Abortion? The final conclusions?

[AWPrime]

Once a being is determined to be human, it is empowered with a right to live. This right to live is not diminished by their condition.

Except that we give rights to persons not to DNA.

 

[steverino]

Well, I would say the vast majority of the girls kept the babies because they felt doing otherwise was sinning, and their families and friends confirmed that belief.

Jeeze. It seems that the families and friends share a collective guilt of the "sin of the pregnancy" in the first place, then are there to point fingers at the poor teen because of the "sin of abortion." And, of course, the sperm donor gets off free. It's all so twisted.

 

[Roboramma]

I think the problem with this argument is that we still consider the killing of someone who does not reflect these properties to be murder.

I don't.

For example, simply because a man is in a coma does not mean that we are free to kill him.

Well, if he's not coming out of it, and has no brain function while in it, why shouldn't we? The person that we care about is already dead.
If he may come out of it, however, that's another issue entirely. It's no different from a person being asleep.
And I think that the chance that the person could come out of the coma is usually what motivates us not keep their bodies alive in the meantime.

The same would be true for someone who is mentally challenged.

Not likely. Most people who are mentally challenged are still capalbe of enjoying life. Of feeling pain. Of making decisions.
There are some rights that I might think we should deny them, (we'd have to look at this on a case by case basis of course, and it isn't worth getting in to here), but the right to life isn't one.
The mind of a mentally challenged person is far more developed that that of any fetus.

Once a being is determined to be human, it is empowered with a right to live.

Why?

 

[Francesca R]

The response is no.

Why not? Please demonstrate consistency with your earlier statements.

 

[Francesca R]

I usually surf here at work, so for the time being, no. Perhaps you should look again at why I posted that in the first place- it was the other side of the coin to someones non logical emotional reaction to abortion. I posted from home for that.

There are plenty of good logical arguments against abortion, but the post wasnt really made as an argument so much as to show the other side of examining the situation emotionally. Man A doesnt like abortion because the result of a pregnancy he participated in was beautiful and all that good stuff parents always say, and I had the opposite experience. I saw the negetive results that pregnancies can have.

I surf at work too. Right now I have to drastically limit the number of threads I get involved in for fear of not being able to cover responses in more than a few.

I understand that you are examining the situation in that post, emotionally or however you like. I'm cross-examining.

I saw the 'they didnt ask to be mercy killed' comment, they didnt ask NOT to be either. deal.

If they asked for neither outcome, then it doesn't follow that you can argue for just one outcome and suggest that the one you choose is in the best interest of the fetus, solely on the basis that they did not ask for the other one.

You imply in the post that certain things are in the fetus' best interest. Maybe you don't actually mean to. However—that's what I want to challenge.

 

[skeptifem]

If they asked for neither outcome, then it doesn't follow that you can argue for just one outcome and suggest that the one you choose is in the best interest of the fetus, solely on the basis that they did not ask for the other one.

Im not arguing for just one outcome. I wish girls who do not want to be mothers felt that they could choose what is best for them without negetive social consequences.

Isnt it you who is arguing for one outcome??

You imply in the post that certain things are in the fetus' best interest. Maybe you don't actually mean to. However—that's what I want to challenge.

I cant think of a reason a woman would have an abortion besides it being in the best interest of the fetus (not enough money, drug use, mental illness, abusive fathers, etc, etc).

I just wanted to point out that not all things are fluffy and wonderful when people have children. Someitmes it turns out like crap. different options are good for different people, and I think a society that respects that would be beneficial to children.

Kids dont ask to be born, I dont think they deserve to be born to parents who dont want to care for them.

 

[Francesca R]

Isnt it you who is arguing for one outcome??

No. Thought I do argue that being born (into whatever circumstances) is virtually always more in a fetus' interest than not being born. I would say "always" but have not done exhaustive thought experiments about this.

I cant think of a reason a woman would have an abortion besides it being in the best interest of the fetus (not enough money, drug use, mental illness, abusive fathers, etc, etc).

[ETA: Wait—you can't think of a reason? A woman can of course decide to have an abortion because it is in her interest and patently not in the interest of the child. There is nothing automatic whereby "her interest" = "the child's interest"]

I am not anti-abortion. However I think it can (virtually) never be rationally argued that abortion is in the interest of the fetus. I find that position dishonest. That's what I was bringing up in my response to you.

I just wanted to point out that not all things are fluffy and wonderful when people have children. Someitmes it turns out like crap. different options are good for different people, and I think a society that respects that would be beneficial to children.

Kids dont ask to be born, I dont think they deserve to be born to parents who dont want to care for them.

Again, I think it is better than the alternative—for the child.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why not? Please demonstrate consistency with your earlier statements.

I've already stated that dependancy is just ONE of a few factors that play a part in my opinion.

 

[Francesca R]

It does not demonstrate consistency to contradict yourself and then say "that's just one of the factors I look at".

You said (a lot of times) that it is "not a complicated issue at all". Now you are equivocating on your earlier clarity. Dependency is one factor. Sapience is one factor. It's not a human being until it is separate from its mother, but you cannot terminate a baby outside the womb yet not yet separated from its mother.

To me it appears that you are discovering complications.

 

[Roboramma]

Acuity, why did you change your avatar? It was awesome!

edit: though the new one is cool too...

 

[Francesca R]

Thank you very much. The title flipped to "Thinker". Experimenting with my work PC seems to make the colours runs a bit. I can fix it from home later . . .

 

[bob_kark]

Puhleaze. Stop building a strawman of my position. I never said a fetus isn't human. Also, a 13 month old infant is not directly dependant on a host mother.



Yes, sapience is still a factor, one of a few that I've factored into my opinion.

You're missing my point. If sapience is still a factor, it is working against you as even a 13 month old infant is not sapient. It is unable to have a sense of judgement.

Also, I'm not attempting to pose a strawman. You've stated:

Always should be allowed. A fetus is not an individual being and is more akin to being a parasite than a person.

If you're unable to make yourself clear, that's not my problem.

No one has argued, at any point, that the fetus isn't human. Try again.

It was always human, just not an independant, sapient being.

You're backpedaling here to avoid the question. And again, even a 13 month old infant is not a sapient being.

So theoretically, we could perform a Cesarean section, remove the fetus and have it become an individual being, then reinsert the fetus into the womb and take away its individuality?

Well, you still have to remove the fetus from the womb, whether or not the fetus is still alive, or else the mother will die. Therefore, both mother and fetus are dependent on it exiting the womb. Considering the stipulation that the fetus was old enough to survive outside the womb, does this now make it an indvidual being?

 

[bob_kark]

Except that we give rights to persons not to DNA.

Non sequitur.

 

[bob_kark]

Well, if he's not coming out of it, and has no brain function while in it, why shouldn't we? The person that we care about is already dead.
If he may come out of it, however, that's another issue entirely. It's no different from a person being asleep.
And I think that the chance that the person could come out of the coma is usually what motivates us not keep their bodies alive in the meantime.

But a fetus' condition is not permanent either. One day, that fetus may become an infant.

Not likely. Most people who are mentally challenged are still capalbe of enjoying life. Of feeling pain. Of making decisions.
There are some rights that I might think we should deny them, (we'd have to look at this on a case by case basis of course, and it isn't worth getting in to here), but the right to life isn't one.
The mind of a mentally challenged person is far more developed that that of any fetus.

I'll agree with that.

Why?

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by this. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights goes through a number or reasons.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Seems mainly to fall on freedom, justice and peace. Of course, that's meant to cover all the rights they mention.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It does not demonstrate consistency to contradict yourself and then say "that's just one of the factors I look at".

Please tell me how I contradicted myself. I said that dependancy was one of the factors.

You said (a lot of times) that it is "not a complicated issue at all". Now you are equivocating on your earlier clarity. Dependency is one factor. Sapience is one factor. It's not a human being until it is separate from its mother, but you cannot terminate a baby outside the womb yet not yet separated from its mother.

