New Abortion Laws
Pages
| Author | Topic: New Abortion Laws |
|---|---|
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Monday, April 4 2005 07:43
Profile
Homepage
quote:Yeah, but they aren't human. We can debate animal rights another time. For now, can we assume that killing calves is OK and killing babies isn't? [quote]From a Biblical perspective, Adam became alive and a person when God breathed life into him. Could it not be the case that life as a person, acquisition of the soul, etc. occurs at the moment a newborn draws breath?.[/quote]Adam was not actually alive before that. An unborn child is. That's my take on it, anyway. I'd also say that if there is any doubt over whether it is alive/a person or not, we should err on the side of caution. [quote]Why are fetuses or bodies any more than mortal shells to you religious types? How do you explain stillborns?[/quote]Well, I hesitate to answer the first question on the behalf of all 'religious types', as I'm sure many will have different answers to mine. But as far as I'm concerned, it's and end/means thing. Even if it all works out alright in the end, I think murder is still wrong. As for stillborns, I'm not sure what there is to explain. I don't see any real difference between that and the high infant mortality rate in developing countries and in days gone past. Maybe one day we'll be able to prevent stillbirths from happening so much, as we've cut down on the infant mortality rate. [quote]The trouble for me is that the scientific, genetic arguments are compelling, as well as discomforting. In truth, science is largely the reason for my skepticism toward the religious explanation for being. You can try to use the science as a tool to posit your beliefs, but I think that taken on its own, science points to a different conclusion about life.[/quote]Well, that's a whole other can of worms, isn't it? I disagree, but I don't really see that we need to agree on this point to come to a consensus on the abortion issue. If we can agree that killing people is wrong (I hope we can), and we can agree on the scientific facts, then we should naturally come to the same conclusion. [ Monday, April 04, 2005 07:44: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, April 4 2005 08:55
Profile
quote:But doesn't your conviction on this issue stem from your religious beliefs? I believe that murder is wrong, but not because the Bible tells me that it is. Murder is wrong because my society decided that it should be, and I am a willing member of this society. This pact was created in part to assure the personal security of the individuals it comprises; outside of the laws we've decided for ourselves, there is no right or wrong. Because we are accustomed to the only laws most of us have ever known, we naturally are inclined to believe them universal; however, this is not the case, as history has demonstrated when cultures have come into conflict and war. I would assert that because human beings created the laws, there is no reason that human life is inherently sacred or special outside of the value given to it and the protection afforded to it within societies. Should we decide to extend protection to fetuses, it will be due to a consensus within society, not because of some overarching inherent value. With regard to science, we've determined that we genetically are not so distinct from the animals we regularly don't hold in high regard - consider the fact that the human genome is 98.5% identical to that of the chimpanzee genome. What is it about that 1.5% that is so distinct? How do a chimpanzee fetus and a human fetus differ? Is it not the case that some chimpanzees develop and demonstrate more intelligence than many mentally challenged humans? Are their lives more sacred than these individuals'? To Stareye - I would posit that humanity isn't losing all that much productive capacity by allowing legalized abortions to occur - our worldwide population certainly doesn't show signs of waning! [ Monday, April 04, 2005 09:33: Message edited by: andrew miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, April 4 2005 13:24
Profile
Homepage
Linguistically, the action most associated with human life is breathing (hence, "expire" and "spirit" coming from the verb "to breathe"). Poetically, it tends to be the heart beating. Biologically (although this is much more hotly debated), it's those two and brain activity, also. All of these things start during the second trimester. Whatever other arguments you may try to make, I just can't see something as being humanly alive unless it does these sorts of things. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Monday, April 4 2005 14:43
Profile
quote:This is another can of worms. Let's try stick to one contraversial issue at a time. I'll restate his point, since you seem to have misunderstood it. If we agree that killing babies is wrong (how we come to that conclusion is an issue for another topic), then, if we can agree on the science (is it a baby or not) we ought to agree on whether abortion is wrong. quote:Let's see if we can agree on whether or not a fetus is a baby before we start debating whether society can protect it, okay? One massive argument at a time. quote:We also share 50% of our DNA with bananas, but that doesn't mean we're half fruit trees. But there I go, opening another can of worms. Sticking to the argument is going to be difficult. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Monday, April 4 2005 15:34
