Abortion.

[Lief Erikson]

Here's a quote from Wikipedia on the subject.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia's article on "Fetus"

In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the eighth week of pregnancy, when the major structures and organ systems have formed, until birth.

So the major structures and organ systems of the child have already formed and are already in place at the end of the eighth week!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

I wonder what Lief has to say .... wotcha Lief

Hello!

What I have to say on that is thanks for posting it, Nurvi . It confirms too what I learned from Wikipedia about the state of the child after first Trimester. Definitely not just a "ball of cells." It has all the major organs and is a very recognizable human. I saw a picture of a fetus on the Wikipedia site, which is why I say that. It's incredible how fast that child develops!

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

*wonders why Lief is so pissed at me ... *

I'm not. I'm sorry if I've given that impression. Since we got that big mess of a Ukraine misunderstanding sorted out, I think things have been fine between us .

Best, Lief

[Butterbeer]

aye ...hadn't even remembered that till ya said just now. .. (no problem anyway we shook like Gents and all is good my friend -

- actually i was thinking of another forum ...

how was France?

best wishes, whatever, BB

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

aye ...hadn't even remembered that till ya said just now. .. (no problem anyway we shook like Gents and all is good my friend -

- actually i was thinking of another forum ...

Oh. Well, you'd have to remind me . I don't recall.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

how was France?

Very, very interesting for me. I got to see multiple sides of the country, the ups and the downs, the wonderful things and the horrible, in my time there. To me, getting a view of the country that wasn't one-sided was the best thing. I had formed my views about the country from news articles and my parents' experiences before going, but when I arrived, I was able to see all the different sides of the story with my own eyes. That was really pleasant.

~Lief

[Butterbeer]

Good.


and what were, in relection, your thoughts?

[Lief Erikson]

I'm going to respond to your question over PM, since this isn't a very good thread to do it in.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Oh. Well, you'd have to remind me . I don't recall.

Very, very interesting for me. I got to see multiple sides of the country, the ups and the downs, the wonderful things and the horrible, in my time there. To me, getting a view of the country that wasn't one-sided was the best thing. I had formed my views about the country from news articles and my parents' experiences before going, but when I arrived, I was able to see all the different sides of the story with my own eyes. That was really pleasant.

~Lief

Oo, Lief, you simply MUST tell me more. You went to France?

(See you in my PM box, or over e-mail )

[Lief Erikson]

Here ya go! *Sends the PM off.*

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What I have to say on that is thanks for posting it, Nurvi . It confirms too what I learned from Wikipedia about the state of the child after first Trimester. Definitely not just a "ball of cells." It has all the major organs and is a very recognizable human. I saw a picture of a fetus on the Wikipedia site, which is why I say that. It's incredible how fast that child develops!

Heya Lief, PM me about France too!

I agree that the development of a human being is very interesting. IIRC from my own link, the embryo becomes a fetus at nine weeks. It basically looks like an inch-long baby with a giant head (relatively speaking, I mean ), but I do not believe the fetus has organs at this point. I thought they develop in the second trimester.

I have two conflicting thoughts in my head about abortion.

1. I have heard very convincing and well-thought out arguments against abortion, mainly from a buddy of mine from university residence who also happened to be a devout Catholic and very strongly anti-abortion.

Also, I believe that adoption is a very positive and wonderful thing, and I wish that adoption agencies got more support from our government and our society.

2. I believe that until the moment of its birth a fetus is part of a woman's body, and if she feels she cannot provide a nurturing home for it, she has the right to abort it. (That being said, I only think third trimester abortions should be performed if the birth of the baby would result in the mother's death.) I think the fetus is a thinking, feeling human being, that the mother should be allowed to abort if absolutely necessary.

So basically, I think abortions should be allowed, alternative choices should be made available (as abortions also should be), and I respect the opinion of anti-abortionists even when words like "genocide" and "murder" enter into the fray.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Nurvi,
Do you think that, in a case of conjoined twins where most of the organs are in the body of one twin, the organ-deprived one should be considered a "part of the body" of the former, and thus expendable at his/her whim?

Also, since you say that

the mother should be allowed to abort if absolutely necessary

, do you think that the availability of abortion should be more limited than it is now?

If you think the fetus is a thinking, feeling human being, why do you think its life is less important than that of the mother?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Heya Lief, PM me about France too!

Will do .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree that the development of a human being is very interesting. IIRC from my own link, the embryo becomes a fetus at nine weeks. It basically looks like an inch-long baby with a giant head (relatively speaking, I mean ), but I do not believe the fetus has organs at this point. I thought they develop in the second trimester.

Well, according to the site you linked, they develop in the first trimester. Here's what it said, exactly:

The third through eighth weeks of growth are called the embryonic stage, during which the embryo develops most major body organs.

I also have a few questions relating to the rest of your post, just as Gwaimir does.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

2. I believe that until the moment of its birth a fetus is part of a woman's body, and if she feels she cannot provide a nurturing home for it, she has the right to abort it.

The way in which a fetus is part of the woman's body is that it is attached by an umbilical cord, a biological mechanism to provide nutrients, blood and fluids for the child to survive. So she is only attached to the child by this biological life-support mechanism. That is the way in which the child is "part" of the mother's body. How does the fact that the child is attached to her by a biological life support mechanism mean that she has the right to kill it? Especially as you have already agreed that this child is a "thinking, feeling human being"?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

(That being said, I only think third trimester abortions should be performed if the birth of the baby would result in the mother's death.)

Why is it that you would draw the line at the third trimester?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

So basically, I think abortions should be allowed, alternative choices should be made available (as abortions also should be), and I respect the opinion of anti-abortionists even when words like "genocide" and "murder" enter into the fray.

I believe that abortion is genocide taking place on an unbelievable scale, one of the most heinous atrocities of the 20th and 21st centuries.

At the same time, I also understand that many of the people committing this crime and supporting the pro-choice movement don't believe they are committing murder at all. In my view, this to some extent lessens their guilt.

[Butterbeer]

(momentarily off-topic post ...)

For anyone interested in hearing about Lief's trip and thoughts on France, i can say they come highly recommended!!

"..it's a sizzler! " (the BB times)

"A triumph! " (BB today)

"A likely winner of Travel PM of the year" (BB at 11 show on radio 4)

.....................

Don't delay - PM him Today!! !

..er. me pm box is full again Lief but i will get a reply to you before many mooms have passed!

best BB


( /end of tiny off topicness)

so, yeah -abortion, wouldn't like to have to make that choice myself - must be one of the hardest ever choices huh?

you gotta feel for anyone who can't decide - knowing the decision will be with you always.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Nurvi,
Do you think that, in a case of conjoined twins where most of the organs are in the body of one twin, the organ-deprived one should be considered a "part of the body" of the former, and thus expendable at his/her whim?

I think this is entirely different than abortion. Neither twin can live without the other, AFAIK. If the twin without the liver in his body died, the other twin would die too. And no, I wouldn't think he was expendable regardless. I don't think fetuses are expendable either.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Also, since you say that , do you think that the availability of abortion should be more limited than it is now?

I don't think abortion needs to be more limited, but I do think adoption should get more support from society.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

If you think the fetus is a thinking, feeling human being, why do you think its life is less important than that of the mother?

Its life is not less important than the mother's, but the mother has the capability to make rational decisions and act on them, while the fetus does not.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, according to the site you linked, they develop in the first trimester. Here's what it said, exactly:

Ah, right. Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The way in which a fetus is part of the woman's body is that it is attached by an umbilical cord, a biological mechanism to provide nutrients, blood and fluids for the child to survive. So she is only attached to the child by this biological life-support mechanism. That is the way in which the child is "part" of the mother's body. How does the fact that the child is attached to her by a biological life support mechanism mean that she has the right to kill it? Especially as you have already agreed that this child is a "thinking, feeling human being"?

I do think said life-support mechanism gives the right for the mother to kill the fetus. While a fetus has thoughts and can feel pain, like I said to Gwaimir, it cannot make rational decisions. Thus the mother can decide if she can give it a good life or not, and whether it should get born or not.

Yeah... abortion isn't exactly fun, but there it is.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I believe that abortion is genocide taking place on an unbelievable scale, one of the most heinous atrocities of the 20th and 21st centuries.

At the same time, I also understand that many of the people committing this crime and supporting the pro-choice movement don't believe they are committing murder at all. In my view, this to some extent lessens their guilt.

I respect your position here. Obviously if I thought abortion was murder I would oppose it whole-heartedly.

I think this is the dividing point of the abortion debate. What you said is the foundation of anti-abortion beliefs. What I said (about the woman having the right to make the decision) is the foundation of pro-choice beliefs. These two views are completely opposite and can never reconcile.

I think that we can agree to disagree here. I respect what you and Gwaimir are saying. Clearly you've put a lot of thought into the issue.

To tell you the truth, if five minutes from now you turned around and said, "You know what, abortion isn't murder, it's actually okay," I'd think you were barking.

