I just realized something about abortion...

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
I didn't even unsettle your mind a little?

Nope, my position remained unchanged as a result of the debate--previous to the debate I believed that 1st trimester abortions were ethical, that 2nd trimester abortions were borderline/questionable, and that 3rd trimester abortions were unethical. These are still my beliefs. I currently don't and never did have any ethical qualms about taking a brain-dead patient off of life support--the patient is still biologically a human being, but ethically it is not. The same holds true for an embryo.

The trouble was (and is), there's no way to objectively convince somebody that an embryo (or a brain-dead patient, for that matter) is biologically human but ethically non-human--this belief (and its opposite number) are almost entirely subjective. Had I been able to convince you that an embryo is biologically non-human then I'd have an objective justification for abortion, so I took that route in my argument (since I tend to prefer objectivity to subjectivity whenever possible). I lost that round, though, so that left me exactly where I'd started: with a subjective belief that an embryo (or a brain-dead human being, as well) is not ethically "human" despite the fact that it is biologically human. It unsettled me in that I realized that an objective victory either way is probably impossible, though. I hate when that happens.

[Mihai]

Originally posted by November Adam
The problem with your kidney analogy, is that it is the man and the womans actions that created the life. Thus the consequences of their actions is the creation of the life that you are saying the woman should be allowed to terminate.

If that kid at age six needs a kidney the parents cannot be forced to give him one. Analogy stands.

For those who think that making abortion illegal is the answer, take a look at the country where it is/was. In Romania between 1968-1989 abortion was illegal and as a result there were hundreds of women who died because of home made abortion in awful condition, sometimes alone. Also our orphanages were full of unwanted children. I see abortion as the lesser of two evils.

Responsability and education will work best to decrese the number of abortions.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by November Adam
Gibsie,it's more like... when people sky dive, they don't want to hit the ground, but if they do then they have to live (or not) with the consequences.

Okay, that's a great example too, more apt I guess... so does this mean that people who hurt themselves skydiving must be made to live with the consequences of their actions, and therefore denied any medical attention to remedy their situation? Do we tell them, "Well you should've thought of that before you opened your... aeroplane's door!"?

[des-esseintes]

The only solution...

Legalize genocide.

[Akka]

To answer the original question of the thread : there is no secret nor miracle, the ways to diminish abortions are education and availability of contraception means.

I'm pretty sure that countries with free abortion and good education have much less abortions that countries with illegal abortion and bad/lacking education.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm pro choice. I just don't know the answers.

[Sava]

The moral of the story... legal and smart is better than illegal and dumb.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Sava
The moral of the story... legal and smart is better than illegal and dumb.

Second moral of the story : your previous avatar was much better than the new one

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by David Floyd
My ultimate point, though, is that the federal government should not ban abortion. Murder is not a federal crime (except on federal property of course), and if a fetus is human, then killing it would likely be murder.

Just find a credible scientist to prove that a fetus is human, and if there is a lack equally credible dissenting opinion I will say that you can go ahead and ban abortion at the STATE level.

If the fetus is left along for 9 months it will be borne. If you kill it after birth it's murder, how come it's not murder a week, month, or months before it's born? If it was not an unborn human, then it would not grow into human baby. Plant life, animal life, and human life, there is only two ways to go. Either you are alive or dead, there no in between.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger


Nope, my position remained unchanged as a result of the debate--previous to the debate I believed that 1st trimester abortions were ethical, that 2nd trimester abortions were borderline/questionable, and that 3rd trimester abortions were unethical. These are still my beliefs. I currently don't and never did have any ethical qualms about taking a brain-dead patient off of life support--the patient is still biologically a human being, but ethically it is not. The same holds true for an embryo.

The trouble was (and is), there's no way to objectively convince somebody that an embryo (or a brain-dead patient, for that matter) is biologically human but ethically non-human--this belief (and its opposite number) are almost entirely subjective. Had I been able to convince you that an embryo is biologically non-human then I'd have an objective justification for abortion, so I took that route in my argument (since I tend to prefer objectivity to subjectivity whenever possible). I lost that round, though, so that left me exactly where I'd started: with a subjective belief that an embryo (or a brain-dead human being, as well) is not ethically "human" despite the fact that it is biologically human. It unsettled me in that I realized that an objective victory either way is probably impossible, though. I hate when that happens.

Dammit, I hoped I knocked your mind around a bit. Well at least I managed to get you see the biological portion of the debate.

Mind if I recap?

So biologicaly an embryo is human, as the biological definition of human has nothing to do with it's brain, or whether it is thinking or not.

As you said the sticking point it whether an embryo is "ethically" a human. By which I assume you are refering to the embyo's lack of a complex nervous system?

Loin, am I correct in assuming you were trying to compare an embryo to an adult on life-support, or "brain-dead"?

[KrazyHorse]

For the record, I don't subscribe to the idea that a human embryo is biologically a separate entity from the parental organism.

[November Adam]

Frogger, an embryo is the organism that continues to develope into its further stages.

Of course the embryo is dependent on its host, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a unique organism.

If the embryo isn't it's own biological entity, then where do babies come from?

[KrazyHorse]

They become independent biological entities when they have the capability to survive outside their mother's womb.

[Mihai]

Originally posted by Frogger
They become independent biological entities when they have the capability to survive outside their mother's womb.

And in this case the woman should make a cezarian (sp?), not an abourtion.

[loinburger]

Nov. Adam: Yup, I'm comparing an embryo with a brain-dead child/adult. Obviously they aren't absolutely equivalent (the brain-dead child/adult has no hope of resuming brain activities, while the embryo has no brain activity but may develop brain activity in the future), but my belief is that without brain activity a human is not "human" in the sense of being an independent sentient being, but is instead "human" only in that it is still biologically a human being (since its DNA doesn't alter by virtue of the fact that it has no brain activity). The easiest way to say this is that a human has no "soul" if it has no brain activity. (I'm ambivalent as to whether humans have souls, but regardless, "soul" seems to be the most appropriate word to use here).

Frogger: A human embryo is a separate entity from its mother just as a chicken embryo is a separate entity from its mother (or, from its egg). We don't say that a chicken's egg is "still part of the chicken until such time as the egg hatches," or that the egg is somehow not biologically a chicken. It's an undeveloped chicken, to be sure, but it's still a chicken.