Opinion To Be or Not To Be (An Abortion Thread)

[Zephyn]

Morals are unavoidable. Believing that there's no moral issue is itself because you're moral beliefs are that you don't find it objectionable.

It's like suggesting that banning people from murdering people is a purely objective decision, it's not, it's because we attach moral value to human life and believe that life must be protected.

But outside this specific issue I think you'd agree that life is sentience no?

 

[JessFR]

But outside this specific issue I think you'd agree that life is sentience no?

Uhh, not really, I mean there's various forms of life that aren't sentient.

But OK, let's say you're right, life is sentience. A fetus can generally be considered sentient by 5 months, that's a little earlier than the cutoff most abortion laws use.

So, are you ok with banning abortion once a fetus is sentient?

 

[Burnt Offerings]

I don't really have a problem with abortion, personally. It's not a very interesting topic though, IMO...I understand why people feel strongly one-way-or-another about the issue (at least, I feel like I can conceptualize that, anyway, the pro and anti arguments) but I dunno, just never really got enthused about it I guess lol

 

[birdup.snaildown]

So nobody is going to reply about the giant human egg scenario?

Surely, it doesn't change whether or not it is a developing human life or whether or not it is destined to suffer. So (in a world with giant human eggs need to incubate for 9 months) would the people arguing for abortion also argue for terminating eggs?

Abortion is a medical procedure just as a colonoscopy is one, yet I don’t hear any objections to that.

Why pretend they are the same thing?

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I’m adopted and the bond I formed with my Granny was the closest out of all her grandchildren and even her own children, my aunts and mother. My Granny had vascular dementia but she never once forgot who I was. I was the only one, all the way until she was 93 and died that she remembered because that’s how close we were. We were bonded the moment I was placed in her arm until the day she died in mines. Being adopted has nothing to do with human connection.

That story is beautiful, but it doesn't prove that there isn't a particular connection that forms with biological children. I'm not suggesting that adopted children are not loved.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

outside this specific issue I think you'd agree that life is sentience no?

No. I don't think so. Trees are alive. Life is all around us, all the time. It is in the air we breathe and the food we eat. Inside our bodies, there are many living organisms.

Intelligent life requires sentience, but life doesn't.

It's problematic defining when sentience begins, or when exactly a developing human is intelligent enough to be self aware. It doesn't make sense (to me) to assume sentience correlates exactly with the nine month mark, because there are lots of early and late births.

It doesn't seem justified to be able to kill a life during a certain part of it's development because it has not progressed past certain stage. We will never know precisely what point is okay and what point isn't. It's impossible. After birth is where we draw the line. Abortions are performed all over the place. Sometimes they are performed right up to birth. It is more difficult to qualify for late term abortions for a reason. Most countries allow on-demand abortions up till around the end of the first trimester.

 

[dalpat077]

So nobody is going to reply about the giant human egg scenario?

I'm happy to reply. Here's my reply: drop the egg scenario! No pun intended either!

Sorry but it's a bit of a stretch, even for me, to equate a human pregnancy with an embryo in an egg.

Mind you and in just looking at the above: this could do a few heads in! Ostriches lay eggs. So where's the line between breakfast and euthanasia? And don't anybody play the sentient card here either. Trust me: I've seen more intelligent Ostriches than a lot of so-called sentient beings!

Alright they're not mammals. Thought I'd better throw this in to save some a little bit of bother (and to demonstrate that I'm not really that stupid).

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Egg.

 

[JessFR]

Sorry but it's a bit of a stretch, even for me, to equate a human pregnancy with an embryo in an egg.

Wut?

 

[Blueberry_87]

Morals are unavoidable. Believing that there's no moral issue is itself because you're moral beliefs are that you don't find it objectionable.

It's like suggesting that banning people from murdering people is a purely objective decision, it's not, it's because we attach moral value to human life and believe that life must be protected.

It’s not that I don’t find it objectionable, for myself I would never have one and I’ve been in the position twice to make that choice. However, I would never tell someone else what they should do with their body. It should be an option.

 

[Blueberry_87]

So nobody is going to reply about the giant human egg scenario?

Surely, it doesn't change whether or not it is a developing human life or whether or not it is destined to suffer. So (in a world with giant human eggs need to incubate for 9 months) would the people arguing for abortion also argue for terminating eggs?



Why pretend they are the same thing?

They’re not because we view embryos as babies rather than very basic cells that haven’t become a viable person yet. On their face they are both medical procedures how can you say they aren’t?

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Throwing morals into the mix is what gets everyone worked up.

It upsets one side. The other side gets upset when the complete opposite happens and morals are ignored. It's either human life (in which case killing is complicated) or it is a cluster of cells "yet to become a viable life" (in which case, terminating it is comparable to a colonoscopy).

 

[Blueberry_87]

It upsets one side. The other side gets upset when the complete opposite happens and morals are ignored. It's either human life (in which case killing is complicated) or it is a cluster of cells "yet to become a viable life" (in which case, terminating it is comparable to a colonoscopy).

It upsets one side because they are equating an abortion with literally murdering a baby. That same side wants to stop anyone from even having the option to choose an abortion which is what i have an issue with, mainly. Are they going to care for all the babies that would then be born because terminating pregnancy wasn’t an option? Responding with ”they should have been more responsible“ isn’t fair either in some case, like rape. It’s too damn complicated, honestly. I get it, i get why people are pro-life and i agree on a personal level. Forcing someone else to choose like i would isn’t fair, legal or right though.

 

[Blueberry_87]

It upsets one side. The other side gets upset when the complete opposite happens and morals are ignored. It's either human life (in which case killing is complicated) or it is a cluster of cells "yet to become a viable life" (in which case, terminating it is comparable to a colonoscopy).

We already have that distinction somewhat. After a certain amount of months when an embryo becomes a fetus and can survive outside the womb, that’s “viable life”. That’s when abortion becomes much more complicated because some places allow “late term abortion” and others don’t because of the viable life factor. When you’re 6 weeks into a pregnancy the embryo is not yet a fetus or an actual baby. Much easier to see it as a medical procedure, which it is. Beyond that however you emotionally feel about it is a personal issue.

 

[Blueberry_87]

No. I don't think so. Trees are alive. Life is all around us, all the time. It is in the air we breathe and the food we eat. Inside our bodies, there are many living organisms.

Intelligent life requires sentience, but life doesn't.

It's problematic defining when sentience begins, or when exactly a developing human is intelligent enough to be self aware. It doesn't make sense (to me) to assume sentience correlates exactly with the nine month mark, because there are lots of early and late births.

It doesn't seem justified to be able to kill a life during a certain part of it's development because it has not progressed past certain stage. We will never know precisely what point is okay and what point isn't. It's impossible. After birth is where we draw the line. Abortions are performed all over the place. Sometimes they are performed right up to birth. It is more difficult to qualify for late term abortions for a reason. Most countries allow on-demand abortions up till around the end of the first trimester.

It‘s hard knowing when exactly humans become self aware partly because we have little to no memories before a certain age.

 

[dalpat077]

Wut?

Nah I don't know. Ask you friend there @birdup.snaildown i.e. he was banging on about eggs and what not! Or you could just read his posts of course!

 

[JessFR]

It‘s hard knowing when exactly humans become self aware partly because we have little to no memories before a certain age.

In truth, if say a really good argument argument could be made, if you're gonna go with a self awareness criteria, for setting the cutoff well after birth.

Probably as much as over a year old even.
And since I don't see anyone here arguing that killing babies, actual born ones that is is OK, this again seems arbitrary.