<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Aug 25 2003, 07:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Aug 25 2003, 07:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Monkeybonk+Aug 25 2003, 07:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Monkeybonk @ Aug 25 2003, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Even though they're as sentient as an ant? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think I already went over this. I wrote this a few posts back:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The unborn baby has no autonomy but it eventually will when born. A sleeping adult has litttle or no autonomy either but he/she will when he/she wakes up (lets consider, for the sake of the argument, that they are in deep sleep, NREM sleep). A plant is alive but it has no autonomy and we can logically assume that it never will.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So if I hit a raccoon in my car, I'm killing a future species, because eventually that racoon's offspring's offspring's etc. could evolve into a sentinet species.
EDIT: Not done.
You forgot one major thing: The sleeping adult is active in his subconscious, but also has HAD the sentiency. The fetus never has.
<!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 25 2003, 03:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 25 2003, 03:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are no laws that say you <b>can't</b> conceive children, then why should there be a law that says you <b>can't</b> terminate the conception.
For all of you who think adoption is the solution to the stated problem <a href='http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm' target='_blank'>clicky</a> the number of children entering foster care is always greater then the number of children leaving foster care, and even though the numbers are slightly better as time goes on, it is no where near being 100%.
Again, if you realized you've made a mistake you should be given an option to correct it, and if the above statistics are to be taken into account, adoption is not a viable way for you to correct that mistake. Since your child will not be guaranteed a placement, and it will cost the people of your state (country) tax money to support the unplaced child.
If abortion was made legal, some of the cost would be absorbed by tax payers (same as the cost of free clinics) but the rest would be out of pocket expense, or expense covered by health insurance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> *sigh* There's a big difference between not conceiving a child and destroying an already-conceived child. I'm all in favor of contraception. I do not think that abortion should be put in anything resembling the same category.
Are those foster care numbers based on babies, or on older children taken into foster homes? Adopting an American baby is incredibly hard - I find it hard to believe there are more babies than there are couples who want to adopt them.
Abortion is in fact already legal, at least in the US. See <i>Roe vs. Wade</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 25 2003, 04:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 25 2003, 04:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How can you say putting a child through foster care, having the child feel unwanted, and not knowing what kind of parents the child will end up with is better than terminating the evolution of dividing cells? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Again - when have you EVER heard of an adopted baby who got anything less than completely loving adoptive parents? We're not talking about troubled and abused teens being shuffled through foster homes here, we're talking about newborns. I have NEVER heard of a newborn child not being able to find adoptive parents quickly. Most of them, in fact, have their adoptive parents BEFORE THEY'RE BORN. I know someone whose 17-year-old sister got pregnant and is going to be giving the kid up for adoption - she's already met the adoptive parents, they're wonderful people, the mom is going to be her Lamaze coach... this is a far cry from the grim picture you paint of abusive foster homes. Again, I think your statistics are based on something else entirely.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 25 2003, 07:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 25 2003, 07:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> *sigh* There's a big difference between not conceiving a child and destroying an already-conceived child. I'm all in favor of contraception. I do not think that abortion should be put in anything resembling the same category. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That line isn't as clear as you would think. The most popular contraceptives prevent implantation, not conception. They technically perform abortions.
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Aug 25 2003, 05:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 25 2003, 05:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That line isn't as clear as you would think. The most popular contraceptives prevent implantation, not conception. They technically perform abortions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is true, though as you might remember from previous posts, I'm quite comfortable putting the line somewhere around or after cell differentiation. In the context of a fully-developed human fetus, I think it's pretty ridiculous to equate abortion with preventing conception in the first place.
I didn't read anything. I only have one thought to say. Which is that I don't consider the embryo or whatever to be a functioning, sentient human being. So I would not treat it as a human being, rather as an animal (like .. say a chicken). So if you want to kill a chicken, of course you shouldn't go on a wanton rampage, but if it's in your good interests and you have a good reason, to kill the chicken I think it's ok.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited August 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 25 2003, 08:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 25 2003, 08:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Aug 25 2003, 05:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 25 2003, 05:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That line isn't as clear as you would think. The most popular contraceptives prevent implantation, not conception. They technically perform abortions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is true, though as you might remember from previous posts, I'm quite comfortable putting the line somewhere around or after cell differentiation. In the context of a fully-developed human fetus, I think it's pretty ridiculous to equate abortion with preventing conception in the first place. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So do you think that a division that's pretty much arbitrary should be made law? or is this just speaking on your own morals?
