Abortion

[Makrell]

I wish too discuss the topic of abortion from an ethical standpooint, not a practical one. (no discussing of whether children with disadvantages or children of women who has been raped or such please)


Personanlly i am againist abortion mostly becasue i believe you shall not take lives, which echoes through most philosophies and religions. I think the topic of "is abortion justified" is defined from when the featus is defined as a human. I believe that happens quite early in development and hence the killing of the featus would be murder. If i were to believe the featus became "human" later in development i dont think abortion would be bad.

[Copperknickers II]

Do you believe a fertilised egg is a human? How do you define human?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Do you believe a fertilised egg is a human? How do you define human?

of course it is of the human spcies, even if it isn't fully developed.

But does that really make it wrong to kill? Peter Singer has some interesting views you might be interested in. Type Peter Singer into Wikipedia.

I personally think that abortion is wrong, except in the case where the child would kill the mother or be born with severe mental and physical defects inherent in its genetics. It should not be a matter of mother's choice, in other words, but a qualified doctor's judgment. I also believe that killing any animal lifeform is only acceptable if there is a strong justification, for example eating it or defending yourself.

I used to think it was wrong until I asked myself where do you stop. I mean sperm is part human, is :wub: wrong? But then sperm dies all the time with no :wub:.

[Ancient Aliens]

I used to think it was wrong until I asked myself where do you stop. I mean sperm is part human, is :wub: wrong? But then sperm dies all the time with no :wub:.

Exactly. If we take this train of logic further, women are committing murder by not utilizing all of their ovulated eggs.

[xcorps]

Exactly. If we take this train of logic further, women are committing murder by not utilizing all of their ovulated eggs.

You talk about a logical train of thought and then suggest that a woman whould have 300-400 children to avoid murder.



An egg or sperm by itself are not alive.

[Makrell]

I used to think it was wrong until I asked myself where do you stop. I mean sperm is part human, is :wub: wrong? But then sperm dies all the time with no :wub:.

Exactly. If we take this train of logic further, women are committing murder by not utilizing all of their ovulated eggs.

that is really a definition question. But biologicaly those ovulated eggs are not necessarily meant to be used. same with :wub: you produce an extreme amount of sperm which where only 1 will fertilize the egg. THe rest doesnt matter. A featus however is supposed to turn into a human and is already mostly human.

[Taiji]

Contraception should be the initial defense against unwanted pregnancy.

Abortion is bad only because of risks to the mother.

The human Fetus is not a human yet and should not be treated as one.

[Makrell]

hmm that is a tough question,
Human is simply the homosapiens, with life. A featus "lives" so to speak and isnt dead so to speak. It heart beats and so forth and is hence human

[Copperknickers II]

But so does a maggot's. Is a maggot a human? What makes a human different from a cow, that you would kill without a second glance for your lunch (or let someone else do it anyway)

[Makrell]

maggots arent homosapiens are they? A human featus is homo sapiens isnt it

[Col. Tartleton]

While I think abortion is reasonable, I think we risk inconsistency if we do not extend it as far as it must go. The ancients gave power of life and death over the offspring to the father of the family (hint: thats why one is compelled to honor their father and mother.) The Greeks and Romans habitually left unwanted children to the fates on their doorstep or in the forest. Their legends justify this because those abandoned children often become heroes and sages. If a father kills his son he is usually within the bounds of the law because he is his creator. The old "I brought you into the world, and I can take you out." actually was the law at one point. In nature we have animals eating their offspring... a religious person takes this stance with God, they offer that God is the creator so he can basically punish you infinitely or kill you at will.

But a modern man would not call that moral, ethical, or just.

I think it's up to the woman whether or not to bear the child and what to do with it afterwards, but I don't think the father is obligated to stand by her choice. I think motherhood is a choice and I think fatherhood is a choice. It is irresponsible to be popping out babies left and right. The species is in no danger of extinction, we need to cut back a bit. Unfortunately we have a problem where the stupid and the poor are producing a lot more children then the wealthy and the wise.

[Incesticide]

Pardon the long post. I would very much appreciate if everybody reading it would first read the following article.

It is central to the argument I'm making.

maggots arent homosapiens are they? A human featus is homo sapiens isnt it

The problem with your position is that it pre-supposes that there is an existing gap between human beings and other animals that somehow makes humans "untouchable". Biology (and therefore reality) doesn't work like that.

Let's begin with a simplified version of the argument used by anti-abortionists.

"It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human fetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus."

I'm assuming that being against abortion, you agree with the above (I, obviously, do not). Now, in his book Practical Ethics, Peter Singer (a philosopher of ethics) states that, if we take the above at face value, the argument is logically valid. As I'm sure you know, in general, pro-choice people tend to attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer (and most biologists) point out that human development is a gradual process, it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins. Depending on the human characteristics that interest you, a developing foetus can be 'half human' or 'a hundredth human'. "Human" should not be taken as an absolute concept because that is discontinuous thought and biology does not work that way.

Now, I pointed out a specific sentence of yours because Singer's argument for abortion deals with that. Instead of attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is necessarily wrong to take innocent human life:

"The argument that a fetus is not alive is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."

Basically, using biological knowledge as a guide, by stating that "human life is somehow sacred" you are assuming that humans are humans and animals are animals. Yet, the fact of the matter is that there is a continuous line of interbreeding intermediates throughout evolutionary history which unfortunately happen to be extinct, making it seem as if humans and other apes (and in turn, other animals) are somehow cut off from each other.

Therefore, you are being inconsistent if you think abortion is murder but killing chimpanzees is not. You cannot have it both ways.

[Copperknickers II]

maggots arent homosapiens are they? A human featus is homo sapiens isnt it

Is it? A 2 month old foetus can't do anything that you would normally require of a human, it can't even breath. It's a parasite, no more alive than the lowest eukaryotic organism, with only the basic chemical processes of life; at the very best, an invertebrate.

I personally think that abortion is wrong, except in the case where the child would kill the mother or be born with severe mental and physical defects inherent in its genetics. It should not be a matter of mother's choice, in other words, but a qualified doctor's judgment. I also believe that killing any animal lifeform is only acceptable if there is a strong justification, for example eating it or defending yourself.

[Taiji]

Do you think a chicken's egg is a chicken?

[Makrell]

yes

[Taiji]

yes

So for you this question; "Which came first the chicken or the egg?", is meaningless?

[Makrell]

But the stupid and poor isnt the ones getting abortions, it is the "wealthy and wise" that does that

[Jack04]

I don't think you can really separate the ethical issues from the pragmatic though. I doubt anyone thinks that abortion when viewed in isolation and without context is a good thing, its just that it can be seen as practical in certain situations.

[Col. Tartleton]

But the stupid and poor isnt the ones getting abortions, it is the "wealthy and wise" that does that

Yes, their wise abortions allow them to become wealthy. Children are a massive drain of resources and tend to come before peak and the added drain and responsibilities will weigh down on the person. If people in the third world practiced more selective reproductive practices they would be better able to lift themselves out of poverty.

If you're in Africa and you've got three kids your life basically revolves around their welfare. That is noble enough, but you can't get up and come to the States or Europe, get educated, get informed, get hired, get wealthy, and then have kids. People are poor because they can't compete, they're handicapped. Not having children is an easy fix that you can go back and have later or failing that, adopt or something.

So for you this question; "Which came first the chicken or the egg?", is meaningless?

Is "Dinosaurs" an appropriate answer?

[Taiji]

Is "Dinosaurs" an appropriate answer?

It's probably a good one but I don't know really. I have to admit now that I personally find the question to be meaningless

Something to do with a need for non-euclidean geometry in category identification. The egg is not a chicken, but it has potential to become a chicken. The line between chicken and egg is a modelled line, so one that doesn't exist without a purpose requiring the model. Or something like that... So the egg is a chicken or not depending on whether we're making fried eggs or fried chicken.