Abortion Clinic / House of Horrors

[Lemur]

[P]eople have decided that taking the middle-ground on any issue is something good in and of itself. It's in your whole language... that "sensible common ground". While taking the middle-ground is usually seen as moderate, sensible, well thought-out it, there is no reason why this should be the case. To me, it seems like it is often intellectually dishonest, and the abortion debate is a classic example of this.

When we are discussing a policy on which there is broad common agreement in the populace, I don't think it's in any way dishonest to point out this basic fact. The radical anti- and pro-abortionists ignore the common ground because it suits them to do so, not because the moderate middle is somehow false, disingenuous, intellectually lazy or dishonest. And to quote Mr. Franklin, I am a radical moderate, and think that all men who do not practice moderation should be strung up.

All of which is an irrelevance compared to the fundamental right to life.

Define what it means to be "alive" and we can talk more productively. Is a virus alive? By many measures it is not, and yet it is. Or is it? Is a sperm alive? An egg? How about a blastocyst? What "alive" means is only simple if you don't think very hard.

Without question at some point between fertilization and birth an embryo becomes what most would agree is "alive." Reasonable people can disagree on when that takes place.

[Greyblades]

Maybe we should use a different word than alive seeing as its arguable that a severed limb is still alive due to not all of the cells have gone into the state we consider cell death yet. How about sentient?

[rory_20_uk]

Just as tough. Most animals are not thought to be sentient, ditto most plants and "lower" life forms for starters. At what point a foetus becomes sentient isn't known either. Again, it definitely isn't at conception, and definitely is at birth.

[Lemur]

Most animals are not thought to be sentient, ditto most plants and "lower" life forms for starters.

Not to get completely derailed, but people who refuse to consider animals to be sentient always strike me as folks who can't let go of the great chain of being. A shocking number of secularists/scientists seem to be stuck in this rut.

Anyway, I'm not trying to get lost in a maze of sophistry, but a lot of the abortion conundrum circles around what it means to be alive. And both the pro- and anti-abortionists take very absolute (and not very thoughtful) positions, that are intellectually indefensible.

If we take the anti-abortion view, that life begins at the moment of conception, we run into all sorts of logical problems. The rhythm method, for instance, is based on the spontaneous miscarriages that happen at a certain time of the woman's cycle. So the Catholic Church's only approved method of birth control (which is predicated on the sanctity of life) depends on a natural form of abortion. Go figure. By the same reasoning, every miscarriage is an abortion, no matter what trimester it occurs in. What was it Rhyfelwyr was saying about "not taking things to their logical conclusions"? That's not a sin unique to either side.

The extreme pro-abortion position -- that a fetus cannot be considered alive until it emerges from the mother's body -- is equally preposterous, for obvious reasons. An embryo that can react to light, to sound, to its parents' voices and so forth, is obviously alive in every meaningful sense of the word. So to declare that it is not alive until birth is absurd.

[Greyblades]

Great. The lynchpin behind all of our arguments "is the fetus alive/sentient enough to be considered human" and noone knows for sure, this is seeming like an endless discussion more and more. Still this is the internet so that doesn't realy mean much.

[Lemur]

[T]his is seeming like an endless discussion more and more.

Abortion is a Backroom standard, sort of like playing Free Bird at a concert.

I really don't think looking hard at what it means to be "alive" is a dead end (pun intentional). Most people would agree that a blastocyst is not alive. Likewise, most people would consider an embryo with a brain and sensory organs to be fully alive. A sensible compromise can be reached if we look at this without being blinded by rhetoric or rancor.

Besides which, I figure abortion will someday be a relic of the past, when 100% maintenance-free, reliable birth control can be installed at low-to-no cost before puberty. Which will happen, in time. Technology will render this debate moot at some point.

[Greyblades]

Knowing teenagers, I doubt it will completely become invalid.

[Strike For The South]

Seems like they would have had better luck with a coat hanger and a vaccum

Edit: A sterliezed coat hanger, safety first

[Fragony]

Great. The lynchpin behind all of our arguments "is the fetus alive/sentient enough to be considered human" and noone knows for sure, this is seeming like an endless discussion more and more. Still this is the internet so that doesn't realy mean much.

Does it really matter when it's a 'could have been', why deny someone everything. No matter how old, it doesn't change anything for me, it's just so wrong

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Great. The lynchpin behind all of our arguments "is the fetus alive/sentient enough to be considered human" and noone knows for sure, this is seeming like an endless discussion more and more. Still this is the internet so that doesn't realy mean much.

I have always said - show me when it isn't a human and I'll say it's ok to kill it.

[The Stranger]

Abortion is a Backroom standard, sort of like playing Free Bird at a concert.

I really don't think looking hard at what it means to be "alive" is a dead end (pun intentional). Most people would agree that a blastocyst is not alive. Likewise, most people would consider an embryo with a brain and sensory organs to be fully alive. A sensible compromise can be reached if we look at this without being blinded by rhetoric or rancor.

Besides which, I figure abortion will someday be a relic of the past, when 100% maintenance-free, reliable birth control can be installed at low-to-no cost before puberty. Which will happen, in time. Technology will render this debate moot at some point.

then we will have a debate about wether or not the government is allowed to regulate and decide who will get children and who will not by such devices. im already looking forward to it!

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Rhyfelwyr et all: pregnancy is not something to be taken so lightly, it's not necessarily easy on the mother. Pro “choice” isn't about saying, oh well do whatever you please with it. Pro choice is about giving people who cannot bear to have a baby the option not to apart from risking life in a forced miscarriage (which I should add is a considerably more brutal option than abortion in a controlled medical environment).

Nor is the pro “choice” option about encouraging people to abort if they think they cannot bear to have a baby. At least over here the option to abort is a last recourse, not as something you should actively pursue or be made to pursue (medical staff is supposed to give you time to think things over, offer other options if there are any).

[Tellos Athenaios]

I have always said - show me when it isn't a human and I'll say it's ok to kill it.

It's always a human. There are no other non-human species or subspecies left to mate with, so by definition it is always a human.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Does it really matter when it's a 'could have been', why deny someone everything. No matter how old, it doesn't change anything for me, it's just so wrong

Well, that same can be said for the mother who choses to have the abortion. Who are we to say that we know better than her what could have been? I mean the easy example here is teenage pregnancy, and in particular that of young teenagers: having a baby isn't exactly like having a doll, pregnancy isn't all fun. And by the way: before the advent of highly sterile operating rooms such babies would have little chance at surviving delivery and neither would the mother. Reason: the teenage body isn't sufficiently adapted for delivery yet (despite being fertile) and this coincides with the baby being her first one which is always extra risky. Even today, young mothers are more likely to end pregnancy in miscarriage or encounter other “complications” (i.e. early or late delivery, medical problems with the baby, etc. etc.).

Here's something else to consider: there is a minimum age at which medical staff may attempt to save the life of a baby. Below a certain threshold, if it is delivered it is left to die as a matter of course. Below a certain threshold if the life of the mother is threatened or she needs to undergo heavy surgery, the baby is aborted as a matter of course.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's always a human. There are no other non-human species or subspecies left to mate with, so by definition it is always a human.

That would mean it's always homicide, then?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's always a human. There are no other non-human species or subspecies left to mate with, so by definition it is always a human.

Does that mean it's always homicide, though?

Edit: Lag sucks.

[Greyblades]

12 minutes of it?

[HoreTore]

I fully support abortion, up until the point of birth. I trust humanity to make the best decison in each case.

I will never give a rats behind about the unwanted unborn. I only care about the quality of life of those who are already born.

And the rest of you are perfectly free to have whatever opinion you want, of course, I don't really give a crap about what others believe when it comes to abortion. As long as the law still says its legal.

[Meneldil]

On this we agree. What is the point of bringing pain not only to a woman (and his possible companion), but to a perhaps unwanted, unloved and untaken-care-off kid? That is the most selfish behaviour I've ever seen: following religious standards none else care about, you think you're entitled to decide how other people should or should not live.

This is especially bad in the case of mentally disabled or sick newborns. By fear of offending your god, you will let a kid live hell on earth. Just because it makes you feel better.

Furthermore,there are already more than enough scumbags who run around the street playing gangsta and being useless while their parents don't give a shit. If we can avoid breeding more kids who will never be taught anything by their irresponsible parents, I say that's a plus.

[Greyblades]

Furthermore,there are already more than enough scumbags who run around the street playing gangsta and being useless while their parents don't give a shit. If we can avoid breeding more kids who will never be taught anything by their irresponsible parents, I say that's a plus.

Gotta say, Meneldil pretty much summed my view on this nicely. As long as it is the mother making the choice I dont think abortion should be witheld.

[The Stranger]

12 minutes of it?

lmao

[The Stranger]

I fully support abortion, up until the point of birth. I trust humanity to make the best decison in each case.

I will never give a rats behind about the unwanted unborn. I only care about the quality of life of those who are already born.

And the rest of you are perfectly free to have whatever opinion you want, of course, I don't really give a crap about what others believe when it comes to abortion. As long as the law still says its legal.

and what if the law would say it is unlegal? would you care then?

always as eloquent btw.

[The Stranger]

On this we agree. What is the point of bringing pain not only to a woman (and his possible companion), but to a perhaps unwanted, unloved and untaken-care-off kid? That is the most selfish behaviour I've ever seen: following your own moral standardsnone else care about, you think you're entitled to decide how other people should or should not live.

fixed it for you...

Furthermore,there are already more than enough scumbags who run around the street playing gangsta and being useless while their parents don't give a shit. If we can avoid breeding more kids who will never be taught anything by their irresponsible parents, I say that's a plus.

and the monkey shows his nastly lil head.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Define what it means to be "alive" and we can talk more productively. Is a virus alive? By many measures it is not, and yet it is. Or is it? Is a sperm alive? An egg? How about a blastocyst? What "alive" means is only simple if you don't think very hard.

Without question at some point between fertilization and birth an embryo becomes what most would agree is "alive." Reasonable people can disagree on when that takes place.

Well take it from the point up until a baby is born and work backward. Pick a point and make a good case for why that is the point where the baby was not 'developed' enough to be considered human and have the right to life. That's all you have to do... until then, you admit that the baby is alive to some degree, and so aborting it is murder to some degree.

And the rest of you are perfectly free to have whatever opinion you want, of course, I don't really give a crap about what others believe when it comes to abortion. As long as the law still says its legal.

The thing is abortion is really illegal going by the most fundamental laws of the land. And so any further laws passed that say abortion is OK are themselves illegal. It's just using little particular laws to overried the fundamental laws. Like with slavery being made lawful despite the laws regarding the rights of the indiviudal. Exact same case with abortion laws and the more fundamental laws regarding murder.

On this we agree. What is the point of bringing pain not only to a woman (and his possible companion), but to a perhaps unwanted, unloved and untaken-care-off kid? That is the most selfish behaviour I've ever seen: following religious standards none else care about, you think you're entitled to decide how other people should or should not live.

You're missing the point. Everything you said could equally well be applied to a one year old infant. So why can't she have it killed?

And it's not even a religious issue, it's purely secular arguments I'm using.

[The Stranger]

Well take it from the point up until a baby is born and work backward. Pick a point and make a good case for why that is the point where the baby was not 'developed' enough to be considered human and have the right to life. That's all you have to do... until then, you admit that the baby is alive to some degree, and so aborting it is murder to some degree.



The thing is abortion is really illegal going by the most fundamental laws of the land. And so any further laws passed that say abortion is OK are themselves illegal. It's just using little particular laws to overried the fundamental laws. Like with slavery being made lawful despite the laws regarding the rights of the indiviudal. Exact same case with abortion laws and the more fundamental laws regarding murder.



You're missing the point. Everything you said could equally well be applied to a one year old infant. So why can't she have it killed?

And it's not even a religious issue, it's purely secular arguments I'm using.

how much i do not agree with ryf, he does have a point here regarding meneldil... because nothing he says makes it so that this cant happen at any age after birth as well.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

12 minutes of it?

Local "Call of Duty" players must be salivating at the chance to oppose him.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I fully support abortion, up until the point of birth. I trust humanity to make the best decison in each case.

I will never give a rats behind about the unwanted unborn. I only care about the quality of life of those who are already born.

And the rest of you are perfectly free to have whatever opinion you want, of course, I don't really give a crap about what others believe when it comes to abortion. As long as the law still says its legal.

What about the unwanted born?

You haven't made a moral case, just one of convenience. It amounts to "I can't see the baby, so it doesn't matter".

The fact is, there is almost no difference between a baby five minutes before it's born and five minutes after. You're always accusing those of us here of Faith of having "medieval" opinions, but your opinion isn't even medieval, it's Aristotle, the same mysoginistic twit who called females "deformed males" and advocated 40 year old men marrying 14 year old girls!

[Noncommunist]

On this we agree. What is the point of bringing pain not only to a woman (and his possible companion), but to a perhaps unwanted, unloved and untaken-care-off kid? That is the most selfish behaviour I've ever seen: following religious standards none else care about, you think you're entitled to decide how other people should or should not live.

This is especially bad in the case of mentally disabled or sick newborns. By fear of offending your god, you will let a kid live hell on earth. Just because it makes you feel better.

Furthermore,there are already more than enough scumbags who run around the street playing gangsta and being useless while their parents don't give a shit. If we can avoid breeding more kids who will never be taught anything by their irresponsible parents, I say that's a plus.

So when should we start putting chemicals in the water systems to sterilize slum dwellers? It'll stop those "scumbags who run around the street playing gangsta and being useless while their parents don't give a shit" before they're even born! Or if we don't get them in time, should we send police officers through the neighborhood to shoot all the children in a slum to ensure they don't have to suffer in their almost certainly terrible lives?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Medicine is full of sliding scales where one has to take an arbitrary line.



Clearly a single cell at conception is not a viable life. Clearly at 9 months it has become one. Somewhere - dare I say it? - in the middle there was a slow drift from one to the other as a baby is concious and a fertilised egg isn't.

You can have a hissy fit at the middle groud all you like but relativism is a fact in medicine.

This, yes.

Abortion to me is not about absolutes. There is a sliding scale were a lump of cells becomes a viable life in itself. If forced to draw a line, I'd place it at the point were a baby could somewhat naturally survive outside of the womb, six months if memory serves me right?
Then there are social, medical, psychological circumstances to consideration.

Abortion is not an easy issue.



What if an evil criminal-medical organisation stole that 'just a lump of cells' out of your six weeks pregnant wife's womb, and used it for medical experiments, or implanted it in another women who goes on to give birth to your life child?
Still just a lump of cells? Or perhaps something more?

[Louis VI the Fat]

On this we agree. What is the point of bringing pain not only to a woman (and his possible companion), but to a perhaps unwanted, unloved and untaken-care-off kid? That is the most selfish behaviour I've ever seen: following religious standards none else care about, you think you're entitled to decide how other people should or should not live.

Have you ever held a newborn baby?

I have serious moral objections against third term abortion. Maybe it is because I am a pious Catholic (...), but I can not think of a newborn baby, and then think it was not a baby two weeks earlier. Only in the severest of circumstances would I allow third term abortion.