Why I am no longer pro-choice no longer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2013, 10:04 PM
Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 09:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 07:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The point about "potential baby" was not addressed, really. The POINT was, if a clump of cells which is a "potential baby" cannot be aborted, than where does it stop, with respect to "potential babies" ?

Outlaw masturbation, I say. That's the ticket.
Billions of potential babies being destroyed.
But in all honesty, sperm is only half of the required DNA, and sperm don't perform cell division.
But a fertilised egg, represents the full DNA of a unique human indivdual.
If you kill it, then that unique human will no longer get to live.

But I don't consider human life as sacred, so I don't consider it my obligation to stop a mother from terminating her own pregnancy.
I don't need to debate whether it is a human or not in order to justify allowing people to kill them, although, clearly it is human. A human fetus as opposed to a human baby, a human toddler, a human teenager, a human adult...

A fertilized egg is not the full DNA of a unique individual, unless the fertilized egg is the result of cloning
an existing person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 10:27 PM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2013 10:36 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 10:04 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 09:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But in all honesty, sperm is only half of the required DNA, and sperm don't perform cell division.
But a fertilised egg, represents the full DNA of a unique human indivdual.
If you kill it, then that unique human will no longer get to live.

But I don't consider human life as sacred, so I don't consider it my obligation to stop a mother from terminating her own pregnancy.
I don't need to debate whether it is a human or not in order to justify allowing people to kill them, although, clearly it is human. A human fetus as opposed to a human baby, a human toddler, a human teenager, a human adult...

A fertilized egg is not the full DNA of a unique individual, unless the fertilized egg is the result of cloning
an existing person.

I'm well aware that a sperm cell is a "haploid cell", and contains only 23 chromosomes. But it is "part" of a "potentiality". A fertilized egg, (which BTW DOES possess 46 chromosomes, and does posses all the chromosomes it's ever gonna have). Don't know what planet you took Biology on, but that's flat out false. An UNFERTILIZED egg is haploid. A fertilized egg is the union of two gametes, each, (normally) with 23 chromosomes. Fertilized, the egg has 46. That's all it's ever gonna have.

The point was where does one stop making rules about potentialities.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 10:51 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 06:14 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  This assumes all babies brought to term suffer.
What about the ones that do grow up to live pretty decent lives?

My Mom was adopted by my grandparents who couldn't have kids. My Mom has two children, recently a grand child, she has a honors degree and has been happily married for god knows how long. I wouldn't say she has suffered (besides having to raise me).

My mother was adopted at birth as well, and lived a good life. But this is hardly a measuring stick by which to judge the life of every child put up for adoption. I've heard many other, less favorable outcomes for people. The children that regularly go missing from foster homes, for example, which you didn't address. My mother found her biological mother a few years back, and the woman is an absolute nut job because the guilt and uncertainty about the fate of her first child have eaten away at her for almost half a century. I, on the other hand, am doing quite alright with my decision to have an abortion. One is not necessarily better than the other for everyone. One size does not fit all.

(08-10-2013 06:14 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  In regards to adoption (because it is a big part of my whole thing here) I do agree that the system is shit. It's bogged down with shit tons of bureaucracy and paper work, it's financially expensive to adopt and can be a lengthy process.
I think however though because this is just my thoughts on the whole matter currently and they actually have no bearing on actually policy that they allow for the opinion that the adoption service needs to change and not change my opinion to fit around the adoption service. If I was in a position of power to change policy I would have to take into account current adoption services, but I am brain storming thoughts here so I'll think to change the adoption service instead.
(if that paragraph made any sense...)
It did. And I'll agree with you that the system is broken, and that many pregnancies would end better in adoption than abortion were there better routes to adoption. However, you seem to have ignored the majority of my post, and similar points others have made. There are many circumstances (like mine) where even when the mother's life isn't in immediate danger, a pregnancy would put the woman's life, including her career and the rest of the family she already has, in jeopardy. No, modern technology hasn't made these situations nonexistent. Allow you to answer your own points here:
(08-10-2013 06:14 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  You haven't been in person X's shoes so how can you say about their experience?

(08-10-2013 06:14 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  My point is, I accept that people have sex and I accept that contraception is not 100% safe (though they have reversible contraception which is less likely to result in pregnancy than snip snip and tube tying) BUT that's part of the risk.
Just like smoking cigarettes might not lead to lung cancer. You still have to be aware that there is that risk.
So, as a gay man, would you say that a gay man who has contracted HIV has no right to seek medical treatment for his condition because it was an inherent risk?

(08-10-2013 06:14 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I just think it's wrong that we value human life, or in this case potential human life so little these days. You'll raise good arguments I think but it just strikes me as the opt out button. Not for the women, but for society. Why bother improving our foster care? Why bother improving our adoption services? Why bother improving the education system to better suit troubled or struggling children? Why bother improving sex safety awareness? Why do all that when we can just pass a law that wipes all those problems away..? It just seems like the easy, cheap (not the financial term) option rather than tackling the proper issues such as the biggy, poverty and why are 47% of adoptions in America done outside America (compared to 41% local) and why do foster children on average have 20 IQ less?
It just seems like such an inhuman solution to such a human problem. That we've become so desensitized to life that we're willing to throw it away in a plastic bag with a biohazard sign slapped on the side. And don't give me this "fetus isn't alive" crap, it CAN BE alive at some point. You can't say a fetus isn't alive (even though I agree it's not physically alive in the sense that it's a human being) because it can be. And by saying "a fetus isn't a person" it is just side stepping the very real fact that it can be.

I agree with your points. I don't belong to the "it's a woman's body" camp of pro-choicers. It is a potential life, and any decisions regarding that potential life should be weighed heavily. Several people have raised the issue of overpopulation (including me) which you haven't addressed. I honestly believe that this devaluation of human life you're talking about is very closely related to overpopulation, which will only be made worse by discouraging or outlawing abortions.

My #1 gripe with the typical pro-life crowd is that many of these people are also opposed to the use of birth control, which makes 0 fucking sense to me. I'm glad to see you're not a part of this crowd (which can only be described as "forced-birthers") and are using reason and logic to guide your opinions on the matter. It's not a black and white issue, and doesn't deserve a black and white answer. There's a million situations that may lead a woman to make this decision. And you will never be able to personally understand a single one of them. No one can. Which to me, means that no one can judge or condemn for the choices of others.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ohio Sky's post
08-10-2013, 10:52 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 07:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 07:35 PM)BryanS Wrote:  While the health of the mother is always a determining factor, viability seems like the right line to me.

At week 2 or 3, how does one determine viability?

One doesn't. Viability is much later. And by viable, I mean able to live outside the womb with the normal medical intervention (like a ventilator, and the standard of care provided to prematurely born infants). I think before viability the moral issues are more in line with the woman having control of her body. When the fetus is viable, it's no longer just one life we are talking about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
08-10-2013, 10:59 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 10:52 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 07:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  At week 2 or 3, how does one determine viability?

One doesn't. Viability is much later. And by viable, I mean able to live outside the womb with the normal medical intervention (like a ventilator, and the standard of care provided to prematurely born infants). I think before viability the moral issues are more in line with the woman having control of her body. When the fetus is viable, it's no longer just one life we are talking about.

Depends on what you mean by "viable". The ability to live outside the womb doesn't really cut it. There is no clear cut-off. Just because it can "survive" (with a whole lot of technological support), doesn't mean it's going to be healthy. The earlier in the range, the most disabled it is..deaf, blind, etc etc etc . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 11:09 PM (This post was last modified: 08-10-2013 11:48 PM by LadyJane.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
Hey Earmuffs, next time your sisters flat-mate eats sushi and as a natural consequence receives a tape worm, maybe she should keep it to full term- after all, she did eat the succulent sushi. And what's the real harm? I ate sushi last week and didn't get a tape worm unfortunately... but maybe my family and I want one, and she could have one for us and give it to us when it's matured since I tried but didn't host one. Also, don't take cold meds- those bugs got there through natural acts, like breathing!


Ha ha. Reminds me of how I (sadly with shame but not really at the same time) used to call my unborn kids parasites to the horror of my mother. I'm the host, I choose my guests.

ETA: Of course, if the sushi was shoved down sister's mate's throat, she should have a say. That's just rude!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like LadyJane's post
08-10-2013, 11:10 PM
Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 10:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 10:04 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  A fertilized egg is not the full DNA of a unique individual, unless the fertilized egg is the result of cloning
an existing person.

I'm well aware that a sperm cell is a "haploid cell", and contains only 23 chromosomes. But it is "part" of a "potentiality". A fertilized egg, (which BTW DOES possess 46 chromosomes, and does posses all the chromosomes it's ever gonna have). Don't know what planet you took Biology on, but that's flat out false. An UNFERTILIZED egg is haploid. A fertilized egg is the union of two gametes, each, (normally) with 23 chromosomes. Fertilized, the egg has 46. That's all it's ever gonna have.

The point was where does one stop making rules about potentialities.

I think you missed my point. The fertilized egg has the DNA of a nonexisting individual. The fertilized egg is no individual. There is no individual with that particular DNA. If the the egg is a result of cloning however, then one could say that this is the DNA of an individual. If this individual has identical twins ( or clones) then there is no unique individual with that DNA, because there are several individuals with that same DNA.

Anyway, basically I am agreeing with you about rules about potentialities.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 11:25 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2013 06:42 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 11:10 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 10:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I'm well aware that a sperm cell is a "haploid cell", and contains only 23 chromosomes. But it is "part" of a "potentiality". A fertilized egg, (which BTW DOES possess 46 chromosomes, and does posses all the chromosomes it's ever gonna have). Don't know what planet you took Biology on, but that's flat out false. An UNFERTILIZED egg is haploid. A fertilized egg is the union of two gametes, each, (normally) with 23 chromosomes. Fertilized, the egg has 46. That's all it's ever gonna have.

The point was where does one stop making rules about potentialities.

I think you missed my point. The fertilized egg has the DNA of a nonexisting individual. The fertilized egg is no individual. There is no individual with that particular DNA. If the the egg is a result of cloning however, then one could say that this is the DNA of an individual. If this individual has identical twins ( or clones) then there is no unique individual with that DNA, because there are several individuals with that same DNA.

Anyway, basically I am agreeing with you about rules about potentialities.

Sorry. I didn't see you were talking about "realized potential". So, yes we agree.
There really is no way of determining when "fertilization" actually happens. It's a process. Actually the first sperm cell to reach the egg, injects some chemicals which prepare it, for one of the sperm cells which will follow, and actually enter and divide by meiosis.
My list for anti-abortion peeps, is ""moment of conception" when :
a. sperm approaches egg ?
b. 1st electron of sperm cell enters electron cloud of egg cell ?
c. sperm contacts egg wall ?
d. sperm 1/2 way into egg ?
e. sperm entirely in egg ?
f. DNA of sperm contacts DNA of egg ?
g. DNA replication begins ?
h. DNA replication 0.567534521897 % complete ?
i. 1st DNA replication complete, (poof..soul enters) ?
j. 2nd DNA completes ?
k. zygote forms ?
l. zygote multiplies ?
m. zygote begins to travel ?
l. zygote approaches endometrial wall ?
m. zygote touches endometrial wall ?
n. zygote implants in endometrial wall ?
bla bla bla.. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-10-2013, 11:43 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 10:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 10:52 PM)BryanS Wrote:  One doesn't. Viability is much later. And by viable, I mean able to live outside the womb with the normal medical intervention (like a ventilator, and the standard of care provided to prematurely born infants). I think before viability the moral issues are more in line with the woman having control of her body. When the fetus is viable, it's no longer just one life we are talking about.

Depends on what you mean by "viable". The ability to live outside the womb doesn't really cut it. There is no clear cut-off. Just because it can "survive" (with a whole lot of technological support), doesn't mean it's going to be healthy. The earlier in the range, the most disabled it is..deaf, blind, etc etc etc . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

Viability may introduce some technical uncertainty, but it is the right moral standard I think. A life should mean something, and I'm not willing to go along with a 'first scream' rule where some abortion rights proponents go when they consider the fetus not a person until the moment it is fully delivered and takes its first breath.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 11:51 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(08-10-2013 11:43 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Viability may introduce some technical uncertainty, but it is the right moral standard I think. A life should mean something, and I'm not willing to go along with a 'first scream' rule where some abortion rights proponents go when they consider the fetus not a person until the moment it is fully delivered and takes its first breath.

Why should I be motivated to live up to your personal moral standard?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: