The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[bshoc]

bshoc, is your computer dead or alive?

My computer was never alive, and thus cannot be either that or dead, its an inanimate thing made of circuits, not human cells.

Then why do you (or the foetus) have the right to dictate what a free woman may do with her body?

The same reason the government has a right to stipulate that people connected to life support stay that way. The mother lives either way, the child does not.

Why is that exactly?

The same reason that you are (at least in the USA) allowed to own firearms, but not shoot people with them.

This wasn't adressed toward me, however I thought it important to point out that being pro-choice does not neccesarily mean you even have to approve of abortion. Rather it can mean you believe that each person should have the legal right to decide for themselves what ideological stance (and hence action) they will take regarding their own individual situation. When you say things such as 'pro-abortion', that suggests people who think abortion is the best solution which is rather different.

Pro-death actually, some people may very well support murder as well, be we dont accommodate laws for them, this is no different.

On another more pertinent note, does anyone know where all these numbers of Australian abortions are coming from? I'm finding it a tad puzzling since its been established earlier on in the thread that miscarriages and abortions weren't differentiated in reports and no links were given either.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922117.html

 

[bshoc]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...tion-law-change/2006/08/24/1156012651379.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...abortion-doctor/2006/08/23/1156012614422.html

Verdict: Murderers

"Performing an abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, is only legal in NSW if the doctor forms a reasonable belief that the abortion is necessary to protect the mother's life, or physical or mental health or if the risk of abortion is not out of proportion to the risk of continuing the pregnancy. Abortion clinics usually provide counselling to women to get the information required to form such beliefs."

We need a published list of the names, phone numbers and qualifications of all abortion doctors published in this country.

 

[Generator]

We need a published list of the names, phone numbers and qualifications of all abortion doctors published in this country.

Grow up.

 

[bshoc]

Grow up.

eh? Its been done before to some success. If the government cant enforce its own laws, its up to us to do it for them, or elect a politician who can.

 

[Aime Fantasy]

Bah . Just for the record, I was going to ask something along the lines of whether a philosophical paradox that may be of concern to some should stop others from accessing a termination, but I reserve the right to offer a proper reply when you return with the point in question .

Hi again!!

Ok ummm... don't laugh! I'm only a 1st year philosophy student so what I write is probably full of errors and wrong conclusions (you should think of taking a year of it - not specifically for abortion, but to try and come to conclusions more logically. I know it's helped me a lot already, though I have a long way to go ), but anyway here it goes!!

Have you done much on existentialism? I've only done 6-7 weeks of it so far, and it's really crazy! From what I understand of it, some of the existentialist arguments are based on Decarte's (sp?) meditations (etc etc), they (I've only studied satre so far, so not all existentialists might believe it) believe in a soul, or something that is "being-in-itself" as opposed to "being-for-itself" (if you need me to distinguish them... ask!). This "soul" (it can be explained as metaphysical consiousness) is not part of our brain - it is rather, a seperate entity apart from our body. How do you measure the worth of a soul "attatched" to a foetus compared to a soul "attatched" to a "grown-up"? Do not get confused with age/physical conciousness - remember, they argue that the body and this thing that can be cut-down roughly to the english word "soul" is seperate.

I use Decartes as a foundation because my lecturer explained him to be one of the foundations of later existentialist thought (he lived in the 18th century??).

I also use existentialism as an argument in this thread because imo, it is what has changed western (and maybe eastern?) society to accept abortion. My mum has always commented that the change in ethics/morality in the last ~200 years is because of the rejection of an ultimate by society - that is, god. Existentialism has taught us to make our own moral values because as my professor/lecturer explained it, people have been taught through society that "being-for-others" is "bad faith", that is, "type of action that attempts to avoid anguish" (anguish being feelings such as afraid of no afterlife, etc.)

(end argument)

My take on the whole existentialist thingy - I don't agree with a lot of it (as mainstream existentialism regards animals as inferior... though that's another story), though people who are pro-choice might want to investigage existentialism for themselves. It, imo, is the basis of a lot of our beliefs nowadays. Btw, many existentialists are athiest... (including satre)

Also, I think I have the whole thing correct, but if I havn't, can someone correct me? I've tried to formulate it the best I can.

When I comment on society rejecting god = abortion, I am not saying people should retake god, even though I am pro-life. I believe there are other ways to getting to pro-life... sadly for me though, I don't think society will embrace the same moral standards as before if they take other paths trying to get to pro-life other than god (though if you think that abortion is moral, then my comment is thwarted!)

(edit) I should have properly addressed the question. I was always hopeless at english! If you agree with the idea of a "metaphysical self" being seperate from your brain and an unborn's being neither greater nor lesser then a grownup's, then where would that metaphysical being go? Would it disapear? Would it disapear? And would it be the same as murder? What is murder in this case? The killing of a born-child AND unborn? Or only born?... that is, is murder defined as the killing of the metaphysical being?

I supose this argument (if true) just raises more questions. Not very convincing am I? But something to think about?

(edit2) I've taken many shortcuts in explaining this. To understand why some (?) existentialists may think about it like that (e.g the metaphysical), you'll have to go through the arguments yourself. And... I've only been taught one line of existentialism. I would think there are many variations on it...

 

[kami]

My computer was never alive, and thus cannot be either that or dead.

There are certain points at which you can say something similar about a foetus - just because it is not dead does not mean it would be alive, it could just not be alive [yet].

The same reason the government has a right to stipulate that people connected to life support stay that way. The mother lives either way, the child does not.

The person can make the request previous to incapacitation that they are not to be put on life support, or a carer can make the decision also so the person won't always 'stay that way'. There is also some difference in that the foetuses 'life support' involves using the mothers internal organs however adults connected to life support don't inhabit another beings organs and take their nutrients.

The same reason that you are (at least in the USA) allowed to own firearms, but not shoot people with them.

I don't understand how that explains why some believe a foetus possesses more rights than its mother.

Pro-death actually, some people may very well support murder as well, be we dont accommodate laws for them, this is no different.

But saying "I think you should kill people" is different from saying "I don't think I or anyone has the right to tell you whether you can abort your pregnancy or not" simply in the fact that one reccomends a specific action, the other does not deny a range of actions.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922117.html

Thanks for that.
Though I still wonder if this can be considered completely accurate given that there is no distinction made between miscarriages and abortion when reports are lodged in Australia. I also find it odd that Holland has such a low abortion rate compared to ours.

 

[lengy]

I don't understand how someone is capable of sacrificing a young to mature healthy woman with the potential to create more 'life' but not sacrifice the equivalent of a parasitic organism that might as well be a tumour. The length of time to create a human being to that of breeding age is roughly 14 years. I do realise that humans are capable of producing offspring early but raised the number to an estimated average age which humans are more likely to potentially conceive. Conception is as easy as intercourse, the ability to create more than 14 babies and abort them in the time it takes to grow a human being of adequate breeding age. Value should be placed on the already established being that is sentient and can already think for itself rather than a mass of flesh floating around in some fluid.

 

[dora_18]

I don't understand how someone is capable of sacrificing a young to mature healthy woman with the potential to create more 'life' but not sacrifice the equivalent of a parasitic organism that might as well be a tumour

You're actually comparing human life to a tumour? It's true that the embryo replicates itself within the womans body at a rapid rate that can be compared to the growth of a tumour-but thats where you draw the line. You've created life, not a potentialy fatal growth.

Conception is as easy as intercourse

actually, it's not. Conception itself is pretty hard. Even with transport assistance and available nutrients..out of the 200 million spermatozoa introduced into the vagina in a typical ejaculation, only about 10,000 enter the uterine tube and fewer than 100 reach the egg itself.

Value should be placed on the already established being that is sentient and can already think for itself rather than a mass of flesh floating around in some fluid.

That "mass of flesh" would be turning into a developed individual..and it was you at some stage. It's not just a mass of flesh, its a human being that possesses a functioning brain, neurons within that brain, as well functioning body parts and pain receptors. From a certain stage ( but nonetheless a stage that is can still be aborted at) it has all the anatomical and physciological parts that make it human, actually you can argue that it has them from the moment of fertilization they're just not as developed yet.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

actually, it's not. Conception itself is pretty hard. Even with transport assistance and available nutrients..out of the 200 million spermatozoa introduced into the vagina in a typical ejaculation, only about 10,000 enter the uterine tube and fewer than 100 reach the egg itself.

I'm sure he was thinking about conception as it would be view by outside forces.... not by sperm.

its a human being that possesses a functioning brain, neurons within that brain, as well functioning body parts and pain receptors

You know... possessing individual things with cool names doesn't mean that they're all working the way they do in a fully developed human. We're much more complicated/require more to work than just those things you mentioned.

 

[dora_18]

I'm sure he was thinking about conception as it would be view by outside forces.... not by sperm

well outside forces themselves don't lead to fertilization do they.

You know... possessing individual things with cool names doesn't mean that they're all working the way they do in a fully developed human. We're much more complicated/require more to work than just those things you mentioned.

Technically, it's a functioning human. And those individual things with "cool names" lead to the development of those complicated processes like thinking, conscious processes etc- that create a human being. The point is that a baby in-utero contains all the features that make up a human,doesn't matter what stage of its development you're referring to.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

well outside forces themselves don't lead to fertilization do they.

Conception is as easy as intercourse for those on the outside. It's like me saying that clicking my fingers is easy, then you respond about the intricate muscle/brain functions that have to occur... or you could even go atomic and really give us a show.

Technically, it's a functioning human.

No you see... for example with the pain receptors/nervous system etc. One big key thing that is NOT properly developed is the mylin sheath which allows the nervous impluses to be transmitted properly.

And those individual things with "cool names" lead to the development of those complicated processes like thinking, conscious processes etc- that create a human being.

Well yea, but there's still many more things with "cool names" to come before those complicated processes, most neuroscientists, believe come into existance.

The point is that a baby in-utero contains all the features that make up a human,doesn't matter what stage of its development you're referring to.

You're mistaking the existance of things which lead to the features of humans as the actual features of humans. In an early embryo, is there a brain? The genetic information to create the brain is there and the cells which will form the brain are there, but the brain isn't actually there yet.

 

[bshoc]

There are certain points at which you can say something similar about a foetus - just because it is not dead does not mean it would be alive, it could just not be alive [yet].

Its cells are growing and multiplying, you DO NOT HAVE A CASE, its beyond stupid.

The person can make the request previous to incapacitation that they are not to be put on life support, or a carer can make the decision also so the person won't always 'stay that way'.

Yeah and I suppose the fetus signs a "you can kill me becuase you accidently concieved me and now I have to die for your stupid mistakes" form right before conception right? :rofl:

There is also some difference in that the foetuses 'life support' involves using the mothers internal organs however adults connected to life support don't inhabit another beings organs and take their nutrients.

The same way you breathe my air, die. And eating the nutrients and food that I could possibly need to survive - you need to be put to death right away. I mean becuase its better to kill people than let them steal our valuable nutrients right? And what about those people recieving blood for other people, outrage!

Because thats what feminism is all about isnt it, fuck with no conscience and murder babies for convenience. Utility my ass, LIFE is the ultimate utility.

I don't understand how that explains why some believe a foetus possesses more rights than its mother.

It doesen't, it possesses equal rights like the rest of humanity becuase whether you ignore it or not, its a seperate human bieng in every reguard of the word, thats basic science.

Thus it has a right to life and as human beings it is our duty to ensure those rights are protected. Thats basic human value.

Abortion is not a right at all, becuase a right can never infringe upon the rights of others, thats its basic law.

But saying "I think you should kill people" is different from saying "I don't think I or anyone has the right to tell you whether you can abort your pregnancy or not" simply in the fact that one reccomends a specific action, the other does not deny a range of actions.

Abortion = killing other people, argument nulled.

Thanks for that.
Though I still wonder if this can be considered completely accurate given that there is no distinction made between miscarriages and abortion when reports are lodged in Australia.

Where did you get this idea? Becuase its not true. Check the government statistics.

I also find it odd that Holland has such a low abortion rate compared to ours.

Yeah stupid people in Holland not killing their babies enough, bet it makes you damn sad. Hopefully all you white Australians just abort yourselves out of existance and leave this country to other people, it seems clear that this value means nothing to you.

 

[dora_18]

You're mistaking the existance of things which lead to the features of humans as the actual features of humans. In an early embryo, is there a brain? The genetic information to create the brain is there and the cells which will form the brain are there, but the brain isn't actually there yet.

so what? you dont destroy something just because its not fully developed yet. The embryo consists of undiffereniated cells, obviously clear brain cells aren't present at a few weeks.However basic spinal cord and brain structures are present at 12 weeks.

No you see... for example with the pain receptors/nervous system etc. One big key thing that is NOT properly developed is the mylin sheath which allows the nervous impluses to be transmitted properly

It depends when you're deciding to abort. If you want to get anatomically and physiologically correct partial mylinization occurs at 20weeks. However mylination layering and CNS tract formation continue into early postnatal development this includes primary sensory fibres and motor areas,as well as more complex associative and cognitive functions which are lastest to mylinate...or is it ok to abort a 38-40 week old baby as well? What about premis....some are born at 7months, they are nowhere near developed, would it be ok to abort at that stage as well?

 

[Calculon]

eh? Its been done before to some success. If the government cant enforce its own laws, its up to us to do it for them, or elect a politician who can.

We should go lynch some homos while we're at it, eh?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

so what? you dont destroy something just because its not fully developed yet.

Of course not, but if you do have another reason for destroying it then (at least to me) it seems more justifiable destroying it before it has consciousness or feeling.

However mylination layering and CNS tract formation continue into early postnatal development...or is it ok to abort a 38-40 weeks old baby as well?

lol the point is that most scientists believe because it's not properly formed that pain does not exist definately in the 1st trimester and most likely in the second trimester.

 

[Calculon]

You're actually comparing human life to a tumour? It's true that the embryo replicates itself within the womans body at a rapid rate that can be compared to the growth of a tumour-but thats where you draw the line. You've created life, not a potentialy fatal growth.


actually, it's not. Conception itself is pretty hard. Even with transport assistance and available nutrients..out of the 200 million spermatozoa introduced into the vagina in a typical ejaculation, only about 10,000 enter the uterine tube and fewer than 100 reach the egg itself.



That "mass of flesh" would be turning into a developed individual..and it was you at some stage. It's not just a mass of flesh, its a human being that possesses a functioning brain, neurons within that brain, as well functioning body parts and pain receptors. From a certain stage ( but nonetheless a stage that is can still be aborted at) it has all the anatomical and physciological parts that make it human, actually you can argue that it has them from the moment of fertilization they're just not as developed yet.

Whenever a girl has her period she releases something which could have grown into a human being, had she been moral enough to fuck every guy in sight.

 

[dora_18]

Whenever a girl has her period she releases something which could have grown into a human being, had she been moral enough to fuck every guy in sight

don't be an idiot..Im talking from the moment of conception/fertilisation,an ovum isnt an embryo without sperm.

 

[bshoc]

We should go lynch some homos while we're at it, eh?

If you want to, I wont stop you

 

[bshoc]

don't be an idiot..Im talking from the moment of conception/fertilisation,an ovum isnt an embryo without sperm.

Forget trying to push this one through, since its basically the principle that destroys their entire case, they'll pretend it doesent exist so they can push more arguments like "what if a fetus is a desklamp" or something as totaly irrelevant as that.

This case is already closed, thus you're either side with pro-life or pro-death.

 

[dora_18]

Yeah..ive been scrolling through this thread for a while now, and i was thinking i am not even going to get started, but of course i did.