I don't see how it's complicated at all. A fetus is not a sapient, individual being. What goes on inside a woman's womb is her business, not yours.

To me it appears that you are discovering complications.

Not at all. You're just inventing them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You're missing my point. If sapience is still a factor, it is working against you as even a 13 month old infant is not sapient. It is unable to have a sense of judgement.

It's just one factor. Several factors come into my opinion.

If you're unable to make yourself clear, that's not my problem.

It seems that you are the one that is unable to understand my points. That's YOUR problem. I can't fix stupidity.

You're backpedaling here to avoid the question. And again, even a 13 month old infant is not a sapient being.

I have not backpedalled. You are trying to assign a position to me that states that fetus is not human. I never made that statment. A fetus is human. A baby is human. A zygote is human. Individual beings is what I'm talking about.

So theoretically, we could perform a Cesarean section, remove the fetus and have it become an individual being, then reinsert the fetus into the womb and take away its individuality?

We're talking about creatures that have never been individual, not ones that were.

Considering the stipulation that the fetus was old enough to survive outside the womb, does this now make it an indvidual being?

I subscribe to no such stipulation.

 

[Katana]

This parasite/independent person boundary got me to thinking...

One situation where I don't understand the objection to aborting a pregnancy is when the fetus has a fatal anomaly. For example, with a condition known as anencephaly results, the fetus is missing much of the brain, skull, and scalp. The condition is uniformly fatal with babies dying anywhere from hours to maybe a couple of days following birth.

Translation = it is only by being within the womb that that fetus can stay alive. Once born, whenever it's born, that fetus/infant will die. What moral difference does it make when that happens or how?

Some might argue that it's wrong to actively terminate the pregnancy rather than "letting nature takes its course". The problem with that is that delivery of these infants often requires a cesarean because they don't pass through the birth canal normally. Even if a doc was willing to subject the mother to the trauma of a instrumented vaginal delivery (aka forceps), that still involves actively removing the infant from mom's bod, an action that will lead to the baby's death.

I worked in a hospital where a couple decided to terminate a pregnancy like this at 20 weeks. After induction of labor was started, upon learning that the baby was still alive, several of the nurses threatened to quit if the hospital ever permitted that to be done again. I just don't get it. They would rather she carry a pregnancy to term, have to deal with society congratulating her and asking all about things like the nursery and the rest, go through a difficult delivery, and then watch the baby die. And these are nurses who called themselves patient advocates.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"Let nature take it's course" is just another appeal to supernatural authority. In this case, "nature" is some sort of deity that makes decisions. It ignores the fact that everything we do is natural, being natural creatures.

 

[Francesca R]

Please tell me how I contradicted myself.

Herewith—

[Abortion] Always should be allowed. A fetus is not an individual being and is more akin to being a parasite than a person.

If we define an individual being as a sentient person who can live without a host body, then the fetus is not an individual being. A fetus is not an individual being.

I'm saying that it's ok to have an abortion because the fetus is INSIDE the womb. It's a growth, an organism that is still part of the host body. Thus, the host body has every right to terminate it.

So there's a certain level of dependence at which it suddenly becomes a human being in your eyes?

Yes. It's at birth.

What of a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb? Is that a human being?

Only after it's seperated from the mother.

Right . . . so as long as you have not cut the umbilicus yet (and the placenta is still part of the mother's body)—you can smack the baby over the head with a griddle pan a few times if it's not pretty enough?

The response is no.

Your "No" appears to me to contradict your preceding. Why "No"? If you find the method of termination unpalatable, switch it for a lethal injection. In your view—given what you've said—why does the mother not have every right to terminate a baby in this scenario?

 

[thaiboxerken]

It seems to me that you simply don't know what a contradiction is. Individuality is just one of the factors. If you don't like that, the go somewhere.

If the fetus is no longer inside the womb, it's no longer in the domain abortion.