Profile
Ash Lael has been asking for sources for my three examples, especially for the first. Refering to 2) and 3): I'll give two links on embryological brain development that may be helpful: Neurological view Embryological Development of the Human Brain Refering to 1): Cell differentiation of the zygote begins around day 5: between the inner layer of cells or blastocyst and the outer layer or trophoblast. It is the trophoblast, which then attaches itself to the uterus wall (implantation) and goes on to become the various life support systems (placenta, amniotic sac, umbilical cord), while the blastocyst develops into the embryo. Definitions: Blastocyst A preimplantation embryo of 30-150 cells. Contains a layer of specialized cells that is made up of trophoblasts, which attach to the uterine wall and form the placenta. Inside the trophoblast layer is the inner cell mass. These cells remain undifferentiated. http://www.counterbalance.net/biogloss/blasto-body.html Trophoblast 1. [noun] the membrane that forms the wall of the blastocyst in early development; aids implantation in the uterine wall; "after implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall the trophoblast divides into two layers, the chorion and the placenta" http://www.elook.org/dictionary/trophoblast.html Placenta Organ that attaches the developing embryo or fetus to the uterus (womb) in placental mammals (mammals other than marsupials, platypuses, and echidnas). Composed of maternal and embryonic tissue, it links the blood supply of the embryo to the blood supply of the mother, allowing the exchange of oxygen, nutrients, and waste products. The two blood systems are not in direct contact, but are separated by thin membranes, with materials diffusing across from one system to the other. The placenta also produces hormones that maintain and regulate pregnancy. http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Placenta -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, April 4 2005 15:43
Profile
Homepage
quote:I think you've misunderstood Andrew's point. He seems to be espousing a social-contract theory of morality, and at the moment society is mostly saying "Killing babies is wrong only after a certain point in their development". The fact that there may be no significant biological distinction between the fetus a day before that point and a day after that point is irrelevant. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, April 4 2005 21:06
Profile
quote:Yes, worldwide, but we need to draw a distinction between the first world and the third world. Most productivity occurs in the first world where the population is decreasing. The first world, is, also where most abortions occur because it is not economical to have children in the first world. In the third world, it is to your benefit to have as many children as you can to act as a cheap source of labor and ensure care in your old age. There is less overall productivity there because people are unfortunate in the fact they have to devote their resources to survival and not producing goods, works of art, new medicines, etc. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Tuesday, April 5 2005 00:55
Profile
An afterthought. Brain waves can be detected in the unborn at about forty to forty-three days after conception. I've never read much on abortion, so I am only now becoming aware how often this argument is being quoted in anti-abortion literature. It is most definitely not true. So I've been asking myself, where does it come from? The main source for this seems to be Dr. Hannibal Hamlin's 'Life or Death by EEG.' This is a speech that was read before the Section on Nervous and Mental Diseases at the 113th Annual Convention of the American Medical Association in June 1964, and was printed in the Journal of the American Medical Association, October 12, 1964 (Vol 190, No 2, pages 112-114). This speech is a plea that 'competent application and interpretation of the EEG should gain medical approval for legal pronouncement of human death.' I quote: 'At only 40 days after fertilization electrical waves as measured by the EEG can be recorded from the baby's brain, indicating brain functioning47, 48. 47. Hamlin, H. (1964), "Life or Death by EEG," Journal of the American Medical Association, October 12, 113.' That is ancient research and long superseded. An EEG involves measuring varying electrical potentials across a dipole, or separated positive and negative charges. Any living cell has an electrical potential across its membrane, and any living structure is a dipole, which explains why people have been able to put electrodes on plants, hook them up to EEG machines, and get 'evidence' that plants have feelings. 'Brain waves' is a commonly used term for a particular kind of varying potentials produced by certain brain structures that don't even exist in an embryo and are associated with consciousness and dreaming as well as the regulation of bodily functions: 'brain waves' and 'brain activity' are terms that refer to organized activity in the cortex, requiring neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. These are not present in the human cortex before approximately the third term of pregnancy, it is therefore not possible to record 'brain waves' prior to 20-24 weeks. [ Tuesday, April 05, 2005 01:01: Message edited by: ef ] -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5627
|
written Tuesday, April 5 2005 02:14
Profile
Everyone here has made a great argument (with the slight exception in my case) and there are quite a few points to ponder. But pretty much anyone that is willing to read 11 pages of abortion debate has probably got their mind settled on the matter. Any borderline cases that are going to slog through the tome of abortion facts and opinions are probably not going to be helped by this, because there's people for both sides. But it's all good. The 'winner' of the argument is the one with the better arguments, and probably cares about it enough to take the time to put together the argument. I'd like to duck out of the argument before I trip myself up with my tongue again (there's something you'd pay good money to see) but I'd like to say that arguing on this has been, while not exactly fun (the subject at hand isn't the happiest) then, for want of a better word, satisfying. It forced me to gather up my admittedly scattered thoughts on the subject, which is never a bad thing. To get melodramatic, the world needs more people who care enough about topics to do something about it, even if it is just to try to convert the pagans on the nearest forum :) . Kudos to the lot of you. Ps. By the way, I'm still going to be keeping an eye on this thread, and I'm cheering for the pro-abortion-up-to-a-certain-point squad. What that point is will probably never be answered to everyones satisfaction. Posts: 14 | Registered: Friday, March 25 2005 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Wednesday, April 6 2005 01:25
Profile
Andrew, if I understand you correctly, you're saying "abortion is okay because the majority say it's okay." If this is the only reason to agree to abortion, then you have a problem, because that would mean "The majority say abortion is okay, beacause the majority say abortion is okay". While this might be true, I can't help feeling it a very poor reason for killing babies. If, however, there is a better reason to support abortion, then this one is irrelevant. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, April 6 2005 02:49
Profile
Homepage
I find it unfair you're trying to pidgeonhole people into supporting abortion where they're explicitly advocating freedom of conscience on a scientifically dubious issue. It would be like, in a debate on freedom of exercise, claiming that those in favor of f.e. were actually advocating potentially dangerous cults. The disjoint here comes of you believing your essentially unscientific view on when human life begins ought to legally supercede anyone else's essentially unscientific view on when human life begins. I'd like you to precisely and concisely explain why you believe that without relying on lurid analogies or quoting pro-life researchers and publications. [ Wednesday, April 06, 2005 02:51: Message edited by: Bad-Ass Mother Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, April 6 2005 04:48
Profile
quote:No - I'm saying that human life is valued/considered superior to animal life because society has dictated this, not some God/outside influence. We're special because we say we are, not because of any inherent characteristic of our being. You can't prove a soul exists, and your best authority on the matter, the Bible, is a markedly unscientific and dated resource to which to turn. You could point to the fact that we are conscious, but I think that's dubious evidence for singling us out - consider the several gorillas at this point who can speak in sign language. I personally feel that abortions in many ways are tragedies - I agree that it's sad that a potential life won't occur as a result - but the reality is that abortions will still happen, no matter how they're regulated. I firmly believe that if you make them illegal, you are only increasing the risk to women and the suffering of everyone involved over and above what would happen if legal abortions were to occur in a clinical setting. I think that by supporting laws that would make abortions illegal, you are only fostering increased suffering for everyone. [ Wednesday, April 06, 2005 08:37: Message edited by: andrew miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Wednesday, April 6 2005 07:27
Profile
quote:Then why isn't not reproducing a tragedy? Fetuses and embryos are not conscious. Abortion isn't murder, but not granting life. [ Wednesday, April 06, 2005 07:29: Message edited by: Mind ] Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, April 6 2005 08:31
Profile
quote:I edited my post a bit, but I don't understand what you're saying here. I agree that abortion isn't murder. I do think it's sad, but I don't think that the practice should be outlawed. On what basis is deciding not to reproduce a tragedy? (Of course, I can see how my own choice not to spread my seed in the world definitely would be a tragedy, but I'm talking in general terms here. ;) ) [ Wednesday, April 06, 2005 08:48: Message edited by: andrew miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Wednesday, April 6 2005 12:02
Profile
What I mean to say is, in my insight, not reproducing is murder as much as abortion is. It is merely refusing to give a child life. Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2836
|
written Wednesday, April 6 2005 12:23
Profile
quote:But does that child actually exist before it is born? If it doesn't, you are not really denying it life. Posts: 587 | Registered: Tuesday, April 1 2003 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, April 6 2005 13:04
Profile
quote:Check please, waiter! This discussion is done. [ Wednesday, April 06, 2005 13:05: Message edited by: andrew miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Wednesday, April 6 2005 23:06
Profile
quote:Yes. It even has as much consciousness as the fetus: None at all. quote:Please explain yourself. [ Wednesday, April 06, 2005 23:08: Message edited by: Mind ] Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Wednesday, April 6 2005 23:29
Profile
quote:May I contradict? Please, everybody, get your facts straight. A third term fetus does have consciousness, does sleep and dream, and does feel pain. Once the cortex is functioning, consciousness is beginning to develop. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Wednesday, April 6 2005 23:32
Profile
Homepage
I should never get myself into these debates. Eventually it always gets to a point where I only have ten minutes to post, and there's way too much to answer. ef, thanks for the links and stuff. I'll try to look at it in detail as soon as I can. I hope you'll be patient. Andrew Miller - I think your point of view is quite a logical one. If you don't believe in a higher power, then of course there is no such thing as right and wrong outside of what people decide. In fact, it would probably be more accurate to say there's no such thing as right and wrong at all, only legal and illegal. Taking this through to it's logical conclusion, one assumes you'd see nothing wrong with slavery, the White Australia policy, and other such 'legal evils' that have existed through history? Mind - This has been asked and answered before, but what do you consider to be the thing that determines whether a fetus is alive/a person or not? -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Thursday, April 7 2005 00:29
Profile
quote:I never used the term "alive". I used the term "conscious". There is a difference. After the age of six months, the fetus has some consciousness, but only a very limited amount. Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Thursday, April 7 2005 02:44
Profile
Sorry Alec, but I couldn't make ahead or tail out of your first paragraph. quote:1. I belive my position is scientific. I'd go into it more, but it's late. 2. By unscientific veiw, I assume you mean that neither of us really knows if an embryo is a person. If you don't know if it is a person, then you shouldn't destroy it. I'd give an example to help illustrate, but you seem to have an irrational dislike of them. To ef, The placenta is an organ required by the embryo to keep it alive during the pregnancy, just as the liver is an organ required to keep it alive all through it's life. As such, the placenta can be said to be part of the embryo. I'll get back to you on development of the brain when I have time. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, April 7 2005 02:56
Profile
Homepage
quote:Or perhaps both of you know whether the embryo is a person, but your knowledge doesn't match up with his because you're working off different definitions of "person". -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Thursday, April 7 2005 03:27
Profile
quote:Source: CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary [ Thursday, April 07, 2005 03:27: Message edited by: Mind ] Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Thursday, April 7 2005 04:24
Profile
Homepage
quote:2. By unscientific view, I assume you mean that neither of us really knows if an adult woman is a person. If you don't know that it is a person, then you shouldn't have problems oppressing it. I'd give an example to help illustrate, but you seem to have an irrational dislike of them. ... Well, you produce some good science, but it's like saying that radiation is bad to outlaw steam. Embryos are alive in a sense, yes, and they have "unique" (which probably isn't true statistically, but nevertheless) genetic makeup. So do the sheep and cows you killed and sold to market. As far as I'm concerned, that "womb-child" is scant more than a booger, which is precisely how many cattle are treated (ESPECIALLY in some cattle farms where disease, overcrowding, etc. are prevalent). What I'd see as a reasonable compromise is treating the embryos as humanely as cattle aught to be- make the abortion as painless as possible. Because the way I see it, we aren't sure that embryos are people, but we are sure that aborted ones are not wanted. And yes, I know, adoption- but at the same time, if abortion were illegalized, you'd have such a massive influx that the adoptive parents couldn't absorb all of the children being carpet bombed on the first world by teenage cooters. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |