Question on abortion ethics

[AFB]

Using dudeguy:

if so they should definitely be banned, in my view. as far as im concerned terminating a fertilised egg is equivalent to a murder. i dont think the right to life begins at birth. just think that could have been you.

Is that the reason why people are aginst it? The prevention of human life? You could take that a step further and say that birth control pills are a form of murder because they are preventing "you" from being born. If this is all about stoping human creation, how does killing bunch of cells that can't feel anything(Not late term abortion) differ from stoping the creation earlier?

Your views?

 

[PatboyX]

some churches simply do not approve of BC. i think most "officially" are against them, opting for chastity.
thats what i am under the impression of, anyway.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy
Using dudeguy:

<blockquote>quote:
<hr>
if so they should definitely be banned, in my view. as far as im concerned terminating a fertilised egg is equivalent to a murder. i dont think the right to life begins at birth. <b>just think that could have been you.</b>
<hr></blockquote>

Is that the reason why people are aginst it? The prevention of human life? You could take that a step further and say that birth control pills are a form of murder because they are preventing "you" from being born. If this is all about stoping human creation, how does killing bunch of cells that can't feel anything(Not late term abortion) differ from stoping the creation earlier?

Your views?

Abortion is not the prevention of human life: it is the termination of human life. Any elementary biology or medical text will tell you that at the moment of conception, a distinct human life is created. The USSC acknowledged this in the Roe v Wade decision (the one that legalized abortion on demand), but claimed that the embryo/fetus was not protected under the rights and privileges guaranteed by the constitution, since it had not been ?born or naturalized? as a citizen of the US. Therefore, the woman?s ?right to privacy,? guaranteed by Amendment XIV, overrides the state?s ability to prohibit abortion.

Basically, since the embryo/fetus is a human being, but not a person (a person being a human being granted rights under the US Constitution, as provided for in Amendment XIV), the fetus has no rights and may therefore be terminated.

Here's a link to the Roe v Wade decision, in its entirety (extremely lengthy - try reading the syllabus if you're interested):
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cg...ngs/words=4/hits_only?

[edit]
I thought I would clarify on the distinctions made between 'human' and 'person'. Definitions are from Merriam-Webster.com.

Human:
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature

This term is taxonomic (purely biological) in nature, and is used to define a species. A human is therefore defined as such by simply having human DNA (and, therefore, human parents).

Person:
5 : the personality of a human being : SELF
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

This term is ontological, describing status granted by society above that given to a mere human. The US Supreme Court determined that Amendment XIV granted 'personhood' (or citizenship) only to those born or naturalized in the United States.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

You could take that a step further and say that birth control pills are a form of murder because they are preventing "you" from being born.

except a With a unique human DNA structure, that will become a baby, that is alive, hasn?t been created with a condom stops a sperm.

But yes, the Catholics do take it that step further, and are against birth control, your point?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
<blockquote>quote:
<hr> You could take that a step further and say that birth control pills are a form of murder because they are preventing "you" from being born.<hr></blockquote> except a With a unique human DNA structure, that will become a baby, that is alive, hasn?t been created with a condom stops a sperm.

But yes, the Catholics do take it that step further, and are against birth control, your point?

Sort of. The baby isn't viable on its own until much later in the pregnancy. In other words it won't survive outside of the womb. So its not really a distinct life. Or at least thats a debatable point. But its a gray area. The better technology gets the less time required in the womb before it could survive outside the womb.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
<blockquote>quote:
<hr> You could take that a step further and say that birth control pills are a form of murder because they are preventing "you" from being born.<hr></blockquote> except a With a unique human DNA structure, that will become a baby, that is alive, hasn?t been created with a condom stops a sperm.

But yes, the Catholics do take it that step further, and are against birth control, your point?

What's black and white and red all over?

A pregnat Nun. Condom's don't always work, they have a rather high failure rate in my experience, hehe.

My wife is Catholic and comes from a family with 10 children. All of them pratice birth control, LOL, and they are all good Catholics and go to church almost every Sunday. I don't think any of them would ever get an abortion or allow their children to if they had a say in it. I still think abortion should be the a choice provided though.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tss4
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>LordMagnusKain</b></i>
<blockquote>quote:
<hr> You could take that a step further and say that birth control pills are a form of murder because they are preventing "you" from being born.<hr></blockquote> except a With a unique human DNA structure, that will become a baby, that is alive, hasn?t been created with a condom stops a sperm.

But yes, the Catholics do take it that step further, and are against birth control, your point?<hr></blockquote>

Sort of. The baby isn't viable on its own until much later in the pregnancy. In other words it won't survive outside of the womb. So its not really a distinct life. Or at least thats a debatable point. But its a gray area. The better technology gets the less time required in the womb before it could survive outside the womb.

Yes, the USSC brought up viability back in the 70's. Unfortunately, even since then the medical viability has changed greatly, which brings up the question "where do you draw the line?" In this, the court actually contradicts itself by allowing the states to protect the fetus with rights before it actually becomes a 'person.' The argument against a fetus' personhood was the only justification they could give for why abortion should be allowed in the first place.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>tss4</b></i>
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>LordMagnusKain</b></i>
<blockquote>quote:
<hr> You could take that a step further and say that birth control pills are a form of murder because they are preventing "you" from being born.<hr></blockquote> except a With a unique human DNA structure, that will become a baby, that is alive, hasn?t been created with a condom stops a sperm.

But yes, the Catholics do take it that step further, and are against birth control, your point?<hr></blockquote>

Sort of. The baby isn't viable on its own until much later in the pregnancy. In other words it won't survive outside of the womb. So its not really a distinct life. Or at least thats a debatable point. But its a gray area. The better technology gets the less time required in the womb before it could survive outside the womb.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, the USSC brought up viability back in the 70's. Unfortunately, even since then the medical viability has changed greatly, which brings up the question "where do you draw the line?" In this, the court actually contradicts itself by allowing the states to protect the fetus with rights before it actually becomes a 'person.' The argument against a fetus' personhood was the only justification they could give for why abortion should be allowed in the first place.

Yeah, the courts tend to drift back and forth on issues some. That line is the key. I don't think even the biggest abortion advocates would argue that a line doesn't exist. Personally, I'm for abortion but when they're for reasons not associated with medical problems I don't understand why you would need to have one later on during the pregnancy when the viability of it becomes possible.

 

[Rainsford]

I guess it depends on when you think a baby is a baby. Personally I think as soon as fertalization occurs, that "mass of cells" is working towards becoming a human, it IS a human, biologically speaking. It has the right DNA at that point, the DNA it will have for its entire life. A sperm or an egg by themselves don't have enough distinct DNA to be a person, a fertalized egg does.

However, I realize not everyone shares this view...but I also realize their viewpoint may be one of convenience instead of one they would get from true reflection about what they believe.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I guess it depends on when you think a baby is a baby. Personally I think as soon as fertalization occurs, that "mass of cells" is working towards becoming a human, it IS a human, biologically speaking. It has the right DNA at that point, the DNA it will have for its entire life. A sperm or an egg by themselves don't have enough distinct DNA to be a person, a fertalized egg does.

However, I realize not everyone shares this view...but I also realize their viewpoint may be one of convenience instead of one they would get from true reflection about what they believe.

Exactly. IMO, abortion would be a non-issue if people would take responsibility for their actions. In almost every case, it's simply a matter of convenience.

Even if we aren't sure whether or not the embryo/fetus is 'alive' or however you want to call it, isn't it better to err on the side of caution? After all, the right to life precedes the right to liberty in the Declaration (and, therefore, in the legal system).

 

[LordMagnusKain]

So its not really a distinct life.

it is by definition a life, a life in need of support, no doubt, but a life none the less.

Or at least that?s a debatable point. But its a gray area.

no, it is by absolute scientific fact a life.

trying to say that this unique life isn't "human" is an argument heard throughout the ages for using those who are defenseless to better those with power.

The better technology gets the less time required in the womb before it could survive outside the womb.

are you willing to take the Joe Lieberman moderate line of saying that "as long as the fetus might live we have no right to allow abortion"?

because that's greatly preferably to having a baby with most of it's body out of the woman having it's brains sucked out and calling it 'abortion'.

I don't think any of them would ever get an abortion or allow their children to if they had a say in it. I still think abortion should be the a choice provided though.

because, although you think it's murder, letting someone else kill the life that is completely dependent on her is OK.

"i'd never kill any slaves, but others should be allowed to" follows the same logic, because you start by presuming that there is a human right to put one person's convenience over another unique life. Even if you would never do it yourself.

The argument against a fetus' personhood was the only justification they could give for why abortion should be allowed in the first place.

i reject the idea that you have to call a life with a unique human DNA set a 'person' before a right to life exists.

rejecting the idea of 'personhood' for some is the exact justification used to kill may 'inferior' people throughout the ages.

don't think even the biggest abortion advocates would argue that a line doesn't exist.

read the NOW scripture of faith "in defense of infanticide", then come back to me and tell me the left wing pro-abortion groups don't believe that a woman has a right to kill her child as long as it's yet to escape her womb.

 

[CycloWizard]

Agreed 100% LMK.

If you want to find out who is really in the right on this issue, go to an abortion rally where both sides are present. The people against abortion will just have pictures and stand quietly. Those for abortion will have megaphones and signs with slogans. If you can't win an argument by being in the right, I guess yelling louder is your only chance. Still, the best way to win an argument is by being right in the first place. :beer:

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Agreed 100% LMK.

If you want to find out who is really in the right on this issue, go to an abortion rally where both sides are present. The people against abortion will just have pictures and stand quietly. Those for abortion will have megaphones and signs with slogans. If you can't win an argument by being in the right, I guess yelling louder is your only chance. Still, the best way to win an argument is by being right in the first place. <img src="i/expressions/beer.gif" border="0">

I've seen plenty of anti-abortioninst threatnening doctors. Don't tell me the right doesn't get nasty too. I don't condone it when either side acts that way.

---------------------------------------------------------
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So its not really a distinct life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is by definition a life, a life in need of support, no doubt, but a life none the less.
-----------------------------------------------------

How do you get this? At what point did it become life? What is the definition you are relying on. It would be nice though if people were more responsible. This would be much less of an issue.

 

[0roo0roo]

god had no problem killing living first born infants u know.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>LordMagnusKain</b></i>
<blockquote>quote:
<hr> You could take that a step further and say that birth control pills are a form of murder because they are preventing "you" from being born.<hr></blockquote> except a With a unique human DNA structure, that will become a baby, that is alive, hasn?t been created with a condom stops a sperm.

But yes, the Catholics do take it that step further, and are against birth control, your point?<hr></blockquote>

What's black and white and red all over?

A pregnat Nun. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> Condom's don't always work, they have a rather high failure rate in my experience, hehe.

My wife is Catholic and comes from a family with 10 children. All of them pratice birth control, LOL, and they are all good Catholics and go to church almost every Sunday. I don't think any of them would ever get an abortion or allow their children to if they had a say in it. I still think abortion should be the a choice provided though.

about the last bit...i dont want to start an argument and i dont want it to be personal. but your example has brought up an interesting issue.
this is sort of the trouble i have understanding churches and certain religious groups.
the church doesnt approve of BC. but the people who are a part of it are using it. so (in the catholic church, if i remember correctly. i know the catholic church does change very frequently and does attempt to be more "modern" than most others...so correct me if the stance has changed) the church doesnt really recognize them as being "real" catholics. because they have sort of pick and choose rules.
now this is common. my sister is catholic and certainly uses BC. but how does one reconcile that difference? how does one (individual or group) know "well, this is just not practical" or "this is not societally acceptable so we wouldnt do it even though commanded to" (mormons come to mind with that one)
obviously, this has very little to do with your family in particular but i do admit to being confused and frustrated by this.

0roo: god also ordered the jews to kill babies at some point not long after the 10 commandments were handed down. however, i believe the christian view is that jesus came to the earth to "over-haul" gods original laws and hand down new ones.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tss4
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>CycloWizard</b></i>
Agreed 100% LMK.

If you want to find out who is really in the right on this issue, go to an abortion rally where both sides are present. The people against abortion will just have pictures and stand quietly. Those for abortion will have megaphones and signs with slogans. If you can't win an argument by being in the right, I guess yelling louder is your only chance. Still, the best way to win an argument is by being right in the first place. <img src="i/expressions/beer.gif" border="0"><hr></blockquote>

I've seen plenty of anti-abortioninst threatnening doctors. Don't tell me the right doesn't get nasty too. I don't condone it when either side acts that way.

---------------------------------------------------------
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So its not really a distinct life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is by definition a life, a life in need of support, no doubt, but a life none the less.
-----------------------------------------------------

How do you get this? At what point did it become life? What is the definition you are relying on. It would be nice though if people were more responsible. This would be much less of an issue.

Like I said, read any biology or medical textbook and it will tell you this. It's biological fact, not some propaganda.

You're also confusing a handful of radical anti-abortionists with the majority. Having observed quite a few rallies on the issue, I can say with confidence that at least those supporting abortion and willing to protest on its behalf are usually ignorant of the issues.

this is sort of the trouble i have understanding churches and certain religious groups.
the church doesnt approve of BC. but the people who are a part of it are using it. so (in the catholic church, if i remember correctly. i know the catholic church does change very frequently and does attempt to be more "modern" than most others...so correct me if the stance has changed) the church doesnt really recognize them as being "real" catholics. because they have sort of pick and choose rules.

The Catholic Church does not condone the use of BC. However, it's not considered one of fundamental issues (dogmas) of the religion, so you can still use it and technically be Catholic. The Catholic Church doesn't judge people on what they do or don't do: it provides the rules and justification for the rules governing the religion. People can do with it what they may, and only have God to answer to.

The reasons behind the Church's ban on birth control are simple. One of the purposes of sex is procreation. Removing this possiblity from the equation removes the responsiblity inherent with the action. Further, only in a committed, monogamous relationship can one be sure that no STDs will be spread and any child will be cared for. For the Church, the definition of the commitment that is required for this guarantee is marriage.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tss4
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>CycloWizard</b></i>
Agreed 100% LMK.

If you want to find out who is really in the right on this issue, go to an abortion rally where both sides are present. The people against abortion will just have pictures and stand quietly. Those for abortion will have megaphones and signs with slogans. If you can't win an argument by being in the right, I guess yelling louder is your only chance. Still, the best way to win an argument is by being right in the first place. <img src="i/expressions/beer.gif" border="0"><hr></blockquote>

I've seen plenty of anti-abortioninst threatnening doctors. Don't tell me the right doesn't get nasty too. I don't condone it when either side acts that way.

---------------------------------------------------------
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So its not really a distinct life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is by definition a life, a life in need of support, no doubt, but a life none the less.
-----------------------------------------------------

How do you get this? At what point did it become life? What is the definition you are relying on. It would be nice though if people were more responsible. This would be much less of an issue.

Like I said, read any biology or medical textbook and it will tell you this. It's biological fact, not some propaganda.

Biology isn't as simple as you suggest, and we're talking here about the intersection of politics and biology, which is even more complex. Our social definition of an individual person doesn't map well onto many cases in biology, including the case of the pregnant women. This problem in mapping concepts is also why so much modern biological science and technology is so controversial; it's forcing us to realize that our supposedly clean cut social and legal definitions are anything but clear when it comes to the realities of biology.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I guess it depends on when you think a baby is a baby. Personally I think as soon as fertalization occurs, that "mass of cells" is working towards becoming a human, it IS a human, biologically speaking. It has the right DNA at that point, the DNA it will have for its entire life. A sperm or an egg by themselves don't have enough distinct DNA to be a person, a fertalized egg does.

However, I realize not everyone shares this view...but I also realize their viewpoint may be one of convenience instead of one they would get from true reflection about what they believe.

No, biologically speaking it is NOT a human, any mass of cells carrying human DNA is just that, a mass of cells carrying human DNA, you cannot really use DNA as a determination of anything but if it is human tissue, and human tissue is a lump of cells.

Biologically speaking, a fetus is a fetus until the fetus is born. Until then it is just that, a fetus.

You are also wrong about sperm and eggs not having a complete DNA setup, both do.

My viepoint is the biological viewpoint, without trying to mix it with religion, emotion or politics.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cquark
Biology isn't as simple as you suggest, and we're talking here about the intersection of politics and biology, which is even more complex. Our social definition of an individual person doesn't map well onto many cases in biology, including the case of the pregnant women. This problem in mapping concepts is also why so much modern biological science and technology is so controversial; it's forcing us to realize that our supposedly clean cut social and legal definitions are anything but clear when it comes to the realities of biology.

It's obvious from this that you didn't read the rest of this thread before posting.

PERSON is the social definition that you may debate. HUMAN is a species designation, which isn't really up for debate. Biologically speaking, a newly fertilized egg is undeniably human. Whether or not it's a person is up for debate.

No, biologically speaking it is NOT a human, any mass of cells carrying human DNA is just that, a mass of cells carrying human DNA, you cannot really use DNA as a determination of anything but if it is human tissue, and human tissue is a lump of cells.

Biologically speaking, a fetus is a fetus until the fetus is born. Until then it is just that, a fetus.

You are also wrong about sperm and eggs not having a complete DNA setup, both do.

My viepoint is the biological viewpoint, without trying to mix it with religion, emotion or politics.

Then all you are is human tissue and a lump of cells. We're all really just 'lumps of cells.' Your statement that 'biologically speaking, a fetus is a fetus until [it's] born' is really incorrect. Fetus is just the name supplied for an unborn human for a certain period during gestation but prior to birth. There is no biological divider to tell you when it is or is not a fetus - this is simply a designation put there by people so it's not called a baby before it's born. I guess you could consider physical location (inside the mother or outside the mother) to be a worthwhile moral consideration in determining the value of said human life, though this is really semantics.

Sperm and eggs do have their own DNA set, but they do not transfer this full DNA information to the occurring zygote. Each transfers only half of the information. http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa091103a.htm

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cquark
Biology isn't as simple as you suggest, and we're talking here about the intersection of politics and biology, which is even more complex. Our social definition of an individual person doesn't map well onto many cases in biology, including the case of the pregnant women. This problem in mapping concepts is also why so much modern biological science and technology is so controversial; it's forcing us to realize that our supposedly clean cut social and legal definitions are anything but clear when it comes to the realities of biology.

It's obvious from this that you didn't read the rest of this thread before posting.

PERSON is the social definition that you may debate. HUMAN is a species designation, which isn't really up for debate. Biologically speaking, a newly fertilized egg is undeniably human. Whether or not it's a person is up for debate.

No, biologically speaking it is NOT a human, any mass of cells carrying human DNA is just that, a mass of cells carrying human DNA, you cannot really use DNA as a determination of anything but if it is human tissue, and human tissue is a lump of cells.

Biologically speaking, a fetus is a fetus until the fetus is born. Until then it is just that, a fetus.

You are also wrong about sperm and eggs not having a complete DNA setup, both do.

My viepoint is the biological viewpoint, without trying to mix it with religion, emotion or politics.

Then all you are is human tissue and a lump of cells. We're all really just 'lumps of cells.' Your statement that 'biologically speaking, a fetus is a fetus until [it's] born' is really incorrect. Fetus is just the name supplied for an unborn human for a certain period during gestation but prior to birth. There is no biological divider to tell you when it is or is not a fetus - this is simply a designation put there by people so it's not called a baby before it's born. I guess you could consider physical location (inside the mother or outside the mother) to be a worthwhile moral consideration in determining the value of said human life, though this is really semantics.

Sperm and eggs do have their own DNA set, but they do not transfer this full DNA information to the occurring zygote. Each transfers only half of the information. http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa091103a.htm

No, you see there are differences between a living human being and a lump of human tissue, it is the development of this lump of tissue that makes a human being into a human being.

It isn't about what is a "worthwhile moral consideration" it is about how things work, you know, sperm meets egg and boom it is a human, in some peoples minds it is, but from someone who looks at it from a viewpoint that is stripped from morality, religion and politics, it isn't. IOW, in a biological sense, it is not a human and the correct term would be fetus.

Regarding the transfer and combination of DNA from mother and father, yeah, you are correct, but that does not change the fact that both an egg and a spermie both have full sets of DNA, which was what i said.

 

[biostud]

Bah it's a totally irrational discussion, either you feel abortion is murder or not. No logical reasoning is probably going to change it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
No, you see there are differences between a living human being and a lump of human tissue, it is the development of this lump of tissue that makes a human being into a human being.

It isn't about what is a "worthwhile moral consideration" it is about how things work, you know, sperm meets egg and boom it is a human, in some peoples minds it is, but from someone who looks at it from a viewpoint that is stripped from morality, religion and politics, it isn't. IOW, in a biological sense, it is not a human and the correct term would be fetus.

Regarding the transfer and combination of DNA from mother and father, yeah, you are correct, but that does not change the fact that both an egg and a spermie both have full sets of DNA, which was what i said.

Sorry, but you saying that this is the case doesn't make it so. I would ask if you were a biologist, since you seem so sure on your positions, but I can tell that you're not, and I can also tell that you're not up to snuff on the issues that you bring up. Therefore, I'd recommend that you read what I say before trying to correct me.

At the moment of conception, a zygote is formed, not a fetus. This zygote, by biological definition, is both alive and human (human simply means that it has human parents and, therefore, human DNA - you're arguing that it's not a person, which is different). From http://www.merriam-webster.com :

zygote : a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: biostud666
Bah it's a totally irrational discussion, either you feel abortion is murder or not. No logical reasoning is probably going to change it.

Depends on how rational you are.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: biostud666
Bah it's a totally irrational discussion, either you feel abortion is murder or not. No logical reasoning is probably going to change it.

Depends on how rational you are.

can't argue with people who find their reasoning from the bible.

 

[CycloWizard]

I hope you're not referring to me. I've intentionally left out all religious-based arguments for the simple fact that those just don't apply to everyone.

I actually managed to convince a Hindu (used to be my housemate) that abortion was wrong after about an hour debate. Religious references definitely didn't apply there.