Morality of abortion

[conon394]

In the UK, 98% of abortions take place when there is absolutely nothing wrong with the baby (ground C)

I believe you misunderstood the question I was trying to answer. As I read Elfdude - he was musing on what proportion of conceptions (fertilized eggs) are natural abortions. I may be wrong, but if not the answer is the current state of Medical technology says that 60% (and likely a bit higher really) of all fertilized eggs fail as pregnancies before a women even knows she is pregnant. About 10% more afterward a recognizable miss carry that is.

edit sorry on the link I'm not sure why it is failing. Fixed had to use the citation to a proper link

-----------------

Interpreting that life begins at conception is not draconian.

It is absolutist and manifestly biologically not true fertilized egg can hardly survive its trip to the womb let alone outside of it - calling fertilized egg alive (as in an alive human being) is hardly different than calling all sperm and eggs humans.

To the extent to extent you allow society to disproportionately hang the consequences of pregnancy only on the mother I would characterize it as moving toward Draconian.

How about supporting the mother's ability to raise her child. Or at least, leaving adoption open as an option.

I was asking as much since your 'feeling supported' left a lot unexplained, as does this amplification.

Rape accounts for a miniscule proportion of abortions, so making abortion legal on those rarified grounds is illogical.

One study a survey, and you propose just not a problem? In any case I wonder how many women or girls happy put down incest on a survey? or Rape - given the difficulty of reporting such crimes anyway.

That's what marriage is for.

Not really not for most of history. You dodged the question of a man''s responsibility. Would you allow universal genetic testing to insure the all men faced an equal absolute certainty for the responsibility of fooling around as women - faced with you absolute assertion about 'person hood' and fertilized eggs.

[basics]

conon394,

Psalm 51:5 clearly states this, that the nature we inherit is one of sin hence the reason that this nature must be changed if one is to enter heaven, which is the core message of the whole Bible. For that impossibility to be addressed only One who was sinless in nature could pay what the Law demanded hence why Jesus Christ is the single most important Person to ever grace our planet. Only in Him can man be saved by blood yet it takes the work of the Father and Holy Spirit to make that happen. Therefore when male sperm meets the female egg and conception takes place that fetus inherits sin from its parents.

[fkizz]

The issue I see with the abortion debate is that the interest and care for the foetus by the 'pro-life' side tends to stop at birth. After which the live child and their mother can fend for themselves, apparently. You don't want a woman to abort her pregnancy, but are you willing to provide more benefits for single mothers? Subsidized housing? Adequate maternity leave? What about accessible birth control and proper sex education? The people that tend to be staunchly against abortion also don't tend to be the people that advocate such things.

That's the best argument against the pro-lifers. The rest lifts on things such as border of life and death. There is such a thing as patients believed dead, only to come to consciousness after, even if rare.

That's why abortion is on the ethical dilema grounds of Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and Mercy Kills.

Now it's true that when the pro-life group utterly discourages support to single mothers, that does not help in the case of abortion, but rathers makes pro-choice pressure.

---

But where the interesting part begins: If there isn't life until 3 months, then any hypothetical borders-of-knowledge genetic experiment with chimeras (human-animal hybrid let's say) would be 100% ethical correct, as long as fetus discarded before 3 months.

And if someone intentionally causes a miscarriage to a pregnant woman, who willingly wants the baby, should that person be considered innocent and free to go, because he didn't actually finish off a life, because we weren't still at the 3 months?

[Bethrezen]

Raise a child, even a perfectly healthy one, and then come and comment on this thread.

Most of you don't have the slightest idea what's it like to raise a child, let a lone a child born with a handicap.

[Common Soldier]

Unborn babies aren't human? Life is a continuous process, of which the zygote and fetus are like any other.

The definition of what is and is not a human life is! not something any person has a right to decide on their own. Only society h!as that right. While a fertilized egg has the potential to become a person, can you really say it is a person? your argument is logical, but it just doesn't seem right that destroying a fertilized egg that hasn't even divided for the first time is the same thing as killing a healthy, one year old. !There seems to be a difference to me, even if i can't explain it in a logically connsistent way.



If women feel pressured to get a legal abortion, that's a result of our failure as a society to make pregnant women feel suported. I don't feel that a career or an education is more important than preserving a life.

If that girl was messing around with her boyfriend or whatever, assuming she had sex education in school, she knew exactly what she was doing.

So if one country make abortion legal, everyone should? Also, I don't understand why the baby should have to pay for the mother's mistake with their life.

I disagree, that a young frighten teenager who thinks her life is ruined knows what she is doing. Teenagets full of raging hormones are not known for making good decissions. Sure, abortion may be wrong, but I don't want some young 14 year old to pay with her life because she made a mistake. That kind of thing did happen when abortion!s were illegal. In that case two young lives were lost, I would rather loose just one, the lesser of 2 evils.

I just wanted to point out that even if you could somehow !make abortions illegal in this coubtry, you wouldn't stop the majority of wommen who wanted one from having one, since most women would have the means of going to a country where it legal. Only the poor and young would be stopped

[Common Soldier]

That's the best argument against the pro-lifers. The rest lifts on things such as border of life and death. There is such a thing as patients believed dead, only to come to consciousness after, even if rare.

That's why abortion is on the ethical dilema grounds of Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and Mercy Kills.

Now it's true that when the pro-life group utterly discourages support to single mothers, that does not help in the case of abortion, but rathers makes pro-choice pressure. 

That is an untrue charge, many pro lifers also support single mothers. The Catholic church actively suuports social causes, and the poor, including unwed mothers. In addition, the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty as well. Catholic Church always supported homes for unwed mothers, so the claim that that they don't care after the baby is born is a lie for many, most pro -lifers.

It is the pro choice people who are the ones inconsistent. They only approve of choice for those thingw they morally approve of, like abortion or homosexuality. For those things they morally disapprove of, like prostition, the deny choice, and just as willing to impose their morality on others as anybody else!

[Aexodus]

I disagree, that a young frighten teenager who thinks her life is ruined knows what she is doing. Teenagets full of raging hormones are not known for making good decissions. Sure, abortion may be wrong, but I don't want some young 14 year old to pay with her life because she made a mistake. That kind of thing did happen when abortion!s were illegal. In that case two young lives were lost, I would rather loose just one, the lesser of 2 evils.

While I don't think getting pregnant is somehow inevitable, I wholeheartedly agree (and I think this is what you're saying) that if the mother is in mortal danger, then abortion is justified.

[Elfdude]

They're clearly saying that someone who makes a stupid mistake shouldn't be liable to a child. Now if birth control was freely available and accessible and understandable by all I may be more fungible on this point but I'm keenly aware of the problems caused in eastern europe by making abortions both illegal and nearly impossible to come by, you not only had a huge number of people who dramatically harmed themselves in backalley abortions, you also had a huge upsurge in unattended orphans which spawned the organized crime which now pulls the strings on human trafficking of children across the world. Creating a plurality of helpless humans who no one is willing to take care of is a terrible idea. We struggle to ensure children in the US have food and health insurance, much less a loving home which isn't going to turn them into monstrous adults. We refuse to pay for the basic needs of those around us. I am unconvinced that we would do any better to those children we forced into the world.

[Prodromos]

First, I think as a man I honestly do not know how pregnancy feels what consequence there are and I'll never give birth to anybody. So basically find it's bigot if men judge over abortion because our part in this just ends in the creating of human life with giving the semen.

The pro-life movement views women as victims rather than criminals (except for some blowhard politicos), so I don't think "bigotry" toward or judging women is necessarily part of being pro-life. The concern is largely over saving lives rather than punishing women. Remember that women are more likely to oppose abortion than men are. For instance:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ed-to-abortion

We’re not talking about small differences here or individual polls here though – we have multiple polls from multiple different polling companies, commissioned by a range of different interests over a decade. Sure there’s some noise and some variation over time, but a big difference remains no matter what. It looks pretty settled to me.

