Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Infidel
Colonel
Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 691
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Abortion: is it murder? Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 18:44 |
Originally posted by jfmff
Not all religions say that killing animals is ok except if they are humans. Buddhism is against killing any form of animal life. |
Islam allows killing (lawful) animals for the sole purpose of survival (food). That is to say, there are animals who are lawful for human to kill in order to survive.
|
An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
|
|
hugoestr
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 18:55 |
Originally posted by Infidel
Since you appear slow in understanding what I write, I have to tell you once more that I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone. I was just explaining them. I further added on many of my posts that society should be more effective in helping the needy, something you have conveniently ignored.
|
I will ignore all of the attacks that you made against me in the last post. I find it amusing how you kept attacking me even when I brought this to your attention. It must be compulsive in you.
The important thing is that you made it very clear that you are not looking to impose your values on other people. If that is so, then we are in agreement, because you are, in fact, pro-choice.
You are personally against abortion, but you respect the values of other people to not impose your own. This means that you will let women decide to go ahead and have an abortion or not, although you would encourage them to have the child.
I also agree with you when you say that society should help the needy. I didn't ignore that. Go back to my posts and see that I acknowledge them
Since we are both in the same side, pro-choice, there is nothing left to discuss. It was nice debating with you...except for your unfounded personal attacks, of course.
At logo
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 19:06 |
Well I've had tonsilitis this past week so I wouldn't mind some intellectual activity.
Firstly, no it isn't murder. For you to murder a human being you must have a fuly, formed, fully developed, living member of the species be killed. And let's face it, what is inside a woman when an abortion is conducted is a conglomeration of cells which do not add up to a properly formed human being capable of life without more months of uteral development.
If you say it is murder because those cells are human or whatever, then why allow brest cancer removals? Hell, that lethal lump in a middle aged woman's brest amounts to a successful growth of human life. Sure it can't sing, paint pictures, drive a car, have a conversation, walk, surf the internet or get married and have kids. But then neither can a bunch of uteral cells which are undergoing a long process of growing into something which MAY eventually become a life-form. As has been said, those cells are not a properly formed human being and their termination cannot be considered murder.
|
|
ArmenianSurvival
Chieftain
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 19:12 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
If you say it is murder because those cells are human or whatever, then
why allow brest cancer removals? Hell, that lethal lump in a middle
aged woman's brest amounts to a successful growth of human life. Sure
it can't sing, paint pictures, drive a car, have a conversation, walk,
surf the internet or get married and have kids. But then neither can a
bunch of uteral cells which are undergoing a long process of growing
into something which MAY eventually become a life-form. As has been
said, those cells are not a properly formed human being and their
termination cannot be considered murder. |
Exactly my point, good post Constantine.
Edited by ArmenianSurvival
|
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance
Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
|
|
Infidel
Colonel
Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 691
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 19:15 |
Originally posted by Chavez
(...)except for your unfounded personal attacks, of course |
You seem quite sensitive towards those unfounded personal or ad hominem attacks. I supposed the irony fitted both sides. You seemed to happily engage in such rhetoric. Nevertheless, I'm glad you finally understood my views. Afterall, that was the point all along.
Hasta luego
Edited by Infidel
|
An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
|
|
Infidel
Colonel
Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 691
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 19:31 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
If you say it is murder because those cells are human or whatever, then why allow brest cancer removals? |
Cancer is a class of diseases characterized by uncontrolled cell division and the ability of these cells to invade other tissues, either by direct growth into adjacent tissue (invasion) or by migration of cells to distant sites (metastasis). This unregulated growth is caused by damage to DNA, resulting in mutations to vital genes that control cell division, among other functions. One or more of these mutations, which can be inherited or acquired, can lead to uncontrolled cell division and tumor formation. Tumor ("swelling" in Latin) refers to any abnormal mass of tissue, but may be either malignant (cancerous) or benign (noncancerous). Only malignant tumors are capable of invading other tissues or metastasizing.
in, Wikipedia
There is a huge difference. Breath cancer kills the woman if it's not removed. Not aborting, except in some very few cases (where abortion is allowed), doesn't end up in the woman's death.
|
An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
|
|
hugoestr
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 21:38 |
Originally posted by Infidel
Originally posted by Chavez
(...)except for your unfounded personal attacks, of course |
You seem quite sensitive towards those unfounded personal or ad hominem attacks. I supposed the irony fitted both sides. You seemed to happily engage in such rhetoric. Nevertheless, I'm glad you finally understood my views. Afterall, that was the point all along.
Hasta luego
|
You just can't stop doing it, can you
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 21:48 |
Originally posted by Infidel
Originally posted by Constantine XI
If you say it is murder because those cells are human or whatever, then why allow brest cancer removals? |
Cancer is a class of diseases characterized by uncontrolled cell division and the ability of these cells to invade other tissues, either by direct growth into adjacent tissue (invasion) or by migration of cells to distant sites (metastasis). This unregulated growth is caused by damage to DNA, resulting in mutations to vital genes that control cell division, among other functions. One or more of these mutations, which can be inherited or acquired, can lead to uncontrolled cell division and tumor formation. Tumor ("swelling" in Latin) refers to any abnormal mass of tissue, but may be either malignant (cancerous) or benign (noncancerous). Only malignant tumors are capable of invading other tissues or metastasizing.
in, Wikipedia
There is a huge difference. Breath cancer kills the woman if it's not removed. Not aborting, except in some very few cases (where abortion is allowed), doesn't end up in the woman's death.
|
So say I have a giant cyst above my eyeline that is totally harmless but leaves my face utterly disfigured, don't I have the right to remove it even though it isn't medically dangerous?
Also having a child at the wrong time can have the same effects as a disease, perhaps being worse. Economically crippled, often forced to turn to men of dubious character simply because they can offer a thin measure of security, a more likely future of unstable parenting for the child and any following children, restricted access to education, restricted employment opportunities, restricted travel opportunity, social stigma and difficulty finding time for friends. These are all possible ramifications of having a serious illness, and are all likely consequences of having a child when the parent(s) is not ready.
The analogy, therefore, is quite sound. In both cases a comglomeration of cells which does not form a properly developed human being is not being removed simply because they carry human DNA. The result in both cases, most likely, are the range of serious and detrimental conditions which I listed.
|
|
jfmff
Pretorian
Joined: 16-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 22:43 |
I will say this only once and I think I speak for all anti-abortionists.
The argument about the cancer/the cyst/the sperm gonocide/the ovum/etc
killing is falacious. A sophism. Why? Because, when left alone by
themselves, proceding their natural development, all these
examples will never lead to a human being. Only a fertilised ovum will.
So only the fertilised ovum can possibly have the status of an human
being.
This said lets proceed with the discution about when does a "bunch of cells" (derived from a union of a male and female gamete) can be considered a human being.
This said lets begin. Two things:
1- When does a bunch of cells become a human being. In what day? In
that case at what time? at what minute? at what second? Are you trying
to say that before that second the bunch of cells is not a human being,
but after that second it is a human being? Stablishing a limit after
fecundation is ilogical so the limit can only be setled at fecundation.
2- Since it is just a bunch of cells or as said by ArmenianSurvival a parasite, why is it such a dificult decision? its just a bunch of cells anyway...
|
|
Infidel
Colonel
Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 691
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 22:55 |
Originally posted by hugoestr
You just can't stop doing it, can you |
Oh well, it seems you're still eager to engage in such rhetoric.
|
An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
|
|
hugoestr
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 23:05 |
Originally posted by Infidel
Originally posted by hugoestr
You just can't stop doing it, can you |
Oh well, it seems you're still eager to engage in such rhetoric. |
This is fun! You're it!
|
|
hugoestr
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 23:31 |
Originally posted by jfmff
I will say this only once and I think I speak for all anti-abortionists.
The argument about the cancer/the cyst/the sperm gonocide/the ovum/etc
killing is falacious. A sophism. Why? Because, when left alone by
themselves, proceding their natural development, all these
examples will never lead to a human being. Only a fertilised ovum will.
So only the fertilised ovum can possibly have the status of an human
being.
This said lets proceed with the discution about when does a "bunch of cells" (<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;">derived from a union of a male and female gamete</span> can be considered a human being.
<span ="bold"span style="font-weight: normal;">
This said lets begin. Two things:
1- When does a bunch of cells become a human being. In what day? In
that case at what time? at what minute? at what second? Are you trying
to say that before that second the bunch of cells is not a human being,
but after that second it is a human being? Stablishing a limit after
fecundation is ilogical so the limit can only be setled at fecundation.
2- Since it is just a bunch of cells or as said by </span/spanspan ="bold">ArmenianSurvival </spanspan ="bold"span style="font-weight: normal;">a parasite, why is it such a dificult decision? its just a bunch of cells anyway...</span/spanspan ="bold"span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span/spanspan ="bold"span style="font-weight: normal;"/span/span>
|
I am glad that you are only going to say this one time. This way we will not have to hear your counter arguments Just kidding.
Now let me explain why your arguments are incorrect.
Your criteria for granting cells humanity is that if left alone by themselves, they will not grow into a human being. Well, a conceptus left by itself will not do it either. Otherwise the concepti in fertility clinics would grow to become babies.
Counter-argument to point 1:
Just because it is difficult to set a limit, it doesn't mean that it is impossible or that we shouldn't create one based on pragmatic reasons. After all, the age of consent and the age limit to vote are also set at an arbitrary age. When is a child old enough to assume adult responsibilities? How knows. But for our society to function, we need to set a cutoff point. The same has been the case with babies.
And I use babies because in the past, babies were not granted humanity until they had survived a number of days. As medicine improved, the line has been pulled back. People in favor of letting women to chose for themselves seem to agree that birth is the absolute line.
Within that same group, many believe that third trimester fetuses have humanity too, abortion having to stay legal so that women could be saved if the fetus is a life risk for them. The reason for this is that most babies born at this point can survive after they are born.
The gray area is the second trimester. Some late second trimester babies can survive with the proper medical treatment.
And again, at the first trimester we all tend to agree saying that these cells are not a human.
Personally, I would put down the line at the third trimester, but that is just my opinion. After all, I will never be pregnant.
Oh, and your closing remark is as informall fallacy itself. All what you did before was to show how finding a cutting point is difficult. This doesn't necessarely imply that your position is correct.
You still need to make a convincing argument for why it begins at fecundation.
2. The way that you phrased it, that the conceptus is a parasite, is indeed a poor argument. Now, if it is stated "is like a parasite" then it becomes more valid, especially in the early weeks.
The conceptus is taking all of its needs out of the mother. There are cases where the mother's antibodies attack the conceptus as a germ. The conceptus changes women's bodies as if they were sick from some foreign agent.
And the conceptus doesn't look to different from some parasite cell. I am sure that if someone put 100 petri dishes with unicellular parasites but one petri dish with a conceptus, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2005 at 03:21 |
I'm tired of defending: anti-choice defenders must defend their
viewpoint as well. Here are my questions. Please go one by one through
them:
- Why is a bunch of cells (the early embryo) a human being? I don't
accept answers of the kind "the Pope says it". Ratzinger's or
Khomeini's viewpoint is just one viewpoint's among billions. I want
your views, not someone else's.
- Why the viewpoint of the mother is so irrelevant in your
argumentation? Isn't the mother a human being with full rights or do
you see women as little more than two legged eggs or incubators?
- Why do you want to impose your personal viewpoint on others that
may not share it? If you have moral concerns about abortion and you are
a woman, then you will be able to exert your free choice anyhow in the
case that you happen to get pregnant unwillingly (hope not). Nobody is
trying to force you to abort. It is your choice. Then why do you want
to export your subjective morals to others and forbid them to take
decissions according to their judgement? Why are you trying to force
people to have children against their will?
Thanks.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Cezar
Chieftain
Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2005 at 11:29 |
During the communist regime of Ceausescu, abortion was illegal in Romania. I will try to translate into English what was that law about (Decretul 770/1966):
"Due to the fact that abortion is an act that has severe consequences on a women's health and leads to large prejudices regardin the natality and the notural growth of the population, the State Council the Socialist Republic of Romania states:
art. 1 Abortion is forbidenn
art. 2 Absolutely exceptional, abortion is allowed, acording to art. 5, in the following situations:
a) the pregnancy endangers the women's life and there are no other ways to prevent that threat
b) one of the parents suffers from a severe disease, that is either genetically inherited or leads to severe congenital malformations
c) the pregnant women has severe invalidities, physical, psychal or sensorial
d) the pregnant women is over 45 years old
e) the pregnant women gave birth and is caring of at least four children
f) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest
art.3 abortion in the situations stated in art. 2 can be done in the first three months of pregnancy. In exceptional situations, when a severe pathological status endangers the women's life, it can be done au to six months.
art. 4 Abortions, as stated in art. 2 and 3, are to be done by specialists in acreditated healthcare institutions
art. 5 Authorisation for abortion is to be given by a regional medical comitee, or a municipal one. The comittee will be created according to a decision of the region executive comittee or of the towns Bucharest or Constanta
art. 6 In cases extreme medical emergency, when abortion is neccessary, the doctor has the obligation that before the operation, or at least 24 hours after, to announce, through a written document, an attorney. The attorney is to declare, by the expertise of a legist doctor (I know this isn't the right term but bear with me!) or any other necessarry means, that the abortion was imperative.
art. 7 Abortion acts in any other situations than those stated in this document are to be considered illegal, and prosecuted according to the Penal Code."
For more than 20 years, my people lived acording to this law. It was awful! Furthermore, AC's where not at hand, as the party policy was to encourage natality.
I would say that abortion is not murder. Murder is either what we think of an act or what a law states that it is. Would you think of hunters as being ferrocious criminals as they keep on killing living beings! What about the soldiers? They kill people, that's what they are supposed to do! Are they murderers? If one states that abortion is murder then he should also state that soldiers are murderers.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2005 at 12:27 |
I think some notions of embriology are needed in this forum. So here it goes:
1) by the 3rd week the embryo is only a three-bladed "organism", which resembles somewhat a disc
2) by the 8th week it has a body shape (it no longer resembles a disc).
Beside this shape, it already has human contours (hands, fingers and
all) and more importantly, all the systems are present, although in a
primitive shape.
So I guess that by the 12 th week (the deadline for abortion to occur
in many countries), it is no longer a bunch of cells. By the contrary,
it is quite human like.
|
|
the Bulgarian
Colonel
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2005 at 12:43 |
Technichaly speaking abortion is murder, but I don't think it should be prohibited.
|
|
jfmff
Pretorian
Joined: 16-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2005 at 13:31 |
I think there is no comon ground for me to discuss the abortion issue anymore.
Once the argument to decide when is the limit for abortion (at what
time) is the fetus' hability to survive I don't think there can be any
more progress. A tetraplegic couldn't survive by himself also and is a
financial "burden" for his family, but I don't think that the family
can kill him if they want to. Furthermore comparissons of the
protohuman with cancer and parasites is just insultuous.
Edited by jfmff
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2005 at 15:26 |
Originally posted by O_Condestvel
I think some notions of embriology are needed in this forum. So here it goes:
1) by the 3rd week the embryo is only a three-bladed "organism", which resembles somewhat a disc
2) by the 8th week it has a body shape (it no longer resembles a disc).
Beside this shape, it already has human contours (hands, fingers and
all) and more importantly, all the systems are present, although in a
primitive shape.
So I guess that by the 12 th week (the deadline for abortion to occur
in many countries), it is no longer a bunch of cells. By the contrary,
it is quite human like. |
That's precisely why it is the deadline: the nervous system starts to
appear as does the blood system. Yet, whatever the appearance, it's
still a tiny criature that can hardly be called human (except for its
genetic charge).
In any case I would be quite happy if abortion was free in the 3 first
months of pregnancy. That would prevent virtually all undesired
childbirths.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2005 at 15:36 |
Originally posted by jfmff
I think there is no comon ground for me to discuss the abortion issue anymore.
Once the argument to decide when is the limit for abortion (at what
time) is the fetus' hability to survive I don't think there can be any
more progress. A tetraplegic couldn't survive by himself also and is a
financial "burden" for his family, but I don't think that the family
can kill him if they want to. Furthermore comparissons of the
protohuman with cancer and parasites is just insultuous.
|
Do you retire when I asked you and the other anti-choice to defend your positions (see above). I find it a little insulting.
Also just to comment that euthanasia is also ethical, at least when the
affected person expresses that will. There was recently a case in
Spain, where a writer that had been tetraplejic for many years wanted
to be administered euthanasia and judges wouldn't allow it. Finally his
companion did and she is now in jail for such a compassive action that
anyhow only fulfilled the will of the affected person.
Life and death are difficult matters but they aren't the exclussive
matter of any otherworldy entity but in a sense it is our matter:
life... and death. Both.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Cezar
Chieftain
Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Nov-2005 at 16:12 |
Originally posted by Maju
Life and death are difficult matters but they aren't the exclussive matter of any otherworldy entity but in a sense it is our matter: life... and death. Both.
|
|
|