Zone1 The abortion debate - Understanding Both Sides

[Blues Man]

The 15 week thing seems like a good compromise, but the left refuses to compromise on just about everything.

Add in an exception for the life of the mother after, and it meets my moral requirements.

Honestly after 24 weeks or so doing a C-section to live deliver the baby is probably easier than aborting it.

Except for the fact that some terminal birth defects don't present until well after 15 weeks

 

[martybegan]

Except for the fact that some terminal birth defects don't present until well after 15 weeks

How many and how often?

 

[JoeMoma]

No

So if you are not alive before your first breath, does that mean you are dead before your first breath?

So by that logic, when a baby is born, if someone were to chop it's head off before it can take it's first breath, then no one was killed/murdered?

Just trying to understand...

 

[M14 Shooter]

No

Under what definition of "life" were not not alive just before you took your first breath?

 

[Red Front]

Except for the fact that some terminal birth defects don't present until well after 15 weeks

The right defunds programs and infrastructure that support single mothers and address homelessness, which creates more societal

So if you are not alive before your first breath, does that mean you are dead before your first breath?

So by that logic, when a baby is born, if someone were to chop it's head off before it can take it's first breath, then no one was killed/murdered?

Just trying to understand...

Life in the womb is alive, but that life isn't necessarily a human being or person. At least not in the early stages of pregnancy.

 

[JoeMoma]

Life happens at conception, however, that doesn't by default make that life a human being or person. A cell extracted from my finger is human and it's alive until it dies. In the case of a zygote or an embryo, it is likewise human and alive, and it's attached to a woman's uterus. Another way to put it is that the life that is conceived is a potential human being depending upon an actual human being to actualize itself into a human being. Is the woman (the human being) morally obligated to remain pregnant for that zygote, embryo, or fetus?

The difference between a cell extracted from your finger and a human zygote is that the zygote is the complete human organism that if nurtured will progress through following stages of development: Embryo, Fetus, Infant, Toddler/child, adolescent, etc. A cell extracted from your finger is not the complete human organism and will not progress through latter stages of development.

If a human zygote or human embryo is to not be considered a "person". Then that must mean that some arbitrary event has to occur along the stages of development before it is considered a person. Some say that the event is birth, while others even say it is taking in it's first breath of air which is right after birth. As such we as a society could designate some other event to signify that thing is a person such as the ability to communicate using language/being able to speak.

Of course we as a society have been conditioned to accept that when a baby is born, that he/she is a person. We can now all see the baby and we would consider it to be a heinous crime for anyone to harm such an innocent and helpless individual. Yet, before birth, there seems to be "plausible deniability" that the person ever existed since the arbitrary event of birth has not yet occurred. A mother that kills her young children is a heinously evil person, yet a woman the terminates her pregnancy, even late term, is simply exercising a choice.

 

[JoeMoma]

The right defunds programs and infrastructure that support single mothers and address homelessness, which creates more societal




Life in the womb is alive, but that life isn't necessarily a human being or person. At least not in the early stages of pregnancy.

What even has to occur for it to be a person? Birth?

If birth, then just before birth it's not a person but then just after birth it is a person?

Just trying to understand...

 

[BlackSand]

You die after you take your last breath just like you're born when you take your first one. Anything else is religious law, which isn't something we should be doing in the US.

.

Correction: Death is defined as when the heart stops, along with the growth of cells or tissue.

.​

 

[JoeMoma]

Except for the fact that some terminal birth defects don't present until well after 15 weeks

Some terminal birth defects don't present themselves until after birth.

 

[Red Front]

The difference between a cell extracted from your finger and a human zygote is that the zygote is the complete human organism that if nurtured will progress through following stages of development: Embryo, Fetus, Infant, Toddler/child, adolescent, etc. A cell extracted from your finger is not the complete human organism and will not progress through latter stages of development.

If a human zygote or human embryo is to not be considered a "person". Then that must mean that some arbitrary event has to occur along the stages of development before it is considered a person. Some say that the event is birth, while others even say it is taking in it's first breath of air which is right after birth. As such we as a society could designate some other event to signify that thing is a person such as the ability to communicate using language/being able to speak.

Of course we as a society have been conditioned to accept that when a baby is born, that he/she is a person. We can now all see the baby and we would consider it to be a heinous crime for anyone to harm such an innocent and helpless individual. Yet, before birth, there seems to be "plausible deniability" that the person ever existed since the arbitrary event of birth has not yet occurred. A mother that kills her young children is a heinously evil person, yet a woman the terminates her pregnancy, even late term, is simply exercising a choice.

The zygote or embryo needs to be attached to an actual human being to grow itself, into a human being. It's a potential human person, not an actual one. You believe the zygote or embryo has the right to exist at the expense of the woman (an actual human being) and I don't. I believe the woman should have the right to determine, at least early in the pregnancy, if it's in her best interest to carry that life in her womb to term. She should hold the sovereignty, not what is growing in her womb, at her expense. Later in the pregnancy, when what is in her womb becomes viable and able to exist outside of the womb, perhaps you have a better argument, but early in the pregnancy, she should have the opportunity to end her pregnancy. She's the one who has to bear the cost of pregnancy and birth, hence she should have the freedom to choose. Are you going to support her financially if she loses her job due to her pregnancy? Are you going to attend her funeral if she dies as a result of complications with her pregnancy? You don't even know her name.

Too many "pro-lifers", are very passionate defenders of life in the womb (other people's wombs), but show complete disregard for life outside of it. They refuse to support the funding and development of community infrastructure, and social programs, that help single mothers raise their children. So I'm not too impressed with the "righteous indignation" of pro-lifers over abortion when they're electing Republican politicians who are defunding government programs that help single mothers and their children. Single mothers need access to healthcare, daycare for their children, housing if they don't have it, job training if they need it, they might require assistance with finding a job..etc. Republican politicians defund those programs, claiming they're "socialism" or costing taxpayers money. The pro-lifers aren't willing to spend even $5.00 extra in taxes monthly, about $60 yearly, to support those programs, but then pretend to be "PRO-LIFE" (The Champions and Defenders of Fetuses, in other people's bodies).

 

[JoeMoma]

The zygote or embryo needs to be attached to an actual human being to grow itself, into a human being. It's a potential human person, not an actual one. You believe the zygote or embryo has the right to exist at the expense of the woman (an actual human being) and I don't. I believe the woman should have the right to determine, at least early in the pregnancy, if it's in her best interest to carry that life in her womb to term. She should hold the sovereignty, not what is growing in her womb, at her expense. Later in the pregnancy, when what is in her womb becomes viable and able to exist outside of the womb, perhaps you have a better argument, but early in the pregnancy, she should have the opportunity to end her pregnancy. She's the one who has to bear the cost of pregnancy and birth, hence she should have the freedom to choose. Are you going to support her financially if she loses her job due to her pregnancy? Are you going to attend her funeral if she dies as a result of complications with her pregnancy? You don't even know her name.

Biologically speaking, both a human zygote and a human embryo is a human organism at an early stage development. If that is not a human being, then perhaps a newborn infant isn't a human being either since that is still an early stage of development. So for the moment let's assume the human organism at any stage of development has value.

You make good points about a woman's body and that a woman should be able to have a say if she should be able to carry that pregnancy to term. Does her sovereignty over her own body trump any rights that the other living human organism in her womb may have? I can respect an answer of yes to that question, but just understand that terminating the pregnancy is ending the life of that human organism. I suppose abortion is much easier to accept if we dehumanize that zygote/embryo/fetus as not being a human/person. It would also be worth considering that pregnancy is a temporary condition and that after it's over, the responsibility for that human organism can be transferred to others. All that being said, I can understand the argument that a woman has sovereignty over her own body.

 

[JoeMoma]

Too many "pro-lifers", are very passionate defenders of life in the womb (other people's wombs), but show complete disregard for life outside of it. They refuse to support the funding and development of community infrastructure, and social programs, that help single mothers raise their children. So I'm not too impressed with the "righteous indignation" of pro-lifers over abortion when they're electing Republican politicians who are defunding government programs that help single mothers and their children. Single mothers need access to healthcare, daycare for their children, housing if they don't have it, job training if they need it, they might require assistance with finding a job..etc. Republican politicians defund those programs, claiming they're "socialism" or costing taxpayers money. The pro-lifers aren't willing to spend even $5.00 extra in taxes monthly, about $60 yearly, to support those programs, but then pretend to be "PRO-LIFE" (The Champions and Defenders of Fetuses, in other people's bodies).

Being against killing people (or even pre-people) shouldn't mean that I should be on the hook for paying their bills. That being said, their are many many charities supported by pro-life groups that help women with pre and post natal care like the crisis pregnancy centers Elizabeth Warren wants to shut down. The role of government in welfare programs is a separate but perhaps related issue to abortion. Being pro-life doesn't mean giving the government a blank check for welfare programs.

