Opinions on Abortion

[Bluebacon]

Checking my notes, I'm pretty sure the brain connects to the rest of the nervous system at about 12 weeks, depsite the fact that the brain in its most rudimentary form is developed at about 4 weeks in. There's been a lot of research into this, but brain scanning techniques arent yet sophisticated enough to pin point when consciousness sets in.

According to this source, the human fetus is not viable before 23 weeks because its brain has not yet developed well enough to survive. It also says that, while brain activity is firing at 6 weeks, it does so in an uncoordinated and random fashion more primitive than a shrimp, apparently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/0619-1st-gazza.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

 

[Thanatos34]

I'm not certain why you think that cloning would be used at all, nor why it would it go against my religious beliefs, if it were used.

In adult stem cell research, they clone the cells utilized at their most degenerated level, in order to replicate the stems. Its dangerous and not very cost effective. Is cloning not as against major religious doctrine as abortion?

Your definition of what makes a fetus a human would exclude anyone with a disability where they need help to survive, from being a human.

Not entirely. In most cases, folks with disabilities are able to think or act or have a heartbeat on their own. And those who aren't, don't deserve anything bad, before you jump on that wagon. But there is a wide difference between a developed human life (even if it is a person with a developmental disability) and something that is scientifically the same as skin cells.

It is not okay to kill some to save others

Really?
Adolf Hitler, were they planning to kill him to save others? Saddam Hussein as well? Or what about Bin Laden, if he is in fact still alive? I know its a completely different context, but the point to a certain extent remains valid.

At least in this equation there is potential for true greatness to come from a woman's right to choose for herself.

We are going to go in reverse order here:

First point: Let me rephrase. It is not okay to kill some innocents to save other innocents. Nor is it okay to give the government that power, indeed that is just plain frightening. I'm not certain what you mean by saying that there is the potential for greatness here. Who knows how many doctors/scientists we are taking out by abortion? It seems to me that you are losing potential for greatness, not gaining it.

Your second point: You cannot say that the reason why you can abort a fetus, (which is NOT the same as skin cells, it is already a developing infant, you might could argue an embryo is naught but skin cells, but a fetus is most certainly not skin cells), is because it cannot do the same thing that many disabled people cannot do, and then say that somehow the two of them are different.

Your first point: No, I have no problem with cloning, nor is there anything against it in any of the religious books that I know of. I don't see how cloning a group of cells, which are not going to develop into a human, compares to killing a fetus, which is.

 

[Bluebacon]

You cant use the 'they could potentially be the next Einstein' arguement, because they could equally become the next Ted Bundy for all you know.

 

[ExodusinFlames]

First point: Let me rephrase. It is not okay to kill some innocents to save other innocents. Nor is it okay to give the government that power, indeed that is just plain frightening. I'm not certain what you mean by saying that there is the potential for greatness here. Who knows how many doctors/scientists we are taking out by abortion? It seems to me that you are losing potential for greatness, not gaining it.

Considering it has no functioning heart or brain or anything at this point, hence the skin cell comparison. The government shouldn't have ANY say in it, the woman who is opting for the procedure should have the choice. And from bluebacon, your more likely nowadays to get a Ted Bundy. What I meant by greatness was simply the leaps in medicine that have been made as a result of research off of stem cells, which regardless of what you say, is much easier, safer and more cost effective method than cloning adult skin cells injected with an artificial virus.

Your second point: You cannot say that the reason why you can abort a fetus, (which is NOT the same as skin cells, it is already a developing infant, you might could argue an embryo is naught but skin cells, but a fetus is most certainly not skin cells), is because it cannot do the same thing that many disabled people cannot do, and then say that somehow the two of them are different.

Well aside from pushing a real change in the subject initially, they are quite clearly different. And as for the "Why it can?" primarily comes down to the "Who are you to argue?" mindset. Is it you that is doing it? No. Let those who want the choice have it. Lobby, protest and moan about it, if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, she'll do it through a healthy sanctionned clinic or the much riskier set of alternatives. My whole point in the equation is, IF a woman is going to make that choice, then to donate the cells would also be a beneficial choice (that was more to the greatness comment). I also fear you're giving folks with developmental disabilities far too little credit for their own independance, and I'm not faulting you for it, alot of other people do it too. I was a TA in high school for those kids, and I went in with a similar mindset (as sad as that was for me) and every day I was extremely surprised. Don't sell people with disabilities short like that, try talking to them, they'll surprise you again and again. They are clearly extremely different from a fertilized egg that has or hasn't planted itself into a uterine wall, has developed its internal organs, and can't think or feel.

Your first point: No, I have no problem with cloning, nor is there anything against it in any of the religious books that I know of. I don't see how cloning a group of cells, which are not going to develop into a human, compares to killing a fetus, which is.

Cloning is an equal moral evil in the eyes of most religions, not being negative, thats just their thoughts on it (human cloning is bad etc)and there's the whole big point. First off, its not {i]is[/i], its can develop into blah blah blah. The main point that it comes from here is that whether or not the safe abortion leading to donation of the cells that the mother didn't want or couldn't handle is at least giving it the chance to be used for something.

Perhaps the real question that I should ask to you, would be ... is your objection based on a philosophy or a religious ideal . At least that would give me an idea of what to expect back

 

[Thanatos34]

First point: Let me rephrase. It is not okay to kill some innocents to save other innocents. Nor is it okay to give the government that power, indeed that is just plain frightening. I'm not certain what you mean by saying that there is the potential for greatness here. Who knows how many doctors/scientists we are taking out by abortion? It seems to me that you are losing potential for greatness, not gaining it.

Considering it has no functioning heart or brain or anything at this point, hence the skin cell comparison. The government shouldn't have ANY say in it, the woman who is opting for the procedure should have the choice. And from bluebacon, your more likely nowadays to get a Ted Bundy. What I meant by greatness was simply the leaps in medicine that have been made as a result of research off of stem cells, which regardless of what you say, is much easier, safer and more cost effective method than cloning adult skin cells injected with an artificial virus.

Your second point: You cannot say that the reason why you can abort a fetus, (which is NOT the same as skin cells, it is already a developing infant, you might could argue an embryo is naught but skin cells, but a fetus is most certainly not skin cells), is because it cannot do the same thing that many disabled people cannot do, and then say that somehow the two of them are different.

Well aside from pushing a real change in the subject initially, they are quite clearly different. And as for the "Why it can?" primarily comes down to the "Who are you to argue?" mindset. Is it you that is doing it? No. Let those who want the choice have it. Lobby, protest and moan about it, if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, she'll do it through a healthy sanctionned clinic or the much riskier set of alternatives. My whole point in the equation is, IF a woman is going to make that choice, then to donate the cells would also be a beneficial choice (that was more to the greatness comment). I also fear you're giving folks with developmental disabilities far too little credit for their own independance, and I'm not faulting you for it, alot of other people do it too. I was a TA in high school for those kids, and I went in with a similar mindset (as sad as that was for me) and every day I was extremely surprised. Don't sell people with disabilities short like that, try talking to them, they'll surprise you again and again. They are clearly extremely different from a fertilized egg that has or hasn't planted itself into a uterine wall, has developed its internal organs, and can't think or feel.

Your first point: No, I have no problem with cloning, nor is there anything against it in any of the religious books that I know of. I don't see how cloning a group of cells, which are not going to develop into a human, compares to killing a fetus, which is.

Cloning is an equal moral evil in the eyes of most religions, not being negative, thats just their thoughts on it (human cloning is bad etc)and there's the whole big point. First off, its not {i]is[/i], its can develop into blah blah blah. The main point that it comes from here is that whether or not the safe abortion leading to donation of the cells that the mother didn't want or couldn't handle is at least giving it the chance to be used for something.

Perhaps the real question that I should ask to you, would be ... is your objection based on a philosophy or a religious ideal . At least that would give me an idea of what to expect back

I'm not entirely sure if I could give you an honest answer of what my objection is based on. I would hope its outside the mere fact that my religion believes it to be wrong, but can I be sure of that? I don't know. I subscribe to Lakatos' theory on this subject.

However, I will at least attempt to do so. My main objection to it, is that it is going to develop/already has developed in the case of a fetus, into a human being. I have absolutely no doubts at all that a fetus is a human being, from a scientific, as well as a religious standpoint, and has all the rights of a human, save that its life does not supersede that of the mother's, (because it is "living" as it were, in the mother's body, if it is going to kill her, she has the right to get rid of it in self defense). This objection comes from the belief that all humans have the right to life. I suppose, though this is not founded solely on a religious basis, that there is some sense of "fairness" as it were, that everyone should have the same basic rights. I think humanism would agree with me there, the debate is over whether or not it is a human, not whether or not all humans should have rights.

An embryo... to me, an embryo is a developing human, and as such should be treated the same as a fetus. This one is much harder to prove. I would probably be satisfied with abortion restrictions on an abortion happening after eight weeks. My problem here, is what if we're wrong on this issue? Risk vs gain. Whose to say that at 56 days the fetus is a human, and at 55 days it is not? And why?

The idea that I can "legislate morality" in this sense, is the same reason why the government can make laws regarding people not being allowed to hurt others. If the fetus is a human child, then the mother does not have the right to hurt the child, unless the child is going to kill her. Then, in self-defense, she should be allowed to kill the child.

 

[The_Echo]

Pro-Choice. I mean, c'mon. Who are we to argue whether or not all the women on this planet should have to ability to decide? It's their choice, not ours. I'm all for arguments like this, but the controversy on abortion just seems rather stupid to me. I believe every unborn child has a right to live, but the only time I'm going to be making that choice is with my own child. As long as there's a logical reason, be it an accidental pregnancy due to broken condom/rape/something else, or if the child wouldn't have a very good life anyways, I'm totally fine with women choosing to abort.

 

[TheWritenator]

First of all dudes get out. You have no right to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodys. Are you the one who have to face: morning sickness, cravings, cramps, having to take a piss every two hours, stretch marks, and most importantly HAVING A FREAKING BABY COMEING OUT YOUR VAG. That doesn't even take into accont compilcations and just what your body goes though. The guy(and some girls) who want to tell women what to think make me sick and angry and you wouldn't like me when I'm angry.