Abortion: A Choice, Not Chore

[mepersoner]

Just like I think killing someone in their sleep is murder and so you shouldn't do it. That is my belief. Maybe you think murder is okay, and that is your beilef, but I'd still be in the right to impose my belief on you because I'm doing it for the right reasons.

Imposing beliefs on others is not necessarily a bad thing. That would be what the laws of society are based around, all of them. What beliefs should be imposed upon all of society as to help keep order and create a stable save environment for us all.

It's the business of the person you'd be killing.

[Archbio]

If you shot me in the head in my sleep I wouldn't care either. I wouldn't be around to care.

Just in case you were wondering, that's bad logic.

In case you were wondering, I think that's missing the point. But I didn't make the original post, so...

If destroying potential for human life actually the same as killing the human beings that would result, then not doing your best so as many gametes fecond one another is essentially mass murder (potential is even greater when you take the gametes, which are feel are being discriminated against. Of course the potential is farther back from becoming reality, but it shouldn't matter if the "destruction of potential" does) . That's bad logic.

To say that potential begins at the zygote is strangely arbitrary, even more so than the exercice of trying to determine when sentience develops. And that's what I think matters in determining what's the right thing to do. But the woman's jurisdiction over her womb trumps almost all else.

Just a few opinions.

It's the business of the person you'd be killing.

The point was: what's a person? The whole disagreement is on there and on every way that question can be asked.

[mepersoner]

I already defined when it became a human being. A zygote is not a potential for human life, it is a human life.

So your question of when it becomes human can be answered as follows: The point at which a group of cells becomes human is the point at which it has the potential to grow. A single sperm cannot grow into a human being, neither can a single egg, but at the point of conception when the sperm and egg meet it begins it's grown into a full human being. Which is no different than a fetus, a baby, or a child, or a teenager who is continuing to grow towards their full potential. All of which are considered human beings.

[Archbio]

But a non-sentient human life, which makes it a non-person. I already said that, also, so this is my last post on this thread.

Dr EDIT for the post below: Now that's just ridiculous. Altough sentience doesn't equal consciousness, that's obviously my opinion that the higher value of (human) life only rests on sentience. But your argument pretty much implies that I think a person stops existing during sleep or coma.

For the record, if a person was in a coma, with a brain condition that means complete and irreversible, one time amnesia, and we weren't sure if they would come back to consciousness, then I suppose I should say that it's okay for them to be unplugged. But, that's taking the really important part out of the equation: they're not inside a woman, which is basically the only reason why this is an issue.

But even then, can a person's mind be totally wiped when it has been formed? Without the brain being destroyed that is. Sentience being a physical thing, as long as it's retrievable, I think it's wrong (and unecessary) to destroy it. While accomodating the potential for a new person should be considered an active act.

In clear my opinion on this is now:

letting someone live = not an active act.
Giving birth to someone = active act.

Edited several times for idiocy.

[mepersoner]

I fail to see where consciousness has anything to do with it. If a person fell into a state where they were no long concious, but could "wake up" at any time, would you kill them because they were an inconvenience?

[AntiGnostic]

It is a simple fact that the foetus is human. He has his own DNA, his own chromosomes, and his own cells. It's not really possible to debate that fact.

The question is not whether or not the foetus is human. Everyone knows that he is. The question is whether or not the foetus is a 'person', deserving of life.

It is not up to we mere mortals to decide which humans are 'persons' deserving of life, and which ones are not. Societies in the past have done this, labelling certain Ethnic or Religious groups as not being true 'persons' (e.g. Nazi Germany, where Jews and Gypsies were viewed as being lesser beings).

The truth is that the foetus is a living human being, that just so happens to be dependant on his mother. It's kind of like he's hooked up to a living life support machine.

Should the mother be allowed to kill her child because he inconveniences her, because he must remain inside of her in order to live? No. Human life is one of the most precious things in the world, and it is not to be thrown away because it is inconvenient to someone.

Should a mother be allowed to kill her child because he was conceived by rape? No, of course not. Children are not marred by their father's sins, and they should not be punished for crimes they did not commit. Also, there are people who were conceived in rape who grow up to be full fledged, happy adults. Would you really go up to one of them and tell them that their mother should have aborted them, just because their were conceived via rape?

Also, should a mother be allowed to kill her child because he is deformed? Since when does killing someone ever help him?

The main problem with abortion 'logic' is that it divides humans up into separate groups. One group, the 'persons', deserve life. The other group, 'non-persons', do not. These non-persons have done nothing wrong. Their only crime is that they exist, and therefore they must be eliminated.

Ugh. This whole mess makes me sick. I seem to remember a time when parents welcomed their children into the world with open arms, when they loved their children more than life itself. Mothers used to give their lives for their children, now the children's lives are take by their mothers. it's sad really. So very, very sad.

I just wish that people would stop thinking about themselves so much and start thinking of others. If a man is not willing to give his life for his neighbour, then he is not doing his duty.
Ugh. Sorry, I was ranting. Just letting off a little steam.

Anyway, I can't understand how people can justify abortion. It really is unjustifiable. The taking of a human life, no matter how small or weak, is a sin of the gravest measure. I just hope that these poor women realise that their children are real, living, flesh and blood people, who deserve life as much as you or I.

Of course, some people will never admit that a small, minute foetus could possibly be their equal. They think far too highly of themselves. Flesh is flesh, and blood is blood.

Anyway, that's all I have to say.

-AntiGnostic (defender of truth)

[shiney]

My favorite part is how the 'defender of truth' presents his arguments in a way that leaves absolutely no room for allowance.

Hey, Gnostic - walk away from this topic. That kind of attitude turns it into a flamewar. If it's unjustifiable, then why is it practiced? Your opinion is quite clear, however you can't go about presenting opinions as facts. That's bad form, it makes people angry and thus incites arguments where previously, mere discussion existed.

What's this mere mortals stuff? Won't give life for neighbour? A sin? That sounds like it's getting just a little religious. Which is explicitly against the rules.

I'd recommend that if you can't avoid references such as those, if you can't avoid presenting opinion as fact, that you don't post in abortion threads anymore.

And you can't use a tagline like defender of truth when you're so violently biased that there are no alternatives. That's just hypocritical. Truth can only be found when all sides are viewed equally, not one side favorably and the other merely because it's there and you have to.

Lastly,

Of course, some people will never admit that a small, minute foetus could possibly be their equal. They think far too highly of themselves.

Drop the arrogant positioning right now. That's not a request.

[Crodevillian Team]

The question is not whether or not the foetus is human. Everyone knows that he is. The question is whether or not the foetus is a 'person', deserving of life.

Life and death is a choice made by humans on a daily basis; police officers can shoot deadly criminals, doctors triage patients, and inmates can be put on death row. This system of putting people into 'categories' has been around since we began. It is not a new concept, nor is it something only used by the Nazis.

I just wish that people would stop thinking about themselves so much and start thinking of others. If a man is not willing to give his life for his neighbour, then he is not doing his duty.

Gnostic, if you're pro-life, and so sickened with people being 'selfish,' then please tell me what you're doing to help the millions of people starving in the streets around the world, the trafficking of humans in Eastern Europe, and the homeless in America. We're actively choosing to let people die, because as it's been said, inaction can be just as damning. Does that make us all murderers? How is it different?

Listen, if you oppose abortion, instead of trying to impose your religious views (because that's obviously where you're coming from) on everyone in the United States (because we -do- have a separation of church and state), why don't you take measures to help minimize abortions instead of outlawing them all from the get-go and allowing the government to have control over a woman's body? A lot of young pregnant women don't have sufficient funds to support the baby. Why don't you offer some money to help take care of the baby? Help improve the adoption system, so women won't be afraid that their children will languish in home-after-home. There are many things you could do- I've already stated that improving sexual education (and promoting the use of contraceptives) would help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Why not promote that? Walk the walk and follow your own advice of selflessness and respect for other humans.

-Croteam (defender of chocolate doughnuts)

[KefkaTaran]

In an attempt to throw an interesting wrench into the whole thing:

A lot of this topic, naturally, has been discussed using scientific reasoning, and how a human is defined scientifically. A couple nights ago my girlfriend and I were discussing how one can define a human in philosophical terms, as in how can one even determine that one IS human philosophically without this set definition. Taking this philosophical view for a moment, when and how can we say a group of cells becomes a human?

Curious to what each side is going to present here.

On another note:
AntiGnostic:
I'm really interested in you for one simple reason. The dictionary definition of gnostic is "of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge"... so does that mean you are against intellectual and/or spiritual knowledge?

Also, you say you 'remember a time when parents loved their children', etc., etc., etc. One, I highly doubt you lived during this mythical age you're describing. Two, ALL parents have never loved ALL children. Fact of life. Three, abortions have been around for a long, LONG time. Truth: before Roe v Wade the majority of abortions that were done (and PLENTY were done) were in terrible shops from shifty 'doctors' and often ended up causing serious problems that most abortions these days can avoid.

I was kind of shaky on the abortion topic until my English teacher, a hardcore Roman-Catholic I'll let you know, set me straight by telling me this: Even if abortion is made illegal, it's still going to happen. The only difference is that it's going to happen illegally and often do far greater damage than it ever comes close to doing now. Thereby, even if one is against the act of abortion personally, making it illegal is probably not going to help matters one bit.

-Phil (Defender of Free Love on the Free Love Freeway)

[Archbio]

A philosophical view?

I think the word human being isn't appropriate for this: it's already too well defined materially. I don't think you meant human being simply as individuals belonging to a group arbitrarily defined by their genes: a species. That'd miss the point entierely. So another word might be useful, since we're talking philosophy (with I think, an obvious existential bent): maybe a person?

Once you do that, it's a brand new classification however, one that could break the boundaries of the rigid "one organism with this many chromosomes following this range of variations, one human being" definition.

Hardcore existentialists might say: a person is something which acts (and believe they are) a person, wouldn't they? I'd still define it be a certain type of sentience. There's no way to escape the arbitrary while trying defining things from a non-material perspective.

On another note:
AntiGnostic:
I'm really interested in you for one simple reason. The dictionary definition of gnostic is "of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge"... so does that mean you are against intellectual and/or spiritual knowledge?

I thought that gnostic was one word used to designate the members of what medieval (and probably present, I don't know) Churches considered heresies, like the Cathars. That would give an ironic spin to the whole thing, since one of the crusades was directed against the Cathars, and that this context that gave rise to the quote: "Kill them all, and let God sort them out". I'm paraphrasing, its more like "God will sort out his own".

-Archbio, Defender of Stuff

Dr EDIT: I only meant the gnostic but in a historical, and not religious, way.