Anti-life crowd outraged that the unborn are cared for.

[ckweb]

Some of the arguments in this thread, on both sides, really surprise me.

While I think it is laudable to attempt to answer the philosophical question of when human life begins, I think the fundamental questions about abortion are simple:

Q: Is abortion the only way to prevent child birth?
A: No. Birth control and abstinence can prevent pregnancy before it begins and the morning after pill can prevent conception or induce a miscarriage within the first few days.

Q: Is abortion the safest way or even a safe way to prevent child birth?
A: No. In fact, abortion has serious and profound biological, physiological, and psychological affects on many women.

Given the ambiguities of the moral and philosophical issues involved and on these two Q&As alone, abortion should be relegated to an only when absolutely necessary procedure; a last resort option for women unable to avail themselves of the alternatives (as mentioned in the first Q&A). Does that make sense? If not, why not?

[CyberGnu]

So then you don't consider the zygote a human, since it only has 40% chance of making it into the third trimester?

[Seeker]

CK:

Yes, you have stated a lot of true things.
However, I think you are guilty of the assumption that women just run out to have abortions willy-nilly, having sex left and right, etc.

Yes, they SHOULD use birth control.

Yes, if they are in a awful situation for having a child they SHOULD think about avoiding vaginal intercourse.

However, people make mistakes.

Should they be punished forever for those mistakes if the situation can be rectified without violating anyone's rights (asuming a consenting father)?

The fact that if we were all reasonable, intelligent people with no sex drive we'd abstain or be monogamous does not change the fact that most people are not so.

They have control over their bodies. Let's say they make a mistake. Hell, let's just pick the worst case scenario and say you've got a total ho.

Why punish them for their decisions about what they do with their own bodies? A woman's body is not state property.

If they want to lead a reckless lifestyle, and endanger their bodies to some extent, that's their right just as it is any smokers or drinkers.

Although the situation is not like I think you imagine, even if it were,

it is a choice an adult is making about their body that does not violate anyones rights so end of story.

Irresponsiblity: If a 'loose woman' had a lot of risky sex, what of it? Do we punish drunks as long as they don't violate any laws? Heavy smokers who obey the smoking bylaws? No, because people have a right to control their own bodies as long as it doesn't violate anyone's rights.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Umm, loin, we are on the same side here, right?

Yes, I'm in favor of abortion up until the third trimester, at which point I'm opposed to it. The biological definition of when a new human life begins does not answer the question of when a new human "being" begins--until there is brain activity, the zygote/embryo/fetus is not ethically a human being. The only reason that the biological definition is an issue is because it can be (and has been) used to impede the ethical definition--people have argued that the unborn child is not biologically a human until it is born, and in doing so they implicitly deny that the third trimester fetus could ever be ethically treated as a human.

[November Adam]

Hey loin, is their not simple brain activity in a second trimester fetus?

Gnu, loin is on your side, but he is assertaining the biological nature of a fetus. A fetus is a developmental stage of a human being. He just thinks the drawing line, when it should be considered a person, is with its brain activity.

I still think in a way mother nature played a mean trick on us. If we dropped eggs instead of carying our young internally we would be having a much different argument.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by nationalist
Mine is something along the lines of creating a "destructive biological change" rather than a "preventative" biological change.

Hmm, so would removing/destroying other body tissues (tumors or polyps or tonsils or whatever) count as a "destructive biological change" (since tissues are being destroyed)? They could be considered "preventative" since they prevent diseases, but at the same time an abortion could be considered "preventative" since it prevents complications with the pregnancy.

By certain I mean a practical certainty. 99.9% probability may not be completely certain, but it is practically certain. None of us know the actual figures, so we can't really debate them here.

I wasn't debating the actual percentages, which is why I said that things with X% probability may be interfered with but things with Y% probability may not. Since Y does not equal 100, you've drawn a line in the sand. And as Gnu pointed out, the probability that a zygote develops into a third-trimester fetus is nothing resembling near certainty--your line in the sand is not drawn so close to 100 as you claim.

That's not what I am going for. I don't think that not creating life is murder, I thiunk that stopping life while it is in the process of developing is murder. That process begins with fertilization, not with intercourse. That is why contraceptives are alright. The development of the different cells into one being starts at fertilization.

The thing is that the second-trimester fetus being destroyed by an abortion is practically the ethical equivalent of the egg/sperm cells being destroyed by contraception/abstention. The second-trimester fetus cannot think (it has no brain activity), so it has no atman/self/soul/whatever--it doesn't have a "soul-in-waiting" that is being victimized by being deprived of a home any more than the egg/sperm have "souls-in-waiting" that are being victimized by being deprived of homes (from contraception or abstention), because in both cases the atman/self/soul/whatever does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist. You can't commit a crime against a person who doesn't even exist and never will exist, which is why a second-trimester abortion is ethically the same as contraception or abstention.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
Hey loin, is their not simple brain activity in a second trimester fetus?

I had previously thought so (which is why I always considered the second trimester to be a gray area in our debates), but according to the article that Lincoln posted there is no evidence of brain activity prior to the third trimester.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by ckweb
...a last resort option for women unable to avail themselves of the alternatives...

That's how it should be used, but I don't consider it the duty of the law to regulate potentially self-destructive behavior. Women undergo risks when they have abortions (heck, they undergo risks when they have intercourse), but so long as they understand these risks then it's their call as to whether they want the procedure performed, so long as they aren't harming somebody else (like a sentient fetus) by their actions. I'm not in favor of "abortion as a procedure that everybody hops right in to," I'm in favor of "abortion as a legal alternative until the third trimester."

[Lincoln]

O good, we're finally are back to the central question in lite of recent evidence. Loinburger and one other pro-choice poster (I forgot who) said that they were opposed to taking the life of the fetus when he is sentient. Those (like Cybergnu) who are still arguing over zygotes etc.: What do you think? Should we kill these sentient human beings or not?

[Gibsie]

Personally, I just think it's awfully discriminatory to allow the deaths of haploid human beings. If I were to kill a distinct human with 47 chromosomes it's murder, but if it's distinctly human with 23 chromosomes, it's perfectly fine for it to die? That's just ploidist.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
O good, we're finally are back to the central question in lite of recent evidence. Loinburger and one other pro-choice poster (I forgot who) said that they were opposed to taking the life of the fetus when he is sentient. Those (like Cybergnu) who are still arguing over zygotes etc.: What do you think? Should we kill these sentient human beings or not?

I have always held that 3rd trimester abortions were dubious, and loin's arguments are pretty sound as to the dilineation point.

The one caveat I would include is that 3rd trimester abortions are acceptable for the standard reasons: Life and health of mother and severe fetal problems.

I don't see any excuse for elective abortions beyond the 2nd trimester. It is highly unlikely a woman would not know she is pregnant prior to that point, and she should have had plenty fo time to make her choice. Even with a rape pregnancy, that should be the case--have the procedure in a timely fashion.

Before the 3rd trimester, I fully support abortion on demand, as it is the perogative of the mother do do what she wants with her body and what's inside it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ckweb
Q: Is abortion the only way to prevent child birth?
A: No. Birth control and abstinence can prevent pregnancy before it begins and the morning after pill can prevent conception or induce a miscarriage within the first few days.

Q: Is abortion the safest way or even a safe way to prevent child birth?
A: No. In fact, abortion has serious and profound biological, physiological, and psychological affects on many women.

You foget Q3: Is abortion safer than child birth?
A3: Yes. It's better not to get pregnant, but an abotion is still safer and healthier than having a baby. Q3 negates any point Q2 has.

[Lincoln]

Thanks Boris. And I have not heard your answer yet Che.

[chequita guevara]

It's a touchy area. My understanding is that nearly born children lack true sentience. Their "thoughts" are disorganized random patterns. But that's not what is important to me.

As far as I'm concerned, once the fetus has the ability to survive outside the womb, if a woman really wants to be rid of the child, she should undergo surgery to have it removed in a fashion that it still has a chance to live.

But it's not my body, and those operations don't come cheap.

[Lincoln]

How are you doing in the job search btw?