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.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Anyway moot point anyway. Ultimately decision is mothers. Her decision, her's alone. Nobody else has any right to intervene.

Except in Poland.

Which is stupid. Pushing morality from up with absolute laws is STUPID and idiotic beyond belief.

Good job stupid lawmakers who ban abortion do. All they manage to do is cause death of tens of thousands of women per year and condemn many children into misery. GG.

tneva82 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Anyway moot point anyway. Ultimately decision is mothers. Her decision, her's alone. Nobody else has any right to intervene.

Except in Poland.

Which is stupid. Pushing morality from up with absolute laws is STUPID and idiotic beyond belief.

Good job stupid lawmakers who ban abortion do. All they manage to do is cause death of tens of thousands of women per year and condemn many children into misery. GG.

This. These laws, which more often have more to do with beliefs and moralizing rather than actual facts, tend to backfire eventually (harsh drug laws etc.).

The end result will usually be more pain and suffering than with more liberal laws.

It's really not simple though. You can say it's the mother's choice and whatnot, but people who are against abortion are against it because they think that life has value. Therefore it would be immoral for them to not take a stand against it, they don't believe it's the mother's choice, they believe the life should be protected the same as any other person.

I don't really have any problem with Poland's current laws and it seems to have the desired effect of reducing abortion rates compared to other countries that have more relaxed abortion laws. The proposed changes I think would overshoot the mark and probably end up doing more harm than good.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's really not simple though. You can say it's the mother's choice and whatnot, but people who are against abortion are against it because they think that life has value. Therefore it would be immoral for them to not take a stand against it, they don't believe it's the mother's choice, they believe the life should be protected the same as any other person.

I agree that on the whole it's not a simple issue. However, it's also a question of are you allowed to force your beliefs upon others. And it also has the problem of feelings (or beliefs) versus reality, and by reality I mean the effects of abortion bans or forces pregnancies on women. At most an abortion causes damage to the mother (and even then it is the mother's own choice, a choice I doubt anyone makes easily) as the embryo is not really able to comprehend anything (nor would I really call it being alive if it is completely dependent on the body of the mother), whereas bans against abortions tends to cause a whole another set of problems, including societal.
There's also the question that should we forcibly bring more people to this planet when we can't or don't want to help the ones who already live here and are fighting to keep alive (personally I think it's more of an question of not wanting enough than not being able to help)

There are a lot better ways to reduce abortions and the most sensible ones are sexual education and providing condoms. However should an abortion be needed despite these, it really should be left as an option instead of banning it.

TheMuumio wrote:
However, it's also a question of are you allowed to force your beliefs upon others.

When those beliefs relate to whether it has the same rights as a human. If it does, then it's no different to forcing your belief that murder is wrong. When it came to wiping out millions of people in a genocide because they are deemed less than human we don't say "well that's just what they believed and we aren't going to force our beliefs on them".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

TheMuumio wrote:
However, it's also a question of are you allowed to force your beliefs upon others.

When those beliefs relate to whether it has the same rights as a human. If it does, then it's no different to forcing your belief that murder is wrong. When it came to wiping out millions of people in a genocide because they are deemed less than human we don't say "well that's just what they believed and we aren't going to force our beliefs on them".

You see, it's not really "just a belief" anymore when it turns into an action or even words, acting abusively certainly disqualifies it from being just a belief. Also dehumanizing groups of people based on certain attributes is a lot different than what is going on with an embryo - the embryo hardly is anything more than a group of cells without any consciousness. Whereas genocides tend to be done on living, breathing, thinking human beings.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The problems usually arise when there isn't a stable relationship between the parents.

What if that relationship is "I hate you!"?

Quite stable, but not necessarily good for the kid.

Let's go back to the topic again.

Today there is a "black protest" (pro-abortion) and counter "white protest" (anti-abortion).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37540139

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

So when we strap you up as an involuntary blood donor to save someone Mad Max style we won't hear you complain?

