Abortion is morally WRONG

reply to post by Monts


See that's the difference between you and I, you think you are special compared to animals. Humans ARE animals.

A fetus doesn't have the same traits as you and i, it doesn't have connections, relationships.

It's a collection of cells, but Christians don't get all up in arms when its a wart or absess that is being removed.

Anyway, i thought Christians understood the value of sacrifice for the greater good. =P

Originally posted by OhZone
****A fetus is NOT a child. The already born woman has the right to pursue LIFE, LIBERTY and HAPPINESS in AMERICA and the Right to Not be Used as an incubator by another entity.

So when does the fetus become a child?

At the moment of birth?

If that is the case, then only a few seconds separate that human being from being able to be killed without any problem or punishment, or to be killed with the possible punishment of death depending where you live.
There is something wrong with that statement IMO...

And it makes more sense to me that "the Right to Not be Used as an incubator by another entity" should relate to the consent given upon opening up one's body to sex.

It doesn't matter whether you are an atheist or a die-hard christian, nature built sex to be for pro-creation. It feels good and people want to do it all the time for a reason- it was designed that way in order to produce as many offspring as possible for the species.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Monts

 

See that's the difference between you and I, you think you are special compared to animals. Humans ARE animals.

A fetus doesn't have the same traits as you and i, it doesn't have connections, relationships.

It's a collection of cells, but Christians don't get all up in arms when its a wart or absess that is being removed.

Anyway, i thought Christians understood the value of sacrifice for the greater good. =P

So you don't think that you are special compared to animals?

You think that a child of 4 years old, who has the mental capacity of a pig, should be given the same rights as a pig and the pig the same as a 4 year old child?

You think that our rights should be the same as the rights of a blade of grass?

You can't apply human ethics to nature, as it is an impossible endeavour.

What gives the wolf the right to kill and eat the rabbit? What did the rabbit ever do to the wolf? Make itself look appetizing?

A fetus may be a connection of cells, but that connection of cells has a future you could never, ever, ever predict. It doesn't matter if that connection of cells is going to be raised in an environment of abuse or neglect, because you can never say with certainty that it won't end up causing more good than harm, if you are into utilitarianism.

By destroying that collection of cells, you are destroying someone's future... and if you say its a gamble that is worthwhile to take, then you might as well say that killing a 10 year old bully is more ethical, as you can calculate the probability of that boy ending up causing a lot of serious problems is a lot better than a connection of cells.

And just because someone is pro-life does not make them a Christian.

I know an atheist who are more pro-life than my Grandfather who spent 3 years at the seminary

reply to post by Monts

First of all, whatever you want to call a fetus does not matter, because it is a human being.

Human being begins in about 4-5th month of pregnancy at earliest, when neural connections in cortex begin to develop. Foetus before this time is not a being. It is human life, but life itself is not protected, only sentient beings are.

reply to post by Maslo


Sentient beings are protected.

This means that is wrong for someone to end their life.

Why? Because by ending that person's life, you are denying them a future that they would of had, and have no buisness in doing so.

That pack of cells, or un-sentient being, whatever you want to call it, has just as much of a human beings' future ahead of itself as anyone else. Probably a bigger future than you or me.

reply to post by Monts


So you would choose NOT to abort a baby that you know will have an awful life - I this is what separates you and I, reason over superstition and the obedience to religion and it's totalitarian nature.

reply to post by Monts


Than why anticonception is all right? By using it you are denying a future to potential sentient beings that they would of had if you didnt use it. The sperm and eggs have just as much of a human beings' future ahead of itself as anyone else, if anticonception wont be used.

If potential of a given system to become conscious human being in the future (but is not at the moment) is enough to earn protected status, then why not protect the sperm+unfertilized egg system? Why arbitrarily waiting to conception?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Monts

 

So you would choose NOT to abort a baby that you know will have an awful life - I this is what separates you and I, reason over superstition and the obedience to religion and it's totalitarian nature.

So what if you found out about the birth of a baby that was going to have an awful life?
Would you be justified in marching in to it's family's house and killing it?

How can you even know that an unborn is going to have an awful life?
Can you see 5, 10, 20, 40 years into its future?

Besides, you can't even make a that kind of calculation of having an "awful life" without resorting to chance and probability. Would you end your own life based on a chance that the rest of it is going to be "awful"?

I assume that by claiming a child will have an "awful" life in the first place, you are assuming it is going to be born into an environment which will involve abuse, neglect, and any form of harm.

Even if you could prove with 100% certainty that a person will have that kind of "awful" life, how is it that the person should have to pay with their life because of a circumstance that is totally out of their control?

Shouldn't people be worried about fixing those kinds of "awful" lives and environments instead of just killing babies that will probably experience them?

Apparently not, as it seems that most people still see the consequence as the problem instead of the cause.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Monts

 

Than why anticonception is all right? By using it you are denying a future to potential sentient beings that they would of had if you didnt use it. The sperm and eggs have just as much of a human beings' future ahead of itself as anyone else, if anticonception wont be used.

If potential of a given system to become conscious human being in the future (but is not at the moment) is enough to earn protected status, then why not protect the sperm+unfertilized egg system? Why arbitrarily waiting to conception?

Because until conception occurs, there is no human being. A sperm and egg are as much of a human being as a red blood cell. When they unite, each reproductive cell has 23 chromosomes, but when united, they have the 46 chromosomes that make a human.

You could say that using anti-conception is wrong because it prevents that future, but then so does any kind of action committed by a person that lowers their chance of conception, whether it be drugs, foods, breathing chemicals, or whatever else lowers fertility.

Your argument involves a system with the chance to become a human being. But abortion isn't about ending a system involved in chance, it is about ending the consequence that is no longer up to chance. As soon as conception occurs, you without doubt have a 100% chance that a human being is going to be born.

You can lower the chance of a human being conceived, but as long as there is intercourse, than there is no amount of anti-conception that can absolutely guarantee that a human being won't be formed, as long as both reproductive systems are in check. Therefore, if any women does not want to be tied to the life of a human being, as nature intended it, then they shouldn't be opening themselves to the risk in the first place.

Sex was intended for pro-creation. That's why people enjoy doing it, because if they didn't enjoy it and didn't want to have sex all the time, then there would be no human species.

reply to post by Monts

So what if you found out about the birth of a baby that was going to have an awful life?
Would you be justified in marching in to it's family's house and killing it?

What a hilarious question: People who support abortion don't march into family's houses and demand they have access to the mother's uterus. Well i don't anyway xD

It's about the decision of the mother, the family, the circumstance, doing the "right" thing. Besides, people who support abortion generally support contraceptive methods too.

People who support abortion don't just want to abort babies just for the sake of killing babies, y'know?

Are you a troll btw Monts? I'm 99% convinced you are.

reply to post by Monts


Who says humans are meant to reproduce birth is naturally painful and by your logic birth should feel good, only a small portion of women enjoy birth. Also there are many naturally occurring substances which can cause abortions and have a less threading affect on the mother. Continuing with your logic, humans are meant to conceive not birth.

reply to post by Xiamara


Good point. Again, it's up to the mother, and although she may quarrel with the father, it is up to her, it's her body, and the father's fault xD

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Monts

 

What a hilarious question: People who support abortion don't march into family's houses and demand i have access to the mother's uterus. Well i don't anyway xD

It's about the decision of the mother, the family, the circumstance, doing the "right" thing. Besides, people who support abortion generally support conceptive methods too.

People who support abortion don't just want to abort babies just for the sake of killing babies, y'know?

So wouldn't the "right" thing to do be give the baby up for adoption than to just kill it?
I understand the reasons why people support abortion, but the vast majority of those reasons have solutions that don't involve ending a human life.

Again, like my OP stated, abortion is the "easy-way-out". Out of mind, out of sight. Sometimes I wonder if abortion would be allowed if people had vision that could see through the skin and flesh directly at the unborn child.

My original example wasn't meant to be about a fetus, it was to be about a child that had already been born.
If it was born into circumstances that originally seemed fair, and then within a few months evolved into circumstances that seemed "awful", as you would describe it, would the family have the right to kill the birthed child because it is the "right" thing considering the circumstances?

Originally posted by Xiamara
reply to post by Monts

 

Who says humans are meant to reproduce birth is naturally painful and by your logic birth should feel good, only a small portion of women enjoy birth. Also there are many naturally occurring substances which can cause abortions and have a less threading affect on the mother. Continuing with your logic, humans are meant to conceive not birth.

When did I say birth wasn't painful?
Who says that humans are meant to reproduce??? Well if we weren't meant to reproduce, then there wouldn't any humans around to ask that question.

How does my logic imply that birth should feel good? I was talking about sex, not birth. Birth is a consequence of sex, so the two are related, and by agreeing to sex, you are agreeing to the chance of giving to birth a baby.

If its ok to kill someone because they are going to cause you a lot of pain you don't want, then wouldn't it be OK to kill anyone who is using you and causes you pain?
Since when is it the fetus' fault that it causes pain?

reply to post by Monts

Because until conception occurs, there is no human being.

Until 4-5th month at the earliest, there is no human being.

Your argument involves a system with the chance to become a human being. But abortion isn't about ending a system involved in chance, it is about ending the consequence that is no longer up to chance. As soon as conception occurs, you without doubt have a 100% chance that a human being is going to be born.

When conception occurs, the chance is not 100 %, there are plenty of spontaneous abortions. In older women, up to three quarters of conceptions ends with miscarriage.

What difference does it make if the chance is higher or lower? Chance to become a human being in the future is not enough for protection, and so it is irrelevant how high this chance is.

It is simple. Sentient beings are protected. Systems that have potential to develop into one are not sentient beings yet, and so need not be protected yet.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Are you a troll btw Monts? I'm 99% convinced you are.

What makes you think I am a troll?

The fact that I have taken up a position to defend, and am trying to defend it?
Isn't verbal abuse, mud-slinging, instigation, and dust-kicking the traits of a troll?
Have I resorted to any kind of name-calling or verbal abuse of any kind?

Those kind of traits seem most similar when compared with the way you talk about Christians...

reply to post by Monts

If it was born into circumstances that originally seemed fair, and then within a few months evolved into circumstances that seemed "awful", as you would describe it, would the family have the right to kill the birthed child because it is the "right" thing considering the circumstances?

Killing already sentient being is never right. Killing unsentient life (eggs, sperm, embryo, fetus till 5th month of pregnancy - thats where sentience develops) is the same as killing any other nonsentient life (plants), plus using anticonception.

Notice the differences between life (unsentient, can be killed, no matter if has human genome inside or not) and being (sentient, cannot be killed, no matter the genome, or platform - killing aliens or sentient AIs would still be wrong).

Life is not protected. Sentient beings are. We protect life only because currently we have no way to protect sentient beings inside. Mind-uploading might change that.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Monts

 

Because until conception occurs, there is no human being.

Until 4-5th month at the earliest, there is no human being.

What do you consider a human being to be?

The way I see it, is that as soon as conception occurs, that pile of cells has the exact same amount of genes as you and I, and therefore has just as much of a future as you or I.

A better argument would be to argue when that human being becomes a "person".

Your argument involves a system with the chance to become a human being. But abortion isn't about ending a system involved in chance, it is about ending the consequence that is no longer up to chance. As soon as conception occurs, you without doubt have a 100% chance that a human being is going to be born.

When conception occurs, the chance is not 100 %, there are plenty of spontaneous abortions. In older women, up to three quarters of conceptions ends with miscarriage.

What difference does it make if the chance is higher or lower? Chance to become a human being in the future is not enough for protection, and so it is irrelevant how high this chance is.

It is simple. Sentient beings are protected. Systems that have potential to develop into one are not sentient beings yet, and so need not be protected yet.

The discussion is not about spontaneous abortions... it is about human-induced abortions. A person's life could end spontaneously, but that doesn't mean it's right for anyone else to end it themselves.

Sentient beings are protected you say... what about severely mentally retarded people? People in a vegetative state? People who are unconscious? Do they have any less a right to life?

And the fetus is not simply a system that has a "potential" to develop into a sentient being... it is without any doubt going to develop into a sentient being unless there are problems or complications. There is no "potential" to discuss when it comes to a fetus. As long something is going to develop into a sentient being, why should that thing have any less right to a future of being sentient? Simply because it is not "old enough"? It doesn't matter whether it is 2 weeks, 2 months, 9 months, or 2 years old, that human being is going to have a human life in its future.

I had a few questions here:
post on thread

And here:
post

Why are not one of you answering these questions? I would like to hear some reasonable answers. I haven't brought religion or birth control into this debate. I don't intend to start now. Birth control is an accepted means as far as I'm concerened.
Here is how I feel about the "religious" part of it:

As far as the way God feels about it, I wouldn't even try to convince you to feel differently. Your mind is made up, and it's not my job to change it