At what stage is abortion immoral?

[JFrankA]

The difference between a fetus and an unconscious person:

A fetus is a parasite. Literally. A woman is walking around with something growing inside her, feeding off her, taking over her body inside her body.

An unconscious person, though may be hooked up to a machine is NOT a parasite. It's not feeding off someone's body, it's not taking over a person's body.

Two different things.

It's the individual woman's choice. It's her body.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

None of them. The patient has established his personhood and with that received rights, and since it's expected he'll recover again to the state of personhood his rights can't be suspended.

A fetus has yet to retain any rights, as it isn't a person (imo). Only future potential personhood rights are being quashed, but assigning them to something that's not yet/never been a person (particularly by way of forcing an established person to grant those rights against her wishes) would not be justifiable. And would also outlaw any birth control that kills sperm, masturbation, and some other stuff.

Has there ever been a case of a sperm or an egg by itself turning into a human?

While I agree there is always going to be some ambiguity as to exactly when the combination of an egg and DNA become a human being, I think setting it at birth is no more rational than at a day, a week or a month after conception. Doing so is a pragmatic decision which allows certain members of society to kill human beings they don't want around in the future. We allow this and not the killing of other helpless human beings because there is no chance of us ever becoming a foetus, but we might ourselves become an unconscious human being one day.

If it is valid to judge a culture on how it treats its weakest members then I think we are all hypocrites and monsters. I can live with this view of myself. Can you?

 

[JFrankA]

Has there ever been a case of a sperm or an egg by itself turning into a human?

While I agree there is always going to be some ambiguity as to exactly when the combination of an egg and DNA become a human being, I think setting it at birth is no more rational than at a day, a week or a month after conception. Doing so is a pragmatic decision which allows certain members of society to kill human beings they don't want around in the future. We allow this and not the killing of other helpless human beings because there is no chance of us ever becoming a foetus, but we might ourselves become an unconscious human being one day.

If it is valid to judge a culture on how it treats its weakest members then I think we are all hypocrites and monsters. I can live with this view of myself. Can you?

An appeal to emotion?

 

[Arcade22]

Is there a healthy adoptive home available for every unwanted birth?

Nope.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The difference between a fetus and an unconscious person:

A fetus is a parasite. Literally. A woman is walking around with something growing inside her, feeding off her, taking over her body inside her body.

An unconscious person, though may be hooked up to a machine is NOT a parasite. It's not feeding off someone's body, it's not taking over a person's body.

Two different things.

It's the individual woman's choice. It's her body.

Yet more rationalisation to make yourself feel better.

An unconscious person requires the resources of others to survive.

 

[Arcade22]

Do you think that women should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

I see nothing inherently wrong in forcing someone to carry a baby to term.

 

[Arcade22]

The difference between a fetus and an unconscious person:

A fetus is a parasite. Literally. A woman is walking around with something growing inside her, feeding off her, taking over her body inside her body.

An unconscious person, though may be hooked up to a machine is NOT a parasite. It's not feeding off someone's body, it's not taking over a person's body.

Two different things.

How exactly would it be wrong to categorize people who are unconscious as parasites?
They give nothing to society and suck up resources that could be used elsewhere if they were simply 'destroyed'.

How exactly is that not a form of parasitism?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

An appeal to emotion?

No. I support the right to abortion up to 12-16 weeks. I believe this allows the killing helpless human beings for possibly arbitrary and selfish reasons.

How would you describe a person who believes what I do?

 

[JFrankA]

I see nothing inherently wrong in forcing someone to carry a baby to term.

Fully grown woman's rights aren't important, huh?

How exactly would it be wrong to categorize people who are unconscious as parasites?
They give nothing to society and suck up resources that could be used elsewhere if they were simply 'destroyed'.

How exactly is that not a form of parasitism?

Because it's not inside someone's body. Simple.

But I see you're in agreement: A fetus is a parasite. Granted, in most cases a wanted one, but technically a parasite. INSIDE a woman's body.

 

[JFrankA]

No. I support the right to abortion up to 12-16 weeks. I believe this allows the killing helpless human beings for possibly arbitrary and selfish reasons.

How would you describe a person who believes what I do?

Personally, I think the way it is now is a good compromise. Abortions are legal until the third trimester (unless there is some health issues). However, the fact remains: a fetus is a parasite until it is out of a woman's body.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Because it's not inside someone's body. Simple.

<snip>

In the case of conjoined twins, should the more articulate of the two be allowed to have its sibling killed?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Personally, I think the way it is now is a good compromise. Abortions are legal until the third trimester (unless there is some health issues). However, the fact remains: a fetus is a parasite until it is out of a woman's body.

This is not an answer to my question.

I stated that I support the right to abortion up to 12-16 weeks. I believe this allows the killing helpless human beings for possibly arbitrary and selfish reasons. I'll add that I don't believe people should be allowed to kill helpless human beings for possibly arbitrary and selfish reasons generally. I think to do so is morally wrong, yet I make an exception for foetuses.

Why am I *not* a hypocrite and a monster?

 

[uruk]

Having an abortion is exercising personal responsibility.

I do not agree. Aborting an unwanted pregnancy that was the result of unprotected sex, in my opinion, gives both parties a quick "out". In most cases the reckless behaivour is not corrected. There are also other reasons other than just preventing unwanted pregnancies that are remedied by using protection.

