Abortion II

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Midge

CH, it is the woman's womb, the woman's body, but it is the child's life.

What child? The two-celled zygote? The two-celled zygote which has more in common with a single-cell ameba than anything else?
That's a child? Or a potential child 8-9 months away? Which is it?

Originally Posted by Midge

It was conceived for a purpose. Call it destiny or call it God, nothing is just random coincidence.

Purpose. Coincidence. That's a matter of view on life and faith. And since that's a personal viewpoint, entirely subjective, it doesn't bear as an argument on something as universal for all women as this.

Originally Posted by Midge

"It's about the rights of living" you say. But not for the newly conceived fetus. IT can just be killed if the mother doesn't feel like having it.

Spot on. The two-celled zygote's progress into a potential human being gets aborted, because the woman carrying it does not want to carry through with a pregnancy. That may sound cynical, but if that particular woman does not want to have a child at that time, then be it. Her choice.

Originally Posted by Midge

I myself would put the life of the two-celled zygote in front of my own life, as a woman.

Again, that's a personal choice. Would you be willing you force those who do not share that viewpoint to adhere to yours? Is that fair?

I'm probably repeating myself, but I see this boiling down to the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The two-celled zygote may become a human being if the pregnancy is carried through. Likewise that makes the two-celled zygotes a potential human being with the potential full rights of a real human being.
But until then! Until that two-celled zygote is a human being, it's right will forever come 2nd to the rights of a living human being.

Simply put, the choice for a woman, to become pregnant and give birth, or take an abortion, is her choice and her choice only, because her rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come before the two-celled zygote.

[Valandil]

CH - how long do you think a human baby remains two-celled? Re-check your fetal development.

Aborted babies are very... human.

[Coffeehouse]

Ah, but I have not argued against that. Abortion in a woman's body is the abortion of a potential living, breathing, self-aware human being.

But whatever status this potential human being has, be it a zygote or a fetus, it is not an independent entity. It is very much part of that woman, like a woman's lungs and kidney are. But unlike the vital body parts that are the lungs and kidney, the organism developing inside this woman is by all definitions a parasite. It is dependent on her, and thus it is her every right to choose if she wants it to grow and become a real human being, or to be aborted.

That's her choice. That's what it boils down to. It's her body, and anyone thinking they have the slightest of rights in choosing for her, how and what she wants to use her body for, needs to sit down and think very hard.

[inked]

Coffeehouse, you need embryology. Your apparent understanding is woefully inadequate.

The zygote is the fusion of the sperm and the egg. At no point is it ever like the woman's lungs or organs. Never. Nada. Zilch.

By the by, at what point did you come into being?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

It's such a difficult question, abortion.

All kinds of religious, philosophical and political views come into it, and one's point of view is influenced by so many events and occasions.

I only hope that all of us here, at this little cyber table, continue to try to listen to each other, and the experiences and knowledge we bring from so many different places.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((HUGS))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))) to my mooter friends.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Coffeehouse, you need embryology. Your apparent understanding is woefully inadequate.

The zygote is the fusion of the sperm and the egg. At no point is it ever like the woman's lungs or organs. Never. Nada. Zilch.

By the by, at what point did you come into being?

Ah, but thankfully I do not need to have any great knowledge of embryology to understand, and that's the beauty of the Rights of Men and Women, that we put living people in front of past dead and future living. This is not to be advocating recklessness, but letting those who live now choose how they want to live and on their own terms. Enjoying life. It boils down to that and not at what stage between day 0 and week 14-15 that abortion is morally or medically inadvisable.

[Midge]

I hate to break it to you, but there are more important things than enjoying life.

One of those things is actually putting other people ahead of yourself. The difference I'm getting between you and Sis's argument is that Sis is saying that we should allow abortion for the sake of teenagers (and other people) who are incapable of being parents. You are saying we should allow it for the sake of all the women out there who simply don't want to be parents, but are indeed capable of doing so. That is one very selfish reason to allow something so awful (and awful it is!). I may not agree with Sis, but it is a lot easier to justify her position (and me to not concede) than the one that says a woman does not have to have a baby simply because she wants to not have one. That sort of withholding of oneself can't be very fulfilling in life.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Midge

I hate to break it to you, but there are more important things than enjoying life.

One of those things is actually putting other people ahead of yourself. The difference I'm getting between you and Sis's argument is that Sis is saying that we should allow abortion for the sake of teenagers (and other people) who are incapable of being parents. You are saying we should allow it for the sake of all the women out there who simply don't want to be parents, but are indeed capable of doing so. That is one very selfish reason to allow something so awful (and awful it is!). I may not agree with Sis, but it is a lot easier to justify her position (and me to not concede) than the one that says a woman does not have to have a baby simply because she wants to not have one. That sort of withholding of oneself can't be very fulfilling in life.

This is Midge, the choice of the individual. A choice a woman is entitled to make. It is her body and her life. That's the bottom-line here.

And I respectfully disgree. What should I rank as more important than enjoying my life?

[inked]

Coffehouse, ignorance is capable of correction through study. Wilful ignorance is culpable both now and after. You had best get your info correct before formulating erroneous structures on which to defend your previously desired positions.

I doubt your mother held your opinions because you are here. As a parent, I can assure you that there are many moments within that task that fail completely of enjoyment and not a few which are torture. You could have been aborted on your own petard!

Teenagers, for example, are a genetic cause of mental illness! They drive you crazy ... even to consider retroactive abortion! Fortunately, most parents resist the urge to kill their offspring. Why shouldn't the person(s) seeking abortion have societal input to to that form of infanticide?

Cogent arguments would be possible. Try for them. Otherwise, some psychotic's enjoyment of sadism has as much rationale as your approval of abortion : it enables the perpetrator to enjoy his/her/its life.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Coffehouse, ignorance is capable of correction through study. Wilful ignorance is culpable both now and after. You had best get your info correct before formulating erroneous structures on which to defend your previously desired positions.

I doubt your mother held your opinions because you are here. As a parent, I can assure you that there are many moments within that task that fail completely of enjoyment and not a few which are torture. You could have been aborted on your own petard!

Teenagers, for example, are a genetic cause of mental illness! They drive you crazy ... even to consider retroactive abortion! Fortunately, most parents resist the urge to kill their offspring. Why shouldn't the person(s) seeking abortion have societal input to to that form of infanticide?

Cogent arguments would be possible. Try for them. Otherwise, some psychotic's enjoyment of sadism has as much rationale as your approval of abortion : it enables the perpetrator to enjoy his/her/its life.

Spare me lections on ignorance. Spare me attacks on teenagers. Spare me opinions about my parents (I find it rude). Spare me pathetic analogies to sadism.

You offer only intolerant views on a matter that is deeply personal and you have nothing, I repeat, nothing with the choice of pregnancy or abortion that women across the world take. That is their choice. Not yours.

There's a simple and honest truth to this: Everyone has, and this is getting slightly boring to repeat, the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That means they have the right to make choices concerning their own body. That means having the final say in how they live their lives and what kind of life they want to lead. That includes the right to choose.

[Midge]

It's not like those guys sat there and said, "I want the right to MY life, MY liberty and MY pursuit of happiness!" They just generalized. For MORE people to have life, have liberty and have happiness, people can't have everything they want.

And I just don't understand how you find that living with yourself first in your concerns is enjoyable at all! I for one, do NOT find myself the most enjoyable person on the planet earth, and I would find my existence pathetic and not worth it if I didn't make an effort to live with other people in mind, like cleaning my bedroom for my parents, or spending an extra dollar or two to buy my boyfriend a bunch of bananas (his favorite fruit) at the market. Those parts make MY life much more happiness-pursued than do things that only involve the good of me (or just the good of me first).

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

This raises interesting questions for another thread...about selfishness/selflessness, maybe.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

It's such a difficult question, abortion.

All kinds of religious, philosophical and political views come into it, and one's point of view is influenced by so many events and occasions.

I only hope that all of us here, at this little cyber table, continue to try to listen to each other, and the experiences and knowledge we bring from so many different places.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((HUGS))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))) to my mooter friends.

Good on ya, sis! Such a joy to see that kind of attitude. *moothug*

[Midge]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

This raises interesting questions for another thread...about selfishness/selflessness, maybe.

A whole 'nother thread??? Whoa...

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Midge

It's not like those guys sat there and said, "I want the right to MY life, MY liberty and MY pursuit of happiness!" They just generalized. For MORE people to have life, have liberty and have happiness, people can't have everything they want.

And I just don't understand how you find that living with yourself first in your concerns is enjoyable at all! I for one, do NOT find myself the most enjoyable person on the planet earth, and I would find my existence pathetic and not worth it if I didn't make an effort to live with other people in mind, like cleaning my bedroom for my parents, or spending an extra dollar or two to buy my boyfriend a bunch of bananas (his favorite fruit) at the market. Those parts make MY life much more happiness-pursued than do things that only involve the good of me (or just the good of me first).

Dear Midge, you totally bungled that one. Either you wilfully misunderstand me (which you seem to do when you make up things like this: "I for one, do NOT find myself the most enjoyable person on the planet earth") or you seem to lack some sort of capacity for empathy with other people's view on life. Either is troubling.
Is it hard to understand that when I say 'Enjoying my life' - which is a pretty general term - it means a person's enjoyment of life not only entails his/her own actions and feelings, but his/her relationship and sharing of views and experiences with family, friends and strangers alike. Did you really think I meant me, me and only me when I wrote that? Because that's pretty far-fetched if you did.

Originally Posted by Midge

And I just don't understand how you find that living with yourself first in your concerns is enjoyable at all!

This is insulting. I hope you don't usually debate in this type of way because it's tactless and childish.

[inked]

Coffeehouse, being asked to justify your position on the basis of fact is, perhaps, capable of being considered rude, by an enormous stretch of the term and a wish to avoid a needed conversation and distinguo. Ignorance is by definition rudeness; check your dictionary.

Your "arguments" were merely given a particular locus:you! I await your defence. If your argument does not apply to you, it fails by special pleading, does it not? It then is not generally or specifically applicable. In short, it is not an argument.

If you are not yet a parent, then you have to hear the realities of being one from one. Teenagers are difficult in a different way than infants, toddlers, children, or pre-adolescents. Live with it - parents have to, you know!

Your failure to address the facts about embryology is not good. You slice away the reality to apply an uninformed opinion. This leaves your position defenceless against those who argue from known facts. Your mental construct does not exist in the real order of embryology, and obstructs and obscures "real differences by the splendor of the sameness it provides without toil or hazard for those whose inclination is to avoid the toil of getting their facts straight and to avoid the hazard of being discovered to have been wrong. Such people excel on making obvious (generalizations) which may well be destructive when reduced to practice. One needs to place (generalizations) well after the toil of discriminating fact and accounting for differences. One must also learn quickly to hazard being wrong and be prepared to change one's mind." (Apologies to Aidan Kavanaugh for this adaptation from a different area of study.)

For instance, you assert the Declaration of Independence prologue in your assertion of basis for your "argument". Did you note that the basis on which these ideas progress is the "right to life" before one can get liberty or the pursuit of happiness? Account for the liberty and pursuit of happiness in those deprived of the right to life, please.

[Insidious Rex]

Midge,

Since you replied to my post Friday evening and I didn’t see it until just this afternoon and so much has been said since then Ill spare you the full refutation post I would normally have given to such a response especially considering how begging it was for so many corrections…

I would simply point out that the two zygote issue was brought up (see link) because Lief insists that embryos are so human like and develop human features in the womb that this makes it wrong to abort them because we cant say at what point “personhood” begins and “non-personhood” (for lack of a better term) ends. I was pointing out that this reasoning is logically flawed from the start because it is fundamentally clear that a two cell zygote in no way has ANY known characteristics identifiable as HUMAN. Nor does it have ANY ability to feel pain or distress or suck its thumb or kick or do any other cute baby thing he mentions because it has no brain or nervous system to speak of. So if one is going to champion the argument that there MAY be a point where abortion is ok based on developmental conditions but we don’t know where it is yet then they are going to have to deal with the fact that a two celled zygote CERTAINLY is BEFORE this point, wherever it may be. And therefore… even according to their logic, its ok to abort said two celled zygote. There is no wiggling around that. either you abide by the rules of a developmental argument or you don’t use that argument at all. Lief seemed to want to have his cake and eat it too on that issue.

However, I don’t really have any further argument with you because, unlike Lief, you stated that:

Originally Posted by Midge

It is wrong to have an abortion because it's killing an innocent life that is created by God (with a specific purpose), no matter how young and undeveloped that life is.

Which means the developmental issue is NOT an issue with you. Your point of view on this is in the arena of religion and not in the arena of biology. And good for you for that. its your right to that belief. Don’t think you can get anywhere on a legal side with that point of view but its what you believe and you are honest about it. I would just really advise you not to try to take a biological approach when arguing this point when you consider what is underlying your point of view on this. You cannot logically justify placing restrictions on another person’s body based on what is ultimately a religious belief… What you can do (and again something I commend you for) is NOT have an abortion YOURSELF should you ever happen to get pregnant. THAT’S that choice thing in practice! See how it works? As someone who is pro-choice I have no right whatsoever to FORCE you to go out and get an abortion if you don’t plan to. I cannot make that choice for you. Cool eh…

I would reiterate here (since you may not have been around to hear me say it before) that I think abortion in ANY form is a tragedy. I would not have one myself either (which isn’t worth much to say since Im a male… but its what I believe). But in an imperfect world it is a necessary EVIL. There are always circumstances where unfortunately it is the LEAST worst of several really bad choices. And we need to allow that choice to be made in those circumstances. We cannot cut it off altogether simply because we find distaste in those individuals who may take advantage of abortion to live a life style we find amoral. Theres no clean way to say ok you can have an abortion and you cant. Its something that needs to be done quickly and not dragged on into the second of third trimester while some government body reviews your case. That’s a practical impossibility. So we are left with a tragic reality. But do keep in mind that the tragedy is generally fully in place BEFORE any abortion occurs. The abortion simply becomes a possible response to the tragedy and therefore a tragedy in itself.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Coffeehouse, being asked to justify your position on the basis of fact is, perhaps, capable of being considered rude, by an enormous stretch of the term and a wish to avoid a needed conversation and distinguo. Ignorance is by definition rudeness; check your dictionary.

Your "arguments" were merely given a particular locus:you! I await your defence. If your argument does not apply to you, it fails by special pleading, does it not? It then is not generally or specifically applicable. In short, it is not an argument.

If you are not yet a parent, then you have to hear the realities of being one from one. Teenagers are difficult in a different way than infants, toddlers, children, or pre-adolescents. Live with it - parents have to, you know!

Your failure to address the facts about embryology is not good. You slice away the reality to apply an uninformed opinion. This leaves your position defenceless against those who argue from known facts. Your mental construct does not exist in the real order of embryology, and obstructs and obscures "real differences by the splendor of the sameness it provides without toil or hazard for those whose inclination is to avoid the toil of getting their facts straight and to avoid the hazard of being discovered to have been wrong. Such people excel on making obvious (generalizations) which may well be destructive when reduced to practice. One needs to place (generalizations) well after the toil of discriminating fact and accounting for differences. One must also learn quickly to hazard being wrong and be prepared to change one's mind." (Apologies to Aidan Kavanaugh for this adaptation from a different area of study.)

For instance, you assert the Declaration of Independence prologue in your assertion of basis for your "argument". Did you note that the basis on which these ideas progress is the "right to life" before one can get liberty or the pursuit of happiness? Account for the liberty and pursuit of happiness in those deprived of the right to life, please.

Inked, I think it's funny that you remain so convinced about my basis of knowledge on abortion.

There's a truth to the science of this, I place the development of the zygote to the embryo to the fetus as a 2nd rate, because my position on pro-choice does not rest on the developmental stages. Let me be clear, I think abortion is a tragedy. I think it should be avoided whenever possible. But the distinction between you and me, which is very, very important to highlight, is that you unlike me, believe that your beliefs (religious) and your factual arguments (your knowledge of the processes of abortion) can pose a foundation for saying that no, abortion is wrong, and that the individual should not make a choice (because for you, choosing abortion is wrong, and thus by default an evil).
I disagree. I say the choice is the individual's. It is by default, as an abortion is a physical process that occurs inside a human being, a personal choice. Bar my atheist belief, bar my views on 2 weeks, 8 weeks, 13 weeks, I still believe the choice is individual and whatever the religious or factual context, that does not sway my belief in that right of choice. I say, anything that occurs inside a living human being, and if it is to a greater extent medically sound (that is: abortions that can be carried out without a significant threat to the woman's life, which means most abortions), then it is entirely the choice of that woman. It is her choice alone. She is a physically unified being, whom carries an organism that for all its potential, is a parasite in her body and thus dependent, and thus a part of her, and that no one has the right to make the choice for her (or at least make a choice that she does not want to make).

It is choice, be it a good choice or a bad one, it is her choice.

Let me clear about the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Be it the American constitution, the French, the Dutch or the Norwegian. I believe strongly in liberal values. I believe everyone is entitled to make their own choices in life, and that they must be held responsible to the choices they make (so it is not a carte blanche to havoc if you want).
I believe in free speech (exercised in wisdom), I believe in the right to live one's life according to one's pleasure (exercised with dignity and respect) and I believe that no one has any right to impede on one's own physical borders (bar extreme circumstances: unless one greatly harms oneself to the point that it is lethal).
So let a person eat unhealthily if they want(pity if they become ill, but I won't judge them for it, that's their job. Lend them a hand if they become obese, and know that the punishment is inherent in that fate)

So let a person smoke if they want (pity if they blacken their lungs, they were warned, but it is their choice. Give them treatment when they get cancer. It's the ultimate punishment)

So let a person have unsafe sex if they want(pity that they did not use protection, they knew the potential consequences, but let them come to a clean and safe medical center, without judgement from doctors or nurses, state or society, and know that the punishment there is the tragedy of abortion)

And let women who are raped and molested come to medical centers, where they can feel safe, where they can feel welcome, where they receive help they desperately need, and know that the abortion is a deep tragedy for that individual, in a mixture of anguish over the horror of rape and the maternal feeling a woman feels when she knows she may have given birth to a child.

[inked]

"my position on pro-choice does not rest on the developmental stages" ... I knew that from your statement but then you made obvious falsehoods regarding development to "psuedoscience" your position. I called you on it. You admit it. There was NO argument, Coffeehouse, just statement of opinion falsified by references to embryology as justifying said position.

Then you regress to the same erroneous assertions again after dissing them:
"She is a physically unified being, whom carries an organism that for all its potential, is a parasite in her body and thus dependent, and thus a part of her,..". You have just stated that is not relevant. Which is it?

Then, ignoring the question of the progression of rights to the right to life as the most basic - the fundament of the others, you say, "I believe everyone is entitled to make their own choices in life, and that they must be held responsible to the choices they make (so it is not a carte blanche to havoc if you want)."

It is this precise issue of responsibility we are discussing. so let's hear your argument for how one is responsible for an independent differently-DNA'd individual who happens to exist within but separate from a females' womb. I have argued that a society which allegedly values individuals should logically protect those individuals in utero from the predations and irresponsible decisions of other individuals and that there are sound physiological grounds for asserting the individual existence of the zygote onward grounded in embryology and scientific fact.

Your argument seems to reduce merely to who has the power to destroy and mere physical dominance without regard to the true individuals involved.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

"my position on pro-choice does not rest on the developmental stages" ... I knew that from your statement but then you made obvious falsehoods regarding development to "psuedoscience" your position. I called you on it. You admit it. There was NO argument, Coffeehouse, just statement of opinion falsified by references to embryology as justifying said position.

Then you regress to the same erroneous assertions again after dissing them:
"She is a physically unified being, whom carries an organism that for all its potential, is a parasite in her body and thus dependent, and thus a part of her,..". You have just stated that is not relevant. Which is it?

Then, ignoring the question of the progression of rights to the right to life as the most basic - the fundament of the others, you say, "I believe everyone is entitled to make their own choices in life, and that they must be held responsible to the choices they make (so it is not a carte blanche to havoc if you want)."

It is this precise issue of responsibility we are discussing. so let's hear your argument for how one is responsible for an independent differently-DNA'd individual who happens to exist within but separate from a females' womb. I have argued that a society which allegedly values individuals should logically protect those individuals in utero from the predations and irresponsible decisions of other individuals and that there are sound physiological grounds for asserting the individual existence of the zygote onward grounded in embryology and scientific fact.

Your argument seems to reduce merely to who has the power to destroy and mere physical dominance without regard to the true individuals involved.

Hey, if you can't see where I'm going with this then, sorry, can't help you. I understand that you seem unable to comprehend that it's not your choice to decide what happens inside the body of another human being. That's that human being's choice. People have sovereignty over their own body. Period. But as we are rational animals we also possess the intelligence to understand when not to abort. We know that after a certain time, performing an abortion is inadvisable. Science will have to make the distinction. But in the end it is, and pay attention this time, her choice.