Atheists and Abortion

[Seasanctuary]

So, what are ya'll's positions on abortion? Specifically, what do you think of it morally...and what do you think the legal position ought to be?

...and for God's sake, explain yourselves.

[EvoUK]

Pro-choice.

Morally:

I have no problem morally with early abortions, however the later into the pregnancy the foetus gets, and the more developed it becomes, the more of an ethical situation having an abortion gets. This is why I am against late-term and partial birth abortions unless for valid medical reasons.

Legally:

I think that there should be restrictions on abortion, such as making elective abortion much harder for women after a certain period of time. By that point it would be dangerous for the mother, as well as the possibility of the foetus being viable outside the womb.

Other Thoughts:

I think that if the pro-life groups really cared about the subject, they would drop trying to ban abortion completely (they have little chance with the arguments they have in their arsenal at the moment), and instead try to lower the amount of abortions in the country.

The best known way of doing this are realistic sex-education programes, and cheap and easy to get contraception. I doubt there's little coincidence that the countires with the lowest abortion rates have the best sex-education and contraceptive programes.

[C. D. Ward]

I believe that the moral status of abortion is questionable. Not so much because of the question of when the fetus becomes a person, although that's certainly an issue as well, but more so because it's generally an expensive, unnecessarily complex. and possibly health-risking solution to a problem more properly solved by recognition of personal responsibility and exercise of restraint. IOW, abortion as a form of birth control is morally questionable because it stems from a moral failure to begin with.

I have no moral issues with abortion as a medical procedure, when required to preserve the life or health of the mother, or in cases of rape where a woman did not consent to become impregnated (i.e., did not engage in consensual sex).

In terms of legality, I think that abortion on demand should be legal only until the point at which brain activity can be observed (I think that's the end of the first trimester?) as brain activity is what distinguishes (for me, anyway) potential from actual personhood. After that point, I think that the only abortions permitted should be those required for medical reasons.

[Superbug]

I agree with EvoUK on everything.

[EvoUK]

Funny- most people seem to think I'm a monster- at least that's what one of the most recent abortion threads leads one to believe. :lol:

[C. D. Ward]

Funny- most people seem to think I'm a monster- at least that's what one of the most recent abortion threads leads one to believe. :lol:
If it makes you feel any better Evo, I still think you're a monster. :rasberry: :lol:

[EvoUK]

Aaw, thanks Ward- I have this warm fuzzy feeling now...

:teeth:

[EvoUK]

It's ok- it was just gas...

Back to your regularly scheduled programme...

[SteveF]

My views on abortion have changed a fair bit since being on this forum, mainly because of reading the points put forward by pro-lifers. The rabid zeal of many in this group (not necessairly on TWeb) still disturb me greatly, but I have to admit to being swayed more towards their point of view. My feelings on the matter are still very much in flux so what I say next may change.

Simply put, I am becoming morally opposed to abortion. I find the concept of stages of development etc to be rather empty given that the end product will end up being a human being. It seems wrong to deny an organism the potential of life.

Obviously there are circumstances (e.g. rape) where having a child is very difficult. However I believe as a society we should encourage the continuation of the pregnancy. Obviously improved adoption schemes are needed.

Having said all this, I still believe in a womans right to choose. As I say, I believe that as a society we should be promoting birth, but ultimately I believe the decision should be down to the individual woman. This should be enshrined legally.

As I say this could all change, I'm not sure I'm ready for a full debate on this yet. Still, this is how I feel at the moment.

[Seasanctuary]

I'm pro-life morally and always have been. This whole "potential human being" argument is disingenuous. It's a baby.

When it comes to legality, I think in practical terms of balancing the birth of babies that would otherwise be aborted...against the suffering of women who would otherwise have access to state of the art, legal abortions.

Up until lately, I've simply taken the stance of pro-choice legally because I didn't want to be responsible for the difference in the suffering of the women who have illegal, unprofessional abortions. I realize that a lot of better-than-thou Christians refuse to shoulder that responsibility and think that people who become pregnant deserve death and torture for being so sinful. Poppycock.

