Abortion

I favor banningabortion, but having all unwanted children conscripted into the Foundation For Figuring Out Many X-Year-Olds You Can Take In A Fight.

Whoever survives to 18 gets free college tuition.

I'm saying its unfair to make couples who can't conceive forbidden to try IVF because someone else's god says life begins at conception. Your religion isn't everyone else's religion. That's the first amendment.

And it doesn't matter if its a right or a privilege to get to that step (having children). Though most would classify it as a right versus privilege. (Including the law under the privacy penumbra).

Honestly, I'm againstabortion, but for the eating of babies.

Here's why babies would be delicious. Babies are cute. All the best tasting meats are cute and babies (lamb, mutton).

People are making this too complicated.

Abortion= consciously ending the possibility of life for the zygote / fetus / baby, knowing that the alternative is allowing it to become a person

A zygote that dies by itself has had no conscious decision maker act on it; therefore, there's no reason to morally scrutinize the event. In the same way, we don't bring up morality when someone dies in a tornado.

"You can't legislate morality." - Head of the NRA, Meet the Press, 12/23/12.

Good to know the NRA supports telling the right to fuck off onabortionlaws.

(I've explained the difference between my moral and legal positions and why the two cannot be the same - just found the quote fascinating).

cosmic_cs_sl said:

People are making this too complicated.

Abortion= consciously ending the possibility of life for the zygote / fetus / baby, knowing that the alternative is allowing it to become a person

A zygote that dies by itself has had no conscious decision maker act on it; therefore, there's no reason to morally scrutinize the event. In the same way, we don't bring up morality when someone dies in a tornado.

Click to expand...

I think you're over simplifying it. There are many cases that does not fit into your model. F.inst. not all abortions would from a scientific pow have become a person - neural tube defects of various degrees is an example - Some are not viable and we terminate early before naturally occurring event, which can be dangerous to the women.
There are many nuances to 'zygote that dies by itself'. I stated numerous variations of this, some could easily be argued are induced by environment, nutrition, tobacco, alcohol and genetic defects. The more physiology and biochemistry knowledge one possesses it becomes much more nuanced than what you're implying. I understand your comparison, albeit I'd argue a the force of nature, tornados, is by far more random and destructive then the controlled process ofabortion. Also I could imagine some cases where contractors would be liable for not building homes tornado proof or safe - using the wrong materials and whatnot. Again too simplistic, there are obviously a huge gray area which you're not addressing.
What about the morula state or the 3 plate state? When is it morally problematic? Some pregnancies terminate because the woman has suboptimal growth environment for the zygote. Some terminate or damage the zygote, morula or child to be by ingesting toxins from food, tobacco, alcohol etc or other inappropriate actions. So far it seems you've only touched on two instances, not even the extremes.

I thought I put it plainly in my first post - Where do you draw the line? Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your statements?

Etoille_sl said:

I'm saying its unfair to make couples who can't conceive forbidden to try IVF because someone else's god says life begins at conception. Your religion isn't everyone else's religion. That's the first amendment.

And it doesn't matter if its a right or a privilege to get to that step (having children). Though most would classify it as a right versus privilege. (Including the law under the privacy penumbra).

Click to expand...

I agree religion should have no say in this matter at all. Their freedom ends where yours (ours) begins - basic human rights. I simply misread your earlier post. Thank you for reiterating
We aid women, IVF, if we're technologically and economically able to do so. The ability to do so should be protected, naturally - I suspect this is what you're arguing for, since religious nuts are making this problematic where you live. It's a non-issue where I live - religion has no say in the matter.
As to whether it's a right or a privilege I'm firmly in the second category. I do not believe it is a given right to be able to conceive - It goes against what we know of the human body. The point(s) of failure are anatomically, physiologically and biochemically vast. How can we possibly legislate on this as well as human genotypes and phenotypes, earlier generations mistakes (exposure) etc? That seems excessive, no?

Tuco_sl said:

Who is equivocating that with murder exactly?

Also it's an insult to a supreme being by saying that all we need to do to play God is to pluck eggs and throw sperm at them.

Click to expand...

I was under the impressionyou did- perhaps I'm misreading your post (most likely)? By deus ex machina I simply meant we're interfering in the naturally occurring process and thus saying that terminating the non viable zygotes is murder is the same as not understanding how fertilization and IVF works. Perhaps I should have chose my words more carefully as I am an atheist, albeit this is a game forum, no?
Also Keg said somewhere along the lines that it is murder to terminate a zygotehere.
Could you elaborate - or point to the post where you do?

Izo_sl said:

I was under the impressionyou did- perhaps I'm misreading your post (most likely)? By deus ex machina I simply meant we're interfering in the naturally occurring process and thus saying that terminating the non viable zygotes is murder is the same as not understanding how fertilization and IVF works. Perhaps I should have chose my words more carefully as I am an atheist, albeit this is a game forum, no?

Also Keg said somewhere along the lines that it is murder to terminate a zygotehere.
Could you elaborate - or point to the post where you do?

Click to expand...

he was saying other people were using the word murder, when its not appropriate.

which, I find a bit strange. As he is defining murder as a purely legal construct. I.E. without laws, murder doesn't exist. Which seems silly to me. (I think I would define murder as unjust killing. not unlawful) Laws are based on Justice. But Justice is a larger concept. We have a legal term for murder. Manslaughter.
I think it was keg that first used the word yes.

To call, killing zygotes murder is incorrect, because it is legal. If it were illegal it then would be murder, is what he said.

But, exactly, if we decide third term abortions are legal, but unjust because they are at this point, whole enough to be considered a being. Murder. At the same time, when having to decide between life of mother or child. which is Just? Killing the child to save the mother, or allowing the mother to die to save the child. either one is a Just choice, and not murder.

Izo_sl said:

I agree religion should have no say in this matter at all. Their freedom ends where yours (ours) begins - basic human rights. I simply misread your earlier post. Thank you for reiterating

We aid women, IVF, if we're technologically and economically able to do so. The ability to do so should be protected, naturally - I suspect this is what you're arguing for, since religious nuts are making this problematic where you live. It's a non-issue where I live - religion has no say in the matter.
As to whether it's a right or a privilege I'm firmly in the second category. I do not believe it is a given right to be able to conceive - It goes against what we know of the human body. The point(s) of failure are anatomically, physiologically and biochemically vast. How can we possibly legislate on this as well as human genotypes and phenotypes, earlier generations mistakes (exposure) etc? That seems excessive, no?

Click to expand...

I find this to be a serious problem.
No religious text says a damn thing about this kind of thing. yet, we have people trying to inject their religion into the matter.

We can not have a rational discussion on the topic, when one side is completely irrational.

Izo_sl said:

I think you're over simplifying it. There are many cases that does not fit into your model. F.inst. not all abortions would from a scientific pow have become a person - neural tube defects of various degrees is an example - Some are not viable and we terminate early before naturally occurring event, which can be dangerous to the women.
There are many nuances to 'zygote that dies by itself'. I stated numerous variations of this, some could easily be argued are induced by environment, nutrition, tobacco, alcohol and genetic defects. The more physiology and biochemistry knowledge one possesses it becomes much more nuanced than what you're implying. I understand your comparison, albeit I'd argue a the force of nature, tornados, is by far more random and destructive then the controlled process ofabortion. Also I could imagine some cases where contractors would be liable for not building homes tornado proof or safe - using the wrong materials and whatnot. Again too simplistic, there are obviously a huge gray area which you're not addressing.
What about the morula state or the 3 plate state? When is it morally problematic? Some pregnancies terminate because the woman has suboptimal growth environment for the zygote. Some terminate or damage the zygote, morula or child to be by ingesting toxins from food, tobacco, alcohol etc or other inappropriate actions. So far it seems you've only touched on two instances, not even the extremes.

I thought I put it plainly in my first post - Where do you draw the line? Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your statements?

Click to expand...

It's simple. Just focus on the decision to have anabortion. If you decide to abort, you've eliminated ANY possibility of life for the zygote. Yes, the zygote may not become a person anyway, but that's beside the point. If, at the time you abort, you knew that if left alone, the zygote would likely become a person (again, nothing in life is definite, but you had no other reason to believe that the zygote isn't viable), then you've taken its life.

Again, focus on the decision making process for most abortions (i.e., not dangerous to the mother, would likely become a baby, etc.). I don't think anyone in this thread is talking about the corner cases like ectopic pregnancy or bad parenting (i.e., the mom drinks alcohol or smokes, etc.).

For entertainment, I can try to address your corner cases:

1) Pregnancy that is dangerous to the mother: in many cases, this is an ectopic pregnancy or eclampsia of some sort. In ectopic pregnancy, the baby often can't survive anyway (and could kill the mother), so the decision to abort is clear. For eclampsia, the risk and benefits would be explained by the doctor, and as with any medical emergency / procedure, there are risks, one of them being the death of the mom or baby. It's a decision the mom has to make.

2) Mom who does drugs and alcohol: usually the baby is born anyway unless the mom is purposely trying to kill it with alcohol. To me, this example pertains more to bad parenting than a decision to abort. For example, once the kid is born, the mom smokes around the kid, and the kid develops lung cancer early in his life, or the mom is abusive, and the kid has a bad life in general (and gets himself killed or something). In these examples, it's difficult to say that the mom killed the baby or took its life. Conventionally, we just say the mom was a bad parent, causing the kid to make bad decisions and suffer.

@cosmic_cs
And what of the cases where theabortionis caused by our bodies instead of induced by physicians? The incidence rate of these are much vaster in numbers. They represent a huge, to me, interesting gray area - from what we can consider natural processes to the more dubious of nature. I've stated a few of them inpost 200- the sky is the limit with regards to variations. Hardly any can be attributed to 'bad parenting' as such - being a unknowing recessive carrier of a genetic disorder, having degrees of phenotype defects related to conceiving, being overweight, lifetime alcohol intake (damages eggs etc), eating polluted food, using drugs with unknown toxicological side effects or interactions (Thalidomide anyone?), lack of critical building blocks (folic acid) - the list goes on. Where do you draw the line here? Is it even realistic to draw a line here?

Tuco_sl said:

See everyone, this is my vindication for being a hardass about the English language. Izo is so confused by you people throwing around terms he's entirely unable to understand my posts. At least you're not alone because I have no idea what you're trying to say either. So let me how I resolve my stance on believing that an individual's life begins at conception and my stance of being okay with IVF:

Even if IVF destroys a few zygotes, it brings life to where there would not be life.

Click to expand...

Normally the egg and sperm meet in the ovarian tubes -> fertilization (conception) happens here and the outcome, the zygote, is then transported to the uterine cavity and implants if possible. Hormones support and sustain this process.
So what you're saying is that a zygote is not life unless it's implanted in utero? Or do you mean it's not an individual until it's implanted? I think your post made this part less clear. Could you elaborate on what you mean by life and by conception then? It directly relates to whenabortionis taking said life - aka when isabortionnot taking a life, if your definition allows for the intervention.
It is crystal clear you're okay with IVF and the process by which we go about it - harvesting, artificial fertilization, reinsertion of the fertilized egg, zygote, into the uterus and administration of hormones to sustain the implanting and continued pregnancy.

Izo_sl said:

And what of the cases where theabortionis caused by our bodies instead of induced by physicians? The incidence rate of these are much vaster in numbers. They represent a huge, to me, interesting gray area - from what we can consider natural processes to the more dubious of nature. I've stated a few of them inpost 200- the sky is the limit with regards to variations. Hardly any can be attributed to 'bad parenting' as such - being a unknowing recessive carrier of a genetic disorder, having degrees of phenotype defects related to conceiving, being overweight, lifetime alcohol intake (damages eggs etc), eating polluted food, using drugs with unknown toxicological side effects or interactions (Thalidomide anyone?), lack of critical building blocks (folic acid) - the list goes on. Where do you draw the line here? Is it even realistic to draw a line here?

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're talking about, lol. You're talking about something different than the DECISION to have anabortion. Honestly, you're confusing yourself by adding unrelated aspects of fetal development. Fetal development is a different topic.Abortionis a decision to eliminate life for a zygote / fetus.

cosmic_cs_sl said:

I don't understand what you're talking about, lol. You're talking about something different than the DECISION to have anabortion. Honestly, you're confusing yourself by adding unrelated aspects of fetal development. Fetal development is a different topic.Abortionis a decision to eliminate life for a zygote / fetus.

Click to expand...

Okay. Let us try this one more time and this time I'll be a bit more precise:abortionis not solely the decision to eliminate life for a zygote / fetus. Reading here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortionone realizes the termabortioncovers more than the induced type, specifically miscarriages - also known as spontaneous abortions. Are we on the same page now?

Add in knowledge of physiology, anatomy and biochemistry, the body and it's functions in short, one realizes there are major overlaps between the two commonly understood differentiations ofabortion. This is where the part you seem to think is not relevant comes in, the fetal development. When considering when, why, if and what terminates the development of sperm and egg into zygote and onwards to a human it is highly relevant to consider aspects that influence fetal development. This is, to me, interesting if we're to talk about morals and ethics linked toabortion.

Now that we're both up to speed, I'd be honored if you'dread this againand perhaps commented on it. Thank you

I didn't know this was a thread about the different types ofabortionand their mechanisms. Someone please unconfuse one of us

cosmic_cs_sl said:

I didn't know this was a thread about the different types ofabortionand their mechanisms. Someone please unconfuse one of us

Click to expand...

Thread title is "Abortion" Not sure what is confusing about that.

Selix_sl said:

Thread title is "Abortion" Not sure what is confusing about that.

Click to expand...

And the point of this thread is to talk about all aspects ofabortion(induced and spontaneous), including physiology and fetal development? My impression was that this thread is about inducedabortionin situations where the zygote is thought to be viable and whether or not it constitutes taking a life. Why are people bringing up spontaneous abortions?