Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Niels wrote:

Kelsey wrote:Otherwise, we sacrifice a fundamental human right.

Which human right states that we have "a right to be kept alive at all costs"?

The only thing I'm defending is, that if one can't take care of himself, he can't demand others to do it for him. Taking care of others is very nice and moral, but that doesn't make it our duty.

No, you aren't. You are arguing for the right to kill others. But whatever. You clearly don't even know how abortion works and you don't care about the truth. Bye.

Nulono wrote:

Niels wrote:The only thing I'm defending is, that if one can't take care of himself, he can't demand others to do it for him. Taking care of others is very nice and moral, but that doesn't make it our duty.

No, you aren't. You are arguing for the right to kill others.

You agreed with me on all my separate arguments:
-You agree that an intruder may be evicted with all necessary force;
-You agree that it's not our duty to save everyone on this earth at all costs.
So where do you disagree with me?

Kelsey wrote:
Well then, I guess we're done. It's been nice talking to you.

Likewise. See you later.

Fair enough. But I don't feel that killing human beings, at any stage of development, is the appropriate response to overpopulation. Our actions must come before conception, by encouraging responsible sexual activity. Otherwise, we sacrifice a fundamental human right.

It's not just a response to over-population. It's a response to many other extraneous factors, which I've talked about in a few previous threads.

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:

Fair enough. But I don't feel that killing human beings, at any stage of development, is the appropriate response to overpopulation. Our actions must come before conception, by encouraging responsible sexual activity. Otherwise, we sacrifice a fundamental human right.

It's not just a response to over-population. It's a response to many other extraneous factors, which I've talked about in a few previous threads.

I'd like to note that I don't advocate abortion as a means of controlling a population - although every not-born child helps. I advocate abortion because I defend the right of freedom for women.

Niels wrote:

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:

Fair enough. But I don't feel that killing human beings, at any stage of development, is the appropriate response to overpopulation. Our actions must come before conception, by encouraging responsible sexual activity. Otherwise, we sacrifice a fundamental human right.

It's not just a response to over-population. It's a response to many other extraneous factors, which I've talked about in a few previous threads.

I'd like to note that I don't advocate abortion as a means of controlling a population - although every not-born child helps. I advocate abortion because I defend the right of freedom for women.

I know. I was definitely aware of the Straw-mans that were getting thrown around some of your posts. I also agree with abortion being a right for women, but I usually don't even attempt to present that as one of my positions because I will immediately hear, "So you support the right to murder children? What about rape and slavery as a right?"

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:I was definitely aware of the Straw-mans that were getting thrown around some of your posts. I also agree with abortion being a right for women, but I usually don't even attempt to present that as one of my positions because I will immediately hear, "So you support the right to murder children? What about rape and slavery as a right?"

You're absolutely right: This topic has been discussed to death all over the 'net, with all the red herrings that seem to go with the topic. Still, perhaps there's sense in having the same discussion over-and-over again...

Niels wrote:

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:I was definitely aware of the Straw-mans that were getting thrown around some of your posts. I also agree with abortion being a right for women, but I usually don't even attempt to present that as one of my positions because I will immediately hear, "So you support the right to murder children? What about rape and slavery as a right?"

You're absolutely right: This topic has been discussed to death all over the 'net, with all the red herrings that seem to go with the topic. Still, perhaps there's sense in having the same discussion over-and-over again...

Recreation when bored? lol From the looks of it, Nulono and Kelsey are done with this topic, so it looks like I'll discuss more with you on some other topics around this site's forum. It's been nice talking with you, Niels.

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:Recreation when bored?

Definitely. I discovered long ago that I got bored of just talking to my friends, and that I much preferred doing stuff with them. Climbing, Kayaking, making fires, urban exploring, watching a movie... action just beats conversation. Debating ethics and religion, together with friends against some competition, is just another activity: Great fun and nobody gets hurt.

It's been nice talking with you, Niels.

We'll meet again, I'm sure.

I realize that this topic is long since dead, so I am sorry for dredging it back up. There are a few points that I want to make. I just read through the topic and there are many valid points on both sides. Here are a few thoughts that occurred to me as I read.

My disclaimer: I'm not all that learned - I just graduated high school so I'm really not here to provide PhD level biological information...merely some opinion and insights. Also, some of my ideas have already been addressed, but I felt them important enough to mention again.

1. One of the first things brought up in this thread: when does life begin? I have always been taught in biology classes that it is at conception. Because, regardless of how simple the biological matter is (after conception), it is only capable of producing a human. It may not contain anything innately human...but how many DNA sequences do we share with other species as full fledged adults?

That said, it isn't capable of thinking, feeling, having consciousness. But I think this is confusing the issue. Even though this biological material isn't conscious or thinking (or even feeling pain in the beginning stages) -- this isn't the criteria needed to define a human...this CAN, however, be used to define human life stages. Babies can't think as logically as adults or even adolescents. But we don't define them as "unhuman" - simply as a human in the early life stages.

All of that said, I feel like this is all mostly irrelevant. When I use the term "human life", I am usually referring to the term as it is often seen in the more social sciences: as the journey or course of any human's life. Using this definition then, after conception (even in the VERY beginning stages), this human cell is the beginning of a human's "human life". It is NOT potentially a human. We are passed that. IF it is allowed to continue uninterrupted a living human will be born - a human already well on it's way into his/her "life course" which started months ago. You may say that "there could be complications, it could die in birth or miscarry." In that case, it is is a HUMAN LIFE that did not get very far in its life course and had a tragically short ending.

2. The idea that society does not have the means to sustain every baby that would be adopted out is a very strong argument. This is very true. But, really...we shouldn't even be discussing this. Society, indeed the Earth, doesn't have the means of supporting our current population level (abortion or not). So instead of using this as an argument FOR abortion, shouldn't we (as a society) get rid of the ridiculous sexual stigma and begin promoting quality sex education? There is really very little reason for unwanted conception. Let's just address this problem...before it is a problem - if that makes sense.

And, I do realize that this view leaves out rape victims. Clearly they cannot insist their rapist put on a condom. So, should rape victims be allowed to abort? I really don't know. My opinions and views haven't evolved enough to meet this challenge. My assertions in point 1 still stand (in my mind), so using that logic I am morally against abortion. And, I truly believe that in an ideal society abortion really shouldn't be relied on much. However, certain situations (like rape) challenges even my ideal conditions in point 2. I really believe that in the complex world we live in there won't be a blanket solution that is going to be perfect. I don't have the answer on how to address rape victims. It is yet out of my grasp - so I'll need to progress further in life, learn more, and temporarily leave it to wiser individuals.


I felt the need to insert these few points. Take it or leave it.

Seeking Truth wrote:I realize that this topic is long since dead, so I am sorry for dredging it back up. There are a few points that I want to make. I just read through the topic and there are many valid points on both sides. Here are a few thoughts that occurred to me as I read.

My disclaimer: I'm not all that learned - I just graduated high school so I'm really not here to provide PhD level biological information...merely some opinion and insights. Also, some of my ideas have already been addressed, but I felt them important enough to mention again.

1. One of the first things brought up in this thread: when does life begin? I have always been taught in biology classes that it is at conception. Because, regardless of how simple the biological matter is (after conception), it is only capable of producing a human. It may not contain anything innately human...but how many DNA sequences do we share with other species as full fledged adults?

That said, it isn't capable of thinking, feeling, having consciousness. But I think this is confusing the issue. Even though this biological material isn't conscious or thinking (or even feeling pain in the beginning stages) -- this isn't the criteria needed to define a human...this CAN, however, be used to define human life stages. Babies can't think as logically as adults or even adolescents. But we don't define them as "unhuman" - simply as a human in the early life stages.

All of that said, I feel like this is all mostly irrelevant. When I use the term "human life", I am usually referring to the term as it is often seen in the more social sciences: as the journey or course of any human's life. Using this definition then, after conception (even in the VERY beginning stages), this human cell is the beginning of a human's "human life". It is NOT potentially a human. We are passed that. IF it is allowed to continue uninterrupted a living human will be born - a human already well on it's way into his/her "life course" which started months ago. You may say that "there could be complications, it could die in birth or miscarry." In that case, it is is a HUMAN LIFE that did not get very far in its life course and had a tragically short ending.

2. The idea that society does not have the means to sustain every baby that would be adopted out is a very strong argument. This is very true. But, really...we shouldn't even be discussing this. Society, indeed the Earth, doesn't have the means of supporting our current population level (abortion or not). So instead of using this as an argument FOR abortion, shouldn't we (as a society) get rid of the ridiculous sexual stigma and begin promoting quality sex education? There is really very little reason for unwanted conception. Let's just address this problem...before it is a problem - if that makes sense.

And, I do realize that this view leaves out rape victims. Clearly they cannot insist their rapist put on a condom. So, should rape victims be allowed to abort? I really don't know. My opinions and views haven't evolved enough to meet this challenge. My assertions in point 1 still stand (in my mind), so using that logic I am morally against abortion. And, I truly believe that in an ideal society abortion really shouldn't be relied on much. However, certain situations (like rape) challenges even my ideal conditions in point 2. I really believe that in the complex world we live in there won't be a blanket solution that is going to be perfect. I don't have the answer on how to address rape victims. It is yet out of my grasp - so I'll need to progress further in life, learn more, and temporarily leave it to wiser individuals.


I felt the need to insert these few points. Take it or leave it.

I'm going to start with rape victims. I feel rape victims should definitely have a choice as whether or not to keep the child. You have to consider the capacity to suffer mentally and physically here. A zygote doesn't have much of a capacity to suffer, yet the rape victim certainly does. This is why I 100% side with the mother's right to abortion in this scenario.

You mention population growth, potential life, etc, which are good points. A mother shouldn't have an abortion on the assumption that the child may one day die in a plane crash, just as a mother shouldn't abort assuming a child may die at birth. However, there are serious ramifications of a mother not being legally allowed to have an abortion. As I stated before, when a mother isn't financially or mentally prepared for a child, the situation will often result in abuse and/or neglect. This only exacerbates suffering for all parties - society included - which leads me to again support legal abortion.

Lastly, you correctly mentioned that a blanket solution isn't possible, which means blanket legislation would be ineffective and just as immoral as abortion. The circumstances that make an abortion morally acceptable in my view are so convoluted and complex that I feel the choice should be left to the mother. The mother knows her own life's circumstances best, so it should be up to her - not the government - to have an abortion or not.

Since you read the entire thread, I'm sure you read my post stating that abortion isn't very justifiable from a moral perspective, but from a practical perspective, legal abortion remains the only reasonable conclusion. If one makes decisions based solely off of his/her emotions without consulting reason, problems are sure to arise.

I second Don't Vote Palin.

While I think there are already answers on this topic for the questions you asked Seeking Truth, I'm quickly re-capping a few of my comments I've made earlier for convenience.

I will quote though one biologists we all should love, P.Z. Myers.
"I'm also confident that the freshly fertilized zygote is not human, either. There's more to being human than bearing a cell with the right collection of genes."
and...
"Life does not begin at conception. It's an utterly nonsensical position to take. There is never a "dead" phase -- life is continuous. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive; you could even make the argument that since two cells (gametes) enter, but only one cell (a zygote) leaves, fertilization ends a life. Not that I would make that particular claim myself, but it's definitely true that life is more complicated than the simplistic ideologues of the anti-choice movement would make it."

So ...the blastocyst is not a 'human being', it's a 'human zygote'. And this stage is kept for well after the conception. But I don't want to get caught up in the labeling of that particular developmental stage as I think its irrelevant.

Above all I think it should be a moral choice, and keyword "choice!" - Seeking Truth, please read this short post of mine on why I think its very important to make and keep abortion a choice.

Niels also makes a good point here and here.

Also to leave with a quote from Sam Harris: "If your argument is not specifically for human life, but for life in general. Than you have to think about this, in which Sam Harris elegantly puts it. A three-day old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The human embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all ...If your concerned about suffering and loss of life, killing a fly should present you with far greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst."