[madders94]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Glad you can see how inconsistent you are.

Are you actually reading what you're saying? I have said, consistently, that I don't want disabled people to be killed, you have read it, understood it and chosen to ignore it for reasons unknown to me, that's not my fault. Perhaps it is you who has the problem? Why do you think all disabled people should be killed? Why are you projecting those views onto me to make yourself feel better?

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
That was quick to come back after the goodbye in your last post.

We are all balls of cells. And a newly born baby is a ball of cells, that cannot survive independently. What is your point?

This argument, woman's body=woman's right to do whatever she wants to whoever is in it (no matter how inhumane) is just the same as the patriarchal idea that man's house=man's right to do whatever he wants to whoever is in it (no matter how inhumane)

No, it isn't, because like I said, life isn't black and white, just because one rule exists doesn't mean that rule applies to everything similar. Also, your point is invalid because many people count a fetus as a "thing", not a "who".

But a fetus is quite literally a ball of cells; we are developed humans, a fetus is not. A newly born baby CAN SURVIVE INDEPENDENTLY OF ITS CARRIER, otherwise all babies whose mothers die in childbirth or abandon it or leave it at the hospital would die, right? Can you understand this incredibly simple point?

[TwirlerGirl]

I personally would not be able to have an abortion but it's the woman's body and it's her choice.

[other one]

(Original post by tazarooni89)


Well yes, I wouldn't suggest making abortion absolutely illegal in all circumstances - as I said in my first post, there are circumstances in which it probably is the best way forward.
Rape and its effects are not something I know a great deal about, so I don't really have any very strong opinions on what should happen to the child in this case. Of course, my point about failure to take responsibility doesn't hold here. Having said that, I don't yet see why even in this case, abortion should be preferable to giving the child away after it's born.

.

you have to carry a baby for 9 months and many pregnancies are difficult (esp at the beginning and towards the end) even when you want to have the baby. some if not most rape-victims might not be emotionally capable to carry their baby for 9 months?

[other one]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Whereas if abortion were not generally available, I think that would automatically make people take greater care. For example, even a drunken one-night-stand is easily preventable by simply not getting drunk in the first place. And this should be easy for someone who is absolutely unwilling to accept the risks associated with it.

are you sure? have you any evidence of that?

and what makes you think that were abortion banned in this country, illegal, much more dangerous forms would not rapidly spring up, endangering the lives of more human beings (not just the foetus but the pregnant mother as well)?

from having read your posts you seem a highly intelligent, probably well-educated and disciplined individual. more people than not on the other hand, unlike you, are weak. when it comes to sex, be it protected or unprotected (yes, just for the few minutes of pleasure), when it comes to alcohol, when it comes to drugs, etc they might well opt for irresponsible behaviour, esp if they are young/inexperienced. your argument assumes that the vast majority of people are rational, when this, unfortunately, could not be further from the truth (imo).

[OedipusTheKing]

(Original post by Chris Evans)
Hmmm... I find it difficult to accept the H20 example. 'H20' and 'water' are either totally different concepts or exactly the same concept. If you are using H20 as describing 'water', then it is just a scientific label for an everyday physical substance. The concept is exactly the same. This is merely a difference in the use of language. However, if you are using H20 as describing the chemical structure of water, then it is the chemical structure, not the water that you are describing - the concept has changed radically. You go from substance, to substances within substance.

Thus, in this instance, the term could mean 'water' OR the properties of 'water' - two different concepts. Claiming that 'H20' and 'water' have the same property is only true in so far as they can be used, in language, to mean the same thing. But if you use them to refer to different concepts, as you wish to do, they no longer share this property.

Thus, 'bad' and 'pain' could only have the same property if they were merely different names for the same concept. This is not the case - thus it cannot be said that they have the same properties. Moore does indeed show that 'good' and 'pleasure' have different properties. What has occurred in your argument is a confusion where a single word can be used to express two different concepts. In reality, although the word is identical, the properties are different due to two separate meanings.

Unfortunately, my explanation was lacking somewhat in my last post, so I completely misguided you on the second point. The issue of the woman's responsibility for the pregnancy lies not within her natural processes, but in the fact that she consciously and autonomously chose to engage in sexual intercourse. Without such engagement, a pregnancy would not have been possible. Hence, unless the situation is rape or free will is removed, she is responsible (of course, both parents are!) Hence, they (as causes) should respect their 'effect'.

