Kevin's Watch

And this is basically what it comes down to for me. Everyone talks about helping out the little guy, the underdog, being a voice for those who have none. We send billions of dollars to the Third World to keep people alive in the worst circumstances that can be imagined, but we kill babies in the richest country in the world for the sake of convenience. People raise a stink about executing vile criminals, but don't think twice about the 3,562 abortions that occur daily.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

ur-bane wrote:

Murrin wrote:Once you get into defining what is and isn't 'alive', the whole debate can become ridiculous.

? In my book, it is the lack of such a definition that makes it a debatable issue in the first place.
If we all had an accepted concrete definition of when a human fetus is "alive," there would be no point of contention.

And, as shown in Cail's examples above, that specific qualification complicates the matter; it doesn't simplify the matter.

In my mind, it is the idea that 'life' is the matter under debate that causes all these problems. An amoeba is 'alive'. Bacteria are 'alive'. A zygote is 'alive'. But when you actually look at them all those things are is an incredibly complex system of chemical processes. That is why I think sentience is more relevant to this issue than the superficial desgination that is 'life'.

But sentience brings about it's own baggage. Is a child with Down's Syndrome sentient? Is a newborn sentient? I'd say no in both cases, so are you saying that it's OK to kill them? Neither amoebas nor bacteria is human, and neither is going to grow into an adult and buy you a drink.

Why attach all the qualifiers? A zygote is human life. Undeveloped, to be sure, but human life.

Murrin, couldn't it be argued that sentience is "an incredibly complex system of chemical processes..?"

Cail wrote:Why attach all the qualifiers? A zygote is human life. Undeveloped, to be sure, but human life.

My thoughts exactly. (BTW-- I do not want to meet a bacteria willing to buy me a drink! )

While I agree that Cail is bringing up some thought provoking ideas, I hope that you (Ur-bane) are not using the sperm/ovum argument as an argument against abortion. That would bring hell down on us wankers

Using the life argument doesn't work. We kill cells all the time. Why should any cell be better than the next one? They are all alive.

Using the individual argument is difficult, as it requires consensus on what constitutes an individual.

Using the principle of sentience is difficult, as it requires consensus on what constitutes sentience.

Murrin did his part by bringing animals into it (shame on you )

My point is, that this discussion is very difficult. And we should be carefull what we call each other (murderer, bigot etc.). While I am still pro-abortion, this discussion has made me think of some of the arguments i normally use.

Cybrweez wrote:

Prebe wrote:If it is possible to guarantee a good adoptive family for every unwanted child born, then we can discuss banning abortion, but not before.

I don't think 2 wrongs make a right. If its wrong, its wrong. If it wasn't allowed, maybe we could spend the millions spent on abortion for other things, such as taking care of those unwanted babies.

I want to go back to this for a second.

Prebe, we gan't guarantee a good birth family for every wanted child born, why should the yardstick be any different for the unwanted ones? Sure, adoptive parents should be screened, but you're assuming that every family should or will be happy and healthy. I agree to a certain extent, but we can't guarantee anyone's family is "good".

'Weez-You are absolutely correct. Wrong is wrong. Perpetuating abortion by using the excuse that there aren't enough adoptive families is just plain bad logic.

Prebe wrote:Using the life argument doesn't work. We kill cells all the time. Why should any cell be better than the next one? They are all alive.

All cells are alive, but not all cells mature into a distinct human being with a unique genetic makeup. A fertilized egg is not the mother's cells or the father's. It's its own entity.

If wanking is murder, I'm worse than Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin combined.

Sorry! Submitted the post before I was done. Didn't mean to say you were right Cail

Again, I'm joining the argument late.

Self-awareness has little to do with life or abortion. I know some adults who have yet to achieve self-awareness!

Fact of the matter is that a woman is not born with two hearts, two brains, two spinal cords, etc. If she wants to alter her own body, then she should be allowed to. That is what plastic surgery is for. However, in the case of abortion, she is not altering her own body but destroying another.

If she has CHOICE, then she should choose not to get pregnant. In this day and age, there is not excuse for an unwanted pregnancy.

Abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest, danger to mother. But, sadly, the majority of abortions are not for these reasons.

Before I answer your last post Cail, what was the meaning of the quoting of the Danish abortion statistics?

I was contrasting it to the sheer number we're talking about here in the States. We kill as many in 4-1/2 days as you kill in a year. The sheer magnitude of what's going on is staggering, and roughly 99% of those pregnancies are due to poor choices; choice to have sex, choice to not use contraception.

Nice to see you Caam.

Thanks for the compliment to our responsibility Cail, but if you look at the realative numbers about 20% of all pregnancies in Denmark are terminated by legal abortion. I think you forget how few we are.

I am not saying this is good. Just thought I'd let you know.

I'll be honest, I thought that was a typo. 20% is a huge chunk.

caamora,

On the contrary, self-awareness, or sentience, has everything to do with life. No sentience=little to no quality of life.

You forgot to add to me. Who are you to decide whether or not a certain quality of life is acceptable?

Edit-
www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/99facts/pregrate.htm

An estimated 6,240,000 pregnancies resulted in a live birth, induced abortion, or fetal loss (miscarriages or stillbirths) in the United States in 1996

womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats_2.htm
And we had 1,365,700 abortions. So we're at about 22%.

Cail,

Okay then - you tell me the quality of life that a person in a vegetative state has.

I can't, and I'm not going to try. You and I would want the plug pulled if we were in a vegitative state. Other people wouldn't. I can't decide on quality of life for anyone but myself.

Well...actually, I can understand that.

I thought the percentage would be roughly the same Cail.

About the adoption argument. Yes it sucked. I know.

By the way, I take it that you are against IVF too?

That's 3 times in the last 30 minutes.