Should Abortion be Allowed?

[dan-cat]

Every day our bodies shed millions upon millions of cells each with the potential to become new humans given a little technological intervention the same nurturing available to a fertilized egg.

You're reaching here. To ignore the notion that something more can spring from the 'sum of it's parts' is far too simplistic.

 

[dan-cat]

If we consider the potential of the embryo, then all embryos are equal. All have the potential to eventually become humans.

But we do consider the potential of the embryo. It's inescapable. It is the very reason why the technology to abort exists and the reason why the mother can consider it a requirement.

Do you see how ignoring the potentiality of the embryo seems to contradict itself?

 

[dan-cat]

Or do you believe this will shame/guilt some of them into carrying to term?

Why would they feel shame/guilt if they were viewing a clutch of cells? What more is at play here?

 

[Adam Caramon]

Why would they feel shame/guilt if they were viewing a clutch of cells? What more is at play here?

I think the shame comes from having to go to a doctor and have a trans-vaginal ultrasound performed before a woman can receive an abortion. The guilt comes from a doctor's/nurse's/office staff's personal beliefs, where a woman may be forced to endure lectures or religious-based condemnation.

In the states where they are trying to pass these laws that require a woman to undergo these steps before she can obtain an abortion, there is clearly the goal to scare these women into not seeking an abortion.

 

[Adam Caramon]

But we do consider the potential of the embryo.

Each woman can do that herself. She can consider the potential of the embryo, and then make her own decision.

Do you see how ignoring the potentiality of the embryo seems to contradict itself?

I don't think anyone is ignoring the potential of the embryo, its just that those who choose abortion don't place as high a value on the embryo as those who want to take that choice away from others. Some believe embryos are humans and deserving of rights. Others disagree.

For example, I have a handful of seeds. The seeds have the potential to produce vegetables. But right now they're just seeds. We don't consider seeds to be what they will become. We consider them what they are in their present state. We all recognize that the seeds have the potential to become vegetables.

But the value of the seeds is different than the value of the vegetables produced from the plant.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I disagree that it is a life. That aside, why do you want to require the women view the collection of cells before they are allowed to abort? Do you truly think that the person requesting an abortion hasn't thought it through? Do you think they don't understand the circumstances?

Or do you believe this will shame/guilt some of them into carrying to term?

I think that we are back to where the thread started some 400 posts ago.

Aren't we still a.collection of cells?

I don't know if the women have thought it through, after all they didn't think it through before becoming pregnant.

Why should they feel shame or guilt if they have thought it through and realise that they are going to take a life although if it's early enough it won't look like it.

I guess we are going to disagree on when life starts.

Brian

 

[Adam Caramon]

I don't know if the women have thought it through, after all they didn't think it through before becoming pregnant.

So, being honest with yourself, your only goal for wanting all women regardless of circumstances to be required to view an ultrasound of the fetus they want to abort is to make sure they know what they're doing?

I guess we are going to disagree on when life starts.

And that's okay, disagreements on these issues are expected. You specifically said that you never mentioned governmental intervention. Anytime I hear someone saying something is wrong, or shouldn't be done, I naturally assume this is accomplished through legislation, as I don't know of any other way people can be compelled to do something.

If that is not your intent, and you're simply saying you don't like abortions, but you're not advocating any laws, then we basically agree. In a perfect world, there would be no abortions, because women would only get pregnant when they wanted to and were ready to have a child. As that's never going to happen, I like the description President Obama gave (paraphrasing), abortions should be legal, safe, and rare.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Agreed.
Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

Each month a fertile woman who does not conceive allows a potential human being to die.

Oh the horror of those selfish inconsiderate women when any number of men would have fertilized that egg.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Bullshit, this thread has now descended into farce, I'm out of here, bye

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

I was merely pointing out yet again the fact that life is a continuum and the definition of the moment of conception as defining a new life is entirely arbitrary.

The difference between the unfertilized egg and a fertilized one is very small. Both require a huge input of resources from the mother to reach a point where they become a viable independent life.

 

[Dick7Access]

Bullshit, this thread has now descended into farce, I'm out of here, bye

Brian

Good thing I didn't get in this one. Isn't that the true Brian?
Dick S.

 

[dan-cat]

Each woman can do that herself. She can consider the potential of the embryo, and then make her own decision.

I would go further and say that it is the ability and flat-out compulsion to consider the potential of the embryo that triggers the decision-making process of the mother.

I don't think anyone is ignoring the potential of the embryo, its just that those who choose abortion don't place as high a value on the embryo as those who want to take that choice away from others. Some believe embryos are humans and deserving of rights. Others disagree.

I agree and placing a lesser value on the embryo requires a certain 'flying in the face' of how the human mind works. It requires the sentiment that you have expressed below:

For example, I have a handful of seeds. The seeds have the potential to produce vegetables. But right now they're just seeds. We don't consider seeds to be what they will become. We consider them what they are in their present state. We all recognize that the seeds have the potential to become vegetables.

But the value of the seeds is different than the value of the vegetables produced from the plant.

Firstly, this is a terrible analogy. You can't equate a plant to a human life.

Secondly, yes of course we consider a seed as what it will become. The very definition of a seed is grounded in it's potential. A seed requires the quality to have the potential to propagate.

def: any propagative part of a plant, including tubers, bulbs, etc., especially as preserved for growing a new crop.

Thirdly you are doing the same as Galaxiom and ignoring the notion that something more can spring from the sum of it's parts. A fundamental part of human thinking. A seed in the hand is not the same as one planted in the ground with all the conditions present required to thrive and will, in all likelihood thrive without intervention.

 

[dan-cat]

The difference between the unfertilized egg and a fertilized one is very small. Both require a huge input of resources from the mother to reach a point where they become a viable independent life.

As a matter of interest what is your definition of a 'viable independent life'?

 

[Adam Caramon]

Firstly, this is a terrible analogy. You can't equate a plant to a human life.

Sure you can. Everyone values things differently. For example, I am very much against harming animals. However, there are millions of animals that are kept in terrible conditions, and then slaughtered for human consumption. Clearly the people that keep and slaughter animals don't hold animal life as highly as I do.

As far as humans are concerned, the view that human life is sacred and of the utmost importance is derived from religion. I don't adhere to this view - there's nothing special about humans.

Secondly, yes of course we consider a seed as what it will become. The very definition of a seed is grounded in it's potential. A seed requires the quality to have the potential to propagate.

We're looking at this from different angle. Here's my argument for why we don't consider a seed the end product. Would you pay the same price for a seed as you would for the final product?

If there are 2 parks, and one must be eliminated, and all other things are equal, would you keep the park with full grown trees or the one with only saplings?

Thirdly you are doing the same as Galaxiom and ignoring the notion that something more can spring from the sum of it's parts. A fundamental part of human thinking. A seed in the hand is not the same as one planted in the ground with all the conditions present required to thrive and will, in all likelihood thrive without intervention.

I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm saying it is not as important to me as it is to you. I agree with you that a seed in the hand is not the same as one planted in the ground with all conditions present required to thrive. But you must agree that that seed it not the same as a flowered plant.

 

[Galaxiom]

I agree and placing a lesser value on the embryo requires a certain 'flying in the face' of how the human mind works.

You have raised your own personal/cultural values to the status of human nature and you have done so without a shred of supporting argument.

Indeed your assertion is just one small step short of claiming your beliefs are a god-given universal truth of the kind promulgated by the "prophets" of religion.

You also imply that those who make different choices are essentially inhuman, implementing the second foundation of religion, guilt.

Also you may well consider my suggestion that a woman who fails to ensure conception is failing to realise the potential of the egg is a little far fetched. However it does not lie far at all from the well known Catholic doctrine that forbids any form of contraception for standing in the way of the potential of the unfertilized egg.

As Adam has so eloquently elaborated, morality is subjective. We each choose where we stand. The honest philosopher knows why he stands at a particular point and does not invoke the notion that their beliefs are anything more than just that, their personal values.

 

[dan-cat]

Indeed your assertion is just one small step short of claiming your beliefs are a god-given universal truth of the kind promulgated by the "prophets" of religion.

I think you are obsessed with viewing everything you disagree with in the context of your view on religion which is why you can't help but raise this strawman.

Try to think outside of this point of view from time to time.

EDIT: Better yet, try to stop yourself from instantly viewing people that you disagree with, worthy of your contempt.

 

[dan-cat]

As far as humans are concerned, the view that human life is sacred and of the utmost importance is derived from religion. I don't adhere to this view - there's nothing special about humans.

I'm sorry did you just equate the uprooting of a sapling to the death of a child? If you did, I'm quite lost.

We're looking at this from different angle. Here's my argument for why we don't consider a seed the end product. Would you pay the same price for a seed as you would for the final product?

You're presuming that I'm equating a seed to a flower. I'm not. I'm attempting to break the equation that a seed is worthless. It is not. It has, in your context, commercial value because of how we inject it's potential into our definition of it. Same applies to the fetus. It is not a child but it has more value because of what it could become. It has some value.

If there are 2 parks, and one must be eliminated, and all other things are equal, would you keep the park with full grown trees or the one with only saplings?

This is a utilitarian argument that is riddled with moral penalties. You don't want to go there.

I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm saying it is not as important to me as it is to you. I agree with you that a seed in the hand is not the same as one planted in the ground with all conditions present required to thrive. But you must agree that that seed it not the same as a flowered plant.

I'm not actually disagreeing with you. We do place varying degrees of importance on things. But your wording suggests, correct me if I'm wrong, that you do place some importance on it. Which is all I'm really arguing for. That this element of importance should not be dismissed out of hand but should be weighed up carefully with the other factors.

I'd also like to introduce something else to consider. Going back to your slaughterhouse example. I could very well see myself as being swayed to vegetarianism by being exposed to the realities of a slaughterhouse.

Do you think that this emotional response is wrong? Do you think that being swayed by exposure to the realities of an abortion is also wrong?

Should such an emotional response be a basis or any part thereof, for making a decision on the matter or should we expect the individual to be able to separate themselves from those feelings and rely solely on philosophical reasoning?

 

[Dick7Access]

It never ceases to amaze me the different points of views in the world. I haven’t got the time or energy to weigh in on either side of this issue, but I thought you guys might find this amusing. On the talk show this morning there was a discussion about a woman that bought a plot of land because it had a 130 year old oak tree on it and built her house. The electrical service was going to be coming in underground. She left a detail map with the contactor as to where it was to be routed. The contractor hires a guy with a ditch witch and he decides that he is going to save her money and digs the trench right over the roots of the tree. The building inspector then will not issue and occupancy permit until the tree with damaged roots is cut down as it will fall on the house. She said as she was verbally accosting him that he said lady it’s just a tree. She said her husband had to physically pull her off of him. Two completely different points of view.

 

[ColinEssex]

If a female wants an abortion then they should have one.

Sod religion and half wits who spout on about morality. The female will have a reason for doing it and its not anyone else's business as to why.

Who cares if the embryo is a baby or just a blob? It's better to lose it rather than have an unwanted sprog.

This discussion is getting nowhere and is boring me. As do most of the inane posts here.

Col