However, recently I've started to move toward pro-life legally as well as morally. I figure that there would be a significant number of women who would not have abortions if they were illegal. That would be a gain in both the life of the children and the long term happiness of the mothers (in most cases). Nowdays I'm betting that gain would be greater than the loss incurred by me (as a voter) being responsible for unprofessional abortions.

It's a tough issue because both sides are arguing for humanitarian reasons.

I've decided to take responsibility for the consequences of the legality either way. There's no "everyone wins" solution here legally, but I've begun to consider pro-life laws the path to the maximum reasonable good. Of course, it will break my heart every time I would then hear of the evil side I've imposed upon women who have abortions anyway. I would regret adding to their suffering.

The only exception I'd put in place would be if another life (fellow unborn or mother) would cease as a direct result of not having an abortion. In that case, I'd not prescribe things either way.

Rape and incest wouldn't be exceptions. My suggestion for mitigating rape in such situations is to make rape a capital offence. It's one thing to be raped. It's another to know the rapist is still walking the earth for the rest of your life. Especially if you're worried the rapist may take an interest in your child.

Physical problems wouldn't be an exception either. However, I would mitigate that by being more permissive with euthanasia than is currently practised. I'm not for putting people through extra pain and bankrupting family and friends in the name of "sanctity of human life." And I said "permissive"...I would not make euthanasia a legal requirement ever.

Cheers,
Seasanctuary

[EvoUK]

Actually Sea- I would be interested to hear your secular reason for being prolife. Most of the prolifers I've come across on here are pro-life for mostly religious reasons, so find it almost impossible to formulate a secular pro-life argument.

What, to you, is necessary and sufficient to be considered a human being worthy of protection?

What do you feel about the fact that, if zygotes were redefined as human beings, they would have to gain rights that no other human being has- the right to use someone elses body against their will?

[Superbug]

A zygote is the fusion of an egg and a sperm cell. Is it wrong to abort one-cell zygotes? I don't think so. Eggs and sperm cells die all the time and no one cares. I think it's not reasonable to change the rules suddenly when they unite. And if zygotes can be freely aborted, we must draw the line separating the stages where abortion is OK and the stages where abortion shouldn't be performed. What I'd really like to decrease is suffering and pain. For instance, I'm pro-euthanasia. If a zygote can't feel pain, abortion is OK. But it would have been better if we hadn't to rely on abortion as a birth control method.

[Seasanctuary]

Actually Sea- I would be interested to hear your secular reason for being prolife. Most of the prolifers I've come across on here are pro-life for mostly religious reasons, so find it almost impossible to formulate a secular pro-life argument.

What, to you, is necessary and sufficient to be considered a human being worthy of protection? I don't see what's so religious about valuing human life. I see no qualitative difference between unborn babies and recently born babies. Just another human being on the path to development.

At the risk of committing an Argumentum Ad Etymology, just look at what it's called: "abortion." You're cancelling what is already in progress, namely the growth of fellow human being. I'm all for contraceptives (including abstinence) because those are preventative measures not abortive measures.

I have no problem with a couple not having a child, but I do have a problem with a couple having a child and then killing their child. I often wonder why people who are pro-choice morally have a problem with giving the father a legal pass on killing his child the first week after birth. After all, it takes two to make a child and the man should also get his choice in deciding whether to push that train off the tracks. What if he doesn't want a child at this point in his life?

What do you feel about the fact that, if zygotes were redefined as human beings, they would have to gain rights that no other human being has- the right to use someone elses body against their will? This is the disingenuous part I was talking about in my earlier post. Since when do I need to redefine the unborn as human beings? Parents do it all the time and always have. Yet, somehow, whether or not it's a child is supposed to rely entirely on whether one of the two parents deigns to grant it human being status...or classifies it as a cancerous growth that needs removal.

Plus, you make it sound like unborn children hang around in dark alleys waiting to jump hapless women and swivel into their wombs like some rapist or facehugger. Oh no, I've been infested with a baby...I've been invaded...violated...my body is being used against my will!

...and here I thought living in a woman for a term was considered fine long ago considering it's the first thing everyone does in this world.

[EvoUK]

I see no qualitative difference between unborn babies and recently born babies.

When you say “unborn baby”, it strongly implies you mean a foetus very late in the pregnancy. In which case- I fully agree with you. There is very little difference- after the 6th month the cerebral cortex is developed enough to make little difference.

However, if “unborn” really implies every stage of it from conception through until birth, then I couldn’t disagree more. I actually see little difference between a zygote and and other form of human tissue.

I have no problem with a couple not having a child, but I do have a problem with a couple having a child and then killing their child.

So do I- infantcide sickens me. However, we’re not talking about child killing- we’re talking about abortion.

I often wonder why people who are pro-choice morally have a problem with giving the father a legal pass on killing his child the first week after birth. After all, it takes two to make a child and the man should also get his choice in deciding whether to push that train off the tracks. What if he doesn't want a child at this point in his life?

Eh? You honestly wonder why pro-choicers are against killing babies? How absurd…

Much like a man would have little overall say if a woman had any surgical programe, he has little overall say in her having an abortion. By that I mean that the couple should discuss it together- but if she decides to bring it to term, and he doesn’t- then she can bring it to term. Same the opposite way around.

Since when do I need to redefine the unborn as human beings?

because they aren’t defined as human beings worthy of protection yet. So any move to make abortion illegal would first have to explain why they are worthy of rights. Its merely the first step.

Yet, somehow, whether or not it's a child is supposed to rely entirely on whether one of the two parents deigns to grant it human being status...or classifies it as a cancerous growth that needs removal.

Nope. It’s defined as a child once it’s been born. It’s merely terminology.

Plus, you make it sound like unborn children hang around in dark alleys waiting to jump hapless women and swivel into their wombs like some rapist or facehugger. Oh no, I've been infested with a baby...I've been invaded...violated...my body is being used against my will!

it’s simple logic. If she wants to get an abortion, it means she doesn’t want to bring it to term. If she doesn’t want to bring it to term, and yet a pro-life group forces her to by law, she is literally having her body used against her will. She’s reduced to being a slave to her uterus.

...and here I thought living in a woman for a term was considered fine long ago considering it's the first thing everyone does in this world.

There is nothing wrong with it if the mother wishes to go through with it. Most pro-choicers prefer them to have births than abortions- however, the whole argument is about forcing the woman to carry it for nine months against her will.



And you still haven’t explained what properties of a zygote makes it a human being.

[Gilgaron]

I wouldn't encourage anyone to get an abortion, unless there was medical need, but I think it should be legal. I don't think it is reasonable to consider a zygote a person, since there isn't anything about it that can be said to make it one. I also am not very sure that even if it was the mother would necessarily be obligated to carry it to term.

[BeHereNow]

So, what are ya'll's positions on abortion? Specifically, what do you think of it morally...and what do you think the legal position ought to be?

...and for God's sake, explain yourselves.

I agree with Superbug on everything. I've made the point before that a sperm cell is a living organism, and when it unites to an egg to form a 2-celled organism it is not suddently "human". That's like calling an acorn a tree.

There's a need to recognize stages of development so as to callibrate a balance of potential mother pain and potential fetus pain.

As far as people aborting babies with detectable brain or other malformations, I'm all for it. This sentiment angers many folks, but I think raising a mentaly or physicaly challenged baby is something people should have discretion over if it's available.

Legally, I look at an unborn baby as the personal property of a woman, who is sole proprietor. AFAIK, this is why a pregnant woman assaulted and killed would count as a double murder - the potential mother retains rights to decide if this organism growing inside her will or will not continue. The taking away of this right to life is murder.

[Seasanctuary]

However, if “unborn” really implies every stage of it from conception through until birth, then I couldn’t disagree more. I actually see little difference between a zygote and and other form of human tissue.
Between zygote and infant and infant and teenager is a continuous growth of an individual with her own DNA. The most disingenous argument from the pro-choice side is that a fetus is indistinguishable from a woman's various other body tissues.

So do I- infantcide sickens me. However, we’re not talking about child killing- we’re talking about abortion.

Eh? You honestly wonder why pro-choicers are against killing babies? How absurd…
Yes, I do honestly wonder about that. Infant abandonment was practised in classical times to achieve the same effect of opting out of parenthood. And isn't that what abortion is really about? Cancelling an impending lifetime of parenthood with all the scary changes that entails?

It's good that infanticide sickens you. But have you ever thought of the demands an infant places on her parents? The law says you have to keep an infant and feed an infant and change the infant and watch the infant and take care of the infants medical expenses...no one else has the right to just come into my home and demand all of that. Why should I grant infants these new and unique rights that so trample on how my life would otherwise be?

Much like a man would have little overall say if a woman had any surgical programe, he has little overall say in her having an abortion.
So, "You're pregnant with my child, please don't kill her" isn't allowed? Pity.

[Superbug]

Do you really think that there is no difference between a lonely cell and a newborn baby? Doesn't the newborn baby look at least little bigger? :wink:
Are you also a vegetarian? I ask it because a chicken has a much more developed nervous system than early embryos.

[Seasanctuary]

Do you really think that there is no difference between a lonely cell and a newborn baby? Doesn't the newborn baby look at least little bigger? :wink:
To the untrained eye.

Are you also a vegetarian? I ask it because a chicken has a much more developed nervous system than early embryos.
Of course, if the chicken were to eat some corn then it would be a human being. If you disagree, take it up with Gilgaron (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=670035&postcount=110).

[Superbug]

To the untrained eye.

I don't know how you can say that. A zygote has the level of consciousness of a person with cerebral death. The ant you just smashed is a lot smarter and full of life than a zygote.

What's so magical about the moment when an egg unites with a sperm cell? When they are separated, they can die but when they unite, everything changes. You are not allowed to say that a zygote has a soul. :tongue:


Of course, if the chicken were to eat some corn then it would be a human being. If you disagree, take it up with Gilgaron (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=670035&postcount=110).

Are you a vegetarian then?

[EvoUK]

Between zygote and infant and infant and teenager is a continuous growth of an individual with her own DNA. The most disingenous argument from the pro-choice side is that a fetus is indistinguishable from a woman's various other body tissues.

Again with the assertion making. We know that a zygote has unique DNA- so do many canerous cells, it’s irrelevent to the issue.

things change fundamentally in various stages of complexity and organization, and we place different value on things accordingly. So while you’re correct in that 30% of zygotes may become human beings, it doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t now. We don’t give rights to potentials, we give rights to actuals.

You’re using exactally the same line of argument as me saying a 5 year old will grow into an 18 year old, so he/she should vote now. There is no practical difference in your line of reasoning.

As far as the zygote being indistinguishable from any other form of human tissue- as far as it’s mental capabilities and nervous system is involved, there is no difference. And there won’t be a difference for weeks to come.

And isn't that what abortion is really about? Cancelling an impending lifetime of parenthood with all the scary changes that entails?

[sigh]

You’re getting emotional and not thinking clearly.

Abortion is defined as: "the expulsion or extraction of all (complete) or any part (incomplete) of the placenta or membranes, with or without an abortus, before the 20th week (before 134 days) of gestation." By the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Infanticide isn’t abortion by definition- nor is terminating a pregnancy after 20 weeks. Infanticide isn’t even a valid option because by that point you have all the necessary equipment for the baby to be considered an individual person worthy of rights. A baby can be adopted. During the abortion period, adoption isn’t even an elective option.

Besides, you’re now comparing two different stages of pregnancy and child development, and treating them as one and the same, when they aren’t. I only argue for early term elective abortion, and later term abortions for medical reasons. Thus discussing about killing babies etc is moot- as you should instead discuss it with someone who agrees with the concept.

But have you ever thought of the demands an infant places on her parents? The law says you have to keep an infant and feed an infant and change the infant and watch the infant and take care of the infants medical expenses

No it doesn’t- you can put it up for adoption.

So, "You're pregnant with my child, please don't kill her" isn't allowed? Pity.

Maybe.

To the untrained eye.

ok then- to the trained eye, what are the relevent simularities? You have hopped and skipped about this direct question several times now. What makes a zygote a human being? What is necessary and sufficient to be called such?

Don’t be dull and pedestrian and merely assert that it’s a human being- I’m becoming sick of that from the other abortion thread running at the moment.

Of course, if the chicken were to eat some corn then it would be a human being. If you disagree, take it up with Gilgaron.

Way to take a post out of context. Gilgaron was using an argumentum ad absurditum to show that rum tum tuggers argument was fallicious and absurd.

[Benster]

I think it's deplorable, shameful, horrifying, demeaning to the human condition, usually very traumatic and psychologically, spiritually painful to the mother. It speaks badly of all of us, and it is the waste of a human life. And yet...it certainly should not be illegal. It's only the business of the mother and, partly the father.

[Seasanctuary]

What's so magical about the moment when an egg unites with a sperm cell? When they are separated, they can die but when they unite, everything changes. You are not allowed to say that a zygote has a soul. :tongue:
A zygote does have a soul in the Old Testament sense, which is quite compatable with Atheism. :wink:

And yes, the point of conception is a very significant change. That is when the parents' seeds combine to form a new full set of human DNA and the growth progress immediately begins that is continuous throughout a person's life.

There are, of course, other significant milestones as the embryo gets differentiated tissues, and neural activity, etc. But any dark and heavy line drawn after conception to differentiate how we decide to value an embryo is just that...our decision. There's nothing biological that determines how we decide to value humans at any stage. That's up to us, even if we key it to some milestone biological phase.

"Human" denotes what we choose to include or exclude. If we want to say the Europeans aren't human, that Harry Potter is human, or anything...we certainly can. Right now, people are in a major disagreement about what qualities we deem essential to human-ness and which we don't. I'm just saying that I'm siding with the conception-onward view in this situation.

Abortion is an artificial, active intervention to keep those embryos from becoming a being that looks and acts similar to the way I am now...and I was once one of those demanding womb-tenants myself.

I care about other people and so I care about these people-in-development. I'm really just trying to explain myself more so than trying to convince me you ought to agree with me. So...there ya go.

[Seasanctuary]

Infanticide isn’t even a valid option because by that point you have all the necessary equipment for the baby to be considered an individual person worthy of rights. A baby can be adopted. During the abortion period, adoption isn’t even an elective option. I just disagree that the ability for a mother to choose to get rid of her offspring is an essential characteristic in that offspring's human-hood. :shrug:

What makes a zygote a human being? What is necessary and sufficient to be called such? See my post above for what I consider qualifications. Being a human being is a social construction, but I'm pretty set in my social constructions on the matter. :wink:

(To any Theist readers: I see no advantage to being a theist while answering such a question. God's valuations are also constructs.)

Way to take a post out of context. We all get our kicks somehow.

[Superbug]

A zygote does have a soul in the Old Testament sense, which is quite compatable with Atheism. :wink:

What's a soul in the Old Testament sense?


And yes, the point of conception is a very significant change. That is when the parents' seeds combine to form a new full set of human DNA and the growth progress immediately begins that is continuous throughout a person's life.


I can't sympathise with a cell no matter how many chromosomes it has. And if we go backwards from the moment of conception it's also a continuum.


There are, of course, other significant milestones as the embryo gets differentiated tissues, and neural activity, etc. But any dark and heavy line drawn after conception to differentiate how we decide to value an embryo is just that...our decision.


Why are only the lines drawn after conception arbitrary? Choosing the moment of conception is as arbitrary as choosing any other moment. An egg wasted is a potential human life wasted. It could have been fertilized, you know. Can you imagine how many sperm cells die every day? Also potential human beings.

I don't want to see suffering and pain. I don't hesitate before breaking a stone because I know it doesn't feel anything. A cell doesn't feel anything either. When we draw the line of abortion, we must consider what it is, not what it will be. The number of wasted opportunities in life must be infinite. Now if you were somewhere, you could be saving the life of someone. Another opportunity wasted. Thinking about all that could have been would drive us crazy.


There's nothing biological that determines how we decide to value humans at any stage. That's up to us, even if we key it to some milestone biological phase.


Sure. Why is the moment of conception special?


"Human" denotes what we choose to include or exclude. If we want to say the Europeans aren't human, that Harry Potter is human, or anything...we certainly can.


I don't think we should base our decisions about abortion on vocabulary. There are more important factor to consider besides the definition of "human".


Abortion is an artificial, active intervention to keep those embryos from becoming a being that looks and acts similar to the way I am now...


Do you think that artificial is bad and natural is good? You should know better.


I care about other people and so I care about these people-in-development.


You are sympathising with a possibility, not with reality. Suppose that a zygote never divides, the cause is undefined. It doesn't develop anymore, it just stops at that stage but never dies. Can we abort it? If you answer yes, it's clear that you don't care about single cells, only about what they are going to be.

[Gilgaron]

Of course, if the chicken were to eat some corn then it would be a human being. If you disagree, take it up with Gilgaron (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=670035&postcount=110).
I hope you understood the point of what I wrote there?

[steamer]

I am satisfied with the first trimester as being the limit to abortion. I am not satisfied with the legality of it though. Men have zero say in the decision, yet have the responsibility to provide for the child if it comes to term, regardless of whether there is a continuing relationship. Obviously a man should not be able to dictate whether a woman aborts or not, but if he does not want a child and she chooses to to carry it to term, then it should be her responsibility.

[EvoUK]

Sea:

Sorry if I seemed rather rude and obnoxious in my previous post- it was unintentional, and just reading through it again recently made me realise how much repeating myself ad nausiem to a group of people who will never see it without their emotional blinders on got on my nerves.

I just disagree that the ability for a mother to choose to get rid of her offspring is an essential characteristic in that offspring's human-hood.

That’s not a characteristic, it’s a product.

What makes a person is a philosophical question. Once you have defined what is a person (and you do that by asking yourself what it is we value in others in our society), it becomes a relitively easy matter to scientifically and medically show about when that happens.

Although being alive and being human (having human DNA) is necessary to be considered a human being in our society, it is not sufficient. This is trivially shown by the fact that we do not value human life (skin cells, other tissues etc).

So, if that isn’t enough- what factors are? This is a question which not one of the other posters could answer. They considered zygvotes etc a human being, but they could not actually define why.

It was reduced to a repeat of this:

“a zygote is a human being”

“Why?”

“because if left alone, some of them will develop into a baby, and then an adult like you or me”

“ok, so ~30% of them will develop into a baby. What does that make them now?”

“human beings”

“why? What is it about them that makes them human beings and not something else?”

“they will develop into a baby”

:argh:

See my post above for what I consider qualifications. Being a human being is a social construction, but I'm pretty set in my social constructions on the matter.

This is ultimately a question of how a word is to be defined (more specifically, how the object of our values is to be completely and correctly described), and though scientists can create operational definitions for use in organizing experiments and clarifying the results, the issue of defining terms for accurate use in general human life is the domain of philosophy, not science.

Let’s look at what you think is necessary for something to be considered a human being:

And yes, the point of conception is a very significant change. That is when the parents' seeds combine to form a new full set of human DNA and the growth progress immediately begins that is continuous throughout a person's life.

Conception then.

Ok- so what is your opinion of twins? They have the same genotype, but their phenotypes are somewhat different. If you examine twins you will notice differences both physically and intellectually. And they also develop different personalities. Twins have identical genotypes and yet they are clearly two different individuals.

Twinning occurs as late as the fourteenth day (it can happen later but in this case they're generally conjoined twins). Let's assume the embryo is a person. Let's call him John. What happens to John when it "splits"? Does it split into say Jack and Denis? Does John continues to exist and, for instance, Denis spontaneously appears? There is no second fertilization here. This is another reason why personhood cannot start at conception: even the number of (obviously different) persons that will come from a single embryo varies.

Two zygotes can merge and eventually become one single person. Considering them as two persons is absurd. Just as one individual cannot split into two, two individuals cannot dissolve into one. This negates the very idea of individuality.

Personally, what I think separates human beings from human tissue is conscience. Therefore an appropriate definition for the start of personhood is conscience. Where does conscience come from? It is now recognised among scientists from various relevant fields that the conscience is centred in the brain. For example, traumatic brain injuries and lesions often result in changes of personality. The best known example is that of Phineas Gage. He suffered an awful injury, where a rod ended up in his head, damaging some of his brain. Originally, Gage was a quiet, and “nice” man. Afterwards, he was self-absorbed and obscene.

So, one would conclude that a foetus becomes a person when it has developed the necessary brain tissue to support it, which is a gradual process.

[Seasanctuary]

What's a soul in the Old Testament sense?
A life.

I can't sympathise with a cell no matter how many chromosomes it has. And if we go backwards from the moment of conception it's also a continuum.
Before conception the materials that make up that embryo were just parts of his parents' bodies.

Why are only the lines drawn after conception arbitrary? Choosing the moment of conception is as arbitrary as choosing any other moment. An egg wasted is a potential human life wasted. It could have been fertilized, you know. Can you imagine how many sperm cells die every day? Also potential human beings.
Feel free to explain to me how value and biology have a non-constructed relationship. Until then, I can point out that some Catholics do indeed feel the way you described. I think Monty Python did a song about it. :wink:

I don't want to see suffering and pain. I don't hesitate before breaking a stone because I know it doesn't feel anything. A cell doesn't feel anything either.
Interesting standard. Not a bad one either, it's based on sympathy of others' feelings. I can definitely understand when people don't decide to extend human-ness before neural development or after utter senility. Or, at least, have a slimmed-down version of human rights. There is, however, quite a bit of difference between any children that could have, in theory, been made if this person had impregnated that person instead...and a post-conception human speciman, actively growing into someone similar to me.

Do you think that artificial is bad and natural is good? You should know better.

Have you tried synthetic sweeteners?

You are sympathising with a possibility, not with reality. Suppose that a zygote never divides, the cause is undefined. It doesn't develop anymore, it just stops at that stage but never dies. Can we abort it? If you answer yes, it's clear that you don't care about single cells, only about what they are going to be.
Feel free to kill it, but I wouldn't call it abortion.

[Seasanctuary]

I hope you understood the point of what I wrote there?
Wouldn't that be more of a concern if I had mentioned it seriously?

[Seasanctuary]

Sorry if I seemed rather rude and obnoxious in my previous post- it was unintentional, and just reading through it again recently made me realise how much repeating myself ad nausiem to a group of people who will never see it without their emotional blinders on got on my nerves.
No problem. It's a topic that, to a neutral observer, might appear to randomly choose people for either side and embue them with a "how could the other side not see how obviously right we are" hex.

What makes a person is a philosophical question. Once you have defined what is a person (and you do that by asking yourself what it is we value in others in our society), it becomes a relitively easy matter to scientifically and medically show about when that happens.
Yep.

This is ultimately a question of how a word is to be defined (more specifically, how the object of our values is to be completely and correctly described), and though scientists can create operational definitions for use in organizing experiments and clarifying the results, the issue of defining terms for accurate use in general human life is the domain of philosophy, not science.
Agreed.

Twinning occurs as late as the fourteenth day (it can happen later but in this case they're generally conjoined twins). Let's assume the embryo is a person. Let's call him John. What happens to John when it "splits"? Does it split into say Jack and Denis? Does John continues to exist and, for instance, Denis spontaneously appears? There is no second fertilization here. This is another reason why personhood cannot start at conception: even the number of (obviously different) persons that will come from a single embryo varies.

Two zygotes can merge and eventually become one single person. Considering them as two persons is absurd. Just as one individual cannot split into two, two individuals cannot dissolve into one. This negates the very idea of individuality.
Heh, good thing I don't hold to a duelistic soul concept. Those are tricky questions and are indeed things we just have to work our for ourselves. I'm quite willing to extend human-ness to the pre and post-configurations. Identity is obviously not so well defined in such a case. I do value people more when they've got more invested in life, others have invested in them, etc. Didn't I see a Voyager episode about this, by the way?

Personally, what I think separates human beings from human tissue is conscience. Therefore an appropriate definition for the start of personhood is conscience.
And that's definitely one of our options.

So, one would conclude that a foetus becomes a person when it has developed the necessary brain tissue to support it, which is a gradual process.
That's a decent argument for early but against late term abortions. Of course, we'd still have to work out _how_ conscious.

[Superbug]

Before conception the materials that make up that embryo were just parts of his parents' bodies.


Not really. Germ cells can be attacked by the immune system because they are not recognized as a part of the organism. They survive because they are protected by barriers the immune cells can't cross.


There is, however, quite a bit of difference between any children that could have, in theory, been made if this person had impregnated that person instead...and a post-conception human speciman, actively growing into someone similar to me.


I understand the way you feel, it's because you are imagining the future child. If you focus on the present cell, which is in a sense more real than the future child, maybe you will feel different.


Have you tried synthetic sweeteners?


Aspartame gives me headaches but stevia (an herb, not really an artificial sweetener) is OK. I never tested sucralose but people say good things about it.

Anyway I'm not nature's greatest fan. I like cities, big cities, with streets, roads, book stores, and restaurants. Being among trees scares me. There are all kinds of insects and snakes and spiders and other animals I'm not eager to meet. I like my soft bed and my computer. Nature is cool from a distance.

[EvoUK]

Anyway I'm not nature's greatest fan. I like cities, big cities, with streets, roads, book stores, and restaurants. Being among trees scares me. There are all kinds of insects and snakes and spiders and other animals I'm not eager to meet. I like my soft bed and my computer. Nature is cool from a distance.

:lol:

You act just like your avatar- he hates nature too!

[EvoUK]

That's a decent argument for early but against late term abortions.

I only argue for late term abortions for medical reasons. Other than that, there's not much more I can really say to your reply- so this is kinda brief... :tongue:

[Seasanctuary]

I only argue for late term abortions for medical reasons. Other than that, there's not much more I can really say to your reply- so this is kinda brief... :tongue:
That's just fine. I really started this thread to get a feel for what people thought...not to initiate an eternal struggle of the four winds. :wink:

[EvoUK]

That's just fine. I really started this thread to get a feel for what people thought...not to initiate an eternal struggle of the four winds.

Yeah- the eternal struggle is such a cliche anyways...

[Sacrificial Ram]

Pro-choice.


The best known way of doing this are realistic sex-education programes, and cheap and easy to get contraception. I doubt there's little coincidence that the countires with the lowest abortion rates have the best sex-education and contraceptive programes.
Of course, since many of the people who are morally against abortion are also against birth control,or learnign about sex in school.. that makes that point moot.

[Sacrificial Ram]

A zygote does have a soul in the Old Testament sense, which is quite compatable with Atheism. :wink:
Actually, it doesn't. The Tankah, or old testament, is quite clear that
the 'spirit' of a baby comes iwth the first breath of life. The Hebrew word for soul is "Nephesh", which is a derivative of breath, and means breather, or one who breathes.

[Seasanctuary]

Actually, it doesn't. The Tankah, or old testament, is quite clear that
the 'spirit' of a baby comes iwth the first breath of life. The Hebrew word for soul is "Nephesh", which is a derivative of breath, and means breather, or one who breathes.
Arguments to etymology are deceiving. That's like saying that English speakers have always considered bears to have souls because they called bears "animals" which is a derivative of the Latin "animus" meaning "soul."

You'd need an argument by usage from the Tanakh.

[rach12]

I think it's deplorable, shameful, horrifying, demeaning to the human condition, usually very traumatic and psychologically, spiritually painful to the mother. It speaks badly of all of us, and it is the waste of a human life. And yet...it certainly should not be illegal. It's only the business of the mother and, partly the father.
Those statements pretty much sum up how I feel about abortion. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[albert]

1) Zygotes die all the time, in droves. They are flushed down toilets by women who never even knew they were pregnant. If you assign them the same value as human beings, then this is a massive public health disaster, bigger than AIDS, requiring a proportionate response.

2) The voting age is an arbitrary threshold at which someone gets a right they did not have before. There is no reason to give a zygote the right to life just because "it will grow into a baby" any more than we give a baby the right to vote "because it will grow into an adult".

[EvoUK]

#2 is an "actual vs potential" argument, which is discussed in more detail in the polisci forum of all places.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39935