[Birchington]

I support pro-choice because I don't believe anyone should be lectured by others about a private decision. Medical professionals aside, nobody has a right to pass judgment on those who use abortion and it should be a free choice.

[Occams Chainsaw]

Science indicates a life is generated at conception. However under the law, the fetus is not regarded as having its own "life" until it is separate from its mother. Therefore, a fetus can never be a "human being" because it becomes one when it is born ( in some jurisdictions, it is regarded as a separate being if the mother is attacked. So, if the mother was killed, the killer is sometimes charged with double homicide).

Taking into consideration that info I am most definitely Pro-Abortion since because the fetus cant decide for its self and by law it isnt a human being yet, the parents should have full choice over the matter.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
Science indicates a life is generated at conception. However under the law, the fetus is not regarded as having its own "life" until it is separate from its mother.

And the question is, whether this law is morally consistent with our laws in general. If lives begins at conception as you say, then this law is clearly contrary to and inconsistent with our laws.

(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
Therefore, a fetus can never be a "human being" because it becomes one when it is born ( in some jurisdictions, it is regarded as a separate being if the mother is attacked. So, if the mother was killed, the killer is sometimes charged with double homicide).

Why so at birth?

And if you believe so, do you support abortion at any time up until birth?

(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
Taking into consideration that info I am most definitely Pro-Abortion since because the fetus cant decide for its self and by law it isnt a human being yet, the parents should have full choice over the matter.

Two things here, lets approach the second one first, since it is more straight forward. Is the law as it stands ethical and morally consistent with our laws in general? I think not.

And for the first issue you said, that a foetus cannot decide for itself, the parents should have full choice in the matter, and this includes whether to terminate this life or not, is not a very orthodox conclusion.

In general, when an individual cannot decide for itself, as in the case of the severely mentally disabled, babies, children, some of the elderly, comatose people, they are deemed vulnerable, and any action that is made for them, is supposed to be in their best interests, often determined by a social worker, a medical doctor, or a court judge. Legally (and we can debate the ethics of this law), it isn't actually the parents that have the agency or choice to make major decisions for their children. Whenever a child has a medical procedure, it isn't the parents who consent (although consent is always attempted to be obtained), but actually a doctor acting in the child's best interests. This is why a doctor can administer a blood transfusion to a child of Jehovah's Witnesses, or refuse cosmetic surgery for a child whose parents are requesting it.

Basically, this issue of the foetus not being able to decide, actually counts against abortion, because when one cannot decide, a decision is made in their best interests. The potential disruption to the parents life, their economic situation, any impact on their career, are not deemed issues relevant to a foetus' best interest, because they are quite patently, the parents' interest. Basically, killing a foetus is a big issue, and I can think of very few examples where killing the foetus is truly in its best interest, and certainly the vast vast vast vast majority of abortions, are not being done with the foetus' best interests in mind.

Just to reiterate, a newly born baby cannot decide for itself, so does that mean that a parent's decision to kill that baby should take into account the fact that the baby cannot decide? This applies to any of the list of individuals who cannot decide for themselves (who basically, in legal terms, "lack capacity").

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by omgpop4real)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Well there is a contradiction in what you are saying. For a foetus to "survive" outside the womb, it had to have been living prior to the event of it being removed from the womb. So you admit therefore, it is alive as a foetus at any stage (irrespective of its subsequent survival outside the womb)

Not correct. You are committing a fallacy, you see, here: 'For a foetus to "survive" outside the womb, it had to have been living prior to the event of it being removed from the womb'. That is not necessarily true, that is where your subjective opinion comes in and in fact there is no real logical connection.

So when you induce the birth of a 20 week old foetus, what happens to it? It dies right?

If you ever talk about a foetus in terms of its survival extra-utero, you are by definition, acknowledging its status as a life. There is no fallacy here.

(Original post by omgpop4real)
The whole point of my definition is in saying that life begins when metabolism can be carried out independently.

And where on earth did you you get this definition of life? It doesn't seem to be a definition of life, but a definition of independent life, which is not the same thing at all.

(Original post by omgpop4real)
Don't play on the semantics of "survive", that is a poor way to go about it.

So again, when a 20 week foetus is induced, what happens to it after birth? It dies?

(Original post by omgpop4real)
I am saying 'Foetus in womb incapable of independent life = not life, foetus in womb capable of independent life = life.'

You are basically defining independent life. Nowhere have you given any reason for this arbitrary cut off point of life as metabolic independence (or whatever type of independence). That alone is enough to disregard your argument. However this argument doesn't bare with consistency, because no newly born baby (24 weeks gestation, 40 weeks gestation) is capable of independent life, no is a 6 month old baby. Hence why the whole premise for your argument is totally flawed.

(Original post by omgpop4real)
There is no implication of prior life, because I am saying by definition where the cut off is, so there is no contradiction.

Except this definition is both inconsistent and arbitrary. As opposed to viewing life beginning at conception, which is the established standpoint in academic embryology.

(Original post by omgpop4real)
In essence, I am including 'independence' in the definition of life. As opposed to 'exhibiting metabolism', which any cell might do.

But the issue with a foetus, is that in addition to exhibiting metabolism (among many other things), what separates it from any other cell or collection of cells, is that it is a on a development pathway.

(Original post by omgpop4real)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
And secondly, a newly born baby cannot independently exist, in fact neither would a 2 year old. So they are not alive by your definition of what is alive.

Again you're playing semantic trickery here. The definition which I used refers to unnatural aid.

There is nothing semantic about what I said, it is purely conceptual.

What would you consider an unnatural aid? And why is this remotely relevant? Do you ascribe to natural law ethics? If so, then if a baby is born at 40 weeks, but requires suction of its respiratory tract to get it breathing (a relatively simply procedure, and actually quite common), does this need for an unnatural aid mean that

Basically, unless you subscribe to natural law ethics fully, I don't see how you can involve this issue of "unnatural aids" and their determination of life.

(Original post by omgpop4real)
I beg you to give me one source for this and I will concede your point. I bet you can't though, and so your whole refutation of my argument falls down.

It is standard embryology. Go and read any embryology textbook

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Well now that I've been suitably patronised I hope that you find my rebuttal to be sufficiently 'coherent, consistent and intelligent.'

No, it just opens up more inconsistencies and shows the arbitrary nature of your stance.

[lucaf]

(Original post by Surfing_the_shine)
well what stage do you believe the soul exists from, nobody knows exactly what a soul is some people deny its existence, others think its the personality, the mind or the conscience but the general consensus is that each life has a soul . its a scientific fact that life begins at conception as that is when all the genetic makeup is determined which is observable in you today.

you are missing the point. life may begin at conception, but the fact that a zygote can potentially split into two or three people, or fuse with anther embryo to form one person means at that stage it is not a person, and so abortion is not murder. if you believe in a soul, then logically you cannot believe that an embryo has one, so what is wrong with killing it?

as far as I am concerned, so long as the fetus cannot feel pain, there is nothing wrong with abortion. a potential person is not the same as a person, and does not deserve the same rights

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by madders94)
I never said it was a special privilege, as far as I'm concerned women have as much right to abort/keep one baby as they do any other, regardless of its health or any other factor. Downs' syndrome was the condition being discussed in the thread so that was the example I chose.

Why did you write "If the baby is going to have Downs' syndrome and she feels like she won't be able to cope with it, or doesn't want that life for her child or for herself, she should not face criticism for doing what is most likely right for her and her baby" (bold is my emphasis). Why single out a child with a disability as something explicitly reasonable to abort? Why is it the best thing for that child to be aborted? Please explain this unless you want to be viewed as somebody who thinks that individuals with disabilities have less value and less right to life as other people.

(Original post by madders94)
And you accused flown_muse of having bad comprehension skills

Yes very reasonably too.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by ArcaneAnna)
My point is not invalid. And yes a foetus is not an individual because it's completely dependednt on the mother, the mother is NOT dependent on the foetus.
The same way that, as an example, a leech may be dependent on a body (source of blood) and so I have every right to remove it from myself.

So a severely disabled person, who is totally dependent on others for support, is not an individual, and as such has less rights to life?

Why exactly is this dependence issued used as a measure of individuality and right to life?

(Original post by ArcaneAnna)
This is where, indeed, the argument gets less black and white and is a lot more complex.

Actually it's very straight forward.

(Original post by ArcaneAnna)
NO anethatised and elderly are not in the same category at all. Yes, you may say that they're also dependent on someone/something, but they have a family, identity, memories, possibly a job and friends.

Right so somebody's value and right to life is determined by;
-existence of family
-"identity"
-memories
-job
-existence of friends?

So an isolated demented old person, with no family, no friends, no memories due to dementia, no job, this person has less right to live?

(Original post by ArcaneAnna)
A foetus doesn't have the majority of the qualities that would make it an individual.

So, and neither do some elderly, abandoned babies, some of the mentally ill, some mentally disabled, etc etc. So are these people having less right to life?

(Original post by ArcaneAnna)
If it's being opted for abortion, then it does not have a family, since they obviously do not want a baby.

Erm, that is a bit of a thick thing to say. Just because your family don't love you, mistreat you, aim to do harm to you, doesn't stop them being your family.

(Original post by ArcaneAnna)
And as for the timing of an abortion and the reason for an abortion, of course I don't think that there should be abortion just because of the eye-colour or the gender.

Why? If it's down to the woman's choice, and it's her body, why not?

(Original post by ArcaneAnna)
And neither do I think that it's alright all the way up to 9 months, but not because of the foetus, but because of the trauma that it may cause the mother. (Much higher risks of complications and repercussion to the mothers body).

But if the mother is willing to accept and take those risks? Surely it is her choice.

(Original post by ArcaneAnna)
There should be regulations and guidelines around abortion, but it should not under any circumstance be banned/illegal. You cannot make something illegale when there are just as many, if not more, reasons why it's acceptable.

Except you haven't articulated any reason why it would be acceptable using a consistent ethical framework.

(Original post by ArcaneAnna)
I actually think that aborting severily disabled children should be acceptable. They may be the same as the restu of us in their rights of leading a normal life, and many of them do.

So you support terminatory eugenics, just like the Nazis did.

(Original post by ArcaneAnna)
BUT, if a family is not accepting and abandons the child (adoption of disabled children is pretty low) or mistreats it, it's much much worse.

Worse that murdering it?

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by LenaLights)
Think about the millions of families and couples who can't have children. They would love a child, it would be loved, supported...

If this were true, we wouldn't have so many kids in carehomes, surely?

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
And you call my biology knowledge suspect? A virus is not alive.

Except it is by most measures. It certainly is not an inanimate object, it certainly is not dead. The only reason is it hypothesised in A Level Biology as possibly not alive, is to nurture some sort of critical thought in sixth formers in debating the concept of life. Obviously you with you, this aspect of critical thought went over your head.

(Original post by Alofleicester)
No you aren't, it's not alive. If there's clear proof that life begins at conception then provide it - if not, then stop with this "it's alive".

Just open any embryology textbook and get reading (if you can).

(Original post by Alofleicester)
Ok - so in that case I don't get to choose a school for my child - because they haven't consented?

Children lack capacity. If you were not aware of that, then you're clearly way out of your depth in this topic of debate.

(Original post by Alofleicester)
It's not alive, it can't consent - it's not killing, it's just exercising your control over what goes on in your body.

So if something can't consent, it's not alive? That's totally messed up. Lots of individuals that even you would consider alive (even with your incorrect and distorted view of what is alive and what isn't) can't consent, so are they not alive?

[QUOTE=Alofleicester;38332347]
Yep, I also think prostitution and all other drugs should be legal - not my business what someone want's to do to themselves.[/quote

Good, me too.

(Original post by Alofleicester)
How humorous - I refer you back to the opening to this post.

Erm, I showed you that a decapitated snake is dying, not dead. Your example was trashed. You were made to look stupid, again.

(Original post by Alofleicester)
Actually, they can't replicate. They can regenerate, but not replicate.

Except research has shown that nerve cells can replicate, but of course they don't want to confuse the poor sixth formers like you, who already struggle with basic biological concepts at Biology A Level.

(Original post by Alofleicester)
And you do? You seem certain that a foetus is alive, without providing any evidence.

It's an established fact that a foetus is alive. It's like debating evolution. It is an established fact within the scientific community. The only people who dispute this are people that know next to nothing about science.

(Original post by Alofleicester)
The evidence wouldn't change my opinion

So you admit that you are closed minded.

(Original post by Alofleicester)
, since I don't give a **** what anyone else does to their body (so long as the potential child is still in the womb, it's part of the mother's body - so don't bother comparing it to rape or anything stupid like that), but it'd at least give your "It's alive" argument some sort of credence.

So whether a foetus is alive or not is irrelevant to you in this debate?

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Sam Walters)
How can a small grouping of cells be human?

The same way that a moderate grouping of cells can be a baby, and a big group of cells be an adult

(Original post by Sam Walters)
Philosophy, the only place where "because it is" can be considered an answer.

So go and read some embryology.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Surfing_the_shine)
to start with your argument is flawed , it may seem our right and choice, but this raises severe moral issues. its a mans house so can do as he pleases: rape his guests ,torture and humiliate them? this hardly seems fair! its a womans body therefore its her choice? consider the following ; she is self harming or misusing drugs or abusing alcohol, in these instances intercessory help is required she does not know what is good for herself and needs help. just because it is a womans body does not mean she has free reign over all that goes on.

i strongly disagree with abortion, a woman cannot "will" herself instantaneously to become pregnant (it may take treatment and dietary changes...) therefore its not her choice, becoming pregnant can and often does occur without it being that individuals "will" or "desire" or "choice"- it can be out of her control. it may be her body but it is not her choice! the womans body is carrying a baby from the moment of conception . pro-choice endorsers call the baby "it" , "it is a bundle of cells which has the potential for life" NO the baby is alive and growing brain cells , fingernails, this baby has a heart beat, nerve cells - which entail the feeling of pain i.e. from an abortion.
Becoming pregnant entails the responsibility of care during gestation regardless of whether she will keep the baby when s/he is born. it is therefore not a womans "right" to end the life of another especially a life which is placed in a womans care.



i hope this makes you value the sanctity of human life or at least recognise it.

Am pro-life. I used the "man's house=man's right to do what he wanted in it", as an analogy to show how flawed so many pro-choice advocates' brainwashed slogan "her body=her choice to do what she wants to it".

[madders94]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Why did you write "If the baby is going to have Downs' syndrome and she feels like she won't be able to cope with it, or doesn't want that life for her child or for herself, she should not face criticism for doing what is most likely right for her and her baby" (bold is my emphasis). Why single out a child with a disability as something explicitly reasonable to abort? Why is it the best thing for that child to be aborted? Please explain this unless you want to be viewed as somebody who thinks that individuals with disabilities have less value and less right to life as other people.

Who's going to view me as somebody who thinks people with disabilities have less value? You? Here's news for you, I don't particularly value your opinion, because you've shown it to be completely lacking in anything resembling common sense on this thread, and also because you know very little about me and my experiences with people with disabilities.

As I've already said, Downs' syndrome was being used as an example already on the thread, I picked up on that and used it as an example in my own post.

