Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

quote: from schrafSo, since most "future babies" do not lead to a pregnancy and are flushed out of the body during menstruation, do you suggest colletion and examination of all menstrual fluid just in case there is a "future baby" in there?
------------------------------------------------------------------- It appears Messenjah, that you are equating a fertilized egg with a human being. Am i allowed to stand by and watch a human being die because I don't intervene to help?Are you allowed to watch a human being die because you didn't want to save them when they didn't implant?Are you not equating a fertilized egg with a human being, in which case the letting them be flushed is ok? If so is it the implanting that makes it ok?If that is the case then an IUD or (if I understand correctly) the morning after pill is ok cause the egg hasn't implanted?Which is it?added by editsorry shraf and messenjah. I didn't read carefully enough. Schraf has already asked this.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-27-2004]

The crux of this is: "What is a "people?"It is perfectly understandable that there are differing opinions of the definiton of a "person". We can all agree that persons should have some set of rights. We might even come to some agreement on what those should be.However, the line between person and not isn't sharp enough to make it easy to agree on the definition.I don't define a single cell as a person. I do define a new born baby that isn't acephalic as a person. As a society we attempt to set the definition in a way which is acceptable and reasonable to most of us. While you and maybe even your society may set that definition in one way there is a significant part of the world which will never agree with you.You may succeed in killing women to have your way in this matter but it will not go away.

At some point it is a single cell. At a later point a mass of barely distinguishable cells. At some later point it does have differentiation and some organ function starting to occur. At a later point it has some brain function. At a still later point it will have the brain function of a mouse.No one has suggested that "a fetus is the same as a lump of garbage ". However, things aren't as simple or cut and dried as you want them to be.There is a point at which it is, at most, a minor tradgedy when a fetus(I'm using this term carelessly, starting with a single cell) is lost (which it may be that the majority of them are). At a later point it is a much bigger issue.

At least we can all agree that that should be avoided as much as possible.That's why we would all be interested in making sex education widely available, birth control easy to obtain and access to early abortions unobstructed (in exactly that order).

Final? Nope. The discrimination against animals is already a hot topic.

Sorry, I see the point about people. The AR folks don't.You may "make the case" but I don't see a single cell as a human. I don't see several hundred cells as human either. I don't know how that issue can be resolved. It comes down to a matter of opionion I guess. That is why it will, overtime, be resolved democratically.The whole debate is exactly about the definition of a human being.It is apparent that, in the US, there is some chance of abortions being more restricted. However, I'm now comfortable that in my country they will not again be restricted. I also think as the demographics of the US shifts and the next generations come along the restrictions will be removed there too.I notice that the FDA has "disapproved" Plan B. It seems that someone wants more full scale abortions. Odd that? That's the sort of behavior that will be perceived as a bit on the extreme side. It will cause the anti-choice movement to run into the wall of public opinion that is there.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-08-2004 04:36 PM

Maybe we can find something to agree on?I suggest that this is not a human:

I don't know. How do you define a human being?I've seen something that looked like a human being, more than your pictures do but was not, in my view, a human. Is some "one" born with nothing above the brain stem a human? I don't think so. It is a human body not a "person" in any way that makes sense to me.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-10-2004 03:18 PM

I'm pro choice, I'm not pro abortion either. There is no line.It is desirable that a couple not get pregnant when they don't want to. Some form of birth control is preferred. If that isn't successfull or isn't used then an abortion should be available.It is an undesirable thing but no big deal to me to use a morning after pill. It is a little less desirable to have an early first trimester abortion. It is a lot less desirable for there to be a second trimester abortion. I'd allow but discourage third trimester abortions. I would still allow or even cause the death of some babies after birth but only under really unusual circumstances (such as Anencephaly)see Page not found - ORDO PRAEDICATORUM | OFFICIAL for someone who disagrees with me.That is -- no line. Not desirable at any time with a gradually ratcheting up of the resistance to it. The question is only simple to those who can't tolerate more complex answers.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-15-2004 03:44 AM

I don't think this is just a simple assumption. What underlies this is the idea of a soul. If one believes we have a soul then there is a point in time when it "inhabits" the body. I'm guessing that the majority believe this is at the point of conception.However, when trying to argue with those who don't believe in a soul they have to define "human" somewhere. This is easy if you take a 6 or 7 month fetus as your example. This is a bit difficult when the fetus is 2 or 3 cm long. It is really hard when it is a single fertilized cell.Myself watching movies of the fertilization of a human egg don't see it suddenly change into a human. Nor do I see this at implantation.I guess I have a concept that would be analogous to "soul". I just don't think it is present in all human bodies at any stage of development. To me it is that emergant property that we stuggle to label. Consciousness perhaps? It can only be there when enough complexity of the brain and mind has arisen. It never arises in some brains (anencephaly being my extreme case to make my argument simpler) and may be lost in a brain before the body (or even the brain) is "dead".When is there "enough" of this? We do and should set the line for that moderatly low. We set it low enough I think that some other animals cross that line too. This "line" is pretty fuzzy of course. We don't have a consciousness tester that says Yes or No. We have some scales used by the medical profession to give a rough indication of the amount present.The anti choice folks can point to the confusion in socitie's rules. We set the line defining "enough" very low in the case of someone who has been a fully conscious human in the past. We require pretty extensive brain damage (or even death ) before we declare the line crossed when coming from above it.Going the other way from below the line we set the line fairly high. If we could measure it a fetus at 6 or 7 months is probably above the line set when determining "irreversible brain damage" (or whatever term is appropriate).I don't like things is complex and contentious any more than anyone else. The florida case where Jeb Bush is trying to stop a husband from letting his (IIRC) vegitative wife die is the kind of thing that comes up when things aren't simple. I will not be so arrogant as to attempt to interfere in such cases any more than I will in abortions. I had to be part of such a decision about the person I loved more than any in my life and then watch.

Thank you RAZD, that is the first I've heard of that particular approach.