[Butterbeer]

is it a full moon?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think this is entirely different than abortion. Neither twin can live without the other, AFAIK. If the twin without the liver in his body died, the other twin would die too. And no, I wouldn't think he was expendable regardless. I don't think fetuses are expendable either.

No, often one twin is strongly underdeveloped, as regards organs, and the other has enough to live by his/her own, if they are separated early enough, maybe even a ways into maturity, though I'm not sure about that. Not always, but it's relatively common (as conjoined twins go). In such an instance, would you say that.

Well, as you don't think abortion needs to be more limited, it seems that you do think fetuses should be expendable, as that is largely the present situation. But see below for the resolution of this.

I don't think abortion needs to be more limited, but I do think adoption should get more support from society.

Hmm...I'm confused. As abortion is basically available in much of the developed world for any reason, and you don't think it needs to be more limited, you think that abortion should be available for any reason.

However, you said before:

that the mother should be allowed to abort if absolutely necessary.

Now, true, these statements are not strictly speaking contradictory, but the normal inferral of the latter statement is that the mother be should be allowed to abort ONLY if absolutely necessary. Which is very much contradictory to "I don't think abortion needs to be more limited". So, what is the resolution of this conundrum?

Its life is not less important than the mother's, but the mother has the capability to make rational decisions and act on them, while the fetus does not.

I do think said life-support mechanism gives the right for the mother to kill the fetus. While a fetus has thoughts and can feel pain, like I said to Gwaimir, it cannot make rational decisions. Thus the mother can decide if she can give it a good life or not, and whether it should get born or not.

Yes, we all agree she can. The question is, should she? Is the power of life and death something that belongs to men? I say no. What right do you, or I have, or does anyone else have, to decide who should live and who should die. I mean, really this is SOME MAJORLY SERIOUS FRICKIN' SCHEIßE we are talking about here. Whose mind, really, has what it needs to weigh life and death, to determine who lives and who dies? I know mine sure as hell doesn't. This is something way too big, I think, to put in the hands of human beings.

I think this is the dividing point of the abortion debate. What you said is the foundation of anti-abortion beliefs. What I said (about the woman having the right to make the decision) is the foundation of pro-choice beliefs. These two views are completely opposite and can never reconcile.

I think that we can agree to disagree here. I respect what you and Gwaimir are saying. Clearly you've put a lot of thought into the issue.

To tell you the truth, if five minutes from now you turned around and said, "You know what, abortion isn't murder, it's actually okay," I'd think you were barking. [/QUOTE]

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I do think said life-support mechanism gives the right for the mother to kill the fetus. While a fetus has thoughts and can feel pain, like I said to Gwaimir, it cannot make rational decisions. Thus the mother can decide if she can give it a good life or not, and whether it should get born or not.

Yeah... abortion isn't exactly fun, but there it is.

I find the idea fiendish, I'm afraid. The idea that I could be born into the world, a thinking, feeling human being, immersed in the comfort, warmth and protection of the womb, and then be just snuffed out because my mother doesn't want to accept the burden of taking care of me . . .

I find this a horrific scenario. Not a mother's right, but simple evil.

What if the killed fetus was you? A human being, though small and still simplistic in many ways, but with all the major organs. A little person with toes and fingers and a big head. The notion of being him or her and being killed like that is very scary.

I'm not talking about embryonic abortion here, though really, that stage just lasts for the first couple months. For that too, I don't think we have any right to decide for this little human that it wouldn't live a good enough life or we don't want to take care of it.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I respect your position here. Obviously if I thought abortion was murder I would oppose it whole-heartedly.

I sincerely wish I could respect yours. However, if you do believe the fetus is a thinking, feeling human being, as I do, then I can't see how it isn't obvious to you that the killing is murder.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think this is the dividing point of the abortion debate. What you said is the foundation of anti-abortion beliefs. What I said (about the woman having the right to make the decision) is the foundation of pro-choice beliefs. These two views are completely opposite and can never reconcile.

None of us would ever dream of just snuffing out a baby that's on life support when it's outside the womb and we can see it with our own eyes or have to do it with our own hands. The whole thing just makes me cringe. It's just shocking what our society feels no moral compunction about doing.

Many of the people I've met, like you, think that the child is a real thinking, feeling human being. Insidious Rex is the only pro-choice person I've debated with here who doesn't think so, and so he's the only one here whose opposite opinion on this I can have any respect for. For those people who realize what they're doing and do it anyway, it's just murder.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

To tell you the truth, if five minutes from now you turned around and said, "You know what, abortion isn't murder, it's actually okay," I'd think you were barking.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

is it a full moon?

Lol!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm not talking about embryonic abortion here, though really, that stage just lasts for the first couple months. For that too, I don't think we have any right to decide for this little human that it wouldn't live a good enough life or we don't want to take care of it.

I think my answer here will deal with one of Gwaimir's questions as well.

The mother does have the right because she has to make this decision.

The fetus is a thinking, feeling human being because its brain is operational and it is a homo sapiens sapiens. We can acknowledge these scientific facts without then agreeing that abortion is murder. Ultimately, the fetus is part of the mother's body, and she not only has the right, but the obligation to make decisions about her body.

The mother has to decide that if the baby is born, can she really give it life? Can she provide for it and see it to adulthood? Not everyone has these resources.

Earlier when I said that abortions should be for when its absolutely necessary, what I was being unclear about is I believe if someone is going to have an abortion, it is absolutely necessary. People don't have this incredibly painful (emotionally and physically) unless to them, it is necessary. That's what I meant, but I didn't phrase it well.

I feel that your position is overly simplistic. I wish that we could eliminate abortions altogether by having ample resources available for all unwanted pregnancies, but as it stands our society is very far from this position.

[Finrod Felagund]

Just an interesting little story I found.


A professor at the UCLA Medical School presented the following case history to his students: A woman who suffers from tuberculosis is pregnant. Her husband has syphilis. There are three children in the family. One is blind, another deaf, and the other suffers tuberculosis. Yet, another child died in infancy. Under the circumstances, most of the students recommended an abortion. They were then informed by their Professor: "Congratulations, you've just killed Beethoven !"

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think my answer here will deal with one of Gwaimir's questions as well.

The mother does have the right because she has to make this decision.

The fetus is a thinking, feeling human being because its brain is operational and it is a homo sapiens sapiens. We can acknowledge these scientific facts without then agreeing that abortion is murder. Ultimately, the fetus is part of the mother's body, and she not only has the right, but the obligation to make decisions about her body.

It is a part of the mother's body only because of a piece of biological material that gives it nutrients. She's just feeding it; it has its own identity and personhood already, its own thoughts and feelings that are separate and distinguishable from the mother's. Therefore it should have its own rights, as well. The umbilical cord is just life support, Nurvi! Does the mother know what her baby is thinking at any given moment? No! It is its own distinct person. All she's doing is feeding it and providing it with blood and fluids it needs to survive. But as it has its own identity already that is separate and distinguishable from hers, it should be viewed as an individual and should have its own rights. The biological cord by which she feeds it and by which she is united with it is just a life support mechanism. She is making decisions not for her body only, but for someone else's body. And when she by sparing herself the experience of having a child, she prevents the child from ever experiencing life outside of the womb. That is murder for the sake of convenience.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The mother has to decide that if the baby is born, can she really give it life? Can she provide for it and see it to adulthood? Not everyone has these resources.

There is the option of raising an impoverished child. That is certainly better than killing your child.

Should we make it legal for mothers to kill their five or six year old children, if they don't feel they can give them good lives? If your answer is no (as I know it is), then tell me why not?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Earlier when I said that abortions should be for when its absolutely necessary, what I was being unclear about is I believe if someone is going to have an abortion, it is absolutely necessary. People don't have this incredibly painful (emotionally and physically) unless to them, it is necessary. That's what I meant, but I didn't phrase it well.

I know that to them, it is often necessary. Necessary for the parents to maintain their present lifestyle. It can avoid damage to family relations, and damage to friendships. Economic and social factors both are involved. People don't want to have to deal with paying for having a child. Single mothers have very, very hard lives. That's all just convenience though, Nurvi, not necessity. Our country's laws do not say murder is justified when it is committed to maintain one's lifestyle. Our laws are such because we believe that that is simply immoral. If someone is crushing someone else's business and driving the person into poverty, this is never seen as a justification for murder. If someone is gossiping about someone else and tearing apart their social lives, that is not a justification for murder.

I know that your response will be that this is not murder, but I'm simply explaining that the justification for killing that has been presented is insufficient, when one considers this person as being a thinking, feeling human being.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I feel that your position is overly simplistic. I wish that we could eliminate abortions altogether by having ample resources available for all unwanted pregnancies, but as it stands our society is very far from this position.

Better to go into a huge economic decline than to be responsible for genocide.

Originally Posted by Finrod Felagund

Just an interesting little story I found.

Very valid, Finrod. The professor makes a very sound point.

When the child is in the womb, I believe that many people feel less responsible because they don't actually see what they're doing with their own eyes. If they had the little child in front of them and had to do it themselves, most people would not. It's an invisible generation as well as a silent one that is being wiped out.