01-10-2002 12:28									#181
	Remove this text

Some of the arguments in this thread, on both sides, really surprise me.

While I think it is laudable to attempt to answer the philosophical question of when human life begins, I think the fundamental questions about abortion are simple:

Q: Is abortion the only way to prevent child birth?
A: No. Birth control and abstinence can prevent pregnancy before it begins and the morning after pill can prevent conception or induce a miscarriage within the first few days.

Q: Is abortion the safest way or even a safe way to prevent child birth?
A: No. In fact, abortion has serious and profound biological, physiological, and psychological affects on many women.

Given the ambiguities of the moral and philosophical issues involved and on these two Q&As alone, abortion should be relegated to an only when absolutely necessary procedure; a last resort option for women unable to avail themselves of the alternatives (as mentioned in the first Q&A). Does that make sense? If not, why not?

	01-10-2002 12:33									#182
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

So then you don't consider the zygote a human, since it only has 40% chance of making it into the third trimester?

	01-10-2002 12:58									#183
	Remove this text

CK:

Yes, you have stated a lot of true things.
However, I think you are guilty of the assumption that women just run out to have abortions willy-nilly, having sex left and right, etc.

Yes, they SHOULD use birth control.

Yes, if they are in a awful situation for having a child they SHOULD think about avoiding vaginal intercourse.

However, people make mistakes.

Should they be punished forever for those mistakes if the situation can be rectified without violating anyone's rights (asuming a consenting father)?

The fact that if we were all reasonable, intelligent people with no sex drive we'd abstain or be monogamous does not change the fact that most people are not so.

They have control over their bodies. Let's say they make a mistake. Hell, let's just pick the worst case scenario and say you've got a total ho.

Why punish them for their decisions about what they do with their own bodies? A woman's body is not state property.

If they want to lead a reckless lifestyle, and endanger their bodies to some extent, that's their right just as it is any smokers or drinkers.

Although the situation is not like I think you imagine, even if it were,

it is a choice an adult is making about their body that does not violate anyones rights so end of story.

Irresponsiblity: If a 'loose woman' had a lot of risky sex, what of it? Do we punish drunks as long as they don't violate any laws? Heavy smokers who obey the smoking bylaws? No, because people have a right to control their own bodies as long as it doesn't violate anyone's rights.

	01-10-2002 19:12									#184
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Umm, loin, we are on the same side here, right?

Yes, I'm in favor of abortion up until the third trimester, at which point I'm opposed to it. The biological definition of when a new human life begins does not answer the question of when a new human "being" begins--until there is brain activity, the zygote/embryo/fetus is not ethically a human being. The only reason that the biological definition is an issue is because it can be (and has been) used to impede the ethical definition--people have argued that the unborn child is not biologically a human until it is born, and in doing so they implicitly deny that the third trimester fetus could ever be ethically treated as a human.

	01-10-2002 19:21									#185
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Hey loin, is their not simple brain activity in a second trimester fetus?

Gnu, loin is on your side, but he is assertaining the biological nature of a fetus. A fetus is a developmental stage of a human being. He just thinks the drawing line, when it should be considered a person, is with its brain activity.

I still think in a way mother nature played a mean trick on us. If we dropped eggs instead of carying our young internally we would be having a much different argument.

	01-10-2002 19:34									#186
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by nationalist Mine is something along the lines of creating a "destructive biological change" rather than a "preventative" biological change.

Hmm, so would removing/destroying other body tissues (tumors or polyps or tonsils or whatever) count as a "destructive biological change" (since tissues are being destroyed)? They could be considered "preventative" since they prevent diseases, but at the same time an abortion could be considered "preventative" since it prevents complications with the pregnancy.

quote: By certain I mean a practical certainty. 99.9% probability may not be completely certain, but it is practically certain. None of us know the actual figures, so we can't really debate them here.

