TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
SRW said:
Regular birth control pills act the same way. Conception occurs, but the fertilized egg doesn't stick to the uterine wall. That's why the Catholic Church opposes the pill.
Regular birth control pills act the same way. Conception occurs, but the fertilized egg doesn't stick to the uterine wall. That's why the Catholic Church opposes the pill.
AWPrime said:
Not really. While that is certainly an effective method, reforming the adoption laws and getting the government small enough to end the Income Tax and replace it with nothing are two other ways of reducing abortions. The former would make adoption a more viable option, and kids who are adopted sooner have less of a chance of having an unwanted pregnancy later in life. The latter will make keeping the child a more viable option, and would also allow for more stay-at-home parents, the children of which are statistically less likely to have unwanted pregnancies as well.
BTW, I have to say, I'm really (pleasantly) amazed that we can have such a great discussion of abortion, considering that this forum has a problem discussing Global Warming without woo-woo politicking, namecalling, etc. from BOTH sides, and has a problem getting a Michael Badnarik thread going for more than 5 posts without people jumping in and making 20 posts each of the same discredited claims.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
shanek said:
That's because Badnarik is a communist who performed forcible abortions in Russia. I can prove it by using homeopathy.
Oh, and accept Jesus or go to Hell.
You really shouldn't issue these challenges!
edited for stupid.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
SRW said:
I'm not sure what moral difference it makes that the fetus is an individual being.
Every single mouse embryo is an individual being too, just as much as a human embryo is an individual being.
For that matter twins aren't individual beings, since there are two of them. In fact you can even smoosh two twin embryos together when they're at the one-cell stage and you'll get a single normal fetus as a result. Is this an abortion, and if so of which twin? Or you can pull a two-cell embryo apart and get normal twins as a result. Does this create a moral obligation to arrange for each cell to cause a human being to arise, or is it okay to throw one of the two cells away and let the other develop?
My conclusion is that treating fertilised eggs as morally significant entities is silly. They're bacteria that a morally significant entity might eventually arise from. The only moral obligations we have with regard to them is that we shouldn't do anything to them which will cause any person that does arise from them to suffer.
TragicMonkey said:
Well, not really. First, some Pills do act either to prevent ovulation or to create a hostile womb environment for a fertilized ovum. It is not known (last I checked) how often which mechanism works, but it is known that both do in some Pills. Also, some formulations of the Pill are thought never or rarely to do other than prevent ovulation-- at least this was so back when contraception was an issue for me (I got "fixed," and so have not had to worry about any of it since).
And, the Catholic Church opposes any "artifical" method of contraception, whether it be a diaphragm, condoms, spermicides or sterilization. None of these are early abortafacients, but the Church condemns them all as well, for any reason at all. This was the first issue that got me ready to leave the Church and launched into non-theism.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
shanek said:
Only "discredited" because you don't agree with the facts.
SRW
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 2,903
Kevin_Lowe said:
The moral issue is not where the problem lay. No it is not only a moral issue. If you define a fetus as a "human being" then in is given legal status. Making aborting akin to murder. It is What it is, an individual being.
The question asked in this thread is "When does abortion become Wrong" The argument truly revolved around when does the fetus become legally a human being?
Current here in the states we have a high profile murder case where a man is being tried for the murder of his wife and his eight month old fetus. He is being charged with a double murder.
Is that right? The wife wanted the child, it could have survived on its own. But it had not been born. So is it proper to charge him with murder? And If so what if
she were 3 months on, or six?
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
AWPrime said:
A better question still is "When does the fetus become morally a person?".
Since chimps and parrots can emulate the cognitive abilities of a five year old, there is no consistent answer I'm aware of that includes kids under five and excludes Alex the Parrot.
SRW said:
And once you start using this argument we're back to the "problem" of a woman who spontaneously aborts an embryo/fetus/baby, which then has to be viewed as "involuntary manslaughter". Then what about the woman who smokes when she is pregnant (which I think increases not only the risk of birth defects but the chances of the woman aborting) and does spontaneously abort the embryo or foetus? Surely she is then culpable (at least in part) for that "person" being "killed"?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,567
A fetus is not an individual.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
thaiboxerken said:
Exactly. It's a limited liability corporation.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
SRW said:
No, the fetus realizes that by incorporating in Delaware, it will enjoy some tax benefits.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
SRW said:
But there's always womb for another vice president.
(Okay, that was quite bad, even for a monkey.)