Personhood and Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

It is a part of the woman's body interfaced with placenta. O.K. the woman is free to remove the placenta and if the contents die that is just unfortunate. If the woman does not want the fetus, it is a trespasser and may be removed by force. A woman uterus is her property and she can decide who if any can live there.

an unwanted fetus is an infestation and a trespasser and may be removed by the owner of the body in which it has been implanted.

ruveyn

What I find effed up is, if the unborn baby is wanted, it's considered precious, the greatest gift ever, but if it's not, it's just considered a living disease. Like I've said, I'm against illegalizing abortion, I just don't think personally that it is ethical and nobody is going to convince me otherwise. I don't think pregnancy should be thought of as a binary choice, keep or don't keep, and either option is equally good.

why is it a surprise that many things only have the value we impart on them?

we do that all the time and with almost everything we hold dear so why should our children be any different?

no one said either option is equally good, qwhat is good however is not and will never be universal, that is the nature of subjectivity, for one mother a child may be a blessing and for another a sentence to suffering.

And now you are contradicting yourself. You first said it was a distinct organism because it had unique DNA, now you are saying that it is because a sperm and egg fused together.

Does it really matter if it is a different organism? Bacteria in your rectum are too different organisms. We do not really base our ethics on protecting different organisms, but on not harming people. Is a zygote a person? I would really, really say not. It is merely a bunch of cells. As for ruveyn's argument. It does not matter if it is a different organism or not, it is still inside the woman's body.

The perverse thing about this is that the potential child's life seems so much more important than the actual mother's life. We do not really talk about this controversy even though it is quite obvious.

I think it is a very difficult topic, but you have to make distinctions.

But then that's your personal decision.

The real problem is that illegalizing abortion means making the religious community's beliefs a universal... truth. And that is quite dangerous.

How about a transplanted heart or kidney. It has a human genome and it is distinct from the body into which it was placed. Would you forbid the removal of such organs? After all it is human DNA we are talking about.

ruveyn

I believe abortion should be legal until the age of viability, when the baby can survive outside the womb. I also believe that the woman has a right even after that gestational age, to have labor induced or a c/sec performed to remove the baby from her body. I don't think either of those things are great choices, but because the baby is inside the mother's body, her rights outweigh the baby's rights.

The sperm and egg don't have unique DNA though, they are the same as the father and mother's, only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. What I'm saying is you can't say at one point a life isn't human and then at another point it is.

I'm not religious, thus, the argument pro-life is denying the separation from church and state is not valid. And like I said, you guys are arguing with the wrong person, I actually SUPPORT the legalization of abortion, even though I find the practice unethical (unless there's a risk to the mother's life that abortion can prevent). I just find it disturbing how in favor of abortion the general public is and how there isn't really much non-religious opposition to it.

No new DNA is created when the sperm and ovum join. If they don't have unique DNA, then neither does the zygote.

There is nothing magical about DNA anyway. If you think unique DNA it somehow has a link to a soul then you have a lot of explaining to do about twins.

You weren't. This phrase of yours is the entire synthesis of your points below, everything (including your biological knowledge) is contained in this statement, Ms LKL, and as you wish, this will be the last time I refer to you in this reply as such.



You're free to dispute my conclusions, but they're wrought from properly basic ideas in biology. Whatever qualifications you hold in biology does not alter the fact that life begins at conception. Personhood begins at this point, the point at which the zygote is genetically different from either mother and father. It is the point at which many recognise that a person exists.



There's nothing potential about a fertilised ovum. It's there! Just because most of its potential is ahead of it does not mean it's not real, or that it cannot develop towards birth and adulthood. It simply does not correspond to what has been scientifically observed to assert "it's the womens body and her choice". No it's not, and no, it's not.



I didn't quote from evolutionary history, I suggested an answer to what is a common human question these days, "why do people have children?" Perhaps you could take up the challenge of providing an answer to this question.



So the purpose of your life and all other lives is Nirvana or extinction. ah yes, this does explain your attitude to abortion quite well. Personhood is when, in short, you've got potential - it is present at every stage of human development, and the point is that it's immoral to deny any person their right to fulfill their potential. Or is it ok to deny you YOUR potential? Go on, choose.


Which part do you think was garbage? I seriously meant all of it.[/quote]

So according to you, rape isn't entirely either completely sexual for the rapist, or completely an excercise of power. Well I guess we differ here - I think it's an excercise of power. And here's a real example: [url=//http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/gallery/2009/06/children_of_bad_memories.html]//http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/gallery/2009/06/children_of_bad_memories.html[/url]

Firstly, though, I'm astounded you don't accept my excercise of power suggestion as you said this: In many animal species, rape is the way omega males perpetuate their genes when they cannot compete with better individuals on the regular field of selection; it's difficult to rule out that some of the same might not be occurring in some human rapes.. Perpetuate genes - can't compete - better individuals - field of selection. You just described an abuse of power, and I'm sorry, but to suggest that rape has somehow to do with the seeking of pleasure for its own sake by the rapist OR some kind of twisted way of getting in first to the gene pool by the rapist is garbage.

So I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the Rwandan children born of rape.


If I understand you properly, the first part of your argument doesn't flow into the second part. Rapist A goes out with the intention of violating someone for the sole purpose of introducing his genes to the gene pool. So they have to THINK about this while they're doing their dirty business. My experience tells me that you make a fair point regarding intercourse - I just don't think, instinct or otherwise, this would work either as an unconscious or conscious motivation.





The dog argument does not hold with regard to human cases. And what of the Rwandan children? Are you going to shoot them? Given what you've written above, I think you would be acting consistent with your views if you actually did go to Rwanda now they're born and shoot them - it's just that you're wrong. They have a right to life as much as anyone does.



Nope. As far as all three of my friends are concerned, they accept that they'll always be between a rock and a hard place, as far as that event in their lives goes.


evidence, please (from actual medical, peer-reviewed sources, not anti-choice propaganda sites)?
Frankly, I'd take the abortion even if it meant a 100% chance of never having a child. I have a lovely niece, and I could simply be a more doting auntie for her.

Mr Joel Brind has produced scientific evidence backed by the BMA, that prove a link between abortion and breast cancer. So no, not exactly what you request, but your average attendee to an abortion clinic doesn't hang around wanting to participate in scientific studies. But you might want to suggest when his findings will be made available to each person who attends for an abortion.


Ahh, yes, another victim of the 'silent scream' propaganda movie.
You do know that it's propaganda, right?
Like you know that the vast, vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, when the zef doesn't even have the capacity to see, much less react comprehendingly? When it's the size of someone's thumb, or smaller? Yes? You do know that, right?

They can't all be wrong:
(One of the many babies saved through this website)

Dear Silent Scream Website,

I just wanted to write a quick note to say thank you. I was supposed to have an abortion today and I was up all last night researching abortions on the internet. I came upon your site and couldn't stop thinking about it. It had a profound effect on me.

I still went to the clinic and went through the blood testing and watched their video....then came the ultrasound; I begged the nurse to let me see my baby; I felt that I had to see. As soon as I saw my child on the ultrasound I knew I couldn't do it.

The clinic can absolutely NOT convince me that that living child inside me wasn't going to feel anything. I saw the heart beating, and he moved his little hands (almost like a wave). I think god intervened and sent me a message that I was about to make the biggest mistake of my life.

My nurse was very compassionate (which I thought was odd) I asked her for a picture of my baby and she explained that she wasn't allowed to do that. She also explained that she wasn't supposed to show me the ultrasound screen either. Well, she broke the rules and gave me a picture anyway.

Thanks to the nurse at the clinic and to your video I made the right decision. I'll be having the baby in 7 months and am looking forward to meeting my little miracle in person.

Thank you a million times over,
Erica




So people like Erica go to the clinic, stop at the last minute from having an abortion; and because there's no time to fill the slot that she would otherwise have taken, then the profit does not accrue. Many thanks for the financial information regarding childbirth but I don't live in America and I'm not planning on having any children.



We in the Catholic Church regard RU-486 as an abortifacient drug - can you tell me whether Plan B is supposed to be the same? RU-486 is a 'morning after' pill, it sounds from the name that Plan B has the same effect.




I may not know you very well, Ms LKL, but surveys do not come to the same conclusion as you. [/quote]
Surveys of whom? Self-selected anti-choicers? Women who had to abort wanted fetuses late in their pregnancies due to medical issues? Women who were pressured into abortions by their families and/or partners?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/ ... UE20081204
quote: No high-quality study done to date can document that having an abortion causes psychological distress, or a "post-abortion syndrome," and efforts to show it does occur appear to be politically motivated, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

Even if abortion did disproportionately make women sad or unhappy later, that is NO excuse to remove a woman's personal agency as an adult human being. Adult humans have the right to make choices about what they will do with their own bodies. They can even refuse lifesaving medical care, and unless they're declared insane or otherwise incompetent, they cannot be treated by medical staff without charges of assault and battery.

I have no time in this reply to answer - I'll be back in a couple of days.




You don't have anything to do with my innocence, or lack therof; however, you would try to take away my personal agency as an adult human being if you could, and that makes you a fair target.

final point: why do you pepper your response with 'Ms.LKL' over and over? Once was sufficient for me to know whom you were addressing, and the title is unnecessary in the context of an internet argument (unless you are using the title as a subtle reinforcement of the sexist idea that I am female, and therefore to be taken less seriously)? I am genuinely curious, given your stated egalitarian proclivities.[/quote]

When you speak like you've just done in the paragraph above, I feel glad that at 49 I've retained some vestiges of my naivete. There wasn't any agenda, I was actually trying to be polite! Many thanks for the response.

It doesn't. It begun some millions of years ago and it just kept reproducing.

Life != personhood.

Sperm are genetically different.

Glad this is not a poll then.

Err, yes it does.


It won't develop towards birth or adulthood if it is aborted. This makes it only a potential person. If mom decides to keep the pregnancy until birth , it will become a person. But abortion itself really shows that potential to become a person is not the same as being a person.


God forbade women decided what to do with their own bodies.



Err, no. It is not. Personhood is when you legally have rights in accord to the rights of a person.

Surely you don't really think this. Sperm is a stage of human development and it would be ridiculous to call sperm people. Sperm also have a lot of potential to become everything.


Hey, I have potential to become president of the world. Don't deny my potential.


It is retroactive abortion all over again.




No one cares what your three friends think. Surely they don't have any right to decide about what to do with the fetuses of other women. It is the 'mother''s right to decide. Not yours nor your friends'.

(thank you, Vexcalibur)

You're on a forum of people with Asperger's, darling. We don't tend to lie to each other. I am genuinely glad for those women that their choices 'have not impacted your dealings with them,' because women are shamed for having abortions far too often; the more supportive friends they have, the better. Just out of curiosity, would you feel differently about them if they *weren't* ashamed of their abortions?


No, frankly, they're not. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts, and you are simply wrong on this. I would pull citations for you, but I don't think you'd read them.


Whatever 'properly basic' understanding of 'life' you have does not change the biological fact that both sperm and ova are alive.


Again, your opinion does not rule here. If the zygote is genetically different from its parents, so are the sperm and ova. What the zygote does have is a different combination of genes than the mother and father, but the material itself is not new (except for an occasional mutation, which is almost always deleterious, and which was present in the sperm and/or ovum before they united). For the third, time, I ask: what is your definition of a person?

That's sort of the definition of 'potential,' darling.


I wouldn't whinny about 'what has been scientifically observed' if I were you. Biologically, legally, and morally, it is, and it is.

I already did. People have children because (note that "because" is often an answer to a question that begins with "why") people who didn't have children died out.


Your knowledge of Buddhism mirrors your knowledge of biology.


Potential for what? Is my dog a person? An elephant? A fetal elephant? Why is it less bad to kill a sentient cow than an unfeeling zygote? Presumably a veal calf has plenty of potential to lead a good cow life. Also, is my 85 year old grandmother (who is fighting breast cancer) less of a human because she has less potential in the future than my 2 year old neice?


any individual act may be one or the other, or some combination thereof.


From your article:
Since abortion is illegal in Rwanda, some resorted to back-alley procedures or traveled to the neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo to terminate their pregnancies. Others gave birth and abandoned the babies or gave them away to orphanages. Still others kept their children and are now struggling to raise them alone in post-genocide Rwanda....
More than half of the women Torgovnik interviewed are HIV-positive. Most live in dire poverty, ostracized by their own families and communities because of the stigmas attached to rape and AIDS. In Rwanda, a heavily patriarchal society, children of wartime rape are perceived as belonging to the enemy. As Josette, the mother of Thomas, recalls, "My uncle didn't welcome me into his house. He asked me who was responsible for my pregnancy. I said if I am pregnant, then it must be the militias since many of them had raped me. He said I shouldn't enter his house carrying a baby of the Hutus and chased me away. I left, but I didn't know where to go. Later, my uncle told me that I could only enter his house if I agreed to throw away the child."

The women discuss their own feelings about their children with heartbreaking candor. Some confess their inability to feel love or affection for children who are living reminders of the terrible ordeals they endured. Others say that their children are their only source of hope and consolation, that without them they wouldn't have the will to survive.
(bolding mine)
Now, some women would have chosen to keep their pregnancies, but how can you possibly claim that it was a good thing for these women to be denied access to abortion? What a horrific thing to force on a woman.
As for rape during wartime, it is generally seen as an act of genocide as well as power over the defeated enemy.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 8269.story
http://www.ourpledge.org/staring-genoci ... ape-horror
Just out of curiosity, do you think that rape in general is the same as, or different from, rape during wartime? I would argue the latter - just like murder during normal conditions is different than murder during wartime (if visagrunt is reading, yes I know that killing someone during a war is not technically murder )


(sigh)
that's not how the drive for sex works, darling. We have a sex drive because those who had sex drives in the past were more likely to reproduce. Your omega male has a sex drive in order to reproduce, but he's frustrated in his desires because he's an omega male; his frustration is transferred to women, his sex drive builds, and eventually he goes out and rapes someone in seething anger and frustration. Obviously humans are a little more complicated than that, but that's the general idea.
Most people aren't thinking, 'I'm gonna make a baby!' when they have sex, even when that's part of the point for the couple in question.


The point wasn't about species, it was about blame. The zef might be 'innocent' (I personally don't think that it is, given that half of its DNA came from a rapist), but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be removed. A pancreatic tumor is 'innocent' (and human, and possessed of unique DNA) but we're still going to cut it out ASAP.


(sigh) the old 'abortion = infanticide' argument. A born child is not the same as a zef. It would have been better for all concerned if the women who had wanted abortions when they were pregnant, were allowed to have one; that's no longer an option, and what you have is a tragedy all around. Those children both are, and are not, innocent.

Yep. I'm right, you're wrong, and I have lots of friends to back me up too. Are we voting?
http://www.fwhc.org/stories/story14.htm
http://my-abortion-story.tumblr.com/
http://www.newstatesman.com/200504040014
http://www.thanksabortion.com/abortion- ... he-better/
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090308.html


Mister? Not Md, Not PhD?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... iscarriage

Check out the methodology of the studies before you make statements like that, ok?

{snip anecdotes for women who chose not to have abortions based on propaganda}


You are incorrect. 'Plan B' is a massive dose of contraceptives (aka levonorgestril, aka 'the morning after pill')
http://wiki-pharmacy.org/products/women ... anb/order/
RU-486 (aka mifepristone) is NOT a morning after pill; in the US it is used afaIk exclusively for medical abortions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone


And yet, in responses to other people, you did not repeat their names over and over and did not refer to them as 'Mr.' or 'Ms. -except once, in the 3rd person, when you were talking to me. Sooo, why the difference?
edit: ok, checked out your responses on other fora; the numbers of Mr/Ms's and name repetitions seems to correlate with how much you disagree with someone, so I will take it as an indication that you disagree with me quite strongly.

I just follow science and biology. A fetus is a human life. It is at a different stage of life just as a child is at a different stage than an adolescent or an adult. It's a unique life that is different than the mother and it is of the human species. It should therefore be afforded the same right to life we have.

Science doesn't care whether a foetus is a life or not.

all of these arguments have been refuted.

differentiate skin cells, differentiate plants, define personhood and sentience.