Forums → WEPR → Abortion
| 1508 | 314801 |
What my peers here think?
I would like to try and avoid a buch of rabid Catholics and Christians falling back only on the religious reasons and what have you. However, I do not see how that can be dodged.
My view? I'm for it. If a woman wants to get one, it is her choice. Some people seem to act like if one woman gets an abortion, it means that all the rest have to. If the child in question is not yours, butt out.
Also, on a lighter note, I say that abortions should be allowed when kids are up to 18 years old. That would solve a lot of headaches, eh?
- 1,508 Replies
I think that, up until the point where the two entities couple, the sperm and eggs are akin to blood cells of their respective host at their origin.
Not quite, sperm and egg cells are pluripotent gonadic cells while bone marrow cells are multipotent (less potent than pluripotent) somatic cells. It is arguable if that makes a big difference other than being an important biological difference though. I like to look at it like that: most of our body, the soma, is 'simply' a vessel, a vector here to safely keep and spread the gonadic cell line which is the only thing carried on in the next generation.
What is "significant/meanignful brain activity?" Does that occur in the womb? Do we set the start at birth?
Neurulation, the process in which your neural system starts developing, occurs in the third to fourth week. Up to then the foetus basicly consists of three germinal layers without any neuronal activity. The neural system then continuously builds up so I guess it's senseless to ask for a specific date concerning 'full' neuronal activity. Like you said personality keeps on developing through the entire life, so we can't use that to set a point. We need something to be able to draw the line before birth.
The new potentially viable human's life starts at conception. Life isn't brain waves. Plants are alive, and they have no brains. The standard doesn't change from species to species. We are a certain type of organism. We have a life cycle. The cycle effectively starts at conception.
Potentially viable, yes. But not viable on it's own, yet.
Once they've coupled, their DNA is no longer of any one source. They have their own unique blueprint (twins aren't even exactly genetically identical).
They don't have no source at all, their source is the melted DNA from two individuums. Also, is uniqueness really an argument to potentially put the mother's life to danger or force the child to live a potential sad childhood? I mean, any combination would have been unique, and any future combination will be unique.
It is the zygote's responsibility to weather the storm of incubation and remain viable... just as it is the butterfly's responsibility to force its own way through the cocoon. The position is that you shouldn't make incubation impossible to weather.
Nice analogy.. yet, if a foetus makes it or not, is not dependent on the foetus, but on predispositions and external influences. To that can be added the responsibility; is it really the best choice to carry out each and every potential life? Isn't population control, for example, more important since it determines survival of a whole population?
I agree with you that lack of personality is no argument to abort a baby. There are other reasons that can justify an abortion pretty well. Yet you have to be able to draw the line somewhere, because I wouldn't abort a baby of 30 weeks either. The thing with neural activity is only there to determine, in cases where abortion is already justified somehow else, up to when it is still legal or not.
A foetus doesn't equal a baby - they're too separate things. Your scenario of a failed abortion is extremely unlikely as almost all abortions occur well within a period where the foetus is not a viable life-form if it were to leave the womb.
If possible I would want there to be no abortions and to have all kids ever conceived to be able to to live and have a great life with a loving family. Since this isn't going to happen abortion is the solution.
An infant isn't a stand alone organism either. Without parental care, even a child years older than a new born wouldn't be able to do much in the way of feeding itself and sustaining its own life. I understand the difference in your argument and mine with the foetus being under-developed, but in a sense even children aren't very viable stand alone organisms without having stuff given to them.
There's not much difference in a fetus and an infant... besides the fact that one is physically separated from the mother. Naturally, they would still be playing parasite on the mother by making her body produce milk. The mother's body will tap into her bones for calcium if she has to to produce the milk. The infant is still very much so an entity that leeches off of the mother and is completely dependent on her for everything.... food, shelter, protection, cleaning
A woman's womb doesn't "build" the organism... its just a place that the organism draws nutrients and assimilates those materials into its being. It's just connected and inside of the mother. A baby draws in milk and then assimilates that into its being...while being outside the mother. Neither can survive without having the nutrients given to it. Why are babies more "hallowed" than fetuses? If a mother doesn't want to give it up to adoption and she also doesn't want to keep it, then why would (presumably) some of you get mad?
If we draw a line for making life un-abortable then why at birth and not as teenagers? I remember some quote about some guy being against abortions but also said that abortion should still be an option for 22 years... I think he was joking tho. The only three real choices I see are:
1. @ conception
2. @ birth
3. @ developed sentience and personality
I've seen some say that a fetus isn't a person... a baby isn't a person either... a 2 year old is arguably little more than lump of flesh that is growing in intelligence.
Not all of this is actually directed at any one person... it's just stuff I'm a little foggy on.
@dair5 did you ever think about orphanages, if a baby can't grow up in a loving family why don't they put the baby in an orphanage.
@dair5 did you ever think about orphanages, if a baby can't grow up in a loving family why don't they put the baby in an orphanage.
Do you have any idea how ****ty most orphanages are? They can easily traumitize a child. It's like a prison half the time.
Being in an orphanage is physically bad for you
If possible I would want there to be no abortions and to have all kids ever conceived to be able to to live and have a great life with a loving family. Since this isn't going to happen abortion is the solution.
Abortion isn't the answer in every single case.
I know, i know "Over population, massive strain on orphanages" Etc.
But abortion can't be the option every single time a family isn't "happy"
But abortion can't be the option every single time a family isn't "happy"
Why not? I don't see a problem with abortion under circumstances wherein the family doesn't want the child.
Why not? I don't see a problem with abortion under circumstances wherein the family doesn't want the child.
They could want the child, but not have a happy home life.
They could want the child, but not have a happy home life.
Sure, but the thing is when they don't want the child it is far less likely that they will take care of it well. In fact, they may grow to hate it if they haven't gotten rid of him/her yet, do to the massive burden of caring for the child, both financially and time wise.
Its like saying that we are talking of air bags. With them in, it is less likely that someone will get killed, it just won't happen as often. Should we not put airbags in cars because some people will still die? Its the same here, thought some people will go to families where they may be abused and such, this gives a chance to lessen that number. If that is what you meant, I just read the last few posts.
Sure, but the thing is when they don't want the child
I said they could want the child..
Not quite, sperm and egg cells are pluripotent gonadic cells while bone marrow cells are multipotent (less potent than pluripotent) somatic cells.
D'oh... how could such mixed up nonsense go unnoticed... *auto-facepalm* sorry 'bout that. Sperm cells don't divide anymore and their progenitor cells only build sperm cells. But gonads are the only cells that naturally regain totipotence after fusion.
An infant isn't a stand alone organism either.
I've seen some say that a fetus isn't a person... a baby isn't a person either... a 2 year old is arguably little more than lump of flesh that is growing in intelligence.
Well.. a 2 year old already has all it's organs and mostly only grows. A beginning foetus still has to built organ primordias and structure them. So I think it's wrong to say there's little difference. But I think I know what you mean; and anyway it's very subjective and not apt to determine something like abortion to decide from where on someone is a person or not. That's almost philosophical, so...
But your argument for children not being stand-alone organisms either, if applied consistently, would also say that a stand-alone organism can't possibly exist. We all rely on some sources to live. The difference between a child and a foetus is that it is physiologically independent of the mother; they don't share the same blood circulation anymore.
A little to think about concerning the difference between a baby and a foetus, and the moment to abort: what about caesareans?
If we draw a line for making life un-abortable then why at birth and not as teenagers?
The point about abortion and when to allow it, is to ensure that the future mom has time to realize that she is pregnant, and to make a decision. She doesn't need a decade to make that decision. It is legal to abort up to 12 weeks p.m. here, later only with a real good reason, I think that leaves women enough time to ponder about their feelings towards the child and the realizability of parenthood. If she changes her mind after that, either it's because external conditions have changed a lot, or because of a spontaneous decision which is not a well-founded enough reason for abortion.
1. @ conception
We can't possibly predict the moment of conception in individual cases so this is already ruled out.
2. @ birth
Again, what about cesareans? I think birth, or the earliest moment at which cesareans are possible, is already too late, since obviously the organism is viable out of the womb; at least I feel like that, don't ask me why exactly.
3. @ developed sentience and personality
This sounds more sensible, compared to the two others.
But abortion can't be the option every single time a family isn't "happy"
They could want the child, but not have a happy home life.
If they want the child, why even discuss about abortion?
Abortion should not be a forced-on solution against 'unhappyness'; shouldn't and can't, it can at most prevent happyness to fall even lower, not raise it. The method is not a reason for the situation, but the situation can be a reason for the method.
I'm not really sure what to think about abortion. I don't think that anyone that has not been in that situation really doesn't have a right to say no, because they don't really understand what it would be like to have to make that choice. I wouldn't know, but I'm leaning towards this opinion, but I've never been so (again) I wouldn't know; I think it should absolutely out of the question for adults, but considered for teens. Just what i think. I can't even imagine the stress that a child would cause for teens.
They could want the child, but not have a happy home life.
If they want the child, why even discuss about abortion?
Abortion should not be a forced-on solution against 'unhappyness'; shouldn't and can't, it can at most prevent happyness to fall even lower, not raise it. The method is not a reason for the situation, but the situation can be a reason for the method.
I was arguing the exact same point as you to Dair5 who posted:
If possible I would want there to be no abortions and to have all kids ever conceived to be able to to live and have a great life with a loving family. Since this isn't going to happen abortion is the solution.
You must be logged in to post a reply!