Society/Culture The Abortion Thread

[owen87]

No. I'm not.

Way to discuss.

 

[Chief]

Way to discuss.

Already explained my position earlier.

 

[Monkey King]

No. I'm not.

The subjective differentiation is undeniable. Not saying you're not blind to it though.

 

[Monkey King]

Already explained my position earlier.

You stated your position and then claimed it as some kind of universal common sense without further explanation.

 

[Chief]

The subjective differentiation is undeniable. Not saying you're not blind to it though.

If you cling to the ideology that a human is a fully formed human at conception, then there is no difference between gestation and post-birth.

But that is wrong.

 

[Monkey King]

If you cling to the ideology that a human is a fully formed human at conception, then there is no difference between gestation and post-birth.

And who has done that? I have no idea the reason for this post. It's not related to me, or the topic of equal responsibility between parents.

Re this topic, I posted earlier "Where do you think that line [personhood] is exactly? Zygote? Blastocyst? Embryo? Fetus? Newborn? Infant? ... I've never seen any consensus on personhood. Certainly not from a scientific point of view."

I am curious though, in your opinion, is it only "fully formed humans" that are entitled to human rights? Simply being inside or outside a womb is not the differentiator from a scientific point of view, so at what stage is "fully formed human" status conferred in your eyes; and based upon what?

 

[Father Jack]

You stated your position and then claimed it as some kind of universal common sense without further explanation.

Both sides do that, but only one side tries to inflict its version on everyone.

 

[Chief]

And who has done that? I have no idea the reason for this post.

What you have is an act that creates life, being equally dependent on two people i.e equally responsible. When you start attributing them different responsibilities at different stages, you're just engaging in subjective rule making, not common sense observation.

It is both parents choice at conception. They take on different responsibilities and have different rights from this point.

It's the woman's choice during gestation whether to continue or not. It is her body. Her choice.

At birth, two parents are responsible for the care and upkeep of the baby.

I can't see how this is anything but common sense. Unless you cling to the ideology that it is "a human" from conception.

 

[owen87]

It is both parents choice at conception. They take on different responsibilities and have different rights from this point.

It's the woman's choice during gestation whether to continue or not. It is her body. Her choice.

At birth, two parents are responsible for the care and upkeep of the baby.

I can't see how this is anything but common sense. Unless you cling to the ideology that it is "a human" from conception.

You can't see how there's a fallacy in your statement?

 

[Chief]

You can't see how there's a fallacy in your statement?

Argument from incredulity?

Or just pointing out that there has been no real argument against it?

 

[owen87]

Argument from incredulity?

Or just pointing out that there has been no real argument against it?

Well you've lumped a whole heap of different ideological arguments together for a start.

When you start attributing them different responsibilities at different stages

They take on different responsibilities

Monkey King even pointed this out to you.

I can't see how this is anything but common sense. Unless you cling to the ideology that it is "a human" from conception.

Then this one, has nothing to do with the previous points.

 

[Monkey King]

It is both parents choice at conception. They take on different responsibilities and have different rights from this point.

It's the woman's choice during gestation whether to continue or not. It is her body. Her choice.

At birth, two parents are responsible for the care and upkeep of the baby.

I can't see how this is anything but common sense. Unless you cling to the ideology that it is "a human" from conception.

Again, one ideological presupposition built upon another. If you agree with them, then you have the illusion that the conclusion is common sense. If you don't however, the illusion of common sense may take form in some other conclusion.

You tie up this up with a logic trap, that one could only disagree with your presuppositions if "clinging" to a very specific ideological definition of what it is to be "a human", which obviously you don't agree with, thus neatly closing off your thought bubble. But there are a few issues with this ...

1) Your presuppositions can be disagreed with on other terms i.e. greater equity among parents' right to choose

2) You imply that not believing a fetus is "a human" at conception is less of an ideology than believing they are, which it is not.

3) You stamp this with an extremely limited perspective of "from conception", when abortion in Australia is legal anywhere from 20-28 weeks, depending on the state. There have certainly been preterm births at 23 weeks where the child has survived and there is plenty of scientific argument to suggest a fetus is "a human" at stages prior to this. So outside your limited time frame, but within the time frame of legal abortion, we have non-ideological argument for a fetus being human, yet of course, no definitive conclusion.

You have an opinion, which is fine. I respect your opinion and it's not without its logic, even though I disagree. I just find the "common sense" proclamation to be somewhat sanctimonious.

 

[Roby]

No. I'm not.

Yes you are, 100%.

 

[Roby]

Again, one ideological presupposition built upon another. If you agree with them, then you have the illusion that the conclusion is common sense. If you don't however, the illusion of common sense may take form in some other conclusion.

You tie up this up with a logic trap, that one could only disagree with your presuppositions if "clinging" to a very specific ideological definition of what it is to be "a human", which obviously you don't agree with, thus neatly closing off your thought bubble. But there are a few issues with this ...

1) Your presuppositions can be disagreed with on other terms i.e. greater equity among parents' right to choose

2) You imply that not believing a fetus is "a human" at conception is less of an ideology than believing they are, which it is not.

3) You stamp this with an extremely limited perspective of "from conception", when abortion in Australia is legal anywhere from 20-28 weeks, depending on the state. There have certainly been preterm births at 23 weeks where the child has survived and there is plenty of scientific argument to suggest a fetus is "a human" at stages prior to this. So outside your limited time frame, but within the time frame of legal abortion, we have non-ideological argument for a fetus being human, yet of course, no definitive conclusion.

You have an opinion, which is fine. I respect your opinion and it's not without its logic, even though I disagree. I just find the "common sense" proclamation to be somewhat sanctimonious.

That's right, up to 28 weeks you can have an abortion, no qualms whatsoever. Here in Victoria it's 24 weeks so it does depend on the state as you said. But that doesn't mean you still can't get an abortion after 24 weeks, you could get one much later than that provided two doctors agree to it.

A human fetus at 24 weeks has good chance of survival if born. Why? Well...

Week 5 the embryo is now an fetus
Week 6 heart has started to beat, also has cheeks, chin and jaw
Week 7 the brain is devoted to the stage fetus can make first movements
Week 8 essential organs develop as do the baby's retinas
Week 9 you can hear the heartbeat
Week 10 first bones appear as do teeth
Week 11 has fingernails
Week 14 forms hair and eyebrows
Week 15 has a skeleton
Week 16 can perceive light
Week 17 it can hear you
Week 18 a baby forms it's unique fingerprints
Week 19 they can kick and punch
Week 20 sucking their thumb
Week 22 senses are sharpened and can grab things
Week 24 auditory system is rapidly advancing and can recognise music

Week 25 cut limb to limb, sucked out, and disposed

 

[Monkey King]

That's right, up to 28 weeks you can have an abortion, no qualms whatsoever. Here in Victoria it's 24 weeks so it does depend on the state as you said. But that doesn't mean you still can't get an abortion after 24 weeks, you could get one much later than that provided two doctors agree to it.

A human fetus at 24 weeks has good chance of survival if born. Why? Well...

Week 5 the embryo is now an fetus
Week 6 heart has started to beat, also has cheeks, chin and jaw
Week 7 the brain is devoted to the stage fetus can make first movements
Week 8 essential organs develop as do the baby's retinas
Week 9 you can hear the heartbeat
Week 10 first bones appear as do teeth
Week 11 has fingernails
Week 14 forms hair and eyebrows
Week 15 has a skeleton
Week 16 can perceive light
Week 17 it can hear you
Week 18 a baby forms it's unique fingerprints
Week 19 they can kick and punch
Week 20 sucking their thumb
Week 22 senses are sharpened and can grab things
Week 24 auditory system is rapidly advancing and can recognise music

Week 25 cut limb to limb, sucked out, and disposed

Yup. By that stage we have enough neural activity to suggest consciousness; an immune system, which by its nature defines "self" and "non-self"; fingerprints, a universal symbol of individual identity; a heartbeat, the timeless sign of life; and evidence of viability outside the womb.

