Abortion right or wrong

[Zippicus]

Originally Posted by harmonious

Death by natural causes. Murder denotes intent.

What if it wasn't natural causes but due to some kind of accident ? Like the mother had a slip and fall type accident that resulted in a miscarriage. Should she be charged with a crime then ?

[OutSmart]

yup you are echoing

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I'd say the solution to that is to start distributing condoms (and education, of course). Not to try and judge women's motivations.

Also, 20 abortions sounds like an urban legend. Wouldn't you go barren far before you reach that number?

I agree about your solution. And about the 20 abortions, I don't remember exatly the source, but it was a rather safe one .

[harmonious]

Originally Posted by Zippicus

What if it wasn't natural causes but due to some kind of accident ? Like the mother had a slip and fall type accident that resulted in a miscarriage. Should she be charged with a crime then ?

Again, no. That would be accidental death.

[JanthraX^]

womens body, the women's choice?

[james0246]

(Most of this is just repeating other posts that I have made earlier in this thread.)

Originally Posted by harmonious

A zygote is alive. Mental capacity does not determine rights. An infant doesn't understand who he is, nor does he know what life is to determine if he wants to live or not.

Not to argue too much, but mental capacity can be used to determine an individuals rights. To give just one example, a comatose patient's rights are all determined by the family, and if no family is present, the hospital steps in to take over the individuals possible rights. If a hospital has no way of supporting a comatose patient, and there is no one to claim support for the patient, then the hospital is well within its rights to let the comatose patient die.

That being said, you have to understand, the whole purpose of law is a process of giving and taking from an individual's personal rights. In the end, a law is considered sound and viable only when it protects the individual from harm while causing no specific harm to other individuals and detracting only a minimal amount of an individual's personal rights (ex: an individual has the right o defend themselves from attack even up to and including killing the attacker, but an individual is not allowed to purposely kill another individual (which is actually debatable when discussing issues of euthanasia or war, etc.), etc).

A fetus is in the tenuous position of being a potential individual, without actually being an individual. Since a fetus cannot actually be considered an individual (though it has the potential to becomes an individual), it consequently does not have any personal rights except what society chooses to assign it (much the same as corpses have no rights unless society chooses to assign specific rights to the corpse or the 'owners' of the corpse). Consequently, the potential rights of the fetus do not stack up to the full rights of an individual human, and due to this inequality, abortion is justifiable.

But, even if all individual rights were assigned to the fetus, that still does not mean that abortion is wrong. Rather, a valid case can be made that since the fetus is forcing itself upon the woman, then the woman can react by having the fetus removed, relieving the situation of it unequal status (i.e. a fetus controlling a mother is unequal, so a mother can stop this inequality by ejecting the fetus from her body via any means). Since extracting the fetus could result in further harm to the woman (considering the fact that she is already the 'victim' in a situation between two equal agents/individuals), it is justifiable to destroy the fetus inside the womb, and then remove the remains.

(As you can see, this puts us into an interesting position; if we assign full personal rights to a fetus, then it must be charged as a full individual, consequently meaning that abortion is justifiable, since one individual is not allowed to control or harm another, and the fetus will always be controlling or harming (however minor) the mother. But, not assigning it any rights also makes abortion justifiable, since there is no moral dilemma if there is only one individual to worry about. So, no matter what, abortion is morally justifiable.)

That being said, the easiest solution to this problem is to stop the zygote from initially forming, so Morning After pills should become commonplace for all women, as well as other contraceptives, and a better education regarding reproduction. The fastest way to limit abortion is to not outlaw it, but instead educate all those involved as to all the possibilities and the organizations that can help a women make her choice.

(sorry if this was a little long.)

[greatpower2]

Well I support the right to abortion but not the act. I believe people should have that right and in the bible (which many pro-life supporters believe in) didn't god give Adam and Eve tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[harmonious]

Originally Posted by james0246

Not to argue too much, but mental capacity can be used to determine an individuals rights. To give just one example, a comatose patient's rights are all determined by the family, and if no family is present, the hospital steps in to take over the individuals possible rights. If a hospital has no way of supporting a comatose patient, and there is no one to claim support for the patient, then the hospital is well within its rights to let the comatose patient die.

A patient (and I recommend everyone doing this) can have a living will which will state desires upon such an occurrence. Family gaining authority is on in absence of such a will. The hospital never gains authority of their rights. If a comatose patient doesn't have family, it is then goes to the state. States have various different laws concerning comatose patients.

[QUOTE=james0246;2096743]That being said, you have to understand, the whole purpose of law is a process of giving and taking from an individual's personal rights. In the end, a law is considered sound and viable only when it protects the individual from harm while causing no specific harm to other individuals and detracting only a minimal amount of an individual's personal rights (ex: an individual has the right o defend themselves from attack even up to and including killing the attacker, but an individual is not allowed to purposely kill another individual (which is actually debatable when discussing issues of euthanasia or war, etc.), etc).[/quote

Law comes in many forms, criminal law, contract law, property law, tort law, etc.

Originally Posted by james0246

A fetus is in the tenuous position of being a potential individual, without actually being an individual. Since a fetus cannot actually be considered an individual (though it has the potential to becomes an individual), it consequently does not have any personal rights except what society chooses to assign it (much the same as corpses have no rights unless society chooses to assign specific rights to the corpse). Consequently, the potential rights of the fetus do not stack up to the full rights of an individual human, and due to this inequality, abortion is lawful and morally neutral at worst.

There is no potential about it, it is an individual.

Originally Posted by james0246

But, even if all individual rights were assigned to the fetus, that still does not mean that abortion is wrong. Rather, a valid case can be made that since the fetus is forcing itself upon the woman, then the woman can react by having the fetus removed, relieving the situation of it unequal status (i.e. a fetus controlling a mother is unequal, so a mother can stop this inequality by ejecting the fetus from her body via any means). Since extracting the fetus could result in further harm to the woman (considering the fact that she is already the 'victim' in a situation between two equal agents/individuals), it is justifiable to destroy the fetus inside the womb, and then remove the remains.

To conceive and then abort one's child — even by mere eviction — is to turn conception into a deadly trap for the child. It is to set her up in a vulnerable position that is virtually certain to lead to her death. Conception followed by eviction from the womb could be compared to capturing someone, placing her on one's airplane, and then shoving her out in mid-flight without a parachute. The child in the womb is like a captive; she is in the situation involuntarily, and she cannot fend for herself. A captive is not trespassing on the captor's property, by definition. (Evicting or abandoning one's child cannot be regarded as releasing her from captivity, because this does not terminate childhood inability.)

http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html

[james0246]

Originally Posted by harmonious

There is no potential about it, it is an individual.

I'm sorry, but this is false. An individual is a physically independent being that, while socially dependent, can still function as an independent entity outside of the realm of others direct care. A fetus is completely dependent on the mother, to such an extent that the fetus receives every benefit from the connection to the mother, whereas the mother receives nothing from the fetus (which while unequal can also be viewed as an immoral exchange if the mother does not willingly volunteer her body to the fetus).

Originally Posted by harmonious

http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html

Since you like to use quotes from Libertarian sources :

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.

What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.

http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm

That being said, if you were a true libertarian (if that is what you are), you would not even be discussing abortion, instead viewing it solely as a personal matter left up to the individual (which is what the U.S. Libertarian Party officially choose as their position on abortion).

[Vexx]

Some of the 'against' arguments here are about to be entrapped by another existential crisis when all it takes is a skin sample or stem cell to create a human being.

[greatpower2]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Some of the 'against' arguments here are about to be entrapped by another existential crisis when all it takes is a skin sample or stem cell to create a human being.

This is assuming that is possible, and those probably will actually require stem cells. Which comes from life in the womb, ending procedures.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by greatpower2

This is assuming that is possible, and those probably will actually require stem cells. Which comes from life in the womb, ending procedures.

Wrong.... successful use of adult stem cells has already been tested and proves quite promising in cloning parts. Example: A woman in Europe just received an entire trachea and windpipe via surgery courtesy of growing one using her own DNA/stem cells. Not too far much of a stretch to grow an entire body...what would we call that?

A subscription to Nature or reading the science rags might be useful. Other organ growth is currently being tested as well.
Stem cells are available during the entire life span, its just that fetal stem cells are willing to take the widest set of inputs.

[greatpower2]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Wrong.... successful use of adult stem cells has already been tested and proves quite promising in cloning parts. Example: A woman in Europe just received an entire trachea and windpipe via surgery courtesy of growing one using her own DNA/stem cells. Not too far much of a stretch to grow an entire body...what would we call that?

A subscription to Nature or reading the science rags might be useful. Other organ growth is currently being tested as well.
Stem cells are available during the entire life span, its just that fetal stem cells are willing to take the widest set of inputs.

Interesting, however the problem comes with the brain. We can't even program common sense into AI how can we expect to make real intelligence if we can't even fake it easily. Which you would need for a successful cloning. In fact we may learn how to make our heart beat, arms etc. etc. in the womb and honestly i have a hard time believing they can stick a baby in woman.



Now then back on topic, I think we should keep it legal because the real murder has happened before. Back alley abortions are happening in countries in Africa and kill the don't wanna be parent.

[Cut-Tongue]

Abortion is a personal matter for the women or families involved. People should have the right to guide their own emotional and financial futures.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by greatpower2

Interesting, however the problem comes with the brain. We can't even program common sense into AI how can we expect to make real intelligence if we can't even fake it easily. Which you would need for a successful cloning. In fact we may learn how to make our heart beat, arms etc. etc. in the womb and honestly i have a hard time believing they can stick a baby in woman.

You can "make" brains -- you can't just "make" a mind; you have to raise them. Brains develop 'mind' as the neural connections create a model in which to perceive, react, and manipulate the environment which becomes the sense of self. AI covers several areas like "expert systems" (diagnostic tools) but we'll just consider the AI that uses neural technologies rather than fixed or fuzzy logic nodes. Simple AI that could pass the "turing test" for cockroaches or even small mammals have been around for quite a while - they have to be trained because they simulate neural technologies.

A clone that I speak in the previous post has nothing to do with "mind" or "full grownness" even. You're confusing science fiction fantasy with science. A successful cloning would be a baby with the exact same DNA as the source -- like Dolly the sheep (or many other clones since then). It could also be an adult stage organ bank. A clone could be used to replace aging organs; it has no "mind" because the brain has not been subjected to the environmental stimulus outside of pre-wired genetics. It could even be grown with the upper brain function muted. Ethical question though ... is that organ bank a person or not?

baby in woman???? In vitro fertilization and implantation....

Oh and there's really no such thing as "common sense"...

I don't really think this is off-topic because a critical component of one's stance on abortion depends on what one understands about the fetal process, "mind", brain science, biomedical technology, what one considers a soul, and what one considers the definition of "human" or "sentient".

[kyon.haruhi.suzumiya]

Originally Posted by greatpower2

Well I support the right to abortion but not the act. I believe people should have that right and in the bible (which many pro-life supporters believe in) didn't god give Adam and Eve tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

^^ Man, I took a whole page to get to this point, and somebody else did it in one short paragraph. OTL

[Crimrui]

Well first of all, I think males shouldn't influence or comment anything on this matter in the first place, because they don't know the pain of the birth, so it isn't our place to say.

But If we just HAVE to say something like an advice or a personal thought, then I guess it all depends on the situation. Raped girls should abort if they think that they could not handle it cuz' they will mess up their life and the life of their future son/daughter. It is unfair to say to that kind of woman like: ''Think about your child, it deserves to live!'', but the unfortunate woman also has a right to be happy and not to spend life caring about the child she didn't want.

But as I said, only females can decide that, and the influence of their current state, weather she is weak or strong-willed, shall determent that fate. No matter how you look at it, one side will suffer, and In the end it is both right and wrong.

[4F0ur]

hello everyone.. i guess i will join this "debate" here
First of all
im a male and i wanna say that
i do not agree with abortion and YES!! i do think male have a say in abortion

okay..so Abortion is not right because of many reasons..and i assume many of you already know that..but you still think it should be Females decision for many reasons and i already knew them also.
now i think Male should have the right to say.."i want the Baby"
coz its his child too..its not just Females...
for those of you female who support abortion, well if you didnt want the baby..dont have sex in the first place.
i meant everything has a consequence, and abortion is just like "hit and run"
of course a murderer would have a better life if hes not in the prison
of course its better for a theif to not be charged by the police for whatever he has stolen
you have sex..you prepare for the consequence. "You're" the one took the risk and chances.
(and for the side note..if Male really did get a say to have the baby, then i guess the law should make The male to sign contracts of whatever is necessary)

now... for the rape situations and the life and death situations are different.
just because of these situations ..that doesn't mean we have to give all the females to have the right to do abortion.
well i guess i still encourage the females who are in those situations to keep the baby, and i guess the government should really support those females if they decide to keep the baby.

and lastly..Babes are babies.. i know we all have different beliefs.. is fetus a baby or just bunch of cells. or do babies have souls and what not.
but lets not forget that no matter what your beliefs are.. they(the babies) will grow up and live their lives with endless possibilities.
and abortion means to take away all that from them.
just because you didnt want to face the consequence. just because you made a "mistake"! it was your "fault"..and the baby has to suffer for it. great!

i guess its not fair for woman to suffer to give birth.
but you really have to live with it..coz some ppl just born rich or poor. black, white, asian.
everyone learns to deal with life... and yes women. you did have a choice.
but you loss that choice once you decide to have sex.
just like you cant have sex by yourself.. you didnt have the baby all by yourself.
and the babys life is not your choice. sorry!

[Vexx]

Did you even bother to read any of the previous posts before writing that?
Many of those points already have responses in the thread and its good for people to see how their assertions stand up under some scrutiny.

[4F0ur]

uh i read the first 5pages and last 5pages..
i dont wanna read the whole thing.. too many pages
so yes..maybe its a repeat. and im sorry for that
but i think alot of the people would come to this thread and read the last view comments and post their thoughts just like me lol