The Abortion Thread

[crimsonfloyd]

So the ability to experience pain is a prerequisite? Edit: Or value it's own life? You can be taught to not value your life. Does this then make human sacrifice ok?

I was just listing possible criterion by which to designate moral patients. I wasn't necessarily supporting a particular one (to a large degree I'm a moral relativist so I don't really think any of these criterion will always work).

Sperm and egg, respectively, have no natural end to life. The natural end for an unfertilized egg is too be flushed in a bloody mess once a month, and the natural end for a sperm is knucklebabies, or some other method of release/disposal.

If this was not the case, every period is involuntary manslaughter.

Once joined however, they become a new thing.

Sperm and egg do have a natural end to create life. That is their reason for being. There is their reason for existence. I think this is a basic biological fact and isn't really up for debate.

The Catholic Church, which is a least consistent on this point, considers masturbation a sin, since it is the voluntary elimination of the potential for life without allowing it the opportunity to actualize its end of manifesting a new person. Menstruation is involuntary and consequently cannot be subject to moral law.

 

[Dak]

Sperm and egg do have a natural end to create life. That is their reason for being. There is their reason for existence. I think this is a basic biological fact and isn't really up for debate.

That is the only practical/constructive use yes. However, without being brought together, they have no potential for life.

Absent being brought together, all other ends are equal, as in nothing.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

That is the only practical/constructive use yes. However, without being brought together, they have no potential for life.

Absent being brought together, all other ends are equal, as in nothing.

That makes no sense. If they didn't have the potential by themselves, then they couldn't have the potential together.

If I have a complete set of chessmen, but no chess board, there is still the potential to play chess with those pieces. They simply require a second element- the chess board. Same goes for sperm and egg. Both have potential in-themselves to produce a new organism. Now I grant that the potential can only begin to be actualized when they are joined, but to say that they lack the potential to produce new life prior to union is just incorrect.

 

[Dak]

That makes no sense. If they didn't have the potential by themselves, then they couldn't have the potential together.

If I have a complete set of chessmen, but no chess board, there is still the potential to play chess with those pieces. They simply require a second element- the chess board. Same goes for sperm and egg. Both have potential in-themselves to produce a new organism. Now I grant that the potential can only begin to be actualized when they are joined, but to say that they lack the potential to produce new life prior to union is just incorrect.

"Potential" is possibly a poor choice of words. A more suitable one escapes me at the moment.

There are numerous possibilities for the use/outcome of an egg or sperm until they are joined. Only one use/outcome leads to the growth of an organism. Otherwise I can just as well refer to sperm as bukkake juice or knucklebabies.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

"Potential" is possibly a poor choice of words. A more suitable one escapes me at the moment.

There are numerous possibilities for the use/outcome of an egg or sperm until they are joined. Only one use/outcome leads to the growth of an organism. Otherwise I can just as well refer to sperm as bukkake juice or knucklebabies.

That argument isn't gonna work. I can just as well refer to the fetus as "medical waste" using the exact same reasoning.

 

[Dak]

That argument isn't gonna work. I can just as well refer to the fetus as "medical waste" using the exact same reasoning.

How so? It's already a growing organism. Conception has occurred.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Did you start it just so you could say that?

That and I mainly just wanted to argue with Cythraul. This is a complex issue that most people are either woefully confused about or simply lack the attention span for (as evidenced by almost everything in this thread so far), and i have no interest in having to tell people things like this:

What the hell are you arguing about? I'm trying to discuss the ethical implications of the actual act of abortion.

 

[theoden236]

i'm just gonna say it's their bodies and they should be able to do whatever they want with them. it's all motivated by politics and religion. 'nuff said.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's attached to their bodies...

 

[crimsonfloyd]

How so? It's already a growing organism. Conception has occurred.

I don't see how that makes it distinct from sperm/egg insofar as potential is concerned.

Sperm: Primary potential is to conjoin with an egg and produce a new organism. A secondary potential is to just be ejaculated and thrown away.

Egg: Primary potential is to conjoin with a sperm and produce a new organism. A secondary potential is to be menstruated and thrown away.

Fetus: Primary potential is to develop into a fully grown human who itself can reproduce. A secondary potential is to be aborted and thrown away.

The question is: do we need to treat any being that has the primary potential to become a fully developed human as a moral patient?

I personally don't see why we should. The fetus can't experience pain, it's unclear that it even has consciousness (and if it does its less complex than most insects). On what grounds exactly, does this being deserve moral treatment.

The best two routes are to argue that 1) humans have a soul from the moment of conception or 2) homo sapiens are inherently valuable. though you would need to explain what that inherent value consists in.

 

[Dak]

So you are discounting the conjoining.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

So you are discounting the conjoining.

Not at all. Once the sperm and egg conjoin there is a new living human. That's a basic biological fact. I am questioning the value of that new living human. I am stating that the fetus lacks all the qualities that I think make a being qualify as a moral patient.

Some people think that being a human automatically qualifies someone as a moral patient-perhaps you think this- but I don't see why that should be the case.

 

[JontRevolting]

If all y'all who think a fetus has rights then let the cunt vote in the next bi-election.

 

[Dak]

Not at all. Once the sperm and egg conjoin there is a new living human. That's a basic biological fact. I am questioning the value of that new living human. I am stating that the fetus lacks all the qualities that I think make a being qualify as a moral patient.

Some people think that being a human automatically qualifies someone as a moral patient-perhaps you think this- but I don't see why that should be the case.

I'm waiting for Einherjer or someone else to weigh in on this conclusion.

So we aren't discussing becoming a human then. We are discussing value.

So what determines human value? The ability for self defense?

 

[Einherjar86]

Can't answer now, and I'm going to be away from my computer until Sunday; but I'll get to it sometime that day.

 

[Mort Divine]

The ability to survive outside of the mother without significant medical help (not saying all babies who can't survive without medical help should be considered for abortion, but point is that is where I'd draw the line - I mean this from a fetal development standpoint)

 

[crimsonfloyd]

false
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j31Mztt27dw#t=2m12s

Note that the video says 20-30 weeks gestation. It's generally accepted that the very earliest a fetus can experience pain is week 18 (though this is still far more open to dispute within the scientific community than that video implies).

That brings us to 4.5 months, halfway through the second semester. Therefore, first trimester abortions and many second trimester abortions definitely do not cause the fetus any pain, since that is not a capacity they have.

 

[CF87]

Females who have Abortions usually have reasons. It's not fair to a kid to be raised by a mother who is say an alcoholic/addict or without a father. Or poor stupid parents who don't care. I do not see anything wrong with it. A wealthy couple for example with good jobs,etc.. are not the people having abortions.

 

[Dak]

If no one has value, that includes you. So there's no problem if someone decides you need to die.

This is where the eugenicists and depopulationists start running off the rails. They never include themselves.

 

[damnromulans]

what kind of society do you want to live in where nobody is responsible for anything and the government spoonfeeds you all the solutions by making hardworking people pay for stupid people's stupidity?

"hey billy bob let's fuck! y'aint gonna be needin that condom, you can cum inside me cuz i can just get an abortion! tha guvernmint'll pay for it.. yippeekiyay for choice!"

fuck that. if she makes that choice, she should be accountable. don't give her an easy way out, that at the same time promotes even more reckless behavior by other shitstains like her. fuck her choice. TAKE IT AWAY. stupid american culture can learn something from the muslims in this regard

What if one of your prized European hookers conceived because you accidentally broke the condom in a freak accident?