I wasn't debating the actual percentages, which is why I said that things with X% probability may be interfered with but things with Y% probability may not. Since Y does not equal 100, you've drawn a line in the sand. And as Gnu pointed out, the probability that a zygote develops into a third-trimester fetus is nothing resembling near certainty--your line in the sand is not drawn so close to 100 as you claim.

quote: That's not what I am going for. I don't think that not creating life is murder, I thiunk that stopping life while it is in the process of developing is murder. That process begins with fertilization, not with intercourse. That is why contraceptives are alright. The development of the different cells into one being starts at fertilization.

The thing is that the second-trimester fetus being destroyed by an abortion is practically the ethical equivalent of the egg/sperm cells being destroyed by contraception/abstention. The second-trimester fetus cannot think (it has no brain activity), so it has no atman/self/soul/whatever--it doesn't have a "soul-in-waiting" that is being victimized by being deprived of a home any more than the egg/sperm have "souls-in-waiting" that are being victimized by being deprived of homes (from contraception or abstention), because in both cases the atman/self/soul/whatever does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist. You can't commit a crime against a person who doesn't even exist and never will exist, which is why a second-trimester abortion is ethically the same as contraception or abstention.

	01-10-2002 19:35									#187
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by November Adam Hey loin, is their not simple brain activity in a second trimester fetus?

I had previously thought so (which is why I always considered the second trimester to be a gray area in our debates), but according to the article that Lincoln posted there is no evidence of brain activity prior to the third trimester.

	01-10-2002 19:45									#188
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by ckweb ...a last resort option for women unable to avail themselves of the alternatives...

That's how it should be used, but I don't consider it the duty of the law to regulate potentially self-destructive behavior. Women undergo risks when they have abortions (heck, they undergo risks when they have intercourse), but so long as they understand these risks then it's their call as to whether they want the procedure performed, so long as they aren't harming somebody else (like a sentient fetus) by their actions. I'm not in favor of "abortion as a procedure that everybody hops right in to," I'm in favor of "abortion as a legal alternative until the third trimester."

	01-10-2002 20:28									#189
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

O good, we're finally are back to the central question in lite of recent evidence. Loinburger and one other pro-choice poster (I forgot who) said that they were opposed to taking the life of the fetus when he is sentient. Those (like Cybergnu) who are still arguing over zygotes etc.: What do you think? Should we kill these sentient human beings or not?

	01-10-2002 20:50									#190
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Personally, I just think it's awfully discriminatory to allow the deaths of haploid human beings. If I were to kill a distinct human with 47 chromosomes it's murder, but if it's distinctly human with 23 chromosomes, it's perfectly fine for it to die? That's just ploidist.

	01-10-2002 22:05									#191
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln O good, we're finally are back to the central question in lite of recent evidence. Loinburger and one other pro-choice poster (I forgot who) said that they were opposed to taking the life of the fetus when he is sentient. Those (like Cybergnu) who are still arguing over zygotes etc.: What do you think? Should we kill these sentient human beings or not?

I have always held that 3rd trimester abortions were dubious, and loin's arguments are pretty sound as to the dilineation point.

The one caveat I would include is that 3rd trimester abortions are acceptable for the standard reasons: Life and health of mother and severe fetal problems.

I don't see any excuse for elective abortions beyond the 2nd trimester. It is highly unlikely a woman would not know she is pregnant prior to that point, and she should have had plenty fo time to make her choice. Even with a rape pregnancy, that should be the case--have the procedure in a timely fashion.

Before the 3rd trimester, I fully support abortion on demand, as it is the perogative of the mother do do what she wants with her body and what's inside it.

	01-10-2002 22:08									#192
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by ckweb Q: Is abortion the only way to prevent child birth? A: No. Birth control and abstinence can prevent pregnancy before it begins and the morning after pill can prevent conception or induce a miscarriage within the first few days. Q: Is abortion the safest way or even a safe way to prevent child birth? A: No. In fact, abortion has serious and profound biological, physiological, and psychological affects on many women.

You foget Q3: Is abortion safer than child birth?
A3: Yes. It's better not to get pregnant, but an abotion is still safer and healthier than having a baby. Q3 negates any point Q2 has.

	01-10-2002 22:10									#193
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Thanks Boris. And I have not heard your answer yet Che.

	01-10-2002 22:29									#194
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It's a touchy area. My understanding is that nearly born children lack true sentience. Their "thoughts" are disorganized random patterns. But that's not what is important to me.

As far as I'm concerned, once the fetus has the ability to survive outside the womb, if a woman really wants to be rid of the child, she should undergo surgery to have it removed in a fashion that it still has a chance to live.

But it's not my body, and those operations don't come cheap.

	01-10-2002 22:51									#195
	Put an end to popups!

How are you doing in the job search btw?

	02-10-2002 02:11									#196
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Gibsie Personally, I just think it's awfully discriminatory to allow the deaths of haploid human beings. If I were to kill a distinct human with 47 chromosomes it's murder, but if it's distinctly human with 23 chromosomes, it's perfectly fine for it to die? That's just ploidist.

Haven't seen too many haploid humans walking around. Have you Gibsie? I bet the Enquirer would love to get their hands on that scoop.

	02-10-2002 03:07									#197
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

What, so now you're saying the basis for humanity is having 46 chromosomes and a pair of legs?

Kind of a stupid response, considering not even a several week-old baby walks around either...

	02-10-2002 03:20									#198
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Yes, I'm in favor of abortion up until the third trimester, at which point I'm opposed to it. The biological definition of when a new human life begins does not answer the question of when a new human "being" begins--until there is brain activity, the zygote/embryo/fetus is not ethically a human being. The only reason that the biological definition is an issue is because it can be (and has been) used to impede the ethical definition--people have argued that the unborn child is not biologically a human until it is born, and in doing so they implicitly deny that the third trimester fetus could ever be ethically treated as a human.

We are saying the exact same thing, just in different words.

A fetus is only a human being after it achieves sentience. Before that is is human, but merely as a classification.

	02-10-2002 03:23									#199
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu We are saying the exact same thing, just in different words.

Ah, good. That simplifies things quite a bit...

	02-10-2002 03:24									#200
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara As far as I'm concerned, once the fetus has the ability to survive outside the womb, if a woman really wants to be rid of the child, she should undergo surgery to have it removed in a fashion that it still has a chance to live.

I love moving targets.

	02-10-2002 03:29									#201
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Gibsie Kind of a stupid response, considering not even a several week-old baby walks around either...

Only a stupid response if you didn't get what I was geting at. So Gibs WAS it stupid?

	02-10-2002 03:39									#202
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Let me ask some of the pro-choice people... are you okay with killing a human in its earliest developmental stages?

I know loin is, how about you others.

	02-10-2002 04:21									#203
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

At which point is the earliest developmental stage? If you assert that the fetus isn't truly "human" until it has acheived brain functionality in the third trimester, then no, it's not okay after that point, at least not as an elective procedure.

Before then, it is not human, but proto-human, and it is the choice of the mother, and it is okay for her to choose to end the pregnancy.

I don't like the fact abortion exists, I'd like to see a day where it vanishes. But that should be done through education and prevention, not a ban that would drive women to back alleys.

	02-10-2002 05:32									#204
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The earliest devlopmental stage is the zygote. There is no such thing as a proto-human, unless you talk to an anthropologist. The definition of a human doesn't change.

What loin is refering to is a "person". The definition he gives is one I can agree with as well.

	02-10-2002 05:40									#205
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln How are you doing in the job search btw?

Well, I have more or less decided to expand my search to the whole US and Canada. I'd much rather stay here in Florida, the sunshine makes me kinda blissful. Hell, just being in Florida does that, but the part of the state I'm in is a dead end for IT work, and I don't have the money saved up to move to where the IT jobs are. But I just found out that unemployment compensation extensions are virtually automatic, so that means I have 'till the end of March to find web design work before I go get a job at the supermarket.

I've probably sent out about 60 resumes in the last three months, half of those last week when I expanded my search.

	02-10-2002 05:47									#206
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Let me ask some of the pro-choice people... are you okay with killing a human in its earliest developmental stages?

It depends how you view the situation. I view it as a consent issue. The child does not have consent of the mother to live within her. Just as there is no duty for a homeowner to require a homeless person to stay inside his house to prevent him from dying, there is no duty (IMHO) for the mother to keep the child inside her without her consent. There is an inviolability of the person's body.

Of course after the birth there is a different situation. The idea of inviolability of the body does not apply.

	02-10-2002 06:04									#207
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Just as there is no duty for a homeowner to require a homeless person to stay inside his house to prevent him from dying, there is no duty (IMHO) for the mother to keep the child inside her without her consent.

I'm assuming that you're considering the zygote to be ethically equivalent to the third trimester fetus, since you made no distinction.

There are two problems with your analogy:

1. The mother implicitly gives consent to carry a sentient fetus by virtue of the fact that she chose to have unprotected intercourse (assuming that her pregnancy wasn't the result of failed contraception, which is a fair assumption IMO), and she also chose to carry the unborn child for six months until it gained sentience. Barring unexpected complications to the pregnancy, there is no reason why she couldn't have had her abortion prior to her fetus gaining sentience.

2. If a homeowner finds a homeless person on his/her property, then he/she does not have the right to remove the homeless person through the act of killing them. This would be murder, plain and simple.

	02-10-2002 09:40									#208
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by November Adam Let me ask some of the pro-choice people... are you okay with killing a human in its earliest developmental stages? I know loin is, how about you others.

My line is sentience. If something is not sentient, it's fine with me to kill it.

	02-10-2002 10:33									#209
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You foget Q3: Is abortion safer than child birth? A3: Yes. It's better not to get pregnant, but an abotion is still safer and healthier than having a baby. Q3 negates any point Q2 has.

che: Given that you admit "it's better not to get pregnant" and there are ways to prevent pregnancy both before intercourse and immediately after intercourse, why should abortion continue to exist as a viable option?

Also, did you read my earlier post responding to this objection as you raised it before? If so, why do you deny the validity of my arguments at that stage?

To restate that previous post:

Your statement is inaccurate in the sense that the risks of bringing a baby to term are, in Western society, miniscule and certainly not as far-ranging as the risks posed by abortion. With abortion, a woman faces increased probabilities of cancer and infertility as well as well-documented psychological problems (including problems totally unrelated to irresponsible pro-life rhetoric). With bringing a baby to term, a woman faces none of these risks. The only significant risk of which I am aware is of course death in the event of a complicated pregnancy but such complications can be predicted with considerable accuracy in advance (via ultrasound) and abortion is a viable alternative when the life of the mother is at risk. The only other significant problem is post-partum depression, which can also affect the woman who has an abortion.

So, in sum, I did not forget your third question. Your answer is inaccurate and so it does not negate my Q&As.

	02-10-2002 10:45									#210
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by loinburger That's how it should be used,

I'm glad we agree.

quote: Originally posted by loinburger but I don't consider it the duty of the law to regulate potentially self-destructive behavior.

Society always regulates potentially self-destructive behaviour! There are fines, restrictions, and regulations for all sorts of dangerous activities.

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Women undergo risks when they have abortions (heck, they undergo risks when they have intercourse), but so long as they understand these risks then it's their call as to whether they want the procedure performed, so long as they aren't harming somebody else (like a sentient fetus) by their actions.

The problem, at least as far as I understand it, is that abortion clinics are notorious in not informing women of the risks of abortion (i.e. some of Lincoln's quotes, which even come from pro-choice advocates). That's part of the problem!

quote: Originally posted by loinburger I'm not in favor of "abortion as a procedure that everybody hops right in to," I'm in favor of "abortion as a legal alternative until the third trimester."

I would support such a law--if only to curb the number of abortions--, especially in Canada where no restrictions presently exist against abortion. However, I would also want to see a law that requires women to be read (not just read) a release form that clearly lays out the risks involved in having an abortion and would require them to sign it. In addition, minors should not be permitted to have abortions without the consent of their parents (except, of course, in situations where incest is an issue).