starling

I think the government has no right to govern women's bodies. Banning abortion is totalitarian. Life isn't a right, it's a gift.


Starling

yguy

I take this to mean that the fetus only has the right to life if the mother grants it. Why then does an infant have any right to life if the mother doesn't recognize it, since she granted that right to begin with?

Loren Pechtel

Cut off someone's head and connect it to a sufficiently advanced life support system (admittedly, more than what we can do for more than hours at present). In one room you have the head and the machinery. In the other room you have the body and other machinery.

Where is the person?

Besides, rotting does not mean they're dead. You can have a living person with rotting tissue.

Silent Acorns

I'll try to explain myself a little clearer.

1) You have said in this thread that "If it could be determined reliably that an embryo or fertilized egg possesses no trace of human consciousness, I wouldn't have a problem with destroying it"

2) In that other thread you said that "it is hardly a proven fact" that zero brainwave activity equals zero consciousness.

From these two statements I concluded that you are operating on the principle that unless we can prove that consciousness does not exist, we should not do anything that might cause consciousness to end.

3) I stated "If human consciousness can indeed exist without a functioning brain ... How do you know we aren't killing a conscious life when we bury or cremate them?"

4) You replied that you are "not crazy about the idea of cremation because of the possibility you mention"

From here, your reasoning for being against abortion and "not crazy" about cremation is the same, uncertainty about the presence of human consciousness.
Sure there is. We could refrain from burying or crematig the body, just as you advocate not killing a zygote.
<edited to add: As Loren suggests, we could also preserve the body cryogenically>
Actually, we have as much reason to believe a physically dead body has consciousness as we do a zygote with no brain function.

yguy

But in the case of cremation, we're not talking about killing, as far as anyone knows. In the case of abortion, we are. No one with half a brain would care as much about the dead as the living.

You think not disposing of a corpse is equivalent to killing a living thing? Really?

Speak for yourself. You equate concepts which it makes no sense to equate, so it is easy to believe you have a certain myopia with respect to this issue.

alek0

Just curious, do you consider a major abdominal surgery a serious consequence? 25% of babies are delivered by C section.

Do you consider episiotomy a serious consequence? In some areas episiotomy rates are over 90%. Episiotomies are more likely to extend, can result in spinchter damage, fecal incontinence, and sexual dysfunction. Is that serious enough?

What about pre-eclampsia? What about HELLP? The fact that not as many women die from pregnancy in this day and age does not mean that there aren't serious complications, it means that those women are subjected to serious and very invasive interventions (some of which are often unnecessary such as episiotomy). Isn't it reasonable that a woman would want to avoid health complications since she didn't want a child in the first place?

I see nothing wrong with abortion for non-medical reasons if it is done early enough and in unlikely event that I would get pregnant I would abort, no ifs and buts. Pure self defense - it or me.

On the other hand, I don't see any difference between telling men to keep their sperm to themselves if they are against abortion. It is the same as conservatives telling women to abstain if they would not be prepared to carry pregnancy to term.
And I would like to point out again that men should have an option not be parents, and that option should be valid in about the same time frame as abortion for non-medical reasons.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by themistocles
I think it's rather common sense, when the context of health was provided.

I'd still like to hear a definition, since common sense may mean different things to different people.

If a woman is having morning sickness, that's not "a serious consequence". If a woman might die because she's pregnant, I think I'd well agree to that being a "serious consequence". You provided "health" as the context.

There is a lot of ground between death and morning sickness. Is only death considered a "serious consequence"?

But, in this day in age, I'm fully unaware that serious health consequences of pregnancies are common.

That depends on how you define "serious health consequences", and even in this day and age, I'm aware that some women face what I consider to be serious consequences to their health as the results of pregnancy and labor.

In any case, if a woman has an abortion because her life is threatened by the pregnancy, this negates your assertion that abortions are carried out because of convenience.

Bad Kitty

I believe Themistocles already admitted that "serious health consequences" were overlooked in his original statement that:

He answered your question:

with:

I think he has conceded that particular point, QOS. Granted, you can debate the definition of "serious consequences", but the mother's health does not even factor into most abortions, so we are focusing on the peas and not the steak. Statistically, an overwhelming number of abortions are performed as a method of birth control, NOT as a way to avoid either fetal or maternal health consequences. Here is some data:

Numbers 1-6 equal birth control, in my opinion. My personal opinion of this is that given the widespread availability of birth control in the US (as well as the ever present option not to have sex unless you are prepared for the possible consequences), there is no excuse for using abortion as birth control.

I know mine is not a popular opinion.

Regards,

Michelle

alexander74

Greetings!

I would just like to make a quick comment, since adding my opinion on abortion to this debate would be counter-productive. BigZoo(Michelle) said that there was a wide availability of birth control. True, but thanks to the fundagelicals, schools are giving less and less attention to bc, and concentrating on abstinence, which leads to less knowledge about bc. Fine, if you keep the hormones in check. But some young people experiment, out of stupidity or what I don't know.

Also, bc fails. That's right folks, it fails. Should the people who tried to be responsible about not wanting kids be punished for something like that. I don't see why. Anyway, have fun all, and may the forces of evil become confused on the way to your home.

Alex
"Imagine"

Silent Acorns

No, I'm saying that if you apply your reasoning for opposing abortion of a brainless zygote more generally (specifically to the disposal of physically dead bodies) then the two are equivalent.

You have said that whether or not the zygote is alive is irrelevant, the important thing is that you aren't sure that it doesn't have human consciousness.

I'm just surprised by your confidence in our ability to identify physical death and your reluctance to accept that human consciousness requires a functional brain.

Because the two are so closely realted, that's an inconsictency (at least to me). I just wanted to point it out. I doubt I'll be able to convince you though, so I'll just leave it at that.