Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ChrisWWII wrote:1) There are lots of birth control features that only work within specific genders. Saying that abortion is discriminatory because it doesn't work for both genders is the equivalent of saying that birth control pills, morning after pills and condoms are discriminatory.

2) I would even question that. Like I said, if you let me screw with the circumstances, I can create a situation where it is moral to torture and murder a 3 year old child. Ignoring that, you didn't say 'murder' originally, you said 'kill'. While it may seem like semantics there is a big difference between murdering someone and killing someone. All murdering is killing, but not all killing is murder.

1 - Two problems:
A - All birth control is not 100% effective. Abortion is a second bite at the apple, and a lot more effective, and verifiable.
B - Birth control decision must be made at the time of conception. Abortion decisions can be made post hoc.

2 - Yes, you can create such a situation, but only by redefining morality to fit your position. This is acting as an absolute moral authority.

On murder/killing - I wasn't overly broad, I said kill without a chance to dispute it. That saves cases of self defense and state sanctioned killing.
In abortion there is no voice for the fetus, it is only the mother making the decision for herself and the child. This is, at best, a conflict of interest.

Melissa: one solution to the issues you raise: adoption/fostering.

I think that, even from a nonreligious perspective, some life, even if it is painful and hard, is better than no life. I know people with DS or other diseases that today would be aborted. My life and theirs are better because they weren't.

It's frightening that some think they're not entitled to have the chance to live.

Anyway, we won't decide anything here, and I've got a meeting. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Melissia wrote:Everything has a cost, and the question of who pays that cost is an important one that needs to be answered. With an abortion, the patient pays the cost either way because it is their choice in the matter.

This isn't technically correct. I think KK mentioned in another thread that 1% of abortions in the US are funded by the government. One percent isn't going to break the bank but neither does one percent satisfy Pro-Choice lobbyists. In any case, let's hypothetically say that the government eventually pays for the same number of abortions and cases of caring for children with genetic defects. The abortions are unquestionably cheaper. But that does not lead me to believe that aborting children with genetic defects is preferable to them being born. You see, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to abort children/proto-child tissues. I'm saying that allowing this on the basis of its cost is inappropriate.

And who is going to adopt or foster parent a child? The system is already overtasked, what with so many parents selfishly saying they want to have a child instead of adopting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:But that does not lead me to believe that aborting children with genetic defects is preferable to them being born.

No, but giving the parents a choice in the matter is preferable to no choice. I never suggested to abort all babies with defects.

Melissia wrote:Because it's basically abortion by another name, as it is an intentional act that will lead to the death of what some people call a child.

No, it isn't.

It's a standard medical procedure routinely used for mothers-to-be who have not gone into about within two weeks after the due date.

My wife was to have been induced but she went into labour naturally the night before the procedure was to have been done.

Yes, which is one way to use the procedure, and the way that would not be referred to as abortion.

That wouldn't stop it from being used as such.

Melissia wrote:With the suggestion of abortion being banned, I find it unethical to force parents to pay the cost of something which they could have prevented but weren't allowed to.

People have to pay the costs of things they are not allowed to prevent when the method of prevention is deemed intolerable. People who think of abortion as murder do not feel that they should support through their tax dollars the result of other people not being allowed to murder their children. You're argument is premised on the moral neutrality of abortion. If we accept that, you're argument becomes very compelling. Something like "if the government doesn't allow me to mow my lawn, I shouldn't have to pay a messy lawn fine." But for people who think otherwise, it's akin to saying "well, the government did not allow me to take my child off of life support right after the accident so they better be the ones who pay her medical bills now that she's disabled."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:But that does not lead me to believe that aborting children with genetic defects is preferable to them being born.

No, but giving the parents a choice in the matter is preferable to no choice. I never suggested to abort all babies with defects.

And I keep telling you, people can abort for any reason within a certain time period. Cost is not a factor at all (as you would say "Irrelevant.") The argument is redundant, as I have already explained. If childcare of a kid with genetic problems is expensive enough to warrant abortion then childcare itself can be expensive enough to warrant abortion.

Phototoxin wrote:

I don't accept that the foetus is a human life

Do you not accept that it is human or do you not accept that it is alive?

I do not accept that a foetus is a human. I believe it is an entity that has the capacity to become a human and gradually grows up to fulfil that capacity during gestation.

A foetus is alive in the sense that my foot is alive. If I cut my foot off it would die. If the foetus is deprived of the protection of the mother’s body, it will die.

Your foot has living cells, it in itself is alive although not a seperate living creature.
An adult/teenager/toddler/baby/neonatal/fetus/embryo/blastocyst is alive in that it it is a totally new and seperate creature to its mother, hence it has its own life. All that varies is size.

Viability varies too. A blastula cannot survive and develop outside its mother. Blah blah, hence the 24 week limit.

The 24 week limit (used as a time limit in most countries that allow abortion) was chosen partly because after this time the foetus shows signs of mentation and begins to have some capability of survival independent of its mother. In other words, around the 24 week time, the foetus changes from being a pre-human foetus to being a potentially premature baby.

Phototoxin wrote:
Pre-human? Was it Klingon before it was human? It was entirely 'human' genetically speaking from its conception.

A human being isn’t simply a matter of genetics. I can scrape a cell off the inside of my cheek and it will have exactly the same genes as I do. Who would call it a human being?

Manchu wrote:Cost is not a factor at all (as you would say "Irrelevant.") The argument is redundant, as I have already explained. If childcare of a kid with genetic problems is expensive enough to warrant abortion then childcare itself can be expensive enough to warrant abortion.

Cost is always a factor and always will be. I don't know if I made myself clear enough, but I wasn't talking specifically about the monetary cost.

You really don't understand what it takes to care for these children if you think the cost in time, effort, frustration, and a thousand other intangibles is equivalent to that of caring for a child without these disorders. It's not that simple.

As for my assumption on its neutrality, yes, I am making that assumption. If one goes by the assumption of abortion is killing a human being, all discussion on the subject goes out the window and it is and always will be pointless to argue anything on the topic unless you're specifically arguing about whether or not abortion is killing a human being. Unless you make the assumption on neutrality, the only topic that will ever come up in an abortion idebate is whether or not abortion itself is killing a human being.

biccat wrote:
1 - Two problems:
A - All birth control is not 100% effective. Abortion is a second bite at the apple, and a lot more effective, and verifiable.
B - Birth control decision must be made at the time of conception. Abortion decisions can be made post hoc.

2 - Yes, you can create such a situation, but only by redefining morality to fit your position. This is acting as an absolute moral authority.

On murder/killing - I wasn't overly broad, I said kill without a chance to dispute it. That saves cases of self defense and state sanctioned killing.
In abortion there is no voice for the fetus, it is only the mother making the decision for herself and the child. This is, at best, a conflict of interest.

1. No it is not, and neither is abortion. There is always a possibility that it can fail. FInally, I fail to understand how these features add up to being discriminatory against men. I simply fail to understand your logic leading to that conclusion.

2. Actually, the opposite is true. I'm not redefining morality, I'm redefining the situation and having morality alter because of the situation. An absolute moral authority would be drawing aline in the sand and saying THIS is moral, THIS is immoral, regardless of the circumstances. Using circumstances to change the morality of a situation is the opposite of absolute morality.

I see your point that there is no voice for the fetus, but I'd contend that depending on the stage of development, there is no need for such a voice. It all depends on how you define when a fetus becomes a human life.

@M: Whatever point you're driving at, I'm missing it. (I am assuming there is one, which is getting to be generous.) Simply put: Cost is not a factor in determining whether or not an abortion can be legally performed.

Manchu wrote:@M: Whatever point you're driving at, I'm missing it. (I am assuming there is one, which is getting to be generous.) Simply put: Cost is not a factor in determining whether or not an abortion can be legally performed.

No, it isn't, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be. The cost a law has on society should always be thought of before the law is enacted.

At best its a logical fallacy, after his ridiculous nuke the world atatement, I think he is merely a troll.

Settle an argument for me photo, are you a Christian?

ChrisWWII wrote:

I see your point that there is no voice for the fetus, but I'd contend that depending on the stage of development, there is no need for such a voice. It all depends on how you define when a fetus becomes a human life.

A foetus, being pre-rational, by definition cannot have a "voice", however its interests have been represented by concerned groups such as the British Medical Council, the churches, and so on, who made representations and gave advice to the governing body (i.e. Parliament) which deliberated on the issue of legalising abortion.

Melissia wrote:Simply put: Cost is not a factor in determining whether or not an abortion can be legally performed.

No, it isn't, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

Manchu wrote:Are you saying that a woman should be required to show a certain level of financial burden relative to her current/future status before she can legally obtain an abortion?

It would certainly be a viable means to exclude unnecessary abortions, with other caveats included. Alternatively, one could interpret it as a statement that taking away someone's rights is not a simple matter. Or for even more fun, one could also suggest a financial qualifier for having children to begin with, which would be quite interesting to see people pick sides on THAT debate.

You wold have to define 'christian' as its can be such a broad an loaded term.

Viability varies too. A blastula cannot survive and develop outside its mother. Blah blah, hence the 24 week limit.

I cannot survive outside the earths atmosphere - does this make me any less human? I

A human being isn’t simply a matter of genetics. I can scrape a cell off the inside of my cheek and it will have exactly the same genes as I do. Who would call it a human being?

But if left in its natural state it was to grow into a child you'd probably call it human.

It's relevant. Everything has a cost, and the question of who pays that cost is an important one that needs to be answered. With an abortion, the patient pays the cost either way because it is their choice in the matter. With the suggestion of abortion being banned, I find it unethical to force parents to pay the cost of something which they could have prevented but weren't allowed to.

Parents with disabled children should get help. Unfortunately nowadays children can be seen as some sort of 'burden' or that people who have them are merely 'doing their bit. Quite worrying really.

Additionally if we start putting a cost on lives how long before we decide that the cost of care for Bobby McDowns and Jane McDiabetic's care and insulin are too expensive to supply and for the sake of finances we 'cull' them?

Phototoxin wrote:]
I cannot survive outside the earths atmosphere - does this make me any less human?

That's a strawman, the argument is that the fetus can not survive independelty of the mother. It is essentially a parasite that will die if it is removed from its host (God that sounds horribly evil...). As it can not survive independently of the mother, it is not a seperate living organism.

The ability of you to survive only in the atmosphere does not refute this argument at all.

Yes it does - the earth is my natural environment as an adult human, similarly as a fetus the womb/uterus is its natural environment.

The fact that they die outside it does not make them less human. It is a strawman, but to point out that the 'would not survive outside the womb' while arguably true, is not a valid argument in terms of life.

Phototoxin wrote:Additionally if we start putting a cost on lives how long before we decide that the cost of care for Bobby McDowns and Jane McDiabetic's care and insulin are too expensive to supply and for the sake of finances we 'cull' them?

What do you mean if we start putting a cost on human lives? We already are. Medicine isn't free, life saving surgeries aren't free, the expertise of a doctor isn't free. All of these things add up and must be accounted for. Whether you like it or not, someone has to foot the cost somewhere down the line.

Definition by example fails unless the example lines up perfectly. We have no umbilical cord to the earth, so unfortunately, your example fails.

Phototoxin wrote:

Viability varies too. A blastula cannot survive and develop outside its mother. Blah blah, hence the 24 week limit.

I cannot survive outside the earths atmosphere - does this make me any less human? I

You can, actually. Loads of people have done it. There are several people on the International Space Station right now.

But if you take a blastula out of a woman it will die.

A human being isn’t simply a matter of genetics. I can scrape a cell off the inside of my cheek and it will have exactly the same genes as I do. Who would call it a human being?

Phototoxin wrote:
But if left in its natural state it was to grow into a child you'd probably call it human.

I’m not exactly sure what your point is here. If I understand it correctly, you are saying that I would accept a child grown from a mucous membrane cell (i.e. a clone) as human.

I would. I don’t see how that compels me to accept a mucous membrane cell or a blastula as human. My whole point is that being a human is a state we arrive at after a long process of development, not a state that exists at the beginning of that process.

SilverMK2 wrote:There is a point at which a ball of cells becomes a "human being" and it is generally established that most western nations which permit the use of abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies (for whatever reason) have set the latest stage you can abort at or around that point (with certain exceptions as mentioned such as if the mother will be in terminal danger if the pregnancy is allowed to continue). This is determined as scientifically as possible and is based off many different lines of research.

I would be inclined to agree with this view.

The extreme other side of the coin would be the old "every sperm is sacred"/"birth control is murder" argument, which I don't really understand.

Also as mentioned earlier, I don't really get people who are willing to violently (to the extent of murder/etc) the who espouse "pro life" viewpoint. This also goes for animal rights activists who kill/harm/etc people involved with animal testing.

You completely and dare I say potentially deliberatley DIDN'T answer the question.
When is that point.
And no its not generally established. In the US SCOTUS views this as viability basically.

The way how many american laws seem to be based on fundamentalist christian ethics never ceases to amaze me. We do have that problem in germany, too, but at a much lower level, and it is also in decline, whereas in the US, fundamentalism seems to be increasing instead.


(Btw, I am not saying you could not be opposed to abortion based on other reasons, it's just that the way it is depicted in the media, most support for laws like this is based on fundamentalist voters, not people who choose to have the same opinion as them but based on educated reasoning.)

Actually I remember hearing a quite serious and non-parody argument that masturbation (he seemed to use the assumption that only males masturbate) was murder of uncounted unborn children, and equivalent ot abortion as an "evil". But let's not focus on the nutjobs.

mattyrm wrote:
But as it stands, as far as we can ascertain with common fething sense, a ten week old foetus is the size of a frigging walnut, does not have the cognitive skills, nerve endings, or mental faculties of a living breathing girl or woman, and as such, cannot have as many rights. Logic dictates that we preserve the feelings and wishes of the living breathing person stood right there in front of us.

Many slowed persons cannot make cognitive sense. Can they be retroactively aborted?
How about people in comas?
So the test is mental? I have a whole list of people who wouldn't make that test, including the entire US congress...

Ah, so now we're going to get into the schiavo case.

Melissia wrote:Actually I remember hearing a quite serious and non-parody argument that masturbation (he seemed to use the assumption that only males masturbate) was murder of uncounted unborn children, and equivalent ot abortion as an "evil". But let's not focus on the nutjobs.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Induced labor used on a premature child and then letting it die on its own is abortion by another name. Don't mind me, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

In my experience that is not how it is used. I don't know what kind of problems you may have in America with your healthcare system (/insurance) vis a vis taking care of premature babies (either "natural" or induced") but in the UK they are kept alive for as long as practically possible or until it is able to function on its own.

Funnily enough I have 3 cousins who were premature (and I think one of them was induced) - just a random thought, not meaning to have any relation to the discussion.

I've not heard of inducing prematurely being used as a form of "late abortion" before though.

Edit: certainly not in professional healthcare anyway.

Thats how late term abortion works. How did you think it works?

Mr Meatballs wrote:Good ol' American south. so civilised so educated.

It's not in the south. It's actually kind of close to Canada, just south of North Dakota which is on the Canadian border. It is located in what I like to call the "empty states", including Idaho, the Dakotas, Wyoming... I have been through there a few times. About 8-9 hours of driving through nothing but grassland and cattle and really REALLY small towns that have three things in common: a gun shop, a small church, and a porn/liquor store right next to the gas-station/supermarket that would be considered "downtown".

. Makes me smile to see that the Fear of God still takes part in modern lawmaking despite all the separation-of-church-and-state attempts to drown out His true voice that sayeth unto his flock of loyal and true believers "Thou Shalt not Kill Fetuses, only Abortion Doctors".

I for one love abortion. I see too many bad parents with stupid kids. I would like to see more abortions, not less. Adoption is a nice utopian idealistic solution in theory, but in practice it is overtaxing and unrealistic. State sponsored sterilization is the way to go, but then I don't expect to get elected any time soon either.

Melissia wrote:(he seemed to use the assumption that only males masturbate)

By his (seeming) standards, female masturbation has no moral dimension. In Imperial China, homosexual acts between males was illegal as immoral but the law did not even recognize female homosexuality. This was because the immorality was considered to be a matter of the penatrator getting penatrated.

Off-topic but the again what isn't these days?