Abortion

[sees_all1]

Then you're bring the law into a moral debate, which is more off topic than bringing up the morality and logic of putting humans before animals.

 

Legally, a fetus is not a human and doesn't have rights. There is no funeral after a miscarriage or abortion and they are not counted by the census.

I saw it as you were bringing morality into a law debate. :rolleyes:

The position I've outlined several times is why a fetus is biologically human and should have legal rights. Seems to me that arguing morals is less worthwhile than arguing about religions, at least one tries to tie itself to history.

 

Oh, and people do have funerals after miscarriages. And you wouldn't count a dead baby in a census because its dead. There are certificates of stillbirths, though, obtainable from state health departments. Its kinda the opposite of certificates of live births.

[Dupin]

Then you're bring the law into a moral debate, which is more off topic than bringing up the morality and logic of putting humans before animals.

 

Legally, a fetus is not a human and doesn't have rights. There is no funeral after a miscarriage or abortion and they are not counted by the census.

Okay I think this is over. We can talk about morality all we want but if I kill this baby none of you can do anything about it. The law already states a fetus is not a legit human, lets all go home.

 

 

aaannnnd you've completely missed the point :thumbup:

 

That post wasn't an argument for pro life, it was an argument saying that an argument against pro life is valid.

I think you misread, he was agreeing with you and saying that really nothing more can be said.

 

Then you're bring the law into a moral debate, which is more off topic than bringing up the morality and logic of putting humans before animals.

 

Legally, a fetus is not a human and doesn't have rights. There is no funeral after a miscarriage or abortion and they are not counted by the census.

I saw it as you were bringing morality into a law debate. :rolleyes:

The position I've outlined several times is why a fetus is biologically human and should have legal rights. Seems to me that arguing morals is less worthwhile than arguing about religions, at least one tries to tie itself to history.

 

Oh, and people do have funerals after miscarriages. And you wouldn't count a dead baby in a census because its dead. There are certificates of stillbirths, though, obtainable from state health departments. Its kinda the opposite of certificates of live births.

Morally, you can't argue pro-life because morality is subjective. You can be pro-life, but the law would have to be pro-choice.

 

Legally, as Iamdan said, a fetus is not a human and doesn't have the same rights. The mother's freedom to decide what to do with her body is more important than a little ball of cells in her uterus, and the law reflects that.

[sees_all1]

Then you're bring the law into a moral debate, which is more off topic than bringing up the morality and logic of putting humans before animals.

 

Legally, a fetus is not a human and doesn't have rights. There is no funeral after a miscarriage or abortion and they are not counted by the census.

 

This is true, however it is illegal to kill bald eagle eggs as they will live if you dont damage them.

 

[i provided another common for life argument which is hard to fight against]

 

That there is good eating.

 

 

Yeah, I went there.

That's also to say that current US law is messed up.

[sees_all1]

This isnt a prolife or prochoice comment, its if your wife had a miscarriage (given that you are married and want kids) would you cry? would you have a funeral? would you name it?

 

This isnt off topic, because given that it deserves all the rights of another person these should be included as well - even in the case of a miscarriage.

I'm not certain that "proper funeral" is a basic human right. But to answer your personal question, yes, I would cry if I lost my child. I'd have a funeral, and I'd name him or her. I think its a similar situation to people at pro-life rallies / marches that hold signs that say "I regret lost fatherhood" or "I regret my abortion"

[Iamdan]

I saw it as you were bringing morality into a law debate. :rolleyes:

The position I've outlined several times is why a fetus is biologically human and should have legal rights. Seems to me that arguing morals is less worthwhile than arguing about religions, at least one tries to tie itself to history.

 

Oh, and people do have funerals after miscarriages. And you wouldn't count a dead baby in a census because its dead. There are certificates of stillbirths, though, obtainable from state health departments. Its kinda the opposite of certificates of live births.

 

I think we're going offtopic. I was saying that humans are no better than animals. Legally they are yes, but that's only because of self interest. Logically we're no better.

 

Also you missed my point about how death is part of our culture and we all contribute to it. Abortion is killing yes, but 'death shouldn't be allowed' is not as black and white as people think. I went into more detail explaining why a few times, I'm sick of repeating myself so if you want to argue this please read what I have to say about it.

 

I think you misread, he was agreeing with you and saying that really nothing more can be said.

 

Idk, I thought it was sarcasm. If you're right he'll probably say so when he reads it. I also accidentally mixed pro choice with pro life when I replied, fixed now.

 

This is true, however it is illegal to kill bald eagle eggs as they will live if you dont damage them.

 

[i provided another common for life argument which is hard to fight against]

 

That law came in because bald eagles were endangered. If humans were in danger of being wiped out I sure would be against abortion.

[Zierro]

Legally, as Iamdan said, a fetus is not a human and doesn't have the same rights. The mother's freedom to decide what to do with her body is more important than a little ball of cells in her uterus, and the law reflects that.

 

Agree with this 100%. Sure, abortion isn't necessarily an easy decision to be made and should always be well thought out, but there are plenty of justifications that I think people are overlooking and straight up disregarding. The biggest one being that a fetus =/= you and I. And if the dictionary really does say that a fetus = you and I, then perhaps it ought to be changed.

 

The thing about rights is that they can conflict with other rights. A fetus does not have the ability to claim their right, whereas a woman can. Therefore, a woman being forced to endure the mental anguish of birthing a rape baby would be disproportionate to the fetus's suffering of being terminated whilst not even being aware of it - which is exactly on par with a sperm or egg's suffering (the very two supplementary proponents to a "human life"). Can we even call it a "right" if it cannot be fought for?

[obfuscator]

So, if you can't claim your rights, and are completely vulnerable, you're suggesting you don't deserve them?

[Assume Nothing]

Let's just say sometime in the future, we can incubate a Fetus like we incubate eggs. Would you be pro-life, or pro-choice, then?

 

And what if there is technology that could mean 100% chance of not getting a girl pregnant, through sex? Would you be pro-life, or pro-choice?

 

Not sure how on topic that is, but it's interesting to see views on that.

[Zierro]

So, if you can't claim your rights, and are completely vulnerable, you're suggesting you don't deserve them?

 

We're crossing over into the realm of philosophy and cognitive thinking when we use the term "right" - it's an artificial ideal. I have the right to life because I desire it and because it is well within reasonability. A fetus does not desire the right and sometimes it is unreasonable regardless, such as the scenario where the woman is forced to endure the mental anguish of a rape child.

 

You could even say that animals are more entitled to moral treatment than a fetus, because they have a higher level of cognitive function. After all, this is the very reason why we discriminate against sperm by masturbating and chickens by eating them and germs by washing our hands - because we see them as intellectually inferior with less potentiality of "suffering" or "wronging" than you and I have.

 

(Before animal abuse or the likes are brought up, I must stress that killing is inherently a bad idea but also that there are circumstances where it is justifiable, beneficial towards the big picture, and simply an inherent part of life. So even if animals don't possess the "right" to live, it is still in bad taste to painfully kill an animal for fun because the incentive is a twisted one.)

[Giordano]

So, if you can't claim your rights, and are completely vulnerable, you're suggesting you don't deserve them?

You're making this bigger than it needs to be. Its a fetus, not a hostage, let it go.

[fakeitormakeit2]

To the various statements being made, law does not make "right", or rather is not necessarily the ideal moral choice. Law is constantly being edited because of this. Law is suppose to be derived from morality. Slavery was legal because it was socially and morally acceptable and when it was acknowledged as no longer morally acceptable it was eliminated. Just because it is the law doesn't make it morally acceptable.

 

Now everyone keeps saying a fetus is not a "person". What is a person? To be a person, must one have consciousness, self-awareness and intelligence? If so, then doesn't that disqualify someone in a vegetative state from being a person? Someone who has vascular dementia? To take it to an extreme, someone who is asleep. People keep saying fetuses aren't people, well then define a person and if your categorization is applicable to a being you would classify as a person then think again. Beliefs should be consistent and the defining of a person isn't really something that can have exceptions.

 

Oh and @Giordano, why are you telling Y_Guy to let it go? Because he doesn't agree with your opinion and therefore is wrong?

[Giordano]

Oh and @Giordano, why are you telling Y_Guy to let it go? Because he doesn't agree with your opinion and therefore is wrong?

Yes.

 

Because no matter what anybody says, if I had a fetus inside me I can destroy it on my whim.

[Alg]

A huge part of the debate is whether or not a fetus should have the same rights as an individual. Feel free to handwave that away if you want, but don't be surprised if others disagree.

[Zierro]

Now everyone keeps saying a fetus is not a "person". What is a person? To be a person, must one have consciousness, self-awareness and intelligence? If so, then doesn't that disqualify someone in a vegetative state from being a person? Someone who has vascular dementia? To take it to an extreme, someone who is asleep.

 

A vegetative person lacks intelligence/perception but they can have a past, an established relationship with family or friends, and a will. If they have a past, all of those experiences have been culminated throughout that being's life. Their current state does not negate that. A fetus has no experience other than staring at the inside of the womb - which is relatable to a blank piece of paper. They have yet to form an identity or "personality". If they have an established relationship with other humans, it could be considered wrong to take that vegetative person away from them, as that would be going against their self-conscious right to happiness. Lastly, while they were in their conscious state of mind, they could have claimed their right to life. To go against that would be to go against the will of the person who consciously made the claim.

