Abortion: Legal or Illegal

Now if 400 people are suddenly camping on my lawn, maybe I have an occupy problem...

Epignosis wrote: KoS wrote: If it's not legal, women will get illegal ones. This is a specious albeit popular notion.  After all, the same people who push for gun control ignore the argument that if we ban guns, people will get guns illegally. Suppose women wouldn't get abortions if they weren't legal.  Does that change whether or not it is ethical?

Not as long as we're prepared to accept the consequences of our actions. Consider an analogy of the inverse: if you had to choose whether to kill an innocent man to save 400 others, would you do it? Is that acceptable? Most people will argue that it is acceptable to do so. How about to kill a man to protect the sanctity of your lawn? Is that acceptable? Perhaps the consequence is not of zero value when making such determinations. I do not know.

Life begins at conception but declaring open season on doctors who perform abortions is clearly sanctioning murder. Putting details on where they live and turning them into wanted posters is terrorism.

Show me the woman who would deliberately become impregnated and then carry the baby to near term to just to deliberately snuff it out at the last moment. 

The so called partial birth abortion is a medical procedure done when there are no alternatives, not on a whim.  it's a desperate surgery to save the life of the mother.


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 28 2012 at 19:48

Dudemanguy wrote: "Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate." Taken from the almighty wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life What you described was life.

Re-read the sentence and click on the link. You have clearly misinterpreted the statement. Individual gametes do not self-sustain, much in the same way viruses do not self-sustain.

Dudemanguy wrote: Gametes have long been scientifically proven to be life.

This belies your knowledge of the topic. In fact, it's such blatant fabrication that it's hard to even begin to take you seriously. Via Wikipedia, "It is still a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms." It's something you should have learned in high school.

Furthermore, your use of "scientifically proven" suggests that you have no concept of science at all. Even if there were a consensus to which to point, claiming that something is "scientifically proven" is invariably bullsh*t. You can never prove any theory fully, only eliminate possible alternatives. You will very rarely see a scientist make such a claim.

Dudemanguy wrote: They have a "signaling and self-sustaining process."

So if I put a bunch of sperm in a vat with nutrients, they'd still be moving next month? Clearly not. They cannot reproduce on their own.

Dudemanguy wrote: Since it has human DNA, everytime a baby is born, more gametes come into existence which de facto, reproduction.

That's just plain wrong. The cell cannot reproduce unto itself, and no matter how many sperm you have, none of them are going to develop into a baby. They require outside help, much like the non-living virus.

Dudemanguy wrote: Virtually every scientist accepts that gametes are a form of life.

[[WP:PROVEIT]]. Blanket statement with no support.

But hell, let's put it to the test anyway. Let's say that, despite my biochemistry background, I am not your reliable scientist. So let's take the word of a PhD toxicologist: before I could finish asking the question, he interrupted me to clarify that gametes were in fact not life.

Not that it's a simple question. I'm sure you could find those who would agree with your interpretation. Regardless, your beliefs here -- particularly the mystical Stamp of Scientific Proofiness -- are immodestly off-base. It's also unusual that you go to such such efforts, revealing the unquestioned assertions behind your beliefs, to attempt to disprove something that isn't even stated as a fact but rather as a consequence of a traditional and common definition of life.

The man bears no responsibility whatsoever.

I think you are complicating things a bit too much. Yes, technically abortion might be another contraceptive method, but I would be quite scared of trivializing it so much as to be seen in the same light as the pill or other alternatives. It would be morally dangerous, and I'm quite the one against any type of moral judgments in most cases (people here know that). But to start treating abortion just like "another option open" seems to me wrong. I encourage people to always use some form of contraceptive, but I won't say "hey, just do it, you can abort if anything". Is it really that easy? Yes, let it be legal, get the state out of the choice, but don't start painting it as just some alternative to other methods. Don't make it so mundane. Don't promote it. One thing is to be "pro-choice" another one to be "pro-abortion", and calling it "just another contraceptive method" seems to make it something we should promote.

By the way that stupid "clear form" button below should be eliminated. It causes big problems when you press it by mistake

Gamemako wrote: Gametes are what are produced by meiosis. In humans, these are the egg and sperm. They are not capable of individual reproduction. They cannot clone themselves (i.e. reproduce by mitosis). They can only grow by meeting with the other half. Individually, you cannot call either life. Together, they produce life. Similarly, glucose and guanine and tryptophan are all pieces of the puzzle of life, you certainly would not argue that they are individually alive. Yet, they are all (gametes, sugar, amino acids, and nucleobases) a part of human life, essential to the life cycle of a living organism. It's always shades of gray.

"Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate." Taken from the almighty wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

What you described was life. Gametes have long been scientifically proven to be life. They have a "signaling and self-sustaining process." Gametes are merely a kind of human cell (and all cells are considered life) that is specifically responsible for reproduction. Since it has human DNA, everytime a baby is born, more gametes come into existence which de facto, reproduction. Virtually every scientist accepts that gametes are a form of life.

The T wrote: Dudemanguy, I tend to favor legalization of abortion, but calling it "another form of contraceptive"?! Please...

Technically, it's not one, but both things achieve the same goal: no baby. I don't understand why people tend to make such a distinction between the two. Is it really so different if you use a condom instead of just terminating the fetus a few weeks later? 

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Slartibartfast wrote:   Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: In no case abortion should used as a substitute for casual sex without protection, the woman owns her body, but not the body of the baby, if she was careless enough to have sex without protection, she should have the baby. No responsibility for the man eh?  Yeah there is a epidemic of loose women going around having sex willy nilly just so they can conceive children only to take sheer pleasure in killing them. By the contrary Starti, attack us where it hurts more (In the pocket). If a MANDATORY DNA test proves it's a man's child, we should be forced to pay 50% of the expenses and of course education. Instead of protecting abortion, make stronger laws to make men and women responsible of their acts...If a man has to pay 1/3 of his incomes in one baby he never wanted, he wouldn't be stupid enough to have another one, I'm sure he would be the first to carry a package of condoms in the pocket. Iván.

Dudemanguy wrote: Gametes are a type of cell which means they are indeed alive. There's really no disputing this. They clone themselves via meiosis if I remember correctly.

Gametes are what are produced by meiosis. In humans, these are the egg and sperm. They are not capable of individual reproduction. They cannot clone themselves (i.e. reproduce by mitosis). They can only grow by meeting with the other half. Individually, you cannot call either life. Together, they produce life. Similarly, glucose and guanine and tryptophan are all pieces of the puzzle of life, you certainly would not argue that they are individually alive. Yet, they are all (gametes, sugar, amino acids, and nucleobases) a part of human life, essential to the life cycle of a living organism. It's always shades of gray.

 

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: In no case abortion should used as a substitute for casual sex without protection, the woman owns her body, but not the body of the baby, if she was careless enough to have sex without protection, she should have the baby.

No responsibility for the man eh?  Yeah there is a epidemic of loose women going around having sex willy nilly just so they can conceive children only to take sheer pleasure in killing them.