Abortion: Why so serious?

[Glitch]

im pro abortion. simply for the fact that there is such a thing as over population. it happens all the time in the animal kingdom. lion cubs are left to die when the food is scarce. its common, very common. besides, do we really need more humans? we are a vial enough species as it is. i see no reason to make more of us. (all of this is my opinion, and shouldnt be taken as an isult to anyone)

Another sucker buys into the "overpopulation" myth.  Next up:  the sky really is falling.

Check out this short video:

Alright, I'm going to stop you here.

We were overpopulated, there was massive famine, but then shuttle breeding was invented and the amount of food produced increased tenfold. 

I do not think abortion on the grounds of population control makes any goddamn sense, but overpopulation is a real thing.

[PuppyChow]

From the moment of conception, the cells grow and divide at an exponential rate.  They build proteins, process and metabolize carbohydrates consuming oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide.  In that regard, they are indistinguishable from any other living cell on the planet Earth.  At what date/time is it alive?  Well, if the cells are doing all this growing and dividing from the moment of conception, then how can you argue they are not alive?

But of course the fetus is alive!  Why else would we be performing an abortion other than to stop the unborn child from growing further and reaching full gestation?  This unborn child is not like a seed in a packet on the shelf in the gardening section at the store, waiting to be planted and watered and put in appropriate soil to begin the process of setting down roots and shooting up stalks.  This child is more like the seedling that has established roots and deployed leaves and will bear fruit if left in place for the season.  I fear the only reason elective abortion is held by some as permissible while doing the same to a newborn is considered murder is that they cannot see the unborn child with their actual eyes (yet.)

Well, you aren't using the right definition of life.

Here is the basic definition of life:

   1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
   2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
   3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
   4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
   5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
   6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
   (7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.) This one doesn't really apply to fetuses.

So, give me the weeks that it develops the ability to do all these things, and when those things are present, it is definitely "alive."

[Demagog]

When the embryonic cell is first conceived, it has homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, and response to stimuli.

Adaptation and reproduction depend on how you interpret them.

You could say the embryo adapts to the mothers womb by becoming a parasite. Adaptation as the way you put it is an extremely slow process, so applying it to unborn children doesn't really work. It doesn't really work with newborns either.

Reproduction isn't required for life. Mules can't reproduce, are they dead? A large number of people are born sterile, are they dead? What about a woman who has gone through menopause or a person who has had their ovaries/testicles removed? However, unborn children can "reproduce". That's how identical twins are formed. You could also say that each individual cell is reproducing.

So, it could be argued, that by your definitions of life, as soon as the egg and sperm create an embryo, it is alive.

[Boingo]

Well, you aren't using the right definition of life.

Here is the basic definition of life....

So, give me the weeks that it develops the ability to do all these things, and when those things are present, it is definitely "alive."

Well I guess that's what the debate is all about--what is the definition of life?  But for the sake of the thread, let's assume you have provided THE definition of life.  Which part of your definition you feel the fetus fails to meet?

I'm with Demagog here--to me, it appears the unborn child meets your own definition from week 1.

[bojengles77]

I think everyone who is very interested in this topic, particularly the relation of abortion and seemingly unrelated topics like crime rates, and related topics like overpopulation, should read a book called "Freakonomics". It has some very interesting arguments about the relationships between abortion laws and other topics. Not saying i support these ideas or not, but they have allowed me to look at abortion in very different ways.

I personally am a proponent of abortions to within reasonable limitations. I think that things like rape and lethal situations are no-brainers, but if a baby will be born into a situation in which the parents can't or don't want to take care of them, why would you want to put a child through such a childhood?

[PuppyChow]

Which is why I'm against abortion. That's the definition of life present in textbooks.

However, with respect to unborn babies, one *could* argue that that definition should be thrown out the window, and only when the fetus feels pain should you not use an abortion, etc.

I'm pro choice, remember. Not pro abortion.

[Boingo]

However, with respect to unborn babies, one *could* argue that that definition should be thrown out the window, and only when the fetus feels pain should you not use an abortion, etc.

Help me to understand why feeling pain is important for this.  Isn't being human good enough? 

In other words, would it be wrong because it hurts or wrong because it's killing somebody?

[Jaxly]

However, with respect to unborn babies, one *could* argue that that definition should be thrown out the window, and only when the fetus feels pain should you not use an abortion, etc.

Help me to understand why feeling pain is important for this.  Isn't being human good enough? 

In other words, would it be wrong because it hurts or wrong because it's killing somebody?

I think the point being made is not so much that the child is in pain but the implications of what that would mean.
To be in pain is to be self-aware, and killing something that is self-aware is infinitely worse than killing something that is not self aware.
I think it is the divide between killing a cat and killing a carrot.
Between killing an unborn child or killing a collection of cells.

I strongly think that the time before an abortion becomes illegal to perform should be reduced. (Except in very extreme circumstances)
Currently up to 18 weeks is given in the U.S. (states vary) and 24 weeks in the U.K.

[Boingo]

I think the point being made is not so much that the child is in pain but the implications of what that would mean.
To be in pain is to be self-aware, and killing something that is self-aware is infinitely worse than killing something that is not self aware.
I think it is the divide between killing a cat and killing a carrot.
Between killing an unborn child or killing a collection of cells.

I strongly think that the time before an abortion becomes illegal to perform should be reduced. (Except in very extreme circumstances)
Currently up to 18 weeks is given in the U.S. (states vary) and 24 weeks in the U.K.

I do not disagree with the above (other than to point out it's very difficult to prove non-human animals are self-aware, though I happen believe them to be so.) 

I would only assert that the elective abortion performed at any point is doing infinitely more harm than simply killing a collection of cells.  Killing a collection of cells is a description of burning off a wart or removing an appendix.  The person in these cases is left otherwise intact (minus a few cells) and alive though the cells removed/killed are not.  With elective abortion, the whole person is killed.  Left alone, the wart or appendix would never be more than they are while the fetus would very much become a newborn/child/adolescent/adult in the due course of time. 

So it's more than just that the "collection of cells" is not self-aware, it's that they simply are not self-aware yet.  That's a bit like tying a stone around a puppy's neck, watching it drown and then asserting it couldn't swim.  You've acted upon the other individual in a very serious way.

[Jaxly]

I do not disagree with the above (other than to point out it's very difficult to prove non-human animals are self-aware, though I happen believe them to be so.) 

I would only assert that the elective abortion performed at any point is doing infinitely more harm than simply killing a collection of cells.  Killing a collection of cells is a description of burning off a wart or removing an appendix.  The person in these cases is left otherwise intact (minus a few cells) and alive though the cells removed/killed are not.  With elective abortion, the whole person is killed.  Left alone, the wart or appendix would never be more than they are while the fetus would very much become a newborn/child/adolescent/adult in the due course of time. 

So it's more than just that the "collection of cells" is not self-aware, it's that they simply are not self-aware yet.  That's a bit like tying a stone around a puppy's neck, watching it drown and then asserting it couldn't swim.  You've acted upon the other individual in a very serious way.

I'll go along with the puppy example.
In this example I've caused a puppy to drown. I observed this drowning and concluded that the puppy could not swim. I also would have observed the puppy struggling not to drown. This would lead me to the conclusion that the puppy did not want to drown but rather wanted to live, having a sense of self-preservation. I would have killed something that did not want to die, abusing its right to live.
There are two minds at work here, regardless of the difference in developement of each.

Consider repeating with a plant growing in a pot.
In this example I've caused a plant to drown. I observed this drowning and concluded that the plant could not swim. I would have observed no change in the plant as it drowned. This would lead me to the conclusion that the plant did not mind if it drowned or not, having no sense of self-presevation. I would have killed something that was not aware of it's life and hence did not care to die.
There is one mind at work here.

I believe that the moment of conferral of the "right to live" comes at the moment of development of the self preservation instinct. Pain and fear are stimuli that fuel this instinct and cause it to awaken, to tie into the previous post.

In the end viewpoints of those who are unaffected matter very little. Viewpoints of those who are affected should be the sole concern. I may know that I've acted upon the plant in a serious way - but the plant does not care.

In other words; We have no right to kill something if it does not want to die

Abortions should be time limited. There is a moment where the right to live is conferred to every human being.
That moment does not take place outside the womb.

[Demagog]

So, here's another thought for discussion.

Let's say we live in a place where the law states that the only cases in which abortion is legal are when the mother's life is in danger and/or rape. Rape is the only important one for this, so ignore the first exception. I think the main reason for people thinking it is "ok" to have an abortion as a product of rape is that it is an unwanted pregnancy and a financial burden the mother/husband (if she's married) had not planned on. So how is this any different from a situation in which a couple's birth control fails? It is also an unplanned financial burden and unwanted pregnancy. Really the only difference is the emotional trauma of being raped. But emotional trauma isn't reason enough to kill someone. If it were, pretty much every murder would be legal. So the emotional factor isn't something that should be considered as part of the reasoning behind the law. So, should it then be legal to have an abortion when contraception fails because it is an unwanted pregnancy like with rape, or should it be illegal to have an abortion when it is a product of rape because it is illegal in the case of contraception failure?

[bojengles77]

Abortion and murder, however, have different aspects to them. If you murder someone due to emotional trauma, you are making a conscious act and doing so willfully. However, if you are raped, you're forced to give birth to a product and constant reminder of that traumatic act.

This is also not the same as a failing contraception. When having consensual sex, a person always runs the risk of pregnancy - there is no 100% way to control this except for abstinence. It is only ignorance that keeps someone from realizing that there is always a chance of pregnancy. This is a risk that someone must take when having sex, and people do so because it is generally extremely small when using effective contraception. I will not argue that the financial aspect isn't there - an unwanted pregnancy hurts the lives of everyone financially involved, generally. However, the emotional aspect is clear and cannot be ignored in the argument. Being raped and having a baby by someone whom you like enough to have sex with, knowing there is a chance pregnancy would occur, are not the same. While contraception failing is unfortunate, it happens occasionally and is not a secret. however, rape is something unavoidable in most cases.

Also, i know many people believe that life begins at certain points in the womb, but whenever one decides "life" begins, i personally dont think its rational to compare the "life" of a 5-month-old fetus to that of a 45 year old man with a wife, two kids, and family and friends who know and love him  - this is just my view.