Abortion: Rights vs. Life

If life begins at conception then over 60% percent of us 'die' before we are born. That's a fact, not a hypothetical. Kinda throws a wrench into the equation, eh?

Cheers,
Dave

As I said, it is a hypothetical, and no it does not. People die all the time. SO the question remains. If Life begins at conception, does that change your view of abortion?

Simple question. We can debate the other issues at another time.

I'll be your huckleberry, and be honest to boot. I am Pro-Choice (or Pro-Death as some of the nastier people like to say), and I can honestly say that if there was scientific proof that life begins at conception that I would have to rethink my views on abortion.

I am pro-choice. Regardless of when life begins, I believe that it is a woman’s right to have that choice. It is the right of the mother not to bear an unwanted child. How dare the state force someone to bear a child? And how dare anyone judge them?

Even if it were conclusively proved that life began at conception, I still think that women should have that choice. For two reasons:

1. The life of a person is worth more to me.
2. Because over 500 women die every day through botched, backstreet abortions, which they feel forced into as they have no other choice - they cannot afford or access legal abortion. Countless others damage themselves.

If people were truly "pro-life", they'd think about the women as well as the children.

No one rushes to abortion, it's a difficult and heartfelt decision. But it is a fact of life, and has been since the year dot, because no contraceptive is 100% reliable and abstaining is a time limited solution. The best way to reduce the need for abortion is to educate people to practice safe sex, provide them with free contraception, and ensure econoomic equality so that women on their own can afford to have children if that is their wish.

There was a case in Ireland in 1992 called the X case. Abortion is illegal in Ireland. A 12 year old girl was raped by her stepfather and became pregnant. Her natural father tried to take the suicidal girl to England to have an abortion, and a massive court case erupted – in the eyes of the law, the life of the foetus was seen to be more important than the life of the person bearing it. The Irish Supreme Court rightly decided that this was contrary to human rights, and agreed to allow abortion in this circumstance, when the mother’s life was deemed at risk.

If there was conclusive proof of cognisence coming from a blob of non-deliniated cells with no brain, then I think we would be questioning more then just the issue of abortion.

I am pro-choice. Regardless of when life begins, I believe that it is a woman’s right to have that choice. It is the right of the mother not to bear an unwanted child. How dare the state force someone to bear a child? And how dare anyone judge them?

Does that mean that a mother should have the right to kill her child even after it's born?

If people were truly "pro-life", they'd think about the women as well as the children.

If the pregnancy's going to put the woman's life in jeopardy, then it makes sense to allow for abortion then. However, to allow abortion just because the woman will do it herself if not legal is like blaming the government for placing the murderer's life in jeopardy by not facilitating the murderer's act.

If there was conclusive proof of cognisence coming from a blob of non-deliniated cells with no brain, then I think we would be questioning more then just the issue of abortion.

It would definitely change some things. Then again though, even when fetuses have brain activity, people don't consider them to be living beings but just a blob of cells, which is why abortion is still legal then.

Brain activity vs. cognisence, MB.

Do people in comas (or slumber) have cognizance in such states? If not, are they considered no longer human beings?
How do we find when fetuses gain it anyway? I think it'd be easier (and clearer) to define life right when brain activity appears. With it, one's alive. Without it, one's usually considered dead.

If there was conclusive proof of cognisence coming from a blob of non-deliniated cells with no brain, then I think we would be questioning more then just the issue of abortion.

Are you aware of the manner in which a fetus develops?


By week 10 the fetus has developed a nervous system. Week 5 is about as late as you can go in claiming that it is a "blob of non-deliniated cells with no brain."



That's at 8 weeks right there. I'm not pushing a prolife agenda here, I'm just trying to share some established facts with you guys. So, there you have them, do with them what you wish. Link

"They are able to read the distinct unique thoughts of a baby that has just been concieved"

Nothing about a fetus. Let me reitterate that the initial post says just been concieved. At conception, I believe there is no argument that it is a blob of undeliniated cells.

Buu, if we define human life as starting at the first signs of brain activity, then what seperates us from mice and rodents? They have brain function as well. Why is it ok to kill them?

"They are able to read the distinct unique thoughts of a baby that has just been concieved" Nothing about a fetus. Let me reitterate that the initial post says just been concieved. At conception, I believe there is no argument that it is a blob of undeliniated cells.

Dude . . . you were just discussing this:

If there was conclusive proof of cognisence coming from a blob of non-deliniated cells with no brain, then I think we would be questioning more then just the issue of abortion.

vs.

Do people in comas (or slumber) have cognizance in such states? If not, are they considered no longer human beings? How do we find when fetuses gain it anyway? I think it'd be easier (and clearer) to define life right when brain activity appears. With it, one's alive. Without it, one's usually considered dead.

I didn't take this thread off track . . . what I posted was in keeping with the current discussion. When you guys talk about brain activity, you are discussing a fetus. You've moved far past a "blob of undeliniated cells" by that point. Even in your last post you say:

Buu, if we define human life as starting at the first signs of brain activity, then what seperates us from mice and rodents? They have brain function as well. Why is it ok to kill them?

But whatever. *shrugs*

"They are able to read the distinct unique thoughts of a baby that has just been concieved"

Distinct unique thoughts, as far as I know, are generally associated with brain activity. I don't see how you could possibly concider the issue of brain activity off topic.

If you really want to talk about off topic, how about this argument about whether or not we are on topic?

I don't consider it off topic, but I was a bit put off by your "nothing about a fetus" comment . . . I took it to mean that you had dismissed my contribution because you didn't consider it applicable to the discussion, and of course I would not have wasted my time posting it if I didn't feel it would add something to the debate.

If you really want to talk about off topic, how about this argument about whether or not we are on topic?

Wanna talk about sparkly purple unicorns with me?

Buu, if we define human life as starting at the first signs of brain activity, then what seperates us from mice and rodents? They have brain function as well. Why is it ok to kill them?

Because they aren't human. Fetuses are arguably human. Anything that defines life for a human could be found in a rat, dog, or dolphin, unless we define life as being able to acknowledge one's own presence, in which case, could we abort new-born babies until it's proven that they could recognize themselves in a mirror?

I'll be your huckleberry, and be honest to boot. I am Pro-Choice (or Pro-Death as some of the nastier people like to say), and I can honestly say that if there was scientific proof that life begins at conception that I would have to rethink my views on abortion.

Thank you for a sane and very rational answer. The whole point of this question was to show that as long as it cannot be proved, that either you take it as an article of faith, or not, there can be no compromise between those who believe it is murder, and those that do not.

I doubt, at least in my life time, if the question ever will be answered. And so the debate will not end.

Thanks again.

1. The life of a person is worth more to me. 2. Because over 500 women die every day through botched, backstreet abortions, which they feel forced into as they have no other choice - they cannot afford or access legal abortion. Countless others damage themselves.

1. But if life begins at conception, it is a person, so reason one does not make sense. Then you are only trading the convenience of a person, for the life of another. Isn't that what murderers do?

2. You are still justifying murder for convenience. The women would not be dying if they were not trying to kill another person.

While I can see you are pationate in your view, I dont think you really thought through this question. But thank you for answering anyway.

If there was conclusive proof of cognisence coming from a blob of non-deliniated cells with no brain, then I think we would be questioning more then just the issue of abortion.

You are of course correct, but I did not want to start a novel, just tried to keep it on one portion of the issue.

Does that mean that a mother should have the right to kill her child even after it's born?

I had the same thought reading it, but you did say it better.

Brain activity vs. cognisence, MB.

But if you go down that path, then many DS children and otehr several handicapped people could not be murdered, nor could anyone be charged with their murder as the are almost vegetative, with no cognative skills. But for the sake of this argument, since it may also be argued that a new born baby has no cognisence, lets say that we could prove it at concdeption (ala Look who's talking).

SirNetMan, Texas Wahine, and Messy Buu, thank you for the spirited input. I think SirNet had a point, so I would like to qualify it and say that cognisence thought begins at conception (as well as life). In any event, it was just hypothetical. But you can see that it is not a Liberal vs Conservative issue. It is a belief issue. And until Science can come up with a definitive statement, it will not be sovled.
Thanks again, and continue to debate it! I find all the thoughts and ideas (well most at least) to be very educational and shows the poster has thought about it, and not parroted a mantra of one side or the other.

The problem is that there is really no magic point where the cellular construct, if you will, passes from part-of-mother-hood to person-hood. At every point from egg to probably about 12 to 14 years old, a child (or pre-child, but for ease of statement, I will say child) is both part-of-mother and indiviual, except to differing degrees. An egg is, say, .00001 extent individual and .999 extent mother (extents do not have to add up to 1). At 12 or 14, the child is .999 extent human and .00001 extent mother (even leagally, at age 12, a child is the resopnsability of the mother, and she is responsable for the kid's actions, so there is arguably legal precedent for this standpoint).

Everything in the world works on an extent system. A rock is to a certain extent a seat, but it is to a greater extent a rock, so we tend to refer to it as rock, and treat is primarily as rock, not seat. By that same line of thought, to determine the point at which abortion (not for the mother's safety) becomes unjustifialbe, we must come to a concesus on 2 things:

1. At what comparative levels of extent do we apply the humanhood treatment. Do we say the moment extent of humanhood passes extent of motherhood? Do we say when humanhood is 2:1 in relation to motherhood? It's not as simple a question as you might think.

2. At what rate do the extents to which the child is a part of these two catagories change? When is the child X extent human and Y extent mother? These equations do not necissarily have to be linear, or directly related to eachother.

Sir,

Why did you not pose the question.  Are you an english major?  Your grasp of the english language and understanding is superb.  And you have stated the real question that I could ever.  I was just trying to get a feel of how many people would still adopt expediency when it was proven that it was murder.

The Death Penalty is just that.  Expedient.  But it is also murder.  Yet other than a few Caritas people, you dont hear it debated with such passion as Abortion.  And yes that is hypocracy on both sides.

Determining the hypothetical point I doubt will ever occur.  But as long as there are some that say no matter when life begins, abortion should be legal, then they are the same as the ones saying "fry the murderer".  The latter at least try to justify their opinion by the fact they condemned are guilty.  The former are very sick in that they dont try to justify anything but 'if it feels good do it', and that is where the murderers come from.

In any event, I will oppose abortion due to my faith.  But I will not be out in front of the clinics, and I will not kill a doctor for it.  And others will be out there supporting it.

To let you in on a secret. The biggest opponents of abortion are those that have had one.  I know this for a fact (not the most violent, just the most ardent in opposition).  I am male, but my first born was aborted, and yes I was there.  It is not something you can forget, and it is hard to forgive oneself for it.

But thanks for contributing.  And your final wrap up.  From your dicing (i.e. Defining exactly what the point of life is) of words and science, I take it that you are for Abortion, until the fetus becomes a person.  And I respect that.  We only disagree on the when, not on the what.

I neither pro life or pro choice but for the right to choose. I do not want some asshat telling me what I can and can't do to my body.