 

That being said, a vegetative person being an actual 'person' is a gray area. I think there would be nothing unethical about taking them off of life support if the family chose to and it did not go against their will. However, they still cannot be put on the same level as a fetus as there is a vast difference when it comes down to their entities.

 

A sleeping person will more than likely wake up and has just been conscious a few hours ago (or is currently dreaming). Their temporary non-intelligence says nothing about their entity or "being". Actually, I would say that having a need for normal sleep is a great implication of being a bit more than organic mass.

[fakeitormakeit2]

To the various statements being made, law does not make "right", or rather is not necessarily the ideal moral choice. Law is constantly being edited because of this. Law is suppose to be derived from morality. Slavery was legal because it was socially and morally acceptable and when it was acknowledged as no longer morally acceptable it was eliminated. Just because it is the law doesn't make it morally acceptable.

 

Now everyone keeps saying a fetus is not a "person". What is a person? To be a person, must one have consciousness, self-awareness and intelligence? If so, then doesn't that disqualify someone in a vegetative state from being a person? Someone who has vascular dementia? To take it to an extreme, someone who is asleep. People keep saying fetuses aren't people, well then define a person and if your categorization is applicable to a being you would classify as a person then think again. Beliefs should be consistent and the defining of a person isn't really something that can have exceptions.

 

Oh and @Giordano, why are you telling Y_Guy to let it go? Because he doesn't agree with your opinion and therefore is wrong?

 

A person in a comatose state does not have the rights over their own body - unless they filled out an advanced directive. If you fall into a comatose state your family can decide after a long enough time to end your life or not.

 

What does it mean to be a person? - to be able to feel pain,pleasure, fear, joy, excitement, and other basic emotions (which both infants and [developmentally delayed] people do feel). A basic interpersonal relationship - even a [developmentally delayed] kid or an infant recognize their mothers as something different from themselves. And I would argue being able to think symbolically, as even [developmentally delayed] people can symbolically think that for example if they point at a paper they get that food. I would say their bodies would need to work without relying directly on another persons blood and organs to survive (by directly I mean by the blood directly delivering food, and oxygen to you - not referring to people with organ failures that need transplants or hemophilia victims or people reliant on the machine to pump their blood during heart surgery).

 

Heres in bullet form if you dont like the wall of text.

 

Requirements to be considered human: (some oddities are included in the wall of text)

- Basic sense of emotions

- Basic interpersonal relationship

- Think symbolically

- Not directly reliant on a hosts blood and organs to survive

 

In science something does not exist until it is proven that it does. Therefor unless a scientist comes out and says that they have overwhelming evidence that a week old fetus has a basic sense of emotions, an interpersonal relationship, the ability to think symbolically, (and I will ignore the reliant on the mothers blood to survive part) then I will say well this indeed is a person.

 

Heres another dilemma what would your opinion on a man whom a mad scientist implanted an embryo in his abdomin, science says there are regions in a male body where a baby can survive - of course there is an almost certain chance the man would die. Now who deserves the right to live? Does the babies rights supersede the guys rights who was unfortuantly implanted? *** A fair warning: be very careful on how you answer this, if you are seen as a women hater every previous argument is then invalid (Ive seen people destroyed by this question in a debate offline) ***

Good response to my question. I think it's important to establish the characteristics of a person before one can debate if something is a person or not. However wouldn't someone with amnesia [which would remove their previous relationships], a sociopath or someone who is living via machinery not fit under your classification of people? Are they not still people?

 

Now as to your question, if the man did not consent to his implant than the fetus should be removed to save him. Why? Because he did not consent to it and he should not have to pay with his life. The fetus should be removed with the intent to maintain its life as well. If the fetus will most likely die in its removal, the chance still must be taken because if the fetus remains in the man and the man dies, then the fetus will die as well. By removing the fetus, the death total is reduced to a maximum chance of 1 instead of double.

 

Edit: By the way, I'm curious to what you mean when you say "think symbolically".

[Iamdan]

I have a question for pro lifers. Say my girlfriend gets pregnant, and we want to abort it because kids suck. Would any pro lifer adopt the baby to save it's life? Including covering the transport costs.

[Saru Inc]

Ummm. If someone wants to adopt they are going to adopt. It depends on if they like your genes etc.

 

Also: attitude is not appreciated Iamdan. Definitely not.

[Iamdan]

Why? It's a legit question.

 

I'm curious about how many pro lifers value life over their financial well being and time.

 

Just because you don't like your own answer it doesn't mean I have an attitude :huh:

[Saru Inc]

Well I'm content with my answer that I personally wouldn't.

 

 

The attitude is the "hey, I have a question for all the pro-lifers" comes off with a verbal tone of jeering, intentional or not.

[Iamdan]

I only said it because it wasn't directed at pro choicers :???:

 

It gives evidence to my opinion that quite often, pro choice is a safe way to feel morally superior without actually doing anything. Maybe you remember my point about people buying crap they don't need rather than saving lives in 3rd world countries by donating it.

 

Then again, more lives would be saved aborting a child and using the money that would have been spent raising it on 'sponsor a child' programs as a much more cost effective way of 'promoting life' if I may.

 

I'm just trying to point out that 'death is bad' is not as black and white as many people think.

[Saru Inc]

I only said it because it wasn't directed at pro choicers :???:

 

Ok. Understandable.

It gives evidence to my opinion that quite often, pro choice is a safe way to feel morally superior without actually doing anything. Maybe you remember my point about people buying crap they don't need rather than saving lives in 3rd world countries by donating it.

Then again, more lives would be saved aborting a child and using the money that would have been spent raising it on 'sponsor a child' programs as a much more cost effective way of 'promoting life' if I may.

 

 

As to the italicized part, that is incorrect, on my behalf at least. Surely you couldn't take my stance, and extrapolate that to all pro life people. As well as I believe it to be foolish to say prolife is a way to be morally superior. It's not logical to say "well if you won't do X... YOU MUST BE Y!" No.

 

I have no comment on that last statement, as I'm not very informed in that regards to the feasibility.

[sees_all1]

I have a question for pro lifers. Say my girlfriend gets pregnant, and we want to abort it because kids suck. Would any pro lifer adopt the baby to save it's life? Including covering the transport costs.

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-hoping-to-adopt.html

 

If you have an unwanted child, chances are great that someone will be willing to adopt.

You'll find that many couples in the United States that initially have trouble adopting children but are successful later on tend to go overseas at great expense to adopt children from other countries - my cousin is from kazakhstan. It cost my aunt and uncle on the order of $40,000 to adopt him when it was all said and done. Finding homes for newborns is less of an issue than finding homes for teenagers.

 

I believe there are also laws in the US that allow someone to hand their baby off at public service places - such as police stations, fire departments, or emergency rooms without threat of prosecution. If you find that you really do not want to keep your child, these laws make it easy to give them a better life.

http://www.wikihow.com/Drop-Off-an-Unwanted-Baby

[Zierro]

Godwin's law exists for a reason. If one has to resort to Nazi comparisons, it's safe to assume that they're out of arguments and trying to make a last, emotional bit for acceptance. But, that's a personal opinion.

 

What? That's the logic behind Godwin's law? I thought it was just used as a little meme-esque joke - not actual an inductive argument.

[Alg]

Godwin's law exists for a reason. If one has to resort to Nazi comparisons, it's safe to assume that they're out of arguments and trying to make a last, emotional bit for acceptance. But, that's a personal opinion.

 

What? That's the logic behind Godwin's law? I thought it was just used as a little meme-esque joke - not actual an inductive argument.

That's my logic behind it :razz: Hence the personal opinion bit at the end. Though I'm pretty sure an actual fallacy exists.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

 

That, and the thing with asking if any pro-lifers who would adopt to save the baby is pretty much just character assassination. If pro-life is supposed to be more 'moral' or interested in saving a life, 'proving' that not all of them would do so at the drop of a hat sets them up as hypocrites.

[Assume Nothing]

I think this thread should be revived. There hasn't been many interesting topics in Off Topic for a while now, as far as I'm aware.

 

What do you guys think would be the alternative to abortion? Would there ever be a form of protection that could prevent conception, without compromising the experience? Vasectomy may work, but some people wouldn't want to never have kids for the rest of their lives. Birth Control pills aren't always taken (they could forgot), and they have to be taken in a specific routine to be effective in the first place.

 

What I don't understand is this: Why do some people consider a two-celled Fetus a 'human being'? I mean, until it develops brain-waves, is it really a human?

 

Adoption schemes have one major drawback. Which would be that it doesn't deal with the 9 months of carrying the child. Also, would it be practical? I mean, adoption isn't compulsory, and which child gets chosen is usually based on preferences (as far as I'm aware). That usually causes a huge gap of people who never get adopted due to their skin/colour/ethnicity/gender and other kinds of discrimination there may be.

 

Idealistic opinion: What we need, is a way to grow babies in an 'incubator', sort of like using a machine to be a surrogate mother. That way, a woman doesn't have to give up her right to privacy, for the fetus' supposed 'right to life'.

 

Hopefully someone could respond to this...