So around 24 to 35% of men want to put more restrictions on abortion, against 43 to 59% of women – a consistent gap of around 20 percentage points. That raises some pretty big implications, the most obvious being that if it were left to women to vote on the issue, with men out of the picture, there’s a good chance that the result would be in favour of restricting abortion. On the flip side, if only men voted, they’d almost certainly vote in favour of women’s reproductive rights.

Why should this be? The polls tell us very little – the people who commissioned them seem more interested in which policies people support than in why they support them. The only real clue is in the University of Lancaster’s finding that more women believe life begins at conception. It makes sense that if you believe that, you’re going to think twice about termination, but it still doesn't explain why more women think that in the first place.

Husband-and-wife economists George Akerlof and Janet Yellen touched on the problem in a famous (and controversial) 1996 paper on the impacts of new "reproductive technology" in the late 20th century. In it, they suggested that the availability of abortion changed men's attitudes to unplanned parenthood, as neatly expressed by an unnamed "internet contributor": "Since the decision to have the child is solely up to the mother, I don't see how both parents have responsibility to that child."

Where prior to the 1960s men would have felt culturally bound to "do the right thing" by sexual partners who became pregnant, medicine now provided them with a convenient get-out clause. It is therefore not that surprising that they'd resist any changes that would threaten that.

Abortion is, in fact, the epitome of misogyny and the objectification of women!

Apart from that there is only one institution where our current abortion laws based on, the Catholic Church, which by the way basically banned abortion due to a translation error in the Septuaginta and on the idea that more subjects of the state are bringing more wealth, so basic population politics. In addition they initially thought that the unborn was only then human life when the soul entered its body, somewhere in the middle of the pregnancy.

Do you mean only in your region, or everywhere? As far as I'm aware, all orthodox Christianity is opposed to abortion, not only Roman Catholicism. Abortion is explicitly denounced in the Didache (the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), considered one of the earliest Christian writings, from approximately the first century, so Christian opposition to abortion is not really a later invention by politically-motivated clergy.

https://carm.org/didache

CHAPTER 1

1:1 There are two paths, one of life and one of death, and the difference is great between the two paths.

1:2 Now the path of life is this -- first, thou shalt love the God who made thee, thy neighbour as thyself, and all things that thou wouldest not should be done unto thee, do not thou unto another.

1:3 And the doctrine of these maxims is as follows. Bless them that curse you, and pray for your enemies. Fast on behalf of those that persecute you; for what thank is there if ye love them that love you? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? But do ye love them that hate you, and ye will not have an enemy.

1:4 Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. If any one give thee a blow on thy right cheek, turn unto him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect; if any one compel thee to go a mile, go with him two; if a man take away thy cloak, give him thy coat also; if a man take from thee what is thine, ask not for it again, for neither art thou able to do so.

1:5 Give to every one that asketh of thee, and ask not again; for the Father wishes that from his own gifts there should be given to all. Blessed is he who giveth according to the commandment, for he is free from guilt; but woe unto him that receiveth. For if a man receive being in need, he shall be free from guilt; but he who receiveth when not in need, shall pay a penalty as to why he received and for what purpose; and when he is in tribulation he shall be examined concerning the things that he has done, and shall not depart thence until he has paid the last farthing.

1:6 For of a truth it has been said on these matters, let thy almsgiving abide in thy hands until thou knowest to whom thou hast given.

CHAPTER 2

2:1 But the second commandment of the teaching is this.

2:2 Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not corrupt youth; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use soothsaying; thou shalt not practise sorcery; thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born; thou shalt not covet the goods of thy neighbour;

2:3 thou shalt not commit perjury; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not speak evil; thou shalt not bear malice;

2:4 thou shalt not be double-minded or double-tongued, for to be double tongued is the snare of death.

2:5 Thy speech shall not be false or empty, but concerned with action.

2:6 Thou shalt not be covetous, or rapacious, or hypocritical, or malicious, or proud; thou shalt not take up an evil design against thy neighbour;

2:7 thou shalt not hate any man, but some thou shalt confute, concerning some thou shalt pray, and some thou shalt love beyond thine own soul.

In ancient times many people were opposed to killing unborn humans, but might have lacked the knowledge as to when life or humanity began. However, today, we're technologically advanced enough to be able to answer these questions.

All that is namby pamby personal . Society needs free abortion on demand determined by the mother solely. The correlation between abortion on demand and a drop in crime rates seems unarguable to me. If you like increased crime and a ed up society, ban abortion.

I don't know what the relationship is, maybe women who don't want their babies are more likely to raise a criminal? Probably women who want an abortion want it because they were raped or are poor or cannot care for a child well for other reasons.

Societies need abortion to decrease crime. The foetuses who are heartlessly killed are killed for the good of the society.

(I think) you are being a little facetious, but this is a common argument, although it doesn't hold up to scrutiny when you think about it. There's an even bigger correlation between the black proportion of the population and the crime rate. From a utilitarian perspective, would it be justified to place all young black males on 24/7 surveillance? What's a few thousand black guys' privacy worth compared to preventing thousands of murders, robberies, etc.?

From a moral perspective, a good end doesn't justify evil means. I think that's known as cutting off your nose to spite your face. When it comes to minimizing evil, the best policy is to "first do no harm/evil." Utilitarianism has a veneer of morality but in reality it perpetuates the evil it combats. It is the "kill 'em all. God will sort them out" type of morality system. It has no understanding of the infinite worth of each individual. It's pretty pleb-tier.

[conon394]

The pro-life movement views women as victims rather than criminals (except for some blowhard politicos), so I don't think "bigotry" toward or judging women is necessarily part of being pro-life. The concern is largely over saving lives rather than punishing women. Remember that women are more likely to oppose abortion than men are. For instance:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ed-to-abortion

In England you mean... No Gender gap in the US of comparable note.

US data for comparison:

PEW research circa 2017
http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/p...n-on-abortion/

Abortion Legal In All or Most Cases/Illegal in All/Most Cases
Female 59%/38%
Male 55%/42%

The Marist Poll/Knights of Columbus

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/do...y_2017_(2).pdf

Abortion Legal (3 questions legal all term to only first 3 months)/Illegal with limited exceptions/Always illegal'
Female 47%/41%/11%
Male 49%/41%/11%

WAPO/ABC (2013)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/...EeKB-o6Ds4ZMNg

Abortion Legal In All or Most Cases/Illegal in All/Most Cases
Female 55%/41%
Male 56%/42%

Also (older 2012 note)

https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/...amesh-ponnuru/

In ancient times many people were opposed to killing unborn humans, but might have lacked the knowledge as to when life or humanity began. However, today, we're technologically advanced enough to be able to answer these questions.

Can you refine this I quite unaware that any polling data from the Athenian Arche life style poll of 367 BC (law of Chardominus) had survived or Han Imperial survey of households Wu Mang "Food, Money, Sex and the Family". 'Unborn Humans"? You might get traction out of Phillospher or Thelogian but I rather sure the aver person would be a bit boggled by that.

so Christian opposition to abortion is not really a later invention by politically-motivated clergy

Early does not exclude motivation when say one consider the 'political' infighting between early Christians and Gnostics and Manichaeism, other Mystery religions, Pagans, Jews at the time of the earliest writing of the accepted Christian faith (or close enough)

[fkizz]

That is an untrue charge, many pro lifers also support single mothers. The Catholic church actively suuports social causes, and the poor, including unwed mothers. In addition, the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty as well. Catholic Church always supported homes for unwed mothers, so the claim that that they don't care after the baby is born is a lie for many, most pro -lifers.

Fair enough, but human being doesn't live only on material support, the amount of social shaming is something that women are very sensitive to, and the Catholic Church even if supportive of single mothers, does not have the power to remove the stigma of such cases.

It is the pro choice people who are the ones inconsistent. They only approve of choice for those thingw they morally approve of, like abortion or homosexuality. For those things they morally disapprove of, like prostition, the deny choice, and just as willing to impose their morality on others as anybody else!

Yep I agree with you 100%, which is why I brought up that 1) abortion decreases the number of females worldwide to increase amount of males (which gives males a power advantage in number game) and

2) in the possibility of screening a gay gene on a fetus, speaking of a hipothetical more genetic engineered advanced future, you could end up with an epidemic of discarded gay-gene fetus, possibly resulting in an ironic #stopabortions movement from the LGTB, for the continued use of such practice could imply the eradication of their group from the roots.

[Aexodus]

I am against genetic engineering to get rid of a perceived ‘untermensch’, I don’t see how that’s justified.

[fkizz]

I am against genetic engineering to get rid of a perceived ‘untermensch’, I don’t see how that’s justified.

Of course, that is the correct position, I was pointing out how the liberals are defending something that has an Eugenic taste to it, and that in longterm ironically works in favour to empower what they deem as "bigoted" and "reactionary".

Natural Law is a heck of an ironic mistress when it bites back.

[Cyclops]

Why should women be able to just have abortion on demand, whenever they want, when the otherwise perfectly healthy baby poses no risk to the mother's health.

Asked and answered. It helps keep the peace.

Does a foetus not represent a life? If not, why.

A foetus is alive, albeit for most of its development as a parasite. I've already addressed this point, you seem to be frothing.

Are you really saying men should have no contribution whatsoever to whether their offspring lives or dies.

What is this off topic drivel? In an ideal world every child and every mother would have a multitude of loving wealthy carers. In the real world we face real problems, not naive namby pamby rhetorical nonsense.

A trace? It's 50/50. Before fertilisation, an egg is just an egg. A sperm is just a sperm. After fertilisation, there is a permanent chemical change, at which point that zygote represents everything needed to create an individual, with a complete human DNA, is in a permanent state of growth, and as such is human from that point onwards.

Cool so you think DNA is sacred but not the rest? So if we abort the zygote but somehow retain the DNA in suspension you'd be satisfied? Your nonsensical quibbling breaks down under any kind of reasonable analysis. I do not think you're concerned with DNA, I think you're concerned with imposing some religious prohibition on a society that does not need more crime.

The DNA is not 50/50 in any sense. The Y chromosome is smaller than the X, and the sperm is smaller than the egg. If you're attempting some half arsed analogy "the fertilised gamete is 50/50 therefore the woman should have no say" its a flop mate.

Im sorry? Mother's should kill their unborn babies just because they don't want to be mother's?

Yes. Its a hard cold world. Mothers who don't want children should not be forced to.

Men are always expected to be fathers. The family unit is the very basis of society.

More motherhood statements. In an ideal world the father would love and cherish the mother and child. Meanwhile in the real world...

Should we murder unborn humans if they happen to not have a father in the household?

No. Another weak rhetorical bit of nonsense.

Perhaps it is that same past bloodshed that make sure us actually value life more than you.

You're contending northern Ireland's history of religious bigotry makes it a suitable moral arbiter?

Its not, you're completely disregarding the fact that it is the father's child just as much as the mother's.

Once again, this is an idealistic fantasy. In the real world the mother is the primary caregiver in the vast majority of cases. The child doesn;t really belong to anyone, a sit is a human and we don't condone slavery. Choices about the child's life should be made by the parents ideally, but in reality its the mother who makes most of the day to day choices. In the absence of infinite resourcing and perfect knowledge allowing a mother the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the most pragmatic and effective approach to abortion.

But it isn't 'the rule' per se that it is always 'the mother's'. A child is a mutual and equal offspring of two people in a relationship.

In an ideal world, yes. In the real world, often not.

How exactly, is the termination of a healthy foetus justified?

Asked and answered, but for the sake of the learning opportunity, it is because it helps keep the peace.

It's not the mother's choice to make. She made that choice to have a child when she made the decision to get pregnant.

So the father's choices must be respected but the mother gets no choice? You're idealism is slipping.

Are seriously suggesting our abortion laws are the root of societal problems in Northern Ireland???

No but hey are a symptom. The action of external political players such as the Dutch, the Scots, the English and the knavish papacy have cursed all Ireland with a violent and backward society that has taken many many centuries to pacify.

It wouldn't help if you didn't ad hominem every single pro-life advocate as 'backwards' 'bigoted' or 'uncivilised'.

Its not a criticism of you to say your ideas are primitive and ignorant, its a criticism of your ideas. i think you raise Norther ireland as a place that ;'saved' thousands, so its fair to point out its hardly a paradise in any case.

Last I checked the rest of the British Isles is having its own problems with newfound Islamic terror attacks, and the displacement of the working classes.

Yes the British Isles suffers from past successes which have produced powerful institutions and groups that cling to power and often adhere to savage and criminally primitive ethoi.

...

Should people not have to live with the consequences of their actions? Such as, unprotected sex they know full well could very likely get them pregnant.

If she can present a broken condom would you allow abortion then?

People are mostly idiots. I know I am, I've done some shockingly stupid things. Abortion allows a woman to undo a stupid action. The consequences of forcing women to have an unwanted child are severe and include a increased likelyhood of criminal activity.

(I think) you are being a little facetious, but this is a common argument, although it doesn't hold up to scrutiny when you think about it. There's an even bigger correlation between the black proportion of the population and the crime rate. From a utilitarian perspective, would it be justified to place all young black males on 24/7 surveillance? What's a few thousand black guys' privacy worth compared to preventing thousands of murders, robberies, etc.?

There are not the resources to monitor all young black men 24/7, so your suggestion is more than a little facaetious.

That said, in Australia and the US black men are usually subject to more attention from police, as they are over-represented in crimes. Some of this is likely due to embedded racism, but its also likely that its a pragmatic decision to focus resources at "likely" offenders.

From a moral perspective, a good end doesn't justify evil means. I think that's known as cutting off your nose to spite your face. When it comes to minimizing evil, the best policy is to "first do no harm/evil." Utilitarianism has a veneer of morality but in reality it perpetuates the evil it combats. It is the "kill 'em all. God will sort them out" type of morality system. It has no understanding of the infinite worth of each individual. It's pretty pleb-tier.

You prefer ivory tower perfection that increases the crime rate? Good for you, that's a lovely unrealistic attitude. Meanwhile if a purse is stolen from a pensioner the police are unlikely to focus their attention on other pensioners, they will likely question young unemployed men. I am sure you can offer some limp argument about morality and fairness but there are real world issues in play.

[conon394]

which is why I brought up that 1) abortion decreases the number of females worldwide to increase amount of males (which gives males a power advantage in number game)

Where and elaborate. IN France say Access to legal abortion has not impacted the sex ratio at birth visibly as far as I can see in the data.

2) in the possibility of screening a gay gene on a fetus, speaking of a hipothetical more genetic engineered advanced future, you could end up with an epidemic of discarded gay-gene fetus, possibly resulting in an ironic #stopabortions movement from the LGTB, for the continued use of such practice could imply the eradication of their group from the roots.

Well if all any researchers have such a simplistic view of genetics such as to seek to engineer a single gene to end a complex state such as being or not being gay - you don't need to worry about this one.

Natural Law is a heck of an ironic mistress when it bites back.

Lost - Natural law biting back where ???

Of course, that is the correct position, I was pointing out how the liberals are defending something that has an Eugenic taste to it, and that in longterm ironically works in favour to empower what they deem as "bigoted" and "reactionary".

I am not sure how a forced simplistic example => Eugenics

[Aexodus]

A foetus is alive, albeit for most of its development as a parasite. I've already addressed this point, you seem to be frothing.

I find it callous in the extreme that you would consider a foetus a ‘parasite’ to be got rid of.

What is this off topic drivel? In an ideal world every child and every mother would have a multitude of loving wealthy carers. In the real world we face real problems, not naive namby pamby rhetorical nonsense.

Then perhaps we try to solve the problem of modern dysfunctional families first, and not the symptom of single mothers by simply killing babies.

I’m saying that I believe the ‘my body’s my choice’ argument to be drivel. It’s not the mother’s sole choice on what happens to the child in anything. If it were, then men would have no business being fathers.

Second of all, it’s not their body. It’s a separate being.

Cool so you think DNA is sacred but not the rest? So if we abort the zygote but somehow retain the DNA in suspension you'd be satisfied? Your nonsensical quibbling breaks down under any kind of reasonable analysis. I do not think you're concerned with DNA, I think you're concerned with imposing some religious prohibition on a society that does not need more crime.

Not my point. My point is that a zygote is a separate organism, this is characterised by its own unique set of DNA.

I have used precisley 0 religious rhetoric in this thread.

The DNA is not 50/50 in any sense. The Y chromosome is smaller than the X, and the sperm is smaller than the egg. If you're attempting some half arsed analogy "the fertilised gamete is 50/50 therefore the woman should have no say" its a flop mate.

23 chromosomes from the father and 23 chromosomes from the mother. The proportion of genes is equal between both parents. I hope you’re not seriously saying that the size of a sex cell determines the ratio of genes between parents in a baby, because your genes: your dna are literally what make a person, a person

Yes. Its a hard cold world. Mothers who don't want children should not be forced to.

I agree. That’s why women are free to get contraception, and choose their sexual partners.

If you want to abuse abortion as some kind of sick method of contraception, sorry but that’s really, really not okay with me.

Its a cold hard world, and we’re making it worse by legalising abortion, as the premise that human life is precious goes out the window.

Once again, this is an idealistic fantasy. In the real world the mother is the primary caregiver in the vast majority of cases. The child doesn;t really belong to anyone, a sit is a human and we don't condone slavery. Choices about the child's life should be made by the parents ideally, but in reality its the mother who makes most of the day to day choices. In the absence of infinite resourcing and perfect knowledge allowing a mother the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the most pragmatic and effective approach to abortion.

If the child belongs to no-one, then is it not a separate being? Not the property of the mother? Therefore, killing it is a violations of its human rights, is it not?

Being pro-choice isn’t a violation of the most basic human right-the right to life. A baby, born or unborn is a human with all the same natural rights as an adult human.

In an ideal world, yes. In the real world, often not.

What qualifies another human being as solely the mother’s property, or indeed, as ‘property’ at all. It’s a human individual with the right to life.

There’s no need for an aloof tone (‘the real world’)

Asked and answered, but for the sake of the learning opportunity, it is because it helps keep the peace.

Euthanising black people would also statistically decrease crime rates. If you are cognitively consistent, you would support this equally barbaric practice, that would be also ‘for the greater good’. Do black people not have the same human rights as all humans?

So the father's choices must be respected but the mother gets no choice? Yo
u're idealism is slipping.

In the event that abortion is legalised, in a situation where you have a man and a woman raising a child, which is the vast vast majority of cases, both parents should get equal say over where the baby lives or dies, as they have equal personal interest in its development and survival.

However, that is a purely hypothetical argument. I should make it crystal clear that I am against abortion on demand in the principle, as a baby is an individual with rights, not a parasite, not a piece of property or a body part for the mother’s to do with as she likes.

No but hey are a symptom. The action of external political players such as the Dutch, the Scots, the English and the knavish papacy have cursed all Ireland with a violent and backward society that has taken many many centuries to pacify.

It is not ‘backward’ to uphold human rights.

Its not a criticism of you to say your ideas are primitive and ignorant, its a criticism of your ideas. i think you raise Norther ireland as a place that ;'saved' thousands, so its fair to point out its hardly a paradise in any case.

But it’s not constructive. You can tell me why it’s primitive, why it’s wrong, rather than leaving me to take that at face value.

Yes the British Isles suffers from past successes which have produced powerful institutions and groups that cling to power and often adhere to savage and criminally primitive ethoi.

I would argue that dismembering babies in the womb is savagery.

If she can present a broken condom would you allow abortion then?

No, because she knew condoms weren’t 100% guaranteed to work.

If someone makes the decision to have sex, there are logical consequences to that.

People are mostly idiots. I know I am, I've done some shockingly stupid things. Abortion allows a woman to undo a stupid action. The consequences of forcing women to have an unwanted child are severe and include a increased likelyhood of criminal activity.

But why does that supersede the right of a human being that has not yet done anything wrong, to live?

What you are advocating for is mass euthanasia, because that particular demographic apparently has a higher propensity to crime.

We deal with crime by due process, as not all of those children will become criminals. If you viewed these children as individuals, and not crime statistics, you might see that.

There are not the resources to monitor all young black men 24/7, so your suggestion is more than a little facaetious.

He was using essentially the same logic as you. You think that mass murder of babies is justified because it will reduce the crime rate.

Would mass surveillance, or mass genocide of adult black males, who have the sameness rights as a unborn human, be justified too? It’s the same logic.

That said, in Australia and the US black men are usually subject to more attention from police, as they are over-represented in crimes. Some of this is likely due to embedded racism, but its also likely that its a pragmatic decision to focus resources at "likely" offenders.

Yes but we’re not euthanising them all without consent for being black are we?

You prefer ivory tower perfection that increases the crime rate? Good for you, that's a lovely unrealistic attitude. Meanwhile if a purse is stolen from a pensioner the police are unlikely to focus their attention on other pensioners, they will likely question young unemployed men. I am sure you can offer some limp argument about morality and fairness but there are real world issues in play.

Better there are more thieves than more dead babies.

Again, why does a supposed lower crime rate justify murdering babies.

We have laws against murder and theft. Having a kind of superior ‘real world ain’t like that’ attitude won’t convince anyone.



One final point. You’re wrong to say that abortion decreases crime rate. This has been disproved, particularly when measured in England, there was found to be no affect. And even if there is, the validity is questionable, and I am not willing to justify mass euthanasia on ropey statistics.

If the hypothesis that abortion reduces crime rate is not 100% accurate, it is an invalid justification, given that the nature of what we are talking about is the taking of a life.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega...d_crime_effect

A 2008 study co-authored by Leo Kahane of

California State University found no evidence that abortion legalization reduced crime in England and Wales. The same study initially replicated Donohue and Levitt's finding of a negative association between abortion and crime rates, but that this association "breaks down under the scrutiny of robustness checks."

[conon394]

23 chromosomes from the father and 23 chromosomes from the mother. The proportion of genes is equal between both parents. I hope you’re not seriously saying that the size of a sex cell determines the ratio of genes between parents in a baby, because your genes: your dna are literally what make a person, a person

I believe the humor was that the sperm cell is comparatively short of genes in a absolute sense compared to the double X egg.

-----------------

Not my point. My point is that a zygote is a separate organism, this is characterised by its own unique set of DNA.

A non viable one however and one that the overwhelming majority of its host's immune system would judge a parasite. Saying that is a loaded statement, but your feeling aside it is apt. The journey out of the Fallopian tube is almost always a failure, the mother's immune system is generally suppressed to some extent with a complex localized alteration of immune response in just the uterus is required to accept the zygote. A glib turn of phrase but not callous.

[Aexodus]

A non viable one however and one that the overwhelming majority of its host's immune system would judge a parasite. Saying that is a loaded statement, but your feeling aside it is apt. The journey out of the Fallopian tube is almost always a failure, the mother's immune system is generally suppressed to some extent with a complex localized alteration of immune response in just the uterus is required to accept the zygote. A glib turn of phrase but not callous.

It is a living human with full human rights.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/a...yoquotes2.html

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei(the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

[conon394]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei(the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

Notice the words beginning of, and development. One could just as easily say the same of a lump of clay on a potting wheel it is the primordium of a fine ceramic pot, but it is not a pot.

"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."

I'm not sure this one helps your argument

OT but #'s 3, 4 and 5 are amusing in their casual sexism "In Man" and the what isolated uterus that is where? Honestly taken togather if I was an ET taking my know Earth before travel test I think I would conclude the Uterus was in men.

In any case I don't disagree a Zygote is from a purely DNA point of view a distinct organism, however it remains not viable, unable to survive as anything other than a effectively a parasite to one signaler human host (and even then the majority of fertilized eggs never even get that opportunity). It is a step toward a human being but to it certainly is not yet one.

Let me just than ask for clarification - your opposition than is one purely based on the availability/apparatus modern science (and picking arbitrary the point where a fertilized egg become a distinct by DNA from either the egg or the sperm) and a modern concept of Human rights appended to said arbitrary decision point.

edit for clarity I did not see I started another bit of typing in the middle

[Aexodus]

My position is that unborn children should have the same legal protection as the mother.