Abortion: The Facts

Debate opinion topics of original content.

Re: Abortion: The Facts

Postby exploited » Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:49 pm

Professor wrote:
Southern Dad wrote:
exploited wrote:Actually, whether or not there'd be a baby is completely unknown, and depends entirely on the individual. Are we assuming optimal health, a guaranteed fertilization, etc.?


As I've said, I'm 100% on board with abortion, the morning after pill, etc. but call it what it is... It's ending the life of the unborn. Don't try and make it sound like it's less than it is. What it is, is someone failed to make the responsible choice before having sex and now is taking steps afterward to make sure the baby isn't born.


Ending the life of an unborn "what", though?


The unborn human life. Once that egg is fertilized, there is a new organism, which has unique human DNA and is alive and growing. The reason it's there is because sperm was UNLEASHED WITH MAX FURY in that vagina. Somebody put that sperm there, and somebody else dropped an egg on it, and then shit got real.

Don't worry though, that's supposed to happen.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20890
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2164 times
Been thanked: 1687 times

Re: Abortion: The Facts

Postby Professor » Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:56 pm

exploited wrote:
Professor wrote:
Southern Dad wrote:
exploited wrote:Actually, whether or not there'd be a baby is completely unknown, and depends entirely on the individual. Are we assuming optimal health, a guaranteed fertilization, etc.?


As I've said, I'm 100% on board with abortion, the morning after pill, etc. but call it what it is... It's ending the life of the unborn. Don't try and make it sound like it's less than it is. What it is, is someone failed to make the responsible choice before having sex and now is taking steps afterward to make sure the baby isn't born.


Ending the life of an unborn "what", though?


The unborn human life. Once that egg is fertilized, there is a new organism, which has unique human DNA and is alive and growing. The reason it's there is because sperm was UNLEASHED WITH MAX FURY in that vagina. Somebody put that sperm there, and somebody else dropped an egg on it, and then shit got real.

Don't worry though, that's supposed to happen.


So, unique human DNA makes it a separate human life?

What happens when we start altering our own DNA and then reinjecting it into ourselves. Let's say it's to repair our liver - is our liver now a separate human life?
Image
User avatar
Professor
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 7553
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:42 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 570 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: Abortion: The Facts

Postby exploited » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:02 pm

Altering our DNA and injecting it back into ourselves?
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20890
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2164 times
Been thanked: 1687 times

Re: Abortion: The Facts

Postby John Galt » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:16 pm

exploited wrote:Altering our DNA and injecting it back into ourselves?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 73555.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_engineering

not quite what he said, but the result is what he's talking about, i think

however, your dna would be changed everywhere not just in the liver or whatever. also your dna all over your body is already mutated and doesn't match exactly to every other cell. dna breaking down is the root cause of cancer. things like sunlight cause it. most of the time it doesn't matter but then sometimes it does


but yes, a fertilized egg in the mother is an unborn human being. it's inside of the mother, but it is not the mother
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
John Galt
Technical Admin
 
Posts: 12215
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Bowling Green Massacre Survivor
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 1264 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: Abortion: The Facts

Postby Professor » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:18 pm

exploited wrote:Altering our DNA and injecting it back into ourselves?


Right.

Or, what happens when we perfect cloning to the point where a baby has the same genetic DNA as the mother? Is it a separate person?

I think it all boils down to the fact that we cannot, legally, deprive a "person" of life without due process (of some sort). So, we have to figure out what constitutes a "person".
Image
User avatar
Professor
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 7553
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:42 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 570 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: Abortion: The Facts

Postby exploited » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:36 pm

Professor wrote:
exploited wrote:Altering our DNA and injecting it back into ourselves?


Right.

Or, what happens when we perfect cloning to the point where a baby has the same genetic DNA as the mother? Is it a separate person?

I think it all boils down to the fact that we cannot, legally, deprive a "person" of life without due process (of some sort). So, we have to figure out what constitutes a "person".


I agree, we must settle on an arbitrary line that in no way reflects reality, in order to appease your conscience.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20890
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2164 times
Been thanked: 1687 times

Re: Abortion: The Facts

Postby wormwood » Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:35 pm

Professor wrote:
wormwood wrote:
Professor wrote:
exploited wrote:To be clear, though, I wasn't trying to rebut your post. In fact I agree with it: in my mind, there is no doubt that a fetus, whether 1 week or 22 weeks, should be considered human life by anybody who wants to be honest about it.

The fact that a fetus changes physically doesn't make it more or less human. Life does start at conception, and over time, transforms. It's like trying to argue that you'd never kill a butterfly, but caterpillars are fair game.

The greater point is that I support abortion rights for pragmatic reasons, which if anything are immoral or amoral. I understand that killing a fetus is ending human life. I also believe ending human life is not necessarily wrong. I further believe that preventing the wrongs associated with abortion introduces an entire new spectrum of wrongs, that are actually more harmful in the aggregate.


Don't equate human life with person. They are not the same.

Would excising an absorbed twin be killing?

People have rights to life. Life has no rights to be people.

I'm not sure I'm following your twin example. Is dying of natural causes the same as being murdered? Doesn't really seem that complicated if you are honest with yourself. At least you are honest about how you feel about taking human life though, so props for that I guess.


Ofttimes an absorbed twin is still living tissue, with blood supplied by the other twin. They may not have all the organs (up to and including a brain), but they're alive. Are they people?


A vanishing twin, also known as fetal resorption, is a fetus in a multi-gestation pregnancy which dies in utero and is then partially or completely reabsorbed by the twin.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_twin

As I've said - we're not talking about "life". You toe is "alive". We're talking about "person". At what point does it become a "person"?
Your toe isn't an organism...? You can't honestly believe that this is an apt analogy. We aren't talking about an appendage or a disease or a parasite, but a new human life beginning it's development. It doesn't "become" a person.
A "person" is a human organism, and the life of this particular organism begins at conception. So in that sense it is as much a "person" then as it will be 9 months from then, or 25 years from then.

Think about the implications of what you're saying. What if a woman who doesn't even know she's pregnant (screwed at a college party) decides to move to another state. She has a baby. According to you, that fertilized egg was a person at that college party, and most certainly while she was packing the next day. She could be put in jail for kidnapping because she did not tell the father she was taking his child across state lines.
She had no way to know, and thus no intention to break any sorts of laws. Also this is an appeal to consequence fallacy. Because some made up legal circumstance may result, doesn't change the facts of the matter. If we have a stupid law, then change the law.

Life =/= person.

You are correct. A tree is alive, that doesn't make it a person. However, the offspring resulting from two human beings (persons) mating, is in fact a person.
For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised

-Nicolo Machiavelli
User avatar
wormwood
Congressman
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:02 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: Abortion: The Facts

Postby wormwood » Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:47 pm

exploited wrote:
wormwood wrote:At least Ex admits that he supports taking a human life, even if immoral, for practicality.


...I like my second statement to you better:

The greater point is that I support abortion rights for pragmatic reasons, which if anything are immoral or amoral. I understand that killing a fetus is ending human life. I also believe ending human life is not necessarily wrong. I further believe that preventing the wrongs associated with abortion introduces an entire new spectrum of wrongs, that are actually more harmful in the aggregate.


I think people have this idea that morality is about themselves, when morality is by definition the rules regulating your conduct with others. How you feel about something isn't the total moral content of a decision. So in the case of abortion, I feel that it is ending human life, for reasons we've been trying to pound into Philly's stupid horrible face for like a day now. But I understand that ending human life in particular circumstances is worth it to prevent the moral degradation that would follow from trying to guarantee it's life. I mean what do you do with a pregnant woman who doesn't want her child and will go through extreme lengths to be rid of it? Do you put them in a hospital and then stick them with a bill? Do you take them into custody if they get an abortion, throw them in jail? I just don't understand how any law could possibly be put in place preventing or punishing abortion that isn't a gross travesty of justice, objectively more so since the victim is conscious to experience it.

So the individual reasoning I've applied is immoral or amoral, yes, but when applied in a group dynamic it becomes beneficial. That's my argument and I'm sticking to it.

Sorry, i wasn't trying to paint your position in the most negative light possible which I guess it did sort of sound like. I think you have a very reasonable pro-choice stance because you don't have to lie to yourself or others about what is actually being discussed.
As for the last bit there, those are tough questions. I've never really been able to bring myself to advocate banning abortions because there are many entangled issues and contingencies to consider. I do feel like if more people just called things what they were instead of intentionally, or unintentionally, obfuscating the issue with semantic non-sense then they would just happen less on their own, with no need for a ban.
For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised

-Nicolo Machiavelli
User avatar
wormwood
Congressman
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:02 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: Abortion: The Facts

Postby Professor » Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:55 am

OK, it seems that some here believe that a distinct human "life" (ie: person) is created the moment a zygote is formed with both parents' DNA.

What about when the zygote has 3 people's DNA?

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31069173

The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people.


So, is that zygote a "person"?

What about cloning? When clones are formed, they have only the DNA from a single parent. Would that be a "person"?
Image
User avatar
Professor
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 7553
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:42 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 570 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: Abortion: The Facts

Postby exploited » Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:07 am

You've hit the hard limit of your argument: you can't provide a suitable definition of personhood, and so requiring we use a definition of personhood to determine the morality of an action is absurd. Basically what you're doing is the equivalent of saying "We need to figure out how to light the hallway, and so let us design a fusion reactor to power a mini-sun." The solution, in other words, is a hopelessly complex labyrinth with no chance of being traversed.

What is really interesting is that your argument relies upon the creation aspect just as much as mine. And that seems to be the most basic and fundamental truth: if you create human life, regardless of how or why, it is a moral wrong to extinguish it. Whether it is the same as you or different is irrelevant.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20890
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2164 times
Been thanked: 1687 times

PreviousNext

Return to The Soapbox

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest