Indisputable Abortion FACTS:

[Dom Pedro II]

Oi! We are not talking death! We're talking life and not life! I'm saying that if it is unaware of its existence, it is the SAME as being dead. A human being that is alive and knows its existence knows that it does not want to be killed... it places a value on its life AND death. After its dead, it doesn't, but while it's alive, it does.... and so therefore, robbing a being of its sentience is immoral...

The fetus UP TO ITS DEMISE is unaware of itself and therefore cannot place a value of its life and death because it does not even know it IS.

And as far as what you're talking about... Yes, you're right... its not immoral to kill dead people since they don't know they're dead.





Ok, can we all agree that robotic incubation chambers for unwanted children is a fair compromise? That way crack whores and working women alike don't have to carry to term something they don't care about and nobody gets killed... seems fair enough to me. We ought to write a letter to the government telling them to put our finances towards THAT.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Oi! We are not talking death! We're talking life and not life! I'm saying that if it is unaware of its existence, it is the SAME as being dead. A human being that is alive and knows its existence knows that it does not want to be killed... it places a value on its life AND death. After its dead, it doesn't, but while it's alive, it does.... and so therefore, robbing a being of its sentience is immoral...

The fetus UP TO ITS DEMISE is unaware of itself and therefore cannot place a value of its life and death because it does not even know it IS.

And as far as what you're talking about... Yes, you're right... its not immoral to kill dead people since they don't know they're dead.





Ok, can we all agree that robotic incubation chambers for unwanted children is a fair compromise? That way crack whores and working women alike don't have to carry to term something they don't care about and nobody gets killed... seems fair enough to me. We ought to write a letter to the government telling them to put our finances towards THAT.

ok well I'll go w/ the repetition for a little while. ur argument is that nothing negative is happening to the fetus. well the same is true of an adult. THERE IS NO NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE TO THE PERSON WHO GOT KILLED.

[Rasbelin]

It's difficult, but I'm sure the school would accomodate her, as would her workplace to reduce her load while she was pregnant.

So please explain then why on Earth most(?) pregnant women use some of their maternal leave already before the labour? Please don't say they do it just for fun, because that's an escape goat. No, I would (...with my very limited know-how of everyday motherhood) say that most simply take it because of the fact they're already quite stressed at the late stage of the pregnancy and that they are incapable of handling everything, because their energy goes to being pregnant (the medical condition, that is), rather than being capable of going on with the daily routines. With all respect, but you have to agree that it could be fatal if we would act like you anti-abortionists seem to think about the moral issue and pretty much ignore the woman, while only focusing on the rights of the fetus. I assume the constitution in most Western countries do try to protect the rights of all human beings, so the rights of the mother do have a very important role.

(God, forgive me for talking about this issue in a naive tone now, but there's no women around here who could explain it better, so my case may be weaker than it is.)

I just have facts to compare the two forms of depression, with post-abortion seeming a greater problem for most woman than post-natal depression, at least when looking at suicide.

There can be other reasons as well to that. But let's not get too suicidal here, okay?

[Dom Pedro II]

Fine, so there is nothing negative to the person AFTER they've been killed except that they had the one thing they valued taken away from them, which is a moot point to them cuz they're dead. UNLESS they felt pain before they died, but we're assuming they were shot in the back of the head buying groceries or something (because they cannot have knowledge that the end is imminent because that causes distress)... But beyond that person's scope of vision, its still an immoral act because they've had their sentience taken away from them. The one who killed them has violated THE most important rule of humanity in THE most extreme way.... they have hurt someone else, and they have taken that which is most important to them.

And it is also immoral because of the fact that that person may be missed. And so might the fetus, and I've SAID all this previously...

If you want to argue over whether an act is immoral to someone whos dead in spite of the fact that in life they may have placed value on that life, then NO, it is not an immoral act to the individual who has been killed and ONLY to the individual who has been killed because they cease to BE. They have no more sense of right and wrong or ther other... they're just DEAD.

