toldailytopic: Were you for or against your mother's right to terminate you?

[Rusha]

It DOES confuse me that you seem to have picked 'unique DNA' as the test of when a foetus gets full human rights simply because it is easy to determine, instead of a reasoned judgement, yet you seem to think the judgement is obviously correct. The bible doesn't mention DNA or even hint at its existence. How has the DNA argument got such a hold on you?

Feeling your judgement is 'obvious' means that you don't have to think at all or consider the arguments. It makes your life simple and black and white, with no awkward moral judgements to make and no difficult issues to resolve. If that is the limit of your cognitive abilities, then you are welcome to that.

The topic of protecting the unborn IS black and white. Utilizing AOD for convenience (which is why most abortions happen) is punishing an innocent, unborn baby for his/her parent's decision to create him.

How is it fair to a child to end their life just because the parents are too selfish to take responsibility for the life they willingly created?

Consenting to sex IS consenting to the very real possibility that a child might be created.

There are one of two outcomes when a pregnancy occurs: the mother and child can BOTH live and thrive or ... the unborn baby can be intentionally and viciously torn apart while still in the womb.

 

[gcthomas]

How is it fair to a child to end their life just because the parents are too selfish to take responsibility for the life they willingly created?

Consenting to sex IS consenting to the very real possibility that a child might be created.

There are one of two outcomes when a pregnancy occurs: the mother and child can BOTH live and thrive or ... the unborn baby can be intentionally and viciously torn apart while still in the womb.

Agree with all of that. AOD is not yet legal in the UK, though the 'harm to the mother' bar is set very low. It requires two physicians to agree on the need.

The topic of protecting the unborn IS black and white. Utilizing AOD for convenience (which is why most abortions happen) is punishing an innocent, unborn baby for his/her parent's decision to create him.

You have had to pick a date to choose to start calling the bundle of cells a person. That is open to debate, as there is not universal, overriding fact that could force everyone who understands the issues to agree.

If you pick conception for biblical reasons, then you need to wonder why earlier generations picked the 'quickening' or other times with the same book to hand. Should it have been obvious then?

If not a biblical reason, then you should think what it is about fertilisation that attracted your commitment. Arguments on this thread about unique DNA are begging the question (not your argument, I know). It is the wrong way round to think 'I have decided on conception, what evidence can I find to bolster my decision?' No-one has used 'unique DNA' as a justification for granting human rights before, so the argument is a post hoc one. Looking at the evidence first and deciding what can be justified is the usual way of coming to a reliable, defendable conclusion.

Unique DNA is not an identifier of individuality, as any identical twins could attest. (If a mother was carrying two identical twins, why wouldn't you accept the selective abortion of one of them on the basis that they DIDN'T have unique DNA? The argument doesn't stand.)

Again, saying black and white just leads to simple arguments. I, for example, am against late stage terminations, because I believe that the child has features that the early foetus doesn't have that require me to grant that it has rights. (discussed previously)

If the argument MUST be a black and white argument, then that would mean that I must accept partial delivery abortions simply because I accept the need for first trimester abortions. Is black and white really justified when there are shades of opinion?

 

[Rusha]

If the argument MUST be a black and white argument, then that would mean that I must accept partial delivery abortions simply because I accept the need for first trimester abortions. Is black and white really justified when there are shades of opinion?

In most situations, no. However, unlike any other medical procedure, abortion is done for one purpose: to end the life of an unborn baby.

This isn't a case of picking between one life or another but rather a case of allowing TWO to live instead of one.

Are there alternatives for women who are not ready to be mothers that would produce a positive outcome for both mother and child?

Which does the least harm by taking into consideration BOTH mother and child?

 

[gcthomas]

In most situations, no. However, unlike any other medical procedure, abortion is done for one purpose: to end the life of an unborn baby.

This isn't a case of picking between one life or another but rather a case of allowing TWO to live instead of one.

Are there alternatives for women who are not ready to be mothers that would produce a positive outcome for both mother and child?

Which does the least harm by taking into consideration BOTH mother and child?

I agree mostly. Mothers should be encouraged and supported to carry the baby to term taking responsibility for their actions (unless they were raped), to look after it or have it adopted. This would be to the greater good, undoubtedly.

The only difference is that, for a first trimester foetus, I don't think that its rights trump those of the mother, while later in the pregnancy I think that the rights become progressively more equal. This is the case in most legal jurisdictions: early abortions OK or therabouts, later ones only to protect the health needs of the mother or other special cases, very late ones almost universally banned. The laws are the result of detailed (not black and white) ethical deliberations.

The fact that most countries have this system should lead you to think there must be something in the argument, even if you legitimately disagree with the outcome.

 

[Stripe]

Heh, heh. Get a grip of the discussion, Stripe!I was challenging the idea that there can be no moral reason for an abortion, not supporting murder. And, as you know, I don't consider aborting a small cell bundle as murder as it is not yet a person. I know having two strands to a discussion confuses you Stripe, but do try!

Why you believe is irrelevant. Show us how it is rational or moral, 'cos it ain't.

 

[gcthomas]

Why you believe is irrelevant.

Heh, heh. This just about sums you up!

 

[Stripe]

:AMR:

 

[Lighthouse]

It DOES confuse me that you seem to have picked 'unique DNA' as the test of when a foetus gets full human rights simply because it is easy to determine, instead of a reasoned judgement, yet you seem to think the judgement is obviously correct. The bible doesn't mention DNA or even hint at its existence. How has the DNA argument got such a hold on you?

:doh:

What makes you think this is about what the Bible says?

And where do you get the idea that I didn't come to this conclusion by way of reason?

Unique DNA begins to form at the moment of fertilization, and it is at that point the zygote is differentiated from the mother by its unique DNA.

That is the 'reason.' It is clearly not the mother's body because it doesn't have the same DNA as the mother. The unique DNA is one way in which that can be determined. When a criminal leaves DNA behind the police don't come after the mother. Why? Because it isn't her DNA.

Different DNA=different person.

Feeling your judgement is 'obvious' means that you don't have to think at all or consider the arguments. It makes your life simple and black and white, with no awkward moral judgements to make and no difficult issues to resolve. If that is the limit of your cognitive abilities, then you are welcome to that.

:doh:

It's obvious because I'm a rational person with the ability to reason and think things through, logically.

What does it say about you that you can't do that? You can't even come up with a definitive point at which the child is a person, according to your definition. Then you accuse the rest of us of being unable to reason? :ha:

 

[gcthomas]

:doh:

What makes you think this is about what the Bible says?

And where do you get the idea that I didn't come to this conclusion by way of reason?

Unique DNA begins to form at the moment of fertilization, and it is at that point the zygote is differentiated from the mother by its unique DNA.

That is the 'reason.' It is clearly not the mother's body because it doesn't have the same DNA as the mother. The unique DNA is one way in which that can be determined. When a criminal leaves DNA behind the police don't come after the mother. Why? Because it isn't her DNA.

Different DNA=different person.


:doh:

It's obvious because I'm a rational person with the ability to reason and think things through, logically.

What does it say about you that you can't do that? You can't even come up with a definitive point at which the child is a person, according to your definition. Then you accuse the rest of us of being unable to reason? :ha:

Claiming there is a single point the a child becomes a person is irrational. Most legal jurisdictions can't even come up with a definitive age that adulthood starts. 16, 18, 21?

 

[Lighthouse]

Claiming there is a single point the a child becomes a person is irrational.

How is it irrational?

Most legal jurisdictions can't even come up with a definitive age that adulthood starts. 16, 18, 21?

It is scientifically proven that the brain does not finish developing until the age of 20, which is why most states hold 21 as the drinking age; because it is believed the brain can handle it better, the person is better able to reason out their limits and stick to them and not make the stupid decisions someone younger [with a less developed brain] would while intoxicated, thus leading to a lower likelihood of permanent brain damage or interference with the development of said brain.

 

[gcthomas]

How is it irrational?


It is scientifically proven that the brain does not finish developing until the age of 20, which is why most states hold 21 as the drinking age; because it is believed the brain can handle it better, the person is better able to reason out their limits and stick to them and not make the stupid decisions someone younger [with a less developed brain] would while intoxicated, thus leading to a lower likelihood of permanent brain damage or interference with the development of said brain.

Why can you conceive of using brain function estimates for deciding adulthood, but not for the development of personhood? An early foetus does not have a functioning nervous/brain system, so why not take your own argument further and apply to foetuses?

 

[Stripe]

Claiming there is a single point the a child becomes a person is irrational.

All children are people.

 

[Lighthouse]

Why can you conceive of using brain function estimates for deciding adulthood, but not for the development of personhood? An early foetus does not have a functioning nervous/brain system, so why not take your own argument further and apply to foetuses?

:doh:

Personhood begins when the body begins developing. Adulthood begins when the body stops developing. The nervous system is not the be all, end all.