Well it's actually an example from Lacewing and perhaps it doesn't show the point clearly enough. What might instead be a better one is this. A banana and an orange are two different concepts, however they partake in the common quality of being fruit. It is true to say that the terms banana and orange are not analytically tautological, but that simple premise does not completely differentiate between the two either. Pain and goodness are not completely identical, in the same way that an orange or a banana are not, but my point is that they could well share some similarities.

I am not saying that the sole moral consideration should be, in the words of Bentham, that which takes note of the fact that all humans are 'governed' by pain or pleasure (in fact in certain circumstances I would think social justice should take priority, something which utilitarianism is particularly weak on). Nevertheless, I don't think whether or not an organism is sensible to pain can be an irrelevant consideration.

We can look at the point from a different angle, from the descriptive nature of moral language. Consider the term 'courage'. There is a limit to what can be meaningfully classified as 'courageous' based on the way the world is and the inherent properties of actions. We cannot say that the captain's abandonment of the Costa Concordia for his own self-interest, was courageous because there is a limit to what can be meaningfully classified as courage.

In the same way, while we cannot exactly define goodness as the naturalistic fallacy would suggest, we can still say there is a constriction of the term based on the way humans are and their interests. The reason why torture is 'wrong' is because it involves the deliberate damaging of human limbs, which results in a reduction of normally-pleasurable life for the individual. Now in relevance to abortion, the point I am making is that there is a legitimate difference between something that is 'wrong', something that deliberately harms sensationalist organisms i.e. a baby, and one that does not i.e. a zygote, or a foetus.

You may still dispute that this distinction cannot be maintained on the grounds that potential as a concept might be more important than pain and so on. But the point is, that at the time of a woman aborting there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the act. What I would like is a response which tries to show how the act of abortion is in itself, in terms of ethics, abhorrent. Citing potential is to say that to kill what-will-eventually-become-a-human is wrong, in the same way that killing a 7 year old would be wrong. But what-will-eventually-become-a-human is not that human, and so intrinsically there's no reason to oppose abortion.

In regard to the reference of cause and effect, I think it is a fair point. However you make the questionable assumption that the sole aim of sexual intercourse is pregnancy. Arguably the aim of sexual intercourse for many, is not to give new life, but pleasure. The intention is perhaps what matters. If a woman became pregnant but her intention was pleasure-satisfication, the cause is then completely detached from your view of the 'effect'. The cause was to create pleasure, the effect was the resulting pleasure. Whether or not a foetus was created in the process is not part of the autonomy which you cite. A woman may autonomously consent to having sex for the purpose of pleasure, but that's different to a woman autonomously consenting to sex for the aim of eventually having a child.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by other one)
are you sure? have you any evidence of that?

No, I don't have any hard statistical evidence for this particular scenario. It's based on a trend that one tends to see in every day life - that people take more care in situations where the risks of negative consequences are perceived to be greater. A person is less likely to spend the night getting drunk if they have their final university exams the next day, as opposed to if they're attending a pub quiz the next day, for example.

and what makes you think that were abortion banned in this country, illegal, much more dangerous forms would not rapidly spring up, endangering the lives of more human beings (not just the foetus but the pregnant mother as well)?

No I agree - if abortion were banned, these dangerous forms of abortion probably would spring up. But of course, these dangerous forms of abortion would also be illegal as well. So it would be the mother's responsibility not to try to use them - or if she does, it would be at her own risk.

That may sound harsh, since some will probably still try it anyway. But the principle is based on people's duty to take responsibility for their own actions, and accepting the risks of their own actions, which we apply in other areas of life.
It's not some kind of dead end situation, where you're ruining their life from beforehand. They had the option of taking care with the choice of having sex to begin with, and even after making a mistake, they have the option of giving up the child in other ways besides abortion. Avoiding the need for a back alley abortion is entirely in their own hands.

from having read your posts you seem a highly intelligent, probably well-educated and disciplined individual. more people than not on the other hand, unlike you, are weak. when it comes to sex, be it protected or unprotected (yes, just for the few minutes of pleasure), when it comes to alcohol, when it comes to drugs, etc they might well opt for irresponsible behaviour, esp if they are young/inexperienced. your argument assumes that the vast majority of people are rational, when this, unfortunately, could not be further from the truth (imo).

Again, I agree - I'm not denying that some people may be weak or lack discipline, but I think they should be the ones to bear the consequences of that, as opposed to their child. I think it is right for the child to grow up and bear the consequences of its own weakness or lack of discipline, rather than that of its parents.

The arguments given for abortion seem to be: It allows people to avoid the consequences of their own mistakes or lack of responsibility; it allows them to choose a method of avoiding becoming a parent which suits them despite other methods existing; it prevents people from turning to back alley abortions which would be illegal and unnecessary anyway. All of these are designed to suit the wishes of the mother (and father) as much as possible, in a situation which was brought about by their own shortcomings.
But if you consider the foetus to be a child whose life must be protected as much as any born baby, then none of those arguments can supersede the fact that the child has the right to live, and is in this situation through no fault or weakness of its own.

These arguments usually stem from the belief that actually it isn't a 'real' child, and it doesn't have a right to life. But the point at which you draw the line seems very arbitrary to me. I get the impression that people first decide that abortion must be available (as it is more convenient for them), and then justify it on the pretext that it isn't a proper child. As opposed to first deciding through some objective means that its life does not need protection, and then concluding that abortion is acceptable. The process seems to be the wrong way round based on people's own priorities.

you have to carry a baby for 9 months and many pregnancies are difficult (esp at the beginning and towards the end) even when you want to have the baby. some if not most rape-victims might not be emotionally capable to carry their baby for 9 months?

Again, even if they are not "emotionally capable", does this supersede the child's right to live?
Consider the situation if a woman ended up giving birth to her rapist's child, but after it was born decided that she wasn't emotionally capable of knowing that this rapist's child exists in the world, and wanted to kill it. Anyone would agree that satisfying her emotions is not the priority. The child's right to life takes priority, and she just needs to deal with the emotional trauma separately.

This argument too, seems to be based on the presupposition that the foetus' does not have a right to life, and that in every sense, the needs/desires/convenience etc. of the mother must take priority. But I've explained my view on this matter above.

[WilliamsQI]

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

That is not what I meant, what I meant was if somthing doesn't have a brain it is really not alive. By this I did not mean if someone that cannot move or speak extra is not alive but in away they are not living is how I should of phrased this.

[shruikalta]

(Original post by Med Student)
From fertilization, abortion is wrong. Because once the egg is fertilized, abortion will kill the fertilized unique zygote (which is ultimately a different organism) thus essentially killing us or what would eventually develop into a child, thus preventing the growth and killing and denying life to the child. Killing another human being is murder/manslaughter/immoral. END OFF.

So every woman has committed serial manslaughter if John Opitz' research is found to be true..? wat.

[shruikalta]

(Original post by other one)
you have to carry a baby for 9 months and many pregnancies are difficult (esp at the beginning and towards the end) even when you want to have the baby. some if not most rape-victims might not be emotionally capable to carry their baby for 9 months?

exactly as other one said. Are you (tazarooni89) really so insensitive as to try and talk a rape victim into accepting a 9 month physical reminder of their abuse along with their mind? so stupid to suggest that.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by shruikalta)
exactly as other one said. Are you (tazarooni89) really so insensitive as to try and talk a rape victim into accepting a 9 month physical reminder of their abuse along with their mind? so stupid to suggest that.

I've already answered this point:

"Again, even if they are not "emotionally capable", does this supersede the child's right to live?
Consider the situation if a woman ended up giving birth to her rapist's child, but after it was born decided that she wasn't emotionally capable of knowing that this rapist's child exists in the world, and wanted to kill it. Anyone would agree that satisfying her emotions is not the priority. The child's right to life takes priority, and she just needs to deal with the emotional trauma separately.

This argument too, seems to be based on the presupposition that the foetus' does not have a right to life, and that in every sense, the needs/desires/convenience etc. of the mother must take priority. But I've explained my view on this matter above."


Sure, the rape victim may, for emotional reasons, prefer to get an abortion. But just because you've found one benefit of abortion doesn't automatically mean it outweighs the potential benefits of every other option.

[other one]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
No, I don't have any hard statistical evidence for this particular scenario. It's based on a trend that one tends to see in every day life - that people take more care in situations where the risks of negative consequences are perceived to be greater. A person is less likely to spend the night getting drunk if they have their final university exams the next day, as opposed to if they're attending a pub quiz the next day, for example.



No I agree - if abortion were banned, these dangerous forms of abortion probably would spring up. But of course, these dangerous forms of abortion would also be illegal as well. So it would be the mother's responsibility not to try to use them - or if she does, it would be at her own risk.

That may sound harsh, since some will probably still try it anyway. But the principle is based on people's duty to take responsibility for their own actions, and accepting the risks of their own actions, which we apply in other areas of life.
It's not some kind of dead end situation, where you're ruining their life from beforehand. They had the option of taking care with the choice of having sex to begin with, and even after making a mistake, they have the option of giving up the child in other ways besides abortion. Avoiding the need for a back alley abortion is entirely in their own hands.



Again, I agree - I'm not denying that some people may be weak or lack discipline, but I think they should be the ones to bear the consequences of that, as opposed to their child. I think it is right for the child to grow up and bear the consequences of its own weakness or lack of discipline, rather than that of its parents.

The arguments given for abortion seem to be: It allows people to avoid the consequences of their own mistakes or lack of responsibility; it allows them to choose a method of avoiding becoming a parent which suits them despite other methods existing; it prevents people from turning to back alley abortions which would be illegal and unnecessary anyway. All of these are designed to suit the wishes of the mother (and father) as much as possible, in a situation which was brought about by their own shortcomings.
But if you consider the foetus to be a child whose life must be protected as much as any born baby, then none of those arguments can supersede the fact that the child has the right to live, and is in this situation through no fault or weakness of its own.

These arguments usually stem from the belief that actually it isn't a 'real' child, and it doesn't have a right to life. But the point at which you draw the line seems very arbitrary to me. I get the impression that people first decide that abortion must be available (as it is more convenient for them), and then justify it on the pretext that it isn't a proper child. As opposed to first deciding through some objective means that its life does not need protection, and then concluding that abortion is acceptable. The process seems to be the wrong way round based on people's own priorities.



Again, even if they are not "emotionally capable", does this supersede the child's right to live?
Consider the situation if a woman ended up giving birth to her rapist's child, but after it was born decided that she wasn't emotionally capable of knowing that this rapist's child exists in the world, and wanted to kill it. Anyone would agree that satisfying her emotions is not the priority. The child's right to life takes priority, and she just needs to deal with the emotional trauma separately.

This argument too, seems to be based on the presupposition that the foetus' does not have a right to life, and that in every sense, the needs/desires/convenience etc. of the mother must take priority. But I've explained my view on this matter above.

Whether you want to have sex or not is different from whether to have alcohol or not. There are powerful hormones involved and one of the reasons why I find advocating abstinence is not a good way of contraception is that it goes against nature. We are biologically and evolutionarily meant to be wanting sex from puberty on. It's not a simple question of weakness/strength but much more primordial than that. Taking responsibility will be trumped in more cases than less I think. Vast majority of people are not programmed to behave responsibly even if consequences are dire. Just look at history in this question.

Your argument is based on the arbitrariness of when a baby is a baby and when it is merely a bunch of cells. I believe that 24 weeks as the upper limit was chosen for a reason, not merely arbitrarily decided?!

'There is no evidence that fetuses feel pain before 24 weeks The STC’s review of the evidence also found that while fetuses have physiological reactions to stimuli, this does not indicate that pain is consciously felt, especially below 24 weeks. It further concluded that these factors may be relevant to clinical practice but do not appear to be relevant to the question of abortion law (15).'

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/5148/
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health_ad...s/abortion.htm

I don't know enough, but I could be persuaded that 20 weeks would perhaps be better. That life that needs to be protected begins from conception I cannot really take on board however.


Btw I am all for more sex education and in today's lucky world, what does it take to use one of the many safe forms of contraception available so you can have sex while minimising the risk of pregnancy!

I don't agree with you that life begins at conception, therefore the life sprouting from sex between a raper and rapist is not worth protecting imo if the mother cannot deal with it.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by other one)
Whether you want to have sex or not is different from whether to have alcohol or not. There are powerful hormones involved and one of the reasons why I find advocating abstinence is not a good way of contraception is that it goes against nature. We are biologically and evolutionarily meant to be wanting sex from puberty on. It's not a simple question of weakness/strength but much more primordial than that. Taking responsibility will be trumped in more cases than less I think. Vast majority of people are not programmed to behave responsibly even if consequences are dire. Just look at history in this question.

Although I agree that it is human nature to want sex after puberty, I also think that a disciplined "mind over matter" approach to it is not something far too ridiculous to ask for.

Yes, it is human nature to want sex after puberty. But many people find themselves perfectly capable of abstaining from it for long periods, even their whole lives - and they're just as human as anyone else. In fact, the government has even made it illegal for someone below the age of 16 to have sex. They don't seem to consider the hormones too "powerful" for that. And even after that, there is a whole host of contraception methods available for free (and the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are due to lack of contraception, not failed contraception).

So in my opinion, an unwanted pregnancy is significantly more likely to be the result of someone not bothering to be responsible or not being mindful of the consequences of sex, rather than some kind of primal instinct taking over them rendering them incapable of controlling themselves. So for people who do not want children at the moment, I think that taking measures to prevent pregnancy from occurring isn't anything like too much to ask.

'There is no evidence that fetuses feel pain before 24 weeks The STC’s review of the evidence also found that while fetuses have physiological reactions to stimuli, this does not indicate that pain is consciously felt, especially below 24 weeks. It further concluded that these factors may be relevant to clinical practice but do not appear to be relevant to the question of abortion law (15).'

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/5148/
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health_ad...s/abortion.htm

I don't really see what this has got to do with anything. So what if they can't feel pain? A person under general anaesthetic can't feel pain either, but that doesn't make it acceptable to kill them. The reason killing is immoral in general is not solely because the person might feel pain when you do it.

In fact the paragraph you've quoted even says "It further concluded that these factors may be relevant to clinical practice but do not appear to be relevant to the question of abortion law".

I don't agree with you that life begins at conception, therefore the life sprouting from sex between a raper and rapist is not worth protecting imo if the mother cannot deal with it.

Your argument is based on the arbitrariness of when a baby is a baby and when it is merely a bunch of cells. I believe that 24 weeks as the upper limit was chosen for a reason, not merely arbitrarily decided?!

I'm not saying that life (the sort that must be protected by law) necessarily begins at conception. I'm saying that the distinction between what deserves protection and what doesn't is very ambiguous. I see no objective reason why 24 weeks, or 20 weeks, or any other number should prevail as the unquestionable point at which a foetus suddenly gains some characteristic which makes it deserving of legal protection.

What makes you think that the 24 week limit was "chosen for a reason" rather than arbitrarily decided? What reason might that be? Why is it then, that all the countries in the world which permit abortion don't agree with this, and different limits are imposed in different countries, and some countries don't even have cut-off points until the baby is born?

To me it seems that all these various limits are chosen, not because they are somehow scientifically calculated to produce an accurate cut-off point based on some feature of the child. They may be loosely based on the stages of development, but there are other political factors involved.
For example, the UK already has a problem of teenage pregnancy, people breaking the law with regard to underage sex etc and so it's convenient to allow abortion at a high cut-off point. But if the cut-off point were excessively high, (e.g. killing a baby just before it's about to be born), there would be outrage, and even many pro-choice people would say there's little difference between that and killing a newborn. So on balance of many competing factors, 24 weeks is a reasonable compromise. Compare that with a country like North Korea where people have very little say in what the law should be - there is no cut-off point for abortion. Countries like New Zealand on the other hand, with much lower rates of teenage pregnancy than the UK, don't allow just anyone to have abortion on request (but permit it if pregnancy will be very detrimental to a woman's life or health).
It appears to me that this is determined far more by what the people/government in a country want as a whole, rather than any universal scientific consensus.

[Med Student]

(Original post by shruikalta)
So every woman has committed serial manslaughter if John Opitz' research is found to be true..? wat.

How?

[shruikalta]

(Original post by Med Student)
How?

Well, if it is found that 80% of fertilised eggs are expelled through the monthly period, and that according to mainly pro-life arguments, these are 'alive' then this is manslaughter, as the woman has unwillingly killed said cells.

[Silkielemon]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
I don't understand why the cultural element is relevant, hence why I ignored it.

If you are going to argue that access to abortion on demand is a universal right of women, then culture is irrelevant. If you are going to argue that abortion should be available on demand to women, then culture is irrelevant. If you oppose gender based abortions, then you have to accept they will be a reality worldwide if you provide woman with a "right" to abortion on demand. This is not complicated stuff.

No. You have to accept gender-based abortions are cultural

What?!? I wasn't talking about Downs Syndrome and giving or withholding that information, I was talking about gender and giving or withholding that information. Whether Downs syndrome should be tested pre-natally is another issue, and is something I believe should not be tested for.

Yes. I was pointing out an obvious point of attack - gender is ANOTHER factor, such as down syndrome, that would affect a situation such as a abortion. You'll ignore this and call me ignorant again.

The incidence of female foetocide (and unfortunately, feotocide is almost always of female foetuses) is as you state, irrelevant to the morality of abortion based on gender of foetus. And you seem to feel it is perfectly moral and permissible to abort a foetus based on its gender, and that is very unfortunate.

First; 'Feotocide' as you deem it, is not 'almost always' of females. Get real. I just proved you wrong with the actual quotes from the links you posted, stating it was a CULTURAL thing. Honestly.

Secondly it is COMPLETELY moral to abort a feotus for ANY reason. It is NOT born. Therefore NOT human.

That has nothing to do with morality.

Of course it does. 'Morality' is the most retarded expression of rationalism.

In your opinion. To an impoverished farmer in India, the prospect of another daughter, and the hugely expensive dowry that it will entail upon her marriage, it may seem like a very sensible (if immoral) thing to do.

Congratulations, said this years ago. Gender-based abortion is due to culture.

Why forced? All abortions are the forced killing of the foetus, because the foetus has not consented, so the foetus has forced to die, just like the mentally ill and disabled in Nazi Germany; they were forced to die.

Foetus has no consensual agreement. It is not over the age of 18. It is not alive. It cannot speak. It cannot live without a mother.

Eugenics is about the purification, or at least, minimisation of genetic contamination, of the gene pool of society at large. Terminatory eugenics, such as killing individuals who genetic disorders, be they foetues, children, adults, is one form. Preventative eugenics, is when you prevent the formation of life that has undesirable genetics (such as discouraging/preventing familial marriage, etc etc). But abortion based on genetic profile of the foetus, is terminatory genetics.

Terminatory eugenics would imply a forced state abortion - which doesn't exist. Boring.

No, I will say that society should not accept this sort of termination of life, because it leads onto the devaluation of life in general in society, and all the problems that this entails.

What problems? Is this another theoretical 'slippery slope' of euthanasia that people pretend exist?

Wrong. You can get an abortion "on demand" (i.e threat to psychological health of mother) up until 24 weeks. However, genetic and physical malformation of the foetus have no cut off point, hence why they can be done at any stage of the pregnancy. The example most people would have come across if they have read even quite superficially on this topic, is the case of the woman who aborted her child legally at 28 weeks because it was discovered to have cleft palate deformity. Legally, she could have aborted as late as she wanted.

Boring

[Med Student]

(Original post by shruikalta)
Well, if it is found that 80% of fertilised eggs are expelled through the monthly period, and that according to mainly pro-life arguments, these are 'alive' then this is manslaughter, as the woman has unwillingly killed said cells.

John Opitz's research suggests 80% of fertilized eggs are 'naturally' flushed out and couples cannot control it.

Read 5th line of http://reason.com/archives/2004/12/2...ted-chiefly-by

However...This is naturally rejected by the body, not consciously. We can't control this almost natural abortion.

This is far different from abortion. Abortion is a choice driven decision. The immorality comes in us rejecting something we are responsible for. We consciously have caused death and devalued life by aborting it.

In summary,

Yes you are technically correct. This is involuntary manslaughter. But it's natural. Something we can't control. So this does not contribute at all to the debate of whether it is our choice to terminate embryos.

My point still stands: Killing embryos by choice is wrong. And I did suggest natural family planning which involves controlled fertilization.

[Med Student]

Arguments for the situation of rape based conception?

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Silkielemon)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
I don't understand why the cultural element is relevant, hence why I ignored it.

If you are going to argue that access to abortion on demand is a universal right of women, then culture is irrelevant. If you are going to argue that abortion should be available on demand to women, then culture is irrelevant. If you oppose gender based abortions, then you have to accept they will be a reality worldwide if you provide woman with a "right" to abortion on demand. This is not complicated stuff.No.

You have to accept gender-based abortions are cultural

Yes, and I don't see why this argument is relevant. Women, for various economic and/or cultural reasons (often it is an economic reason arising due to a cultural norm) will want to select the gender of their children through foetocide.

The culture argument only comes into play, if you are going to restrict abortion on demand according to cultural/ethnic group. If you are not, and you say abortion is a universal right for all woman to receive on demand, this cultural aspect is irrelevant to the debate. Unless of course, you can enlighten me why you think this issue of culture is important to the debate.

(Original post by Silkielemon)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
What?!? I wasn't talking about Downs Syndrome and giving or withholding that information, I was talking about gender and giving or withholding that information. Whether Downs syndrome should be tested pre-natally is another issue, and is something I believe should not be tested for.*

Yes. I was pointing out an obvious point of attack - gender is ANOTHER factor, such as down syndrome, that would affect a situation such as a abortion. You'll ignore this and call me ignorant again.

So you admit your point of Down's Syndrome was not relevant.

So, can you clear this up, because from that you've said so far in this post, and what you're written later, it is unclear of your stance. If a woman requests an abortion at 22 weeks because she has found out following the 20 week scan, that she is carrying a female baby, and she does not want a daughter, should her request be granted?

(Original post by Silkielemon)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
The incidence of female foetocide (and unfortunately, feotocide is almost always of female foetuses) is as you state, irrelevant to the morality of abortion based on gender of foetus. And you seem to feel it is perfectly moral and permissible to abort a foetus based on its gender, and that is very unfortunate.

First; 'Feotocide' as you deem it, is not 'almost always' of females. Get real. I just proved you wrong with the actual quotes from the links you posted, stating it was a CULTURAL thing. Honestly.

Okay firstly, the quotes you made actually quite explicitly say that female foetuses are the ones commonly aborted in he case of gender selection abortion, so I don't know how you made the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately, there are many societies that strongly prefer sons enough for some members of that society to kill the unborn daughters. It's usually good to read and understand what you're reading before commenting on it, otherwise you end up looking like a fool like you just did.

And this cultural thing, really, why is it relevant to the ethics of the act of abortion?

(Original post by Silkielemon)
Secondly it is COMPLETELY moral to abort a feotus for ANY reason. It is NOT born. Therefore NOT human.

It most certainly is human, you need to check your basic biology here. Embryologist commonly compare foetuses of different species in their observations and research, be is human foetuses, canine foetuses, etc etc. To deny that the foetus is human is to disregard all accepted embryology to date.

Why does birth suddenly cause the foetus to be "human" in that event. What is your reasoning. Before birth, what was the foetus if it was not human?

(Original post by Silkielemon)
Of course it does. 'Morality' is the most retarded expression of rationalism.

Okay, so you do not believe in the concept of morality?

(Original post by Silkielemon)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
In your opinion. To an impoverished farmer in India, the prospect of another daughter, and the hugely expensive dowry that it will entail upon her marriage, it may seem like a very sensible (if immoral) thing to do.*

Congratulations, said this years ago. Gender-based abortion is due to culture.

And? Gender-based abortion, as said, is often economic rooted in a cultural norm, so yes is cultural, this has never ever been denied on my part. Female genital mutilation is also cultural. Does that mean we cannot debate the ethics of it? This constant raising of "It's cultural" flag does you a huge disservice, because it is unclear why it is relevant, so it just makes you look like you don't know how to debate or indeed what you're talking about.

(Original post by Silkielemon)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Why forced? All abortions are the forced killing of the foetus, because the foetus has not consented, so the foetus has forced to die, just like the mentally ill and disabled in Nazi Germany; they were forced to die.

Foetus has no consensual agreement. It is not over the age of 18. It is not alive. It cannot speak. It cannot live without a mother.

Okay, a newly born baby is not over 18, cannot speak, and cannot live without a mother/parental figure. Do these characteristics mean that it is less wrong to kill a newly born baby compared to a 19 year old, who can speak and lives independently? I think not. So they are irrelevant.

As for a foetus not being "alive", then again, you are going totally against pretty much all scientific opinion of the matter. If you can honestly say that a baby that has reached 9 months gestation, that kicks, has a beating heart, is responsive to different sensations, etc, is not alive, then there is something wrong with your observation and reasoning skills. It is very much alive. If a woman miscarries as 8 months, what has happened to the baby inside her? Has it died?

(Original post by Silkielemon)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Eugenics is about the purification, or at least, minimisation of genetic contamination, of the gene pool of society at large. Terminatory eugenics, such as killing individuals who genetic disorders, be they foetues, children, adults, is one form. Preventative eugenics, is when you prevent the formation of life that has undesirable genetics (such as discouraging/preventing familial marriage, etc etc). But abortion based on genetic profile of the foetus, is terminatory genetics.*

Terminatory eugenics would imply a forced state abortion - which doesn't exist. Boring.

As I said, it is forced, since the index of termination is the foetus not the mother undertaking the abortion. A forced abortion (your definition, as in against the mother's will) because of foetal genetics is also terminatory eugenics, it's just 2 individual's were violated (the mother and foetus) rather than just one when it is done at the request of the mother (foetus only)

Take for example the extermination of the disabled in Nazi Germany. Some of them were exterminated with the agreement of their next of kin. Is it terminatory eugenics? Because, according to you, it wouldn't be.

(Original post by Silkielemon)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
No, I will say that society should not accept this sort of termination of life, because it leads onto the devaluation of life in general in society, and all the problems that this entails.*

What problems? Is this another theoretical 'slippery slope' of euthanasia that people pretend exist?

No, I am very very pro voluntary euthanasia.

The problem is that the toleration of abortion devalues the concept and respect for life in society in general. Once you start saying abortion is fine, because, even though it is a life, it is the woman's choice, then you basically place a person's choice as a consumer over an above another person's life.

(Original post by Silkielemon)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)

Wrong. You can get an abortion "on demand" (i.e threat to psychological health of mother) up until 24 weeks. However, genetic and physical malformation of the foetus have no cut off point, hence why they can be done at any stage of the pregnancy. The example most people would have come across if they have read even quite superficially on this topic, is the case of the woman who aborted her child legally at 28 weeks because it was discovered to have cleft palate deformity. Legally, she could have aborted as late as she wanted.

Boring

Sorry, why is it "boring"? The link you posted pretty much said what I said; that abortion is not actually available on demand. As stated in your link, one of the requirements for an abortion to be legal is "two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy". This means that abortion on demand is limited by the fact that 2 doctors must decide that the pregnancy would cause the mother harm. If abortion was available on demand (as it is in many continental European countries), then there wouldn't be this requirement (as there isn't in many continental European countries)

Anyway, hope this helps

[missygeorgia]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
I've already answered this point:

"Again, even if they are not "emotionally capable", does this supersede the child's right to live?
Consider the situation if a woman ended up giving birth to her rapist's child, but after it was born decided that she wasn't emotionally capable of knowing that this rapist's child exists in the world, and wanted to kill it. Anyone would agree that satisfying her emotions is not the priority. The child's right to life takes priority, and she just needs to deal with the emotional trauma separately.

This argument too, seems to be based on the presupposition that the foetus' does not have a right to life, and that in every sense, the needs/desires/convenience etc. of the mother must take priority. But I've explained my view on this matter above."


Sure, the rape victim may, for emotional reasons, prefer to get an abortion. But just because you've found one benefit of abortion doesn't automatically mean it outweighs the potential benefits of every other option.

What a mad comparison. It's not about the right to 'satisfying one's emotions', and to say that it is is a blatant attempt to undermine the issue that is really at stake, which is autonomy over one's body. Forcing someone to carry a foetus for 9 months is absolutely comparable to forcing a woman to be raped. For 9 months. And the woman's right to not have to go through that supercedes the right of the foetus to live off her body. If you don't agree, then don't get an abortion, and stop trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their uteri.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by missygeorgia)
What a mad comparison. It's not about the right to 'satisfying one's emotions', and to say that it is is a blatant attempt to undermine the issue that is really at stake, which is autonomy over one's body. Forcing someone to carry a foetus for 9 months is absolutely comparable to forcing a woman to be raped. For 9 months. And the woman's right to not have to go through that supercedes the right of the foetus to live off her body.

I'm simply responding to a point that a previous poster made. And the point she made was simply about whether or not a woman is "emotionally capable" or carrying a particular child, which is not a strong argument. And as I've already said, your claim that the woman's right supercedes the foetus' right is based on the (so far) unjustified presupposition that a foetus has less right to live than a newborn baby or any other human who has been born.

If you don't agree, then don't get an abortion, and stop trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their uteri.

You think that if we find something immoral, we should simply not do it ourselves, and never be allowed to stop others from doing it? Good luck upholding a legal system that way.