Abortion II

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I'm thinking more specifically about the way that sis has consistently dismissed anything said by Lief or myself on the matter on the grounds that we're men. Now she seems to have taken it the next level by making insinuations of misogyny. So, anything I say about it is, in her eyes, null and void (though apparently, the fact that IR is a male does not invalidate his opinion, for some reason), and will do no good. However, it appears that it can do harm, leading to accusations of a cruel nature which run contrary to all my opinion and sentiment. Therefore, it's best just not to engage sis.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Put aside your thoughts about "babies" for a second and consider the following:

That is asking us to put aside the reason why we object to abortion. Of course if it was some other animal, a non-human, an insect or some kind of foreign creature, it wouldn't be immoral to destroy it when it was doing to you what you've described. It should, in that case, be the right of the person so infested to decide.

A fetus is a human, however. That radically alters the ethics of the situation, for to save temporary discomfort and pain (and possibly economic and social disadvantage) you're killing another human.

[Coffeehouse]

Well let's take this to the next level then and say that if indeed these fetuses are humans than God is indeed a cruel, cruel being, letting hundreds of thousands of souls (i.e. fetuses being human beings..) perish beneath the sky. What kind of God is that who loves us all equally? Why does the body of this so-called human being resemble more the body of a relatively equally developed chicken fetus? Or the fetus of a chimpanzee? Doesn't it ring a bell? It astonishes me.. truly.. that this does not ring a thousand bells.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm thinking more specifically about the way that sis has consistently dismissed anything said by Lief or myself on the matter on the grounds that we're men. Now she seems to have taken it the next level by making insinuations of misogyny. So, anything I say about it is, in her eyes, null and void (though apparently, the fact that IR is a male does not invalidate his opinion, for some reason), and will do no good. However, it appears that it can do harm, leading to accusations of a cruel nature which run contrary to all my opinion and sentiment. Therefore, it's best just not to engage sis.

GWAI I haven't dismissed anything you've said because you're men. But of all the posters regularly in this conversation, I am the ONLY one who is directly affected by it. I think that counts for something. You have a notion about the nature of pregnancy, and I have direct experience.

Now, bringing that up has led Lief, again, to impugn my honesty. You haven't exactly leapt to my defense there, Dude. I addressed my remark to you in an entirely different typeface, to indicate that you were NOT being "ipso facto discredited." So I think your withdrawl on the basis of 'Sis is too mean to talk to." is a little odd.

I'm a vegetarian, as it happens. I take life seriously enough that I don't even eat shellfish. So when I say "People take life all the time" I'm not just being cute, I'm really looking at how people establish their lines, because everyone draws them.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You seemed to several times do so throughout the thread, when you would respond to us with words to the effect of "No one who hasn't been through pregnancy (and most of you never will) really knows what is going on here".

Now, bringing that up has led Lief, again, to impugn my honesty. You haven't exactly leapt to my defense there, Dude.

Did it? I must have missed that.

I addressed my remark to you in an entirely different typeface, to indicate that you were NOT being "ipso facto discredited."

...Ah, yeah...missed that...sorry. I need a break. Sorry, I tend to be a bit over-sensitive when I think I'm read to be pretty much the exact opposite of what I am. Pax?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

PAX.

It's a very difficult discussion to have, because people DO come at it from such different perspectives and life experiences.

[inked]

SACA, YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE DIRECTLY AFFECTED by PREGNANCY, alas. There is the sperm donor, the zygote to embryo to fetus to infant person, the hospital staff if you deliver (or miscarry), the physician(s) and/or midwife, etc, in fact, the whole society. No one else experiences with quite the same biological intimacy as you do, true. But that's a biological reality - carved in DNA and tissue beyond all remediation.

That biological intimacy does not divorce you from all considerations by others. It is not a license for actions consequential to previous choices to contracept or not or to engage in sexual relations (or artificial insemination or in vitro procedures) with the full knowledge that such sexual congress could result in PREGNANCY despite all precautions against.

By the by, on the issue of tissue. It it's a baby elephant, whale, seal, bovine, canine, or feline from the moment of conception and whilest visualized on sonograms on nature programs, how is it that when it's a human its not from the moment of conception onward?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, I wouldn't say it was a "baby elephant on sonogram' or whatever. I would say it was potentially.

And, while my retirement benefits (and health care, quality of life, etc.) will depend partially on people choosing to have big industrious, well-educated families who see it as their first task to take care of me and nurture my crotchets, I don't, therefore, think it is the job of government to force them to do so. If they choose to be ignorant layabouts, well, such is life. Therefore, the vast web of folk who might like to make a buck off my pregnancy will have to train for something else, if the female portion of the population fail to keep them in enough work.

I kinda doubt that will happen, though. Breeding is a very worthwhile activity, even done by choice.

[Curufin]

That is asking us to put aside the reason why we object to abortion. Of course if it was some other animal, a non-human, an insect or some kind of foreign creature, it wouldn't be immoral to destroy it when it was doing to you what you've described. It should, in that case, be the right of the person so infested to decide.

Why? Why should respect for life apply only to humans?

[Thain Peregrin Took I]

The fetus is a person at conception. If this isn't true, then when does he or she become a person? After 9 months? Are premies not people because they're less developed? Are mentally disabled people not people?

When a person kills a pregnant woman, they're charged with two murders. So the law obviously agrees that a baby is alive enough to be murdered. And yet abortion doesn't count as murder. Does it depend on the circumstance? Is the baby only alive when someone decides that he or she is?

I would also like to add that when I was in the womb the doctor did a test on my mom, and it was determined that I would be mentally disabled. However, I'm not mentally disabled. You don't always know how things will turn out. You don't know that the baby is better off dead rather than being put up for adoption. If you're worried about the baby finding a good home, there's always the option to find adoptive parents, having interviews with them, etc., insted of dropping the baby off at the fire station etc. The baby could end up with a great life, and you shouldn't take it away from him or her.

Originally Posted by katya

Mari, I think you make a lot of good points. I certainly wouldn't have cared if I'd have died before I had any attachment to anything in the world, and no one's really gonna miss the kid either.

Well, then you could say that miscarriages shouldn't hurt, because no one knows the baby. But miscarriages do hurt. I know 4 or 5 families that have had miscarriages, and they were all hurt by it. You don't necessarily need to meet the baby to get attached to it.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You have a notion about the nature of pregnancy, and I have direct experience.

I would just like to say that I haven't had direct experience (I'm 14, so I think that I shouldn't have direct experience yet), but I can still have my own opinion about the subject.

[katya]

Originally Posted by Thain Peregrin Took I

Well, then you could say that miscarriages shouldn't hurt, because no one knows the baby. But miscarriages do hurt. I know 4 or 5 families that have had miscarriages, and they were all hurt by it. You don't necessarily need to meet the baby to get attached to it.

Ok, no one but the mother (maybe the father one or two other people) I should have said. I know from experience how attached you can get to the baby and how much it hurts... I got over it in a day or two though. No regrets at all.

Oh, except one. I should've injected it with Jenova cells and watched to see what would happen instead... (haha)

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Well let's take this to the next level then and say that if indeed these fetuses are humans than God is indeed a cruel, cruel being, letting hundreds of thousands of souls (i.e. fetuses being human beings..) perish beneath the sky. What kind of God is that who loves us all equally? Why does the body of this so-called human being resemble more the body of a relatively equally developed chicken fetus? Or the fetus of a chimpanzee? Doesn't it ring a bell? It astonishes me.. truly.. that this does not ring a thousand bells.

Please understand that there is something called "free will" where we choose what we do in life and that it's not God's fault. Or at least I believe so. Don't blame God or try to make other people blame God for the world's problems. If God intervened in everything we did, it wouldn't be called "free will". Describing the difference between humans and animals would be a whole other thread. But enough theology.

Heh, usually parasites don't want to leave the host. Or have such human characteristics.

And it's interesting that none of you (at least I don't think) deny that a fetus is alive, but rather you don't classify it as human because it hasn't lost absolute dependency on the scrictly the mother and is therefore "parasitic". Because it is alive, from a scientific perspective even.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Why does the body of this so-called human being resemble more the body of a relatively equally developed chicken fetus? Or the fetus of a chimpanzee? Doesn't it ring a bell? It astonishes me.. truly.. that this does not ring a thousand bells.

Maybe because they are all bipedal, and require relatively he same organs and structural machinery to do all the things they do. Just saying. A larval clam doesnt look like a human, though. Even in their relatively equal stages of developement.

Tunicate larva, on the other hand, do share a common characteristic. I'm suprised, Coffeehouse, you let this one slip by.
However, the end result is entirely different. The gene structure is almost entirely different (introns AND exons, here) so this argument is somewhat irrelevent, to me. And dont ANYONE bring up the famous (or maybe infamous ) "gill slits" that a human foetus posseses. I dont even want to hear about that antiquated notion, please.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc Brandybuck

Heh, usually parasites don't want to leave the host. Or have such human characteristics.

The merry tapeworm uses a human body as a temporary hoat, but has every plan to be excreted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapeworm
Viruses use the cells of a host to protect and extend themselves. They are 'part of the body' at that point.
Not teaching adequate science makes some of these points harder to understand in this country.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The merry tapeworm uses a human body as a temporary hoat, but has every plan to be excreted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapeworm

Only PART wants t be excreted, Sis. Not the whole bugger, it's how parasites propagate.

Viruses use the cells of a host to protect and extend themselves. They are 'part of the body' at that point.

This could start a whole new thread. Wouldnt a parasite have to be "alive"? So to call a virus a parasite is jumping the gun there, because they dont fit with what the scientific community calls "alive".

Not teaching adequate science makes some of these points harder to understand in this country.

And not getting all the info, too.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Thain Peregrin Took I

When a person kills a pregnant woman, they're charged with two murders.

No, not always. Not even often. The anti-choice folks have enacted some local statutes, usually called something like "intentional homicide of an unborn child' in an effort to establish legal rights for the fetus, and as part of their attack on women's right to choose. However, even where such laws have been passed, the "crime" may depend on whether it occurred in conjunction with another crime (usually commission of an active felony) and a number of other factors, and may be classified as manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, or any of a number of other classifications. Some states specifically assign a date or viability test to these statutes.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

This could start a whole new thread. Wouldnt a parasite have to be "alive"? So to call a virus a parasite is jumping the gun there, because they dont fit with what the scientific community calls "alive".

That's what I get for trying to respond to several points without running as long as Lief. One of the arguments, higher up the thread was 'The embryo is part of the mother, hence not a parasite.' I'm merely pointing out that shared DNA doesn't render ALL residents off limits.

[Nautipus]

It's only half shared.
A virus injects its entire genome through the cytoplasmic membrane of a host cell, and reverse engineers itself into the host genome (suprisingly similar to human copulation) then causes the host cell to abandon all its metabolic processes and comply to its own needs, depending on what path the virus initiates in its "host".

A human foetus, on the other hand, shares the DNA of its mother and father, whereas the virus' DNA is completely its own, simply hiding among the genes of the host. There is no sharing f DNA, there is forceful invasion and disruption of metabolic pathways within a host cell, a foetus is not doing real harm to the mother (aside from medical complications) only adding to the work load. And while that is significant, I find the comparison a little distasteful.

btw, I love it when debates like this involve more friendly smilies than sarcastic or angry ones. More fun to read and engage in.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

btw, I love it when debates like this involve more friendly smilies than sarcastic or angry ones. More fun to read and engage in.

Much. Generally speaking I find it very interesting to see where people holding the anti-choice POV come from. (sans shouting) and I like most of the participants enough that I see my friends at computer keyboards as opposed to strangers waving signs. People who have chosen to remain antagonistic strangers are a different story.

But I have big lunch packing before camp tomorrow, so I can't keep hanging here, even though you're such a night-owl, these days.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Much. Generally speaking I find it very interesting to see where people holding the anti-choice POV come from. (sans shouting) and I like most of the participants enough that I see my friends at computer keyboards as opposed to strangers waving signs. People who have chosen to remain antagonistic strangers are a different story.

But I have big lunch packing before camp tomorrow, so I can't keep hanging here, even though you're such a night-owl, these days.

No choice, I work 8-10 hours a day, and as soon as I get off jump on here. I need to rethink my schedule.

Have fun camping.