Abortion of a fully-fledged human life

[visceral]

Indeed.

 

Though I feel like getting pregnant and aborting it just to spite people who believe that it is a sin no matter what.

[Mr Skeptic]

Indeed.

 

Though I feel like getting pregnant and aborting it just to spite people who believe that it is a sin no matter what.

 

If you need help with the first part, just let me know.

[visceral]

Lol

[Syntho-sis]

Indeed.

 

Though I feel like getting pregnant and aborting it just to spite people who believe that it is a sin no matter what.

 

Abortion is by far one of the worst things that this society currently practices (legally).

 

Imagine a 1000 yrs from now when anthropologists study us, and they realize that while we disdained genocide and considered the holocaust a slaughter of innocent lives, we were okay with sucking fetuses out of pregnant women and then throwing them in a bio hazard containment bag. Like some piece of garbage.

 

Whether it is sin or not has nothing to do with it. It is morally wrong to destroy potential human beings.

 

How many great minds have we ended, for minuscule reasons?

 

No reason, no matter how "significant", allows for the destruction of potential human beings.

 

Tell me this, would you see it under the same light if your mother had aborted you?

 

Exactly...

 

 

 

 

And I know that will most likely get severe flak for this post, but that is perfectly fine. I look forward to seeing what "evidence" you skeptics can actually present...Scientifically or otherwise.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, the above would make sense if you considered the fetus a human being, or that potential human beings were extremely valuable. The former depends on your definition of human, and the latter would suggest that after outlawing abortion we should require that everyone have sex with every girl they meet without using birth control. It is quite impractical at best to worry about potential human beings.

[Syntho-sis]

Well, the above would make sense if you considered the fetus a human being, or that potential human beings were extremely valuable. The former depends on your definition of human, and the latter would suggest that after outlawing abortion we should require that everyone have sex with every girl they meet without using birth control. It is quite impractical at best to worry about potential human beings.

 

^ Oh yea that makes perfect sense....Not

 

Are those valid excuses for extermination of (potential) life? I'm sure the Nazis had some nice neat reasons as well...For the destruction of Jew, and Catholics, and homosexuals, etc.

 

I do consider potential human beings important, and don't bring up sperm.

 

Do you go out of your way to destroy sperm cells? Or skin cells? Or pancreatic tissue? (all of which have the potential to become life with adequate technology.)

 

Most likely not, if fetuses are not important why destroy them in the first place?

 

For what reason? Because they are inconvenient?

 

And I suppose mentally retarded people are inconvenient as well?

Especially the ones that need to be cared for?

 

Why waste money and resources on an such projects?

 

If it is "unimportant"?

[Sisyphus]

I don't know, Syntho-sis, how many "potential humans" are lost because women menstruate before becoming pregnant? How many potentially great minds have been lost to humanity because we don't all constantly procreate from puberty onwards? Every one of my sperm currently living, combined with every ovum in every woman on Earth, is a "potential human." That's trillions and trillions of potential humans, and every last one of them is going to be "murdered" by never getting the chance to combine and develop in a uterus. What a holocaust! Truly, history will judge me as a monster.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, yes, we often go out of our way to destroy sperm, and sometimes skin cells or pancreatic cells. As you say, these could potentially become a human life (the latter with appropriate future technology), but no one outlaws their destruction. When I said trying to convert all potential human life to actual human life was impractical, I meant impossibly so, not just a minor inconvenience.

[Syntho-sis]

I don't know, Syntho-sis, how many "potential humans" are lost because women menstruate before becoming pregnant? How many potentially great minds have been lost to humanity because we don't all constantly procreate from puberty onwards? Every one of my sperm currently living, combined with every ovum in every woman on Earth, is a "potential human." That's trillions and trillions of potential humans, and every last one of them is going to be "murdered" by never getting the chance to combine and develop in a uterus. What a holocaust! Truly, history will judge me as a monster.

 

Natural biological processes ^^.

 

By your supposition it is perfectly fine to practice cannibalism, because the animal world does so.

 

Or bring up survival of the fittest- we are all just surviving and keeping the population down so there are more resources for us.

 

Or even Murder, why should we consider it "morally" wrong?

 

Or anything at all? Why don't we all just do what feels good, when we feel like it?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, yes, we often go out of our way to destroy sperm, and sometimes skin cells or pancreatic cells. As you say, these could potentially become a human life (the latter with appropriate future technology), but no one outlaws their destruction. When I said trying to convert all potential human life to actual human life was impractical, I meant impossibly so, not just a minor inconvenience.

 

^ For what reasons do we destroy them?

 

Ex: Such as in medicine when surgery is being performed, right?

 

Is that what you were getting at?

 

For what reasons do we abort babies? (oops I meant "fetuses.")

 

Give me a list of practical reasons for doing such a thing...

[Sisyphus]

Natural biological processes ^^.

 

By your supposition it is perfectly fine to practice cannibalism, because the animal world does so.

 

Or bring up survival of the fittest- we are all just surviving and keeping the population down so there are more resources for us.

 

Or even Murder, why should we consider it "morally" wrong?

 

Or anything at all? Why don't we all just do what feels good, when we feel like it?

 

I'm going to admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. My point was simply that a "potential human" is not a human, and trying to prevent the loss of all "potential humans" almost immediately devolves into absurdity. Especially the "how many people were never born" type arguments. When the sperm fertilized the egg that became the zygote that developed into me, thousands of other sperm just barely missed their chance. That's thousands of other possible genetic combinations that different circumstances might have favored, thousands of "potential humans" who will never have the chance to be born. But is that in anywhere near the same as thousands of actual humans being killed? No. No it is not. And how is a freshly fertilized zygote SO different from a separate egg and sperm a moment earlier? It isn't. The process is continuous, and the distinction is arbitrary. As will the distinction always be arbitrary, even though somewhere along the way a human being emerges. "Exactly" where is always just going to be an arbitrary distinction, like many things in biology. It is always going to be a moral grey area, and we just have to deal with that. A great man once said, "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Do not set yourself as an arbiter of absolutes where none exist, nor pretend that it is a settled issue when there is nothing to settle.

[mooeypoo]

Abortion is by far one of the worst things that this society currently practices (legally).

 

Imagine a 1000 yrs from now when anthropologists study us, and they realize that while we disdained genocide and considered the holocaust a slaughter of innocent lives, we were okay with sucking fetuses out of pregnant women and then throwing them in a bio hazard containment bag. Like some piece of garbage.

 

Whether it is sin or not has nothing to do with it. It is morally wrong to destroy potential human beings.

 

How many great minds have we ended, for minuscule reasons?

 

No reason, no matter how "significant", allows for the destruction of potential human beings.

 

Tell me this, would you see it under the same light if your mother had aborted you?

 

Exactly...

 

 

 

 

And I know that will most likely get severe flak for this post, but that is perfectly fine. I look forward to seeing what "evidence" you skeptics can actually present...Scientifically or otherwise.

 

Did you really just post an argument in a LONG thread and claimed there is no discussion about evidence? did you even bother reading the thread you chose to post in, or did you just assume we talk out of orifices that are not usually meant for verbal communication?

 

We have quite a few threads in this forum (past and current) that speak of the various aspects of abortion and about what is and isn't considered life.

 

You're not the first to claim abortion to be wrong, and there ARE (surprise?) "skeptics" who "believe" abortion to be wrong, whether the evidence point to life after or before the third trimester.

 

The people in this thread were decent enough to post their opinions as well as detailed explanations. They did not post an of-the-cuff pow-wow conclusion just for the hell of it. People put the time to debate, as you should have.

 

Instead, you chose to reopen an existing thread without reading it first, and then have the audacity to claim no evidence or scientific arguments were posted.

 

Seriously? Did you go over the evidence before jumping in and claiming there are none?

 

 

I would say that we, here, in SFN, have earned the the benefit of the doubt that we're not talking out of thin air in a thread that is almost 60 posts long.

 

If you want to debate, post an argument and stand behind it. Don't go around blaming us for being one-sided when you don't even bother reading our initial claims.

 

You're not "getting flak" over your opinion, you're "getting flak" over your attitude.

 

 

~moo

[Syntho-sis]

I'm going to admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. My point was simply that a "potential human" is not a human, and trying to prevent the loss of all "potential humans" almost immediately devolves into absurdity. Especially the "how many people were never born" type arguments. When the sperm fertilized the egg that became the zygote that developed into me, thousands of other sperm just barely missed their chance. That's thousands of other possible genetic combinations that different circumstances might have favored, thousands of "potential humans" who will never have the chance to be born. But is that in anywhere near the same as thousands of actual humans being killed? No. No it is not. And how is a freshly fertilized zygote SO different from a separate egg and sperm a moment earlier? It isn't. The process is continuous, and the distinction is arbitrary. As will the distinction always be arbitrary, even though somewhere along the way a human being emerges. "Exactly" where is always just going to be an arbitrary distinction, like many things in biology. It is always going to be a moral grey area, and we just have to deal with that. A great man once said, "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Do not set yourself as an arbiter of absolutes where none exist, nor pretend that it is a settled issue when there is nothing to settle.

 

 

Yes I understand, I simply have feelings about this topic, and to sweep it under the rug does not seem to be the correct approach to me. (Even though there is nothing any of us could do about it. All we can do, is simply debate as to it's moral significance. Remember, I am not the one who posted this thread.)

 

I am not proposing that we prevent the death of all potential human lives. Rather that we should disallow the death of any human life, if it is in our ability to do so.

 

Just because we can't stop something from happening does not mean that we should allow it to carry on, or "just be okay with it."

 

In my opinion people who agree with abortion, are no different than people who are okay with murder or genocide or suicide. Or any loss of life.

 

And we can debate all day about exactly what life is.

 

But why allow most potential humans to become humans, and destroy some?

 

Again, for what reason?

 

Once again, no reason, no matter how scientific, or intuitive, supersedes our obligation as human beings to protect other human beings from harm.

 

I wonder how many great men have said that sort of thing?

[Sisyphus]

Again, though, you're equating potential humans with humans. And by that reasoning, we should disallow women from menstruating instead of becoming pregnant, as that destroys a "potential human," which it seems by extension of your logic you would claim is morally equivalent to an actual human, which would then make every woman a murderer.

 

I, on the other hand, say that that is not a human being. I don't know when human beings "begin," which is to say that I don't think there is a single point. It is a continuum, and to pretend that there is some non-arbitary dividing line is counterproductive. I don't know when and to what degree to begin considering a developing fetus as a human being, because there isn't an objective answer. That's why I'm "pro-choice," because it's a complicated and permanently ambiguous moral question and a decision that I'm not prepared to make for other people.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Sisyphus

[Mr Skeptic]

I am not proposing that we prevent the death of all potential human lives. Rather that we should disallow the death of any human life, if it is in our ability to do so.

...

In my opinion people who agree with abortion, are no different than people who are okay with murder or genocide or suicide. Or any loss of life.

...

Once again, no reason, no matter how scientific, or intuitive, supersedes our obligation as human beings to protect other human beings from harm.

 

But that is begging the question. We do forbid murder and genocide. And we allow abortion and killing animals. We don't think that fetuses are human, so that is all consistent. If you want to say that a fetus is a human, what evidence do you have for that? How about you define what a human is?

[Syntho-sis]

But that is begging the question. We do forbid murder and genocide. And we allow abortion and killing animals. We don't think that fetuses are human, so that is all consistent. If you want to say that a fetus is a human, what evidence do you have for that? How about you define what a human is?

 

Ok I shall do that....

 

But first, why don't you define exactly what is not a human being?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Again, though, you're equating potential humans with humans. And by that reasoning, we should disallow women from menstruating instead of becoming pregnant, as that destroys a "potential human," which it seems by extension of your logic you would claim is morally equivalent to an actual human, which would then make every woman a murderer.

 

I, on the other hand, say that that is not a human being. I don't know when human beings "begin," which is to say that I don't think there is a single point. It is a continuum, and to pretend that there is some non-arbitary dividing line is counterproductive. I don't know when and to what degree to begin considering a developing fetus as a human being, because there isn't an objective answer. That's why I'm "pro-choice," because it's a complicated and permanently ambiguous moral question and a decision that I'm not prepared to make for other people.

 

Ok then is it fair to say that you and I are not human beings?

 

Think about your statement

 

Lack of ignorence is not a justification for such an action.

 

Attempting to prevent menstration is like telling people they can not live near the ocean because they might be destroyed by hurricanes or a myriad of other factors.

 

I was not equationg it with that.

 

You missunderstood me, and then ignored the rest of my argument.

 

Going out of your way to prevent life is what I was talking about.

 

Letting it be prevented by nature itself is a different matter.

 

Why have any rules regarding life at all, if we are going to allow abortion?

 

Now make sure you understand what I said before you post...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But that is begging the question. We do forbid murder and genocide. And we allow abortion and killing animals. We don't think that fetuses are human, so that is all consistent. If you want to say that a fetus is a human, what evidence do you have for that? How about you define what a human is?

 

Circular logic

 

^You sir, are yourself begging the question.

[Sisyphus]

That's asking the same thing. One place you might start is asking what is it about human beings that makes it morally wrong to destroy one.

 

EDIT: Whoa, cross post. The above is in response to asking Mr Skeptic to define "what is not a human being."

[Syntho-sis]

Did you really just post an argument in a LONG thread and claimed there is no discussion about evidence? did you even bother reading the thread you chose to post in, or did you just assume we talk out of orifices that are not usually meant for verbal communication?

 

We have quite a few threads in this forum (past and current) that speak of the various aspects of abortion and about what is and isn't considered life.

 

You're not the first to claim abortion to be wrong, and there ARE (surprise?) "skeptics" who "believe" abortion to be wrong, whether the evidence point to life after or before the third trimester.

 

The people in this thread were decent enough to post their opinions as well as detailed explanations. They did not post an of-the-cuff pow-wow conclusion just for the hell of it. People put the time to debate, as you should have.

 

Instead, you chose to reopen an existing thread without reading it first, and then have the audacity to claim no evidence or scientific arguments were posted.

 

Seriously? Did you go over the evidence before jumping in and claiming there are none?

 

 

I would say that we, here, in SFN, have earned the the benefit of the doubt that we're not talking out of thin air in a thread that is almost 60 posts long.

 

If you want to debate, post an argument and stand behind it. Don't go around blaming us for being one-sided when you don't even bother reading our initial claims.

 

You're not "getting flak" over your opinion, you're "getting flak" over your attitude.

 

 

~moo

 

I'm sure Dr. Mengele had alot of evidence from his research as well....

 

Just stating an opinion.

 

I'm repeating myself now, What evidence justifies the loss of human life? (Human, I know is up for debate- using the term.)

 

There is none.

 

And I did review the evidence, I simply disagree with it from a scientific perspective.

 

Am I not allowed to disagree?

[Mokele]

Or what makes death wrong at all? All life depends upon death.

 

We avoid it and view it as "bad" only because we're programmed to. That no more translates to moral evil than Microsoft Word's aversion to imported tables makes imported tables morally evil.

 

Good, evil, ethics, these are just rules we make up so we don't all murder each other in our sleep. Or so people like me can get the drop on everyone else, in order to more effectively murder everyone else in their sleep.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And what's your "scientific perspective"?

 

Unless you invented a magic box that lights up green for 'good' and red for 'evil', I call BS.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We can stop menstruation medically. Is it morally wrong not to?

[Sisyphus]

Ok then is it fair to say that you and I are not human beings?

 

No, we definitely are. And a newborn baby definitely is. And a separate sperm and an egg are definitely not. Somewhere between the former and the latter, a human being begins. I say it's a continuum, that a human being emerges gradually over that time. You say... what, exactly? That a zygote has the same moral significance as you or I, and the separate sperm and egg moments before is medical waste? Why?

 

Attempting to prevent menstration is like telling people they can not live near the ocean because they might be destroyed by hurricanes or a myriad of other factors.

 

Not really. It is entirely possible to force women to be more or less perpetually pregnant during their childbearing years. It can be done. And if it were, a lot of people will be born who otherwise would never have had a chance to, since their two genetic halves would never have a chance to combine and be nurtured in a uterus. Yes, it would take action, but so does caring for an infant, which if allowed to fend for itself would die. And it would be saving all of those "potential humans" - as many as possible.

[john5746]

In my opinion people who agree with abortion, are no different than people who are okay with murder or genocide or suicide. Or any loss of life.

 

If I knew there was a doctor in my town that was bringing in school children and killing them and it was all legal, then I would seriously consider purchasing some arms and taking him out.

 

So, have you purchased your guns yet or are you too timid to do the right thing? Cmon, genocide in your neighborhood. Can't let that happen.

Edited April 14, 2009 by john5746

[Mr Skeptic]

But first, why don't you define exactly what is not a human being?

 

One of the attributes of a human, IMO, is the ability to be conscious (which is a prerequisite for most of the other attributes that make one a human). Something that has never been conscious, or has lost the ability to in the future become conscious again, would not qualify. This is not an exhaustive definition by any means, nor even close to complete, but is sufficient to distinguish a human from most lumps of cells.

 

Edit: your turn. How do you define a human so as to include a zygote and a human but not other things?

[mooeypoo]

I'm sure Dr. Mengele had alot of evidence from his research as well....

 

Just stating an opinion.

 

I'm repeating myself now, What evidence justifies the loss of human life? (Human, I know is up for debate- using the term.)

 

There is none.

 

And I did review the evidence, I simply disagree with it from a scientific perspective.

 

Am I not allowed to disagree?

You're allowed to disagree, you're not allowed to ignore an entire thread of debate just so you can claim there's no debate.

[GutZ]

How come these rights only apply to humans? It's a little convenient don't you think? Why shouldnt we try to save every form of life if we can.

 

Morals are not absolute. We pick and choose which morals apply to whom all the time. Let's face it...morals exist because more than one human exists. If I was the only person alive only that opinion would matter.

 

Morality in itself is flawed. No one can make a perfect case for anything because it doesn't exist.

 

This is the only thing that can be concluded. I don't think I have any inherent rights as a human, but I don't like pain, and I am not going to allow others to cause me pain. Maybe the next guy beside feels the same. We make an agreement not to cause each other pain and make a punishment as to reinforce the idea, since we are not perfect it happens we break deals. Maybe it gets pick up by others, and we make it a general rule. We know not everyone will follow it. It's our nature.

 

We are trying to create something that doesn't equally exist everywhere.

 

My point, iife isn't perfect, we are screwed up creatures, and we have to live with that.

 

When it comes to the debate of abortion, atleast leave out the inherent rights crap. There is metaphorically no grounds for it to stand.

 

SO long as we can twist ideas and words, this debate will go on forever. While kids are being born into unwanted families.

 

You can prove that abortion can save people from pain, but you can prove it does the opposite.

 

What has worked is that so long as someone is not being hurt we can live together, so long as we have freedom and choice within boundries we are not at each other throats the majority of time, and that everything is F$*$ing skewed.

 

I will say that that no one is going to tell me what to do to my body. If a women makes the choice to abort a fetus for whatever reason, that's not my place to say otherwise regardless of what I view morality as being. If you don't like abortion don't do it yourself.

Edited April 14, 2009 by GutZ

[Daecon]

Every time I see a thread about abortion, I take out my Miniature American Flag™ and wave it around until the thread goes away.

 

If humans actually had control over their reproductive ability, then this whole issue would never have happened in the first place.

 

Nature is to blame for making abortions necessary in the first place, so screw nature.