478 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

When discussing whether we are killing a potential independent life, I think the earth are over crowded. We need to think about educate the baby too. If the parents can't afford to take care of the baby, then bring him into life will only cause problem to the society. I agree with sweeney's opinion

The Earth is overcrowded. That doesn't really come into the discussion on abortion, though - it's pretty much a separate issue entirely, although both are related to childbirth.

[Turnip]

Getting pregnant when you don't want to is a huge dilemma. I'm saying that it is moral to go on with it and raise the child, even if it means one's future is gone. Moral doesn't always mean the best for someone. I can empathize with rape victims more than other people because of the reason you explained, but I still think it is moral to go on and raise the child.

 

Of course it depends on the woman, but you aren't going to care about your precious morals at all if you're on the edge of homelessness or want to finish your university course or have physical and/or mental health issues or have x other problems in your life and just cannot handle having a baby at the moment, and get pregnant accidentally. What you are going to be caring about is whether you can raise the baby or not. I wouldn't want to bring my baby into a world of nothing but worries or stress. Coldness and hunger or anything like that. It would break my heart seeing my child live in such a terrible situation which I can't do anything about. Like what Elin said, it's far worse dumping your baby (an actual, living baby) in the trash or leaving it elsewhere and dealing with the constantly reminder that you had to abandon your child for the best of things than just getting an abortion and not dealing with the trauma caused by all of this in the first place.

Edited by Turnip, 01 February 2014 - 08:29 PM.

[luvsmyncis]

If the parent's can't afford to take care of the baby, then they should do the lesser evil and prevent the suffering of the unborn child.

If only there were a way to prevent the suffering of an unborn child.

[Sweeney]

When I said to raise a child, it meant to give it love, nourishment, attention, and care. Everyone goes through suffering, but it is the parent's responsibility to try to reduce the suffering.
 
Non-chemically altered cells are different from chemically altered cells. Why would I consider the death of both to be the same thing, when one has potential to become a human and the other has NO potential to become a human?

Ok, just because someone shits out a baby, and you tell them they need to "raise" it (in your sense of the word), they might not actually do that. Did you know that? People, as a whole, are actually really awful. Even well meaning parents can completely ruin their children - utterly indifferent, or maybe even resentful, ones can do damage that would take more than a lifetime of therapy to undo. It's nice that you think parenthood automatically instills perfect values and childcare qualifications, but this is the real world, not La La Loopsy Land.

As to the second paragraph. Let me lay it out for you one more time:
1) Small groups of cells, no matter their origin, cannot grow into a human on their own.
2) To grow into a human, cells need outside help.
3) This can be provided by a mother, such as in the case of a natural pregnancy.
4) This can also be provided by scientists in a laboratory, such as in the case of early IVF therapy.
5) The differences between (3) and (4) are not important.
6) The take home message is that cells can only grow into a human on their own with outside help. See (1) and (2) for details.
7) Therefore, if killing cells of type (3) is murder, then so must be killing cells of type (4).
8) The catch is that all cells are of type (4).
9) Describing the killing of any human cell as murder, while consistent with your proposition, is ludicrous.
10) Ergo, your proposition is similarly ludicrous.

[Elindoril]

If only there were a way to prevent the suffering of an unborn child.

By locking your naughty bits in a thick, cast iron prison.

[Sweeney]

I keep getting the impression from people that they think that abortion is moral. It isn't. It can be a lesser evil given the circumstances, but it isn't moral ever. Anyone object?

Yes.

[best]

The Earth is overcrowded. That doesn't really come into the discussion on abortion, though - it's pretty much a separate issue entirely, although both are related to childbirth.

Yeah I know what you mean it's sort of different but I am just pointing it out to support my opinion: The parents should be able to decide the abortion. 

 

Thanks for correcting I typed too fast  

[Nymh]

You know what, I change my mind. I personally think that the value of human life is too great to be simply thrown away, even if the opportunity of raising a child is caused by a rapist.

 

I would argue that forcing a child to be born into circumstances in which it would not be properly cared for, protected, nourished, loved, and wanted would be doing more to throw away its life.  Taking the moral high ground to preserve life at any cost does not protect children from suffering when they are born into horrible circumstances and indeed doesn't guarantee that they won't just die or be killed after they're born.

 

Preventing women from aborting unwanted fetuses is not going to prevent them from not wanting babies.  Sometimes, when people don't want babies, they kill those babies.

 

Why is it that I never see pro-lifers say anything about full-term babies being abandoned, killed, or neglected?  It's always, "abortion is murder!"  ...but let's completely disregard the fact that unwanted children are dying, being neglected and killed while we're telling their mothers that they can't have abortions.

[best]

By locking your naughty bits in a thick, cast iron prison.

 

what is the "thick cast iron prison"

You know what, I change my mind. I personally think that the value of human life is too great to be simply thrown away, even if the opportunity of raising a child is caused by a rapist.

I understand what you mean but, the quality of life is an important factor too and, really, the child might not even appreciate it

[Elindoril]

what is the "thick cast iron prison"

A really big chastity belt. What else would it be?

[Romy]

what is the "thick cast iron prison"

I understand what you mean but, the quality of life is an important factor too and, really, the child might not even appreciate it

 

Spoiler

[Sweeney]

what is the "thick cast iron prison"

A really big chastity belt. What else would it be?

Comme ca:


Edit: Well, fuck you too, Ivy

[redlion]

Could have an independent life.

Could have. Not "will have an independent life" not "has an independent life" but "could have."

I think your own word choice belies the ground you're standing on.

If an embryo, cell, or fetus currently has the potential to be alive, surely it cannot also currently be alive?

Calling an embryo or fetus an "unborn child" is like calling a box of cake mix an unmade cake. You're anthropomorphizing what amounts to biological substrate.

My personal view of how the law should stand is, until you've got a birth certificate, you're not a person. I know that's arbitrary, but you've got to draw the line somewhere. O'Connor really fucked us when she tried to pull the viability thing into the courts. Makes me angry. Check out Planned Parenthood v. Casey if you're interested.

[best]

Spoiler

LOL really, I've never seen one is real life. I know what is it though I was pretending dumb

[Sweeney]

Abortion would be the lesser of the two evils, but it isn't moral.
 
4) refers to chemically altered cells. Not all cells are chemically altered.

No, (4) does not refer to chemically altered cells. But even if it did, then you are excluding pregnancies that require medical intervention - chemically altered cells.

Are people borne of medically-assisted pregnancies not really people?

It is alive. Just doesn't have sentient thought yet. YET

Just like your earlobe

[Elindoril]

It is alive. Just doesn't have sentient thought yet. YET

My sperm is alive. It just doesn't have sentience yet.

It's also something that could have independent life given the opportunity.

[Romy]

Edit: Well, fuck you too, Ivy

Too slow.

 

It is alive. Just doesn't have sentient thought yet. YET

 

So...every time you touch yourself you're committing mass murder?

Sperm isn't sentient...but has the potential to achieve it.

 

Kinda ninja'd by Elin...?

Edited by Ivysaur, 01 February 2014 - 08:50 PM.

[Nymh]

Abortion would be the lesser of the two evils, but it isn't moral.

 

 

Whether or not something is moral shouldn't stop it from being an option if it is the best option.

 

Also, morality is subjective.

[Sweeney]

Also, morality is subjective.

Not to mention, fluid. If, in a situation, one option is "less evil" than the only other option... then the "less evil" option is the moral one.

[best]

 

 

So...every time you touch yourself you're committing mass murder?

Sperm isn't sentient...but has the potential to achieve it.

 

 losing 20 million pieces of sparms each time is a lot 

[redlion]

Abortion would be the lesser of the two evils, but it isn't moral.
 
4) refers to chemically altered cells. Not all cells are chemically altered.

It is alive. Just doesn't have sentient thought yet. YET

Cognition and sentience are necessary elements in any sane definition of what it is to be alive.

You're moving to a semantic debate.

Also I'm pretty much ignoring your comments towards Sweeney because he's about as smart as they come; you should listen to him. I'm fairly certain you didn't just say that some cells are not chemical though. That would imply that chemical reactions are not as ubiquitous as they are.

Saying that any cells, especially those that might develop into life, are not altered by chemical reactions is just plain silly. I have no idea what your age is, but you need to do a biology or chemistry course.

[Sweeney]

Saying that any cells, especially those that might develop into life, are not altered by chemical reactions is just plain silly. I have no idea what your age is, but you need to do a biology or chemistry course.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he means artificially, chemically altered by a non-maternal source

[Sweeney]

Wow way to go, deliberately misunderstanding my post to attempt to make me look ridiculous.

I'm not deliberately misunderstanding your post. What I said was the direct implication of what you said. If that is not what you meant, I urge you to be more clear in your posts.

It's clear that I am referring to chemically altered cells by the process you described.

You mean chemical treatments to revert somatic cells to undifferentiated cells? Or IVF cells? I don't think you're being as clear as you imagine.

And chemically altered cells through the method you described are basically humans abliet not developed yet: I equated them with embryos a few posts up. In any case, if #3 refers to embryos, then what does #4 refer to then?

"Undeveloped" humans are not humans. They are human cells. Just like, to return to our earlier analogy, cake mix is not a cake.

In the list I wrote above, both (3) and (4) are embryos. One produced naturally, and one produced chemically (to use your terminology).

[Emily]

I'm not deliberately misunderstanding your post. What I said was the direct implication of what you said. If that is not what you meant, I urge you to be more clear in your posts.


You mean chemical treatments to revert somatic cells to undifferentiated cells? Or IVF cells? I don't think you're being as clear as you imagine.


"Undeveloped" humans are not humans. They are human cells. Just like, to return to our earlier analogy, cake mix is not a cake.

In the list I wrote above, both (3) and (4) are embryos. One produced naturally, and one produced chemically (to use your terminology).

 

You could also say, an acorn is not an oak tree although it may grow into one. 

 

 

"A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree." - Judith Jarvis Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion." 

 

I'm definitely pro-choice. I don't think that it's anyone's choice other than the mother to decide whether or not she wants to have a child. We actually talked about this in my contemporary moral issues class last year. I almost wish I'd kept the notes she gave us about the morality of abortion. 

Edited by Emily, 01 February 2014 - 09:36 PM.

[Sweeney]

You could also say that an acorn is not an oak tree although it may grow into one.

It's reasonably apt, but I don't like that analogy as much because an acorn doesn't need any outside assistance to grow into a tree. It contains it's own germination food, and then it harvests its own light, water and minerals.

The same is not true of a human foetus.