A Non-Religious Abortion Debate

reply to post by Bone75







The surgery was performed on the Mother (Host) to enable the fetus she was 'carrying'

to be born unencumbered by a disability at a later date when it would be viable for

survival.


At that point in time the fetus was not breathing and required the Mother (Host) to keep it alive

otherwise the doctors would have been able to deliver it alive


Ain't science marvellous??




Samual Armus would be able to say "I had surgery before I was born....

Your clinging to emotion too much, a big problem liberal types have these days.

For the record I do NOT believe in having abortions or gay marriage. BUT...I do not believe the government should be able to tell me I can or cant do either of these. They do NOT know or care what is best for me plain and simple, thats my job.

I know your trying your best to not bring religion into this, but this is pretty much the only angle you can say its something the government should control. Once you give control over these areas of life, next they can decide you dont need to have the ability to have a child and sterilize people because you wanted them to say its not ok to have abortions, your handing them control over personal choices and do you really want that?

reply to post by eletheia


You're saying the mother had surgery to repair her spina bifida, that is simply delusional.

reply to post by Bone75


The surgery was done on a fetus, that was still developing into a person. The surgery was to correct a problem in the fetus' development and in no way proves that the fetus was self aware and knew what was going on.

The Science Behind Preborn Pain

reply to post by Bone75





Read my lips....

I said the Mother had surgery to allow the foetus she was incubating to be treated for a

severe debilitating disability. The foetus did not breathe....I would say it had 'life' but was

not yet Alive I suppose you could liken it to a 'vegetative state?'


Foetal surgery is a broad range of surgical techniques that have been used for the past

26 years to treat defects in foetuses who are still in the uterus So it's nothing new.


Like I said before Ain't science great!!

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


So do you think they anesthetized the fetus that received the surgery? Nope! I highly doubt it. Too risky.

Based on the best available scientific evidence, a human fetus probably does not have the functional capacity to experience pain until the 29th week of pregnancy at the earliest.

This is past viability and therefore past the limit of legal elective abortion. Your point is moot.

I hope you won't mind if I use this post to organize my thoughts a little. This thread has covered a lot of ground and I'm not sure every area has been covered.

The question that divides the two arguing camps is "Is Abortion Murder?" Murder is defined, at least in my mind, as the killing of an innocent human being. Abortion is certainly the killing of something. And whatever it is that is killed is surely innocent of everything. So we're left with "If the fetus is a human being, then abortion is murder."

Notice "If the fetus is a human being . . . " It doesn't matter what we call the fetus, what matters is what it actually is. For example, there was a time when slaves were not considered fully human. Therefore, the killing of an innocent slave was not considered murder, even thought it actually was murder.

So, to show abortion is not murder, we must prove that the fetus is not a human being. What do pro-choicers propose?

Consciousness? That doesn't work since animals are conscious and human beings are not always conscious. But perhaps there is a difference between being a person and functioning as one. We're still human even if we're under anaesthesia, for example.

Rationality? Three month-olds, and sleepers are not rational, but they're both human. They are humans, even if they're not functioning as humans. The Fetus, too, is not functioning as human, but as we have seen, that's not proof that it is not human.

It's a Potential human being? But that doesn't help. It may be called a potential human being, but if it is a potential for something, it has to be an actual something right now. What is it? Not what might it become, but what is it right now? There is no safe position for the pro-choicer other than "It's alive, but it's not human." That's not a position I'd enjoy defending. What, it's an alien? It's a fish? It's a geranium?

It's a part of the mother? That leads us to the ridiculous conclusion, as noted before, that that means half of the mothers have a penis during pregnancy.

It's dependent on it's mother? Well, consider a one-month old and an adult. The one-month old is much more dependent on it's mother than the adult is, so if dependency makes a fetus "not human," it should be less of an offense to kill a one month-old than an adult. Further, a one month-old is completely dependent on it's mother, as is the fetus, but the one month-old is human. And it's not dependent on it's mother for it's identity, it's DNA is uniquely the fetus'.

Viability? Consider a child born prematurely. In a city with a modern hospital, it is taken care of, and eventually develops normally, considered a person from the time of it's pre-mature birth. What if the same situation occurs in a wilderness 500 miles away? There is no special care, the baby is not viable, so under the viability rule it was not a person. Does anyone really want to claim that someone is a person or not, depending on where they were born?

Something new is created at conception, respected scientists disagree on it's nature. It's not a very good argument to claim that only the scientists opposed to your opinion are biased. If one side can be considered biased, then so can the other side, and where does that get us? An unresolved question. And are you really willing to kill something when you don't know if it's human or not? Remember the hunters who saw the rustle in the bushes.

I'm sure I haven't covered everything, but what is the argument that the pro-choice group has for proving that the fetus is not a human being? They bear the burden of proof. If they're going to kill things, they have to be able to show that they're not killing humans. And it's not enough to say "I think they're not humans," or "My opinion is that they're not humans."

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
This is a silly thread.

If a lump of cells is a human, are my toenails a human?

I bet if someone walked up and cut off your hand you might have a bigger reaction to its humanistic value

If a lump of human cells can survive on it's own, it's a human. If it can't; it's not alive.

By your definition 80% of America could be legally "aborted" today...

reply to post by charles1952

Consciousness? That doesn't work since animals are conscious and human beings are not always conscious.

Dont bring up animals, because there is no difference in principle between animals and humans, except maybe that mature humans are more sapient. So any argument will fail this. Humanity is specieist, thats all there is to it. Treating animals and humans the same would lead to unrealistic conclusions such as killing babies is allowed or killing an ape is murder (depending on where do you draw the line with regards to consciousness, and there is no such line that strictly separates all humans from all animals).

But perhaps there is a difference between being a person and functioning as one. We're still human even if we're under anaesthesia, for example.

Yes. The words consciousness and sentience are often used imprecisely, because we are not conscious and sentient in deep sleep, or anesthesia. What people really mean is the mind capable of consciousness, which means the neural network in higher brain, regardless if it is firing or not. Indeed, medical and legal death is defined as destruction of this neural web, so it makes sense that beginning of life is the reverse. And that does not happen until 5th month of pregancy, at least.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

So do you think they anesthetized the fetus that received the surgery? Nope! I highly doubt it. Too risky.

Based on the best available scientific evidence, a human fetus probably does not have the functional capacity to experience pain until the 29th week of pregnancy at the earliest.

This is past viability and therefore past the limit of legal elective abortion. Your point is moot.

Anesthesia for Fetal Surgery.
www.pedsanesthesia.org...

Did you even watch the video in its entirety? You wouldn't have asked that question that you did not bother to research. Also, they discuss this "best available scientific evidence" you mentioned. At least I think they did. You did not show a source so who knows.

A little logic.....




I usually don't care about political correctness in the least, but on this one I take issue: mother = host. I get it that "mother/pregnant woman" have a connotation that pro-abortion people would like to avoid, but the little embryo or fetus is a human not a parasite. Life begins at conception. I learned that in high school.

Originally posted by Maslo

What is unfortunate is that you, and those who agree with you, do not respect the right of others to an opinion.

Then don't use contraceptives or have an abortion. And don't legislate YOUR morality. Problem solved!

I am pro-choice, but this kind of argument is really bad. Bone75 believes abortion is morally like murder. You expect him to let others get away with murder based on this kind of thinking? You bet he wants to force his morality, I would do the same if I thought abortion is comparable to murder! I just dont think it is.

edit on 9/7/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Yikes. You completely backed up what I said. You agree that he is trying to FORCE his morality, therefore showing no respect and saying that others dont have the right to have their own opinion on it.

As closed minded as closed minds can get.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Yikes. You completely backed up what I said. You agree that he is trying to FORCE his morality, therefore showing no respect and saying that others dont have the right to have their own opinion on it.

I'd be forcing my morality if we were at a formal hearing... but we're not... we're on ATS

Opinions are pretty much the guts of this site, so of course you're entitled to one. I actually get a kick out of some of the stuff you guys come up with, which is why I come here. I'm sure the same is true for most of us.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady

I usually don't care about political correctness in the least, but on this one I take issue: mother = host. I get it that "mother/pregnant woman" have a connotation that pro-abortion people would like to avoid, but the little embryo or fetus is a human not a parasite. Life begins at conception. I learned that in high school.

While we're on the subject of political correctness... "Life begins at conception" and "When does life begin?"
should read "A life begins at conception" and "When does a life begin?" That one little "a" makes a world of difference and cuts down on a lot of confusion.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

You did not show a source so who knows.

Sorry. Here's your source: www.ansirh.org...

It's loaded with more links and more sources, but I doubt that you'll pursue them.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


But that baby will eventually have to squeeze through the mother's pelvic bones and out of a hole barely big enough for it to fit through, all while causing the mother some pretty intense pain.

Not to mention the possibility of needing a c-section that would scar her for life.

If the mother doesn't want to go through that ordeal and doesn't want to foot the bill for it then she shouldn't have to in my opinion.

reply to post by Bone75


This issue should pertain mostly to a women's perspective as they are the ones who give birth. A man just plants the seed.

I have befriended women who have gone through this and it is with them forever. The choice that is made is difficult to say the least .

I had a scare with a girlfriend at an age where we were both incapable of providing any type of proper life for a child but the child definitely wold have been loved.

Its all about circumstance. A women who is raped, should she have an everyday reminder of such an event? Some women resent their children they have because of who they had it with. It happens and should the child be made to endure a childhood where they are mistreated and abused because they were not truly wanted in the first place?

Adoption is a great choice and alternative but there are circumstances where abortion may be the only legitimate option. But the Burden of such a choice ultimately falls on the women who must experience such a procedure.

A miscarriage can be just as devastating if not more. I believe a mans opinion on this matter is less relevant to the issue as a women's perspective.

I am prochoice as long as you know the full extent of the consequences of your actions.

Abortion should be the last resort.

Being a parent is the greatest job on earth and what we all have in common, truly, in the desire to procreate. Unfortunately too many children are having babies which is more of a problem then abortion. That is something that should be regulated more than abortion. You should have to pass a class or prove you are capable of providing the child. There are many many people out there who should not be parents because they have nothing positive to provide and care for a child.

As a man the only time your opinion matters on this subject is if it pertains to your partner, because the choice ultimately relies on the women conscience.IMO

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Yikes. You completely backed up what I said. You agree that he is trying to FORCE his morality, therefore showing no respect and saying that others dont have the right to have their own opinion on it.

As closed minded as closed minds can get.

Bone75 is not saying you dont have right to your opinion.

If I thought abortion is like murder, then Id show little respect, too. Try to look at this from his perspective. You dont let others get away with murder just because they dont consider it immoral. You force them to comply. Thats what any moral person would have done. So dont act surprised when those who think abortion is murder want to impose this on others. In fact, them not doing so would be a cause for concern.

Originally posted by Bone75
I'm starting this thread to prove a point, and if I'm successful, this should be a very short topic.

My position is that abortion and contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs should be illegal. I think its murder and it should be stopped.

Now if you disagree with me, I'd like to hear you argue against my position without the use of pointless religious attacks, and I'm asking those who do agree with me to refrain from doing so as well.

So without further adieu, let the debate begin.

Bone, you speak the truth.

Abortion and Contraception are both murder. The Pill keeps a fertilized egg from implanting so a brand new person with a body and soul is destroyed. One of the inventors of The Pill condemns his invention now.

How awful, it wasn't Roe vs Wade in 1973, evil started before...

Listen to this homily, the Supreme Court struck down an anti-Contraception law in Connecticut in 1965. Their
reason, privacy!!!

www.audiosancto.org...