Just "a bunch of cells"? As the above indicates, that's just an abstraction. Technically it isn't wrong, we're all just "a bunch of cells" when it comes down to it, but it's by how those cells differentiate, organise and coordinate as a system that we define life.

No simple answers, but the nothing to see here crowd seem indoctrinated by "my body, my choice" in it's application to but one of three parties in a pregnancy.

 

[Chief]

Well you've lumped a whole heap of different ideological arguments together for a start.

Where?

 

[owen87]

Where?

For example;

both parents choice

It is her body. Her choice

"a human" from conception.

These are three different ideological arguments.

I can't see how this is anything but common sense.

Then this, is disingenuous.

You're pre-supposing that the only possible common sense position is yours.

 

[Chief]

For example;

These are three different ideological arguments.

And which three ideologies are these?

Then this, is disingenuous.

You're pre-supposing that the only possible common sense position is yours.

MAYBE the "human from conception" bit is just a subset of the reasons why someone would disagree. I'm fine with that. Point taken.

 

[owen87]

And which three ideologies are these?

You're arguing firstly that both parents should have choice, but then that it's only one parents choice, a choice which is binding upon both parties. Which is part of what I believe Monkey King was getting at when he said the below;

When you start attributing them different responsibilities at different stages, you're just engaging in subjective rule making, not common sense observation.

This is a distinct discussion to the point at which a person is considered a person, which then has some link to religious beliefs as to what point people seem to believe it should be considered a person.

 

[Chief]

You're arguing firstly that both parents should have choice, but then that it's only one parents choice, a choice which is binding upon both parties. Which is part of what I believe Monkey King was getting at when he said the below;

I don't get what you mean by "ideologies". I don't think you're using the word properly, really.

I am saying that the choices and responsibilities and rights change over time.

A couple makes a choice at the point of sexual intercourse. Sometimes that choice isn't voluntary, sometimes it isn't conscious or well informed. But an act takes place. Conception occurs.

After this point, the male's opinion becomes pretty much subservient to the female's through the simple fact that she is the one who is gestating.

At birth the situation changes and the child is a new human whose wellbeing comes to the fore. The law recognises this.

I haven't heard any good arguments why it should not be this way. It's based on practical considerations, not theoretical. So, it's not "ideological".

 

[owen87]

I don't get what you mean by "ideologies". I don't think you're using the word properly, really.

I am saying that the choices and responsibilities and rights change over time.

A couple makes a choice at the point of sexual intercourse. Sometimes that choice isn't voluntary, sometimes it isn't conscious or well informed. But an act takes place. Conception occurs.

After this point, the male's opinion becomes pretty much subservient to the female's through the simple fact that she is the one who is gestating.

At birth the situation changes and the child is a new human whose wellbeing comes to the fore. The law recognises this.

I haven't heard any good arguments why it should not be this way. It's based on practical considerations, not theoretical. So, it's not "ideological".

Consent to sex =/= consent to parenthood is the simplest way I could put it.

For a society so hellbent on people being able to make their own choices, we really don't want to let people make their own choices.

 

[Chief]

Consent to sex =/= consent to parenthood is the simplest way I could put it.

For a society so hellbent on people being able to make their own choices, we really don't want to let people make their own choices.

Consent to sex is acceptance of all the possible outcomes.

How can it be otherwise?

There are allowances for the mental capability or otherwise of the parties to give consent and make the choice. Allowances for force and the like.

 

[owen87]

How can it be otherwise?

Should a woman be required to follow through with a pregnancy and give birth if they have consentual sex?

 

[Chief]

Should a woman be required to follow through with a pregnancy and give birth if they have consentual sex?

After a point, the law says yes. It's arbitrary and different in different jurisdictions. The mother is carrying the foetus and her health comes first.

 

[owen87]

After a point, the law says yes. It's arbitrary and different in different jurisdictions. The mother is carrying the foetus and her health comes first.

Way to avoid the question, it wasn't "should she be required to continue the pregnancy after <insert weeks required for legal abortion>"

Should a woman be required to follow through with a pregnancy if they've had consentual sex?