Abortion.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's just like a mechanical construct, except made out of biological material instead of plastic material, or rubber rubber or metal. Either way, it's just a mechanism. If I'm on a mechanical life-support mechanism, I'm still my own person. Being on a machine doesn't make me a non-person. The same is true with a child in the womb. Being on a biological machine doesn't make me a non-person. It's two people attached to one another, not one person with an odd growth .

Perhaps a better approach would be, *turns to Nurvingiel*, to ask why it is that you believe being in another person's body, in the way that the infant is, makes one not a person. Do you define personhood as self-sufficiency?

I see a lot of assertion without very much explanation. Perhaps we can try to focus on the latter?

[Rían]

*jumps in out of the blue*

And also, the natural progression for a baby in the womb is to be born; the natural progression of a spleen is to stay inside.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

*jumps in out of the blue*

And also, the natural progression for a baby in the womb is to be born; the natural progression of a spleen is to stay inside.

Bravo! The much needed final touch ....Couldn't have said it better myself...which is why I don't

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

*jumps in out of the blue*

It's very good to see you here again!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Huzzah! Rian returns! Time for a cuppa!

*cheer*

[Rían]

thanks, guys! *blush*

I should be back here more in a few weeks - September is always super-hectic with our school's candy-sale fundraiser, where I'm in charge of all computery-stuff (since I wrote the program!)

And we were camping almost all of August, too!

*waves to Nurvaroo*

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

*jumps in out of the blue*

And also, the natural progression for a baby in the womb is to be born; the natural progression of a spleen is to stay inside.

*glomps RÃ*an*

I'm not saying an abortion is natural, any more than an operation on the spleen is natural. What I am saying is it isn't wrong.

As for why being inside the womb makes a foetus not a person, well, because being part of someone's body means you aren't your own entity. There isn't much explanation beyond that.

I know you guys think it sucks, but what do you want from me here?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

As for why being inside the womb makes a foetus not a person, well, because being part of someone's body means you aren't your own entity. There isn't much explanation beyond that.

Why can't you be both part of someone else's body and your own entity?

For you know, the mother doesn't determine the baby's thoughts or feelings. She doesn't control its mind. Her thoughts aren't its thoughts. Thus it is itself, its own distinct person, even if it is a part of the mother.

I think I'm a broken record, though. Maybe I'll just lay off for a while and dwell on all this until either I think of something else or somebody here sparks another response. Probably that'll be pretty soon .

One thing I'm glad about, as always, is that being on this thread has increased my knowledge of the issue and of what's at stake. I'm very, very grateful for these debate threads again, because of the thoughts other people offer on these issues and what they teach me. So thanks everyone, very much, for feeling free to be here and argue and discuss.

I'll probably end my little vacation from the thread in a few minutes.

[Rían]

This has probably been brought up, but what do you think of partial birth abortion, Nurv?

*too lazy to page back through the thread*

(you can refer me to a post, if you want to)

[Nurvingiel]

I don't have a response Lief - I think we're both sounding like broken records on that point!

I have to read about partial birth abortion before I'll have an opinion on it. I'm reading this website.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

*glomps RÃ*an*

I'm not saying an abortion is natural, any more than an operation on the spleen is natural. What I am saying is it isn't wrong.

As for why being inside the womb makes a foetus not a person, well, because being part of someone's body means you aren't your own entity. There isn't much explanation beyond that.

I know you guys think it sucks, but what do you want from me here?

How about an exposition on why being in the womb means being part of someone else's body, and only part of someone else's body, especially at a stage where one has one's own organs functioning independently of the organs of the host organism.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Then you are saying that we have the right to kill humans who we perceive to be less developed than ourselves, and we have the right to decide where to draw that line.

We have the right to allow an abortion if the "life" in question is under a certain threshold of development. Otherwise as the song goes you have to conclude that evey sperm is sacred...

The argument that allowing the abortion of a 2 week old fetus is equivelent of allowing the killing of a retarded person is ridiculous really. They are quantum levels of difference and most importantly there is not a third party involved that will be held hostage by lack of being able to make that choice. Namely the mother.

Then the racists are justified. They judge people of other ethnic groups to be less developed than they are

Lief this is a highly disingenous argument. Clearly people of ALL races are developed enough to have the ability to have cognition and self recognition and sentience. Want to compare the nervous system of a 30 year old of any race and that of a 2 week old fetus? This is just silly.

You also say that they have the right to draw that line, killing people who we think are inferior.

Again this is a disingenuous argument to make. We kill people in war because we have decided its to our best interest. We kill people who have been convicted of a capital crime. And these are adults! It has nothing to do with inferiority and I never used that word so dont try to make my point of view out to be that when its not. The key point here is that a host is always involved in a pregnancy. I dare say if a host wasnt required to create a new human, abortion would not be an issue at all.

Your statement about connection with the mother is just absurd. I can't understand why this biological life support mechanism means the mother has the right to kill her child. It doesn't make the slightest bit of logical sense.

Of course it does. By all definitions you realize a human fetus acts EXACTLY as a parasite to the mother. Now most pregnancies are planned and desired so this relationship isnt a problem for the mother. She is happy to allow the developing entity within her to continue to develop and use her to sustain its life. At some point during the pregnancy the argument can be made that the fetus can be removed and kept alive without the bodily support of the mother. Generally thats into the third trimester although a few have survived earlier. And so thats largely why thats where we tend to draw the line for abortion. Now if we get to the point in our technology where we can extract the ball of cells that will become the living human being and allow it to develop outside the womb and outside the host human (and likely not at the millions of dollars it would cost now even if possible) then I think you will see abortion fade as an option. But until then you cant hold the mother hostage at the expense of the undeveloped entity inside of her. She has to have the ultimate right to make that choice about that parasitic entity. Not anyone else.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We have the right to allow an abortion if the "life" in question is under a certain threshold of development.

Exactly. That is, "saying that we have the right to kill humans who we perceive to be less developed than ourselves, and we have the right to decide where to draw that line." You're just rephrasing what I said.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The argument that allowing the abortion of a 2 week old fetus is equivelent of allowing the killing of a retarded person is ridiculous really. They are quantum levels of difference and most importantly there is not a third party involved that will be held hostage by lack of being able to make that choice. Namely the mother.

The same reasoning goes to justify both. Hitler believed that retarded people were biologically underdeveloped, and thus he had the right to kill them. You just draw that line in a different place than he does. You base your beliefs on a scientific criteria, and his anti-Semitism used scientific data as well, though granted, highly skewed data. I think much of modern data regarding abortion is skewed also, because we want to be politically correct and inoffensive to others. But even modern scientific data shows confirms that by the end of the first trimester, the foetus already has all its major organs. So it is clear (to me) that by that time, abortion plainly is the killing of a developed child. Before that time, the major organs are developing and some have already developed. It is impossible to really say when, during this time, the foetus should no longer be considered a mass of cells, but should instead be considered a child. The foetus is an already living human who is developing the major organs. Thus it is difficult to say.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Lief this is a highly disingenous argument. Clearly people of ALL races are developed enough to have the ability to have cognition and self recognition and sentience. Want to compare the nervous system of a 30 year old of any race and that of a 2 week old fetus? This is just silly.

As I said before, what you are saying justifies Hitler and racists. They believed, and had various evidence (that we all disagree with) to support their views, that other humans were less developed and that they had the right to exterminate them as a consequence. They believed that they had the right to decide when the person was underdeveloped enough to be killed or treated in harsh ways. They made their judgments based on biology differences between themselves and those other people, just as you are. They believed that they had the right to kill people who they believed were biologically less developed. So do you. To the best of their understanding, the Jews or women or blacks or homosexuals or the disabled or other were less developed than they were, and thus could be ethically killed or treated more harshly than more developed people.

To the best of your understanding, foetuses are less developed than we are, and consequentlly can be ethically killed. Even though you believe your scientific criteria justify it and their evidence and (in hindsight) flawed science did not, you still justify their actions because you accept the same premise that they did. The less developed can be ethically killed based on their biology. The only disagreement you'd have with them is the technical one that their evidence or criteria were wrong, NOT that it is immoral to kill people who you believe to be less developed than yourself, based upon your perception of their biology.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Again this is a disingenuous argument to make. We kill people in war because we have decided its to our best interest. We kill people who have been convicted of a capital crime. And these are adults!

With these cases, we do all we can to prevent the innocent from dying. With abortion, we most certainly do not. Thus they are apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

It has nothing to do with inferiority and I never used that word so dont try to make my point of view out to be that when its not.

I apologize. For me, "inferiority" and "underdeveloped," are equivalent terms in this debate. As you don't think so, I'm simply using the "underdeveloped" word, and am using that alone. Racists and misogynists have often believed those they oppress or kill to be less developed than they are, which is why they feel justified in abusing them.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The key point here is that a host is always involved in a pregnancy. I dare say if a host wasnt required to create a new human, abortion would not be an issue at all.

Sure. Because people people will kill life to protect lifestyle. Do you think you are justified in killing someone off in order to avoid poverty?

I anticipate that your answer is no and that your response will be an excuse about the level of development of the foetus that would be killed (I might be wrong). But again, about that level of development, at the end of the first trimester, it has all the major organs. And before then, who are we to judge where the line between life and a mass of cells is? And again, this kind of judgment is the same that the Nazis made. They just drew the line in a different place than you would, at a place at which from their perspective, with their best judgment of the evidence available to them, they believed it should be drawn. Just as from your perspective, with your best judgment of the evidence available to you, you draw the line where you believe it should be drawn. Thus they are justified in acting as they did- you just disagree with their scientific evidence and the other anti-Semitic evidence they believed in. Hindsight is always 20/20. So your problem with them (logically) is based upon technicalities and not ethics. Ethically they weren't off track, but only technically.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Of course it does. By all definitions you realize a human fetus acts EXACTLY as a parasite to the mother. Now most pregnancies are planned and desired so this relationship isnt a problem for the mother. She is happy to allow the developing entity within her to continue to develop and use her to sustain its life. At some point during the pregnancy the argument can be made that the fetus can be removed and kept alive without the bodily support of the mother. Generally thats into the third trimester although a few have survived earlier. And so thats largely why thats where we tend to draw the line for abortion. Now if we get to the point in our technology where we can extract the ball of cells that will become the living human being and allow it to develop outside the womb and outside the host human (and likely not at the millions of dollars it would cost now even if possible) then I think you will see abortion fade as an option. But until then you cant hold the mother hostage at the expense of the undeveloped entity inside of her. She has to have the ultimate right to make that choice about that parasitic entity. Not anyone else.

Now you're freaking me out. Here's a direct quote from Adolf Hitler about the Jews: "[They are the] parasite on the body of the people."

Mentally and biologically, humans are far more than parasites. They should not be compared to parasites.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

She has to have the ultimate right to make that choice about that parasitic entity. Not anyone else.

Having had 3 kids, I must remark that they are EXTREMELY parasitic until at LEAST age 18 so why draw the line at killing them when they're in the womb? Seriously! Why?

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Mentally and biologically, humans are far more than parasites. They should not be compared to parasites.

Sorry, I just happened to see this.. How are humans more than parasites, biologically?

Parasite: an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
Doesn't that sound just like a kid?

[Lief Erikson]

The scientific definition of a parasite that you and Insidious have referred to is an accurate description of the human foetus. But it is wrong to treat humans as parasites because we are far more physically and mentally sophisticated than they are. Humans behave like various kinds of creatures at times, but treating them like we would insects would be morally reprehensible.

Since we don't know when, in a first trimester child, it should no longer be considered a lump of cells but in fact a life of its own and clearly human, we shouldn't try drawing this artificial line at all as to when it is a child and when it is not. Else we are taking terrible risks.

The child is very plainly a child by the end of the first trimester (it has all the major organs), and before then we just don't know when or where to draw the line. It's all artificial, anyway. What right do humans have to draw that line as to when one person can be killed based on their state of development? We just are not in a position to make that call.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We have the right to allow an abortion if the "life" in question is under a certain threshold of development. Otherwise as the song goes you have to conclude that evey sperm is sacred...

Not so.

Of course it does. By all definitions you realize a human fetus acts EXACTLY as a parasite to the mother.

Except that a parasite often literally eats its way out of the host, and it usually either attaches itself there, or is implanted there, rather than being first generated there.

Nerd, isn't there something about self-propogation that makes it contributing to the survival of the host? True, not to his or her biological survival, but it does give the line a better chance of surviving.

EDIT: Anyway, I take it this means "No, we shan't give accounts for what we say, and just continue to use premises which are clearly opposed to the view of the other side"? Because if it does, then there is absolutely no use in continuing this discussion. Until we join at common ground and work from there, there is really not the least chance of progress.

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

Sorry, I just happened to see this.. How are humans more than parasites, biologically?

Parasite: an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
Doesn't that sound just like a kid?

That's not the way I learned "parasite"...IIRC, a parasite was defined as something that harmed the host.

[Jonathan]

About the parasite issue - any doctor or person with medical expertise would tell you that a human fetus is a parasite. It lives off its mother's oxygen, her nutrients, her everything. Few diseases give you as many symptoms as a pregnancy does (nausea, mood swings, aches, indigestion, swelling and at least like 20 or so more symptoms). Carrying a baby in the womb does indeed harm to the mother's body. So Curubethion, both Nerdanel's and your definitions of a parasite fits.

Now, I think it's silly that some of you are offended by the idea that a fetus acts like a parasite. It isn't exactly an argument for abortion and it's silly to fight the idea like you would fight other pro-choice arguments.

