doesn't even have 5% understanding of what's going on compared to an ant let alone the food you eat every day and not even comparing all the dreams and hopes lost by your countries political millitary actions :)

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-01 15:35:10 Reply

At 6/1/12 12:17 AM, MOSFET wrote:
Consider this, have you ever called a seed, from a plant, a plant? No, you don't. You call it a seed. Yet, the function of these seeds is grow into plants. Likewise, a fetus/blastocyst is not a "human" due to it's function.

Except that we actually do have different names for each of those seeds you fucking twit.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-01 16:11:24 Reply

At 6/1/12 03:35 PM, Memorize wrote: Except that we actually do have different names for each of those seeds you fucking twit.

When's the last time you looked at a pine cone and said "that's a pine tree"?

When's the last time you looked at an acorn and said "that's an oak"?

When's the last time you looked at a bulb and said "that's a tulip"?

The only time we do this is in identifying or distinguishing the type of seed. We do not declare that seeds are trees.

There was one way you could have gone after the seed point, but instead you chose to insult and be generally rude.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-01 16:15:33 Reply

I have no problem with abortion as long as its before 4-6 months anything after I would have a problem with. its the womans choice because its her body.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-01 19:14:52 Reply

At 6/1/12 06:30 PM, Zullzee wrote: When a person kills a pregnant women, he gets charged with a double-homicide. So what's up with it counting as a human life in that case but not in the abortion case? There seems to be some inconsistency and hypocrisy with that.

In the case of murder or assault the one person who constitutes the two lives is not consenting. In the case of abortion, the one person consents.

DirectorDead
DirectorDead
  • Member since: Mar. 31, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Audiophile
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-02 02:02:21 Reply

That is all.

Abortion: Most Complicated Issue?

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-02 02:34:33 Reply

At 6/1/12 04:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
There was one way you could have gone after the seed point, but instead you chose to insult and be generally rude.

Well when people are as stupid as you are, Cam... I find it to be rather fitting.

For instance...

At 6/1/12 07:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
In the case of murder or assault the one person who constitutes the two lives is not consenting. In the case of abortion, the one person consents.

If you're going to claim that a fetus isn't a "person/human/life" due to its biological development stage... then how the fuck does it automatically become those things just because the mother "WANTS" it to be?

Magic?

If a pro-lifer came in here and said that a fetus should be considered a Person because "it will eventually become one", you would obviously say "just because it will become one, it does not mean that it currently is."

So if a fetus is scientifically NOT a person, then why would it magically become one just because the "expecting" mother wants to "eventually" have the child?

I might own a table, but just because I call it a tv, it doesn't make it one.

I love how "scientific" you people claim to be, only to chuck the label out of the window for the sake of sympathy.

EKublai
EKublai
  • Member since: Dec. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Animator
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-02 02:40:54 Reply

At 6/2/12 02:34 AM, Memorize wrote:
At 6/1/12 04:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
There was one way you could have gone after the seed point, but instead you chose to insult and be generally rude.
Well when people are as stupid as you are, Cam... I find it to be rather fitting.

For instance...

At 6/1/12 07:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
In the case of murder or assault the one person who constitutes the two lives is not consenting. In the case of abortion, the one person consents.
If you're going to claim that a fetus isn't a "person/human/life" due to its biological development stage... then how the fuck does it automatically become those things just because the mother "WANTS" it to be?

Magic?

If a pro-lifer came in here and said that a fetus should be considered a Person because "it will eventually become one", you would obviously say "just because it will become one, it does not mean that it currently is."

So if a fetus is scientifically NOT a person, then why would it magically become one just because the "expecting" mother wants to "eventually" have the child?

I might own a table, but just because I call it a tv, it doesn't make it one.

I love how "scientific" you people claim to be, only to chuck the label out of the window for the sake of sympathy.

I have to agree with him here. No one's going to convince me that there's any difference in saying "human life" and "person". The moment the sperm and the egg start interacting, something's happening, and it isn't death, so it must be life.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-02 09:56:48 Reply

At 6/2/12 02:40 AM, EKublai wrote: I have to agree with him here. No one's going to convince me that there's any difference in saying "human life" and "person". The moment the sperm and the egg start interacting, something's happening, and it isn't death, so it must be life.

"Human Life" is scientific. "Person" is legal. When an unborn baby is very early on in development it is scientifically a human life, but it is so much a part of the mom (no different than a tumor or a gland) that it is part of the Mother's person, and not an independent person subject to rights.

It is at the moment that the baby becomes able to live on its own that it becomes its own person and thus is given rights. Even then it doesn't have full rights, as no person has full rights until adulthood.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-02 10:00:30 Reply

At 6/1/12 07:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
If you're going to claim that a fetus isn't a "person/human/life" due to its biological development stage... then how the fuck does it automatically become those things just because the mother "WANTS" it to be?

Because until the baby can survive on its own, it is part of the mother's person, and the mother has the right to extinguish any part of her person.

So if a fetus is scientifically NOT a person, then why would it magically become one just because the "expecting" mother wants to "eventually" have the child?

If the mother cut off her own arm, it's not a crime. If you cut off her arm, it is.

I might own a table, but just because I call it a tv, it doesn't make it one.

Yes, cause table has anything to with TV. Bravo.

I love how "scientific" you people claim to be, only to chuck the label out of the window for the sake of sympathy.

If only the issue were actually scientific (Hint: IT'S NOT)

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-02 14:43:26 Reply

At 6/2/12 10:00 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Because until the baby can survive on its own, it is part of the mother's person, and the mother has the right to extinguish any part of her person.

But it's still not a person.

So if anyone killed the fetus, then it should only be considered theft or destruction of property, not a homicide.

If the mother cut off her own arm, it's not a crime. If you cut off her arm, it is.

And yet, according to the law, incorrectly labeled a homicide.

If only the issue were actually scientific (Hint: IT'S NOT)

It should be.

For instance: Killing a fetus is not the same as cutting off your own arm. Or do I have to explain to you how a fetus is separated as its own distinct individual by having its very own unique set of DNA (exactly how everyone does from both parents)?

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-02 17:41:27 Reply

At 6/2/12 02:02 AM, DirectorDead wrote: That is all.

Time to eat a human, use their bones for my house, and their skin for my clothes considering they are equated together.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Tydusis
Tydusis
  • Member since: Feb. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Musician
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-02 18:23:00 Reply

Abortion will always be complicated because it conflicts with basic biological drives.
We confuse ourselves on a physical level because civilization transcends our basic biological instincts.

Think about it: what could be more strange than a lifeform breaking the mold of its #1 driving force - procreation.

I am pro-choice, but that is because it is essential and practical; there simply aren't enough resources in the long run to go around to let every whimsical or unintended pregnancy make a child. It's harsh, but until we can get off this rock known as Earth and acquire new land for farms and housing and mine asteroids for materials, it's the only way I see for civilization to go on without a massive genocide - which is frankly worse than abortion in my opinion.


Latest Creation: Wiretapped Wormhole | Website: Tydusis.com | Also, check out this webcomic I like: Inhuman

BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-03 19:13:49 Reply

At 5/31/12 03:50 AM, EKublai wrote: Again, the problem I am facing is one of reconciling that my political views (pro-choice) do not match my moral views (pro-life).

;;;
I personally don't condone capital punishment, because if we make a mistake, we cannot bring the innocent person the state has murdered back to life. THat is my only real problem with it. I know there are inhuman persons who are guilty & have confessed & even led the police to the missing bodies etc, if someone like that was executed, it wouldn't bother me. I feel strongly for the innocent person

Which is or could be considered odd, because I have no problem with abortion.
I don't have a prolife or prochoice stance either way, I don't even get the arguments, because I feel its no one elses business.
What I see is it's a personal choice.
A decission made by a person who is pregnant & who has decided for what ever reason (& it doesn't matter one iota to me what that reason(s) is/are) to not carry a fetus to term.

THere is too much nanny state going on & its ever increasing, too many people deciding their ideals & their way is the only right way. I know we have seen some changes, blacks no longer have to ride at the back of the bus. interracial couples are not regularly shunned.
Gay people are gaining the same rights as other adults . The decissions one makes about their own life is & should always be, their own to make. All the so called moral arguments are secondary & should take a back seat, to your personal right to live your life as you wish.
IMO


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

flashplayer5
flashplayer5
  • Member since: Jul. 25, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-04 10:37:26 Reply

I've never particularly understood why abortion is such an issue. It seems to me a very cut and dry situation: woman is pregnant, woman decides she does not want to be pregnant, woman has non-sentient lump of flesh that happens to look like a kid removed from body. The ethics/morality of other people shouldn't and don't matter in an individual woman's choice of whether or not to have something happen to her body.

The only sticking point I can see here is that of "when does life begin?" which as a country/world we seem to have decided our answer to since we're not giving human rights to foetuses and as far as I'm aware we don't plan to any time soon. Taking the situation as it stands in law just now, life begins when a person is born, before that they are a growth inside the mother's stomach which she may decide what she wants to do with.

The whole thing just doesn't seem an issue to me, and I don't understand why it's treated as such a big issue.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls.

BBS Signature
gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe
  • Member since: May. 29, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to Abortion: Most Complicated Issue? 2012-06-04 11:44:47 Reply

Kinetic Life > Potential Life

As long as the fetus is reliant on the mother for nutrients and is inside her body, her life is more important than that of the fetus and she has the right to do with it as she wants. I think the most justifiable positions for abortion are those which seek to remove pain. Pain being a very amorphous term, I believe there's a lot of leeway for determining when an abortion is the right thing to do.


Newgrounds Anthology? 20,000 Word Max. [Submit]

Music? Click Sig:

BBS Signature