Abortion: What do you think?

[clep]

Would that be acceptable to you, or would any earlier date be acceptable if it could be proven that the child cannot possibly feel pain, or be aware before that?

I'd rather ask why do we attribute a special right to live to humans, and what makes us think of somebody/something as human?


Dismembering a dead body is only despicable if done without good reason. And then only because it might reveal tendencies to also try it out with living people (or because living people don't like to see their deceased family/friends mutilated). If done for medical reasons for example, I see absolutely no problem with it.

A mother killing her child at any age is not acceptable to me. Killing someone does not have to do with if they can feel, what stage they are at or if they are aware. It is not up to me to justify killing another life regardless at what stage that life is at.

I look at someone as a human being if they have the dna of a human. The baby inside a human mother is not a dog, cat, mouse or tree. It isn't hard to determine it is a human being.

Abortion is not a medical reason to dismember a body. Only in seven percent of cases is it for medical reasons. The rest of the time it is done out of convenience to the mother.

We can all try and be technical about it, we can try to justify it and explain it away by whatever means. In the end mom is killing her child.

 

[clep]

The emphasis is on the phrase "to me". There's an awful lot of people that don't equate a fetus and a child.

I am aware there are many people that justify this type of action by whatever distorted thinking that gives mother's to perform an act that is the ultimate in selfish. That is a sad, sad thing.

 

[Macx]

Whatever else you can say about abortion, it's definitely a real time-saver.

Every abortion is a democrat I don't have to fight later? Or what did you mean by that?

 

[Zeena]

What makes the fetus a potential person?

There's no such thing as 'potential person'.

It's either a person, with all the DNA they'll ever have, or not.

And a baby is fully a person in every respect except growth (or decay, if you include the elderly as 'persons').

It's no different (abliet experiential-wise) for a baby in the womb to go through stages of development, than it is for a teenager to go through puberty, or as an aged person to go through cellular degeneration.

Just as there is no difference between a fetus and an infirm elderly person in respect to 'viability', since neither of them can survive without medical intervention.

 

[Zeena]

Simply being alive doesn't justify any right to live. Should we make picking flowers or swatting flies illigal? I know some say that being human should grant that right, but such a distinction on pure genetic differences seems inappropriate to me. I'd rather ask why do we attribute a special right to live to humans, and what makes us think of somebody/something as human?

Because it's faulty logic.

We are a society, and any society that does not care for one aother is doomed to fail.

Think about it!

Do you care for your children (or, would you, if you had any)?
Do you eat meat? Would you eat another human? Why not?

 

[Zeena]

The emphasis is on the phrase "to me". There's an awful lot of people that don't equate a fetus and a child.

Biological medical science says it's DNA that makes us human beings. Any 'sane' doctor of medicine would concur. In fact, the very same doctors who perform abortions know that they are taking the life of a human being.

So, where are these masses you speak of?

Is there anyone even HERE who does not believe that a baby is human, providing it has human DNA?

 

[Beechwell]

What if we came across an alien species with a society comparable to ours, similar intelligence, and apparently capable of self-awareness. Or if we created a sentient aritificial intelligence that is (as far as anyone can tell) self-aware, and able to participate in our society?
Also assume that this new species or AI requests to be granted human rights (or similar ones), and generally accepts the rights of human beings (i.e. it doesn't go around killing or abducting humans).
Do you think those should be eligible to more or less full human rights, or at least basic ones like the right to live? Why, or why not?

 

[Belk]

There is not "potential of life". If a baby is born, it's gonna have a life. By killing that baby you take away it's life before it could even have it. But if you didn't kill the baby and it was born, it is definitely gonna have a life. Therefore aborting a baby takes a human life away.

And like I said, a human life is more valuable than a cat.

There's no such thing as 'potential person'.

It's either a person, with all the DNA they'll ever have, or not.

And a baby is fully a person in every respect except growth (or decay, if you include the elderly as 'persons').

It's no different (abliet experiential-wise) for a baby in the womb to go through stages of development, than it is for a teenager to go through puberty, or as an aged person to go through cellular degeneration.

Just as there is no difference between a fetus and an infirm elderly person in respect to 'viability', since neither of them can survive without medical intervention.

A bit of unsolicited advice. If you are going to claim there is no such thing as a "Potential person" don't go on to make conditional statements of their person hood. It rather undermines your claim.

 

[selfinflikted]

Biological medical science says it's DNA that makes us human beings. Any 'sane' doctor of medicine would concur. In fact, the very same doctors who perform abortions know that they are taking the life of a human being.

So, where are these masses you speak of?

Is there anyone even HERE who does not believe that a baby is human, providing it has human DNA?

What a silly statement! No one here is denying that a human fetus is human. There are plenty of us, however, that would disagree in calling a human fetus a person - especially one with full legal rights. I do not agree that a clump of cells so small that it is undetectable by the human naked eye stands to have any rights whatsoever. ESPECIALLY not rights that supersede those of the mother.

 

[Hakan101]

A bit of unsolicited advice. If you are going to claim there is no such thing as a "Potential person" don't go on to make conditional statements of their person hood. It rather undermines your claim.

Nothing conditional about what I said. If it's there in the womb, it's a human life. Not a potential life, an actual life.

You wouldn't kill a newborn baby, and you shouldn't kill an unborn one either.

 

[Belk]

Nothing conditional about what I said. If it's there in the womb, it's a human life. Not a potential life, an actual life.

You wouldn't kill a newborn baby, and you shouldn't kill an unborn one either.

And then in the next sentence you stated

If a baby is born, it's gonna have a life

Which is a conditional statement.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Nothing conditional about what I said. If it's there in the womb, it's a human life. Not a potential life, an actual life.

Someone just said that the issue isn't whether the fetus has human DNA, but whether it's considered a person with rights. We talk about potential personhood, not potential life. We know it's alive.

I can't believe we still have to have these discussions regarding terminology...

 

[Hakan101]

Someone just said that the issue isn't whether the fetus has human DNA, but whether it's considered a person with rights. We talk about potential personhood, not potential life. We know it's alive.

I can't believe we still have to have these discussions regarding terminology...

You don't have to discuss it. I'm not arguing whether a fetus has human DNA, I thought it was obvious that a human fetus has human DNA. I'm saying it is a human being. A "personhood" and a human life is the same thing. We're not animals, we have a conscious mind and soul, and it doesn't just float around by itself. Simply by being human, we deserve what are called "human rights", not "person rights". Human and person are the same thing.

I'll say it again, you wouldn't kill a newborn baby, and so you shouldn't kill an unborn one either.

 

[Zeena]

Someone just said that the issue isn't whether the fetus has human DNA, but whether it's considered a person with rights. We talk about potential personhood, not potential life. We know it's alive.

I can't believe we still have to have these discussions regarding terminology...

Every individual is their own person hon, with thier own DNA, their own EVERYTHING, they are unique, just as you are.

 

[selfinflikted]

Every individual is their own person hon, with thier own DNA, their own EVERYTHING, they are unique, just as you are.

A fetus is not an individual. That's one point I've been arguing all along.

 

[Zeena]

A fetus is not an individual. That's one point I've been arguing all along.

Then PROVE they are not unique, rather than just spout.

(It's ALREADY proven they are! )

Every individual is their own person, with thier own DNA, their own EVERYTHING, they are unique, just as you are.

 

[clep]

I do not agree that a clump of cells so small that it is undetectable by the human naked eye stands to have any rights whatsoever. ESPECIALLY not rights that supersede those of the mother.

Now that is a silly statement. Anyone who knows the development of a child in the womb knows that the child is not undetectable to the human eye by the time of an abortion.

Maybe read up on the stages of human development from conception to birth. By the time a woman finds out she's pregnant and can get the appt for the abortion she is usually around 2 months or 8 weeks. By that time baby has arms, legs, internal organs, etc.

Stages Of Fetal Development - First Trimester

I have a friend that had an extremely premature child who was not capable of life without support, much like a brain dead person on life support. That child was treated as a baby by the medical profession as it was a child regardless of the stage it was born at. By your reasoning that child did not have the right to continue life as she was not self sufficient, and the lack of development made her a child with no rights at all. This would make all premature children a candidate for the garbage bin by your reasoning.

I have known of two women that had their children removed from them upon birth due to the damage that crack did to their children during their development in the womb. The government removed those children from them. I realize that the government will step in and do something like that, but would have aided in those women killing the children instead. The government views the developing child as a person with rights in some instances and not in others. It also recognized the rights of the mother in some cases and not in others. It is typical though for the government to contradict themselves consistently with logic thrown out the window often.

I am fully aware however, that the need to be right in your eyes takes precedent over informing yourself of all the aspects, which is your personal right.

 

[Zeena]

By your reasoning that child did not have the right to continue life as she was not self sufficient, and the lack of development made her a child with no rights at all. This would make all premature children a candidate for the garbage bin by your reasoning.

Don't forget the elderly and disabled!

They are people too!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You don't have to discuss it. I'm not arguing whether a fetus has human DNA, I thought it was obvious that a human fetus has human DNA. I'm saying it is a human being.

"Human Being" is another term which gets argued. Some people tie personhood to it, some don't. Personhood is really the only thing we should talk about.

A "personhood" and a human life is the same thing.

Not to everyone it isn't.

We're not animals,

Yes we are.

we have a conscious mind and soul, and it doesn't just float around by itself.

Mind, yes. Of course that's just our brain. There's no true duality.

Soul... I'd need some evidence...

Simply by being human, we deserve what are called "human rights", not "person rights". Human and person are the same thing.

Not to everyone.

 

[Zeena]

"Human Being" is another term which gets argued. Some people tie personhood to it, some don't. Personhood is really the only thing we should talk about.

If you're only talking about personhood as defined as a person who is cognisant, then your person is wrapped up in your brain, and that's the only way someone can be declared fit for life, IOW.. Sad, really, quite sad..

What about the rest of us? Just trash for the heap in your opinion?

Mind, yes. Of course that's just our brain. There's no true duality.

Soul... I'd need some evidence...

"Just our brain" huh?
So then, when someone is injured in their brain they're not fit for life neither?

When someone lacks REM or some other functionality of their brain, they should be 'aborted' too?

Do you see, now, how we are more than just a brain?

Otherwise, why not just murder everyone without proper functionality of their brains?

Not to everyone.

Everyone except those pro-abortion / pro-euthanasia / pro-involuntary-euthanasia / pro-assisted suicide / pro-murder.