-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Abortion - Under what circumstances should it be allowed?
- Thread starter JDavidC
- Start date
BJPalmer85
Well-Known Member
Well that really depends on whether you consider it an abortion if they are disposed of.
B
You'll need to elaborate on what you mean by frozen embryos. Are these basically embryos taken out of the mother's womb (and effectively killed at that time, which IS an induced abortion), and preserved for use in stuff like medical science? If so, then there is a link to abortion, as they are there because they were aborted.
BJPalmer85
Well-Known Member
I am talking about frozen embryos that are stored for use with people who use in vitro fertilization because they struggle with infertility. If a couple has had their desired number of children (or more than that as can happen), and they decided not to use the remaining embryos and in turn decided to dispose of them rather than continue to store them (as it is expensive), would this be considered some form of abortion?
B
Actually, with in-vitro fertilization, you aren't talking about frozen embryos, but frozen egg cells having a sperm applied to them, sperm cells/egg cells by themselves can never become anything else by themselves. When they fuse into a single life-form, that life-form ends up with a different quality (constantly improving 'brain' that may effectively start off as being less than a cell in size, but eventually builds itself into what anyone would call a human brain). In other words, conception hasn't even occurred before the in-vitro fertilization (i.e. 'artificial' conception) occurs. There can be no abortion if there is no member of the species homo sapiens involved. Even though sperm/egg cells may be human in that they were created by humans with the potential to form another member of the species homo sapiens, they are NOT, by themselves, members of that species. There is no way I would consider discarding frozen egg cells abortion, because there is no actual member of the species homo sapiens involved, as conception has not yet occured.
BJPalmer85
Well-Known Member
Technically you are talking about frozen embryos. This is the definition of an embryo according to wikipedia
, so if the egg is fertilized outside of the body and then frozen for later use, it is still technically an embryo. Other than the difference of it being frozen rather than in the body of a woman, it has the same potential for life correct?
B
Oh... If it is fertilized, then you do get a zef, and then you would be talking about abortion after all, although there would have to be at least one cell division to get to two cells before you reach the definition of embryo that you quoted from Wikipedia. In this case, yes, it is relevant to this debate. If it was me, I'd keep the sperm and egg cells separate until someone wants to make a baby using them.
I am neither for nor against abortion. Let me explain, I just feel it comes down to individual circumstances, if a woman has the means to care for a child then she should probably keep it, but if in an extreme case where the mother has 0 means of caring for a baby then maybe she should have that option. Call it passive or whatever, it's a very delicate issue that doesn't have a clear-cut answer, just yet.
The problem is that a lot of people don't see it as a morally neutral procedure. They don't see it as clipping a toenail. It's seen as killing a child who has done nothing wrong.
BoxedLunch
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone sees it like that - clipping nails, I mean. Also, there is a difference between a baby and a child, even if you consider a fetus to be a baby (which I don't). When I hear the word 'child,' I picture someone at least above the age of three or four.
Peter Quill
star-lord
I think your toenail comparison is ridiculous. She meant morally neutral in the sense that it shouldn't affect how someone feels about "killing a child" vs. something that should be done for the safety, autonomy and comfort for a woman. Comparing it to a procedure like a toenail means that you're extracting any sort of emotional implication involved with the procedure, which isn't the case. There are women who are tormented and think very hard about getting abortions. However, they shouldn't be seen as "murders" or have any sort of connection with a morally bad implication because of the nature of the operation and the reasoning behind it.
SoundofMadness
Speed Kills
The only circumstances that an abortion should even be considered is when there is high risk of the mother dying as a result of the pregnancy. Beyond that, there is no reason for an abortion.
-Tossing in my .02-
-Tossing in my .02-
Abortion should be legal under any circumstance. I'm not going to sit here and argue whether a fetus is a legitimate life. I believe that it is not until birth, but that's just a totally different aspect.
Whether or not you believe that the fetus is a life, it is part of the woman's body above all. And men and women both have the right to do with their own bodies as they please. It's a right and no one has the right to take it away from a woman, especially a man who can't even legitimately understand what it's like to be pregnant or give birth or how a child can affect your life. A lot of times the woman was raped or the pregnancy was unplanned, so the father leaves.
So in summary: woman's choice!
Whether or not you believe that the fetus is a life, it is part of the woman's body above all. And men and women both have the right to do with their own bodies as they please. It's a right and no one has the right to take it away from a woman, especially a man who can't even legitimately understand what it's like to be pregnant or give birth or how a child can affect your life. A lot of times the woman was raped or the pregnancy was unplanned, so the father leaves.
So in summary: woman's choice!
BoxedLunch
Well-Known Member
Thank you, umbryan. You've managed to sum up exactly why making abortion illegal is such a repugnant idea, and you did it without going on and on like I've been doing. I mean, whether or not you believe a fetus is human, the idea that anyone thinks they have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body is just sick. Hell, maybe if the fetus was in her womb for a week and didn't cause her unbearable pain, emotional trauma and (if she's in the wonderful US) huge medical expenses, we pro-choicers might be more flexible on the matter. But as it is, it's completely unreasonable to ask a woman to make her body a domain for another life-form (human or not - which a fetus is not, any more than a sperm is) - for NINE months, ripping apart and damaging her body in all sorts of ways, and suffering the pain of being separated from her newborn baby (if she adopts it out) when her hormones are telling her to keep and love it. Go ahead and try to make abortion illegal. People won't stand for it or will get the law changed (again, I point you to the charming Ireland), and under-the-table abortions will occur, which will be worse because they won't be as safe, which will mean more women will die. Oh, but I suppose they deserve to die for daring to 'murder' a 'child' in the first place and/or daring to have unproceted sex/use faulty birth control/get raped. Serves them right, huh?
On a related note, I find it hilarious that some 'pro-lifers' murder abortion doctors. (I'm not saying all, or even a large amount, of pro-lifers do this, mind. I know it's not that common.) They're advocating that's it's wrong to 'murder' 'people,' and yet they're going around killing actual human beings. I suppose you could make the argument that they're doing it to 'save' the fetuses, but it still comes off as hypocritical to me. I hate quoting Family Guy, but it just reeks of "I support the death penalty to let people know that killing is wrong." God.
On a related note, I find it hilarious that some 'pro-lifers' murder abortion doctors. (I'm not saying all, or even a large amount, of pro-lifers do this, mind. I know it's not that common.) They're advocating that's it's wrong to 'murder' 'people,' and yet they're going around killing actual human beings. I suppose you could make the argument that they're doing it to 'save' the fetuses, but it still comes off as hypocritical to me. I hate quoting Family Guy, but it just reeks of "I support the death penalty to let people know that killing is wrong." God.
SoundofMadness
Speed Kills
I think the argument of whether the fetus is a legitimate life is completely relevant.
The rights we have go only so far as to not infringe on anyone else's rights, and the right to life is the primary right of any individual, so any other 'right' impeding on someone's right to life is really no right at all.
And while being pregnant and giving birth can affect a woman's life, so can having an abortion, though no one who is "Pro-Choice" ever seems to bring up the negative effects it will have on the woman undergoing it.
In the end, if you don't want the baby, give it up for adoption, there are a multitude of people out there who can't have children, that would love to adopt one.
The rights we have go only so far as to not infringe on anyone else's rights, and the right to life is the primary right of any individual, so any other 'right' impeding on someone's right to life is really no right at all.
And while being pregnant and giving birth can affect a woman's life, so can having an abortion, though no one who is "Pro-Choice" ever seems to bring up the negative effects it will have on the woman undergoing it.
In the end, if you don't want the baby, give it up for adoption, there are a multitude of people out there who can't have children, that would love to adopt one.
Happy to help!
And I know what you mean, I remember hearing a story about how a quote, unquote "Pro-Lifer" planted and let off a bomb in an abortion clinic. Like really, you're "pro-life" but you killed innocent people. Way to go
Umm no, the heart is a living part of the woman's body, the lung is, the kidney, etc. If a woman has the right to donate a kidney, she has the right to remove a fetus just the same.
I found this by chance while surfing the Internet.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/un...tting-edge-science-shows-fetal-cells-heal-mo/
As I'm not satisfied with a pro-life site alone as evidence, I decided to dig deeper to see if there is any truth to the above claims:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633676/
http://jcs.biologists.org/content/118/8/1559.full -> http://jcs.biologists.org/content/118/8/1559.full#sec-6 in particular
http://molehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/11/869.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchimerism
Well, there seem to be theories suggesting that foetal cells transferred to the mother may target damaged organs. One theory suggests they may make things worse, but the other suggests they may help combat diseases. I don't know why there would be a mechanism designed via evolution/God/whatever to transfer cells that will deal damage, but it would make a lot more sense if there was a mechanism designed for healing. The former makes no sense from a design/evolutionary perspective, but the latter does. If it turns out that this cell transfer heals the mother, then it completely destroys any parasite argument, as parasites, by definition, give NOTHING in return.
Sadly, the evidence I have found is inconclusive. Maybe in some cases (assuming nothing goes wrong with the pregnancy itself) it helps, and in others it harms. I wish I had a more definitive answer as to whether foetal cells transferring to the mother help.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/un...tting-edge-science-shows-fetal-cells-heal-mo/
As I'm not satisfied with a pro-life site alone as evidence, I decided to dig deeper to see if there is any truth to the above claims:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633676/
http://jcs.biologists.org/content/118/8/1559.full -> http://jcs.biologists.org/content/118/8/1559.full#sec-6 in particular
http://molehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/11/869.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchimerism
Well, there seem to be theories suggesting that foetal cells transferred to the mother may target damaged organs. One theory suggests they may make things worse, but the other suggests they may help combat diseases. I don't know why there would be a mechanism designed via evolution/God/whatever to transfer cells that will deal damage, but it would make a lot more sense if there was a mechanism designed for healing. The former makes no sense from a design/evolutionary perspective, but the latter does. If it turns out that this cell transfer heals the mother, then it completely destroys any parasite argument, as parasites, by definition, give NOTHING in return.
Sadly, the evidence I have found is inconclusive. Maybe in some cases (assuming nothing goes wrong with the pregnancy itself) it helps, and in others it harms. I wish I had a more definitive answer as to whether foetal cells transferring to the mother help.
Last edited:
SoundofMadness
Speed Kills
So after 9 months, any of those organs can be taken out of the woman and live autonomous without the need of her, or another body as a baby can?
Here is my challenge to your categorical conclusion, Deku Link. I post this also in response to BoxedLunch and Umbryan's most recent discussion.
me said:
Yours was a more pragmatic argument (there are effectively no late-term abortions even where said procedures are legal, so there is no need to make late-term abortion illegal) whereas mine is concerned with the logic (how we make the decision and what standards we use to judge it), but I don't think we run the risk of speaking past each other. My attention is being paid to the fact that your argument tells us there's nothing wrong with the abortion in my hypothetical scenario above, while my argument tells us there is something wrong with that, and in the end the real-world effects of our arguments would only differ by about 0.1% of (Canadian) abortions.
As an aside intended more for humor than relevance but good for both, I have to point out that you had seemed to be using the argument that "nobody's doing it, so we don't need to have a law saying it shouldn't be done." I've always thought that was one of the funnier legal arguments around. The same argument was recently put to actual use when our Supreme Court just finished invalidating a key portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, effectively claiming that nobody was operating polls with racist bias, so we didn't need a law to protect against it anymore (and two hours after learning of that decision, Texas lawmakers got to work on changes to their polling operations that said law had stopped them from doing in the recent past). It's just such an absurd argument.
Last edited: