Well they have the weird idea that there's a difference between a collection of human cells and a human being that's predicated on something other than the presence of a human mind (and so human beings are something that exist at the moment of conception, even though that's fucking retarded). They have this idea because...you know...jesus.
Abortion
- Thread starter Julian The Apostate
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Right, there's two people. One person that's a person and another that's a collection of cells.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
It's amazing to me how even though you reply to anyone even remotely talking to you, you are never interested in actually having any conversation or debate on a topic. You are absolutely convinced that every opinion or notion that you have is correct. No one is going to convince you their side is right and you don't even care to convince anyone else.
It really makes you the least interesting poster on this forum.
I'm waiting to hear a counter-argument that doesn't boil down to "life begins at conception because that's when it starts."
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
Pro-lifers have a different definition of "life" and "personhood," which are purely subjective. I've read a few papers on ethics ofabortionand I could honestly even say thatabortionafter birth isn't necessarily evil because that baby may not even receive a personhood at that point either. So killing the baby after birth isn't a murder, etc. They are only "persons" because they are born and outside of the womb. It's just a hush hush fuck fuck and it will come down to the public opinion. That's why Pro-lifers focus on "personhood" while pro-choice focus on "women's right" even though two are completely different issue. Because if Pro-choice focused on the fetus, nobody would give a shit, so they use women's right to cry wolf and win public support. Meanwhile, pro-lifers focus on murder and gruesome images of aborted fetuses to win public support. If the fetus inside the woman's womb is considered a person, women's right of choice would conflict with the rights of the fetus to live. That's the ultimate fear of pro-choicers, feminazis, or whatever they want to call themselves.
I would personally say that women should have to ability to abort as they wish since it would liberate men from their obligation to women and child should she decide to carry it to full term without the male's consent. It makes sense that law would bind men to his child and the woman in fucking 18th century because it was inevitable for the child to exist and women needed a working men to provide for her. That's no longer the case. This would effectively control bad behaviours of bad women while leaving the rest of good men and women to procreate as they desire in a better union that is not coerced by law.
Pancreas
Vyemm Raider
- 1,135
- 3,831
Life began 3.6-3.8 billion years ago and hasn't stopped since. The sperm cell that fertilizes the egg is alive, the egg itself is alive, and the cell division and reproduction that occurs soon after is proof that their product is alive.
So the question about when life begins is a false one. Instead of trying to redefine what is life for the sake of makingabortionsound more appealing, we should simply accept that termination of early stage human organisms is legal. That is what we are doing. Without such interference those organisms have a good chance of becoming mature humans.
However, I believe there should be a point of no return. That once a human has matured past a certain developmental stage, that's it, it has a right to live. The point itself is arbitrary; but I think it should at least create a buffer between when abortions are allowed and when a baby would be viable if it were to be born prematurely.
Why create such a point? To clear up potential ethical dilemmas involving unwanted children that might be viable without the mother. The mother is saying terminate, but the technology could allow the child to survive in spite of her. Do the mother's wishes override everything? Should she be given the power of life or death over the baby until the umbilical is cut?
The vast majority of abortions take place before 13 weeks from the last menstruation. The earliest baby to survive I believe was at 21 weeks 6 days. Technology will continue to close this gap until a human organism will be able to be grown entirely outside of the womb. It would be much cleaner to have a definitive cut off date after which embryos are protected.
But all of this only really applies to the arbitrary decision to terminate because the mother does not desire the child. The medically necessary situations (which are rare) should not be subject to such a limit. Nothing should get in the way of a doctor's ability to make decisions for the survival of his patients. But choosing not to recognize a life because someone does not wish for it, is deception. We should simply be honest about what it is we permit in our society.
They're not dead, but it's not really sensible to say that a life has started. Until there's some kind of significant hardware for a mind to operate in there's no person there. They're alive in same sense that a hangnail is alive.
Kuriin
Just a Nurse
- 4,046
- 1,020
I'm a little confused. Aren't cells alive? You know the nail is technically dead, right? The only part that's alive is proximal end.
Have you ever considered the possibility that God doesn't like you andabortionis His way of terminating your existence?
OneofOne
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 6,935
- 8,783
What the fuckity fuck? I'm pro-choice, but here's a doc that needs a slow and public execution. Some of his employees need to join him.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...-story/274944/
- 17,781
- 25,897
A definition of the word 'life' that all thinking persons can agree on and that no one of any education can possibly refute is Nobel Prize worthy. If you have one, please share it here. I promise not to steal your prize.
Pancreas is exactly right. Any time the word 'life' is used it must be remembered, above all else, that you are now well outside a realm of black and white. Everything is grey. It is all a blur. We may draw lines wherever we see fit but that is his point. It must never be forgotten that it is WE who draw these lines. When it comes to the issue ofabortion, which is certainly well within the boundaries of 'life', we must also draw these lines. Until a definition of life can be expressed somehow mathematically (and eventually graphically and then poetically), there are no certain demarcations for us to follow. Science until that point has taken it as far as it can for the time being. It is up to us to face this fact, man up, and decide when it is okay to collectively agree to terminate a human-ish organism.
I would add that science can and should still be our guide on this issue. But this is where we must admit that science, guide us as it may, cannot tell us yet where it is going. Perhaps we even admit that our view onabortionmight someday be radically altered by a new scientific discovery of the mind or the understanding of 'life'. But until then, we must decide. If we can collectively decide, while also leaving open the possibility of amendment as the facts continue to come in, I think we can say we did our best. I can live with that. There doesn't always have to be a perfect answer to everything at any given moment.
To put my money where my mouth is: I am inclined to say that a woman has until the start of her third trimester. After that I would say she has waited too long and the rest of us, using the apparatus of government, decide for her that she will carry to term under threat of law (which may not be enough in many cases). Where the authority of all of this comes from is of course about eight other threads in and of itself but there it is in any case.
I think the relevant moral factor is the presence of a mind. I think that you're right that even such a distinction is not a hard line, but I think it's the relevant one and I think that saying "life begins at conception" is an extreme form of equivocation between the reality of what we think of when we think of our lives and the chemical process of cell division. You're not wrong to say there's definitely a gray area, but I also think there are some black and white areas too and I think "life begins at conception" is one of them.
Caliane
Avatar of War Slayer
- 15,607
- 11,921
jesus.
"By 24 weeks, most babies born prematurely will survive if they receive appropriate medical care"
wanted to comment on that though. Judging what is the properabortionwindow on viability of premature babies is a dead end. Pretty sure at some point, when cloning, etc becomes a thing, there will be NO point at which a fetus can't be saved.
Pancreas
Vyemm Raider
- 1,135
- 3,831
The properabortionwindow now, is mostly determined by liability. The risks of late term abortions go up considerably and most doctors don't want to deal with that. But technology is going to present some bizarre scenarios. If a child can be viable in spite of the mother, which right trumps.? The right to live, or the mother's discretion? Does this mean that the rights we have as human beings are conveyed to us, and not intrinsic properties of being alive?
It would be so much easier if we answered that question by simply picking a date from conception upon which rights are bestowed. Otherwise you wind up in endless debates over when life begins.