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.

I'm not sure I see where all of the moral weight is coming simply from it ending a life.

Most people don't have a problem with ending the lives of chickens when making themselves dinner.

LunaHound wrote:If a couple cannot afford or does not have a good environment to properly raise a child in, they shouldnt be making babies

But if there stupid enough to have a child, then they cant have an abortion, its the child what suffers too.

LunaHound wrote:However , its also sad to see a children raised in an orphanage . Most of them will grow up constantly wondering why they dont have a parent ,
and if its some how their own fault the parents gave them up. Im not saying orphans cannot grow up to be good parents , but chances are
they didnt grow up with good parent as role models on how to be good parents. Which might start a cycle of bad parenting.

Or it could make them determined to be a better parent then there parents were. Not every orphan has children. Good Parents doesnt mean that the child will grow up to be a good parent, it differs from person to person.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm not sure I see where all of the moral weight is coming simply from it ending a life.

Most people don't have a problem with ending the lives of chickens when making themselves dinner.

Most people value humans over chickens.

We're all mother natures living things though.

In that case you have to expand your position to it being the ending of a human life though. I think that's where it really comes down to the disagreement, what makes a human, what makes a person, that kind of thing.

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Aren't Abortions expensive?

I think that it's ok to abort until right before contractions, because the baby and the mother are still technically the same person.

Good to see the NOT SANE contingent are now posting.

Frazzled wrote:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Aren't Abortions expensive?

I think that it's ok to abort until right before contractions, because the baby and the mother are still technically the same person.

Good to see the NOT SANE contingent are now posting.

I might have exadurated, alot.

You know, sometimes I wonder, are the mods stopping the trolls, or are the mods trolls.

Squig_herder wrote:Are you worried simply because these people [myself included] have made an informed decision on the matter, and don't require convincing or converting? I know personally no matter how hard you preach to me on the matter, I have made my decision from the evidence given to me and will not change that.

Hmm, your tone is striking me in that you are being very defensive about this, and going out of your way to point out your own "informed decision" making, superiority of your own thought process, etc. I didn't find EF's comment to be offensive or pressuring people at all, his point was simply, "Ok I hear all about this 'woman's right to choose' POV, but what about the child's right to life? What about that?" He was asking a serious question, and I felt that he was trying to be open in his thought process. If you have your mind made up, that is totally on you, but I will admit I see your post as a cover up for something you aren't completely comfortable with.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm not sure I see where all of the moral weight is coming simply from it ending a life.

Most people don't have a problem with ending the lives of chickens when making themselves dinner.

The attempt to categorize humans and chickens as equals is appallingly callous, and, frankly, quite disgusting.

Squig_herder wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm getting slightly worried about the people who are posting "It's the womans choice." and leaving it at that.

Are you worried simply because these people [myself included] have made an informed decision on the matter, and don't require convincing or converting?

I know personally no matter how hard you preach to me on the matter, I have made my decision from the evidence given to me and will not change that.

I'm getting worried becuase you do not care to explain why you feel that a 8/9 Month-old pregnancy is not considered to be a human being. You say you have made a decision, and that no one can change your mind. Apart from appearing very stubborn and dogmatic, that's your choice.

However, you should at least explain how you reached that decision. Otherwise it's like a Judge declaring someone guilty without explaining how he came to that desicion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord-Loss wrote:You know, sometimes I wonder, are the mods stopping the trolls, or are the mods trolls.

In the grimdarkness of the 'Abortion' thread, this made me smile.

JEB_Stuart wrote:The attempt to categorize humans and chickens as equals is appallingly callous, and, frankly, quite disgusting.

It seemed to me that he was trying to point out that life itself is not the sticking point. We are not more alive than chickens, and few people would argue the point that killing chickens is bad if there is no reason behind the action (such as a need, or desire, for food). Moving in the same direction, killing people is bad, but that badness can be offset by something like need, or desire. The question here isn't about whether or not taking life is a good thing, but whether or not it can justified by circumstance.

Ah, that helps to clarify his position, I hope. I am not a big fan of killing other people in general...although I am more likely to support the execution of a mass murderer then the abortion of an innocent child. Execute Swine Flu!