Children with disabilities are going to be more challenging to care for than children without because of the medical needs etc; if the mother feels unable to care for a child with any disability of any kind, she should not be treated badly for aborting it as a ball of cells (that is, before the legal medical cut-off point for abortions). Similarly, if a woman feels she will be unable to care for a child without disabilites, she shouldn't be treated badly for aborting it before the legal cut-off point.

What are you finding so difficult to understand other than the fact that this sensible viewpoint contradicts your radical "abortion is evil" views?

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by garfeeled)
i disagree that its a human being yet. your argument wold mean that every single sperm and egg is a human being.

No these are gametes, and no matter how long they exist, they are never going to form a life unless they encounter an opposing gamete to fertilise and form a zygote, which is a life.

(Original post by Sam Walters)
for me it starts of as a group of cells that gradually becomes a full human.

When does it become a full human?

(Original post by Sam Walters)
As time progress i believe that as time goes by a better reason is needed to abort. Very early on it should be on demand but nearer the end the reason needs to be very good such as the baby hasn't developed a brain or that giving birth will kill the mother

But you haven't said when it becomes a life, when it becomes a human, etc etc.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by WilliamsQI)
Iam very pro choice, as there are many situations where abortion is nessary, plus I do not see it as life until it develops a brain, because you cannot say somthing is alive when it can not feel, think or see?

So a deaf, blind mentally disabled person is not alive?

(Original post by Sam Walters)
Basically that is someone in away that is dead. But after it has a brain then it is wrong, then again I would still support someone having an abortions even when the fetus has a brain because is it fair for a child to be born into poverty where they could not eat or drink, then they would of acturly lived and then died. So abortion would acturly avoid a death.

You never know if that child is going to die in that poverty, so you cannot make that choice

[Ham22]

Strongly pro choice, but this doesn't mean that I take abortion lightly.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by eelnais)
To clarify, yes I do believe abortions should not be provided based on a woman not wanting a boy for example. This is illegal though unless I have missed something in research. So at the moment I can still state I am a strongly pro-choice person.

But if you don't allow abortions for gender selections, then the women who want such an abortion and is denied one, is going to have to go to one of these awful nasty backstreet abortion clinics, and risk her life, and all that? Should she have been denied an abortion in a legal clinic?

(Original post by eelnais)
Presuming I am white, a white person *could* be subject to racist remarks.

I wasn't talking about racism in general, I was talking again racism against the Black and Ethnic Minority community. Surely, you cannot be subject to that sort of racist remark, and so surely, by your standards, you cannot hold views of this sort of racism.

(Original post by eelnais)
There is always that possibility. Again, if I were to move to a place where famine strikes I am thus involved, or if (unlikely) a famine struck in the UK.

But you're in the UK now, and any famine in some faraway land does not "affect" you, so surely you're not allowed to hold an opinion on this famine, not get involved in anyway.

(Original post by eelnais)
These are all possibilities. But as a man, you won't ever become pregnant, no matter any hypothetical situation.

And as a presumably white person, you are going to be on the receiving end of a typical insult of Black and Ethnic minority racism. And while you live in the UK, you will not be affected by these faraway famines. You can wriggle around with hypothetical adjustments to your life, just as I could say silly things how I could undergo transgender surgery and receive a uterus transplant, and theoretically become pregnant. It's all very silly this sort of debate.

(Original post by eelnais)
Until modern technology changes that, I stand by this opinion and don't consider myself sexist in doing so. I wouldn't lecture you on circumcision. But fair enough, you do have this opinion and seeing as I am all for people having the right to make their own choices I will have to respect that.

Good. But I think you have every right to lecture people (or have an opinion and express it) on male circumcision. It is ironic you raised this issue of circumcision, because female circumcision is something I feel strongly about and oppose. Is this wrong? And what is even more interesting, is that ethnic groups that practice and advocate female circumcision, always respond to criticism about the practice with "it is our culture, not yours, and has nothing to do with you, and does not affect you". Kind of like your argument.