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Aug 25 2003, 05:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 25 2003, 05:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So do you think that a division that's pretty much arbitrary should be made law? or is this just speaking on your own morals? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is speaking on my own general moral gut reaction, mainly - I've said numerous times that I don't think it's possible to draw a really distinct line. I do think that when it comes to issues of preserving human life, though, the law should err on the side of protecting life, rather than on the side of providing the right to end it.
If I had to draw a line, I'd put it at the division between embryonic and fetal development (about eight weeks). It's during fetal development that we really start seeing evidence of brain activity.
If it's human and and it tries to scream when you slice into it, I'd say you shouldn't be doing that.
Well damn the discussion forums are open where have I been?
Well since this discussion is pretty much over, a lot of good points, it comes down to a difference in beliefs which mere arguments can't change, so with that I will bring a slightly jovial close to the thread, do not take the following too seriously.
There are two types of people, those who think a women has a right to chose, and that one guy who still thinks they don't. Well I'd like to think we've made a lot of advancement in society but old problems keep creeping up, seems this whole religion thing just won't quit. It's fine and dandy to preach fire and brimestone sunday morning, but saturday night it's all about ectasy and viagra, and you can bet your bottom dollar whoever I end up with that night's gunna be popping the morning after pill.
Frankly I think our current abortion laws aren't lenient enough, I mean 3 months? She could still be in a drug induced haze for 2 and half of those, that leaves 15 days to get your stuff together and hit PP. Well I know what your thinking, how do we solve this problem? Well I have a solution, standardized testing, baby style, the SAT's work for finding out who's smart enough to get into college, why can't we have a test to find out who's smart enough to live. Simple little tests, can Ralp Jr. differeniate bewteen red and blue, no well back you go...trying to put a sqaure through a circle hole? Nope sorry you won't live to see your first pair of pampers. I know what you're saying, you can't just kill a human being, but what really makes us human, I'm gunna ignore everything else and just go with insticts, so if we make it clear to little newcommer that he either passes with flying colors or they're going to baby heaven I think we could all sleep with a clear conscious.
Ahem, well I look forward to actually participating in some serious discussions.
what makes a human different from an animal, id like to think its being sentient (even tho some apes are technically sentient, lets not get into the subject of ape abortion).
i would question whether even babies are sentient (no, im not advocating killing babies). unborn babies definatly have no more sense of self than any other animal, at this point what little there is, is purely instinctual. before the time when an unborn feotus can feel pain or be self aware, i dont believe it is a human being.
yes it is technically human, and will obviously one day become a full grown human if left to grow, but at this point (before 25 weeks i believe) it is not.
also, i find the point about autonomy to be quite important. (unborn feotuses are not similar to sleeping adults because the adult is able to support his/her own life.)
to say an zygote is human you would have to go right back to the point where the sperm entered the egg and claim everything from this point on is a human being, i dont think thats correct.
dont get me wrong, abortion is a nasty business, knowledge of the techniques employed is pretty heavy stuff, but i think its still not correct to term what is essentially a cluster of cells as a human being.
As MonkeyBonk said , the foetus had never been sentient. Abortion kills a <i>potentially</i> sentient life , but not a living human. Destroying the source is not destroying the product.
Abortion should be legal for the first few months of foetus life (maximum legal delay is 12 weeks in France) , in a non-anthropocentric point of view we just have to apply animal protection laws after that. It is no crime to destroy a lifeform that doesn't have specialized brain cells yet. The most rational theory about the human mind is that it emerges from neural communication. Religious hypothesis such as "God brought it to life" should not have any legal value.
<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Aug 26 2003, 05:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Aug 26 2003, 05:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i would question whether even babies are sentient (no, im not advocating killing babies). unborn babies definatly have no more sense of self than any other animal, at this point what little there is, is purely instinctual. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And here's my problem. All the arguments presented in favor of allowing abortion make a lot of sense to me. But the <i>logical conclusion</i> of a lot of them is that it's okay to kill newborn babies as well. This disturbs me.
WHY are you not advocating killing babies? Can you make a good argument against killing babies that can't then be reasonably applied against abortion?
(If your answer is that infanticide should be legalized, I'll respect you for being consistent.)
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 26 2003, 08:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 26 2003, 08:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Aug 26 2003, 05:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Aug 26 2003, 05:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i would question whether even babies are sentient (no, im not advocating killing babies). unborn babies definatly have no more sense of self than any other animal, at this point what little there is, is purely instinctual. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And here's my problem. All the arguments presented in favor of allowing abortion make a lot of sense to me. But the <i>logical conclusion</i> of a lot of them is that it's okay to kill newborn babies as well. This disturbs me.
WHY are you not advocating killing babies? Can you make a good argument against killing babies that can't then be reasonably applied against abortion?
(If your answer is that infanticide should be legalized, I'll respect you for being consistent.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it is possible to answer that paradox.
You claimed to be pro-contraception , so when do you think destroying an embryo is wrong ? Knowing that the most effective contraceptive chemicals just block or kill it.
What matters is that at day 0 , the embryo has not a single specialized cell. Later it grows more "human" (you see the actual flesh forming)
It is wrong to kill unborn babies (when the foetus is already highly evolved) , as wrong as deliberately killing animals for no reason. It started feeling things (limited to the mother's womb)
Birth changes things radically. Firstly , the neurons stop multiplying and focus on forming a more complex network. The child starts learning from the environment , and will soon record feelings into memory. Well not that soon of course , the information will be "hard coded" a few years later only.
Until then , infanticide shouldn't be regarded as more criminal than killing a chimpanzee , logically. This seems harsh because of our anthropocentric point of view... but that's to say that there is no comparison between killing a barely formed human individual , and a full grown adult. Using the word "murder" to describe abortion is more foolish than using it to describe meat eating (there are vegans being ridiculed for saying this , though they do have a point)
Strangely it seems that language is what makes us human. I could almost bet that if a person was born mute, covered in hair with a tail, and was illiterate they would only be considered human by scientists.
Although if a chimp started to suddenly speak english it would be elevated to the status of a person.
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Aug 27 2003, 12:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Aug 27 2003, 12:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Strangely it seems that language is what makes us human. I could almost bet that if a person was born mute, covered in hair with a tail, and was illiterate they would only be considered human by scientists.
Although if a chimp started to suddenly speak english it would be elevated to the status of a person. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Chimps can understand simple concept said in english , and are able to express themselves using sign languages - but can't understand grammar , for instance. If chimps were able to speak english words they wouldn't be treated as humans , just retarded humanoids at best.
Humans are different in that they can naturally handle grammar and understand schematics and representations of their world.
So again, language is what makes us human? That is the tie that binds, the golding string from the heavens that binds us togather in a species, the shining principle of the spoken words elevates us above all other creatures on this earth and dictates to us the power to weild the powers of life, death, and sweeping tides of change?
<!--QuoteBegin--Stakhanov+Aug 26 2003, 02:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Aug 26 2003, 02:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Birth changes things radically. Firstly , the neurons stop multiplying and focus on forming a more complex network. The child starts learning from the environment , and will soon record feelings into memory. Well not that soon of course , the information will be "hard coded" a few years later only. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I only have a little bit of Cog Sci background, but IIRC the neurons keep multiplying until the age of 18 or so. (I think you're referring to the abandonment of neural connections that happen most drastically during the first few years of life.) Do you have any scientific references that point to the moment of birth being a significant turning point in terms of neural development (regardless of whether the birth is late or early)? This is the first time I've heard this particular argument, so I'd like to learn more. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 26 2003, 01:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 26 2003, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> WHY are you not advocating killing babies? Can you make a good argument against killing babies that can't then be reasonably applied against abortion?
(If your answer is that infanticide should be legalized, I'll respect you for being consistent.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i think it comes back to what someone said about dependancy on the mother. now ill admit that technically any born child is dependant on the mother for food and protection, but still is no longer linked (litterally) to that mother (hence the option of adoption is ALOT more relevent than killing your baby).
the unborn baby is physically dependant on that specific mother for food/ oxygen etc... and so untill we have the technology to safely move a feotus from womb to womb i guess my arguement is relalvent.
<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Aug 26 2003, 04:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Aug 26 2003, 04:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the unborn baby is physically dependant on that specific mother for food/ oxygen etc... and so untill we have the technology to safely move a feotus from womb to womb i guess my arguement is relalvent. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If we did have the technology to move a fetus from womb to womb, would you then be against abortion (in the common case), because a viable alternative existed?
No, I would not be anti-abortion in that case. I'm not anti-abortion because adoption exists. Transferring fetuses from one womb to another is nothing different that adoption, just at a much earlier stage.
I go with Stakhanov. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Abortion should be legal for the first few months of foetus life (maximum legal delay is 12 weeks in France) , in a non-anthropocentric point of view we just have to apply animal protection laws after that. It is no crime to destroy a lifeform that doesn't have specialized brain cells yet. The most rational theory about the human mind is that it emerges from neural communication. Religious hypothesis such as "God brought it to life" should not have any legal value. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would imagine an abortion to be of equal moral weight to killing an animal in the laboratory -- you have your reasons, it's not wanton, but it's allowed.
By the way, I knew I was disobeying rule 6, sorry, I didn't have much time to post :|
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 26 2003, 08:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 26 2003, 08:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If we did have the technology to move a fetus from womb to womb, would you then be against abortion (in the common case), because a viable alternative existed? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> to be honest, no.
for me its a matter that i would always probably find some way to be pro choice.
i kinda go with my gut feeling on this one and find arguments to back it up after.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
edited August 2003
1) Adoption and "womb to womb transfer" (if there ever is such a thing) are hardly the same thing. America's adoption system is woefully inadequate, which will be quickly revealed by any research. I would not consign any child to live in an orphanage (because that is the crux of the problem -- the ones that *don't* get adopted).
2) It's easy enough to argue that abortion is infanticide when you use the proper imagery. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of abortions (I don't have numbers) are in the first trimester. The embryo/fetus is barely visible to the naked eye, and only the most rudimentary, basic structures have formed. To argue that this collection of cells is capable of conscious thought is, frankly, rather silly. It barely has a brain. On the other hand, most pro-choice advocates *would* agree that late-term abortions should only be performed when the mother's life is at stake, if at all.
3) Some have said "why shouldn't a woman simply carry the child to term, and then give it up for adoption?" There are a couple reasons, in my opinion, even aside from the adoption issue I mentioned above.
-First, pregnancy is emotionally and physically draining, and labor is dangerous even with today's medical techniques. If the mother doesn't take care of herself before the birth, it becomes even more dangerous. If she uses drugs or alcohol during the pregnancy, it becomes a hazard to the fetus that could have dire repercussions.
-Second, pregnancy is a difficult state to be in in the world. Women can lose their jobs for becoming pregnant - this is especially true of lower-class women in low-paying (entry-level, minimum wage, etc) jobs, who are statistically more likely to get pregnant.
-Third, a woman simply does not always choose to become pregnant. What if she is r<b>a</b>ped? Would you honestly tell a woman that for nine months she has to carry and care for the child of the man who <i>violated</i> her, as well as accept the risks I mentioned above? A 10-year-old girl whose father sexually abused her - would you make her bear her own father's child at 11 years old (and puberty is coming earlier and earlier these days; 10 is uncommon, but not impossible)? There are dozens of general (not specific) scenarios I could list. ______
One other argument which gets diminished by pro-life advocates is the argument of safety. The simple fact is that whether or not abortion is legal, there *will* be women who want to get one, and their *will* be practitioners willing to perform one. In a country of legalized abortion, a woman can get an abortion in a safe, sterile environment from a federally-licensed doctor, with proper after-care (both for her physical and her mental/emotional well-being). Without legal abortions, her only recourse may be some guy with a dirty coat-hanger in the back room of a seedy restaurant. ______
Here is an interesting website: <a href='http://www.feministsforlife.org/' target='_blank'>Feminists For Life.org</a>. Theirs is a stance I agree with completely, though I am pro-choice and they consider themselves pro-life. Their thrust? That no woman should NEED to get an abortion. The very fact that abortions exist is evidence that society has failed women. Rather than rehashing the same pro-choice/pro-life argument again and again, they advocate approaching the root of the problem - those elements of society that result in unwanted pregnancies. Food for thought, and a much more sensible position than any you'd hear in Washington.
Damn you, Coil. I wanted to bring pretty much the same arguments up. Damn you to heeeeell! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--coil+Aug 27 2003, 08:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Aug 27 2003, 08:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On the other hand, most pro-choice advocates *would* agree that late-term abortions should only be performed when the mother's life is at stake, if at all.
............
Theirs is a stance I agree with completely, though I am pro-choice and they consider themselves pro-life. Their thrust? That no woman should NEED to get an abortion. The very fact that abortions exist is evidence that society has failed women. Rather than rehashing the same pro-choice/pro-life argument again and again, they advocate approaching the root of the problem - those elements of society that result in unwanted pregnancies. Food for thought, and a much more sensible position than any you'd hear in Washington. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed on both counts. Re: early term abortions, my primary problem with the pro-choice line is the commonly espoused viewpoint that it's not until <b>birth</b> that "mass of tissue" becomes "baby" (this argument is what makes the partial-birth abortion acceptable). First-trimester abortions don't bother me nearly so much, though still, the earlier the better - it takes barely a couple of months before you have something that is very recognizably a baby.
And I agree, in an ideal world, nobody would need to get an abortion. One of my biggest gripes with the Catholic church is the hard stance against contraception.
I've never tried to argue that unborn babies sentient, just that they are destined to become so if they aren't killed. I do consider it murder. I don't consider killing animals murder because a) they are not human b) there is no evidence that any animal will become sentient in its lifetime through natural means c) their deaths are usually mandatory for our survival, while killing another human being (including an unborn baby) is the exact opposite.
I don't consider the unborn baby a part of the mother because it has its own genetic make-up. The unborn baby is a growing organism and that, God willing, will one day be born and grow into a sentient being. Arguments about the unborn baby not being sentient in its current state are kind of flawed because a baby that is born isn't either.
I'm only repeating myself because people seem to be ignoring my earlier posts.
I wasn't even replying to coil. coil's arguments aren't compatible to be matched against mine. We just value different things. I'm just trying to argue against the "unborn baby isn't sentient, therefore not human" type of arguments.
Comments
I think I already went over this. I wrote this a few posts back:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The unborn baby has no autonomy but it eventually will when born. A sleeping adult has litttle or no autonomy either but he/she will when he/she wakes up (lets consider, for the sake of the argument, that they are in deep sleep, NREM sleep). A plant is alive but it has no autonomy and we can logically assume that it never will.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if I hit a raccoon in my car, I'm killing a future species, because eventually that racoon's offspring's offspring's etc. could evolve into a sentinet species.
EDIT: Not done.
You forgot one major thing: The sleeping adult is active in his subconscious, but also has HAD the sentiency. The fetus never has.
For all of you who think adoption is the solution to the stated problem <a href='http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm' target='_blank'>clicky</a> the number of children entering foster care is always greater then the number of children leaving foster care, and even though the numbers are slightly better as time goes on, it is no where near being 100%.
Again, if you realized you've made a mistake you should be given an option to correct it, and if the above statistics are to be taken into account, adoption is not a viable way for you to correct that mistake. Since your child will not be guaranteed a placement, and it will cost the people of your state (country) tax money to support the unplaced child.
If abortion was made legal, some of the cost would be absorbed by tax payers (same as the cost of free clinics) but the rest would be out of pocket expense, or expense covered by health insurance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
*sigh* There's a big difference between not conceiving a child and destroying an already-conceived child. I'm all in favor of contraception. I do not think that abortion should be put in anything resembling the same category.
Are those foster care numbers based on babies, or on older children taken into foster homes? Adopting an American baby is incredibly hard - I find it hard to believe there are more babies than there are couples who want to adopt them.
Abortion is in fact already legal, at least in the US. See <i>Roe vs. Wade</i>.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again - when have you EVER heard of an adopted baby who got anything less than completely loving adoptive parents? We're not talking about troubled and abused teens being shuffled through foster homes here, we're talking about newborns. I have NEVER heard of a newborn child not being able to find adoptive parents quickly. Most of them, in fact, have their adoptive parents BEFORE THEY'RE BORN. I know someone whose 17-year-old sister got pregnant and is going to be giving the kid up for adoption - she's already met the adoptive parents, they're wonderful people, the mom is going to be her Lamaze coach... this is a far cry from the grim picture you paint of abusive foster homes. Again, I think your statistics are based on something else entirely.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That line isn't as clear as you would think. The most popular contraceptives prevent implantation, not conception. They technically perform abortions.
This is true, though as you might remember from previous posts, I'm quite comfortable putting the line somewhere around or after cell differentiation. In the context of a fully-developed human fetus, I think it's pretty ridiculous to equate abortion with preventing conception in the first place.
Refer to <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43638' target='_blank'>Discussion Forum Rule #6</a>, please.
(Sorry to be a forum nazi, but this is my biggest pet peeve, especially in the Discussion forum.)
This is true, though as you might remember from previous posts, I'm quite comfortable putting the line somewhere around or after cell differentiation. In the context of a fully-developed human fetus, I think it's pretty ridiculous to equate abortion with preventing conception in the first place. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So do you think that a division that's pretty much arbitrary should be made law? or is this just speaking on your own morals?
Niether do I.
This is speaking on my own general moral gut reaction, mainly - I've said numerous times that I don't think it's possible to draw a really distinct line. I do think that when it comes to issues of preserving human life, though, the law should err on the side of protecting life, rather than on the side of providing the right to end it.
If I had to draw a line, I'd put it at the division between embryonic and fetal development (about eight weeks). It's during fetal development that we really start seeing evidence of brain activity.
If it's human and and it tries to scream when you slice into it, I'd say you shouldn't be doing that.
Well since this discussion is pretty much over, a lot of good points, it comes down to a difference in beliefs which mere arguments can't change, so with that I will bring a slightly jovial close to the thread, do not take the following too seriously.
There are two types of people, those who think a women has a right to chose, and that one guy who still thinks they don't. Well I'd like to think we've made a lot of advancement in society but old problems keep creeping up, seems this whole religion thing just won't quit. It's fine and dandy to preach fire and brimestone sunday morning, but saturday night it's all about ectasy and viagra, and you can bet your bottom dollar whoever I end up with that night's gunna be popping the morning after pill.
Frankly I think our current abortion laws aren't lenient enough, I mean 3 months? She could still be in a drug induced haze for 2 and half of those, that leaves 15 days to get your stuff together and hit PP. Well I know what your thinking, how do we solve this problem? Well I have a solution, standardized testing, baby style, the SAT's work for finding out who's smart enough to get into college, why can't we have a test to find out who's smart enough to live. Simple little tests, can Ralp Jr. differeniate bewteen red and blue, no well back you go...trying to put a sqaure through a circle hole? Nope sorry you won't live to see your first pair of pampers. I know what you're saying, you can't just kill a human being, but what really makes us human, I'm gunna ignore everything else and just go with insticts, so if we make it clear to little newcommer that he either passes with flying colors or they're going to baby heaven I think we could all sleep with a clear conscious.
Ahem, well I look forward to actually participating in some serious discussions.
what makes a human different from an animal, id like to think its being sentient (even tho some apes are technically sentient, lets not get into the subject of ape abortion).
i would question whether even babies are sentient (no, im not advocating killing babies). unborn babies definatly have no more sense of self than any other animal, at this point what little there is, is purely instinctual.
before the time when an unborn feotus can feel pain or be self aware, i dont believe it is a human being.
yes it is technically human, and will obviously one day become a full grown human if left to grow, but at this point (before 25 weeks i believe) it is not.
also, i find the point about autonomy to be quite important.
(unborn feotuses are not similar to sleeping adults because the adult is able to support his/her own life.)
to say an zygote is human you would have to go right back to the point where the sperm entered the egg and claim everything from this point on is a human being, i dont think thats correct.
dont get me wrong, abortion is a nasty business, knowledge of the techniques employed is pretty heavy stuff, but i think its still not correct to term what is essentially a cluster of cells as a human being.
Abortion should be legal for the first few months of foetus life (maximum legal delay is 12 weeks in France) , in a non-anthropocentric point of view we just have to apply animal protection laws after that. It is no crime to destroy a lifeform that doesn't have specialized brain cells yet. The most rational theory about the human mind is that it emerges from neural communication. Religious hypothesis such as "God brought it to life" should not have any legal value.
And here's my problem. All the arguments presented in favor of allowing abortion make a lot of sense to me. But the <i>logical conclusion</i> of a lot of them is that it's okay to kill newborn babies as well. This disturbs me.
WHY are you not advocating killing babies? Can you make a good argument against killing babies that can't then be reasonably applied against abortion?
(If your answer is that infanticide should be legalized, I'll respect you for being consistent.)
And here's my problem. All the arguments presented in favor of allowing abortion make a lot of sense to me. But the <i>logical conclusion</i> of a lot of them is that it's okay to kill newborn babies as well. This disturbs me.
WHY are you not advocating killing babies? Can you make a good argument against killing babies that can't then be reasonably applied against abortion?
(If your answer is that infanticide should be legalized, I'll respect you for being consistent.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it is possible to answer that paradox.
You claimed to be pro-contraception , so when do you think destroying an embryo is wrong ? Knowing that the most effective contraceptive chemicals just block or kill it.
What matters is that at day 0 , the embryo has not a single specialized cell. Later it grows more "human" (you see the actual flesh forming)
It is wrong to kill unborn babies (when the foetus is already highly evolved) , as wrong as deliberately killing animals for no reason. It started feeling things (limited to the mother's womb)
Birth changes things radically. Firstly , the neurons stop multiplying and focus on forming a more complex network. The child starts learning from the environment , and will soon record feelings into memory. Well not that soon of course , the information will be "hard coded" a few years later only.
Until then , infanticide shouldn't be regarded as more criminal than killing a chimpanzee , logically. This seems harsh because of our anthropocentric point of view... but that's to say that there is no comparison between killing a barely formed human individual , and a full grown adult. Using the word "murder" to describe abortion is more foolish than using it to describe meat eating (there are vegans being ridiculed for saying this , though they do have a point)
Although if a chimp started to suddenly speak english it would be elevated to the status of a person.
Although if a chimp started to suddenly speak english it would be elevated to the status of a person. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chimps can understand simple concept said in english , and are able to express themselves using sign languages - but can't understand grammar , for instance. If chimps were able to speak english words they wouldn't be treated as humans , just retarded humanoids at best.
Humans are different in that they can naturally handle grammar and understand schematics and representations of their world.
..... maybe you have a point : )
I only have a little bit of Cog Sci background, but IIRC the neurons keep multiplying until the age of 18 or so. (I think you're referring to the abandonment of neural connections that happen most drastically during the first few years of life.) Do you have any scientific references that point to the moment of birth being a significant turning point in terms of neural development (regardless of whether the birth is late or early)? This is the first time I've heard this particular argument, so I'd like to learn more. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
(If your answer is that infanticide should be legalized, I'll respect you for being consistent.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
i think it comes back to what someone said about dependancy on the mother.
now ill admit that technically any born child is dependant on the mother for food and protection, but still is no longer linked (litterally) to that mother (hence the option of adoption is ALOT more relevent than killing your baby).
the unborn baby is physically dependant on that specific mother for food/ oxygen etc... and so untill we have the technology to safely move a feotus from womb to womb i guess my arguement is relalvent.
If we did have the technology to move a fetus from womb to womb, would you then be against abortion (in the common case), because a viable alternative existed?
I go with Stakhanov. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Abortion should be legal for the first few months of foetus life (maximum legal delay is 12 weeks in France) , in a non-anthropocentric point of view we just have to apply animal protection laws after that. It is no crime to destroy a lifeform that doesn't have specialized brain cells yet. The most rational theory about the human mind is that it emerges from neural communication. Religious hypothesis such as "God brought it to life" should not have any legal value. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would imagine an abortion to be of equal moral weight to killing an animal in the laboratory -- you have your reasons, it's not wanton, but it's allowed.
By the way, I knew I was disobeying rule 6, sorry, I didn't have much time to post :|
to be honest, no.
for me its a matter that i would always probably find some way to be pro choice.
i kinda go with my gut feeling on this one and find arguments to back it up after.
2) It's easy enough to argue that abortion is infanticide when you use the proper imagery. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of abortions (I don't have numbers) are in the first trimester. The embryo/fetus is barely visible to the naked eye, and only the most rudimentary, basic structures have formed. To argue that this collection of cells is capable of conscious thought is, frankly, rather silly. It barely has a brain. On the other hand, most pro-choice advocates *would* agree that late-term abortions should only be performed when the mother's life is at stake, if at all.
3) Some have said "why shouldn't a woman simply carry the child to term, and then give it up for adoption?" There are a couple reasons, in my opinion, even aside from the adoption issue I mentioned above.
-First, pregnancy is emotionally and physically draining, and labor is dangerous even with today's medical techniques. If the mother doesn't take care of herself before the birth, it becomes even more dangerous. If she uses drugs or alcohol during the pregnancy, it becomes a hazard to the fetus that could have dire repercussions.
-Second, pregnancy is a difficult state to be in in the world. Women can lose their jobs for becoming pregnant - this is especially true of lower-class women in low-paying (entry-level, minimum wage, etc) jobs, who are statistically more likely to get pregnant.
-Third, a woman simply does not always choose to become pregnant. What if she is r<b>a</b>ped? Would you honestly tell a woman that for nine months she has to carry and care for the child of the man who <i>violated</i> her, as well as accept the risks I mentioned above? A 10-year-old girl whose father sexually abused her - would you make her bear her own father's child at 11 years old (and puberty is coming earlier and earlier these days; 10 is uncommon, but not impossible)? There are dozens of general (not specific) scenarios I could list.
______
One other argument which gets diminished by pro-life advocates is the argument of safety. The simple fact is that whether or not abortion is legal, there *will* be women who want to get one, and their *will* be practitioners willing to perform one. In a country of legalized abortion, a woman can get an abortion in a safe, sterile environment from a federally-licensed doctor, with proper after-care (both for her physical and her mental/emotional well-being). Without legal abortions, her only recourse may be some guy with a dirty coat-hanger in the back room of a seedy restaurant.
______
Here is an interesting website: <a href='http://www.feministsforlife.org/' target='_blank'>Feminists For Life.org</a>. Theirs is a stance I agree with completely, though I am pro-choice and they consider themselves pro-life. Their thrust? That no woman should NEED to get an abortion. The very fact that abortions exist is evidence that society has failed women. Rather than rehashing the same pro-choice/pro-life argument again and again, they advocate approaching the root of the problem - those elements of society that result in unwanted pregnancies. Food for thought, and a much more sensible position than any you'd hear in Washington.
............
Theirs is a stance I agree with completely, though I am pro-choice and they consider themselves pro-life. Their thrust? That no woman should NEED to get an abortion. The very fact that abortions exist is evidence that society has failed women. Rather than rehashing the same pro-choice/pro-life argument again and again, they advocate approaching the root of the problem - those elements of society that result in unwanted pregnancies. Food for thought, and a much more sensible position than any you'd hear in Washington. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed on both counts. Re: early term abortions, my primary problem with the pro-choice line is the commonly espoused viewpoint that it's not until <b>birth</b> that "mass of tissue" becomes "baby" (this argument is what makes the partial-birth abortion acceptable). First-trimester abortions don't bother me nearly so much, though still, the earlier the better - it takes barely a couple of months before you have something that is very recognizably a baby.
And I agree, in an ideal world, nobody would need to get an abortion. One of my biggest gripes with the Catholic church is the hard stance against contraception.
I don't consider the unborn baby a part of the mother because it has its own genetic make-up. The unborn baby is a growing organism and that, God willing, will one day be born and grow into a sentient being. Arguments about the unborn baby not being sentient in its current state are kind of flawed because a baby that is born isn't either.
I'm only repeating myself because people seem to be ignoring my earlier posts.