Abortion II

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

I can only stop in for a moment, so I'll make this short: How do you measure a human? Is it the genetics? When two haploid gametes fuse and combine genetic material is it not human? It has mostly the same genetic code as anyone else here (as far as we know, bum, bum, bum). Or is it when it is capable of abstract thought? Infants cant do that, any more than can a newbrn bird fly. When does something qualify as human?


This is a serious question and I expect a serious response in turn, there is no sarcasm of any capacity in this post (other than the inserted humor, which was irresistable), so please, all those who may answer: no sarcastic bs or brush offs. Thank you.

For the purposes of this discussion, we're saying "What is a baby?". A baby is an infant human who can live independently of a mother. When that happens, we're in business. So, medical technology can make it so that "viability" happens earlier. Julius Caesar was ripped untimely from his mother's womb, so was MacDuff. Their survival was considered miraculous.

Now doctors can help the survival rate earlier and earlier. But nothing has happened to push it to the first gamete meet and greet. If a woman miscarries (and "miscarriage rates' are estimated to be between 20 and 70% of pregnancies) nothing can yet be done. To even DISCUSS those as 'infant death' is to trivialize life itself in a way I find appalling. It's abhorrent.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

btw, this is the end section of the article Lief posted above about pre-natal fetal behavior.

"WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON ABORTION?

Though research in fetal psychology focuses on the last trimester, when most abortions are illegal, the thought of a fetus dreaming, listening and responding to its mother's voice is sure to add new complexity to the debate. The new findings undoubtedly will strengthen the convictions of right-to-lifers--and they may shake the certainty of pro-choice proponents who believe that mental life begins at birth.

Many of the scientists engaged in studying the fetus, however, remain detached from the abortion controversy, insisting that their work is completely irrelevant to the debate.

"I don't think that fetal research informs the issue at all," contends psychologist Janet DiPietro of Johns Hopkins University. "The essence of the abortion debate is: When does life begin? Some people believe it begins at conception, the other extreme believes that it begins after the baby is born, and there's a group in the middle that believes it begins at around 24 or 25 weeks, when a fetus can live outside of the womb, though it needs a lot of help to do so.

"Up to about 25 weeks, whether or not it's sucking its thumb or has personality or all that, the fetus cannot survive outside of its mother. So is that life, or not? That is a moral, ethical, and religious question, not one for science. Things can behave and not be alive. Right-to-lifers may say that this research proves that a fetus is alive, but it does not. It cannot."

"Fetal research only changes the abortion debate for people who think that life starts at some magical point," maintains Heidelise AIs, a psychologist at Harvard University. "If you believe that life begins at conception, then you don't need the proof of fetal behavior." For others, however, abortion is a very complex issue and involves far more than whether research shows that a fetus is alive. "Your circumstances and personal beliefs have much more impact on the decision," she observes.

Like DiPietro, AIs realizes that "people may use this research as an emotional way to draw people to the pro-life side, but it should not be used by belligerent activists." Instead, she believes, it should be applied to helping mothers have the healthiest pregnancy possible and preparing them to best parent their child. Columbia University psychologist William Fifer agrees. "The research is much more relevant for issues regarding viable fetuses--preemies."

Simply put, say the three, their work is intended to help the babies that live--not to decide whether fetuses should."
Gee. And they work with this information every day.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Lief,

In a perfect world, I would agree with you that we should not allow abortion. Although I am adamantly and completely pro-choice, I see abortion as a horrible thing, and the fewer that take place the better. I do not think that anyone on the pro-choice side would disagree with me in this.

I'm glad you feel that way. I'm also glad you don't seem to be one of those who deludes him or herself with the idea that the fetus is subhuman or a blob of cells. It's nice to have more common ground, in conversing with you.

Thanks for the depth of your reply.

Originally Posted by Curufin

But the truth is - it simply isn't as easy or as simple or as black and white as the anti-choice side makes it.

First, the most important thing we can do to stop abortion is agressive sex education. And I don't mean abstinence-only sex education which is dishonest and doesn't work. I'm talking about sex-education that teaches kids the safest way to have sex and how to use condoms and other forms of birth control. A sex-education program that realizes that while it is ideal that pre-teens and teens wait to have sex until they are older and more emotionally ready for it, it is also unrealistsic to deny that this sex will occur. When teenagers are taught how to prevent pregnancy effectively, instead of simply being told that sex is evil while at the same time not being taught how to protect themselves, then the numbers of abortions will decrease.

I've seen other statistics showing that sex education increased abortion rates as it spread, because more people felt at liberty to have sex. I can find you sources, if you like.

I agree that sex will occur. How many people will do it can vary depending on the methods with which prevention is taught and, more importantly, the culture the highschoolers grow up in. I think the sex education programs may well be partly a cause for the increasing rates of teen pregnancies. The modern culture of increasingly liberal values encourages this also, to the extent that it's influenced a vast number of Christian households.

Originally Posted by Curufin

Secondly, making abortion illegal is not going to stop it.

No, but it may diminish it. The number of abortions taking place skyrocketed after Roe v. Wade. At the time of Roe v. Wade, only a tiny percentage of citizens felt abortion could be ethical, while now an enormous number think so. That's the effect of a law being removed. When people know that what they are doing is against the law and may get them punished, they are less likely to break the law than they might otherwise be. If the law was changed, plenty of people would go to the back alleys for the abortions. A lot of people would also stop. Gradually, the practice might shrink down to where it used to be, before Roe v. Wade opened the floodgates. I'm hopeful its decline might follow the decline of imperialism and racist slavery.

Originally Posted by Curufin

It's simply going to save the lives of women who would have these abortions anyway. The truth is that if a woman doesn't want to have a child, she's not going to have that child, whether its legal or not. These woman are going to have abortions in back alleys, using rusty coat-hangers and unsterile equipment, and many thousands are going to die of infections that could have been prevented. If you want stories or pictures of these, just ask. I've done tons of research on this topic, and believe me, these stories and pictures are just as disgusting as your aborted fetus pictures. If you are truly pro-life what do you make of this? Do you think that these women deserve to die for their sins, that this is some sort of poetic justice for the 'baby-killers'? Or do they deserve compassion and the ability to have this difficult (both physically and emotionally) procedure done in such a way that there will only be one life (if you consider it that) lost instead of two? Think about it for a while.

Obviously I hate the idea of women suffering. I will do everything I can to show love toward everyone. Including fetuses. And if I tolerated a law that permitted their slaughter, my behavior toward them would be extremely unloving.

Originally Posted by Curufin

Women who have abortions are not monstrous 'baby-killers.' They are women who have found themselves in difficult situations - rape, or an accidentally pregnancy that they don't feel they can handle. Maybe they're in school, maybe they'd be disowned by their parents, maybe the father left them when he found out about the pregnancy and they do not have the ability to raise that child. There are certainly as many reasons for having an abortion as there are women who have them.

The same is true of most murderers. Look into their souls and you'll find a lot to love. There is goodness there. The killings arose from complex and difficult emotional states. Often there is some blame to be found in the victim. I don't believe in blacklisting murderers as utterly devoid of humanity. I hope that by showing love to them, we might create some change in their hearts for the better. That doesn't mean that I advocate removing laws and punishments against their crimes. If we did, we would be, in our compassion for the murderers, becoming complicit in their crimes.

There can be no question that abortion is murder of an innocent human. The only question is whether the justifications offered to defend that act are enough. Those justifications are what we've been debating all this time. For me, social or economic hardship and even the physical pain of childbirth cannot make murder legitimate.

We know the mothers. They are all around us. It is easy to feel compassion for them, and much of it is warranted. It is good to feel love for everyone, whatever they've done in their lives. Not to love all of their acts, but to love the people. Justice is a necessary expression of love for society as well, for all of its members. When justice is met rather than abused or corrupted, it offers its defense to everyone, but those who defy it will face punishment. It is WRONG to allow our love for the murderers to strip away the just penalties for their crimes, because doing so allows their slaughter to proceed unimpeded. It legitimates, legalizes and regulates crime rather than defending society against it.

Originally Posted by Curufin

These women deserve compassion, not condemnation; love, not words of hatred and damnation. They deserve to have control over their bodies, and not to have all control over themselves and their most intimate bodily processes taken away from them. It is not the place of the state to tell any of us what to do with our bodies. My reproductive system is not the property of congress, or the pro-life lobby.

It's not all about you! It's about you and the child who's in you. The child has its own legs and arms, its own motor control from a pretty young age, its own brain, thoughts and movement. It has its own body and you have yours, and they're connected to each other. The fact that you have a right to do what you want with your body doesn't mean you have a right to do whatever you want with someone else's body, and the baby has its own body! A woman and her child may be physically linked, but the mother doesn't control the thoughts of her child. She doesn't control its blinks or breathing, its twitches and yawns, its kicks or its stretches. It has its own body just as she has hers, and they are connected to each other, sharing a common link, but her rights to her body don't eliminate the child's rights to its body. Like her, it is a human being and has a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Your concentration on the rights of the mother over her body are causing you to completely ignore or reject the natural rights of the child she bears over its body. Your good and valid love for unprepared mothers in pain is causing you to accept the butchery of innocent children. While we should work to prevent both through good education techniques, the latter is also murder and should therefore be illegal. The murder of innocents cannot validly be legal.

Originally Posted by Curufin

If pro-lifers truly care about life, maybe they should stop bombing clinics,

Not that many people do that.

Originally Posted by Curufin

and start helping to educate children and teenagers on how to prevent these unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

They are trying, in their own way. You are trying in your way.

Originally Posted by Curufin

This would be a lot more helpful than the hateful and vitrolic words thrown at women who are already suffering one of the most difficult experiences of their lives.

Some pro-life activists do that. Others are very mild. It varies. You can't stereotype.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Child as prison guard. that's an interesting analogy.

That's what it can be from the perspective of a mother who doesn't want it. I use it for the sake of making a connection. In reality, the fetus is a charming little guy bobbing in a pool of liquid who deserves all the love in the world.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

No, it's not. It's not a 'child" at 11, or 15, or 20 weeks. It's not a 'someone else', it's not a 'person with rights', it's not a "human'. You'd like it to be, I know. But it's not. It's a parasitic growth.

That's one (IMO) sick opinion. It's just opinion, though.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

For any woman who has wanted to have a baby, and planned her fertility, and tried, it's enormously exciting to get a positive pregnancy test. It can be a long awaited step on the road to parenthood. But it is NOT, in itself, parenthood. Even a stillbirth isn't the same as "having a baby." If you're mentally well, you don't treat every onset of menses like a dead toddler. Because it's NOT.

This is, again, just an opinion.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

People talk as though the woman has no rights, simply because of her location outside a fetus.

She has a right to her body, provided that she doesn't destroy someone else's body through what she does. Else she's infringing that person's rights. Just like you can turn on loud rock music in your house if no one else on the street cares, but if they do, even though it's your music and your house, you have to turn the volume down.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Um, yes, it does. In the sane world, we might even call it "child abuse' to saddle a minor with the care of a child that wasn't his own.

Give me a break. I'm an older brother myself and have been in situations like that. Being told to look after your younger brother is not abuse.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Nonsense. lots of people do. People who are forced into responsibility aren't really responsible.

Who likes to clean the dirty diapers? Or take out the trash? Or wash the car? Doing these things can be okay, not a big a deal, but if you come down to it, not very many people actually like doing them. Many people don't particularly like their jobs either, but go to them because they want the money. That's responsibility. They don't like having to be responsible. More money with less work would be preferable. They would often rather be able to spend all their time at home with their families rather than at the job. They'd rather the diapers and laundry were automatically done by saying superkalafragelisticexpialidocious (probably misspelled), but they accept the responsibility because of the returns. Not that many people actually like responsibility. Parenting is a mixture of unwanted responsibility and enormous pleasure at the charms of having a child.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And parenting, of ALL things, needs dedication, needs skilled volunteers.

True, that's ideal, but if all you've got are second rate parents or one second rate parent, that's better than being killed . Most of the time.

Seeing as we lack foreknowledge and sufficient wisdom, we're not in a position to make that call.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

btw, this is the end section of the article Lief posted above about pre-natal fetal behavior.

It's not surprising that these people want to disassociate themselves from the debate. They just want to go about their research, not get sucked into political controversy.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Lief, you complain that my POV is opinion. But you haven't established any scientific way to make your "opinion" true. You say 'It's a baby from conception" I say "That's a religious, not a scientific nor a legal, statement"

You say, "There can be no question that abortion is murder." Dude, look around. There IS question on that point. In fact, there is a wide societal consensus that abortion is NOT murder. If there is 'no question' for you, your basis for it comes from something other than science, and other than law. It comes, I suspect, from a very particular and narrow piece of the religious spectrum (and a few poorly interpreted Bible verses, along with a lot of Fundamentalist urban legend type stuff.)

I have plenty of responsibility, and I chose it all. I will have more, and more complicated, direct responsibility today than you will have for the next 10 years. Even if you CHOSE to watch your brother (and I'm glad you did) you actually had a legal choice. If you had said, "I'm not my brother's keeper" and your parents had hurt you, or called the police to enforce their will on you, you would have had the full support of the legal system.

I am sorry you aren't familier with people who are responsible by choice. I find that truly saddening. I can say, from personal experience, that I would not give up ONE stinky diaper of the thousands I've changed. And I've felt that way the whole time. You could, in fact, ask a random sample of any 100 people in this county (if you were here) and the one thing everyone would agree on is that I have mad skills as a parent. I'm freaking notorious.

But it was my choice. Always. And that's a really critical issue that you will NOT be successful in changing for my children, or for THEIR children.

[The Gaffer]

Good discussion though. Congrats to all for staying civil, and issue-focused throughout.

Lief, I'll respond to your response to my post (for which, thanks) when I get the time.

[Lief Erikson]

Okay, Gaffer .

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Lief, you complain that my POV is opinion. But you haven't established any scientific way to make your "opinion" true. You say 'It's a baby from conception" I say "That's a religious, not a scientific nor a legal, statement"

I have been providing evidence to back what I say, actually. I'm careful to do that because of audience awareness. I haven't said, "It's a baby from conception," and I challenge you to find a place in my posts where I did. I agree with you that that's a religious statement.

However, I have shown that neurologically, a child in the womb shortly before birth has no significant difference from one outside. The article I linked showed the child underwent enormous development in the first 10 weeks of its existence. I argued (and you agreed) that any attempt to say that at this point it's psychologically too much less than we are to count is worthless, as development is a mostly steady process from conception to late adolescence (and I cited that too).

I argue that based upon the scientific evidence of the child's high state of development from an extremely early point in its life, and based on the fact that choosing any point in its development process to kill it is arbitrary (as we're developing mentally all the way up to late adolescence, and parents can endure forms of hardship in dealing with these kids just as parents prior to their births can), the child itself can no more legitimately be killed than one outside the womb. Hence abortion is murder.

I'd add that (very importantly) almost all the arguments I've seen in this thread, except Gaffer's psychological test argument, are justifications for the killing for the sake of the mothers involved. The only one that attempts to say it's thinking of the child's welfare is the argument that they'd lead a life that's not worth living and therefore it's a mercy killing. Every other argument is a justification for the killing for the sake of the mother. The child's life is always seen as of secondary importance to the well being of the mother.

That same thing occurs when people try to commit murder. They often justify it in many ways, explaining how the person they killed was harming them personally, economically or socially, how the person was antagonizing them or other such reasons. The person the murderer killed is almost always seen as a hardship in some way to the murderer. So they justify killing on those grounds.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You say, "There can be no question that abortion is murder." Dude, look around. There IS question on that point. In fact, there is a wide societal consensus that abortion is NOT murder. If there is 'no question' for you, your basis for it comes from something other than science, and other than law. It comes, I suspect, from a very particular and narrow piece of the religious spectrum (and a few poorly interpreted Bible verses, along with a lot of Fundamentalist urban legend type stuff.)

My basis, actually, comes from the fact that just about every means people in this thread have tried to justify abortion are focused on concern for the mother. They aren't denying that the essentials of murder, which as I understand it is purposefully killing an innocent human being, take place. Instead of talking about the act itself and the victim, people here are focused wholly on the justifications for the perpetrator.

None of the posts I've seen so far has made any attempt to present an argument for killing the fetus not being murder- purposefully killing an innocent human. They've instead tried to justify the murder. That's what this debate has been about up to this point, the justification of the perpetrator. The debate has been over, "are such and such reasons good enough to kill an innocent human being?" Not, "is it an innocent human being being killed?" No one has been challenging the fact that murder takes place, therefore. It's instead a debate over whether or not murder is justified in this case.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I have plenty of responsibility, and I chose it all. I will have more, and more complicated, direct responsibility today than you will have for the next 10 years [. . .]

[. . .] I can say, from personal experience, that I would not give up ONE stinky diaper of the thousands I've changed. And I've felt that way the whole time. You could, in fact, ask a random sample of any 100 people in this county (if you were here) and the one thing everyone would agree on is that I have mad skills as a parent. I'm freaking notorious.

But it was my choice. Always. And that's a really critical issue that you will NOT be successful in changing for my children, or for THEIR children.

I haven't changed my mind about anything I said in the Gender Issues Thread, so maybe we should leave your personal story out of this? Unless you'd care to provide evidence to back it up, of course.

I've seen you call yourself so many things, saying in this thread that you "know more about fertility and pregnancy than most people on this board will ever live to," when we were discussing medical issues, saying all your ancestors came to America after enduring persecution when we were debating religious freedom, saying that you'd been a statistics professor back when we were debating statistics, saying you'd been a field associate for "The Gay Rights National Lobby" when we were debating gender, saying you are a high ranking politician who has published many books (but refusing to back this when asked) when we were debating politics . . . It was unfortunate that when you said you were a politician, you were debating with someone who'd taken PS 110 in Community College (a course about the basics), as our argument in the Gender Issues Thread proved.

Maybe your story is all true. I personally don't think so, though, so citing your own experience again won't help you in this discussion, as far as I'm concerned.


. . . Look, I'm sorry that this friction exists between us. I don't want to be struggling with you all the time.

I don't think you're a bad person. I like how you're relating in such a friendly way with a lot of people. I just also don't believe your story. I hope we can improve relations in spite of this.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Even if you CHOSE to watch your brother (and I'm glad you did) you actually had a legal choice. If you had said, "I'm not my brother's keeper" and your parents had hurt you, or called the police to enforce their will on you, you would have had the full support of the legal system.

Well sure, I wasn't saying that if my parents started punching me, that would be fine. But I sometimes haven't wanted to look after my younger brothers, and I certainly only "choose" to because I have to. If I didn't look after them, I'd be failing to fulfill my proper function of obedience to parents in the family. It isn't desired, but it is done.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That's one (IMO) sick opinion. It's just opinion, though.

Lief, I know weve been through this before in this thread but its certainly not an opinion that a fetus is essentially a parasitic growth. It fits every aspect of the definition. You admitted so yourself in this thread: http://www.entmoot.com/showpost.php?...&postcount=636. It may be disturbing to you (and a little tacky to put in that way) but it is by any measure most certainly a parasitic relationship.

[Lief Erikson]

And here's what I said three posts before, number 633.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Now you're freaking me out. Here's a direct quote from Adolf Hitler about the Jews: "[They are the] parasite on the body of the people."

Mentally and biologically, humans are far more than parasites. They should not be compared to parasites.

The definition of parasite Nerdanel helpfully provided was:

Parasite: an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

The foetus may fit that definition, but by no means is it appropriate to refer to it as a parasite, because it's a human. As I mentioned in the other thread, it has all its major organs by the end of the first trimester. The article I linked in this thread showed enormous early development, especially in the brain, that takes place within the first 10 weeks. We're talking about a human being, so the parasite analogy is monstrous.

Infants after birth (and children right up through adolescence, most of the time) very nearly fit this "parasite" definition too. They are organisms that grow, feed and are sheltered through the labors of another organism without contributing anything to the other organism's survival. The only difference is that they're not on or in the host, but are being supported through the labors of the mother's body in other ways.

[Tuinor]

lol deleted by myself due to stupidity!

Lief covers it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The foetus may fit that definition, but by no means is it appropriate to refer to it as a parasite, because it's a human.

Yes AND a parasite. Perhaps a cute wonderful innocent bundle of joy parasite but a parasite no less technically. An endoparasite to be specific since they are truly parasitic only when they live within their host.

Infants after birth (and children right up through adolescence, most of the time) very nearly fit this "parasite" definition too.

Not really. Just because my 10 year old expects me to feed her pizza for dinner and wants me to buy her stuff she sees at the mall doesn’t make her a true parasite. I think you know that as well as I. She still has the ability to survive on her own if I (her “host”) expelled her (from my home not my womb…) and refused to provide her with sustenance and shelter. She could go over to my neighbors and theyd give her food and let her sleep there or she could call the police and theyd take her to a relatives house or put her with a foster family or something. Or she could just eat out of a garbage can if need be (wouldn’t be the first time…).

A TRUE parasite HAS to depend on its host for survival and relies on its host COMPLETELY for sustenance and protection and most importantly, except in the cases of social parasitism, there is a PHYSICAL connection between the host and the parasite through which the parasite gains its sustenance. Just like, say, an umbilical chord…

[katya]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Wrong because it hurts the killer . . . I suppose if you're a sociopath and don't care then it's not wrong at all, then . . . this is just bizarre to me. Way to bizarre for me to grapple with.

I don't mean that the killer goes home and feels bad about it, but because I think that by doing such a thing as taking an innocent life the person is hurting themselves whether they feel it or not. Because I think love and compassion and understanding makes people happier. Now, it's true the reason that it is wrong and thus hurts the killer is because it hurts the victim. Even if the orphan dies peacefully and feels no pain, I think life is valuable and precious and we're supposed to keep living, until we die. And if someone kills someone in a way that does hurt them and cause them pain, then it's doubly bad. My morality is sort of a "will this action make the world better" kind of one and I want everyone to be more loving.

Why do you think suffering is wrong, by the way?

I don't think suffering is wrong and that it shouldn't exist in the world or anything like that. I just think that I want people to be more loving and not cause suffering. Because helping people rather than causing them pain makes you a better person, which in turn makes the world a better place.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Not really. Just because my 10 year old expects me to feed her pizza for dinner and wants me to buy her stuff she sees at the mall doesn’t make her a true parasite. I think you know that as well as I. She still has the ability to survive on her own if I (her “host”) expelled her (from my home not my womb…) and refused to provide her with sustenance and shelter. She could go over to my neighbors and theyd give her food and let her sleep there or she could call the police and theyd take her to a relatives house or put her with a foster family or something.

Now you're just describing the "parasite" moving on to another host.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Or she could just eat out of a garbage can if need be (wouldn’t be the first time…).

At 1-2 years old, they can't do that. So you still have to deal with them. But even the older child, for quite a while, is still insufficiently educated and prepared for life to really do it on her own. She needs charity still, and if she works, she isn't going to contribute much.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

A TRUE parasite HAS to depend on its host for survival and relies on its host COMPLETELY for sustenance and protection and most importantly, except in the cases of social parasitism, there is a PHYSICAL connection between the host and the parasite through which the parasite gains its sustenance. Just like, say, an umbilical chord…

As I said, there is a slight difference between the "parasite" in the womb and the one outside it. That's the geography. Inside vs. outside, receiving all one needs through the umbilical cord and amniotic fluid as opposed to through the hands and nipples. That's not a big difference.

In fact, after birth I'd say the mom is usually substantially more consumed with the task of taking care of her baby than she was while pregnant.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Yes AND a parasite. Perhaps a cute wonderful innocent bundle of joy parasite but a parasite no less technically.

The technical parallel is not what I was contesting. I said, "The foetus may fit that definition, but by no means is it appropriate to refer to it as a parasite, because it's a human."

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As I mentioned in the other thread, it has all its major organs by the end of the first trimester. The article I linked in this thread showed enormous early development, especially in the brain, that takes place within the first 10 weeks. We're talking about a human being, so the parasite analogy is monstrous.

A parasite is a harmful insect that we are glad to be rid of. When we say, "parasite," most of us think "harmful insect -- nuisance -- good to be rid of it. Good to kill it if it gets in the way." That is a truly twisted, evil way to think of any human being, as they are so very, very much more than a harmful insect. Therefore the analogy is sickening. It should never be made. Those pro-choice people who claim to see abortion as a horrible, tragic necessity would do well to distance themselves from it.

[Curufin]

That is a truly twisted, evil way to think of any human being, as they are so very, very much more than a harmful insect. Therefore the analogy is sickening. It should never be made. Those pro-choice people who claim to see abortion as a horrible, tragic necessity would do well to distance themselves from it.

I'm not saying that I see it this way, Lief, but I must say that I don't agree that humans deserve life or are 'so very, very much more' than any other member of the animal kingdom. What if, for argument's sake, a fetus were nothing more than a parasitic insect? Would that make it okay to kill it, simply because it isn't human?

Let me rephrase. Do you eat meat? Cows and chickens are tortured horribly before they are killed - and can most definitely feel pain. Why is it okay to kill them but not babies, who are nearly genetically identical? And if you can, please answer this question without quoting the bible, because sorry, but that means absolutely nothing to me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

I'm not saying that I see it this way, Lief, but I must say that I don't agree that humans deserve life or are 'so very, very much more' than any other member of the animal kingdom. What if, for argument's sake, a fetus were nothing more than a parasitic insect? Would that make it okay to kill it, simply because it isn't human?

Let me rephrase. Do you eat meat? Cows and chickens are tortured horribly before they are killed - and can most definitely feel pain. Why is it okay to kill them but not babies, who are nearly genetically identical? And if you can, please answer this question without quoting the bible, because sorry, but that means absolutely nothing to me.

Well, you see, this is why in my last couple posts I've been stressing how enormous the child's development in the womb is from the first weeks after conception. I linked an article earlier in the thread which talked about the enormous development of the fetus that occurs in the first ten weeks, especially in the brain, and I mentioned recently that by the end of the first trimester, all the fetus's major organs are developed. I'm underlining those points so that people across the board understand that the human in the womb we're killing isn't that different from us. In fact, the child 1-week before birth has nothing but the tiniest differences from the child 1-week after birth, and if we're worried about the child not being sufficiently developed to count as a person, then the only really logical cut-off point at which the parent killing the child should be made illegal is the point when brain development stops. Brain development stops in late adolescence. Any point prior to that is arbitrary.

Regarding your comment about animals, I'd like to also add that if we don't see humans as in some way categorically different from the animals, the kinds of inhuman monstrosities against our race that could be justified are tremendous. If we take that path, the potential consequences of what could be legalized by our governments and how people might deal with other members of their species are terrifying. That should be reason enough not to draw the connection.

Feel free to lobby in favor of animal protection. That is entirely valid, in my view. I'll support you part of the way but not all the way, for personal religious reasons. I'll still slap the mosquito . It's a gracious endeavor, I think, for you to say, "let's afford other species the same protection we offer our own." But if we were to turn that the other way around and say, "let's offer our species the same (lack of) protection we offer the animal species," that creates a really, really terrifying myriad of possible national scenarios.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by katya

I don't mean that the killer goes home and feels bad about it, but because I think that by doing such a thing as taking an innocent life the person is hurting themselves whether they feel it or not. Because I think love and compassion and understanding makes people happier. Now, it's true the reason that it is wrong and thus hurts the killer is because it hurts the victim. Even if the orphan dies peacefully and feels no pain, I think life is valuable and precious and we're supposed to keep living, until we die. And if someone kills someone in a way that does hurt them and cause them pain, then it's doubly bad. My morality is sort of a "will this action make the world better" kind of one and I want everyone to be more loving.

What about being more loving toward human fetuses? Isn't establishing a law protecting them from death being loving toward them?

Originally Posted by katya

I don't think suffering is wrong and that it shouldn't exist in the world or anything like that. I just think that I want people to be more loving and not cause suffering. Because helping people rather than causing them pain makes you a better person, which in turn makes the world a better place.

Isn't that contradictory, though? You said above that you don't think suffering is wrong, but earlier you said "the reason that [murder] is wrong . . . is because it hurts the victim."

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As I said, there is a slight difference between the "parasite" in the womb and the one outside it. That's the geography. Inside vs. outside, receiving all one needs through the umbilical cord and amniotic fluid as opposed to through the hands and nipples. That's not a big difference.

Thats a HUGE difference because once out of the womb women have the CHOICE to feed the little bugger or not. You cant turn off the feeding tube when its still in the oven. And that of course is the reason for the parasite/abortion analogy in the first place.

In fact, after birth I'd say the mom is usually substantially more consumed with the task of taking care of her baby than she was while pregnant.

Absolutely! Because it can no longer parasitize OFF her. She has to CHOOSE to take care of it if she wants it to live. In the womb she didn’t have that choice. It simply fed off its host and remained a tremendous physical burden.

Face it Lief, we all start our lives as parasites. Its just some of us take 30 or 40 years to finally break the habit.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

For the purposes of this discussion, we're saying "What is a baby?". A baby is an infant human who can live independently of a mother. When that happens, we're in business. So, medical technology can make it so that "viability" happens earlier. Julius Caesar was ripped untimely from his mother's womb, so was MacDuff. Their survival was considered miraculous.

So, you're saying any point up until a baby is capable of being born (or removed) it is okay to terminate the pregancy. Am I correct in that assumption? Would the same apply to someone in a coma? Say someone has a car wreck and are in a coma, but otherwise okay, would you terminate them, even if they were going to come out of the coma? Or if there were a chance? They cannot live independently of a nursing staff or machinery, so that must mean that they, too, are parasitic on their family or society, so I guess they are not worth saving.

Now doctors can help the survival rate earlier and earlier. But nothing has happened to push it to the first gamete meet and greet. If a woman miscarries (and "miscarriage rates' are estimated to be between 20 and 70% of pregnancies) nothing can yet be done. To even DISCUSS those as 'infant death' is to trivialize life itself in a way I find appalling. It's abhorrent.

Trivialize life? That coming from the person who apparently wants to terminate life, even if someone has consented to sex.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

For the purposes of this discussion, we're saying "What is a baby?". A baby is an infant human who can live independently of a mother. When that happens, we're in business. So, medical technology can make it so that "viability" happens earlier. Julius Caesar was ripped untimely from his mother's womb, so was MacDuff. Their survival was considered miraculous.

What exactly do you mean by "independently"?