DescentBB

ccb056 wrote:Since no one has any convincing argument nor evidence that a fetus is not just a human being in an early stage of development, I don't see abortion as anything other than murder.

How about:
It doesn't breathe.
It doesn't eat.
It doesn't drink.
It doesn't see.
It doesn't sleep.
It doesn't crap.
It barely even thinks.
It doesn't crawl or walk.
It doesn't talk.
It's still a part of the mother.

Also, you didn't really see any convincing argument here saying that a fetus is a human being in an early stage of development either.

Top Gun wrote:Do you have any statistics to back that up, or is that just your take on things? I'm not meaning to be harsh; I'm just curious if there have ever been studies conducted on that particular point.

Well, there can't be. It's pretty much impossible to set an actual minimum it would cost to have a child, unless it's $0. Which it probably is, too.

Top Gun wrote:And if it is true, exactly what does that say? Excluding the very rare circumstances of rape and incest, the parents consensually performed an act whose sole biological function is to produce offspring.

Unless you mean something else by "biological function", that's not true at all! Sex also makes pleasure, everyone knows that.

TIGERassault wrote: How about:
It doesn't breathe.
It doesn't eat.
It doesn't drink.
It doesn't see.
It doesn't sleep.
It doesn't crap.
It barely even thinks.
It doesn't crawl or walk.
It doesn't talk.
It's still a part of the mother.

The same can be said of retarded/old people on life support. And it takes a court order to kill them.

TIGERassault wrote: It doesn't breathe.
It doesn't eat.
It doesn't drink.
It doesn't see.
It doesn't sleep.
It doesn't crap.
It barely even thinks.
It doesn't crawl or walk.
It doesn't talk.
It's still a part of the mother.

Tiger, you are wrong on a couple of points.

They DO see (when the optic nerves are developed, full development isn't complete until the 2nd year after birth)
They DO sleep (you've never talked to a pregnant woman have you?)
They DO move around (there isn't much room in a uterus if you recall..again.. refer to any pregnant woman)
They WILL breath - unless they are born stillborn plus it's hard to do with fluid in their lungs. Incidentally, some deep sea divers are using
They WILL crap well duh, their digestive track isn't in use yet.
They are fed through the umbilical cord until the time they are born then they take food by mouth. ... remember the fluid in the lungs?
They WILL talk. Most kids don't really talk until 9th to 12th month and then single words only. So then what? Kids are eligible for termination up two years?

They attached to the mother but is not the mom. By the same reasoning, Siamese twins are not individuals. Unborn can be premature very early and survive. It is a separate entity. It's a symbiote relationship.

Unborn babies can feel pain as well.

TIGERassault wrote:Unless you mean something else by "biological function", that's not true at all! Sex also makes pleasure, everyone knows that.

"Pleasure" isn't a biological function; it's the brain's response to sexual activity (and, most likely, an evolutionary encouragement to engage in said activity). However, the primary biological purpose of the reproductive system of any animal, humans included, is to create offspring. It's no news to anyone over the age of 12 that sex makes babies, which is why the whole "choice" argument has always struck me as rather ironic. If it's merely a question of desiring pleasure, there are means of achieving that pleasure that don't carry the chance of pregnancy. I just don't see how that article can be used in a rational fashion.

Also, like Duper said, you're dead wrong on several of those points regarding fetal development. There's a wealth of information out there about the stages of fetal growth; you'd do well to do a bit of research on the issue.

And Will, the reason there's no clear-cut medical consensus on the definition of "life" is because the term "life" itself is rather loaded and indistinct. From a purely genetic standpoint, the fertilized egg cell, with its unique and complete chromosomal set, is the first point at which a genetically distinct and fully human lifeform exists. More archaic definitions of "life," tied to pulmonary and respiratory functions, can be traced to approximate weeks over the course of fetal development. Some would define "human life" as the point when higher cognitive functions first manifest themselves, which is rather nebulous to pin down depending on one's specific critera. And still others would define the term as occurring when the fetus is can be considered viable outside of the mother's womb, a point in time which, thanks to medical advances, seems to be gettign earlier and earlier year after year. I'm sure there are people out there who would have one or two other definitions of when "life" begins. When the definition really isn't defined in any way, and when each set of criteria carries with it such a great deal of political and emotional baggage, it's no wonder that there's no universally accepted standard.

I realize the term \"life\" can be kind of a moving target. I'd settle for an answer from the majority of doctors who would say, based on their knowledge, when abortion would definitely become murder.

Flabby Chick wrote:

Foil wrote:I think we can all agree that abortion is the intentional taking of a child's life.

Don't include me in your genralising ta very much.

Okay, maybe "child" is too strong a word for those who don't think of a fetus that way. I meant to say that we can all agree that it's the intentional taking of life.

The deeper question is one of ethics... should it happen.

Bet51987 wrote:

Foil wrote:Rape (when no "endangerment" applies): Should not be allowed; adoption is the best alternative. This is the hardest for me to say, because I empathize with the undeserved struggle that the victims face. The mother doesn't deserve any more trauma, but the child doesn't deserve to be killed, either.

Foil, your one of my dearest online friends so I feel comfortable slapping you.

Are you saying that if a 12-13 year old girl riding her bicycle to the park with her friends gets pulled into the woods and raped, you would not approve of emergency contraception to abort the development?

Are you saying its acceptable to destroy her only childhood? That its acceptable for her being tormented by other kids, like forever?

That its acceptable that other parents will keep their kids away from her?

That its acceptable to be pulled out of school because a pregnent 12 year old is a distraction.

All that to save a speck of matter that doesn't have eyes or are you allowing some leeway....

No, I'm not saying that's okay at all. It's not. The victim doesn't deserve that, and it shouldn't have to happen to her. I can't even begin to imagine how difficult that would be.

However, as someone who believes that a fetus is human, I have to weigh the child's life in, as well.

So, which is worse? The difficulty of life for a 13-year-old? Or the taking of a life?

They're both decidedly horrible; and the person to blame is the rapist. That's why I said what I did about this being the hardest of the scenarios for me. The only reason I decided to put my stance on the side I do is that it's the only solution in which life is preserved, so both the mother and child have a chance.

By the way, I'm going to suggest the same thing I did earlier: go do some research into fetal development. You'll find something that is not just a "speck of matter", but has more in common with you than you would imagine, much much earlier than you would think.

[Edit: I realized you used the word "contraception", which is inherently different from abortion. (You said "emergency contraception to abort the development", which is a contradiction in terminology, since "contraception" implies conception has not yet occurred, and "abort" implies conception has).
So, I should clarify: I am not opposed to measures which prevent conception from occurring, but I am opposed to measures which occur post-conception.]

TIGERassault wrote:How about:
It doesn't breathe.
It doesn't eat.
It doesn't drink.
It doesn't see.
It doesn't sleep.
It doesn't crap.
It barely even thinks.
It doesn't crawl or walk.
It doesn't talk.
It's still a part of the mother.

As has been pointed out, you apparently still haven't gone and done the research I suggested.

I'm serious. Research it. Find out how early the heart forms, and starts beating. Find out how early the ears, arms and legs form, and how early it begins to suck its thumb and react to pain. Find out about DNA and uniqueness; your own DNA is completely separate from your mother's, and it has been since you were a "parasite" (using your own term) yourself.

Study it, think about, and then come back and discuss it.

Will Robinson wrote:I realize the term "life" can be kind of a moving target. I'd settle for an answer from the majority of doctors who would say, based on their knowledge, when abortion would definitely become murder.

You would never find a consensus, even among the experts, because it's a progressive development.

So, we're left with two points where a definitive "line" can be drawn regarding when "life begins": conception, or birth.

I draw the line at conception, because the other line to me is inconscionable.

Will wrote:I realize the term "life" can be kind of a moving target. I'd settle for an answer from the majority of doctors who would say, based on their knowledge, when abortion would definitely become murder.

As long as we remember this--there is no such thing as the "real" definition of "human life." If somebody is going to advocate that we wait around for somebody to "discover" it or something, we're going to be waiting for something that is impossible to happen. Any pro-lifer who advocates that we should not perform abortions until we discover the secret of human life is just going to sneakily fulfill their political agenda while we wait for something that will never happen.

Moreover, I suspect that human life isn't just an on or off thing. Thinking that just does more to perpetuate the myth that we can discover the secret point at which a fetus acquires it. There's no reason to assume that you just "get" it. I suspect that it might be a more fruitful investigation to be open to "human life" as a quality that one has to some extent or another.

Top Gun wrote:"Pleasure" isn't a biological function; it's the brain's response to sexual activity (and, most likely, an evolutionary encouragement to engage in said activity).

Well in that case, humans must not actively seek pleasure, and must certainly be able to survive without endorphins. Even children who are not yet self-cognizant are capable of understanding pleasure and actively seek it.

However, the primary biological purpose of the reproductive system of any animal, humans included, is to create offspring. It's no news to anyone over the age of 12 that sex makes babies, which is why the whole "choice" argument has always struck me as rather ironic. If it's merely a question of desiring pleasure, there are means of achieving that pleasure that don't carry the chance of pregnancy. I just don't see how that article can be used in a rational fashion.

That's not the argument at all. The question of "why did you have sex" doesn't enter into it one bit. Why are you concerned about what brought on the pregnancy? Is it any of your business?

Jeff250 wrote: As long as we remember this--there is no such thing as the "real" definition of "human life." If somebody is going to advocate that we wait around for somebody to "discover" it or something, we're going to be waiting for something that is impossible to happen. Any pro-lifer who advocates that we should not perform abortions until we discover the secret of human life is just going to sneakily fulfill their political agenda while we wait for something that will never happen.

Moreover, I suspect that human life isn't just an on or off thing. Thinking that just does more to perpetuate the myth that we can discover the secret point at which a fetus acquires it. There's no reason to assume that you just "get" it. I suspect that it might be a more fruitful investigation to be open to "human life" as a quality that one has to some extent or another.

...and people wonder what's happening to this country. If this kind of thought prevails through "civilization", we are doomed. If we can not figure out something as BASIC as what human life it... we are worse than anything any other country has accused us of.

God help us.

DCrazy wrote:Well in that case, humans must not actively seek pleasure, and must certainly be able to survive without endorphins. Even children who are not yet self-cognizant are capable of understanding pleasure and actively seek it.

I was referring to pleasure in the narrow context of sexual activity, not in terms of human behavior in general. Yes, human beings do seek out pleasurable actions, and yes, that is one of the main factors (and perhaps the main one) that drives people to engage in sexual activity, but in terms of pure function, the sexual act is all about propagating the species. Sexual pleasure serves as a drive toward sexual activity, or as a side benefit derived from it, but it's not really part of the mechanics of the act.

DCrazy wrote:That's not the argument at all. The question of "why did you have sex" doesn't enter into it one bit. Why are you concerned about what brought on the pregnancy? Is it any of your business?

Oh, but I would argue that it is part of the argument, at least in certain circumstances, and that what brought on the pregnancy does have a bearing on this whole discussion. For instance, the question of whether the pregnancy came to be through rape/incest is obviously one of great import to a lot of people, particularly in terms of what restrictions (if any) they'd like to see placed on abortions. If those two cases are valid concerns, why can't others be? Like I said above, I don't know either way, but I'd imagine that there are certain percentages of women who seek abortions due to not being able to support a child, for medical reasons (and even that reason can be stretched quite far, if one considers potential emotional trauma to be a "medical reason"), or because they just don't want a baby (and there may be other reasons as well). In turn, I think it's natural for one's perception of the abortion issue to be defined by which of those categories apply, just as it is partially defined by the rape/incest issue. I've already stated my feelings about the case of women who would carry the pregnancy to term if not for a lack of financial/emotional support. In the case of women who "just don't want it," I'd argue that the question of sex does come into play, in that pregnancy can be quite easily avoided by those who don't desire children.

Duper wrote:...and people wonder what's happening to this country. If this kind of thought prevails through "civilization", we are doomed. If we can not figure out something as BASIC as what human life it... we are worse than anything any other country has accused us of.

God help us.

Wait, what? Did you just blame the perceived degeneration of America on an inability to define in unconditional, black-and-white terms the definition of a complex concept such as "human life"? And then attempt to invoke fatalistic language to emphasize your point?

In fact, I'd argue that the desire for clear-cut, black-and-white, two-and-only-two-sided definitions of every issue is the most likely cause of "what's happening to our country." But I digress.

Top Gun wrote:I was referring to pleasure in the narrow context of sexual activity, not in terms of human behavior in general. Yes, human beings do seek out pleasurable actions, and yes, that is one of the main factors (and perhaps the main one) that drives people to engage in sexual activity, but in terms of pure function, the sexual act is all about propagating the species. Sexual pleasure serves as a drive toward sexual activity, or as a side benefit derived from it, but it's not really part of the mechanics of the act.

I enjoy eating cheeseburgers. Sure, the main purpose of my eating a cheeseburger is to feed myself, but the reason I choose a cheeseburger over other foods is because I enjoy it. Now, there are times when I really don't need food, but I'll still go out for a cheeseburger, because going to the diner at 4 AM comforts me (stupid CS-induced all-nighters...). At that point it's no longer about feeding myself, it's about getting the damn cheeseburger.

Top Gun wrote:If those two cases are valid concerns, why can't others be?

Well, rape and incest both happen to be crimes. Having sex without the express purpose of parenting is not (though there are far too many in this world who believe it should be).

Top Gun wrote:In the case of women who "just don't want it," I'd argue that the question of sex does come into play, in that pregnancy can be quite easily avoided by those who don't desire children.

I've noticed this tendency among humans to try and base decisions that decide between potential outcomes on the causes of those outcomes. For example, you're fifteen years old and hanging out at the video game store in the mall. You see that they've got a cool game in stock for $50. You mowed your neighbor's lawn and cut his hedges for fifty bucks yesterday, so you've still got that crisp bill in your pocket. You decide to purchase the game because you made some spending cash.

What's wrong with this picture? The fact that you're considering how you got that $50 bill. Why does it matter? You've got fifty bucks in disposable income, do you spend it or save it? Our tendency to make decisions based on past actions that have no bearing on our current situation, but are somehow tangentially related, is in direct conflict with rational thought (one specific example is the concept of "sunk costs", if you've taken an intro economics or some form of managerial accounting class).

I see the same problem arising in your argument. Why this woman is carrying a child has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that a) she's carrying the child, and b) she no longer wants to carry the child. That's it. Fact A is a given, and I'm all for exploring fact B to its depths, hence my suggestion of mandatory counseling (because as we've found out, if it ain't codified, it ain't happening).

This is going to sound heartless but I think its a fair point and and I havent seen anyone bring it up yet.

Im for a womans right to choose.

However, if you happened to be one of the many financially challanged in this country, you should not expect my tax dollors to go to pay for it.

OK, a woman is in the hospital awaiting her cervix to dilate so she can deliver the baby. An assailant sneaks into her room and takes a syringe and injects through her belly into the baby's body a large air bubble and it dies. Did he murder the baby or just give the mother a gas bubble?

I think the experts would come to a consensus that he murdered a baby...
So the line can be drawn when it suits them.

How about if it's in the last month of pregnancy when the assailant sneaks in and gives the injection?
The last two months....when would they stop charging the assailant with murder?

I think they would draw a line.

doing it that way will could very easily also kill the mother too.

Murder isn't a good away to go about defining life... its the intent to take and willingness to act on that intention, not wholly the act of taking a life.

Will Robinson wrote:OK, a woman is in the hospital awaiting her cervix to dilate so she can deliver the baby. An assailant sneaks into her room and takes a syringe and injects through her belly into the baby's body a large air bubble and it dies. Did he murder the baby or just give the mother a gas bubble?

I think the experts would come to a consensus that he murdered a baby...
So the line can be drawn when it suits them.

How about if it's in the last month of pregnancy when the assailant sneaks in and gives the injection?
The last two months....when would they stop charging the assailant with murder?

I think they would draw a line.

In most states Will, its a double homicide to kill a pregnant woman. Also, the scenario you describe isn't too far from partial birth abortions where they induce labor somewhere in the 3rd trimester and deliver the baby feet first. As the back of the head is crowning, they ram a vacuum syringe into the brain and suck it out until the skull caves in. The baby, or rather what's left, is removed. I have a very difficult time understanding why people get upset at banning this procedures. It's detestable.

Another thing i don't get is people that won't step on a BUG because of "karma" have no trouble with abortion. ... go figure.

fliptw wrote:doing it that way will could very easily also kill the mother too.

Murder isn't a good away to go about defining life... its the intent to take and willingness to act on that intention, not wholly the act of taking a life.

fliptw I follow your logic but try it in a different scenario.
Imagine a couple argues about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. The woman wants to give birth, the man doesn't want her to. Late in the pregnancy he punches her in the stomach and the woman has a miscarriage. His lawyer claims he was just punching her in the stomach and should be charged with assault not murder.
For the law to charge him with murder they would have to determine that his intent and willingness wasn't just to hurt the woman with a punch but to in fact kill the baby.

Intent and willingness alone can't get you convicted of murder if no one dies....
If they determine someone died then the baby in her womb was recognized by law as a living person.

Duper wrote:...Also, the scenario you describe isn't too far from partial birth abortions where they induce labor somewhere in the 3rd trimester and deliver the baby feet first. As the back of the head is crowning, they ram a vacuum syringe into the brain and suck it out until the skull caves in. The baby, or rather what's left, is removed. I have a very difficult time understanding why people get upset at banning this procedures. It's detestable.

Another thing i don't get is people that won't step on a BUG because of "karma" have no trouble with abortion. ... go figure.

Yea it's detestable alright but has anyone ever undergone that procedure because they decided "Naa, I decided I don't want to have this baby after all Doc, go ahead and get it out of me"
I don't know for sure but my instincts tell me it's used very rarely for saving the mothers life not as an evil form of birth control.

Will Robinson wrote:[Regarding partial-birth abortion]I don't know for sure but my instincts tell me it's used very rarely for saving the mothers life not as an evil form of birth control.

If I didn't know better, I would have thought so, too. (I'm generally optimistic about things, and would have thought it unlikely that it would be that common.) But I would have been wrong.

If the head (while it's alive) and the body (after it's brutally killed) can be delivered without endangering the mother, it can generally be delivered alive safely. It's actually used most often as a "convenience" abortion, not a life-saving measure (I'll post the stats on this when I get the chance).

Partial-birth abortion is late-term, when the child can feel and react to everything done to it. In my opinion, it's by far the cruelest, sickest, most inhumane form of abortion. It's the complete opposite of "life-saving".

DCrazy wrote:

Duper wrote:...and people wonder what's happening to this country. If this kind of thought prevails through "civilization", we are doomed. If we can not figure out something as BASIC as what human life it... we are worse than anything any other country has accused us of.

God help us.

Wait, what? Did you just blame the perceived degeneration of America on an inability to define in unconditional, black-and-white terms the definition of a complex concept such as "human life"? And then attempt to invoke fatalistic language to emphasize your point?

Missed this before..

Yes I did. I am HOPING this is not the case.

Partial birth abortion is no worse than tying up a litter of kittens in a bag and throwing them into a river.

Testi, I think you're making the point for me.

Duper wrote:Tiger, you are wrong on a couple of points.

They DO see (when the optic nerves are developed, full development isn't complete until the 2nd year after birth)
They DO sleep (you've never talked to a pregnant woman have you?)
They DO move around (there isn't much room in a uterus if you recall..again.. refer to any pregnant woman)
They WILL breath - unless they are born stillborn plus it's hard to do with fluid in their lungs. Incidentally, some deep sea divers are using
They WILL crap well duh, their digestive track isn't in use yet.
They are fed through the umbilical cord until the time they are born then they take food by mouth. ... remember the fluid in the lungs?
They WILL talk. Most kids don't really talk until 9th to 12th month and then single words only. So then what? Kids are eligible for termination up two years?

They attached to the mother but is not the mom. By the same reasoning, Siamese twins are not individuals. Unborn can be premature very early and survive. It is a separate entity. It's a symbiote relationship.

Unborn babies can feel pain as well.

I was talking about...

Actually, nevermind. This argument isn't going anywhere. It seems that all we're doing is shouting our beliefs at each other continuously, as if it would convert the others to that tought, because none of us are able to prove our beliefs at all! The only one with posts that would make you think is Will.
As far as I can tell, (aside from Will's points) there are 4 different beliefs regarding foetuses here:
1: A foetus isn't living.
2: A foetus is living, but not considered human.
3: A foetus is a human.
4: A foetus may or may not be human, but isn't the same as a grown person, and shouldn't necessarily be given the same respect.

Nosferatu wrote:Im for a womans right to choose.

Actually, that's an interesting point. I think that both the father and a mother should have an equal say into the child decision.

TIGERassault wrote:This argument isn't going anywhere. It seems that all we're doing is shouting our beliefs at each other continuously, as if it would convert the others to that tought, because none of us are able to prove our beliefs at all!

When your earlier statements about fetuses were refuted, those were statements of fact, not just beliefs. E.g. I don't just believe that fetuses sleep, eat, and move, or that their DNA is completely separate from their mother's... it's fact.

So, again, go do as I suggested: research it (heck, just Google "fetal development"!), before making the kind of claims you did above.

I wasn't disagreeing that partials are pretty bad. Only one reason for their validity exists, and it seems a pretty tenuous one.

I was making a vague distinction of how 'horrendous' one is, but the other is ignored and/or accepted. (Just looking for some consistency in the anti-abortion crowd, because there usually isn't much.)

--

I don't think any man should have any choice in the matter (probably why so many men are anti-abortion...they aren't in control physically, so they try to fulfill their domination instinct by exerting control legally). He can try to convince the woman otherwise, but that baby is hers and hers alone. It's her body, it's her baby, it's her property until it is actually born and the government claims the child as it's property (SSN, Birth Certificate, that baby is no longer yours, you just signed custody to the state). If she wants to end it, it is NONE of any other person's business on this planet other than the doctor who does the procedure.

I understand your logic, but that argument assumes that the child has no rights whatsoever to the same protection that an adult (or even a newborn) does.

If the only lives involved were the parents', then you would be right in saying it's up to the woman. But the life of the child has to be factored in, especially because it doesn't have a voice in the matter.

We don't allow a mother to kill her newborn; the newborn is protected under the law. In my mind, it should be no different for unborn children.

Foil wrote:When your earlier statements about fetuses were refuted, those were statements of fact, not just beliefs. E.g. I don't just believe that fetuses sleep, eat, and move, or that their DNA is completely separate from their mother's... it's fact.

So, again, go do as I suggested: research it (heck, just Google "fetal development"!), before making the kind of claims you did above.

Ok then: a foetus is capable of a vast array of functions. Fact.
Now what?

Testiculese wrote:I don't think any man should have any choice in the matter (probably why so many men are anti-abortion...they aren't in control physically, so they try to fulfill their domination instinct by exerting control legally). He can try to convince the woman otherwise, but that baby is hers and hers alone. It's her body, it's her baby, it's her property until it is actually born and the government claims the child as it's property (SSN, Birth Certificate, that baby is no longer yours, you just signed custody to the state). If she wants to end it, it is NONE of any other person's business on this planet other than the doctor who does the procedure.

Yes, but it's also his baby too! It's his property too... kinda, it depends on what your define as property in this case. But for the fater of the foetus, it seems a little unfair to me that he gets no choice in the matter whatsoever.

TIGERassault wrote:

Foil wrote:When your earlier statements about fetuses were refuted, those were statements of fact, not just beliefs. E.g. I don't just believe that fetuses sleep, eat, and move, or that their DNA is completely separate from their mother's... it's fact.

So, again, go do as I suggested: research it (heck, just Google "fetal development"!), before making the kind of claims you did above.

Ok then: a foetus is capable of a vast array of functions. Fact.
Now what?

Now we refer back to your earlier rationale as to why a fetus is not human, and observe that it's incorrect. So the question is back to you: Given that humans breed humans, why isn't a fetus human?

(Try not to go the direction of "able to take care of itself", etc. That would imply that many mentally handicapped or elderly people aren't human, and I don't think you're so jaded as to believe that.)

Will wrote:OK, a woman is in the hospital awaiting her cervix to dilate so she can deliver the baby. An assailant sneaks into her room and takes a syringe and injects through her belly into the baby's body a large air bubble and it dies. Did he murder the baby or just give the mother a gas bubble?

I think the experts would come to a consensus that he murdered a baby...
So the line can be drawn when it suits them.

How about if it's in the last month of pregnancy when the assailant sneaks in and gives the injection?
The last two months....when would they stop charging the assailant with murder?

I think they would draw a line.

As far as legislation is concerned, there's one other possibility. We could offer increasingly harsh punishment. Instead of deciding a point in fetal development where terminating the fetus one second before will result in no punishment and where terminating the fetus one second after (which as we all know is when God gives the fetus an immortal soul) will result in murder charges, we could scale the punishment to fit the crime. After x time, no punishment. After x+y time, some punishment. After x+y+z time, some more, and so on.

Jeff250 wrote:

Will wrote:OK, a woman is in the hospital awaiting her cervix to dilate so she can deliver the baby. An assailant sneaks into her room and takes a syringe and injects through her belly into the baby's body a large air bubble and it dies. Did he murder the baby or just give the mother a gas bubble?

I think the experts would come to a consensus that he murdered a baby...
So the line can be drawn when it suits them.

How about if it's in the last month of pregnancy when the assailant sneaks in and gives the injection?
The last two months....when would they stop charging the assailant with murder?

I think they would draw a line.

As far as legislation is concerned, there's one other possibility. We could offer increasingly harsh punishment. Instead of deciding a point in fetal development where terminating the fetus one second before will result in no punishment and where terminating the fetus one second after (which as we all know is when God gives the fetus an immortal soul) will result in murder charges, we could scale the punishment to fit the crime. After x time, no punishment. After x+y time, some punishment. After x+y+z time, some more, and so on.

That would be a pathetic dodge of what is supposedly a life and death issue. I expect a politician to adopt your solution soon!

.

Will Robinson wrote:That would be a pathetic dodge of what is supposedly a life and death issue. I expect a politician to adopt your solution soon!

Begging the question?

Bet51987 wrote:Foil...

Am I correct in saying that if a 12-13 year old girl was raped, and her parents brought her to a hospital where they performed an "emergency contraception", you would be ok with that? If yes, that would solve my rape scenario...

Now, how much time would you allow to pass before you found it unacceptable. Lets say she was in shock and her parents found her many hours later.

It's not a question of hours to me. The issue to me is whether conception is being prevented, or a new life is being taken.

If it's really contraception, preventing conception from happening, then "emergency contraception measures" should be used. But from what I understand (and I'll admit my knowledge is limited on this), "emergency contraception" in that context is often not contraception at all; it actually causes the mother's body to reject a conceived life.

As I said, that particular scenario is by far the hardest for me to be firm about, because I can't even begin to imagine how hard it is for the victim. I just believe that adoption, as difficult as it may be, is ethically the lesser of the two evils.

most of the time, it's weeks or months before a young girl will reveal a raping.

.

Bet51987 wrote:I'm having a problem with that answer. Since you cannot place yourself in her shoes, then you should not determine what she is allowed to do...

I understand what you're saying. However, the same protection should also apply to the fetus.

The mother is not the only one involved here. There is also a life which may not yet have a voice, but whose well-being must also be considered.

Bet51987 wrote:so correct me if I'm wrong but your implying that the "act" alone constitutes the beginning of life and thus should not be aborted.

No, no, no. You misunderstand me.

I'm saying biological conception (when the egg is fertilized) is what constitutes the beginning of life, not anything before then.

There is a period of time between the "act" (as you put it) and conception, so during that time, it would be acceptable to me to prevent the conception, if that is possible.

Bet51987 wrote:No person should force a young schoolgirl who was raped to carry to term.

Yes, and the child should not have its life forcibly taken, either.

Unfortunately, it can't be both ways. It's a situation with two evils - that's why it's such a difficult thing.

So, when it comes down to taking a stance on the matter: because I believe the intentional taking of life is worse than potential hardship, I have to side with the ethic that preserves the highest opportunity for life for all involved (including the child).

Foil wrote:We don't allow a mother to kill her newborn; the newborn is protected under the law. In my mind, it should be no different for unborn children.

It's no longer her child once it's born. Until then, it's completely her property. Property doesn't have rights.

Foil, did you know that roughly 80% of a woman's fertilized eggs get flushed during their cycle? By your point of view, ever woman that has had more than one period is a serial killer.

Testiculese wrote:

Foil wrote:We don't allow a mother to kill her newborn; the newborn is protected under the law. In my mind, it should be no different for unborn children.

It's no longer her child once it's born. Until then, it's completely her property. Property doesn't have rights.

You may be legally correct, but the statement "property doesn't have rights" is troubling to me when applied to humans. Implying a human can be property is far too close to the rationale for all kinds of crimes against humanity.

Testiculese wrote:Foil, did you know that roughly 80% of a woman's fertilized eggs get flushed during their cycle? By your point of view, every woman that has had more than one period is a serial killer.

No, not at all. I'm talking about actions where humans intend to take life without regard to its well-being (abortion is an intentional act, so it falls in this category), not just any process where life ends.

Also, did you say fertilized eggs? Maybe my sense of biological terminology is off, but my understanding was that eggs are not 'fertilized' until the sperm arrives. What I'm referring to is a new life which is in the process of developing, not just an egg.

Well, he's slightly incorrect. \"Current research suggests that fertilised embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time.\" source

Foil wrote:Now we refer back to your earlier rationale as to why a fetus is not human, and observe that it's incorrect. So the question is back to you: Given that humans breed humans, why isn't a fetus human?

(Try not to go the direction of "able to take care of itself", etc. That would imply that many mentally handicapped or elderly people aren't human, and I don't think you're so jaded as to believe that.)

Because humans also breed foetuses.
And I think you forgot to make the connection between me being wrong in a previous comment in your post there.