The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[Kwayera]

I thought someone would ask me your first point. It is quite tough. But the problem is it is both unlucky but also very rare. Its rarity and the inability to reliably and accurately verify its true would make me sceptical of allowing abortion in this scenario. This aside, however, i can recognise the ill fated nature of the situation, but i do not believe that the foetus deserves to die because of someone else's bad luck.

With the CP there's something like a 0.01% chance of it failing, which considering its prevalence worldwide, is still significant. The point is that the women who take CP and it fails aren't 'lazy and irresponsible'; should they also be forced to bear the burden of bad luck? (Which just goes to show that a blanket ban is a bad idea, because there are always exceptions and limitations.)

I am not sure of your second point: what about other sentient species do u refer to?

We as a species commonly kill other species that either currently have sentience or the possibility of developing it (as you said of foetuses). What, in that case, is your stance? Do you also think that this is akin to murder?

 

[Empyrean444]

Contraception is not infallible. Did you know that people have become pregnant after a woman has had her tubes tied?



A foetus is a parasite. It is not a life. It cannot sustain life without the mother. It is unviable. What makes its rights paramount over the rights of an exisiting, viable life? Again, you're whole argument is based on the fact that pregnancies must be caused by laziness because contraception is infallible.

It isn't

firstly, i have answered this in response to another post. No, contraception is not infallible. But (and i make this point before i answer your ques) abortion is not an option for those who haven't even tried to use some form of contraception.

Firstly, the situation which you speak of is rare. Condoms, for instance, are 90 something % effective- as are most other forms. I do not think we can make exceptions for a rara avis. If multiple forms of contraception are used (quite easy, again) then the likelihood is even less. If someone in this situation is made pregant, i still don't think the foetus should die.

This leads on to my next point. I disagree. A foetus is life - a parasite is in fact alive you know. It is not unviable. It will become life - it has potential. In light of such circumstances, i see taht it has equal rights to the mother, including the right to not be killed. Also, as it is younger (unless it will die in womb or miscarriage - for which i support abortion) it does in fact have more of a live ahead of it (the mother having already has a decent portion of her life - not referring to a death of the mother at all here), hence i feel that preserving and fostering this life to be at least equally as important. Its importance lies in its potential.

My argument is less agianst those who are unluck with contraception than against those who don't use it. I think you may have misread slighty.

On the matter of genetic engineering - i don't support it. Let a baby grow as it should.

 

[Kwayera]

In this circumstance, i still don't support it, as i think foster parents could be found - regardless, i think that it is better the child/foetus have the same opportunity of life as we all have.

The only group in which there is a demand for children to adopt is for white babies (particularly male). Take the non-white and older demographies, and there are kids who spend their whole adolescent lives waiting for fosters or adoptive parents.

 

[Kwayera]

This leads on to my next point. I disagree. A foetus is life - a parasite is in fact alive you know. It is not unviable. It will become life - it has potential. In light of such circumstances, i see taht it has equal rights to the mother, including the right to not be killed. Also, as it is younger (unless it will die in womb or miscarriage - for which i support abortion) it does in fact have more of a live ahead of it (the mother having already has a decent portion of her life - not referring to a death of the mother at all here), hence i feel that preserving and fostering this life to be at least equally as important. Its importance lies in its potential.

Biologically, that is a fallacy. The mother is always worth more than her infants, because she has a higher reproductive potential until such time as they reach sexual maturity and successfully reproduce themselves.

 

[Empyrean444]

I wonder, would your views change if you were thrust in this position?

mmmm I bet they would

What a choice between its death or me not bringing it up. It is an unenviable situation, but i (hope) i would see taht it is better that is has a life than doesn't.

 

[ASNSWR127]

firstly, i have answered this in response to another post. No, contraception is not infallible. But (and i make this point before i answer your ques) abortion is not an option for those who haven't even tried to use some form of contraception.

Firstly, the situation which you speak of is rare. Condoms, for instance, are 90 something % effective- as are most other forms. I do not think we can make exceptions for a rara avis. If multiple forms of contraception are used (quite easy, again) then the likelihood is even less. If someone in this situation is made pregant, i still don't think the foetus should die.

This leads on to my next point. I disagree. A foetus is life - a parasite is in fact alive you know. It is not unviable. It will become life - it has potential. In light of such circumstances, i see taht it has equal rights to the mother, including the right to not be killed. Also, as it is younger (unless it will die in womb or miscarriage - for which i support abortion) it does in fact have more of a live ahead of it (the mother having already has a decent portion of her life - not referring to a death of the mother at all here), hence i feel that preserving and fostering this life to be at least equally as important. Its importance lies in its potential.

My argument is less agianst those who are unluck with contraception than against those who don't use it. I think you may have misread slighty.

On the matter of genetic engineering - i don't support it. Let a baby grow as it should.

Again I bet you all the money I posses (not much but still lol) that your views would change if you were thrust into this situation even after multiple forms of contraception are used.

 

[Kwayera]

On the matter of genetic engineering - i don't support it. Let a baby grow as it should.

Why? We genetically engineer things all the time - dogs, cats, livestock, plants, etc. Why are we so different?

I'd think that if you could engineer your child to be free of cancer, you would.

 

[Empyrean444]

We as a species commonly kill other species that either currently have sentience or the possibility of developing it (as you said of foetuses). What, in that case, is your stance? Do you also think that this is akin to murder?

what sentient species specifically?

 

[dolbinau]

I don't think Abortion should be illegal but I think it definitely should be discouraged - although I'm pretty sure most people who have Abortions have genuine reasons so...

 

[Empyrean444]

Biologically, that is a fallacy. The mother is always worth more than her infants, because she has a higher reproductive potential until such time as they reach sexual maturity and successfully reproduce themselves.

But the mother in this case isn't actually trying to reproduce - she is counteracting the process by having an abortion. This i feel nullifies her biological reproductive value.

On the matter of kids waiting for foster parents - at least they are alive and get to live. I feel this is better than the callous embrace of death!

 

[Empyrean444]

Why? We genetically engineer things all the time - dogs, cats, livestock, plants, etc. Why are we so different?

I'd think that if you could engineer your child to be free of cancer, you would.

Being free of cancer is one thing. There are many risks, however, but also other forms of this engineering, that might well be deplorable (bear in mind i actually have little knowledge on this subject of gen, engin. and am arguing from pure moral intuition).

 

[Kwayera]

what sentient species specifically?

Chimpanzees (both species), gorillas (and other primates), certain parrots, various species of dolphin (orcas included)...

 

[ASNSWR127]

What a choice between its death or me not bringing it up. It is an unenviable situation, but i (hope) i would see taht it is better that is has a life than doesn't.

What of the feelings of the parents?

I could never see myself giving my child to another to take care of (foster)

I could never see myself raising a child on scanty resources and with every chance of no improvement in the situation due to the fact I would have to take care of the child.

I have however (safely, responsibly and sensitively) stopped this foetus growing into a child before it is 'alive' before it ruins; its chances, mine and its mothers.

IN my instance it was a false alarm but Dr's etc still confronted me and the 'mother' with the very real possibility that she was pregnant and the steps that could be taken. This also proves that pregnancy tests fail sometimes (phew).

It MUST be the call of BOTH the mother AND father and all sorts of counselling services are open and they do all sorts of interviews to determine if what you are saying is what you feel - not pressure or anything like that.

Of course the will of the mother (as the child bearer) MUST come first -before politician, doctor or father.

 

[Kwayera]

But the mother in this case isn't actually trying to reproduce - she is counteracting the process by having an abortion. This i feel nullifies her biological reproductive value.

It still stands. The mother still has a higher reproductive value (and thus 'worth') biologically purely because she is an adult female who can reproduce, rather than an embryo or foetus that requires years of development before this can occur.

 

[Kwayera]

Being free of cancer is one thing. There are many risks, however, but also other forms of this engineering, that might well be deplorable (bear in mind i actually have little knowledge on this subject of gen, engin. and am arguing from pure moral intuition).

Other forms of engineering? Like what? Super strength and super smarts? Is that a bad thing, improving the human genome?

 

[Kwayera]

I feel this is better than the callous embrace of death!

I resent that. It's not the "embrace of death", it's respect for the life that actually has been living and has both biological and social worth; I would always respect the rights of a thinking human over that of a ball of cells.

 

[Empyrean444]

Chimpanzees (both species), gorillas (and other primates), certain parrots, various species of dolphin (orcas included)...

Yes i do see this as akin to murder. Non sentient species i am less fussed about (although decent living conditions for them are still paramount), as the food chain is necessary. For example, i find it despicable that some people eat monkey (i see it, both due to sentient and their close biological similarity/connections to us as a few degrees short of cannibalism).

 

[Kwayera]

Yes i do see this as akin to murder. Non sentient species i am less fussed about (although decent living conditions for them are still paramount), as the food chain is necessary. For example, i find it despicable that some people eat monkey (i see it, both due to sentient and their close biological similarity/connections to us as a few degrees short of cannibalism).

Well I guess that is something we agree on

 

[Empyrean444]

It still stands. The mother still has a higher reproductive value (and thus 'worth') biologically purely because she is an adult female who can reproduce, rather than an embryo or foetus that requires years of development before this can occur.

No, because she is in practice discarding her worth. Humans are equal, and that foetus might have the potential, for instance, to be the next genius and help advance humanity further. I maintain that it has a moral right to the opportunities the mother has had.

Also, the woman will eventually lose her reproductive value. But if the foetus is left to grow, by that time it will still have its reproductive worth. The tables will be turned. A future investment is just as viable as a present one. We don't, for instance, kill someone as soon as their reproductive value disappears - why should something with equal potential be killed therefore?

It is the embrace of death. The mother to is but a ball of cells - only she has been given the opportunity to develop. It would be hypocritical of her to deny the right/opportunity she had to another living being. In many ways it is also selfish of her.

 

[Empyrean444]

Well I guess that is something we agree on

yes.