Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by destination now

 

So the child then goes through life without a father, or knowing that they cannot see their father because he is a rapist.

Oh...right...didn't think about that.

So if a kid doesn't have a father...or can't see his father because he is a criminal...the kid is better off dead

Of course...why didn't I think of that???

You have no concern for the welfare of children do you? You do not care about their feelings, their needs or anything else. All you seem to care about is that they get the chance to be born into this world, then they can go and rot, because if you are equating a child not being able to see their father because they either don't know who it is or they are in prison, with the entirely different scenario of the child being born as a result of a vicious, nasty rape, perpetrated against the mother, then you are seriously deluded

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Well i think this is actually where we have been arguing cross purposes and the confusion has seeped in which has lead to some unproductive exchanges. I consider the beginning of conciousness in a fetus to be life but you prefer the strict biological use of the word life.

Yes I do...it is nice and clean and defined and not open for interpretation. Shall I say that is more....scientific???

Why don't you like the strict biological use of the word "life"???

No i'm not disputing anything here, biologically life begins when cell meets egg, that's a biological fact, the cell develops and undergoes mitosis, this is unquestionably life in a strict biological sense. However i think humans are unique as we are self aware to a high degree and therefore we must use a different measuring stick than the strict biological definition of life.

Good...we can agree on something.

When i speak of life i am talking about the human experience. Remember life has a number of meanings, it has the strict biological meaning, which appears to be how you are using it and the more elaborate term denoting the sum of a human beings experiences or the legal definition of course.

And those other meanings are full of personal interpretation and perspectives. Which is why I choose to not use them.

So from here i think we are better suited to continue as we are both clearer on each others position. I understand now you weren't twisting my words, you simply misinterpreted my use of the word life, which i am happy to admit was my fault. Equally i misunderstood your use of it.

Thanks for taking the time to step back so we can both get on the same track, I appreciate it.

So we come to when life begins, in a biological sense you cannot be argued with, sperm meets egg, i won't bother arguing that because it's 100% correct. However i do disagree that this is a good reason to outlaw abortion as i don't see any real difference between a small clump of cells undergoing mitosis from the result of a sperm meeting an egg, and a cancerous mass.

I disagree. A cancerous mass does not have a unique DNA sequence that will develop into a fully unique human life if left to natural processes.

A fertilized egg will always develop (as long as their are no complications) into a fully unique human life. It will never grown into something else other than a human...it may terminate before it fully develops...but if left to develop it will always develop into a human.

A cancerous mass will not do this, a mole will not do this, a virus will not do this, another parasite living in the human body will not do this.

Only a human egg fertilized with a human sperm will develop into a human.

Many pregnancies self abort, sperm has met egg and yet they fail early. If we are to accept that this is a new life using your strict biological view then surely we should hold a service for every spontaneous abortion. I'm not exaggerating for effect with this. If you honestly believe that when a sperm meets egg then it's a human being and should not be aborted in a clinic, then if it self aborts surely that would require some form of mourning.

I would mourn a miscarriage if my wife had one. I know many women have a very hard time dealing with miscarriages. I even know people who have named the unborn child that they lost.

Do you not agree that women do mourn the loss of their unborn children due to miscarriages???

Now you can't mourn something you don't know about...so that point is moot.

This to me is not good enough as a definition and so i use conciousness as my benchmark, from there my earlier argument about the brain applies, which i know you disagree with. You might consider it arbritary but i consider it deadly serious.

I still don't see a flaw in my use of using the strict biological definition of life. The only argument you brought against it was self-aborting pregnancies. Life naturally dies at all stages...inside the womb, freshly outside the womb, as a small child, teenagers, young adults, middle age, and the elderly. Self aborting is just an earlier natural death than most...and yes I still see it as a mournful event. There is less attachment and therefore less emotions...but there is still emotion involved...I have seen it myself.

On the other hand, I do consider consciousness as an arbitrary point in development to mark the start of human life. Some others have convincing arguments for the nervous system, some for the ciculatory system, some for the pulmonary system. Some have arguments for when it is completely viable outside the womb, some even think it is fine as long as the fetus hasn't left the birthing canal.

All arbitrary...all with their own arguments. Only my definition encompasses all of them...as far as I know, there is no definition that falls outside of my definition of life. So that is what I go with.

Still i'm happy we cleared the confusion.

As am I.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Is killing a fish murder? A deer?

Are these animals not conscious???

Consciousness is a poor measurement of life...it just isn't scientifically accurate. Using the purely biological process of life IS accurate...why are you all refusing to use it??? I have yet to hear one good reason as to why the biological definition of life is not accurate.

No those animals are not conscious if we are to use conscious in it's full meaning, which includes emotions and self awareness. Conciousness is more than simply being awake and alert like a fish or deer, at least from the human perspective.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Consciousness is a human concept...as is religion...is religion a scientific concept???

Psychology and sociology are not hard sciences...they are "social" sciences.

Neurology is a medical practice.

Now Biology...that IS A PURE SCIENCE. Why not use it to define life??? Please someone answer this for me.

I have already answered this for you. When considering human life (and i am using the broad meaning of life not the strict biological one) we have to take into account all that it entails, including the effect on the mother who carries a baby to term and the subsequent life an unwanted child will have. Therefore biology is not a good enough definition as it cannot take any of that into account. Therefore the beggining of conciousness is a better measure because it weighs the rights of the fetus better with the rights of the woman. If the fetus is not concious, does not feel or experience then killing it doesn't seem so bad, once it can feel and think (is conscious) then the equation definitely changes.

Further you have opened yourself to a very risky position, if we accept life begins at conception then what about all of the other animals? If life begins at conception and is therefore sacred, even though it is not concious then all live is equal and we cannot justify killing any animal ever. If non sentient life is important but you kill a cow then it's not consistent. You are saying human non sentient life is more important, we then have to ask why it is and that leads us back to conciousness which leads back to using that as a yard stick for when abortion can and cannot be performed.

Originally posted by LoverBoy
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Who are you to tell me she has psychological issues from the abortion? She is relieved she doesn't have to see a part of the rapist everyday which would remind her of him. And you want to know how she really feels? She feels relieved, and much happier without the burden she never asked for. Like you said, the unborn child.

I never told you she did...I asked you if she did.

The psychological process lasts a lifetime...it may not hit her until she actually has children of her own. After seeing the life in those children and the uniqueness of them...don't be surprised if a wave of emotion and psychological effects hits her like a brick wall.


Killing an innocent child is never the answer in my book...no matter how difficult the life situation is...sorry.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Justify why we should protect unsentient human life, but not other unsentient and even sentient (animals) life, without bringing in speciecism or slippery slope logical fallacy.

Do we not already practice speciecism???

Do we not already protect some unsentient life? There are plants that are on endangered lists that are illegal to kill.

I really don't know where you are going with this argument.

reply to post by destination now

You have no concern for the welfare of children do you? You do not care about their feelings, their needs or anything else. All you seem to care about is that they get the chance to be born into this world, then they can go and rot, because if you are equating a child not being able to see their father because they either don't know who it is or they are in prison, with the entirely different scenario of the child being born as a result of a vicious, nasty rape, perpetrated against the mother, then you are seriously deluded

Ummm...yeah...suggesting kids are better off dead because they may have a non-perfect life is not looking out for the concern for the children.

Trying to protect them from being killed...I would say that is pretty damn concerned about their welfare


Were you not the one saying that pro-lifers get lost in emotional rants???

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by destination now

 

You have no concern for the welfare of children do you? You do not care about their feelings, their needs or anything else. All you seem to care about is that they get the chance to be born into this world, then they can go and rot, because if you are equating a child not being able to see their father because they either don't know who it is or they are in prison, with the entirely different scenario of the child being born as a result of a vicious, nasty rape, perpetrated against the mother, then you are seriously deluded

Ummm...yeah...suggesting kids are better off dead because they may have a non-perfect life is not looking out for the concern for the children.

Trying to protect them from being killed...I would say that is pretty damn concerned about their welfare

Were you not the one saying that pro-lifers get lost in emotional rants???

No, I've never used the phrase, lost in emotional rants! And they are not kids, they are a collection of cells, that may spontaneously abort anyway! And no, I totally disagree, there is far more to bringing a child up than just ensuring it is born, that is just the beginning, then the real work of looking after their welfare begins, and that is what you fail to understand, the emotional and psychological needs of a child.

Anyway, done talking with someone who thinks that a woman who gets pregnant as a result of rape should be forced to give birth, because that line of thought has no place in a civilised society.

reply to post by MindSpin


It very well may. She weighed the pros and cons and chose what she wanted to do. It is her decision and nobody elses, so I support her. Im not coming here to argue whether abortion is right or wrong. I came here to share the unfortunate experience I had with it. At the end of the day it is legal and isn't going to change. She doesn't think as the fetus as a child...it was a fetus. If she's ever ready to have kids then we will...if not then we wont. At the same time you can't assume how someone may act or feel when you have not experienced it.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

No those animals are not conscious if we are to use conscious in it's full meaning, which includes emotions and self awareness. Conciousness is more than simply being awake and alert like a fish or deer, at least from the human perspective.

How do we know animals are not self aware???

Is there a way to test that??? Has anyone tested it?

And I have to say that many animals show emotion. Dogs are happy, sad, scared, angry...all emotions. What makes you think they don't experience emotion? Again...there is no way to really test it beyond perception.

Therefore the beggining of conciousness is a better measure because it weighs the rights of the fetus better with the rights of the woman. If the fetus is not concious, does not feel or experience then killing it doesn't seem so bad, once it can feel and think (is conscious) then the equation definitely changes.

I think weighing the "rights" of any two human beings is a very slippery slope. All humans should have equal rights regardless of race, gender, or age. A fetus is just a very very young human life.

Further you have opened yourself to a very risky position, if we accept life begins at conception then what about all of the other animals? If life begins at conception and is therefore sacred, even though it is not concious then all live is equal and we cannot justify killing any animal ever. If non sentient life is important but you kill a cow then it's not consistent. You are saying human non sentient life is more important, we then have to ask why it is and that leads us back to conciousness which leads back to using that as a yard stick for when abortion can and cannot be performed.

I am speaking of human life...using the definition of biological life to determine it's starting point.

I have never said that "all" life should be sacred and should never be killed. That is not part of my argument. I am speaking of HUMAN LIFE.

I do try to not kill any life, but sense surviving involves eating other living things...I don't consider it an issue. We all eat living things to survive, even vegans. I would never eat another human....because it is my own species. Someone else said specieism was a slippery slope...but we already practice it everyday...so I don't understand his reasoning.

sorry people,

who has the right to the baby? maybe the owner of the body it is in?

does that give anyone else rights?

even the father, government or religion?

cut and dried for me on this one.

reply to post by destination now

No, I've never used the phrase, lost in emotional rants! And they are not kids, they are a collection of cells, that may spontaneously abort anyway! And no, I totally disagree, there is far more to bringing a child up than just ensuring it is born, that is just the beginning, then the real work of looking after their welfare begins, and that is what you fail to understand, the emotional and psychological needs of a child.

You know that you may spontaneously abort at any moment...right? Any of us might. Does that mean we should be able to kill each other...because we might randomly die anyway???

I agree, there is more than bringing up a child than just ensuring it is born...but that is a hell of a start isn't it? I would think ensuring it is born as healthy and undead as possible is high up on the list of to-dos of people who are concerned for the welfare of children.

I don't fail to understand it at all. What you fail to understand is that death isn't a valid solution to a possible non-perfect life. To think so is honestly mentally insane.

Anyway, done talking with someone who thinks that a woman who gets pregnant as a result of rape should be forced to give birth, because that line of thought has no place in a civilised society.

You know what else has no place in a civilized society???

Killing babies.

For you that are patently against abortion, why is a woman's life being in danger the only exception? Suppose a woman can't carry a baby to term because she will die, but there is nothing medically wrong with the baby? Who has more of a right than the other to live in that case? I'd like to know what your thoughts are.

I personally find abortion abhorrent under any circumstances. I think of even a fetus as a child. But I'm not so wrapped up in my own little warm blanket of denial that I don't realize there are situations when, while it's not "OK", it may be necessary to end a pregnancy. I would not, under any circumstances, support abortion as a form of birth control. Nor would I support eugenics in any way. But most of the currently accepted reasons for abortion today I would not stand in the way of.

/TOA

Originally posted by LoverBoy
reply to post by MindSpin

 

It very well may. She weighed the pros and cons and chose what she wanted to do. It is her decision and nobody elses, so I support her. Im not coming here to argue whether abortion is right or wrong. I came here to share the unfortunate experience I had with it. At the end of the day it is legal and isn't going to change. She doesn't think as the fetus as a child...it was a fetus. If she's ever ready to have kids then we will...if not then we wont. At the same time you can't assume how someone may act or feel when you have not experienced it.

I'm not assuming a thing.

I am asking questions and giving possible reactions based on the accounts of other women in the same situation.

Will she respond like any of those women did...who knows...but it's a possibility.

Originally posted by The Old American
For you that are patently against abortion, why is a woman's life being in danger the only exception? Suppose a woman can't carry a baby to term because she will die, but there is nothing medically wrong with the baby? Who has more of a right than the other to live in that case? I'd like to know what your thoughts are.

Because if the women dies, the baby will die with her. No sense in having two people die. This is a true medical decision made by the women...her health is in danger. It's a tough choice...but I wouldn't say a women shouldn't protect her own life.

I personally find abortion abhorrent under any circumstances. I think of even a fetus as a child. But I'm not so wrapped up in my own little warm blanket of denial that I don't realize there are situations when, while it's not "OK", it may be necessary to end a pregnancy. I would not, under any circumstances, support abortion as a form of birth control. Nor would I support eugenics in any way. But most of the currently accepted reasons for abortion today I would not stand in the way of.
/TOA

You do realize that most of the abortions that happen today are done as a form of birth control....right? Inconvience, not emotionally ready for a baby, not financially ready for a baby, pregnant with another mans baby.

What currently accepted reasons do you support exactly???


And with that...I'm off to bed...I'll check back in tomorrow.

"You do realize that most of the abortions that happen today are done as a form of birth control....right? Inconvience, not emotionally ready for a baby, not financially ready for a baby, pregnant with another mans baby.

What currently accepted reasons do you support exactly??? "


all the above.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Abortion is age discrimination at it's worst!

Originally posted by MindSpin
You do realize that most of the abortions that happen today are done as a form of birth control....right? Inconvience, not emotionally ready for a baby, not financially ready for a baby, pregnant with another mans baby.

I disagree with that assessment, though I'm not going to go find any charts or graphs that support or refute that claim. If you have any, I would gladly take a look at them.

What currently accepted reasons do you support exactly???

As to which reasons I support, I don't support any. But I won't stand in the way of abortions for: saving the life of a woman, rape, a medical condition that has a high chance of death after birth. There are probably a couple of others, but those stand out.

/TOA

Originally posted by MindSpin
How do we know animals are not self aware???

Is there a way to test that??? Has anyone tested it?

And I have to say that many animals show emotion. Dogs are happy, sad, scared, angry...all emotions. What makes you think they don't experience emotion? Again...there is no way to really test it beyond perception.

Actually there is an experiment where they place a smudge of lipstick on an animal and see if it notices when placed in front of a mirror, this tests if they are self aware and most animals simply are not. I believe they found chimps tried to remove the smudge so we know they have a level of self awareness.

Animals experience emotions to one degree or another but because they are not self aware they don't consider them in the same way we do.

Originally posted by MindSpin
I think weighing the "rights" of any two human beings is a very slippery slope. All humans should have equal rights regardless of race, gender, or age. A fetus is just a very very young human life.

As i stated if we are to accept humans are special compared to animals by nature of human beings having a conciousness then we must apply a different measure of when and where they obtain their rights as humans.

Originally posted by MindSpin
I am speaking of human life...using the definition of biological life to determine it's starting point.

I have never said that "all" life should be sacred and should never be killed. That is not part of my argument. I am speaking of HUMAN LIFE.

But hang on i am simply continuing your own system of belief, taking it to it's conclusion. If you believe that biological life is the beginning of life then that applies to all species and doesn't make humans special, therefore we shouldn't kill any animal ever. But you do consider humans different (which is perfectly resonable) and then we have to ask why we are special, my answer would be that we have self awareness, consciousness. So from that point it gives us an idea of what seperates us from the animals and so i would use this point as a good way of determining when a life is a actually a human being, and by human being i mean all of the things that entails, including rights.

This way i am not discriminating against other species, this is a more consistent thinking than simply saying biology gives us the start of life, and again i'm using the wider meaning of life not the strict biological one.

A fetus in it's early stages has no brain, no thoughts, no feelings. It is not a human life, it is a potential human life. Big difference.

Late term abortion is a different story...

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Actually there is an experiment where they place a smudge of lipstick on an animal and see if it notices when placed in front of a mirror, this tests if they are self aware and most animals simply are not.

All or most?

I believe they found chimps tried to remove the smudge so we know they have a level of self awareness.

Dolphins and primates have proven this level of self awareness. Does that make these animals special above the others? Are they "alive" now?

Animals experience emotions to one degree or another but because they are not self aware they don't consider them in the same way we do.

You know this how?

This just realy strikes me as odd reasoning. If self awareness and emotions are the measuring stick for life then there are many animals that have proven self awareness and I could easily argue animals feel emotions such as fear, sadness, glee. Even seen a dog wag it's tail because it is "happy?'

Anyway. I guess it just stands out to me because if this is the argument than any human that has developemental issues that prevent them from reaching that level of awareness then qualify as less alive than some chimps and dolphins.

Further, I have yet to see anything to show that developing fetuses feel these same emotions and level of awareness. When we start defining life, we have to be very careful what we leave out.