I feel like it should be the doctor's choice whether or not to do abortions.

I feel like it should be the doctor's choice whether or not to do abortions.

This could create serious bioethical problems. With preimplantation genetic diagnosis technology, mothers can actually get the genetic profile of their child before they decide whether to have an abortion or not. What if they discover their child is a female and they are strictly interested in having a male. What if they go to the doctor asking for an abortion and he accepts...that doctor is engaging in not only eugenics but also blatant gender discrimination. The ability of parents to choose "who" is their child is a slippery slope. Soon even normalish defects will be considered outside the range of parental desire and will be selected against via selective abortion. We have to be careful. We can't let doctors choose willy nilly.

Edited 2/12/2016 23:08:43

Feline Juggernaut, your stupidity is almost, almost, enough to convince me abortion is ok.

But its not.

Jai, that is where things are headed anyway.

I don't feel like the underlining issue in this debate is when does life begin. Both side get stuck up on this issue when there is nothing to discuss life begins at contraception.

This is another common imprecise use of terminology. Using the phrase 'when does life begin' leads to confusion because the two sides of the argument are not using the same meaning of the word 'life'.

Technically, there is no point at which anything involved in the process is *not* alive. The spermatozoa are alive as they swim along. The egg is alive at it travels from the ovaries to the uterus. The fertilized egg is alive, being the combination of two separate living cells. Etc. At no point did any 'life begin'. All parts were always alive, and remain alive all the way through in the case of a healthy birth.

So, clearly, the word 'life' there is being used to mean something *other* than 'biologically alive'.

Again, the more correct term would be 'person'.

The real argument being; is it alright to kill baby's (fetuses but whatever). And if it is alright why is it?

This is where the language turns highly rhetorical, as you are applying the highly emotional word 'baby' very broadly to include, apparently, a single cell with no brain, no mind, no emotions of its own, etc. Again, why aren't you concerned about all the babies you kill when you scratch your nose? Because you don't *really* think of single human cells as being actual babies; that's just your rhetoric.

And this is where the debate spins out of control if people aren't willing to stick to precise terminology to prevent these endless circular arguments.

But, in the interests of simply answering your question, I would answer: It's alright to kill a fetus before it develops to the point of becoming a person. Unfortunately, I doubt you'll be satisfied with that answer, because it refuses to adopt your rhetorical spin on things. I don't consider fetuses to be what we normally call babies (though I do understand that many people do make this equivalence; I think it's mistaken).

I have a quick question. What's the argument against adoption?

I understand that a mother for various reason may not want the child, but what is wrong with having that child become a ward of the state until such time it A) becomes independent or B) is adopted. I think instead of wasting half a trillion on defense spending we could invest in more adoption facilities, greater advertisement for adoption, and better standards of living/education for those in the adoption system.

The question is not whether women should control their bodies, its why don't we want these fetuses to have a chance at life when it is easily possible for the state or government to facilitate it?

Actually, it *is* about whether women should have control over their bodies.

Pregnancy alone (not even mentioning giving birth yet) carries costs and risks; forcing a woman to maintain a pregnancy is forcing her to undergo those costs and risks. If a fetus is not a person yet, and thus has no legal rights, then the woman should have no legal responsibility to maintain a pregnancy at that point. In other words, until there is a second person involved, the only person whose body is in question is the woman. And she has the right to decide what happens to her body. If she chooses to have a non-person fetus removed from it, to avoid those costs and risks, that's her choice, and, as this requires a medical procedure, then that procedure should be legally available to her so that she can make that choice herself.

Edited 2/12/2016 23:47:50

well everyone does inpure evil.

carries costs and risks; forcing a woman to maintain a pregnancy is forcing her to undergo those costs and risks.

But almost all Conservatives hold exceptions in the case of the mother's life, rape, and incest (or a combination of those 3). So excluding these cases what's the argument against adoption? I agree with the costs of carrying to term a child (greater food requirements, testing, hospitalization, etc). But again if we redirect resources from wasteful discretionary spending at the federal government level, we can sufficiently subsidize or cover these sources of expenses so there can be no excuse for a pregnant women to carry to term a child and give it up for adoption. The government and the community has to exhaust every other option before we agree to let an abortion happen. We must make every attempt to save and let the fetus live, before it is dismissed. These children are our future, and we are destroying our own talent in the selfish attempt to preserve some vague and concept of "privacy" and "reproductive choice".

Why would you insist on developping a human in an artificial womb, in order to produce a human being at all cost? What good would it do to bring a child in the world with no parents, just for the sake of continuing the developpement of a foetus to completion? And if artificial womb are ever a thing, then all we would need to produce humans are eggs and sperms, do the fecundation in-vitro, and then put it in the artificial womb. No need to remove a foetus surgically from a woman womb, putting her in danger.

Moral argument do work, when the morals they are based on comes from reason and logic and history, rather than a shady religious source.

Slavery was not outlawed first by moral arguments..it was through making slave-trading unprofitable and letting free labor be more profitable than slave labor through development

got any source on that? i'm highly skeptical

Humanity is statistically evil, just like integers are statistically unlikely to be prime

This statement doesn't mean anything

Fair point wtc word choice is fairly important.

Nose cells won't develop into there own life form that why Idk about then.

As for terminating a fetus I suppose there are many situations where it does prove useful but I would rather it is not done willynilly

what's the argument against adoption?

You would still force a woman to carry on a pregnancy that she doesn't want, risking her life in the process, potentially ruining her career, or any of the risks associated with pregnancy. Plus the enormous phsychological burden to bring a child to life only to surrender him to someone else. I'm all for adoption, but adoption can't just be "substituted" to abortion.

We must make every attempt to save and let the fetus live, before it is dismissed

Why?

@wct What about artificial wombs?