Yeah, I mean, there is no doubt in my mind that fetuses are human, and that abortion involves killing them. However, the notion that people acquire more rights as they age is far from new, and I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that the right to life is acquired upon birth.

JEB_Stuart wrote:The attempt to categorize humans and chickens as equals is appallingly callous, and, frankly, quite disgusting.

No more so than Polonius's Orwellian baby-selling.

Manchu wrote:No more so than Polonius's Orwellian baby-selling.

I had neglected to read that comment. I wouldn't classify it as Orwellian, rather I found his comment, after reading it, to be in the spirit of Jonathan Swift's satire. Was he serious? Only he can tell, but I will agree that the idea is still somewhat disturbing...

Legitimate question: why?

Legitimate Answer: Because I don't think human beings should be bought or sold as a commodity. You know that I don't believe that all humans are completely equal, but I do believe that every human is above this practice.

Swift, yes, not Orwell. Thanks for correcting that. It seems to me that he must have been serious given he was talking about his own past relationship. ::shudder::

Meh, people are bought and sold on a daily basis. Categorical imperative be damned.

JEB_Stuart wrote:The attempt to categorize humans and chickens as equals is appallingly callous, and, frankly, quite disgusting.

All I ever said is that they are equally alive.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:The attempt to categorize humans and chickens as equals is appallingly callous, and, frankly, quite disgusting.

All I ever said is that they are equally alive.

Bit of race hate going on here. Who'd have thought that a thread about abortion would involve heated attacks on the Chicken Race?

JEB_Stuart wrote:Hmm, your tone is striking me in that you are being very defensive about this, and going out of your way to point out your own "informed decision" making, superiority of your own thought process, etc. I didn't find EF's comment to be offensive or pressuring people at all, his point was simply, "Ok I hear all about this 'woman's right to choose' POV, but what about the child's right to life? What about that?" He was asking a serious question, and I felt that he was trying to be open in his thought process. If you have your mind made up, that is totally on you, but I will admit I see your post as a cover up for something you aren't completely comfortable with.

What I am not comfortable with is that fact that I feel religion and morality is too far entrenched in this issue for me to speak freely on the matter without becoming the subject of attack for my views. Therefore I cannot speak freely on the matter.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I'm getting worried becuase you do not care to explain why you feel that a 8/9 Month-old pregnancy is not considered to be a human being. You say you have made a decision, and that no one can change your mind. Apart from appearing very stubborn and dogmatic, that's your choice.

However, you should at least explain how you reached that decision.

I'll explain the bolded line for you, this is my personal opinion on the matter.

My definition of a human being is that it is a being that has both a conscience and awareness of self. This isn't really evident until 1 or 2 years of age. Therefore "killing" the being isn't really killing a human IMO. Merely because it is human in shape, doesn't mean it is human, for lack of a better world, it requires a "soul" or personality.

Squig_herder wrote:What I am not comfortable with is that fact that I feel religion and morality is too far entrenched in this issue for me to speak freely on the matter without becoming the subject of attack for my views. Therefore I cannot speak freely on the matter.

Its a matter of morality, so it is obvious that religion will be at least slightly involved. In a situation such as this, it will be much more involved. That does not mean you can be critical and respectful at the same time. Dogma and Sebster do this quite often, and are very good at remaining at least mostly civil. I will admit I appreciate the self-restraint and maturity on your behalf if you feel that you can't contribute to this discussion without trashing other people's beliefs. More members from Dakka could take a page out of your book, not least of all me.

Squig_herder wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I'm getting worried becuase you do not care to explain why you feel that a 8/9 Month-old pregnancy is not considered to be a human being. You say you have made a decision, and that no one can change your mind. Apart from appearing very stubborn and dogmatic, that's your choice.

However, you should at least explain how you reached that decision.

I'll explain the bolded line for you, this is my personal opinion on the matter.

My definition of a human being is that it is a being that has both a conscience and awareness of self. This isn't really evident until 1 or 2 years of age. Therefore "killing" the being isn't really killing a human IMO. Merely because it is human in shape, doesn't mean it is human, for lack of a better world, it requires a "soul" or personality.

That's interesting to say the least, and it is most certainly not by any means a new idea. I can't confirm this word-for-word but I remember in a seminar (back in Dubai) how Islam considers the soul to enter the body of a boy at the age of roughly a couple of days or weeks. For a girl it was a matter of months up to over a year. (Note: The seminar was given by a proffesser, not an Imam)

However, I fail to see you reasoning for this. Is this becuase we do not have an active memory? (I certainly cannot recall my 1st, 2nd...or even 3rd, 4th or 5th Birthday. How are you certain that their is no conscience or selfawareness?

And what's more, in all seriousness, if you are claiming that it is perfectly all right to abort 'after birth' without explaining yourself then I am very much disturbed.

Several people asked for a justification of a ‘pro-choice’ position so here is mine.

My personal background: I did three years of medical school, I’m married and have a daughter, so I’ve got a perspective on the issue.


1. Primacy of woman’s rights.

Abortion is a tangle of conflicting rights or interests, between pregnant women, the men who impregnate them and the foetuses they carry.

Since men cannot give birth, and foetuses cannot be brought to term without a mother, the rights of the mother must be given very serious consideration.


2. Causes of pregnancy.

Women get pregnant for a number of reasons including foolishness, accidents and rape. What they don’t do is get pregnant in order to have an abortion for the lulz.


3. Pregnancy as a calamity.

Pregnancy is a big step. It is physically and mentally arduous, medically hazardous and leads to all the issues of giving birth and continuing motherhood.

All this makes it life-changing in the best of times. When a pregnancy is unwanted, its life-changing aspects are often very damaging for the mother – it can and historically has been seen as a calamity to be avoided.

It should be understood that the impact of unwanted pregnancy is not only on the mother, it is also on the rest of her family including other children and potentially on the eventually to born child too.


4. Women’s responses throughout history -- backstreet abortions.

Women never automatically welcomed pregnancy. In ancient times pregnant women made use of abortifacient herbs to induce natural abortion, or even exposed their infants at birth. In modern times when legal abortion is not available, women have resorted to unhealthy practices (gin and hot bath) and back-street abortion. It is estimated that 70,000 women a year die around the world because of unsafe abortions.


5. The status of the foetus as a dependant of the mother.

A foetus cannot survive outside the uterus until over about 21 weeks of pregnancy. Advanced medical support is required at that stage. Modern experience is that severely premature babies have a low survival rate, and may have medical problems later in life.

Spontaneous abortion is not uncommon. Miscarriage can occur at nearly any stage of pregnancy. In an early stage it can be mistaken for a heavy period. At a later stage it takes the form of a still birth and is mourned by the parents.


6. Status of the blastula/foetus as a human being.

This really is the core of the argument.

Modern science and law usually defines life and humanity according to the status of brain activity. We decide a person is dead by their lack of brain activity. An early foetus, which does not have a developed brain and cannot survive outside its mother, is not in my opinion a human being. It is an entity which has the potential to develop into a human being. This is broadly speaking the view of the UK national committee on ethics which drew up our abortion laws in the 1960s.


7. The effect of favouring the foetus above the mother’s rights.

By taking the view that the early foetus is a human being, with equal rights to its mother, we actually elevate the rights of the foetus over the mother’s rights. By withholding abortion, we condemn the mother to be a kind of baby-making machine. I think this is illogical and wrong. It treats unwanted pregnancy as a punishment for the crime of having sex. This does not seem like a good way to begin life as a mother.


8. Term limits on medical abortion.

Anti-abortionists often bring up the case of late abortion, which is usually considered to be abortions taking place after about 24-28 weeks.

In reality almost all abortions take place much earlier than this. In the UK abortion after 24 weeks is illegal except in certain rare medical conditions. Abortion after 12-14 weeks is considered late.

In the USA, 88% of abortions are carried out in the first 12-13 weeks, and fewer than 2% after 21 weeks. These late cases comprise severe abnormalities and medical risks to the mother’s health.


9. The Abortion Act 1967 as a working compromise in action over 40 years.

The UK Abortion Act sets 24 weeks as the limit for legal abortion for reasons including the medical preference on safety grounds for early abortion, the limited ability of the foetus to survive when younger than 24 weeks, and an estimation of the unformed (pre-human?) status of the younger foetus.



In summary my view is that abortion is preferable to the infliction of unwanted children upon women or driving them to the dangers of back-street abortions.

I consider that the early foetus is not a human being and does not have full rights, so it is not a question of murder.

In the case of late abortions, where the developed foetus can be said to have rights, I feel those rights are still subordinate to the mother’s, so that an abortion for medical necessity is sad but ethically acceptable.

Emperors Faithful wrote:That's interesting to say the least, and it is most certainly not by any means a new idea. I can't confirm this word-for-word but I remember in a seminar (back in Dubai) how Islam considers the soul to enter the body of a boy at the age of roughly a couple of days or weeks. For a girl it was a matter of months up to over a year. (Note: The seminar was given by a proffesser, not an Imam)

However, I fail to see you reasoning for this. Is this becuase we do not have an active memory? (I certainly cannot recall my 1st, 2nd...or even 3rd, 4th or 5th Birthday. How are you certain that their is no conscience or selfawareness?

And what's more, in all seriousness, if you are claiming that it is perfectly all right to abort 'after birth' without explaining yourself then I am very much disturbed.

First off, I will apologise in advance for an offence that might come out, I do not intend to offend anyone just explain my reasoning. If you wish me to remove me post, just PM me and i'll edit/remove it.

That is interesting to hear of what Islam says about the soul.

Now on to explaining my reasoning:
It is not that we have no active memory, it is that we do not exist as we do now, a foetus and even a child to the age of about 2-3, to me, seem like an incubator of a vessel for then a conscience/personality to develop. Any time before this, is like a computer without a fully written program, in essence an empty vessel. As cold as it seems, I feel the death of such an infant not a large lose, I do agree every human is priceless, but you can assign values to people [sorry I sound cold]. Eg, the scientist is more valuable then the check out chick/man and if I had to chose to lose one, I would chose the check out person, if I couldn't offer myself in their stead.

On the second point, I do not support post-birth abortions, however I feel if the baby is damaged and cannot be looked after, or will be brought into a situation that will cause harm, then I would agree with a post-birth abortion. Again, I am sorry for how curl or sorry this sounds, it is my belief. The same is done with animals, why cannot this logic be applied to humans? Eg. A baby is born into a heavy drug using family, where the baby has already been effected to the state of mental or biological damage [mid to severe] and will have a low quality of life, then I would agree with a post-birth abortion.

Again I am sorry if I have offended you.

You have not offended. I'm just having trouble accepting a view that seems so...(for want of a better word) cold.

I thing killkrazy has summed up every reason that i have for pro-abortion

BluntmanDC wrote:I thing killkrazy has summed up every reason that i have for pro-abortion

+1

Kill krazy is smart, i dont like abortion very much, but lets be realistic. Can a 6 week old foetus feel anything at all? Much less pain?

I saw some religious leaflets being given out in a Mall near Pasadena and it had a photo of a 12 week old foetus that was doctored to the point that it had fully funtioning eyes, a full head of hair and a fething inquisitive look on its face. Needless to say im fully expecting them to produce one with a foetus reading an algebra book and smoking a pipe.

Regards the whole age thing.. i have always wondered this.. kinda off topic but..

If you were on a sinking ship, and there was only once space left on the lifeboat, wouldnt it make more sense to give it to a 18 year old lad over a 90 year old woman?

Dogma mentioned the whole life value and age thing and it made me think.. why is it women and kids first? Kids is obvious, but if i was 16 years old or something on the Titanic and they wanted to wheel some 100 year old part blind woman on there i think i might have some words to say!

Stiff upper lip, old chap!

Just to be clear, I don't think abortion is good, I think it is better than forbidding abortion and having worse consequences.

If it were discovered that a 12 week foetus experienced pain, I would support anaesthesia + abortion as a way around that issue.