Abortion - An age old issue

[Gym Leader Elesa]

I think that abortion is a property crime against the father because joint property is destroyed without his consent. That being said I think that in many (but far from the majority of) scenarios the mother's rational decision would be to give up her life for the child

It has its own genetic code, its own metabolism, and developing organ systems including a nervous system once the neural crest forms.

Which is it? Is it a person, or is it property? Just what are you precisely saying?

 

[SpessCaptain]

Edit: I would also like to add that @autisticdragonkin should edit his OP to include the important question of whether the child is white or not.

#make america great again

@Gym Leader Elesa I'm debating internally whether or not to give you an official Shallow Thoughts warning for this.

Coincidentally, I can see that some people here really do want to discuss this seriously so I'll leave the thread open for now. I am considering deleting some troll responses.

 

[AnOminous]

We don't need to talk to embryos in order to know that they desire life. That is effectively the fundamental driving characteristic of all living things that is so basic that only a neo lysenkoist would deny it

It's utter nonsense. Nothing without consciousness can have desires. Lysenkoism has fucking nothing to do with it you raving autist.

 

[Mesh Gear Fox]

We don't need to talk to embryos in order to know that they desire life

But how can something that is just a mass of cells without a functioning nervous system desire anything? I guess I look at this too clinically and detached for most people.

Ninja'd this time by AnOminous

 

[Joan Nyan]

And you've talked to how many embryos exactly?

I have spoken to many people who would prefer to be alive than dead. All of them were embryos once.

 

[Hat]

Something that doesn't have really any functioning organ systems, brain, or consciousness can hardly be called a human. I'm just going by established knowledge in anatomy and physiology.

Morals are too directly related to religion. The pro-lifers love to use it as a work around to clinical facts. You can't force your beliefs on the entire populace. You don't have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body.

It takes just a few weeks for a child in the womb to develop its basic organs—eyes, a heart, &c.. What is there is a living being; it is not merely an extension of the woman that she is free to cast of as she would an appendix. You stick qualifiers on a being that becomes more and more what your "established knowledge in anatomy and physiology" purportedly calls a human being to avoid calling a human a human.

Societies inherently have established morals; the actions taken by the state and by the people make an inherent statement of what is right and what is wrong. To legalize abortion in all cases would not be a decision based on your "clinical facts," but on the ideology held by those in favor of abortion: namely, that it is a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. I will stop standing behind tradition and religion and cease my attempts to "force my beliefs on the entire populace" when the abortion activists—alongside the activists of various other movements—pledge to do likewise.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

I have spoken to many people who would prefer to be alive than dead. All of them were embryos once.

The question here is not whether we would prefer to be alive currently, but whether we have developed that preference or possessed it somehow inherently as non-sentient hunks of flesh. I would argue that we develop the awareness required to desire life over a period of time mostly outside the womb, long after abortion is considered legal in any jurisdiction I can think of, and that the embryos in question would probably (read: certainly) not notice that they were aborted. They would not suffer at all. From their own "personal standpoint" they never were on the most fundamental level. At that point, your existence was nothing more than a concept of your parents. If I went back in time and aborted you, you would not be worse off for it. You wouldn't be or have been anything, on any real human level.

 

[Joan Nyan]

would argue that we develop the awareness required to desire life over a period of time mostly outside the womb

Even a single celled organism tries its hardest to survive. Awareness is not required for a desire to live. In fact, only advanced, "aware" species like grown, fully developed humans have the mental ability to desire death. An embryo with no awareness is unable to not desire life.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

Even a single celled organism tries its hardest to survive. Awareness is not required for a desire to live. In fact, only advanced, "aware" species like grown, fully developed humans have the mental ability to desire death. An embryo with no awareness is unable to not desire life.

You are conflating "desire" with what is more realistically, "programming." An embryo desires nothing. It might naturally do something, because of its of DNA encoding, or whatever, but the truth is quite the opposite of what you say. It takes a fully developed human (I assume we are speaking only in terms of humans, here) to desire at all, life or death. Simply because something does something does not mean it desired it, or wanted to in any sense. My computer if left to its own devices runs several Windows programs in the background despite my lack of asking it to do so. Did it "desire" to do that? Does your hair "desire" to grow?

Edit: me and grammar tonight, I swear.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Which is it? Is it a person, or is it property? Just what are you precisely saying?

It is a person and property. The part about personhood was about proponents of abortion trying to deny the significance of the situation by referring to it as a ball of cells and nothing more. The part about property is about how it is treated until it is capable of making its own decisions. It is joint property of its mother and father and shares 50% of its preferences with each of them. When the mother unilaterally aborts it she is not necessarily infringing upon her own preferences but she is infringing upon the father's preferences. It is only at a much later age that the child completely makes its own decisions that it can be said to have agency and self ownership.

It's utter nonsense. Nothing without consciousness can have desires. Lysenkoism has fucking nothing to do with it you raving autist.

That is only if you consider desire to be a neurological phenomenon as opposed to a behaviour. Although the neurological phenomenon is not yet present the behaviour is present from the very beginning when the embryo grows. The reference to Lysenkoism comes from that it is a politically motivated denial of biological reality.

You are conflating "desire" with what is more realistically, "programming." An embryo desires nothing. It might naturally do something, because of its of DNA encoding, or whatever, but the truth is quite the opposite of what you say. It takes a fully developed human (I assume we are speaking only in terms of humans, here) to desire at all, life or death. Simply because something does something does not mean it desired it, or wanted to in any sense. My computer if left to its own devices runs several Windows programs in the background despite my lack of asking it to do so. Did it "desire" to do that? Does your hair "desire" to grow?

Well is the desire of an adult human to live really anything aside from "programming". I would say that all neurological phenomena (or at least value driven phenomena) are effectively just "programming" and people are just emotionally invested in them enough that they try to pretend that they are something not ingrained that somehow makes humans "special" when in reality we are trying to survive and thrive just as every other organism is

 

[Joan Nyan]

You are conflating "desire" with what is more realistically, "programming." An embryo desires nothing. It might naturally do something, because of its of DNA encoding, or whatever, but the truth is quite the opposite of what you say. It takes a fully developed human (I assume we are speaking only in terms of humans, here) to desire at all, life or death. Simply because something does something does not mean it desired it, or wanted to in any sense. My computer if left to its own devices runs several Windows programs in the background despite my lack of asking it to do so. Did it "desire" to do that? Does your hair "desire" to grow?

Edit: me and grammar tonight, I swear.

There could be a whole separate thread about the definition of consciousness. I agree with @autisticdragonkin personally.


Although come to think of it, I don't think it matters if an embryo is conscious or not. If someone gets knocked out and is unconscious, you can't just kill them. They don't have consciousness or a desire to live, but we help them rather than kill them, because (hopefully) they will have consciousness later. It's the same with an embryo, it will have consciousness even if it doesn't right now.

 

[Ariel]

Abortion is a complicated issue. I think its wrong, bad & i'd never do it myself.
However the people who need abortions are the ones who were irresponsible with birth control, therefore they didn't even have it together enough to take a pill every day or use a nuva ring or whatever. If somebody can't manage to do that there is a really good chance that they will be an unfit mother.
That said a few of my friends had abortions and it really fucked them up mentally. Pro-choicers tend to skip over that bit from what i've seen.

 

[Joan Nyan]

If somebody can't manage to do that there is a really good chance that they will be an unfit mother.

How responsible one's mother is does not change the value of one's life.

That said a few of my friends had abortions and it really fucked them up mentally. Pro-choicers tend to skip over that bit from what i've seen.

Murderers tend to have a guilty conscience.

 

[Pikimon]

I'm going to preface my opinion on abortion with some basic physiological information.

For several months (2 months is the norm) a blastocyst will be devoid of any semblance of a nervous system. It is a clump of stem cells no different than the millions of stem cells currently circulating your body as we speak (most of which are concentrated in the pia mater of the central nervous system).

The only reason why this clump of cells grows the way it does is because of a combination of prenatal hormones and nutrients and inherent genetic factors that exists within the nucleus and mitochondria. This clump of cells has no "desire" or "want", it is doing the exact same thing billions of other organisms do constantly which is to attempt to develop into a fertile and healthy progenitor of its parent.

Biological processes work for the benefit of the organism. For single-celled organisms, organelles work in tandem with the mitochondria to work on the most basic of cellular functions: reproduction and energy creation. In multi-cellular organisms these needs expand as cells are now delegated into individual tasks that are necessary for the overall health of an organism (neurons, erythrocytes, apidocytes, etc.). Biologically speaking in multi-cellular organisms, reproduction is necessary for the overall health of a species but a gamble for a individual of the species.

In plants this is shown in instances where fruiting bodies are sacrificed for the sake of roots and leaves, in animals this is displayed by delaying estrus, sacrificing sex cells, and the atrophy of sex organs. Comparing biological processes to the processes of a computer is misguided at best, misinformed at worst. A biological system has millions upon millions of variables that can effect its performance such as psychological states of being, sociological pressures, chemical imbalances, and environmental variances. A comparison can be made, but this comparison is quickly deconstructed with basic physiology and molecular biology.

For the social aspect, I honestly think that treating abortion as a crime and banning its use is basically closing the barn doors when all the horses have already ran out. The most effective method of preventing abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy by teaching cohesive and effective sex education, promoting the usage of contraception, and focusing especially on the education of young girls. Focusing on the act of abortion itself is like trying to control a disease by focusing on its symptoms rather than focusing on the root causes, and doesn't prevent abortion but drives its occurrence underground often utilizing dangerous and risky methods that would be unnecessary if abortion were provided in a safe medical setting coupled with safe sex education. Abortion should a last-resort situation that is available for all women anywhere from the moment of conception to about 5 months, especially in the case of rape and incest.

 

[Vitriol]

I think ive mentioned elsewhere that really this issue boils down to where one ascribes human rights.

No reasonable person denies that a woman has a right to her body but equally no reasonable person suggests a developing child has none. The question very quickly becomes whether a fetus should be considered a developing human and at what point it acquires its human right to life- which in most cases will trump the mothers right to control of her body having agreed to intercourse previously (obviously rape complicates this).

I've never known enough about medicine to hold a strong view on this but i have never seen a satisfactory reason for deferring personhood from conception for the simple reason that we dont accept euthanasia of the severely damaged on the will of their relatives. It seems very questionable to me that we require a fetus to be able to think or act where we do not expect the same of those outside the womb.

Its not an opinion i hold particuliarly strongly but there it is.

 

[HypeBeast]

There are already way too many fucking people on this planet. We dont need more stupid people having children that they won't take decent care of. I encourage the use of preventative contraceptives, but shit happens and abortions are necessary even though they are an unpleasant thing.

Abortion will exist regardless of its legality. If it is not offered legally and safe then women will just go get sketchy work done or do it themselves. Obviously, the illegal abortions are dangerous as fuck and can lead to several problems for both mom and the fetus.

Scientifically, I dont regard embyos as human because they can't think. I dont remember things from age 4 let alone from being in the womb. If it has no nervous system it doesn't give a fuck what happens to it. Up until a certain point in developement , most mammalian embryos look very similar because we all evolved from this sperm + egg = genetic material for new being dealio.

Basically, if you dont think abortion is okay and dont want one then fine. You can choose not to have one! Outlawing them is foolish though. Like saying "only in cases of rape", how do you prove you were impregnated through rape or do you just say that you were? Too much room for fuckery, just keep it legal until late term.

 

[Ariel]

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/general/lancet_4.pdf
The death toll from Unsafe Abortion is really high, even now.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Biologically speaking in multi-cellular organisms, reproduction is necessary for the overall health of a species but a gamble for a individual of the species.

What do you mean by this? Are you saying that an individual could be better off just not reproducing or are you just saying that it is stochastic?

I've never known enough about medicine to hold a strong view on this but i have never seen a satisfactory reason for deferring personhood from conception for the simple reason that we dont accept euthanasia of the severely damaged on the will of their relatives. It seems very questionable to me that we require a fetus to be able to think or act where we do not expect the same of those outside the womb.

I think that it is acceptable to euthanize someone all the way up to the age of 18 as long as both parents consent to it. I think that there is nothing to justify birth being a significant point and that likewise all the possible abortion justifications can be given for euthanizing a child under 18.

There are already way too many fucking people on this planet. We dont need more stupid people having children that they won't take decent care of. I encourage the use of preventative contraceptives, but shit happens and abortions are necessary even though they are an unpleasant thing.

I never understand why it seems like everyone here is an advocate of eugenics

Obviously, the illegal abortions are dangerous as fuck and can lead to several problems for both mom and the fetus.

But why does it matter what happens to the fetus if it would otherwise be dead?

how do you prove you were impregnated through rape or do you just say that you were?

Court of law

 

[Philosophy Zombie]

The argument in favor of abortion regarding whether or not a child should be born at all if he has no arms and half a spine always arises in discussions on the topic of abortion, yet I would like to see exactly what portion of abortions are actually undergone for that purpose. How does portion compare with the portion that are performed because people, both teens and adults, decide to play around and don't want to face the consequences of their actions?

When my mother was pregnant with her youngest child she was in her early forties. It was a high-risk pregnancy and the baby she was carrying had a high risk of possible disabilities, including a high risk of Down syndrome. I overheard a conversation she had with my father where she said she would probably abort the fetus if amniocentesis turned up positive.

The baby turned out to be perfectly normal and healthy, but you get the idea, and Down syndrome is a manageable condition where patients may grow up to live semi-independently so you see how it may be with more severe disabilities. To use an example, anencephaly is a condition where the two hemispheres of the brain don't fuse properly during development and the child is born missing portions of its brain. There is no hope for the child that results in that case; it has no chance to develop any mental faculties beyond perhaps the basic mechanics of breathing and being alive that the brain stem regulates because there literally is nothing to develop upon. Brain transplant is impossible and every patient born with that condition dies within a year. It depends on whether you believe that one can force a mother to bring her child to term with the full knowledge that its life will inevitably be both brief and full of suffering.

I would argue that if a fetus had no arms and half a spine, the mother wouldn't have an obligation to give it birth. If she did so it would make her exceptional in being virtuous, rather than the mother who would abort being exceptionally without morals.

Even a single celled organism tries its hardest to survive. Awareness is not required for a desire to live. In fact, only advanced, "aware" species like grown, fully developed humans have the mental ability to desire death. An embryo with no awareness is unable to not desire life.

You're mistaking some broad biological imperative for homeostasis and general survival for an actual conscious desire to live. In biology organisms are engineered to live long enough to produce offspring, and generally by default they continue to live until extenuating circumstances intervene, but that does not mean that a bacterium would know or care if it were alive or dead. It doesn't consciously think "oh I hope nobody rubs me with that hand sanitizer".

An embryo six weeks into fertilization doesn't have any conscious experience. It could grow up to be a person with conscious experience who looks back and says, "I am glad that my mother gave birth to me," but there is no "death" of consciousness that occurs if termination happens before that can even begin. At most it's a death of potential. Take that process back a little and you may as well be saying that using contraception or choosing not to have children is murder because it puts a stop to the potential development of a person.

As a person who was once an embryo and is now grown, sentient and can make judgments I can say whether I'm glad to be alive or whether I'm not, but if I were aborted before I could become one I'd have no opinion on the matter and I never would. Because I don't exist. And as far as my awareness is concerned, I never existed.

It takes just a few weeks for a child in the womb to develop its basic organs—eyes, a heart, &c.. What is there is a living being; it is not merely an extension of the woman that she is free to cast of as she would an appendix. You stick qualifiers on a being that becomes more and more what your "established knowledge in anatomy and physiology" purportedly calls a human being to avoid calling a human a human.

An embryo does have rudimentary organs and after a few weeks, a heartbeat. I didn't see anyone arguing otherwise.

But that's not really the point. As fetus is considered an "extension" of the woman who's carrying it because it's inviable. It cannot survive independently of that particular mother's womb. This is different from how a newborn baby cannot survive on its own. If a baby is born, and the mother abandons him or dies in childbirth, another person can come forward and care for that child, and he can survive. You cannot rend an embryo from one person's uterus and insert it in another's because if you try that, it will die. Therefore it's considered invioably attached to the mother at least until the point where it could be prematurely born and still possibly survive and that's around 23 weeks into pregnancy.

I've never known enough about medicine to hold a strong view on this but i have never seen a satisfactory reason for deferring personhood from conception for the simple reason that we dont accept euthanasia of the severely damaged on the will of their relatives. It seems very questionable to me that we require a fetus to be able to think or act where we do not expect the same of those outside the womb.

I also support euthanasia but the distinction between that and abortion is that the severely damaged person did once have a will, even if he no longer does, and therefore there is that will to take into account and thinking about "what they would have wanted". An aborted fetus never had a will or desires to take into account at all.

 

[SpacePanther]

What do you mean by this? Are you saying that an individual could be better off just not reproducing or are you just saying that it is stochastic?

I think that it is acceptable to euthanize someone all the way up to the age of 18 as long as both parents consent to it. I think that there is nothing to justify birth being a significant point and that likewise all the possible abortion justifications can be given for euthanizing a child under 18.

I never understand why it seems like everyone here is an advocate of eugenics

But why does it matter what happens to the fetus if it would otherwise be dead?

Court of law

Concerning to problems with Fetus, I think @HypeBeast meant that if the home made abortion failed, the fetus will be born with lots of problems potentially.

As for rape and the court of law...court of law isn't always right or just.