Tabby, you make some interesting points, many of which I agree with, some I don't. But unfortunately we don't have artificial wombs yet. I think your discussion applies to future possibilities, and so it is relevant in the sense of the ethical, technological, and medical side of things. But most of the ongoing debate is centred on what is to be allowed in the here and now, and so most people are more interested in the legal and political angles currently. There is some overlap on the ethical side of things, but I'm afraid you'll probably find that many/most people will dismiss many of your ideas because they won't see your ethical arguments as 'realistic' (I'm not one of those, BTW).

Another future technology that will have a huge impact on this debate is that of human cloning. Currently it's not feasible, and so the 'nose scratch holocaust' argument is more a humorous argumentum ad absurdum than a medically relevant one, but as soon as human cloning becomes feasible, it will suddenly become perfectly relevant. That's why I feel comfortable using it, because cloning has already been demonstrated to be possible.

To directly answer your question: Without guarantees for the quality of life of the child after the artificial womb, I think there would still be objection to it from the 'liberal' side. Who takes care of the person after birth, until they become adults? Why 'create' a person whose quality of life will be low? Why do all eggs (and, if cloning exists, all human cells) need to be developed into human adults? Just as global warming is a real problem, so is human over-population. Why exacerbate it? Why not just keep a sustainable population of humans all with increasing qualities of life (via increasing technology) rather than an unsustainable population all with decreasing qualities of life (due to the consequences of over-population)?

to carry on a pregnancy that she doesn't want, risking her life in the process, potentially ruining her career, or any of the risks associated with pregnancy.

Hitchslap I said in all scenarios where the life of the mother is not at risk...we have the scientific tools (in most cases) to identify at risk mothers who could have serious pregnancy complications. Also if she knew that being pregnant might ruin her career why did she engage in behavior that got her pregnant (assuming it was not due to rape or incest)?

Plus the enormous phsychological burden to bring a child to life only to surrender him to someone else.

I would argue (truthfully), that it is an enormous psychological burden to fertilize an embryo in your body with the DNA of man and then have that fetus destroyed. There are 100s of stories where mothers regret their decision...some even committing suicide.

http://liveactionnews.org/studies-show-risk-of-suicide-elevated-in-women-after-abortion/

Edited 2/13/2016 00:08:25

But almost all Conservatives hold exceptions in the case of the mother's life, rape, and incest (or a combination of those 3). So excluding these cases what's the argument against adoption? I agree with the costs of carrying to term a child (greater food requirements, testing, hospitalization, etc). But again if we redirect resources from wasteful discretionary spending at the federal government level, we can sufficiently subsidize or cover these sources of expenses so there can be no excuse for a pregnant women to carry to term a child and give it up for adoption.

You can't compensate for all of those costs and risks, it's not possible. Several of the risks are of health and life. How are you going to compensate a woman who dies from complications during pregnancy? Not all costs and risks are monetary.

Ultimately, it's up to the woman to choose whether she wants to undergo that risk.

why did she engage in behavior that got her pregnant

are you saying that woman who don't want to be pregnant should not have sex? Do you really think thas this is a reasonable argument?

that it is an enormous psychological burden to fertilize an embryo in your body with the DNA of another man and then have that fetus destroyed.

It is. abortion is almost always psychologically very hard, but it is their choice to have. No need to shame them by telling them that they shouldn't have sex if they didn't wan't a baby or by accusing them of being terrible persons for having an abortion. Instead we should show support, it might help them not to want to kill themselves

Edited 2/13/2016 00:14:37

Hitchslap I said in all scenarios where the life of the mother is not at risk...we have the scientific tools (in most cases) to identify at risk mothers who could have serious pregnancy complications.

There is always a risk of life during any pregnancy. It's unavoidable. Example: Woman slips and falls. The shock causes the placenta to tear the lining of her uterus, causing her to die of internal bleeding before anyone even knows to call an ambulance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complications_of_pregnancy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetrical_hemorrhage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

Edited 2/13/2016 00:18:34

For something to be living it must have all 6 characteristics of living things:

- Sense & Respond to change - Yes
- Use energy - Yes
- Grow and Develop - Yes
- Has Cells? - Yes
- Has DNA? - Yes
- Can reproduce? - Here's where the debate is...

are you saying that woman who don't want to be pregnant should not have sex?

I didn't say that. That's why contraception and contraceptive implants exist.

No need to shame them by telling them that they shouldn't have sex if they didn't wan't a baby or by accusing them of being terrible persons for having an abortion.

In all likelihood the grief associated with abortion is self-inflicted and is not due to stigma against abortion. Its been around since 1973 in the US and has been preformed in the tens of millions. If they do feel suicidal or depressive its because they truly feel guilty for the actions they've committed and the mistakes they've made. Why would they feel guilt though if the fetus isn't "alive"? This is where human emotion trumps scientific aspects. I think mothers innately feel sadness after abortion because they see the "thing" they've destroyed as actual life.

it should not be controlled through abortions..instead getting humans to have less sex naturally is better

good luck with that, you might have to do some serious gene manipulation to overcome the few million years of evolution that are responsible for human (and any other living form) behaviour.

Promoting condoms also work as well

This is not consistent with your idea that every potential for life should be exploited. If abortion is bad because it restrain the potential for human beings, the same apply to contraception

There are certain humans who are naturally too rational to be suited to a conformist entity such as a family who should instead just be allowed to learn to be researchers or engineers as they wish.

getting creepy

That's why contraception and contraceptive implants exist.

The only way you can be 100% sure that you won't be pregnant is by not having sex Jai

they truly feel guilty for the actions they've committed and the mistakes they've made. Why would they feel guilt though if the fetus isn't "alive"?

Because society keeps telling her that she is a murderer, and in some cases she believes it.