But I wasn't arguing that killing someone is immoral to the dead person. I was arguing that life to a living person who is suffering is a worse experience than to something that can experience NOTHING.

[Velociryx]

Moral dead people....interesting....

-=Vel=-

[Rasbelin]

Indeed, I guess we should start looking for a serial killer.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
But I wasn't arguing that killing someone is immoral to the dead person. I was arguing that life to a living person who is suffering is a worse experience than to something that can experience NOTHING.

k. we certainly can't ask a person who can experience nothing how it feels. but I'll go w/ a different angle.


"it is better to have loved and lost then to have never loved at all."

[Ben Kenobi]

Asuka:

So please explain then why on Earth most(?) pregnant women use some of their maternal leave already before the labour? Please don't say they do it just for fun, because that's an escape goat.

Usually not until the end of the pregnancy, do they take maternity leave. Some women do enjoy pregnancy and spending time with their babies afterwards, whereas some can't wait to get back to work.

Most women do work for most of their pregnancy, hence my qualification to working 'during' pregnancy and not 'for all the pregnancy'.

With all respect, but you have to agree that it could be fatal if we would act like you anti-abortionists seem to think about the moral issue and pretty much ignore the woman, while only focusing on the rights of the fetus.

Heck, some of the 'anti-abortionists' are women.

I assume the constitution in most Western countries do try to protect the rights of all human beings, so the rights of the mother do have a very important role.

Agreed, but there needs to be a balance. Just as the woman is important, so should be her unborn child.

[Ramo]

LOL Ramo, so how exactly do you see an unresponsive invalid who does not know when to open its mouth for meals or go to the washroom as sentient? How does this being have "the capacity to produce abstract thought" when he/she does not even have "the capacity to stop sh*ting his/her pants"?

Are you trying to tell me that the lack of motor or bladder control functions in some way imply the lack of the capability to produce abstract thoughts? If so, I'd love to see the reasoning behind this bald assertion.

When I go to sleep, I'm unresponsive to external stimuli to a large extent. That doesn't mean that my brain suddenly shuts off.

Furthermore, why does a fetus not have the capacity to produce abstract thought? What parametres set the ability for such mental construction? I'm really curious to hear these answers, is all.

Neocortical activity - the area of the brain the medical community tends to attribute most to higher thought processes. IIRC, around week 28, the neocortex starts rapidly wiring itself up, so the third trimester seems like a pretty good cut-off date for sentience.

Only Ramo did make concessions, and you have seen how much nonsense the Zylka / Ramo debate was.

What concession did I make?

[Dom Pedro II]

"it is better to have loved and lost then to have never loved at all."

And I'm reminded of Tommy Lee Jones' reply in Men In Black: "Try it some time."

That is an entirely different point of debate... and my opinion on it rides with the mood.... for better or worse.

[Neutrino]

My 2 cents:

Abortion is a tool to control human population. Morality has nothing to do with population biology. At the rate we're consuming resources now, the last thing we need is an increase in human population; in fact, we should probably decrease it.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Neutrino
My 2 cents:

Abortion is a tool to control human population. Morality has nothing to do with population biology. At the rate we're consuming resources now, the last thing we need is an increase in human population; in fact, we should probably decrease it.

Jesus. I don't oppose the majority of abortions that take place (because they are typically very early) but even I shudder to see this sort of sentiment. Hell, wouldn't genocide, biological weapons, liberal usage of neutron bombs etc. also be 'tools' to control human population? Looks as if the ends completely justify the means in your view.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Neutrino
My 2 cents:

Abortion is a tool to control human population. Morality has nothing to do with population biology. At the rate we're consuming resources now, the last thing we need is an increase in human population; in fact, we should probably decrease it.

a lot of the civilized nations have very small population increases. and even those are declining. America w/o immigration would only show meager gains.

the population of the world is going up rapidly. but its not the west doing the child bearing.

[Rasbelin]

Geronimo,

abortions are less messy and don't create such side affects as mushroom clouds.

Yavoon,

which just displays how effective abortions are for population control. Own goal.

[Atahualpa]

Ok, Spiffor I see how you meant it! It looks as if she wasnt prepared to do that step again, alone and she just need some mental assistence.

About adoption. First I dont know any numbers, but I think when you just give life to a baby with the intention to give it away afterwards so that it may land in of those blackspots of our society then I guess you should not give birth at all.
If you know a family who will want the baby and they agree to do so before the baby is born I am all for adoption. But I am not in favor of filling "the market" with children so that maybe someday someone comes along and chooses this child.

ata

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Asuka
Geronimo,

abortions are less messy and don't create such side affects as mushroom clouds.

Yavoon,

which just displays how effective abortions are for population control. Own goal.

haha ur logic is the match of waving a stick around in hawaii and saying it wards off bears.

the reason the population growths have dwindled is because of modernization. children cost money, lots of money. in the old days kids made money! and they were a good retirement program. now they cost like a quarter of a million dollars and leave neway(dirty bastards). other things have helped too, contraception, tv, blah blah. u get the idea. abortion is not something that has made any non miniscule impact.

but u did amuse me w/ some of the most horrendously bad logic I've seen in a long time.

[CyberGnu]

Zylka:

first off, some of your "facts" are clearly erronous. Fingerprints, for example, doesn't develop until ~week 24. "All body systems are working" well, except for the lungs, glands, brain, skin, liver, pancreas etc... AFAIK, the only organs that are reasonably well developed at this point are heart and kidney/urogenital.

When you say it can kick, what do you actually mean? A mother usually can't feel the fetus move until week 20 at the earliest.

Sucking of the thumb... Hmm, I guess it is technically possible. The fetus normally can make a fist in the 11'th week, and can make a sucking motion at week 13-16... I've never heard about it deliberatly sucking the thumb though...


So, about half the facts are not true... And the other half are quite frankly inconsequential. What does reaction to heat actually prove? Only that it has a rudimentary nervous system. Come on, there are plants that can perform the same tasks you listed... I think we need to set the bar a little bit higher than that.


Finally, we have the matter of the brain wave pattern. 11 weeks is incredibly early to see any kind of conscious pattern, considering that the brain is in a very early stage of development. I vaguely remember reading that week 24 is where brain wave patterns can be observed, but I can;t find a source for that right now...

However, judging from the other errors in the list, I will have to insist on a source for this brain wave pattern at 40 days before I'm willing to accept it as a "fact".

[Zylka]

Weld any streetcars to their tracks lately? =D

[CyberGnu]

Hehehehehe, no, not for quite some time

[Jack the Bodiless]

Obiwan:

First of all, one of the consequences of sex is pregnancy. If a man gets a woman pregnant, he becomes responsible for that child if it can be proven that he is the father. Why should the situation be different for the mother?

In this, the woman, by having sex, has already consented to the pregnancy. So your example cannot work.

Um, no. Consent to an activity with a risk of an undesired outcome is NOT equivalent to consent to that outcome. Apparently you missed my motorist analogy earlier.

By this logic, as motorists have consented to be killed: shooting a car-owner is euthanasia?

I don't discount that women can be depressed after pregnancy. I just have facts to compare the two forms of depression, with post-abortion seeming a greater problem for most woman than post-natal depression, at least when looking at suicide.

Haven't we been here before, on another thread?

Your comparison is meaningless. Women who have abortions simply cannot be compared to women who don't. OF COURSE the women who have abortions are depressed! They're in an unpleasant predicament, that's why they're seeking an abortion in the first place!

You'd have to compare otherwise identical groups: women who seek and HAVE abortions, compared to women who seek and are DENIED abortions. I strongly suspect the depression and suicide rates would be much higher in women who are denied abortions. But finding a good sample won't be easy: even for women in Ireland, abortions are readily available (by travelling to the UK).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Spiffor:
What about adoption? If the father won't accept his responsibilities, and the mother cannot take care of her child on her own, they should give the child to those who will be able to take care of her.

I know her enough to tell you she would have kept the baby for her if he had born. Until the social services force her to give it up, that is.

Secondly, how can a woman get pregnant 'without the agreement of the boyfriend'? Did she lie to her first boyfriend about being on the pill?

Accident during the conception. The boyfriend systematically used condoms, butfor some very intimate reasons, he technically couldn't do it this one time.

If you care so much for this girl, why didn't you try to find some help for her financially? Secondly, again if she cannot take care of her child, she should give her child up for adoption. Why is this not an option?

Adoption is badly orgnaized in France, and I agree it should come as an option. On the point of adoption, I agree with you the matching system should be made better and get more publicity, so that adoption becomes a valid option for mothers who can afford getting pregnant while unable to keep the child.
Another problem is that, as I said above, she'd have kept the child. She is (was) very messed up about motherhood.

I helped her the way I could. I went to buy to morning-after pill in the drug dealer. I searched possibilities for her to move in a new place, that is not full with all these memories. I personally warned her lover that she did not take it previously. I took the rendezvous with the gynecologist for her.
The problem is that I'm not especially rich, and that all the actors of this story live in my hometown, except for myself who is living in Stuttgart. Except for the Christmas vacation, most of our communication took place through ICQ.

Down the gutter? How would adoption cause any of these things? If the life was so good in the first place, why did a pregnancy cause so many problems?

I must have not been clear. Life wasn't good for her. Since her boyfriend went abroad, she became despaired : much of her burden (financial and about the baby) was alleviated when he was with her, but this alleviance disappeared, making life already difficult.
Some people try to drown their despair in alcohol. She drowned hers in mindless sex. Of course, that made her even more despaired, as she was still longing for her boyfriend AND for the father of her daughter (while ****ging other people).
The situation was mightily grim already at the time she became pregnant. The pregnancy was the icing on the cake: not only would it have ruined her studies (she would have been simply too exhausted to be busy with her baby, her household and the studies while being pregnant - she was already on the borderline before), it would also have added emotional stress since she'd have broke from her stable lover... About the last token of stability in her life.

Could none of this happen if the child were born? None of this seems to have anything to do with the abortion. You need to make a better connection.

The abortion relieved much of her emotional stress. She became more pragmatic. It is only because of this trauma that she embraced the contraceptive pill (yes, I am perfectl aware that abortion is a trauma, that's why I'd hoped the morning-after pill had worked).
The lack of pregnancy also allowed her relation with this guy to remain stable (which otherwise wouldn't have happened), and they are becoming more like a real couple. Now that this guy partially takes care of the baby, she has more time and emotional relievance to deal with her emotional problems. Especially since she now doesn't resort to mindless sex anymore.
Sure, her former boyfriend would have broken up with her, abortion or not. But that's about the only independant variable.

[Neutrino]

Jesus. I don't oppose the majority of abortions that take place (because they are typically very early) but even I shudder to see this sort of sentiment. Hell, wouldn't genocide, biological weapons, liberal usage of neutron bombs etc. also be 'tools' to control human population? Looks as if the ends completely justify the means in your view.

It's more efficient to remove an individual from the population before s/he uses up resources to grow. Morally I don't fully approve of late-term abortions, but scientifically I agree with optimization of constrained resources.

a lot of the civilized nations have very small population increases. and even those are declining. America w/o immigration would only show meager gains.

I agree, abortion should be a much bigger issue in overpopulated and/or developing nations. However, given the amount of resources the average American consumes, we must choose either to restrict population growth (abortions/familiy planning/immigration/etc) and/or to stop living such a [relatively] lavish lifestyle.

*ducks out of the firefight*

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Neutrino


It's more efficient to remove an individual from the population before s/he uses up resources to grow. Morally I don't fully approve of late-term abortions, but scientifically I agree with optimization of constrained resources.




I agree, abortion should be a much bigger issue in overpopulated and/or developing nations. However, given the amount of resources the average American consumes, we must choose either to restrict population growth (abortions/familiy planning/immigration/etc) and/or to stop living such a [relatively] lavish lifestyle.

*ducks out of the firefight*

science does not condone the killing of children. please dont use it like that.

and u seem really paranoid about resource use.

[Neutrino]

I am merely interpreting the patterns shown by other organisms in a constrained environment. Studies on other species show population 'booms' and 'busts' due to constrained resources. If the environment is stable then the population will form a cycle. Humans are not independent of this cycle. Facts may not always appear to be morally acceptable.

Yes, I am paranoid about resource use. Too many humans -> too many resources used -> constrained resource conflicts. The environment will likely deteriote, leading to a very positive feedback cycle.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Neutrino
I am merely interpreting the patterns shown by other organisms in a constrained environment. Studies on other species show population 'booms' and 'busts' due to constrained resources. If the environment is stable then the population will form a cycle. Humans are not independent of this cycle. Facts may not always appear to be morally acceptable.

Yes, I am paranoid about resource use. Too many humans -> too many resources used -> constrained resource conflicts. The environment will likely deteriote, leading to a very positive feedback cycle.

abortion has very little to do w/ constraining the human population. ur really just chasing a red herring.

and as I've already pointed out, the human population in the western world is largely stable. Japans population is decreasing, america's is going up a lil. western europes is I dont know, but I'd guess going up a lil.

[Neutrino]

Human population may be stable in a few regions - but for how long?

Abortion may have an effect on the sustainable equilibrium population of the world; of course, this depends on a large number of factors - most notably birthrate. For example, in certain areas of Africa the birthrate is ~6 children/woman. If we can cut that down to 2, then the population difference after 2 generations is 36-4 = 32. This is an exponential matter in the long run.

It's too bad that our knowledge of population biology is so limited. The current biology research trend is toward molecular and cellular, but I expect that soon population biology will receive more attention.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Neutrino
Human population may be stable in a few regions - but for how long?

Abortion may have an effect on the sustainable equilibrium population of the world; of course, this depends on a large number of factors - most notably birthrate. For example, in certain areas of Africa the birthrate is ~6 children/woman. If we can cut that down to 2, then the population difference after 2 generations is 36-4 = 32. This is an exponential matter in the long run.

It's too bad that our knowledge of population biology is so limited. The current biology research trend is toward molecular and cellular, but I expect that soon population biology will receive more attention.

from what we know of reduction in the difference between birth and mortality rates(how fast a population grows). modernization is the largest contributor. abortion is not part of that. as if one wants one can practice a technology deprived form of abortion called infanticide, quite easily. its gone on in china and in ancient greece.

u have no support that abortion as it exists in the western world(as argued in this thread). does anything to population control. now if u were to argue that really late term abortions(infanticide), like that practiced in china. then maybe u would have more of a point. but that is state coerced.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Neutrino
Human population may be stable in a few regions - but for how long?

Abortion may have an effect on the sustainable equilibrium population of the world; of course, this depends on a large number of factors - most notably birthrate. For example, in certain areas of Africa the birthrate is ~6 children/woman. If we can cut that down to 2, then the population difference after 2 generations is 36-4 = 32. This is an exponential matter in the long run.

It's too bad that our knowledge of population biology is so limited. The current biology research trend is toward molecular and cellular, but I expect that soon population biology will receive more attention.

The Reason populations in the western world are stable is because most people when they have kids limited them to about 2 or 3 kids.

[Neutrino]

Modern medicine is perhaps the largest factor in the imbalance of birth and deathrates. The imbalance is obviously most prevalent in developing nations.

You're probably correct in that abortion as it exists now in the Western world doesn't have a large effect on population. I was implying the effects of abortions in regions of rapid population growth. In the Western world where #children/female <= 2, abortion will not have a large affect (2^n - x^n, where x<2 is not statistically significant when compared to y^n - x^n, where y>2).

I have friends and colleagues from mainland China, and they mostly agree w/ the Chinese govt's stance on abortions.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by st_swithin
Dog is my copilot.

Bloody 'ell, where are me 'aitches goin'?