• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When Does Abortion Become Wrong?

TragicMonkey said:
Lol. You're walking into a minefield. Whenever people take this position, that it's better to be dead than severely disabled, the severely disabled take offense. It implies that their lives are not worth living, and makes them and their families rather touchy.

...snip...
Click to expand...

I know it does and I understand the reaction, I've bowed out of some debates even here because I know some people find it very offensive.

Just to make one point very clear it is not that I don't think a "disabled" person can’t have a fantastic life that isn’t every bit as good as a "non-disabled" person or that a disabled child shouldn’t receive every possible help and support. My view is simply that since there is no reason to bring a specific child into this world to decide to bring one into the world that you know will have additional problems is wrong. (And I'm also aware of the slippery slope to state controlled eugenics inherent in my viewpoint.) I suggest if anyone wants to discuss this further they start a new thread otherwise it may derail this very interesting thread.
 
Tmy said:
We're already there. Test Tube babies, invitro and all that. SUre you need a surregate, but who said science has to be limited to machines?
Click to expand...

I did, just right now :)

Seriously though machines have to be there to highlight the point that if one does not need a "mother" does that mean abortions should be illegal?

You were talking about viable, what about premature births, should killing those babies be perfectly legal since they are premature/none-viable?
 
Grammatron said:
What if the Sciences advances to the point of being able to raise a healthy baby from the point of sperm penatrating the egg, should abortion be illegal all together then?
Click to expand...

That then enters into the realms of what I said to TragicMonkey "However once technically a Mother is no longer needed to gestate a foetus we will have a whole new set of problems to deal with. Damn this technology!"

I suspect the changes such a technological advancement would make to society would be immense so I've no idea.
 
AWPrime said:
Foetus adoption by the state?
Click to expand...

I think it would have to be adopted by the state. Once technology reaches that point, then there will probably be corresponding rises in curing infertility. Couples that adopt now because they cannot have their own children....hmm. Perhaps tax breaks to motivate people to adopt existing fetuses instead of having their own?
 
Grammatron said:
I did, just right now :)

Seriously though machines have to be there to highlight the point that if one does not need a "mother" does that mean abortions should be illegal?

You were talking about viable, what about premature births, should killing those babies be perfectly legal since they are premature/none-viable?
Click to expand...

It may not exactly be killing and it may not be a precedent setting case but this recent story seems to answer your question with an "almost yes".

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3723656.stm

...snip...

Doctors should not resuscitate a premature baby girl if she stops breathing, the High Court has ruled.

...snip...

Doctors told the court during a two-day hearing last week that Charlotte, who has been in hospital since her birth, will not survive beyond infancy because her lungs are so severely damaged.

She was born when her mother was 26 weeks pregnant and is fed through a tube as she cannot suck from a bottle.

...snip...
Click to expand...
 
Grammatron said:
I did, just right now :)

Seriously though machines have to be there to highlight the point that if one does not need a "mother" does that mean abortions should be illegal?

You were talking about viable, what about premature births, should killing those babies be perfectly legal since they are premature/none-viable?
Click to expand...

At that point the machines are in affect the new mother. Mom cant pull the plug because she has no "its my body argument."
Bilogical mom couldnt force surreagate mom to have an abortion if she changed her mind about having a kid.


In normal pull the plug situations the machines are just maintianing the dying body. But in premies the machines are improving the body, to a point it is viable.
 
Darat said:
It may not exactly be killing and it may not be a precedent setting case but this recent story seems to answer your question with an "almost yes".
Click to expand...


I'd say that the decision would have been exactly opposite if the case were American. (Until it reached the Supreme Court....which would refuse it on technical grounds of some kind.)
 
Darat said:
It may not exactly be killing and it may not be a precedent setting case but this recent story seems to answer your question with an "almost yes".
Click to expand...

I dont see a problem. You can have a do not resesitate for a very sick 8 year old child. Parents can make those decisions.
 
It's not a flawed analogy if you buy into the position that the clumps of cells are deserving of rights. That's the point of contention. If they do have rights, then the society as a whole has a vested interest in protecting them. If not, then it doesn't. You're just summing up the pro-choice position. That doesn't render the other side's argument irrelevant. You have to resolve the point of contention first--is the embryo a human being? If so, when did it become such? If so, does it merit protection or not? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
As somebody else said, when it is still a clump of cells, the mother's rights trump. The line of distinction is clearly not clear, so the decision has to revert to the mother.

Does society as a whole really have a vested interest in forcing the birth of unwanted children? If so, then society as a whole has to be ready to take responsibility for caring for and caring about, feeding, raising, clothing, educating, these unwanted children. Society as a whole does not have a good track record in these areas.
 
fishbob said:
As somebody else said, when it is still a clump of cells, the mother's rights trump. The line of distinction is clearly not clear, so the decision has to revert to the mother.

Does society as a whole really have a vested interest in forcing the birth of unwanted children? If so, then society as a whole has to be ready to take responsibility for caring for and caring about, feeding, raising, clothing, educating, these unwanted children. Society as a whole does not have a good track record in these areas.
Click to expand...

Um, I think that was me who said that. And I wasn't suggesting the position is the right one, merely that it is, in fact, a position currently espoused. I don't see why an unclear line of distinction means the decision is automatically the mother's. An unclear line is an unclear line, but it's still a line. It should either be defined legally and philosophically, or discarded...which is yet another point of contention.

Society as a whole has an interest in preserving the lives of members of the society. If it didn't, then it fails the social contract. Admittedly, unborn fetuses are not in a position to rebel at such failure, but that doesn't mean it's okay to pick on them because they cannot fight back. (Please note I am not suggesting they are in fact victims or should be covered by the social contract--that is an unresolved point of contention. But if they are, then the society does owe them a duty). As for feeding and raising the kids, whether society's any good at something doesn't mean it doesn't have to try. Society isn't very good at protecting minority views from majority persecutions, but it still has to make the effort.

We're going in circles and will forever until the basic questions underlying the abortion debate are resolved.

eta: which IMO are

1. When does life actually begin? You'll have to define "life" to start with, then figure out how many cells you have to have to count as a living entity.

2. If it's okay to take life below a certain level of intelligence, what's the cutoff point? Start by defining intelligence.
 
When we can find definitions for these terms that everyone agrees on, we would be greater than god.
 
Really, the whole abortion question is rooted in the problem of determining what is life, and what is man? Which seem to be two of the fundamental questions that the entirety of philosophy seeks to answer. It's not going to be easy to arrive at a solution, and that's why I distrust the easy-sounding answers on both sides of the debate: I suspect neither side has sat down and thoughtfully considered all the ramifications, explored their definitions and what they necessarily hinge upon, or plumbed the depths of the concepts involved. It seems to boil down to "God" versus "my body, my business", which seems way too simplistic.

But then, I have a tendency to overthink things.
 
Who cares about defining life. We give the death penalty to people. Life dont mean squat.

Its when you're viable, your own self. At that point you make the call on your life/body. Being an infant you dont have that power, so your parents must act to benefit your behalf. Living is seen as a benefit over death.
 
1. When does life actually begin? You'll have to define "life" to start with, then figure out how many cells you have to have to count as a living entity.
Click to expand...
I don't know when life actually begins. I don't trust anybody that says they do know. Therefore the simplistic "God" versus "my body, my business" is all we have. And the God people claim they know, so are therefore not to be trusted.
 
AWPrime said:
When philosophy can't give the anwser, you turn to to what is practical.
Click to expand...

Lol. What a terrible thing to say! We should all do nothing, until we have attained wisdom enough to know the right thing to do, with absolute clarity and perfect knowledge.

I'm going to hold my breath until then!
 
It's fascinating that so few people have voted for the [3, 6) month option, because that's the Roe v. Wade standard.
 
I think.....

My personal feeling is that it is not so much dependent on the stage of development, but on the earliest possible time that a woman can know she is pregnant. I believe, if you know or even halfway expect you might want an abortion it is your responsibility to have at the very earliest stage possible. I don't know at what point that is, but doctors can easily make this determination. Once it is made I believe a reasonable window of a week or two could be allowed and beyond that point abortions should be illegal. I believe women should have the option of having an abortion, but I do not believe it should be opened ended and I believe they have to take direct responsibility of having it done within that window or not having it at all. This to me seems reasonble and fair. I don't believe a woman should be allowed to go along month after month thinking "oh, I might have an abortion or I might not." and then decide cavalierly (and I'm sorry, but I have known women who have "cavalerly" had abortions) after 4 months that they don't feel like having a baby after all.
 
TragicMonkey said:

Society as a whole has an interest in preserving the lives of members of the society. If it didn't, then it fails the social contract. Admittedly, unborn fetuses are not in a position to rebel at such failure, but that doesn't mean it's okay to pick on them because they cannot fight back. (Please note I am not suggesting they are in fact victims or should be covered by the social contract--that is an unresolved point of contention. But if they are, then the society does owe them a duty). As for feeding and raising the kids, whether society's any good at something doesn't mean it doesn't have to try. Society isn't very good at protecting minority views from majority persecutions, but it still has to make the effort.
Click to expand...
Why should we stop at preventing murder? The same argument should hold true for assault, for instance. If we protect from death, we must protect from abuse as well, just as we would for the one-year-old child. Obviously, we must prevent pregnant women from drinking, as foetal alcohol syndrome is a nasty thing. Smoking? Low birth weight. Cocaine? Spontaneous premature deliveries. No parachute jumping, of course. Hiking or skiing? Dangers of falling. Driving? Too risky.

The only solution is to imprison any woman found pregnant for a term of roughly nine months. As protecting these kids is of such paramount importance, pregnancy tests will be administered on, say, a bi-weekly basis (A-M on 1 week, N-Z the following, and alternating) to be sure we protect as many lives as we possibly can. This will also allow us to find those women who would otherwise flee the country to terminate a pregnancy (or smoke, drink, ski, or drive) in a less protective country.

Oh, and I also support the second-amendment rights of the unborn.*




*this should be seen as the ridiculous statement it is, rather than as any advocacy for some lunatic to shoot up a clinic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom