Abortion is Wrong

I agree that people arguing from either extreme presents problems. Some of the stuff I've seen pro choice people compare a foetus to makes it very hard to take them seriously. That said, I personally don't see the difference? Between sperm on its own and a pregnancy yes, but not between the various stages you described. I can understand people feeling a bit more squemish about is as they get further along that graphic you posted, especially people who are parents themselves already, but I just don't see it myself. Maybe because I'm not a baby person or its one of those things I'll never understand until I'm a parent?

Its bad to admit but I feel more saddened and somewhat outraged by people killing big cats than I do about the idea of people terminating a 12 week foetus. It could also be that the whole abortion thing is one of the issues I look at from a "should this be legal" standpoint rather than think about the morality behind it. No idea what kind of thing I want as a response either but the ethics behind stages of pregnancy up until congnincy (I hope that's a word) is something that inevitably gets brought up when people discuss abortion and I've never been able to really understand it.




Fair enough. I know you didn't call him a boob either, that's me being me rather than a reflection of how I thought you were describing him.
 
I think the only real cut off you could really apply that might have any meaning is when the ability to feel pain develops. For which you need a brain and a nervous system (and probably more like pain receptors, trasmitter chemicals etc).
When can the "baby" suffer in other words.
We know new-born babies can feel pain and so we know it develops sometime before birth.
And we know a blastocyst can't feel pain because it doesn't have a brain or nervous system with which to feel it.
Again..the truth's in the middle somewhere and we need to tune out the extremes to arrive at that I think.
 
That's fine obviously. You don't have to see it but just understand it is a factor when people debate abortion.
 
Regarding father and mother responsibilities I don't believe it's anything you can divide 50% responsibility. Both the mother AND father have 100% responsibility for the embryo that they create as both the mother and father had the clear option of using contraceptives. Even when you take into account the failure rate of contraceptives both parent had the clear option of simply not having sex. So you can't then simply say it's a 50% split between the two.

If you don't want babies, don't have sex.

If you have sex with contraceptives then you should accept the risk of failure of those contraceptives and still take responsibility for your actions, including paying for child support and whatnot.

There are some exceptions in particular one that has gone through the courts, but they are few and far between.

This of course again comes down to proper education about safe sex and the risks of having sex even with 'protection'.
 
I'm pro-choice from a policy perspective. I oppose any legal restrictions whatsoever on abortion. My wife and I wouldn't abort, but nothing good comes from banning them.

But from a genetic, scientific perspective, it absolutely IS accurate to say that life begins at conception. The idea that life begins at the third trimester, or at birth, is a legal fiction dictated by policy concerns and emotion, not by genetics.
 
Here is my opinion. I, personally, would not get an abortion. It's just my mentality. It's life that deserves a chance. However I don't believe in taking the right to choose away from women. I just don't believe in telling someone they can't. Its a life changing event. It is not something small and I feel you can not force someone to have to go through it. I am a big liberal.

I hate when people have the "I'll just get an abortion" mentality but I don't think others should have to suffer because of them such as rape victims.
 
Nonsense. Do any of the biologists here believe life begins at conception? I certainly don't. I don't even know any biologists who subscribe to this line of thinking, and I know a lot.

Also, mother nature naturally aborts most conceptions, so apparently she is one viscous mass murderer.
 
Interesting. So what is the accepted line of thinking among biologists?
 
Conception is the moment when the new being is genetically distinct from either of his/her parents. And the zygote/fetus/baby is genetically identical from when it's one single cell to when it's born. Genetically, conception IS the moment when it ceases being "tissue of the mother" and becomes "a separate life form."



Yes. Nature is full of death. That is totally irrelevant to when life begins though.
 
I think it varies quite a bit. I studied bio in a conservative part of Washington, which in the US means a lot of highly religious students and professors at our campus. When we discussed the subject in class openly in 300-400 level courses, the notion that blastocysts are somehow intrinsically more "alive" than say a cluster of skin cells did not appear to be a terribly popular one. I personally believe at the soonest life begins at sentience, and maybe even as late as external viability from the mother. The times I voiced that opinion publicly, a few other students agreed with me. None openly stated life begins at conception, though I'm sure a few probably believed it.
 
Yeah I should have worded that differently and put a "viable" human life in there.
A collection of cells is the start of a human life. I agree. It might be viable it might not. A fair percentage are not viable just naturally. There are any number of outcomes for that collection of cells, one of which is eventually being born as a baby.
What I was trying to get across was the gradual and sliding scale nature of embryological development whereby life, as lived by fully developed humans like you and me, emerges from that development. It's not on/off, either or.
A collection of cells is not in the same order or magnitude of "human life" as a baby the day befoe it's born and applying the same concerns and criteria for both doesn't take that into account.
 
As for the former, is a fully-formed baby that's born in a persistent vegetative state never actually "alive" biologically?

As for the latter, is a baby two minutes from being born, full term, totally healthy but still inside its mother, not yet "alive" biologically?

Let's take it out of the emotional context of humans. Let's talk about lab rats. Is a rat fetus three days away from being born alive in the biological sense? It's genetically unique, it's got a functioning brain and a functioning heart...how could a biologist look at that and say "that's not a living organism"? What biological, science-based test does it fail?



Those "concerns and criteria" are policy issues, not science issues. I already agree with the policy decisions; I'm pro-choice. But let's not cloak those policy decisions in the argument that something is not "alive" in the scientific and biological sense until birth, or until conscious brain function commences, because that's not scientifically and biologically accurate.
 
First of all, it's more accurate to say fertilization, not conception. Fertilization happens over twenty hours, it isn't instant. Secondly, no, a zygote/fetus is not genetically static through it's gestation. DNA mutates, and maternal habits greatly influence the fetus' genome.

The issue is not as simple as examining the criteria for personhood under a genetic perspective only. Furthermore, the genetic perspective of, "life begins at conception" is flawed for several reasons. The article below suofftopicrizes them.



The article then goes on to state:



The article lists Metabolism, Genetics, Embryology, Neurology, and Ecology/Technology as the five categories.

[Then we have this biologists opinion.]


[And this biologists opinion.]
 
I stated a 'personal opinion' on the moment a fetus becomes discernibly 'alive.' I did not state an established scientific criteria. I don't believe one exists. The process for the development of life occurs on a continuum.

That said, I never argued that the two criteria I personally find most reasonable for establishing life are without error. Of all the reasonable choices outlined above though, I feel those two have the fewest logical inconsistencies. I also feel the "life begins at conception" choice is probably the most erroneous for the reasons already outlined.

Lastly, a fetus two minutes from birth is viable outside it's mother womb, so that would satisfy the upper limit of criteria mentioned before.
 
Personally I would rate viability (if that's the criteria a person wants to use to determine when a abortion would be allowed) by going by the youngest age that a premature baby has survived being born.
Which I think is around 26 weeks at the moment?
With that age going down as medical care improves nad it's gone done quite a bit from what it was 10-20 years ago.
Potentially we may even develop the means to keep a baby alive outside of a woman right from fertilizing the egg. Which would change things again I think.
 
I'm gonna lay all my cards in one deck. Prepare for a blade rant.

My ex pressured me into having unprotected sex because he didnt want to wear a condom all the time. That and he wanted me to have his kid. He even said that my bloated stomach (i often get sick from my food intolerances that causes bloating) was so big and hard it reminded of pregnancy and that was just so hot , to him. Of course that made me sicker than the actual food intolerance. And there is no way I want a kid, and especially not his. He was a controlling jerk. So...........crap off.

AND, pro lifers always talk about adoption, and they dont care about actual stories and experiences. Like, My ex would never have agreed to adoption. I adopted a cat when i was with him, and when I left him, he said there is no way you're getting the cat, I'd rather kill it than give it to you or anyone else" He actually said that. To my face. if he was so possessive ove a cat, what would it be for his own child? and is that a good environment for a kid to be in? what if he'd rather kill it than give it up too? So, pro lifers can crap off.

Also, there are the stories of people who have given up their kids for adoption, and the adult tracks them down some decades down the road and threatened to expose their secret and give them hell when the birth parent said they didnt want contact. Yeah......no.

And my neighhbor, who is an adopted child, now almost 25 still feels the pain of her bio duh telling her he doesnt want her. Yeah.....no.

and i dont want to reproduce.

In short, pro lifers can crap off. and take the rest of their freak shows with them.
 
Isn't life a continuous process started billions of years ago and continues on?
Steady state theory maybe?
Just wondering.,..
Raz
 
Doesn't really address the issues though Blade!

bvioulsy it is even harder to be objective after such harrowing experiences - and my sympathies on such a shocking time in your life - but every story you have posted can be countered by a story of someone who aborted and regretted it or cannot live with the guilt etc...

You simply cannot allow that type of emotion or bias to enter the decision making proces either pro or agin abortion

This thread is actually one of the most even tempered, balanced and considered I have actually read on the topic and is a credit to MAP and our denizens
 
Back
Top