Why Abortion is Immoral

[SteveB28]

Paranoia will destroy ya.

Yes, as I said, gloss over it with a glib reply.

Are you one of those who would accuse women who terminate their pregnancies of murder?

Then explain how YOUR law would be administered!

 

[SteveB28]

Post up the positions of opposing embryologists who define a human at a later stage.

Not philosophers, geneticists or bioethicists. But scientists.

Put up the opposing views.

This has nothing to do with the arbitrary use of "person" as posters here are throwing around different terms as if they all mean the same thing.

Geneticists are not scientists? Bioethicists couldn't be scientists?

Do you have any idea about that which you are speaking?

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, as I said, gloss over it with a glib reply.

Are you one of those who would accuse women who terminate their pregnancies of murder?

Then explain how YOUR law would be administered!

We talking about law now? What happened to the science?

 

[redleghunter]

Geneticists are not scientists? Bioethicists couldn't be scientists?

Do you have any idea about that which you are speaking?

I'll take such a response as you don't have works from embryologists refuting my source.

 

[jenny1972]

As am I.
I wonder how many pro-life people are for the death penalty?
Or believe there are certain conditions wherein a woman can be permitted to abort?

When people argue adult women aren't entitled to choose for themselves and their reproductive future, insisting that all fetus' should be brought to term regardless of the woman's choice to otherwise opt not to allow that, they're arguing for the rights of the fetus only. And at the same time forewarning the female fetus that once they're born their choices will be subject to other peoples politics just like their mama's was.

That's an odd bit of life choice. We'll fight for you to be born against a woman's will but when you're a full grown woman we'll argue you have no right to exercise your free will because the fetus is more important than you are.

Fascism and sexism are immoral.

i believe human beings should be treated equal regardless of their age disability or any other factor that makes them different . I dont believe the rights of the fetus are above the rights of the mother carrying the fetus both are human beings that should be treated with equal respect . Both human lives should be saved if that is at all possible , if it has to be a choice between one life or the other life it would be necessary to end the pregnancy because if the mother dies the child will also die and 2 lives will be lost not just 1 . The uterus separates 2 different human beings its the border between them but serves the needs of just one of those human beings its function is to host new life.

 

[SteveB28]

We talking about law now? What happened to the science?

And now we avoid! How predictable.

 

[SteveB28]

I'll take such a response as you don't have works from embryologists refuting my source.

So now it's embryologists? Before it was just "scientists". But then, it appeared, geneticists and bioethicists couldn't be "scientists"!

Could you make up your mind, if that is possible, what it is that you want!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well of course that is at the heart of the abortion debate and if agreed upon there would be no debate i hope as people who are pro-choice become educated about fetal development they will realize that the unborn are not really blobs of tissue that are not alive after all .

There you go again, conflating life and personhood. It is simply not true that mere life proves personhood. Not even if it is human in some sense. Personhood requires a mind, which requires an advanced brain.

 

[SteveB28]

I'll take such a response as you don't have works from embryologists refuting my source.

But, to address your confused and haphazard request:

David Malcolm Potts, MB, BChir, PhD, FRCOG, FREng[1] is a human reproductive scientist and Professor of Public Health at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley.

He contends that it is scientifically impossible to determine when life begins, but concedes that "I would rather destroy a five-week embryo than a 15-week embryo, and I accept there is some stage in pregnancy that you have to say no."

 

[katerinah1947]

There you go again, conflating life and personhood. It is simply not true that mere life proves personhood. Not even if it is human in some sense. Personhood requires a mind, which requires an advanced brain.

Hi,

On having an advanced brain to be a person, then a person who is brain dead, would no longer be a person.

Consider, this father's reaction to his brain dead son, and then please tell us what you think afterwards, about brain life and personhood.

Wrong link:

Correct link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-jail-for-swat-standoff-that-saved-sons-life/

LOVE,

 

[redleghunter]

But, to address your confused and haphazard request:

David Malcolm Potts, MB, BChir, PhD, FRCOG, FREng[1] is a human reproductive scientist and Professor of Public Health at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley.

He contends that it is scientifically impossible to determine when life begins, but concedes that "I would rather destroy a five-week embryo than a 15-week embryo, and I accept there is some stage in pregnancy that you have to say no."

What does he mean by "life." Is he applying viability? Which would be a philosophical construct.

So he is implying that it is scientifically impossible to determine when life begins?

I wonder he views if protozoa are life.

 

[SteveB28]

What does he mean by "life." Is he applying viability? Which would be a philosophical construct.

So he is implying that it is scientifically impossible to determine when life begins?

I wonder he views if protozoa are life.

Wonder as much as you wish. Here is an equally renowned scientist who would disagree with your 'foetus is a human being' line.

In other words, he is voicing an OPINION, just as you and Dr Irving are expressing OPINIONS. And those opinions differ, as is frequently the case when people step outside the realm of scientific fact and merely project their personal preferences.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hi,

On having an advanced brain to be a person, then a person who is brain dead, would no longer be a person.

Consider, this father's reaction to his brain dead son, and then please tell us what you think afterwards, about brain life and personhood.

Wrong link:

Correct link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-jail-for-swat-standoff-that-saved-sons-life/

LOVE,

Brain dead people are routinely used for organ harvesting purposes and that's perfectly ethical. If someone is in denial about their death they will often keep the machines going that maintain the body life . . . this doesn't do any ethical good, but it is, of course, harmless.

 

[variant]

Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:

First premises:

1. One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
2. Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
3. Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).

This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:

1. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
2. Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
3. Therefore abortion is immoral.

It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments). Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:

Even granting the argument, the question remains whether or not the fetus has a right to use someone eases body to obtain this VHF, or whether the state has the right to require a pregnant woman to maintain her pregnancy.

We have few if any other examples where the state will requisition someones very body and to give another person the right to use it to sustain their life so, the question of whether it is "wrong" to abort the unborn is a bit off the mark, if it is ALSO wrong to force a women to use their body to maintain the life of someone else against their will.

 

[katerinah1947]

What does he mean by "life." Is he applying viability? Which would be a philosophical construct.

So he is implying that it is scientifically impossible to determine when life begins?

I wonder he views if protozoa are life.

Hi,

Interesting point. It seems that the word personhood and abortion are anathema to each other.

Historically, Abortions were illegal but done under various mechanisms, then abortions were legalized, and the number of illegal ones dropped.

It would seem legalizing abortions is a mercy to many women, who will be hurt by either action.

Legalizing it, takes the social, political, religious pressures away.

What is not taken away is the agony of losing your child.

No matter what the mother is going to be hurt.

I don't see how granting personhood to a fetus necessarily has to remove the choice if women to abort or not, and if it is removed then the Government should be responsible in all ways then, medically, educationally, housing wise, economically, for that child until that child is an adult, but staying with the mother should always be an option, if the mother can take care of that child properly, with that governmental total responsibility for the child in all other ways.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Brain dead people are routinely used for organ harvesting purposes and that's perfectly ethical. If someone is in denial about their death they will often keep the machines going that maintain the body life . . . this doesn't do any ethical good, but it is, of course, harmless.

Hi,

That boy recovered from brain death.

LOVE,

 

[redleghunter]

Wonder as much as you wish. Here is an equally renowned scientist who would disagree with your 'foetus is a human being' line.

In other words, he is voicing an OPINION, just as you and Dr Irving are expressing OPINIONS. And those opinions differ, as is frequently the case when people step outside the realm of scientific fact and merely project their personal preferences.

Are the text books used to teach biology incorrect or promoting an opinion?


The Developing Human Being
By Keith Moore, and T.V.N. Persaud
7th edition, 2003

From an introductory definition section:

“Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. Cell division, cell migration, programmed cell death, differentiation, growth, and cell rearrangement transform the fertilized oocyte, a highly specialized, totipotent cell – a zygote – into a multicellular human being. Although most developmental changes occur during the embryonic and fetal periods, important changes occur during later periods of development: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25. Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal(before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” (p. 2)

“Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” (p. 2)

“Embryo. The developing human during its early stages of development. The embryonic period extends to the end of the eighth week (56 days), by which time the beginnings of all major structures are present.” (p. 3)

From chapter 2: “The Beginning of Human Development: First Week”

First sentence of the Chapter: “Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell – a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (p. 16)

“Studies on early stages of development indicate that human oocytes are usually fertilized with 12 hours after ovulation. In vitro observations have shown that the oocyte cannot be fertilized after 24 hours and this it degenerates shortly thereafter.” [This would buttress our argument that sperm and ovum by themselves are parts of the parents and not entire beings. That there is a substantial change between gametes and zygotes.] (p. 31)

“The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes come from the mother and half from the father. The zygote contains a new combination of chromosomes that is different from that in the cells of either of the parents.” (p. 33)

“Cleavage consists of repeated mitotic divisions of the zygote, resulting in a rapid increase in the number of cells. The embryonic cells – blastomeres – become smaller with each cleavage division. First the zygote divides into two blastomores, which then divide into four blastomores, either blastomeres, and so on.” (p. 36-37) [We can use the cleavage discussion to show that now the embryo is operating on its own and developing.]

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html

 

[katerinah1947]

Brain dead people are routinely used for organ harvesting purposes and that's perfectly ethical. If someone is in denial about their death they will often keep the machines going that maintain the body life . . . this doesn't do any ethical good, but it is, of course, harmless.

Hi,

Here is another account of a brain dead girl. For three days she was brain dead, then came back to life, for three months. She died from organ failure later.



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ppened-next-had-her-family-in-absolute-shock/

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

Another article on brain activity and life.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98447&page=1

LOVE,

 

[redleghunter]

Hi,

Interesting point. It seems that the word personhood and abortion are anathema to each other.

Historically, Abortions were illegal but done under various mechanisms, then abortions were legalized, and the number of illegal ones dropped.

It would seem legalizing abortions is a mercy to many women, who will be hurt by either action.

Legalizing it, takes the social, political, religious pressures away.

What is not taken away is the agony of losing your child.

No matter what the mother is going to be hurt.

I don't see how granting personhood to a fetus necessarily has to remove the choice if women to abort or not, and if it is removed then the Government should be responsible in all ways then, medically, educationally, housing wise, economically, for that child until that child is an adult, but staying with the mother should always be an option, if the mother can take care of that child properly, with that governmental total responsibility for the child in all other ways.

LOVE,

As Pope Francis says, it's your conscience.

What you advocate above is it matters not if there is a distinct human being at conception, which science confirms is fact, nor does it matter if said human life is considered a "person" that such could be disposed of at will.

Is that your personal opinion? I ask because it sure is not the teachings of your Church in which you must give moral assent to.