Better way of exercising responsibility would be to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place by using protection. Preventing an unwanted pregnancy is more moral than performing an abortion

It would be irresponsible to take it to term if you can't or don't want to take care of the result.

Again, I do not agree. The baby can be given up for adoption if you do not want to keep the child. Adoption may not be the best solution inthe world, but it has the benefit of not terminating a human life. You would be excercising responsibility to protecting and furthering human life.

Again this would depend on how much importance you place on human life.

 

[quarky]

The relative morality of birth controls, including abortion, need to be weighed in the context of the morality of over-population. Even if you don't think the world has too many people already, and that the quality of life is in a downfall, it will be eventually.

War is the other co-commitment of too many people. An abortion seems less immoral than the necessity of killing young adults later.

 

[JFrankA]

In the case of conjoined twins, should the more articulate of the two be allowed to have its sibling killed?

Conjoined twins isn't one thing growing inside another. Bad analogy

 

[JFrankA]

This is not an answer to my question.

I stated that I support the right to abortion up to 12-16 weeks. I believe this allows the killing helpless human beings for possibly arbitrary and selfish reasons. I'll add that I don't believe people should be allowed to kill helpless human beings for possibly arbitrary and selfish reasons generally. I think to do so is morally wrong, yet I make an exception for foetuses.

Why am I *not* a hypocrite and a monster?

Ivor, I wasn't insulting you, I was simply disagreeing with you.

I didn't want to insult you. But if you want one....

 

[uruk]

The DNA argument. Its quite worthless, as I don't care about DNA, I care about real persons.

That is an odd position to take. Every "real person" has DNA. They have a sequence of DNA that unique to themselves.

It is your DNA that determins every physical aspect of your body. It is what distiguishes you as a homo sapien, a human being And if you subscribe to some research that links DNA sequences to specific behaiviours, it may also have some degree of determination on who you are also.

My views on human life are not just limited to the philosophical description of what a person is. I recognise the importance of that particular definintion but you are also a physicality. Your body and and all the functions with in also define you as a human being.

If you are a cyborg with just a biological brain in a mechanical body, you would be a "person" in the legal and philosophical sense but you would not be quite "human" in the biological sense.

And even a cyborg would have a DNA sequence that is unique to itself. The DNA would be in the biological brain.

 

[AWPrime]

So does a fetus.

I can place some brain cells in a dish and the brain activity won't be to dissimilar to that of a fetus. While the brain activity of a person is organized. From you pov an ant might just as well be a person.

There's no concept of self when your brain shuts down due to hypoxia or severe hypothermia either. Hell, there's not much concept of self when you're asleep.

Actually there is a concept of self in those situations, it allows people to experience NDEs and dreams.

Now you've introduced a new term: full person. The obvious implication of which is that you can have a mostly person. I was right, even your own position is not actually so black and white as you pretend.

I have already said before that sentience slowly develops after birth, and you accuse me of a binary position?!
Also its developing person, not a mostly person, so stop projecting.

So that's a yes, but you just don't want to say yes explicitly. Like I said, you're a fringe extremist.

No more then you. In fact I think that you are more of an extremist as you wish to oppose your will on another person.

 

[Dragoonster]

Has there ever been a case of a sperm or an egg by itself turning into a human?

No more than cases of a week old fetus by itself turning itself into a person. Neither are people yet, so imo neither should be assigned rights based on what they could become in the future.

If a particular week old fetus would never develop into anything more than a week old fetus, would abortion of that fetus still be immoral or illegal? ETA: as you support pro-choice to 16 weeks, what if a 30-week old fetus stopped developing and would remain in that state the rest of the mother's life? Could it be aborted?

While I agree there is always going to be some ambiguity as to exactly when the combination of an egg and DNA become a human being, I think setting it at birth is no more rational than at a day, a week or a month after conception. Doing so is a pragmatic decision which allows certain members of society to kill human beings they don't want around in the future. We allow this and not the killing of other helpless human beings because there is no chance of us ever becoming a foetus, but we might ourselves become an unconscious human being one day.

Sure, and there are DNRs if we decide we don't want to live in that state; or in some localities families or doctors can decide it's best we die.

The rationality/pragmatism of assigning rights at birth is solely (for my view) because at that point the mother can abandon all care-taking, and the state will take over. If instead the state refused to take over care, I'd support legal infanticide up until the point I think personhood is established. Related to that, if a technology developed that could "transport" (ala a Star Trek transporter) the fetus from the mother to an incubator, and the mother's responsiblities would end, I might support that as the alternative to carrying to term rather than abortion. But that isn't the choice, so I support the killing of the fetus if that's what the mother wants as an alternative to carrying to term.

If it is valid to judge a culture on how it treats its weakest members then I think we are all hypocrites and monsters. I can live with this view of myself. Can you?

I don't consider a fetus a member of society at all. I have far more moral dilemma justifying eating meat or wearing leather than I do justifying abortion, because I think cows have more "personhood" traits (individual personality, self-awareness, conscious appreciation of pain) than fetuses.

 

[uruk]

I do. Being forced to be pregnant when you don't want to be is a punishment.

You are being forced if there is a law that makes you do so if it is against your will. In reality there are many things that we are forced to do by law even if we do not want to do them.

I am arguing that people should want to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full trern and then give the child up for aboption because it is the "right" thing to do in reguards to respect for human life.

A better solution would be for people to take actions to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
That would also go a long way in reducing the overpopulation problem, not to mention reduce the number of children in orphanages.