Opinions on abortion?

Post Reply New Topic

Adoption is also an option.

It was an argument for allowing women to choose to have abortions, not for 'involuntary euthanasia'. Do you even know how long it takes for fertilized egg to actually develop into a baby? Or do you think it happens the instant the sperm touches the egg?

Okay, quick disclaimer: I have great difficulty keeping multiple concepts in working memory simultaneously, so when I want to discuss something in detail I tend to break it down into components so I can manage it without becoming overwhelmed and having to recuse myself from the conversation.

I'd like to start with establishing some baselines. Perhaps we can reach a consensus on when life begins?

I haven't heard anyone here seriously proposing that life begins before conception - I find it most useful to indicate the demarcation by referring to individual life. This disposes of any "gamete lives matter" arguments.

Speaking scientifically, the beginning of individual life occurs when the genetic information in the egg and sperm combine, creating a distinct genetic code that lays the foundation for building a new human being. This takes place within a roughly 24-hour period of time after sperm hits egg - there's a bit of faffing around while they set up shop, so to speak, and the maternal system is still in control until then, but after that everything, from the coding of basic proteins to the construction of a spine, is based on the blueprint that shakes out of that genetic collision.

So if you define "conception" as the instant the winning sperm dives in, individual life begins within 24 hours of that. If you, like me, define "conception" as the instant when the two sets of genetic information actually combine, individual life begins at conception, in the sense that it is life that is genetically distinct from either parent.

Are we agreed thus far? And can we, for the purpose of this discussion, agree to use "conception" to define the commingling of two sets of genetic information to create a new, distinct genetic code?

Note: I am not positing the creation of an individual genetic code as being the ethical or functional equivalent of a human being at this time - that's a bit of discussion for later.

Edited for grammar.

The argument was literally "we should kill the unborn human because otherwise it will suffer". That's de facto euthanasia. The argument also establishes a principle, one which incidentally has a low threshold for "suffering".

Define "baby".

Now define "human".

Now explain what you believe I meant earlier by "life begins at conception", specifically regarding the above terms.

"Euthanasia" is defined as killing, or through in action allowing the death of, a hopelessly sick or injured individual.

If you cannot establish consensus on the status of the unborn as individuals, the use of "euthanasia" to describe abortion is an unwarranted assumption, as that word is predicated on the recognition of the existence of the individual that will die.

So you're back to squabbling about what is, and is not, a human being.

That's certainly one legal definition. In common parlance (and in practice) it literally means "an easy death" - typically on the grounds that it's preferable to the suffering of the "hopelessly sick or injured", as you put it.

Now consider the argument that was presented by Closet and apply it to (e.g.) a toddler with abusive parents.

"The child will without a doubt go through alot less suffering, being killed before it's able to feel anything, rather than go through a whole life of suffering being born and raised by incapable and/or uninvolved parents."

Do you understand how the principle remains the same though the bundle of cells is now walking around making noises and somewhat larger? That is to say, hypothetical future suffering might be sufficient motivation for someone in a depressive state to consider suicide, but it isn't a reasonable justification for the taking of another life.



That specific argument literally called for a mercy killing; for the taking of a life on the grounds that it will prevent hypothetical future - not current - suffering.



You mean back to arguably the only relevant factor in the debate, surely? After all, that was the entire point of my criticism of the euthanasia argument. Which brings us to your earlier post.



Likewise. I'd recommend fisking, but the advice would include the caveat that there are those who will use that as a pretext for engaging in ad hominem.



Excellent. That's my preference too.



The point isn't that anyone might suggest life begins before conception (except perhaps in an absurdist manner in reference to onanism), rather it's that a large number of "pro choice" arguments are founded on the idea that human life has a vaguely variable value or access to rights based on the age or developmental stage of the individual organism.



Absolutely. There's some wriggle room there where you might argue that successful implantation is a necessary criteria, but it's immaterial in the context of current medical practice and limitations.



Again, it's the only relevant aspect of the debate as far as I'm concerned, and the one which primarily informs my position when it comes to abortion. For the record, I'm reconciled to there being a practical compromise when it comes to law-making, though I'm of the opinion that the current laws are behind medical advancement by some decades and require more frequent revision.

With apologies if that's a lot to digest, subjectively speaking. I'm trying to keep things as succinct as possible, but that invariably leads to some people filling in perceived gaps with their imaginations or with a shorthand copy&paste stereotype.

^ This.

Also, no one has the right to use my body to make a baby without my consent. Just because I was born with a uterus doesn't mean I'm entitled to fewer rights.

Already-born people have priority over "potential" people. You can claim an acorn is an oak tree until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make it so. I'll repeat: if I get raped and get pregnant, I'm getting an abortion. I don't want to be pregnant, and I don't want to give birth: therefore, I'm not going to. Just because I'm female doesn't mean I have some sort of inherent obligation to be pregnant.

Agreed. I'm also pro-choice, although I do tend to think there should be limits - for example, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, abortion should be carried out as early as possible.

I'm aware there are extremists who like to pretend women are all out having elective abortions a week before their due dates, and that's just bullsh*t. A late-term abortion is a horrible process. Nobody chooses it, it's a tragedy and a serious health risk for any woman involved, so I'd like to see everybody move past the idea that this is what pro-choice people want.

If some of my fellow pro-choice folks here do favor truly unlimited abortion, including late-term elective procedures, I'd be fascinated to hear why.

Parasites have no inherent right to the host's body.

You can see what I mean about dehumanising.

Why put limits on it at all?

Yeah, I don't believe there hordes of women out there having abortions willy-nilly. The women I know who have had an abortion did it as the result of a long, painful process of introspection. It wasn't an easy choice by any means.

Because it's a process to becoming a person. I'd be more reluctant to terminate a fetus that was closer to the completion of that process.

In total, there's no way that anyone's going to convince me that once a sperm penetrates an egg it becomes a "person." And no one's ever going to convince me to carry a rapist's child.

That's not exactly airtight, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a less arbitrary and more precise way of judging whether a "potential human being" should be destroyed.

I can no longer support limits on a woman's right to choose. I've made the switch for practical reasons, given what happens every time we get bogged down in the details over where to draw the line. I will trust women to make the right call in the overwhelming majority of cases.

People have all different kinds of lives, and some people will make choices that I find reprehensible. I won't let the opponents of abortion use those rare events as a way to further their agenda.

Until we try it, and I see the statistics, I will trust women to decide how to proceed with their pregnancy. I'd like them to have access to the best information, but I also see a lot of problems with implementing that. It's funny how we can find an arbitrarily large number of poorly informed people, and yet people still make the best choices on average.

Proponents of abortion do exactly this. It's always straight to rape, incest and mother on the brink of death. They use these extreme examples to further their agenda, which is the premature termination of any pregnancy whenever they please.

I don't usually reply to your crass posts. Acting like everyone takes the decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly crosses a line.

Also completely unsurprised that you snipped my post and attributed transparently imaginative motives to me. You guys have like one tune! lol

No one should fault you for that.