Should the government stop abortions?

[Izzi]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

At the time you are allowed to get an abortion i would hardly consider it "alive" Its just blobs of cells.

[devonin]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

At the time you are allowed to get an abortion i would hardly consider it "alive" Its just blobs of cells.

No, it is definately, measurably -alive- at that point. I mean, the componant parts were technically alive before then too. The issue is that many people argue that when a human egg and a human sperm combine, you get a -human- embryo (which is strictly speaking true) and that you therefore (here is where the disagreement comes) ought to treat it morally and ethically as a human being.

[Relambrien]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

No, it is definately, measurably -alive- at that point. I mean, the componant parts were technically alive before then too. The issue is that many people argue that when a human egg and a human sperm combine, you get a -human- embryo (which is strictly speaking true) and that you therefore (here is where the disagreement comes) ought to treat it morally and ethically as a human being.

Allow me to elaborate on this point.

At conception, there is little disagreement among legislators that the embryo is a living thing. It is most certainly alive.

However, there is disagreement about when the embryo can be considered a human. Some people believe that the embryo is a full-fledged human being from conception, and others argue that it isn't until birth. You also have those in between, with trimesters, cognitive ability, and the like.

This is significant because our moral and legal standards apply to human beings. Determining when an embryo becomes a full human therefore determines the point at which abortions should be considered murder. Nothing has been decided on yet, however birth is the one definite line we have.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

You have the right idea but you're confusing terms.

Biologically, you have a human being at the instant of conception. Our legal standards regarding rights apply to persons, and whether or not (or just plain when) a fetus qualifies as a person is what is ambiguous and not scientifically answerable.

[Relambrien]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

You have the right idea but you're confusing terms.

Biologically, you have a human being at the instant of conception. Our legal standards regarding rights apply to persons, and whether or not (or just plain when) a fetus qualifies as a person is what is ambiguous and not scientifically answerable.

Eh, I'm going by what I've read/heard/etc. and "human being" and "person" (in the sense you're using it) tended to be used interchangeably. But for the sake of eliminating confusion, I'll use the terminology you use should I make another post on this subject.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

I was confused myself earlier in this thread, which is why I went to my philosophy professor about it.

They may be interchangable in casual conversation, but they are two different things legally.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

DJ Arsenault: 6 days for flaming in CT.
OrganisM: Warning for the same. You're cutting it pretty close.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[All_That_Chaz]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

I can't believe this argument is still going and I can't decide if it's a good or a bad thing.

I'm not going to continue the line of thought that I had going 7 pages ago. Instead, I'll look at this in a more pragmatic sense - that of law. Illegalizing vices (I'm not saying "murder" is a vice, as I'm not a murderer, so please don't go down that road) has been nothing short of disastrous in most/all cases. Prohibition and drugs are the glaring example. Abortions are going to happen whether it's legal or not. I'm not saying, "Well, it's going to happen, so the government should just give up." If it's illegal, however, it opens the door to dangerous procedures instead of a regulated operations. In countries where drugs are decriminalized, the quality of the product is safer, and in the instance of drugs, there is evidence taken from licensed cocaine safe-houses in (i think, not sure of the country) The Netherlands that showed that people tended to come a few times and then give it up instead of becoming dependent of the substance, which is interesting, to say the least.

Just to cover my bases, I'm not saying that murder in any situation should be legal because it's going to happen anyway. This is just backup support for the camp that says that it isn't murder.

-Chaz

[AOL_blows911]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Illegalizing vices (I'm not saying "murder" is a vice, as I'm not a murderer, so please don't go down that road) has been nothing short of disastrous in most/all cases. Prohibition and drugs are the glaring example. Abortions are going to happen whether it's legal or not.

This, to me, should be obvious to the pro-life crowd. Illegalizing abortions in no way stops abortions, it just makes them unsafe. Not only will the oh-so-precious embryo be lost, but the mother also runs a serious risk or injury or infection from the procedure itself. So now, we've lost the baby and quite possibly injured/lost the mother as well. Total life = 0. When a certified doctor is performing the operation, we almost always see the mother end up fine, with the only loss being the developing child. If your pro-life, why put more people in danger? If a mother really wants an abortion, she'll probably find a way to have one (legally or otherwise), and if the unwanted child is born, then it's most likely off to the orphanage for them. At least, thats how I see it.

[DDR_Mike]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

This, to me, should be obvious to the pro-life crowd. Illegalizing abortions in no way stops abortions, it just makes them unsafe. Not only will the oh-so-precious embryo be lost, but the mother also runs a serious risk or injury or infection from the procedure itself. So now, we've lost the baby and quite possibly injured/lost the mother as well. Total life = 0. When a certified doctor is performing the operation, we almost always see the mother end up fine, with the only loss being the developing child. If your pro-life, why put more people in danger? If a mother really wants an abortion, she'll probably find a way to have one (legally or otherwise), and if the unwanted child is born, then it's most likely off to the orphanage for them. At least, thats how I see it.

I disagree, if abortion is illegalized and people still try to do it, then that's just bad karma. I'm not saying that they deserve infection or anything else that could happen, though. And newborns don't go to the orphanage, there are SO many people that want babies, the line is very long, why kill a baby that tons of people would want to adopt (that can't have one on there own.)? My neighbors went to Russia to adopt a child because they are very hard to adopt in the US.

[AOL_blows911]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

I disagree, if abortion is illegalized and people still try to do it, then that's just bad karma. I'm not saying that they deserve infection or anything else that could happen, though. And newborns don't go to the orphanage, there are SO many people that want babies, the line is very long, why kill a baby that tons of people would want to adopt (that can't have one on there own.)? My neighbors went to Russia to adopt a child because they are very hard to adopt in the US.

Well, I'll give you the point on adoptions. I don't know much about the whole adoption system and probably never will. However, the point I was making is that a mother who has a child she doesn't want is most likely going to send it to the orphanage or neglect it. Also, about the karma comment, I'm not sure I understant your point. Regardless of whether or not you think it is bad karma, illegal abortions would still most likely become a large problem if all abortions are illegalized. Clearify that for me if you would, I'm kind of curious what you meant by it.

[DDR_Mike]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

Well, I'll give you the point on adoptions. I don't know much about the whole adoption system and probably never will. However, the point I was making is that a mother who has a child she doesn't want is most likely going to send it to the orphanage or neglect it. Also, about the karma comment, I'm not sure I understant your point. Regardless of whether or not you think it is bad karma, illegal abortions would still most likely become a large problem if all abortions are illegalized. Clearify that for me if you would, I'm kind of curious what you meant by it.

Well, if abortion were illegalized and people still try to do it, they'd be breaking the law, breaking the law is bad karma; trying to kill your child is bad karma.

EDIT: There is one situation where I agree with abortion, and that is if someone is raped, and doesn't want the child, but they could still have it and put it up for adoption.

[All_That_Chaz]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

let me get this straight. you're using karma to justify banning abortions.

























oh.

[DDR_Mike]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

let me get this straight. you're using karma to justify banning abortions.

























oh.

PS:

I disagree, if abortion is illegalized and people still try to do it, then that's just bad karma. I'm not saying that they deserve infection or anything else that could happen, though. And newborns don't go to the orphanage, there are SO many people that want babies, the line is very long, why kill a baby that tons of people would want to adopt (that can't have one on there own.)? My neighbors went to Russia to adopt a child because they are very hard to adopt in the US.

Also, about the karma comment, I'm not sure I understant your point. Regardless of whether or not you think it is bad karma, illegal abortions would still most likely become a large problem if all abortions are illegalized. Clearify that for me if you would, I'm kind of curious what you meant by it.

Oh.

[devonin]

Re: Should the government stop abortions?

You'd have to prove conclusively that karma is an onjectively existing thing that actually functions on reality, which I think you would be very hard-pressed to do, before you can justify any arguement on the grounds of how it effects karmic balance.

To take the previous argument a step further, not only has illegalizing vices had an almost universally bad overall effect, -legalizing- vices (and thus subjecting them to controls and oversight) has actually had a generally good effect.

Look at many of the places that have legalised prostitution. By making it legal, and thus answerable to the government, the rate of disease transmission has dropped dramatically, the health standards of prostitutes and brothels have increased dramatically, and heck, taxing the process generates more government funding for important programs.