Abortion: The Facts

Debate opinion topics of original content.

Re: Abortion: The Facts

Postby Professor » Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:12 pm

I just think that there is a specific time - one instant - when it becomes a person. Before that point, it's morally and legally OK to get rid of it. Afterwards, it's not.

For me, that point is when that thing may be separated from its mother (as I said, still needs care, but not from that 1 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 3:44 pm

Professor wrote:I just think that there is a specific time - one instant - when it becomes a person. Before that point, it's morally and legally OK to get rid of it. Afterwards, it's not.

For me, that point is when that thing may be separated from its mother (as I said, still needs care, but not from that 1 person).


What is that one instance? Because obviously developmental stages vary between babies. So it can't be a time frame, it has to be based upon when "something" changes, resulting in "a person" where none was before. Is that something consciousness? Ability to feel pain? Or is it really just the limits of our technology and equal odds of life or death?

This is where your argument breaks down. If I say "There is a 50% chance that this caterpillar will become a butterfly, therefore it's a butterfly" does that make sense to you? Of course not. It is absurd. That 21 week limit simply does not reflect personhood anymore than randomly picking a date between now and 42 weeks from now.

The only logical way to look at it is that human life is created at conception, transforms radically for the rest of that life. Terminating it at any stage is generally a moral but not necessarily legal wrong. Like all moral decisions, the degree of "wrong" depends upon the particular context of the decision - but on a basic level, creating a life and then terminating it is wrong, no matter how good our technology, or what convenient and arbitrary limits we set.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20824
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2156 times
Been thanked: 1684 times

Re: Abortion: The Facts

Postby Professor » Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:55 pm

exploited wrote:
Professor wrote:I just think that there is a specific time - one instant - when it becomes a person. Before that point, it's morally and legally OK to get rid of it. Afterwards, it's not.

For me, that point is when that thing may be separated from its mother (as I said, still needs care, but not from that 1 person).


What is that one instance? Because obviously developmental stages vary between babies. So it can't be a time frame, it has to be based upon when "something" changes, resulting in "a person" where none was before. Is that something consciousness? Ability to feel pain? Or is it really just the limits of our technology and equal odds of life or death?

This is where your argument breaks down. If I say "There is a 50% chance that this caterpillar will become a butterfly, therefore it's a butterfly" does that make sense to you? Of course not. It is absurd. That 21 week limit simply does not reflect personhood anymore than randomly picking a date between now and 42 weeks from now.

The only logical way to look at it is that human life is created at conception, transforms radically for the rest of that life. Terminating it at any stage is generally a moral but not necessarily legal wrong. Like all moral decisions, the degree of "wrong" depends upon the particular context of the decision - but on a basic level, creating a life and then terminating it is wrong, no matter how good our technology, or what convenient and arbitrary limits we set.


I readily acknowledge that every baby develops differently. While one baby may be viable at 21 weeks, another may be viable at 20 weeks. If we can determine a test to find out individual viability, then that'd be ideal. But, barring that, we'd have to draw a line that applies to all. Kind of like DUI - some people can function fine at .08 while others are completely unable to drive at .04. But, we can't exactly conduct a comprehensive driving exam and exercise every time we pull someone over.

Also, I think that the "viability" part is key. If something cannot survive being physically removed, then how can it be a separate 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 4:10 pm

Professor wrote:
exploited wrote:
Professor wrote:I just think that there is a specific time - one instant - when it becomes a person. Before that point, it's morally and legally OK to get rid of it. Afterwards, it's not.

For me, that point is when that thing may be separated from its mother (as I said, still needs care, but not from that 1 person).


What is that one instance? Because obviously developmental stages vary between babies. So it can't be a time frame, it has to be based upon when "something" changes, resulting in "a person" where none was before. Is that something consciousness? Ability to feel pain? Or is it really just the limits of our technology and equal odds of life or death?

This is where your argument breaks down. If I say "There is a 50% chance that this caterpillar will become a butterfly, therefore it's a butterfly" does that make sense to you? Of course not. It is absurd. That 21 week limit simply does not reflect personhood anymore than randomly picking a date between now and 42 weeks from now.

The only logical way to look at it is that human life is created at conception, transforms radically for the rest of that life. Terminating it at any stage is generally a moral but not necessarily legal wrong. Like all moral decisions, the degree of "wrong" depends upon the particular context of the decision - but on a basic level, creating a life and then terminating it is wrong, no matter how good our technology, or what convenient and arbitrary limits we set.


I readily acknowledge that every baby develops differently. While one baby may be viable at 21 weeks, another may be viable at 20 weeks. If we can determine a test to find out individual viability, then that'd be ideal. But, barring that, we'd have to draw a line that applies to all. Kind of like DUI - some people can function fine at .08 while others are completely unable to drive at .04. But, we can't exactly conduct a comprehensive driving exam and exercise every time we pull someone over.

Also, I think that the "viability" part is key. If something cannot survive being physically removed, then how can it be a separate person?


There already exists a line. It's called leaving the body. At that point it should no longer be legally permissible to termimate that human life. This satisfies your "separate person" criteria without relying upon the arbitrary 21 week limit, which has zero relation whatsoever to whether or not a fetus has become a "person," a term that you can't even define.

Just to be perfectly clear, what you are doing is adopting an ideological framework to explain away moral discomfort. A separate life starts upon fertilization. That life may or may not become a person (just like a fetus with 50% viability may or may not become a person). Arguing that it is therefore okay to kill a fetus with under 50% viability is like arguing that it is okay to kill a handicapped child because there is under a 50% chance it will become an adult. It is all arbitrary nonsense that exists only to make you feel better about agreeing to the idea that ending human life is a moral choice under certain circumstances.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20824
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2156 times
Been thanked: 1684 times

Re: Abortion: The Facts

Postby wormwood » Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:09 pm

Professor wrote: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"?


I "believe" that because it's true. I didn't make it up, or decide to believe that life comes from life. Only your position requires any sort of belief because it is just an arbitrary time that you are choosing for political reasons. My "belief" is based on biology and embryology.

I don't know if these other things you mention would actually be human beings (I guess it would depend on how they compare to actual human beings) but they would be some form of life. Doesn't matter though. We are talking about the basics of sexual reproduction as it exists in nature. Clouding the issue, using poor analogies, or using deconstructionism don't change what is actually being discussed. Really think about what you are saying. What possible basis could you have for this other than politics?
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 » Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:26 pm

Professor wrote:I just think that there is a specific time - one instant - when it becomes a person. Before that point, it's morally and legally OK to get rid of it. Afterwards, it's not.

For me, that point is when that thing may be separated from its mother (as I said, still needs care, but not from that 1 person).


How do you not see that this position is based on justifying abortion and not on any biological or sound philosophical basis? This is all about the mother and not the new life that was created through her actions.
It's as arbitrary as saying you are not a "person" until you get a drivers license or a job.
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 Fletcher Dalton » Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:10 am

Figaro wrote:The big problem with the abortion discussion in America today is that it always revolves around legal decisions and not scientific fact. Scientifically, the "fetus" is a human being: He/She has human blood, human flesh, human DNA, which makes him or her human; not a dog, not a cat, not a bird, but human. And when he or she is sucked through a vacuum tube and destroyed, what has just been destroyed is a human life. That is science. That is fact.

What is all too often being focused on instead though is the "legalisms" of "personhood", whether or not the child in the womb is legally a person and therefore whether or not the child in the womb has the right to live and not be killed as all persons do. Does anyone know what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is, that is what was done to the slaves. Their blood and DNA were human too, scientifically they were human beings like anybody else, but the law denied them personhood and thus their rights could be denied them, and that is what is being done here too. Today, just as then, the law flies in the face of scientific fact.

Abortion is the destruction of human life. Thats science. I don't care what a judge says or what a lawyer says: What I am saying is SCIENCE and is FACT. The child in the womb, scientifically is a human being, and therefore killing him or her is murder. And one other thing: It is also a fact that the DNA of the child in the womb is unique and different from the mother's DNA, which blows out of the water the argument that "I can do what I want with my body", because its not the woman's body, it is an entirely seperate person, with the right to life. The child in the womb, scientifically, is a unique person.

So, what do we call it when someone snuffs out the life of of an innocent person? In a civilized society, we call it murder


I also have some statistics about abortions. 730,322 abortions were reported to Centers for Disease Control in 2011. About 4 of 10 pregnancies were aborted. The most 'popular' age for abortions is 20-24 group. 33% of pregnancies in this age were aborted.
34% of abortions were made by white women, 37% were black, 22% were Latino.
Fletcher Dalton
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:54 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Previous

Return to The Soapbox

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest