If Life begins at conception

[kentington]

Thanks for that response and the civility.
If I get you right, your last statement is saying that DNA is not enough for humanity just as Symmetry had posted? I can agree with that, but as to your point we disagree with the point, when is it human?
Do you agree that a point can be established that is more accurate than the system currently used? As far as when it is able to be aborted.

Separate question; I don't want to google the details of abortion, because I don't want to know all of them. Does anyone know if the (insert your word for human/cells) is killed/terminated before being removed from the body?

I don't necessarily think there is a better system. Asking when someone becomes a person is the same to me as asking when a person becomes an adult. Legally it was, for me, at 18 years of age. At the time, I considered myself an adult by 16. In hindsight, I was probably closer to being an adult at 22. Who knows when I'll think I'm an adult when I get to 70. Everyone develops differently. Most of us don't acquire anything beyond chimp capabilities until late infancy. If we're using chimps as a marker, that leaves us in an awkward situation. Birth is a pretty convenient cutoff, but, since life's a process, I figure extending the cutoff back a couple of months is not a bad thing. I don't think we can say much else about where life or personhood is definitively established, so I'm forced to err on the side of maternal rights over the developing child's. It's going to be a trade-off somewhere, unfortunately, there's no way around it. It's harsh, but, hey, we don't seem to have much trouble treating non-human animals even worse, so I'm sure we can handle it. Short answer: nah, I can't think of a better system, even if this one sucks.

To answer your second question, I don't think early pregnancies are subject to euthenasia, though late ones probably are. This is probably due to, ah, engineering-related concerns.

I think I agree most with this. Although I am not sure if I come down on the same side of the divide as you I think your opinion is the most sensible of those presented.

+1

[john9blue]

Thanks for that response and the civility.
If I get you right, your last statement is saying that DNA is not enough for humanity just as Symmetry had posted? I can agree with that, but as to your point we disagree with the point, when is it human?
Do you agree that a point can be established that is more accurate than the system currently used? As far as when it is able to be aborted.

Separate question; I don't want to google the details of abortion, because I don't want to know all of them. Does anyone know if the (insert your word for human/cells) is killed/terminated before being removed from the body?

I don't necessarily think there is a better system. Asking when someone becomes a person is the same to me as asking when a person becomes an adult. Legally it was, for me, at 18 years of age. At the time, I considered myself an adult by 16. In hindsight, I was probably closer to being an adult at 22. Who knows when I'll think I'm an adult when I get to 70. Everyone develops differently. Most of us don't acquire anything beyond chimp capabilities until late infancy. If we're using chimps as a marker, that leaves us in an awkward situation. Birth is a pretty convenient cutoff, but, since life's a process, I figure extending the cutoff back a couple of months is not a bad thing. I don't think we can say much else about where life or personhood is definitively established, so I'm forced to err on the side of maternal rights over the developing child's. It's going to be a trade-off somewhere, unfortunately, there's no way around it. It's harsh, but, hey, we don't seem to have much trouble treating non-human animals even worse, so I'm sure we can handle it. Short answer: nah, I can't think of a better system, even if this one sucks.

To answer your second question, I don't think early pregnancies are subject to euthenasia, though late ones probably are. This is probably due to, ah, engineering-related concerns.

i don't understand why you would choose to err on the side of mother's rights vs. fetus' rights.

not only does the fetus have a longer life ahead of it, but the violation of the mother's rights (forcing her to carry the child) doesn't have the same severity as the violation of the child's rights (murder)

[Symmetry]

From my PoV, the argument generally made is that making abortion illegal will make it stay at the same level, or perhaps increase. That last bit is what's been latched on to by posters who oppose abortion, rather than dealing with the general thrust of the argument- that making it illegal will not decrease rates of abortion.

I apologise if I got you wrong on this. I'll take my tone down a notch.

Strictly speaking, there does seem to be a strong correlation between rates of development, but that last article I posted was comparing developed nations and relative levels of access to abortion, and healthcare in general.

Thanks for that. I generally get the feeling you aren't out to just win an argument either. We all have our moments when we want to win though.

The correlation between the rates of development shows us that we have no idea what will happen if it was banned and everything from here on out is just speculation. Thus, it can't be said that if you ban abortion the rates will go up. It also can't be said that the rates will go down. I don't remember who actually made that specific claim, but I do remember reading it.

I can understand that, but the evidence suggests a slightly stronger point- that making it illegal doesn't reduce rates of abortion.

I think the main issue here is the status quo, vs the make it illegal side. Most people who argue in favour of abortion rights do so from a relatively central position compared to the position that abortion is murder, or should be illegal.

As I said, my main point is that it largely doesn't seem to matter if it's illegal or not, except for making it criminal and more dangerous. I'm not expecting to win hearts and minds over this, but it'd be nice if a few more posters accepted the brutal truth that arguing for abortion to be made illegal seems to be less about reducing abortion, and more about punishment.

[Symmetry]

Thanks for that response and the civility.
If I get you right, your last statement is saying that DNA is not enough for humanity just as Symmetry had posted? I can agree with that, but as to your point we disagree with the point, when is it human?
Do you agree that a point can be established that is more accurate than the system currently used? As far as when it is able to be aborted.

Separate question; I don't want to google the details of abortion, because I don't want to know all of them. Does anyone know if the (insert your word for human/cells) is killed/terminated before being removed from the body?

I don't necessarily think there is a better system. Asking when someone becomes a person is the same to me as asking when a person becomes an adult. Legally it was, for me, at 18 years of age. At the time, I considered myself an adult by 16. In hindsight, I was probably closer to being an adult at 22. Who knows when I'll think I'm an adult when I get to 70. Everyone develops differently. Most of us don't acquire anything beyond chimp capabilities until late infancy. If we're using chimps as a marker, that leaves us in an awkward situation. Birth is a pretty convenient cutoff, but, since life's a process, I figure extending the cutoff back a couple of months is not a bad thing. I don't think we can say much else about where life or personhood is definitively established, so I'm forced to err on the side of maternal rights over the developing child's. It's going to be a trade-off somewhere, unfortunately, there's no way around it. It's harsh, but, hey, we don't seem to have much trouble treating non-human animals even worse, so I'm sure we can handle it. Short answer: nah, I can't think of a better system, even if this one sucks.

To answer your second question, I don't think early pregnancies are subject to euthenasia, though late ones probably are. This is probably due to, ah, engineering-related concerns.

i don't understand why you would choose to err on the side of mother's rights vs. fetus' rights.

not only does the fetus have a longer life ahead of it, but the violation of the mother's rights (forcing her to carry the child) doesn't have the same severity as the violation of the child's rights (murder)

Pretty mixed up terms your employing there, J.

Standard wiki check seems to put the fetal stage at around 11 weeks into a pregnancy, so most abortions would occur before a fetus developed, let alone started having fetal rights.

[john9blue]

Pretty mixed up terms your employing there, J.

Standard wiki check seems to put the fetal stage at around 11 weeks into a pregnancy, so most abortions would occur before a fetus developed, let alone started having fetal rights.

meh. i use "fetus" kind of loosely i guess. but it's a matter of ease of communication.

nobody can agree on what to call it anyway. i could say "unborn child" but some will argue that it's not a child. i can say "clump of human cells" but some will argue that it's much more than that. i can say "fetus/embryo/zygote" but that takes too long to type.

[BigBallinStalin]

Holy shit! People are toning down their opposition and finding mutual understanding in this thread!! STOP IT! Everyone stop being so reasonable!!!


Please, somebody, anybody, SCREAM!!!!

[john9blue]

[kentington]

From my PoV, the argument generally made is that making abortion illegal will make it stay at the same level, or perhaps increase. That last bit is what's been latched on to by posters who oppose abortion, rather than dealing with the general thrust of the argument- that making it illegal will not decrease rates of abortion.

I apologise if I got you wrong on this. I'll take my tone down a notch.

Strictly speaking, there does seem to be a strong correlation between rates of development, but that last article I posted was comparing developed nations and relative levels of access to abortion, and healthcare in general.

Thanks for that. I generally get the feeling you aren't out to just win an argument either. We all have our moments when we want to win though.

The correlation between the rates of development shows us that we have no idea what will happen if it was banned and everything from here on out is just speculation. Thus, it can't be said that if you ban abortion the rates will go up. It also can't be said that the rates will go down. I don't remember who actually made that specific claim, but I do remember reading it.

I can understand that, but the evidence suggests a slightly stronger point- that making it illegal doesn't reduce rates of abortion.

I think the main issue here is the status quo, vs the make it illegal side. Most people who argue in favour of abortion rights do so from a relatively central position compared to the position that abortion is murder, or should be illegal.

As I said, my main point is that it largely doesn't seem to matter if it's illegal or not, except for making it criminal and more dangerous. I'm not expecting to win hearts and minds over this, but it'd be nice if a few more posters accepted the brutal truth that arguing for abortion to be made illegal seems to be less about reducing abortion, and more about punishment.

Evidence does not suggest that. Evidence suggests that the rates between developed countries with no ban and undeveloped countries with a ban have pretty similar rates. Because these types of countries are so different there is no evidence to show that a ban would even keep the rates equal. (I'm not arguing that it would change, only that there isn't evidence either way).

I would speculate as I stated before that due to the nature of undeveloped countries and their poverty levels and lack of contraceptives that their rates would go down if they were more developed and had contraceptives available. But again just my speculation no evidence suggests either. I will have to look up abortion rates in the U.S. to see what they were per 1,000 persons prior to the legalization.

[kentington]

Holy shit! People are toning down their opposition and finding mutual understanding in this thread!! STOP IT! Everyone stop being so reasonable!!!


Please, somebody, anybody, SCREAM!!!!

I just like to keep things civil so that points can actually be made and understood. I think any of the people I want to hear opinions from feel the same way. I think you swing both ways.

[Symmetry]

Pretty mixed up terms your employing there, J.

Standard wiki check seems to put the fetal stage at around 11 weeks into a pregnancy, so most abortions would occur before a fetus developed, let alone started having fetal rights.

meh. i use "fetus" kind of loosely i guess. but it's a matter of ease of communication.

nobody can agree on what to call it anyway. i could say "unborn child" but some will argue that it's not a child. i can say "clump of human cells" but some will argue that it's much more than that. i can say "fetus/embryo/zygote" but that takes too long to type.

Dude, there is a medical side to this debate, doctors are pretty clear on their terms about stuff like stages of pregnancy. They don't just pull the terms out of a hat.

If you're starting to see the problems with what you're actually saying, that at least is kind of a big step.

[john9blue]

Pretty mixed up terms your employing there, J.

Standard wiki check seems to put the fetal stage at around 11 weeks into a pregnancy, so most abortions would occur before a fetus developed, let alone started having fetal rights.

meh. i use "fetus" kind of loosely i guess. but it's a matter of ease of communication.

nobody can agree on what to call it anyway. i could say "unborn child" but some will argue that it's not a child. i can say "clump of human cells" but some will argue that it's much more than that. i can say "fetus/embryo/zygote" but that takes too long to type.

Dude, there is a medical side to this debate, doctors are pretty clear on their terms about stuff like stages of pregnancy. They don't just pull the terms out of a hat.

If you're starting to see the problems with what you're actually saying, that at least is kind of a big step.

if someone wants to differentiate between abortions of unborn children at different stages of development, then it's THEIR job to show why one stage of development is okay to abort and another isn't.

[Symmetry]

Pretty mixed up terms your employing there, J.

Standard wiki check seems to put the fetal stage at around 11 weeks into a pregnancy, so most abortions would occur before a fetus developed, let alone started having fetal rights.

meh. i use "fetus" kind of loosely i guess. but it's a matter of ease of communication.

nobody can agree on what to call it anyway. i could say "unborn child" but some will argue that it's not a child. i can say "clump of human cells" but some will argue that it's much more than that. i can say "fetus/embryo/zygote" but that takes too long to type.

Dude, there is a medical side to this debate, doctors are pretty clear on their terms about stuff like stages of pregnancy. They don't just pull the terms out of a hat.

If you're starting to see the problems with what you're actually saying, that at least is kind of a big step.

if someone wants to differentiate between abortions of unborn children at different stages of development, then it's THEIR job to show why one stage of development is okay to abort and another isn't.

And that is pretty much what most countries do at the moment when it comes to abortion. They employ medical experts. Sadly there are some developed countries that ignore that advice and just make it illegal. What are you getting at? You seem to be saying that medical science should redefine its terminology to suit your narrow agenda.

That's not what your arguing is it? Doctors shouldn't be required to refer to every stage of pregnancy as a baby? You haven't really thought this one through, have you?

[Neoteny]

Thanks for that response and the civility.
If I get you right, your last statement is saying that DNA is not enough for humanity just as Symmetry had posted? I can agree with that, but as to your point we disagree with the point, when is it human?
Do you agree that a point can be established that is more accurate than the system currently used? As far as when it is able to be aborted.

Separate question; I don't want to google the details of abortion, because I don't want to know all of them. Does anyone know if the (insert your word for human/cells) is killed/terminated before being removed from the body?

I don't necessarily think there is a better system. Asking when someone becomes a person is the same to me as asking when a person becomes an adult. Legally it was, for me, at 18 years of age. At the time, I considered myself an adult by 16. In hindsight, I was probably closer to being an adult at 22. Who knows when I'll think I'm an adult when I get to 70. Everyone develops differently. Most of us don't acquire anything beyond chimp capabilities until late infancy. If we're using chimps as a marker, that leaves us in an awkward situation. Birth is a pretty convenient cutoff, but, since life's a process, I figure extending the cutoff back a couple of months is not a bad thing. I don't think we can say much else about where life or personhood is definitively established, so I'm forced to err on the side of maternal rights over the developing child's. It's going to be a trade-off somewhere, unfortunately, there's no way around it. It's harsh, but, hey, we don't seem to have much trouble treating non-human animals even worse, so I'm sure we can handle it. Short answer: nah, I can't think of a better system, even if this one sucks.

To answer your second question, I don't think early pregnancies are subject to euthenasia, though late ones probably are. This is probably due to, ah, engineering-related concerns.

i don't understand why you would choose to err on the side of mother's rights vs. fetus' rights.

not only does the fetus have a longer life ahead of it, but the violation of the mother's rights (forcing her to carry the child) doesn't have the same severity as the violation of the child's rights (murder)

Well, I choose mother's rights because, by my logic, the mother is most easily ascribed the status of personhood. The pre-neonate (if you need a term, make it up. Isn't science grand?) In my opinion, does not achieve this status, at least not fully, so I base my hierarchy on that. Again, I recognize the trade-off, but I just don't see the preneonatal life potential as breaching the threshhold to allow violation of the... postneonatal actual life and rights.

[Neoteny]

Perhaps "prenate" is better?

[PLAYER57832]

T Separate question; I don't want to google the details of abortion, because I don't want to know all of them. Does anyone know if the (insert your word for human/cells) is killed/terminated before being removed from the body?

Medically, any termination/ending of a pregnancy for any reason is an abortion. This includes what most people term a "miscarriage". Complicating this further, the point at which a micarriage becomes a "still birth" is essentially a legal term and has to do with whether a not born child needs to be buried, etc.

A lot of people talking about this issue never bother to delve into the definitions enough to find that out. So, you are to be credited for at least asking.

Beyond that, there are different procedures for different situations. There are so many variations and issues, it becomes plain why doctors make these decisions and not lay people. I won't go into graphic detail. In the very earliest stages, some drugs can be used to cause the pregnancy to end. Early ends can seem like a slightly heavy mensus or may involve a great deal of bleeding rather quickly. (a quart or more of blood lost essentially at once) In some cases -- fetus lodged in the tubes, outside the uterus, etc there can be very very serious and immediately life-threatening bleeding. This is why many doctors recommend a termination when they see this, though exactly where the fetus is lodged, etc matters.


After about 9-10 weeks (some variation), a D & C is the common procedure, but there are several other techniques. The procedure, the records are identical whether the child was confirmed dead prior to the surgary or not, up until at least 12 weeks. That is essentially when the legal definition of "life" begins. There is no sensation of pain, etc at that point.

There is a medical dispute over when pain actually begins. It is well after 12 weeks. Note that even at this point, a fully natural death can be called an abortion. This gets complicated because whether its considered a still birth or an abortion can have as much to do with legalities as any real medical determination. It is important to note that a lot of the children being aborted if not already dead would die or live what many would consider not at all pleasant lives. Death is considered a mercy by those involved. I don't necessarily agree with that determination in all cases (I am in favor of restrictions on later term abortions, just not complete prohibitions), but it is important to recognize that later term abortions are not done for "convenience" by any stretch of the imagination.

The exact procedure varies, but the child is almost always dead before extraction, though you do see some graphic descriptions to the contrary put out by those wanting to declare abortion completely illegal. Many of those are distortions or of illegal procedures, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

[quote="john9blue if someone wants to differentiate between abortions of unborn children at different stages of development, then it's THEIR job to show why one stage of development is okay to abort and another isn't.[/quote]
They do.

[BigBallinStalin]

Holy shit! People are toning down their opposition and finding mutual understanding in this thread!! STOP IT! Everyone stop being so reasonable!!!


Please, somebody, anybody, SCREAM!!!!

I just like to keep things civil so that points can actually be made and understood. I think any of the people I want to hear opinions from feel the same way. I think you swing both ways.

I swing all over the place. It just depends on what I'm driving with.