(Original post by eelnais)
A foetus is alive, but cannot survive.

So the question is, is it right to kill it?

(Original post by eelnais)
There is the key difference. 24 weeks, the abortion limit, they can survive, which is why it is cut off there apart from in cases of the mother's health/health of the potential baby. Which I think is right to do. As modern technology improves so will the life chances of a foetus, perhaps even going down to 20 weeks one day if it has not already, so then I would want the abortion limit to be there aside from the conditions I already outlined.

But a newly born baby cannot survive without human intervention, so this cut off point of permissibly of killing of foetuses at "ability to survive" outside the womb is not consistent, because no foetus, at any stage of gestation can survive independently outside the womb.

[Surfing_the_shine]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Am pro-life. I used the "man's house=man's right to do what he wanted in it", as an analogy to show how flawed so many pro-choice advocates' brainwashed slogan "her body=her choice to do what she wants to it".

yes i hadnt read your previous arguments therefore just assumed you werent using it in that way. glad to know we defend the innocent

[Sam Walters]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
So a deaf, blind mentally disabled person is not alive?

You never know if that child is going to die in that poverty, so you cannot make that choice

Perhaps you should just admit defeat? You seem content on argueing till youre blue in the face. Must like in life it doesnt get you anywhere. Youre still argueing on a forum against people who have stated some very valid points and skewed them by altering the nature of the context.

You cant make the choice to decide if a woman is going to give up her career, endure labour, morning sickness and all the rest.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Chris Evans)
I think it probably is your failing, particularly now I've so very clearly mapped out exactly what my argument is. The problem you're having, is you're failing to see how, to address the issue as to whether abortion is JUSTIFIED, you have to analyse the instances where people claim it is JUSTIFIABLE. Maybe this will help you to understand:

1.) 'If my contraception fails, would that make abortion a reasonable action?' My answer: No, because every sex act bears a risk.

2.) 'If the parents wouldn't love the child, would that make abortion a reasonable action?' My answer: No, because an abortion would merely be the shedding of a responsibility.

Your failure to comprehend lies in this: Abortion is an issue of APPLIED ethics - ie. you have to look at the scenarios in which abortion may be considered as a course of action, and apply ethical arguments to each scenario.

I totally agree.

But sorry, you haven't communicated your stance very well in this thread.

(Original post by Chris Evans)
I have given two, and shown clearly why, in each case, abortion would not be morally justified. You seem to be expecting some deontological, absolute theory of ethics as to why abortion is ALWAYS wrong, but I don't believe that, hence my inclusion of the rape case.

I don't think abortion is always wrong (case of foetus being incompatible with life outside the uterus, and continuation of the pregnancy likely to lead to death of the mother).

(Original post by Chris Evans)
In what way is judging abortion by different possible scenarios, and concluding that it would be wrong in certain cases, not arguing that abortion is, indeed wrong in certain cases?!!

Nothing is wrong. But to start qualifying some abortions as wrong and some as right, it is important to understand the exact reasoning behind why abortion could be seen as wrong, and why it could be seen as right.

(Original post by Chris Evans)
You must understand that I am not arguing that abortion is wrong, wholesale. I believe in the potentiality of life argument, yet I also believe that this ethical issue depends on the situation (hence my giving of situations!!) I'm not going to provide you with 'bread and butter ethical arguments' why it is wrong, because I don't believe in absolute theories of abortion. Merely saying 'but you haven't' underlines the fact that this relative approach to ethics doesn't fit your approach, where presumably abortion is wrong for definitive reasons, period. I'm sorry, but my argument is situational, and very much coherent!

By the fact you believe some abortions are wrong, means you have some moral objection to terminating the life of a foetus. I was interested to know the basis of these moral objections.

[madders94]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
So a deaf, blind mentally disabled person is not alive?

Since when have people with mental disabilities been unable to think or feel?

Now who's devaluing people with disabilities, hmm?