And of course there is that trick the democrats love to use to claim that republicans cut funding. Say democrats propose a 10% increase in funding for a programs, but the republican's say that's too much but are all in for a 5% increase. The democrats aided by the main stream media call that a cut.

 

[otto105]

Abortion is a very controversial topic which has been debated extensively on USMB. Usually the battle lines are drawn and the two sides are argued without one side giving any empathy (for lack of a better word) to the other. It quickly becomes a "I'm Right and Your Wrong" debate.

So I am attempting a different approach in this thread. I will state strengths and weaknesses to both sides of the issue. (Actually it might be a little nearsighted to say there are only two sides,but the two main sides are either pro-life and pro-choice.)

Okay, the main axiom where the battle lines are drawn is about when a person starts being a person, or better said, at what point should a person's life be protected by law.

The pro-life position is that an individual's life starts at conception, when the sperm and the egg unite and form a zygote. Biologically speaking, the is the first stage of an individuals life cycle. Many (not all) prochoice try to deny this fact. However, on the prochoice side, it is true that a zygote has no brain, has no heart, has no awareness of it's self...it doesn't know of it's own existence; and that begs the question "Does that single cell" have rights?" Does that single cell have the right to it's mother's body for 9 months? Those that are extreme pro-life side say "Yes" to both questions, and of course the pro-choice say "No". The extreme pro-choice side would say that the mother's rights trumps the rights of the preborn until birth and that a woman has the right to terminate "the clump of cells" in her body until right before it is born. Many, many people fall between the extreme pro-choice side and the extreme pro-life side. The Inbetweeners (I just made that word up) believe that abortion should be allowed under some conditions, and those conditions can very greatly.

My own position: Conceptually I am with the extreme pro-life. A human life begins at conception and that is the beginning of a "person" and that person should have the right to life. However, to be practical, I realize that this position would be a nightmare to enforce and does not have the political support to be legally in place. So from a practical position I am for women having access to the day after pill or the abortion pill which cause a miscarriage up to 10 weeks after sex (if I understand correctly). 10 weeks should be plenty of time, no pregnancy test needed, jut take a pill if unplanned sex happens.

Of course there should be exceptions when the mother's life is in danger.

That said, I don't necessary agree with those that don't hold my view on abortion, but I am trying to understand where they are coming from.

Opinion | A 10-Year-Old Endures the Predictable Result of an Abortion Ban

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How many and how often?

How many are acceptable to you?

How many forced stillbirths? Give us a number.

 

[Jaxson]

So if you are not alive before your first breath, does that mean you are dead before your first breath?

So by that logic, when a baby is born, if someone were to chop it's head off before it can take it's first breath, then no one was killed/murdered?

Just trying to understand...

No wonder you're having trouble understanding the issue, you think people are sitting around waiting to cut the baby's head off, lol.

 

[Jaxson]

Under what definition of "life" were not not alive just before you took your first breath?

You edited your post and I still don't understand wtf you're trying to say. lol.

 

[Jaxson]

.

Correction: Death is defined as when the heart stops, along with the growth of cells or tissue.

.​

Sounds more like YOUR definition.

 

[JoeMoma]

No wonder you're having trouble understanding the issue, you think people are sitting around waiting to cut the baby's head off, lol.

By your logic about life being with the first breath, it would be okay if they were to do so. Since you are avoiding answering the question, I assume you would be okay with it since it's not a life before taking that first breath.

 

[Jaxson]

By your logic about life being with the first breath, it would be okay if they were to do so. Since you are avoiding answering the question, I assume you would be okay with it since it's not a life before taking that first breath.

You're using an example that doesn't happen. Is that all the argument you've got? Seriously.

 

[JoeMoma]

You're using an example that doesn't happen. Is that all the argument you've got? Seriously.

I doesn't usually happen because most people don't agree with your premise that life begins with the first breath and because if I were to happen, the person doing it would charged with murder. However, if life does begin with the first breath, then cutting a baby's head off wouldn't be murder. So like it or not, your non-answer of my question is indeed as good as answering yes, it is okay to chop a baby's head off before it's first breath because it isn't a life.

Is that all I've got? No. But I am trying to establish the boundary of what would be acceptable if your definition of when life begins were in place. I could back up just a few seconds and assume that partial birth abortions are also acceptable if life begins with the first breath.