Abortion

[EvoUK]

i just ment that its either a baby or not a baby

Oh- well that's easy then: a zygote/embryo/early foetus and even late foetus isn't a baby by definition. A baby is a baby by definition. Glad we sorted that out.

if its killed your either punished for killing a baby or killing an organ

Well, we've already established it's not a baby- I have no idea where you got the organ bit from though.

some people want it both ways

Some people want an embryo to be both a baby and an organ? I'm having a hard time making sense of your posts.

imo a human is human from conception forward.

Again, we're discussing abortion- I don't think I've seen anyone claim yet that it's not biologically human.

yes i said child instead of an unborn baby however the concept still stands.

The concept would still stand- both terms are merely used for their emotive significance. And due to the lack of specific terms, I have no idea which period of development you're talking about. As we're discussing abortion, I'm being forced to assume you're still referring to the 1st trimester, as that is when most elective abortions occur.

This is just an assumption, however- your lack of specific terms precludes me from specifically knowing what you're talking about.

As for me, I don't value the lives of human zygotes, in nearly all cases. On the other hand, if the zygotes belonged to someone I care about, and she cared about them, then I might value them as well - just as I might value their pets, because of what they represent to the other person.

So, non-sentient implies "has no rights"? Then when you are non-sentient (that is, unconscious), then you have no rights. Following your logic here there is nothing wrong with someone killing you in your sleep.

Don't be absurd- you're merely conflating the two.

in early unborns, the hardware is not developed to a point where any form of the "software" that is or will be personhood can be active. Your reply re people who are asleep is therefore irrelevant, because in their case the hardware is still intact. They are not using the ability at that point in time because cognitive functioning has been suspended. This is an imperfect analogy because the potential of the comatose is immediate, but the potential of the unborn is not. A person who is asleep can wake up out of their coma at any moment, but the early unborn can't.

[EvoUK]

Considering that abortion has the potential for making mankind extinct, I've been more curious as to why anyone supports it.

[Challenger Grim]

When undecided people hear something this ridiculous, you may be driving them in the other direction. I myself sometimes use the heuristic of supporting the side which isn't making itself look [as] silly.

Please explain to me how that is ridiculous? If 100% of women aborted 100% of the time, explain how mankind wouldn't become extinct. Or did we somehow gain the ability to exempt ourselves from the laws of math and biology recently? Was natural selection repealed while I was at lunch? You should really remove the timber from your own eye.

Abortion is currently only possible because a minority of people use it a minority of the time. Even if you don't assume a 100% true situation, just a majority occurrence (both in people and instances) it won't take but a few generations for a society to suffer demographic collapse.

But please, you and EvoUK explain to me how humans have grown immune to the laws of reality.

[joel]

Oh- well that's easy then: a zygote/embryo/early foetus and even late foetus isn't a baby by definition. A baby is a baby by definition. Glad we sorted that out.

This is not true. The only judge of 'the' definition of a word is to look at how it is conventionally used. It is common for parents to refer to their pre-born offspring as a baby. (I also checked my dictionary and found that it can include pre-born human beings.

But it is pointless to argue over definitions.

The concept would still stand- both terms are merely used for their emotive significance.

Not true. I see no logical difference in being in a human being at the moment of birth. So it stands to reason that we should use a term referring to that single being (e.g., "the child"). More specific terms are needed only when it matters what stage of life you are referring to (e.g., infant, toddler, adolescent).

And due to the lack of specific terms, I have no idea which period of development you're talking about. As we're discussing abortion, I'm being forced to assume you're still referring to the 1st trimester, as that is when most elective abortions occur.

This is just an assumption, however- your lack of specific terms precludes me from specifically knowing what you're talking about.

Odis said clearly "from conception forward".

As for me, I don't value the lives of human zygotes, in nearly all cases.

It is irrelevant what you value. That's not what is at issue. You may not value the life of your neighbor, and choose to murder him. That's irrelevant to the question of the justice of your act.

Don't be absurd- you're merely conflating the two.

in early unborns, the hardware is not developed to a point where any form of the "software" that is or will be personhood can be active. Your reply re people who are asleep is therefore irrelevant, because in their case the hardware is still intact. They are not using the ability at that point in time because cognitive functioning has been suspended. This is an imperfect analogy because the potential of the comatose is immediate, but the potential of the unborn is not. A person who is asleep can wake up out of their coma at any moment, but the early unborn can't.

The hardware necessary to produce consciousness is present at fertilization. It just takes time. So your hardware distinction is non-existent.

As for the question of time: you say the person in a coma can become conscious "at any moment." But I don't think we can say that truthfully in the relevant sense. What is really meant by such a statement is "we don't know when." Or at most it refers statistically to comas in general as a group (e.g., a probability distribution for length of coma, where the distribution stretches over "any moment"), but that says nothing about an individual case. I'm not a doctor, but I would think that for an individual case, it is going to take a (unknown) set amount of time for that particular patient to wake up. Indeed, we cannot wake them up at any moment we choose. It may be the case that a coma patient will wake up in 9 months, and we just have to wait. We can easily conceive of such a case and hopefully would agree that in such a case, it would still be wrong to kill them. Thus the time issue is not a logical distinction here. If anything, we have more certainty about a pre-born human being than we do about a coma patient.

(Another problem with consciousness is that it is a continuum, one that is not finished developing until adolescence. Thus there is no logical dividing point on that continuum (and even if there were it likely would be unmeasurable). The only logical criterion would have to do with the kind of being--what power that being has for future action--not with what that being is doing right now. Fertilization does provide that logical dividing point.)

[technomage]

Please explain to me how that is ridiculous? If 100% of women aborted 100% of the time

That is what's silly--If this occurred, yes, humankind would become extinct. By the same token, if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. The latter conjecture has a higher probability of being true.

[Cow Poke]

That is what's silly--If this occurred, yes, humankind would become extinct. By the same token, if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. The latter conjecture has a higher probability of being true.

Well, not exactly! She could be a "morphadite"! (which, if I remember, according to Archie Bunker, is "a freak with a little too much of each and not enough of neither")

[technomage]

I never was much of a fan of All in the Family, but that's pretty funny. Heaven knows I can use a laugh today.

[joel]

Abortion is currently only possible because a minority of people use it a minority of the time.

I might add that it is not that small of a minority. Last I heard about 1/3 of everyone is killed by abortion.

Don't know about likelihood of this increasing to 1/2 or greater.

[Seasanctuary]

Please explain to me how that is ridiculous? If 100% of women aborted 100% of the time, explain how mankind wouldn't become extinct.

If all birth were aborted, we'd go extinct. Therefore births should never be aborted.

If no one were a farmer, we'd all starve. Therefore everyone should be a farmer.
If everyone took a vow of celibacy, we'd go extinct. Therefore no one should take a vow of celibacy.
If everyone tried to use their cell phones at once, no one would get through. Therefore no one should use cell phones.

[Challenger Grim]

That is what's silly--If this occurred, yes, humankind would become extinct. By the same token, if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. The latter conjecture has a higher probability of being true.

Techno, I would think as one of the primo defenders of evolution on this board you'd be smarter than that. First of all, there's no shortage of examples in history of societies that voluntarily wiped themselves out (i.e. Shakers). As I said in that post, it doesn't even have to be 100%, it could just be enough of a majority. You seen the demographic collapses China has been going through?

You even ignore the crux of the implication: would abortion be "wrong" under certain conditions?

If all birth were aborted, we'd go extinct. Therefore births should never be aborted.

If everyone murdered everyone else, we would go extinct, therefore, no one should ever murder.

Oh wait, that's applicable - unless you believe killing is ok in small doses.

Oh wait, you say it's ok to kill people as long as they're in a certain stage of our life cycle so why am I surprised. I guess you're ok with eugenics and forced sterilizations too huh?

If no one were a farmer, we'd all starve. Therefore everyone should be a farmer.
If everyone took a vow of celibacy, we'd go extinct. Therefore no one should take a vow of celibacy.
If everyone tried to use their cell phones at once, no one would get through. Therefore no one should use cell phones.

And these bring up exact points, what if we didn't have enough farmers to maintain food supplies? What if too many people took vows of celibacy? Hey, I'm a misanthropic demon anyway - didn't know I was among like-minds who'd also love to see the human race go extinct.

By all means, continue slaughtering your offspring, I'm sure there will never be any negative repercussions to it.

[technomage]

By all means, continue slaughtering your offspring, I'm sure there will never be any negative repercussions to it.

You should run for office, CG. You would fit right in.

[Challenger Grim]

I might add that it is not that small of a minority. Last I heard about 1/3 of everyone is killed by abortion.

Don't know about likelihood of this increasing to 1/2 or greater.

That's just what is seen, what about what is not seen?

We would need 2 children born to every couple just to maintain population replacement levels.

However... say the averages dropped to just 1 child per couple (averaged out by families with large numbers compared to entire sections childless). Women have a limited fertility range so we wouldn't even need abortion, just birth control during every girl's peak reproductive years.

Say the world pop is 6 bil.
Next generation is 3 bil.
Then 1.5 bil...

How many generations before we go *poof*? That's not even counting the point where populations might become isolated enough that they would either have inadvertent breeding or excessive inbreeding, leading to even greater, rapid decline.

Think it can't happen?
http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/3431156.html

Drawing on these books, let us first get a sense of the new demography. The essential facts of demographic decline discussed in all four are not in doubt. Global fertility rates have fallen by half since 1972. For a modern nation to replace its population, experts explain, the average woman needs to have 2.1 children over the course of her lifetime. Not a single industrialized nation today has a fertility rate of 2.1, and most are well below replacement level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

Government measures to halt the demographic crisis was a key subject of Vladimir Putin's 2006 state of the nation address.[17] As a result, a national programme was developed with the goal to reverse the trend by 2020.

Oh, and of course Japan is working on "sex-bots" and there's already other troubling signs, the question remains: is there a point where this all becomes wrong?

[Challenger Grim]

You should run for office, CG. You would fit right in.

Now that's just cold.

Someday maybe you'll explain why humans get to be exempt from natural selection... oh wait, guess the abortionists will lose by that alone.

Hey, I offer hope to any atheists out there who have the common sense to realize this isn't a good idea.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/171240
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9602.htm

[Seasanctuary]

If everyone murdered everyone else, we would go extinct, therefore, no one should ever murder.

Oh wait, that's applicable - unless you believe killing is ok in small doses.

You already consider murder wrong no matter the scale.

Your earlier argument implied a principle that an individual act can be identified as wrong if it would be bad in the case everyone always did it (or close enough to that). I was showing that things bad in the extreme are not therefore bad in moderation.

X is bad in the extreme -> X is bad in moderation

But your retort just now was:

{ X is bad in moderation } AND { X is bad in the extreme }

These are very different statements.

Oh wait, you say it's ok to kill people as long as they're in a certain stage of our life cycle so why am I surprised. I guess you're ok with eugenics and forced sterilizations too huh?

Please retract your implication that things bad in the extreme are therefore bad in moderation. If you won't, I doubt we'll be able to have a rational conversation about any of these topics.

[Challenger Grim]

http://l4l.org/
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1837

You already consider murder wrong no matter the scale.

Your earlier argument implied a principle that an individual act can be identified as wrong if it would be bad in the case everyone always did it (or close enough to that). I was showing that things bad in the extreme are not therefore bad in moderation.

Duh, it's called the categorical imperative as proposed by Immanuel Kant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

X is bad in the extreme -> X is bad in moderation

But your retort just now was:

{ X is bad in moderation } AND { X is bad in the extreme }

These are very different statements.

The fact that you even need to have this spelled out makes me wonder if a moral discussion is even possible. I think I'd have better luck explaining to Gustave why he shouldn't eat people (and I don't even speak reptilian). Some things are bad in extreme and moderation, some are ok in moderation - I've made my point that abortion is bad in moderation as well, you still have to prove that abortion is ok in moderation.

Please retract your implication that things bad in the extreme are therefore bad in moderation. If you won't, I doubt we'll be able to have a rational conversation about any of these topics.

Are there or are there not cases that things bad in the extreme are also bad in moderation? Does Kant's Categorical Imperative hold some truth? Does the fact that something is ONLY workable (much less good or bad) in moderation not even give you a moment's pause that maybe - just maybe - it's a bad idea?