Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me

With which statement do you agree?

I want it to be illegal for a very poor teenager who was impregnated from being raped by an immediate family member to get an abortion even in the first week of pregnancy even if the doctors can and did detect the baby has severe genetic disorders and that the pregnancy if taken to term would have complications greatly risking the life of both the mother and would-be baby.
7
11%
I want it to be legal for a wealthy woman who is 5 days past her due date (of birth) to get an abortion even though doctors are sure that the healthy baby would be delivered safely and relatively easily otherwise and even though many safe, healthy, loving families are willing to adopt the would-be newborn immediately and even pay the woman significantly for that.
11
18%
I do not agree fully with either one of the above statements.
44
71%
 
Total votes : 62

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post Number:#121  Postby Newme » November 22nd, 2015, 12:11 pm

SpiralOut, The bottom line, foundation of basic ethics, is respecting what is best for all involved. "Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good." The greater good is that we don't kill each other. This is so very basic, Spiral! How can you justify killing another human being?

A child is defined as a "developing human being." Just because a child is not finisted developing, you seem to assume their life is less valuable. And you ignorantly assume that children killed by abortion cannot feel their bodies ripped apart. Yet, by 8 weeks gestation, all body systems are intact, including the central nervous system (pain sensors), so by the time many abortions are performed, he/she can FEEL his/her body being ripped apart, limb by limb, leaving the head by itself. That is not the greater good, nor right action.

Obviously, you're not a doctor and likely did not rip a child apart yourself - but you may have paid someone to do it. If you hadn't, I believe you'd be more ethically reasonable about this.
User avatar
Newme
 
Posts: 1090 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post Number:#122  Postby LuckyR » November 24th, 2015, 4:24 pm

Newme wrote:SpiralOut, The bottom line, foundation of basic ethics, is respecting what is best for all involved. "Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good." The greater good is that we don't kill each other. This is so very basic, Spiral! How can you justify killing another human being?

A child is defined as a "developing human being." Just because a child is not finisted developing, you seem to assume their life is less valuable. And you ignorantly assume that children killed by abortion cannot feel their bodies ripped apart. Yet, by 8 weeks gestation, all body systems are intact, including the central nervous system (pain sensors), so by the time many abortions are performed, he/she can FEEL his/her body being ripped apart, limb by limb, leaving the head by itself. That is not the greater good, nor right action.

Obviously, you're not a doctor and likely did not rip a child apart yourself - but you may have paid someone to do it. If you hadn't, I believe you'd be more ethically reasonable about this.


Really? Who signed off on that sole, all encompassing definition?

Anyone who claims to know what fetus' can and can't feel is fooling themselves (and likely trying to fool others).
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
 
Posts: 2207 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post Number:#123  Postby Newme » November 27th, 2015, 12:52 pm

LuckyR wrote:
Newme wrote:SpiralOut, The bottom line, foundation of basic ethics, is respecting what is best for all involved. "Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good." The greater good is that we don't kill each other. This is so very basic, Spiral! How can you justify killing another human being?

A child is defined as a "developing human being." Just because a child is not finisted developing, you seem to assume their life is less valuable. And you ignorantly assume that children killed by abortion cannot feel their bodies ripped apart. Yet, by 8 weeks gestation, all body systems are intact, including the central nervous system (pain sensors), so by the time many abortions are performed, he/she can FEEL his/her body being ripped apart, limb by limb, leaving the head by itself. That is not the greater good, nor right action.

Obviously, you're not a doctor and likely did not rip a child apart yourself - but you may have paid someone to do it. If you hadn't, I believe you'd be more ethically reasonable about this.


Really? Who signed off on that sole, all encompassing definition?

Anyone who claims to know what fetus' can and can't feel is fooling themselves (and likely trying to fool others).

Medical dictionaries define child as "an unborn or recently born human being; fetus; neonate; infant." A child is a developing human being who is still growing.

Anyone who claims to know that a fetus cannot feel is fooling themselves and is ignorant of child development, which clearly indicates that by 8 weeks gestation, all body systems (including the central nervous system/pain receptors) is intact. So, by the time many abortion killings are performed, the child CAN FEEL his/her body being ripped apart. Why do you ignore facts?? Because they are inconvenient and make you feel bad? What if more people ignored facts they didn't like? How would you like to be on the receiving end - having YOUR body ripped apart, because someone CHOSE to ignore your physiological development of PAIN and deemed your life not worthy of allowing to continue on??
User avatar
Newme
 
Posts: 1090 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post Number:#124  Postby LuckyR » November 27th, 2015, 11:40 pm

Newme wrote:
LuckyR wrote:(Nested quote removed.)


Really? Who signed off on that sole, all encompassing definition?

Anyone who claims to know what fetus' can and can't feel is fooling themselves (and likely trying to fool others).

Medical dictionaries define child as "an unborn or recently born human being; fetus; neonate; infant." A child is a developing human being who is still growing.

Anyone who claims to know that a fetus cannot feel is fooling themselves and is ignorant of child development, which clearly indicates that by 8 weeks gestation, all body systems (including the central nervous system/pain receptors) is intact. So, by the time many abortion killings are performed, the child CAN FEEL his/her body being ripped apart. Why do you ignore facts?? Because they are inconvenient and make you feel bad? What if more people ignored facts they didn't like? How would you like to be on the receiving end - having YOUR body ripped apart, because someone CHOSE to ignore your physiological development of PAIN and deemed your life not worthy of allowing to continue on??



Uummm... you do know that dictionaries are specifically designed to give one liner answers to folks with absolutely no clue of the vaguest generalities on whatever word or topic is being covered, right?

Your highlit piece is clearly not directed at me since I never claimed to have such unknowable knowledge, you did (hence my original post).
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
 
Posts: 2207 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post Number:#125  Postby Scott » December 11th, 2015, 6:25 pm

Keiran,

Poll Option B wrote:I want it to be legal for a wealthy woman who is 5 days past her due date (of birth) to get an abortion even though doctors are sure that the healthy baby would be delivered safely and relatively easily otherwise and even though many safe, healthy, loving families are willing to adopt the would-be newborn immediately and even pay the woman significantly for that.

Keiran wrote:Choice B

Many people consider aborting the baby is a murder. But for some reason it doesn't shock me at all that the woman would have the freedom of doing what she wants with her body, and it rather shocks me that others think she should be forced into doing something she clearly does not want to, i.e, giving birth to the baby.

[It's not really a murder at all to me when we're talking about a being that will never exist anyway if we chose to abort him.]

Let's remember that if she had wanted to get an abortion, she could have done so any of the other 9+ months of her pregnancy. She is 5 days past her due date.

Where do you draw the line then? Can she kill the baby two seconds after giving birth but before they cut the umbilical cord?

What if a woman suddenly decides she wants an abortion when the top baby's head is a centimeter out? Can she just stab the baby in the skull with a knife then?

At what point is it more murder than just abortion?

-- Updated 11 Dec 2015 05:32 pm to add the following --

As to the other recent replies, the issue of nerve development in an 8-week-old fetus seems off-topic. None of the 3 options in the poll is in regard to pregnancy at 8 weeks. If you want to discuss abortions that occur around the eighth week of pregnancy please start a new topic and discuss it there. In this topic, please explain your vote in the poll and how you feel about the scenarios listed in the poll.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4197 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post Number:#126  Postby LuckyR » December 17th, 2015, 5:37 am

Just to be clear an "abortion" of a previable 20 week fetus is identical in practice to a routine induction of labor for a wealthy (or unwealthy, for that matter) woman's post term pregnancy. What leads to the death of the 20 weeker isn't the procedure itself, it is that the fetus can't survive outside of the mom, this is not the case at 40 1/2 weeks gestation. So the Original Premise is a non starter.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
 
Posts: 2207 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post Number:#127  Postby Scott » December 17th, 2015, 12:22 pm

LuckyR wrote:Just to be clear an "abortion" of a previable 20 week fetus is identical in practice to a routine induction of labor for a wealthy (or unwealthy, for that matter) woman's post term pregnancy. What leads to the death of the 20 weeker isn't the procedure itself, it is that the fetus can't survive outside of the mom, this is not the case at 40 1/2 weeks gestation. So the Original Premise is a non starter.

@LuckyR I'm sorry, I've looked through your posts, and I didn't catch your answer to the poll. What's your answer? A, B or C?

I'm not sure why you mention an abortion at 20 weeks. That is not only of the options being discussed. We are talking about abortion within the first week or abortion at 9+ months. (There are many other more general topics about abortion on the forums if you wish to discuss that there. :) )

-- Updated 17 Dec 2015 11:27 am to add the following --

Safely delivering a baby requires a lot work and medical attention that is very different than merely removing the baby in a way that kills the baby. If there is any disagreement on this, I would ask for a credible source that states the abortion of a non-viable fetus is literally identical in medical procedure to the careful baby-life-preserving work of doctors at delivery.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4197 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post Number:#128  Postby LuckyR » December 17th, 2015, 10:15 pm

Scott wrote:
LuckyR wrote:Just to be clear an "abortion" of a previable 20 week fetus is identical in practice to a routine induction of labor for a wealthy (or unwealthy, for that matter) woman's post term pregnancy. What leads to the death of the 20 weeker isn't the procedure itself, it is that the fetus can't survive outside of the mom, this is not the case at 40 1/2 weeks gestation. So the Original Premise is a non starter.

@LuckyR I'm sorry, I've looked through your posts, and I didn't catch your answer to the poll. What's your answer? A, B or C?

I'm not sure why you mention an abortion at 20 weeks. That is not only of the options being discussed. We are talking about abortion within the first week or abortion at 9+ months. (There are many other more general topics about abortion on the forums if you wish to discuss that there. :) )

-- Updated 17 Dec 2015 11:27 am to add the following --

Safely delivering a baby requires a lot work and medical attention that is very different than merely removing the baby in a way that kills the baby. If there is any disagreement on this, I would ask for a credible source that states the abortion of a non-viable fetus is literally identical in medical procedure to the careful baby-life-preserving work of doctors at delivery.


You are out of your depth, my friend. Delivery of babies happen every day in the absence of doctors or medical technology of any kind. In fact, vaginal delivery predates medicine itself.

So, yes the induction of labor for a term nonviable fetus and that of a viable infant is more similar than different in actual practice, but for the sake of this thread, could be literally identical.

As to my answer to the "poll" your second scenario makes no legal or medical sense and thus cannot be answered in its current wording.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
 
Posts: 2207 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post Number:#129  Postby Scott » December 18th, 2015, 12:43 pm

LuckyR wrote:You are out of your depth

Ad hominem fallacy.

Scott wrote:Safely delivering a baby requires a lot work and medical attention that is very different than merely removing the baby in a way that kills the baby. If there is any disagreement on this, I would ask for a credible source that states the abortion of a non-viable fetus is literally identical in medical procedure to the careful baby-life-preserving work of doctors at delivery.

LuckyR wrote:So, yes the induction of labor for a term nonviable fetus and that of a viable infant is more similar than different in actual practice, but for the sake of this thread, could be literally identical.

Like I said in my previous post, I would ask for a credible source that states the abortion of a non-viable fetus is literally identical in medical procedure to the careful baby-life-preserving work of doctors at delivery.

LuckyR wrote:As to my answer to the "poll" your second scenario makes no legal or medical sense and thus cannot be answered in its current wording.

Of course it can be answered. Do you want a woman to be legally required to not kill a fetus at 9+ months when she is past her due date? Or do you want to be illegal for a woman to abort the life-creating pregnancy process by killing the fetus while it is still inside of her at 9+ months when she is past her due date? The vast majority have voted for the former.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4197 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post Number:#130  Postby LuckyR » December 18th, 2015, 8:12 pm

You seem well versed in Philosophical argument protocol.

I will defer to your expertise in this area. By the same token as it happens I have spent the last quarter century in the field we are discussing. If you continue to try to disagree with my life carreer experience, which you are free to do, then actually it is you (without experience in this area) who needs to supply outside expert opinion to support your musings.

I am not trying to "win" this discussion since that holds no challenge for me (or any other professional), rather I am trying to shoehorn the concepts you are seeking to explore into a framework that more accurately reflects actual practice.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
 
Posts: 2207 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often though

Post Number:#131  Postby Voiceofwisdom » January 9th, 2016, 2:25 am

Abortion ought to be legal because I believe in the freedom of the individual to make decisions about their bodies, regardless of what society thinks about those decisions.
User avatar
Voiceofwisdom
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 1 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 17th, 2013, 1:56 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy of Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST