Abortion

[Jaycee.Forte]

I know that would be the smart thing to do but I have to debate just one person. Otherwise the debate could get messy and what I want to get across in the debate would not happen neatly with say 3 or 4 people commenting.

 

[RobinRobyn]

I believe that it doesn't matter who or what we do or what we look like, we have the same amount of value. We should not be saying that someone has more value than the next. The thing is that we all have value, no matter who we are and we deserve the chance to live.

Value is subjective, what's valuable to you may not be valuable to me, or as valuable. If you truly believed that everyone has the exact same value then who would you save from a burning building, your spouse, your child or a random stranger who just happens to be closer to you at that moment? If everyone has the same value, it would have to be the person closest to you, there'd be no more or less valuable to you than your spouse or your child.

A pregnancy does not carry the same value for every woman. For a woman who has been trying to get pregnant for years, it's the most precious thing on earth. But for a woman who is poor, alone, and unable to care for a baby, pregnancy is a burden and a curse. Value is subjective.

 

[yasic]

You're evidently unaware that some lizards don't drink water, but simply absorb it through their skin.

Well then, I guess we must rule that those lizards are not alive. And since they are not alive, it means they were never lizards to begin with, as lizards are living beings.

 

[yasic]

What's your definition of "alive"?

Peter

It's not a black and white issue, but in general it is my belief that all biological cells are considered to be alive, and since eggs are indeed made of cells, they would qualify. Sperm is more comparable to a virus, which I do believe is not classified as being alive.

As you can tell, I am no biology expert so don't expect a nice sciency answer.

 

[plindboe]

It's not a black and white issue, but in general it is my belief that all biological cells are considered to be alive, and since eggs are indeed made of cells, they would qualify. Sperm is more comparable to a virus, which I do believe is not classified as being alive.

As you can tell, I am no biology expert so don't expect a nice sciency answer.

Eggs are single cells and so are sperm cells. Sperm cells almost have no cytosol, but they fulfill every criteria of life I've ever heard. I can see the point of making an analogy to viruses, but it's just an analogy.

Peter

 

[Jesusfreak93]

Technically it is alive when it is still an egg, before it is fertilized (sperm on the other hand is not alive). The real question is when does the creature gain 'personhood'.

To answer this question, we must look at what makes a person a person: what separates us from the animals, what makes us valuable? It is not that we have a beating heart, not that we have DNA, nor our state of having 10 fingers; what makes us valuable is our minds. It is the fact that we feel, have dreams, ambitions, can feel empathy, sympathy, yes even rage and guilt and hate. The fact that we can think logically, arrive at conclusions, make decisions... that is what makes us people!

We know that all of these actions come from the frontal lobe of our brain, and a fetus starts having frontal neural activity somewhere in the 21,22 week range. I say that is the best place to declare personhood.

But does not the Bible say life begins at conception?

 

[IzzyPop]

But does not the Bible say life begins at conception?

So?

 

[jpcedotal]

For me, after hearing all the when life begins arguments, I have come to the conclusion that no one can PROVE 100% that he/she knows when life begins. Now let me leave my Bible on the table and just say...

If doctors and scientists and even religions cannot agree on exactly when life begins, wouldn't it seem rational to be better safe than sorry and just not allow abortions at all?

 

[Mling]

But does not the Bible say life begins at conception?

No.

I'll have to track down the verses, but there are only three that really specify the moment life begins. Two say it starts at the moment of birth, and one says *before* conception, not at.

They all say it poetically, though, not as a fact.

 

[Jade Margery]

People have made the abortion debate about when this cell splits or when that organ develops, but that is not the real issue, nor the reason why all abortions should be legal (unless the baby can viably live on its own, at which point it should be a forced birth procedure).

The thing is that a woman has a right to do what she wants with HER OWN BODY and no one else's right can infringe on that. We all have bodily sovereignty, every one of us. No one can force us to give up a kidney, even if we could do it without health risks and even if it would mean saving someone else's life. Their right to live doesn't take precedence over my right to keep my kidney. The same goes for blood--even if there was a shortage of donors, people cannot be forced to give. A woman who is pregant is effectively donating her body to the life of her fetus--her time, her health, her life--and she has a right to stop that whenever she wants.

Abortion is not about the right to kill babies, it's about the right to not be pregnant. If a machine could be invented that would remove a fetus quickly, cheaply, and safely from an unwilling woman and then allow it to mature in an artificial environment and said machines were widely available, I would be the first to suggest that abortion be outlawed. Until then abortions must be allowed to continue, else we take away a fundamental human right from over half the population.

 

[plindboe]

But does not the Bible say life begins at conception?

No, it doesn't say that anywhere.

Peter

 

[jpcedotal]

People have made the abortion debate about when this cell splits or when that organ develops, but that is not the real issue, nor the reason why all abortions should be legal (unless the baby can viably live on its own, at which point it should be a forced birth procedure).

The thing is that a woman has a right to do what she wants with HER OWN BODY and no one else's right can infringe on that. We all have bodily sovereignty, every one of us. No one can force us to give up a kidney, even if we could do it without health risks and even if it would mean saving someone else's life. Their right to live doesn't take precedence over my right to keep my kidney. The same goes for blood--even if there was a shortage of donors, people cannot be forced to give. A woman who is pregant is effectively donating her body to the life of her fetus--her time, her health, her life--and she has a right to stop that whenever she wants.

Abortion is not about the right to kill babies, it's about the right to not be pregnant. If a machine could be invented that would remove a fetus quickly, cheaply, and safely from an unwilling woman and then allow it to mature in an artificial environment and said machines were widely available, I would be the first to suggest that abortion be outlawed. Until then abortions must be allowed to continue, else we take away a fundamental human right from over half the population.

But to give the woman this right, we as a nation have to take the right to live from a baby who does not even get a say.....

It is simply giving a woman the right to kill another life. She should go to jail for 1st degree murder.

 

[LyraJean]

But to give the woman this right, we as a nation have to take the right to live from a baby who does not even get a say.....

It is simply giving a woman the right to kill another life. She should go to jail for 1st degree murder.

If you believe abortion is akin to 1st degree murder are you willing to investigate every single miscarriage that happens? That is what you will have to do to prove that a woman had a natural miscarriage and didn't self-induce an abortion.

Good luck! Even when abortion was illegal it wasn't considered first degree murder.

 

[Jade Margery]

But to give the woman this right, we as a nation have to take the right to live from a baby who does not even get a say.....

It is simply giving a woman the right to kill another life. She should go to jail for 1st degree murder.

It is the right of the woman to remove an unwanted fetus from her body. The fact that this is usually fatal to the fetus is sad, but not relevant. If you were hooked up to a machine that was keeping someone else alive using your body, you would have the right to leave the machine whenever you wanted, even if that meant the other person died. Your body, your choice, and you would not be charged. The only difference in a pregnancy is that the woman's body is the machine.

Do you believe that everyone should be required to give blood if they are able (or not), that everyone should be forced to check the Donor box on their drivers license, that people with healthy 'extra' organs should be forced to donate them, or that everyone should be forced to sign up for the bone marrow registry?

If the answer is no, then you do believe in personal bodily sovereignty... except for one group of people that you will probably never belong to, i.e., unwillingly pregnant women. What's it called again when a right is arbitrarily withheld from a particular set of the population? Injustice? Discrimination?


Now, if you would like to argue that control over a person's body belongs not to them but to their fellow man, that is an interesting take but much against the current trends of western society seeing as we did away with legal slavery quite awhile ago.

 

[jayem]

But to give the woman this right, we as a nation have to take the right to live from a baby who does not even get a say.....

It is simply giving a woman the right to kill another life. She should go to jail for 1st degree murder.

Well why not a compromise? The states can prohibit abortion after a certain point in gestation. (I favor natural viability--when a premie could survive without high-tech life support. About 24 weeks. Or right in the middle at 20 weeks would also work. Bona fide medical emergencies would, of course, be an exception.) But before that point, abortion is a private medical matter between a woman and her doctor. This recognizes that a woman has autonomy over her uterus and other organ systems, and that a viable fetus has an interest in an undisturbed gestation.

Sure, it's arbitrary, but so what? We're talking about laws here, and our laws make arbitrary distinctions all the time. Absolutists on either side won't like it. But it's a fair, reasonable, and workable compromise.

 

[Kroger99]

The issue of abortion came up in one of my classes, and I was looking for a discussion on this topic.

At what stage in the pregnancy is the baby considered alive?

For me.... once there is Conseption, you have the beginning of a new human life. Granted, all of the pieces and parts have not been formed yet, but a new human life has begun. Abortion at any point after conseption (IMO) is nothing more than killing an unborn child.

 

[oryx]

Pregnancy is not the same as a passer-by being randomly hooked up to a stranger or being forced to donate a body organ for the use of a stranger. The unborn human has a right to his or her mother’s womb because every human has a right to nutrition and an an environment conducive to strengthening independent living appropriate to their development level. “What's it called again when a right is arbitrarily withheld from a particular set of the population? Injustice? Discrimination?”
Stopping that human from getting it inflicts harm and there is no right to inflict harm.
The womb is an organ specifically created for the offsprings use during the development age that it is in, in the way that my kidney for a strangers use is not. Due to both of our mammal nature and our relationship of biological parent-offspring, my offspring belongs in my womb in the way that my kidney-whether that be in a stranger or even in a family member does not. Donating blood is charity. Keeping your biological child alive and safe from harm is not an act of charity, its what they are owed. This is, rightly, enforced after birth.
If I refuse to donate blood and that person dies-I have not caused the death of that person-the disease or injury was the cause of death. However if I abort-the cause of death was my actions (the abortion)- I inflicted enough harm on a someone who was gaining independence in order for them not to gain anymore independence.

Also the fetus is not simply removed from a machine-it is intentionally killed before removal in order to have an excuse to unhook the machine. And you’ve also missed the point that the women isn’t a random by-stander in the act of creating her biological offspring (and being hooked up to her offspring). She has therefore caused the state in which this person (without their consent) is throughly dependant on her body in order to become independent. This does not occur in blood donation.
If this prenatal child is trespassing into someone else’s property, it is merely by necessity of her development, brought about by the parents voluntary act. She has essentially made the trespassing-the child's need for her body to become independant and the hooking up to her own body-happen. There is no right to put someone into a life-death situation without their knowledge or consent and then take it a step further and cause death.

 

[Jade Margery]

Fault matters not at all. First off, some pregnancies are not only unwanted, but forced upon the woman by rape. Secondly, whether you caused a situation or not does not change your right to your own body. If you caused an accident and someone was badly hurt and that person had a rare blood type that you shared, even then you would not be forced to give blood to save them. You would be a jerk if you didn't, but that is still your decision. There are not laws against being a jerk.

Keeping your biological child safe by sacrificing your own freedom or body cannot be forced on people. While it is a strong appeal to emotion, the fact is that parents can avoid the responsibility after birth by putting the child up for adoption. Before birth, a woman cannot escape the situation without getting an abortion, and there are many, many reasons she may want to escape. Forcing someone to endure an intrusion on their body against their will, even for the good of another human, is inherently wrong. The mother's rights come before those of the child, just as my rights would come before an injured person's when discussing what can be done with my body.

 

[yasic]

Eggs are single cells and so are sperm cells. Sperm cells almost have no cytosol, but they fulfill every criteria of life I've ever heard. I can see the point of making an analogy to viruses, but it's just an analogy.

Peter

Again, I am no biologist, but I was of the impression that sperm lack too many features of a cell to be considered one. In all honesty, I would simply take the position here of the highest ranking biologist to correct me, and simply state my "I don't know jack on this subject" disclaimer every time someone asks me about sperm.

Either way, eggs are alive, so life happens prior to conception.

 

[yasic]

But does not the Bible say life begins at conception?

Mling is right,

the bible lists birth, a time prior to conception, and once (in numbers I believe) it even indirectly lists life beginning weeks after birth. At no point does the bible ever list conception as the point where life begins.