d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Abortion. A Complicated Philosophical Issue.
Prev191011121319Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 63,058
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
Oct 3 2014 06:07pm
Quote (HighschoolTurd @ Oct 3 2014 07:48pm)
Bacteria that is infused with the DNA to create a human, yes. It's obviously different than some bacteria living under your toilet. I already said this above.


Ummmm..... no, bacteria has bacteria DNA lol. Humans are not formed from bacteria.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 3 2014 06:07pm
Member
Posts: 24,488
Joined: Jul 11 2011
Gold: 1,272.50
Oct 3 2014 06:33pm
Quote (Voyaging @ 3 Oct 2014 17:07)
Ummmm..... no, bacteria has bacteria DNA lol. Humans are not formed from bacteria.


Technically they are, especially from a naturalistic worldview. We were are all bacteria, but the difference is what that bacteria is destined to evolve into.. That's my point concerning Thor's argument where he thinks there is no indifference between the two.
Member
Posts: 9,060
Joined: May 15 2010
Gold: 18,470.03
Oct 3 2014 06:37pm
Quote (Scaly @ Oct 2 2014 07:12pm)
I don't claim to be an expert on philosophy but here is where I get stuck on the abortion issue -

At what point do we consider the potential for life to be life?

I think that a blastocyst with no nervous system cannot be considered human... yet. But it has the potential to become human. Is removing that potential morally ok? If I say no then how far back should I take this? Is the use of contraception morally wrong because it denies a child the chance at life? Is masturbation morally wrong for the same reasons?

I have never been able to agree on a solid stance on the abortion issue. It's why I'm pro-choice. I think it's up to the woman to make up her mind - though I don't think it should be done frivolously - if she thinks she can support a child or if the child will have a decent quality of life and if she can reconcile her own morality with it. I don't think we can make a judgement yet on whether it is morally unjust to destroy that potential for life.

What is your stance on abortion and why have you reached the conclusion that that stance is right?


Quote (Scaly @ Oct 2 2014 07:12pm)
I don't claim to be an expert on philosophy but here is where I get stuck on the abortion issue -

At what point do we consider the potential for life to be life?

I think that a blastocyst with no nervous system cannot be considered human... yet. But it has the potential to become human. Is removing that potential morally ok? If I say no then how far back should I take this? Is the use of contraception morally wrong because it denies a child the chance at life? Is masturbation morally wrong for the same reasons?

I have never been able to agree on a solid stance on the abortion issue. It's why I'm pro-choice. I think it's up to the woman to make up her mind - though I don't think it should be done frivolously - if she thinks she can support a child or if the child will have a decent quality of life and if she can reconcile her own morality with it. I don't think we can make a judgement yet on whether it is morally unjust to destroy that potential for life.

What is your stance on abortion and why have you reached the conclusion that that stance is right?



It's basic logic that a man and woman engaging in the act of reproduction occasionally produces a new organism that is the offspring of the parents. We don't come into this world as a fully formed baby. We start out as a single cell that given nothing more than time in it's natural environment will or will not mature into a baby.

People feel a need to disassociate from the newly conceived because there is nothing to relate to. That doesn't change the fact that a new organism has been created, a separate being exists and is maturing. This process is a steady and continuous development that had a very clear beginning. There is no point in time that is as defining a moment as the moment of conception. It is the pairing of the yin and yang that brings a new human being into the world.

All of that being said it is impossible to legislate against abortion in a fair and meaningful manner. If you want to allow for rape and thehhealth of the mother you open a Pandora's box of ways to game the system. Bringing a plethora of unwanted children into this world at this particular stage in humanity's development would be decidedly destructive.
Member
Posts: 9,060
Joined: May 15 2010
Gold: 18,470.03
Oct 3 2014 06:38pm
Yea that's not getting fixed posting on my phone.
Member
Posts: 63,058
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
Oct 3 2014 06:44pm
Quote (HighschoolTurd @ Oct 3 2014 08:33pm)
Technically they are, especially from a naturalistic worldview. We were are all bacteria, but the difference is what that bacteria is destined to evolve into.


No this is just false lol, bacteria have a unique DNA code. That's literally what defines them as bacteria. Humans and bacteria have fundamentally different genomes. None of us were ever bacteria.
Member
Posts: 65,046
Joined: Jul 7 2008
Gold: Locked
Oct 3 2014 06:48pm
Quote (FrozenWater @ Oct 3 2014 12:25am)
Brace yourselves for the wall of text that follows:
(Im posting it all in one text because i dont have the time to follow through the thread and reply piece by piece. But I do challenge people to argue against these points im making, you may even change my beliefs - though, I doubt it)


Abortions are (most safely) done in the first trimester. In fact, over half of all abortions are obtained within the first 8 weeks.
Fewer than 2% occur at 21 weeks or later. The vast majority of women - 88% - who have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions also have less than 0.05% risk of a complication that requires hospital stay, and do not affect a woman's health of future ability to become pregnant or give birth.
A fetus cannot exist independently of the mother during the first trimester. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb.


When we talk about criminalizing abortion, we are talking about the government forcing a woman to give birth against her will.
The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force women to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?


"If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth - that is why they are there." - Martin Luther
Freedom of religion is guaranteed to any citizen in Australia; so why would the beliefs and values of one religion mandate actual laws for all citizens? It would be unfair, unjust and immoral.


What about abortion in the case of rape or incest? Forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim.
Often a woman is too afraid to speak up, or is unaware that she is pregnant, thus the morning after pill is ineffective in these situations. Abortion is the only reasonable answer.


Teenage pregnancies and stress? Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced.
Like any other difficult situation, abortion creates stress.. Yet the American Psychological Association found that stress was greatest prior to an abortion, and that there was no evidence of post-abortion syndrome.


Now, i'll address the standard form argument claiming abortion is 'murder'
- It is wrong to kill innocent human beings
- The embryo is an innocent human being.
- Hence it is wrong to kill the embryo.

'Human being' is used in different senses in (1) and (2). In (1), 'human being' is used in a moral sense to mean a 'person', a 'full-fledged member of the moral community'.
In (2), the 'human being' means 'biological human'. It does not follow that the embryo is a person, and it is persons that have rights, such as the right to life.


Lastly, what defines a 'human being'..
The great Carl Sagan said:
"If you deliberately kill a human being, it's called murder. If you deliberately kill a chimpanzee -- biologically, our closest relative, sharing 99.6 percent of our active genes -- whatever else it is, it's not murder. To date, murder uniquely applies to killing human beings. Therefore, the question of when personhood arises is key to the abortion debate. When does the foetus become human?"
- So, if only a person can be murdered, when does the fetus attain personhood?
-When its face becomes distincly human, near the end of the first trimester?
-When the fetus becomes responsive to stimuli - again, at the end of the first trimester?
-When the lungs have reached a stage of development sufficient that the fetus might, just conceivably, be able to breathe on its own in the outside air?

None of these particular developmental milestones involve uniquely human characteristics -- apart from the superficial matter of facial appearance. All animals respond to stimuli and a large number are able to breathe. But that doesn't stop us from slaughtering them by the billions. Our one great advantage, the secret of our success, is thought.
By placing harmless electrodes on a subject's head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skill. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the foetus until about the thirtieth week of pregnancy - near the beginning of the third trimester.


Conclusion - no person has any inherent or implied, legal or moral right to occupy another.


What about the argument that human life begins at the point that fully human DNA exists (i.e., conception)?

Good post btw.
Member
Posts: 63,058
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
Oct 3 2014 06:58pm
Quote (BardOfXiix @ Oct 3 2014 08:48pm)
What about the argument that human life begins at the point that fully human DNA exists (i.e., conception)?


Yes this is the same thought I had when reading the post.

Though I fundamentally disagree with the idea of the concept of murder being reserved exclusively for humans and I don't think the morality of abortion has anything to do with the anthropocentric ideal of "personhood".

And yes, good post FrozenWater, while I don't see how your conclusion follows from the rest of your post, you raised a lot of very good points.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 3 2014 06:59pm
Member
Posts: 1,701
Joined: Mar 16 2009
Gold: 0.00
Oct 3 2014 07:01pm
Quote (Voyaging @ Oct 3 2014 05:16pm)
Yeah, none of our theories of consciousness are really testable yet and some aren't even testable at all, so we're almost completely in the dark for the time being.

I do think though that during deep, dreamless sleep there is no consciousness, and if there is I haven't experienced it. Even if not I think the impossible hypothetical I proposed stands. Just because a being isn't conscious right now doesn't mean that it's ok to kill that being.


What about sleep paralysis?
Member
Posts: 63,058
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
Oct 3 2014 07:05pm
Quote (GodSmiter @ Oct 3 2014 09:01pm)
What about sleep paralysis?


Sleep paralysis is a conscious, often intensely conscious, experience.

I'm not saying there aren't occasions during sleep that are experiential. I actually practice lucid dreaming as a hobby and have ~5 or so memorable dreams every night.

What I'm referring to are the periods of time during sleep where there is no conscious experience, the period between the dreams.
Member
Posts: 9,060
Joined: May 15 2010
Gold: 18,470.03
Oct 3 2014 07:07pm
Natural selection placed the newly conceived life inside the mother.

There is no logical connection there to determine it a separate entity. It's incredibly immature and fragile, so is a newborn baby toa lesser degree. The difference is nothing more than time and maturity not a defining characteristic of what it is.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev191011121319Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll