Jump to content

Home

Abortion debate (older thread)


VanLingo
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 414
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

well MY logic dictates it IS alive, it has its own heart beat, it has its own DNA after conception, or the cells wouldn't split and multiply. It IS human, only smaller and not yet conciauss. (true it may not be able to survive without the mother, but a born baby can't either for they need them to feed them.)

 

The little ones are biologicly little humans and i'm done debating that.

 

The point is that the baby does not have a nervous system. It has no concept of who, where, or what it is. By this I mean, no feeling at all. No sight, no thoughts, no hearing at all. The organs are still developing. Sure, its alive, definitely, no doubt about that, but would it make a difference to the baby if you aborted it? The only difference would be the baby would be dead, and be unable to live on. (If you want, you can add on the mother's pain, etc etc, but have you ever thought about the emotional attachment a mother has for a child? Adoption is about the same feeling I believe). It has no feeling at all, so it does not know anything (it can't)..

 

BTW, nice card, someone should mass-produce it :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Druid Bremen

The point is that the baby does not have a nervous system. It has no concept of who, where, or what it is. By this I mean, no feeling at all. No sight, no thoughts, no hearing at all. The organs are still developing. Sure, its alive, definitely, no doubt about that, but would it make a difference to the baby if you aborted it?

Actually, if something doesn't have awareness, it's not alive. Plus.... if the organs are still developing it's still technically not alive as it is not self-dependant, at this point there is NO WAY it could survive on it's own, whereas after birth (while chances are slim) it can fend for itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by InsaneSith

Actually, if something doesn't have awareness, it's not alive. Plus.... if the organs are still developing it's still technically not alive as it is not self-dependant, at this point there is NO WAY it could survive on it's own, whereas after birth (while chances are slim) it can fend for itself.

 

Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you there. Its not conscious, but its growing. Sure, its unable to fend for itself, it isn't self-dependant, it can't survive on its own, that's true, but I think its ability to grow is a sure enough sign that it is alive. The thing is, dead things are inert (unless you mean mechanical), and cannot grow. But a baby, even in early pregnancy, is able to multiply from a single cell to a large organism. Perhaps you may mention the virus in your future post, which (as far as I know) scientists deem as being upon the border of living and non-living. Even a virus isn't considered completely dead. Bacteria, and viruses, are not considered conscious, are they? (I'm just taking a shot in the dark, you understand; I don't know if they are considered conscious, but as they have no concept of who, where, or what they are, I deem them not so) Bad example, I know, but could you like, explain your view a bit more so I can understand why you think thus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what makes something truely alive is it's conciousness and it's self-dependence.

 

 

If you can't experience or even conceptualize your existence, how do you even know you're alive? The thing is one has to have conciousness to be truely alive. Self-dependence is another thing, if you can't fend for yourself you are a dependent entity, much like an organ, you're just going for the ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I get the point you're trying to put across. And I cannot say I disagree with it. However, there is one point I wish to say, and that is: in your other point, you said an unconscious baby was not alive, technically. In my opinion, it IS alive, for it grows. Every part of the baby is growing.. I think thats all I can say at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, growing is a part of the things that make something alive. But it takes all the other bits to make something alive.

 

The following is from Wikipedia.

 

A conventional definition

 

In biology, an entity has traditionally been considered to be alive if it exhibits all the following phenomena at least once during its existence:

 

1. Growth

 

2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste

 

3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion

 

4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to itself

 

5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.

 

These criteria are not without their uses, but their disparate nature makes them unsatisfactory from a number of perspectives; in fact, it is not difficult to find counterexamples and examples that require further elaboration.For example, according to the above definition, one could say:

 

* fire is alive. (This could be remedied by adding the requirement of locality, where there is an obvious feature that delineates the spatial extension of the living being, such as a cell membrane.)

* male mules are not alive as they are sterile and cannot reproduce.

* viruses are not alive as they do not grow and cannot reproduce outside of a host cell.

 

Biologists who are content to focus on terrestrial organisms often note some additional signs of a "living organism", including these:

 

1. Living organisms contain molecular components such as: carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins.

 

2. Living organisms require both energy and matter in order to continue living.

 

3. Living organisms are composed of at least one cell.

 

4. Living organisms maintain homeostasis.

 

5. Species of living organisms will evolve.

 

While I agree there are exceptions, I don't think a fetus is one of them.

The fact that it lacks conciousness early on in pregnancy makes me come to this conclusion. But once it becomes aware and is capable of being aware, I recognize it as a life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doesn't that article say that hitler supported eugenics to remove defects from the pure aryan bloodline? Not really sure how that relates to abortion as it is performed today. Most abortions aren't carried out to purify the gene pool...

 

anyway, enough about hitler...

 

:D

 

I'd say consciousness was the important factor in being considered "sentient".

"alive" is an irrelivant term, as fungus, bacteria and other creatures we have no problem with killing could be considered alive.

 

It is when something is sentient (either on the simple level of an animal, or the more advanced level of a human) that I have issues with killing it.

 

A tumor could probably be defined as both alive, and parasitically dependent on it's host. Just like a fetus. But we wouldn't forbid someone from deciding to have a tumor removed. Because it isn't sentient.

 

Of course, since we have trouble defining our own consciousness we are opening up a whole new debate about when a baby becomes conscious...

 

HOWEVER, even IF (and i don't) one accepted the fetus was alive, sentient and conscious, it is still basically a dependent parasite upon the mother, so you still have to decide which one gets priority.

 

It is generally accepted that we have dominion over our own person, and can decide whAat happens to it. Even if it is as extreme as refusing treatment that might save our life. But when one body is inside another body and dependent upon it it becomes a lot trickier.

 

Even well after birth, surgeons will attempt to separate some siamese twins when it is clear that one has a better chance id the other is removed. Is this murder? Is it better/worse than abortion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Feel free to copy it and use it where necessary in this chaos of discussions we call the internet....

 

Suggested accompanying text:

 

[align=center]Congratulations! You Just Played the Hitler Card![/align]

 

What IS this?Is this the card we will show everytime Hitler comes up in discussions?:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

What IS this?Is this the card we will show everytime Hitler comes up in discussions?:confused:

 

No, this is the card we show everytime Hitler is used as an excuse that something is "evil" or "bad."

 

By the way, I say somebody should close this thread already because it has just been the same arguments (from both sides) for several pages now. Re-open it when there is something new to add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking the same thing for the past few weeks, but since it kept getting some activity, and since I have little real opinion on the abortion issue (not having a womb, I feel a bit disqualified from discussing it too far).

 

I'll give 24 hours for the pros/cons of keeping it open then I'll make a decision Friday night. I'm of the opinion that the same arguments are getting made over and over and the horse is dead... why kick it?

 

Anyone feel different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it's not closed just yet, I think I'll add a thought or two:

 

IMO, the fundamental issue is not the stage of development of the foetus. Rather it is an issue of equal employment for women. Does anyone here realise just how much having a baby f***s up a woman's education/career? Having such a burden pressed on you is simply not fair.

 

When the job market accepts babies, then we can come back and talk.

 

And on that note, ShadowTemplar gets the last word!

------------ Cheers, SkinWalker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Here's a law for the state of Virginia I've come across:

 

Encouraging/promoting abortion by publication, lecture, or advertisment can warrant a fine up to $500.

 

Now, please explain to me how they can fine you $500 just because you don't agree with Christian values of anti-abortion.

 

This law is unconstitutional in at least two ways. Last time I checked there WAS freedom of speech in America, but it seems to be pretty much non-existant when it comes to speaking against Christian laws. Which brings me to the next, and that's there's a freedom of religion. The *only* arguable reason for anti-abortion is religion (no, "wtf ur killing teh bebies!111" is not an argument), but religion should be a non-issue when writing the laws isn't it, because laws aren't supposed to be based on religious values, in this case anti-abortion.

 

Now, maybe if the publication/lecture/advertisment is encouraging/promoting illegal abortions, go ahead and fine them. But what if the publication/lecture/advertisment is encouraging/promoting women to go get abortions in a state it's legal in?

 

Does this mean that sex ed teachers can't discuss the pros/cons of abortion (the pros would outweigh the cons so it would appear to promote abortion)? Does this mean that an article can't be posted in a newspaper about the advantages of abortion over single-motherhood or adoption?

 

My state sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The *only* arguable reason for anti-abortion is religion

 

Not strictly true, I know several atheists who are anti-abortion. While heavily influenced by religion in most respects, religion is not the only factor contributing to abortion / anti-abortion arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...