No matter if a fetus is a parasite or a being living in mutually beneficial symbiosis with the mother, I don't think it contributes much at all to helping us to decide whether abortion is right or wrong. The only thing is, that if the fetus acts as a parasite, the mother would be more likely to want an abortion than otherwise. But the moral questions still stand.

Originally Posted by IRex

By all definitions you realize a human fetus acts EXACTLY as a parasite to the mother.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Now you're freaking me out. Here's a direct quote from Adolf Hitler about the Jews: "[They are the] parasite on the body of the people."

Mentally and biologically, humans are far more than parasites. They should not be compared to parasites.

Lief, you're actually freaking me out now. I think you really deserve some criticism here.
It seems like you really make an effort to read things into IRex's post that aren't there. He said a fetus acts like a parasite. He certainly didn't say or even made the slightest hint along the lines that since fetuses are parasites, they are of an evil nature and should therefore be removed. That's not the reason why he's pro-choice. Still your post make it seem that is how you want to interpet him. You're making comparisons to what Hitler said about the Jews, which is just absurd!

Please, read and reply to people's posts with an open mind! It's crucial in a debate I think. Right now, with the arguments I've seen you use in your latest posts, it's hard for me to take you seriously.

Sorry if I seem harsh on you. You're an intelligent person and I'd love to see you write intelligent and open-minded posts.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Except that a parasite often literally eats its way out of the host, and it usually either attaches itself there, or is implanted there, rather than being first generated there.

Apart from how it gets in or out, the fetus still acts like a parasite inside the womb
There are many types of parasites and those you're describing sound like insects or something.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

No matter if a fetus is a parasite or a being living in mutually beneficial symbiosis with the mother, I don't think it contributes much at all to helping us to decide whether abortion is right or wrong. The only thing is, that if the fetus acts as a parasite, the mother would be more likely to want an abortion than otherwise. But the moral questions still stand.

I completely agree.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

It seems like you really make an effort to read things into IRex's post that aren't there. He said a fetus acts like a parasite. He certainly didn't say or even made the slightest hint along the lines that since fetuses are parasites, they are of an evil nature and should therefore be removed. That's not the reason why he's pro-choice. Still your post make it seem that is how you want to interpet him. You're making comparisons to what Hitler said about the Jews, which is just absurd!

Remember that I said this:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I can't understand why this biological life support mechanism means the mother has the right to kill her child. It doesn't make the slightest bit of logical sense.

To which Insidious responded this:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Of course it does. By all definitions you realize a human fetus acts EXACTLY as a parasite to the mother. Now most pregnancies are planned and desired so this relationship isnt a problem for the mother.

His statement comparing the foetus to a parasite was in direct response to my statement that there is no sense in the argument that a biological life support system gives the mother the right to kill her child. Because of this, I have interpreted what he is saying as the following: Since the foetus acts like a parasite, the mother can ethically treat it like we'd treat a parasite. Not that she should treat it in that way, but that she ethically can.

Thus Insidious doesn't go as far as Hitler did, but in my opinion, the reasoning and claim still are parallel to his. Hitler also believed that we ethically could get rid of the Jews because, in his opinion, they acted like a parasite. But you're quite right that, unlike IR, Hitler went a significant step further and said we should. And Hitler believed his whole society was at stake, being held hostage and depending on his action.

In my mind, that difference between saying we can and saying we should isn't all that big an issue. To me, that's like debating the difference between a fatwa that only says killing Americans is ethically acceptable and one that says we actually should be killing Americans. :/

If Insidious agreed with you, Jonathan, (and me) that the fact that the foetus acts like a parasite is irrelevant to the moral issue, then why would he even have brought that comparison into the debate? And particularly why would he have responded with that to my statement about what was morally right?

But I'll leave that question for him to answer, when he comes back and makes clear whether I'm correct in my interpretation of what he was saying or not.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Please, read and reply to people's posts with an open mind! It's crucial in a debate I think. Right now, with the arguments I've seen you use in your latest posts, it's hard for me to take you seriously.

I assure you, I've been feeling the same way about the pro-choice arguments I've seen here all along. When people argue that because you're on a biological life support mechanism rather than a mechanical life support system your mother is justified in killing you, that's just nuts. And when they say that being inside the womb is different from being outside the womb, and hence due simply to your location you can be justly killed, I say that's just nuts! And the same when I think that someone is saying that the child behaves like a parasite and hence can be treated like a parasite. To me, that's just nuts.

Like you, I'm sorry if I'm perceived as being harsh here.