That is completely different. If someone is dying, and you do not save him and he dies, then you have not killed him. If someone is perfectly healthy and you kill him, then that is murder.
Abortion falls into that last category, because the fetus is not already dying in any way.

Note: this does not mean I think not trying to save dying people is morally right in any way. It is just an entirely different matter and discussion.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Korinov wrote:
I wonder, if an one-week fetus can be considered a human being, why sperm and egg cells should not be considered half-human (or at least, beings with the potential of becoming human), and therefore male masturbation and female menstruation become half-murder.

Because sperm and egg cells are only parts of a human organism. It is not until the fusion of gametes during fertilisation that these human parts are transformed into a new whole human being.
So yeah, on their own, before fertilisation, sperm and egg cells really are not much more special than any other cells of the human body.

So its ok to kill human cells then. Which means its ok to kill a fetus.

There's two parts to this argument and most of the discussion focuses on if a fetus is or isn't human. My vote is on it isn't, but lets say for a moment that it is. I know that in the US (especially Texas) we are allowed to kill other humans, even fully sentient ones walking around fully conscious, if we feel it is in self-defense. So why can't a woman kill the fetus in self-defense? Certainly it poses a threat of bodily harm in multiple ways.

That is ridiculous logic. It is okay to kill human cells, so it is totally okay if I kill you. After all, you are just cells and I will have done nothing more than just killed a few cells.
Obviously, it is okay to kill human cells only insofar it does not harm the human being. Try using common sense.

And yes, there are arguments to be made that killing in self-defense in some cases can be justified. That also goes for killing fetuses. That is why I am against a total ban on abortion. I only support abortion when it is needed to save someone's life.

 dogma wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Go and tell the biologists, will you?
Humanity is pretty much binary

Why? They already know it isn't. If you want another example, look at the debates regarding the classification of species.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

"Human" is a member of the species Homo sapiens (or in biological and archeological circles also any other member of the genus Homo). Nothing more. That is pretty damn binary. Member of H. sapiens? Human. Not member of H. sapiens? Not human.

So a blastocyst is not human?

At any rate, you're getting really close to creating a false choice. There is a hell of a lot of philosophical, and scientific, consideration involved in determining what a human is.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Calling a cancer cell human is like looking at a wheel and calling it a cart. Cancer cells are part of a human, but parts are not the whole.

The word "human" is an adjective, as well as a noun.

The classification of the species H. sapiens is pretty much set. There is no relevant debate around it, so don't try to make one up. The only debate regarding H. sapiens is to whether there are subspecies within it (H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens idaltu) and if so, where exactly to draw the border between those subspecies. For the purpose of determining what is human however, that debate is irrelevant.
I am not creating a false choice. Try finding any scientist or philosoper who argues that not every specimen of H. sapiens is human. Good luck, but I think you won't find a lot of support for your claim that a human is gradual.
Let me ask you a question. If humanity is gradual, that means there should be something that is half human being and half something else (as well as variations all along the way from 0% human to 100% human). Can you show me a non-mythical, scientifically supported example of a half human?

And no. A blastocyst is not a human being. It is human only in the sense that is part of a human being.

A person is obviously more than just a group of cells, an embryo is not. So if it's ok to kill one group of cells why is it not ok to kill another? Because it has potential to be a human? Then it isn't ok to kill sperm or egg cells either, since they have that potential.

And in regards to self defense, people have and do kill others in the US over far less than a threat of death (see stand your ground laws) so I don't see why a woman can't kill her fetus in self defense. There's always a chance that complications in pregnancy could kill her after all.

And that's the problem with 'abortion is murder' arguments in general; the argument that a fetus counts as a full human is weak, and the argument that a woman doesn't have the right to her own flesh and blood is also weak. It all adds up to what we all already know; the argument being made is religious with any amount of distraction thrown up to disguise that.

Finally, by your own words letting someone die is not murder. The woman can chose not to provide her body to the fetus, yes it dies as a result but this is no more murder than taking someone off life support.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That is completely different. If someone is dying, and you do not save him and he dies, then you have not killed him. If someone is perfectly healthy and you kill him, then that is murder.
Abortion falls into that last category, because the fetus is not already dying in any way.

Ok, so let's say you're knocked unconscious and you wake up connected to a dying person providing blood to keep them alive. Your continued presence is the only thing keeping them alive (just like the woman carrying a fetus is the only thing keeping it alive). Do you have an obligation to stay there and keep them alive, or are you free to say " this" and leave?

The classification of the species H. sapiens is pretty much set. There is no relevant debate around it, so don't try to make one up. The only debate regarding H. sapiens is to whether there are subspecies within it (H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens idaltu) and if so, where exactly to draw the border between those subspecies. For the purpose of determining what is human however, that debate is irrelevant.
I am not creating a false choice. Try finding any scientist or philosoper who argues that not every specimen of H. sapiens is human. Good luck, but I think you won't find a lot of support for your claim that a human is gradual.
Let me ask you a question. If humanity is gradual, that means there should be something that is half human being and half something else (as well as variations all along the way from 0% human to 100% human). Can you show me a non-mythical, scientifically supported example of a half human?

But, as I keep telling you, merely being human in genetic terms is not a sufficient test for whether or not an entity deserves the full rights of a "person". A brain-dead person on life support machines is still biologically human, but virtually everyone would agree that it is ok to shut off the machines and allow the rest of their body to die. The necessary conclusion here is that being an example of Homo sapiens is not sufficient for full rights, and we need something else (such as brain function) to draw that line.

And no. A blastocyst is not a human being. It is human only in the sense that is part of a human being.

Err, what? How is it not human, under your definition? A blastocyst is just the same blob of cells as a fetus, only at an earlier stage of development. If you can draw a line between blastocyst and fetus then you can not protest on "they're all human" principles about drawing a line between a fetus and a child.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's really not simple though. You can say it's the mother's choice and whatnot, but people who are against abortion are against it because they think that life has value. Therefore it would be immoral for them to not take a stand against it, they don't believe it's the mother's choice, they believe the life should be protected the same as any other person.

I don't really have any problem with Poland's current laws and it seems to have the desired effect of reducing abortion rates compared to other countries that have more relaxed abortion laws. The proposed changes I think would overshoot the mark and probably end up doing more harm than good.

What you, me or anybody else thinks is irrelevant though. Only person that matters is the mother.

And desired effect? Women DYING is desired effect? You don't realize that banning abortion leads to women getting killed? That's fact proven by statistics. Tens of thousands women die EVERY YEAR because of these stupid "I'm holier than thou in deciding morality" laws.

And this again puts in rich and poor at different levels because it's poor ones that are the ones mostly dying.

Anti-abortion camp are effectively killing off women. Good job! I could say they need to be put on trial for murder.

Also it will result in many of the childs living in poverty, in abusive life and untimely death.

Nevermind women who die because they were forced to carry to full term(which aren't even counted among those tens of thousands I mentioned above).

By arguing "pro life" people are causing death and misery to existing humans for cells that have POTENTIAL to become life. On that logic not getting pregnant every time it's possible is also crime because you let cells with potential to die out.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Here is my question: How old are you? Because if you are close to my age, I can validate this 100%. You would hear this kind of crazy teenage "conventional wisdom" back in my day (late 70's to late 80's).

I'm 32, so I was in high school from 1996-2002.

I suspect teens these days know a lot more about it than my day too, since it all seems less taboo now, which is a good thing.

Herzlos wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Here is my question: How old are you? Because if you are close to my age, I can validate this 100%. You would hear this kind of crazy teenage "conventional wisdom" back in my day (late 70's to late 80's).

I'm 32, so I was in high school from 1996-2002.

I suspect teens these days know a lot more about it than my day too, since it all seems less taboo now, which is a good thing.

yes it's not as big of a scandal now days, Which is largely due to abortions being decriminalized.

but being a unwed mother in america puts you in one of the most attacked groups in the country. They'll need government assistance and that makes them a "wellfare queen" and the lowest form of scum, demonized by an entire political party.

just look at the assumptions about unwed mothers, picture one in your mind and think of how she became pregnant. I'll bet the thought that she could have been raped by a family member never crossed your mind, and like many others you went with a girl who liked sex and this is the consequence for her. What's the common advice for unwed mothers, she should have kept her legs closed, which shows how it's almost never considered she could have been raped.

let the mother decide is the only way it should be, because only she knows how being pregnant will affect the rest of her life.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The classification of the species H. sapiens is pretty much set. There is no relevant debate around it, so don't try to make one up. The only debate regarding H. sapiens is to whether there are subspecies within it (H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens idaltu) and if so, where exactly to draw the border between those subspecies. For the purpose of determining what is human however, that debate is irrelevant.

So there is debate, and yes it is relevant.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I am not creating a false choice. Try finding any scientist or philosoper who argues that not every specimen of H. sapiens is human.

I am a scientist and a philosopher, and I'm telling you that you're getting very close to a false choice.

Also, your native language is Russian, right? If so you might want to listen to the native English speaker when he says "human" is an adjective and a noun; he might have a little more knowledge of the language than you do.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Let me ask you a question. If humanity is gradual, that means there should be something that is half human being and half something else (as well as variations all along the way from 0% human to 100% human). Can you show me a non-mythical, scientifically supported example of a half human?

You can be a lesser person while still being fully human. Person-hood and humanity frequently get interchanged.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And no. A blastocyst is not a human being. It is human only in the sense that is part of a human being.

So aborting a blastocyst is fine?

If anyone in this thread is still interested in the original OP question:

Exactly as I predicted earlier, polish parliament threw this ruling out of the window a moment ago. Those of you, who picked up this thread thinking that Poland will be the next Salvador and needs urgent international pressure "to remain modern and liberal" got drawn into, and used for, internal polish "powergaming" of our compromited ex-goverment party...

Next time be more critical about what you read about Poland, especially in left-winged media.

nou wrote:
If anyone in this thread is still interested in the original OP question:

nah, not really.

A brain-dead person on life support machines still belongs to the genus Homo, yet we recognize that they are no longer a "person" in any meaningful sense and do not have the same rights anymore.

We do? The law might kick your ass for trying that.

tneva82 wrote:
What you, me or anybody else thinks is irrelevant though. Only person that matters is the mother.

Until you consider the unborn baby a person with rights, then it's a human rights issue.

And desired effect? Women DYING is desired effect? You don't realize that banning abortion leads to women getting killed? That's fact proven by statistics. Tens of thousands women die EVERY YEAR because of these stupid "I'm holier than thou in deciding morality" laws.

I said Poland's current laws, which says there's an exception if there's serious risk to the mother's health or if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.

 Frazzled wrote:

A brain-dead person on life support machines still belongs to the genus Homo, yet we recognize that they are no longer a "person" in any meaningful sense and do not have the same rights anymore.

We do? The law might kick your ass for trying that.

If someone is correctly diagnosed as brain dead, which means there is zero chance of recovery, then there is no law which would prevent a doctor from turning off life support. I think it kinda goes without saying that once someone is dead they no longer have the right to life.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

A brain-dead person on life support machines still belongs to the genus Homo, yet we recognize that they are no longer a "person" in any meaningful sense and do not have the same rights anymore.

We do? The law might kick your ass for trying that.

If someone is correctly diagnosed as brain dead, which means there is zero chance of recovery, then there is no law which would prevent a doctor from turning off life support. I think it kinda goes without saying that once someone is dead they no longer have the right to life.

But it's also not really relevant. One is a person at the end of life with no chance of recovery, the other is is an organism that may or may not be human and is just starting life (or about to start depending on your opinion).

I think people work too hard trying to find similitudes when in reality it's a unique case.

That and a lot of the arguments are just people talking past each other.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
What you, me or anybody else thinks is irrelevant though. Only person that matters is the mother.

Until you consider the unborn baby a person with rights, then it's a human rights issue.

...

This is the crux of the issue.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But it's also not really relevant. One is a person at the end of life with no chance of recovery, the other is is an organism that may or may not be human and is just starting life (or about to start depending on your opinion).

Yes, and that's entirely the point. The definition "an organism that is part of Homo sapiens" is not sufficient to determine when the rights of being a "person" should apply. You have to look beyond that and consider what the human has, no just their human DNA. You can't just say "a fetus has human DNA, it gets full protection". And when you use the obvious way of answering these questions, the presence of brain function, the brain-dead person and the fetus do not qualify.

I am all for abortion in the first 16 weeks.

After that, no abortion unless there is a medical threat, birth defect, etc.

I think this is a debate where both sides could do with being a lot less strident.

If someone believes that life begins at conception then that means that if I took an egg and put it in the bin, and then took a sperm and put it in the bin, I have done nothing wrong. But if I put the two together, wait for about 30 hours until fusion has happened, then put that in the bin, then that's murder. Obviously that a pretty arbitrary and kind of weird standard.

But if I believe that life develops over time, I need to pick some other point where upon it becomes life and gains all the protections we grant to all human life. This is impossible, because life develops over time. It is even more impossible because we have no good standard for when life begins. People talk about things like consciousness or awareness, but having raised a kid most of that stuff isn't there for months after birth, but no-one is going to suggest it is okay to murder a 3 month old.

I think it would be best if everyone recognises that their own position is not perfect, every stance on this issue has some kind problems.

sirlynchmob wrote:
yes it's not as big of a scandal now days, Which is largely due to abortions being decriminalized.

but being a unwed mother in america puts you in one of the most attacked groups in the country. They'll need government assistance and that makes them a "wellfare queen" and the lowest form of scum, demonized by an entire political party.

It is also a primary driver of the poverty cycle. Women who have babies too young, while they are still studying and able to support themselves, are in turn very likely to watch their own children have babies while they are still studying. It works as an inter-generational poverty trap.

One of the best ways to break people out of the poverty cycle is to get them to have children later in life, once they have completed their education and become financially self-sufficient.

 sebster wrote:
But if I believe that life develops over time, I need to pick some other point where upon it becomes life and gains all the protections we grant to all human life. This is impossible, because life develops over time. It is even more impossible because we have no good standard for when life begins. People talk about things like consciousness or awareness, but having raised a kid most of that stuff isn't there for months after birth, but no-one is going to suggest it is okay to murder a 3 month old.

This is not a problem outside of theoretical examples. Virtually all voluntary abortions happen at a stage of development where the brain doesn't even exist yet. The gray area of "when does consciousness develop" is so far away that there is no chance of making a mistake. The only time you're going to be getting anywhere near the gray area is in the case of abortions that are for serious health issues, whether to the fetus or the mother. And then the question is no longer about the rights of the fetus, it's whether we must force the mother to suffer through the trauma of carrying it longer so that it can have a brief and painful life before inevitably dying or if we can just take the merciful way out and abort it immediately.

nou wrote:
If anyone in this thread is still interested in the original OP question:

Exactly as I predicted earlier, polish parliament threw this ruling out of the window a moment ago. Those of you, who picked up this thread thinking that Poland will be the next Salvador and needs urgent international pressure "to remain modern and liberal" got drawn into, and used for, internal polish "powergaming" of our compromited ex-goverment party...

Next time be more critical about what you read about Poland, especially in left-winged media.

Ohhhh Those sneaky leftists and their insidious plots to keep abortion legal, cant be trusted!